When are shows too safe?

[cvleonard]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 12:22pm

I saw "Sweeney Todd" the other night, and after thinking a lot over the past few days about how I felt about it, I wanted to pose a question about a potentially concerning direction we may be heading in -- and whether or not there is anything we could (or should) do about it.

We all know that the theatre industry is by and large made up of very progressive folks, and it's a community that (to its great credit) is out in front on a lot of the conversations about consent and harm and things that could potentially trigger difficult feelings or emotions in actors and in audience members.

To be clear -- I am completely in agreement with the importance of these conversations, and I think that we should all be proud that the desire to have these discussions has so quickly become such an important day-to-day norm in the industry.

I'm wondering, though, if there is a point at which we are so careful and cautious -- especially as it relates to the audience -- that some of the vitality and life gets sucked out of a show.

I walked away from "Sweeney" feeling like it was too ... safe. It felt like the violent parts weren't very violent. It felt like that romantic parts weren't very romantic. It felt like the parts that should make us feel really uncomfortable and icky (the Judge Turpin/Johanna stuff) were presented in a way that felt like the creative team didn't want to trigger too much of an uncomfortable reaction from anybody in the audience. Does that all make sense?

This was a "Sweeney" that I probably could have brought my 10-year-old niece too. And I don't know how I feel about that. On one hand, with the economics of Broadway being what they are -- and with the presumably very expensive running costs of a production that has lots of star power and lots of people involved -- the producers do need to maximize the ticket sales and potential audience members. And throwing an R-rated show up on stage (like "A Strange Loop" ... which was, of course, amazing) does limit who can actually see it (tourist families are mostly out). So, like, maybe that's what was behind most of the choices that this production of "Sweeney" made. 

But are we at the point -- or would we even recognize it if we were -- that we are going overboard? Are we deciding not to be too gruesome with the violence and blood because we don't want to upset anybody in the audience? Are we backing away just enough from the awful predatory sexual behavior by Judge Turpin towards Johanna so that somebody in the audience who has maybe experienced something awful and similar in their life doesn't get triggered?

I'm not necessarily judging either way, although I do wonder whether Sondheim himself would suggest that if you aren't making the audience uncomfortable you might be missing a key point of the show. On the other hand, I don't know how we reconcile that against today's very legitimate cultural awareness of wanting to limit unintentional harm.

To be clear, I have no idea if the "how do we limit harming/triggering audience members" question specifically came up when rehearsing this production of "Sweeney." But I'm quite certain that these questions do often come up in rehearsal rooms all over these days. It's part of our new dialogue -- WHICH IS GOOD (please do not mistake/attack me on that). I'm just wondering if are able to objectively see where we have gone too far, and thereby negated any reason to actually put a show on in the first place.

No easy answer, I'm sure. I certainly don't have one. I'm mostly curious to see if anybody else has been thinking anything similar.

[Zeppie2022]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 1:13pm

Great post. I think there are times when shows should challenge us and possibly upset us. I told my children I feel sorry for them in a way because entertainment is starting to get to the point where everything will be bland/PC because anything else might upset someone in the audience. IMO "Sweeney Todd" should be gruesome as intended and not changed. People are not being forced to see it so leave it as it was originally done. There are plenty of shows that audiences can choose to go to that are "safe".

Updated On: 3/19/23 at 01:13 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 1:14pm

We’ve had two radical concept based revivals of Sweeney Todd in the last eighteen years. Doyle’s revival and the Pie Shop both had strong framing devices, and in the case of Doyle’s production, it could’ve been confusing for someone new to the piece. 

I for one am glad we finally have a production that honors the piece as it was  written and performed in 1979. Yes, it may be a safe revival but I don’t have an issue with a traditional/standard production of the musical after we’ve seen it tinkered with several times. I’ve always wanted to hear those glorious Tunick orchestrations on Broadway, and it’s a thrill to hear them live. 
 

My guess is expectations might’ve been too high with fans of the musical, especially with people on this board. There’s also the argument that people expected more due to the extremely high ticket prices, and that’s a valid concern.
I walked away slightly disappointed from the first preview, but my second experience at the revival two weeks later was much better.

I appreciate seeing a revival that truly honors the original production, especially as someone who saw Doyle’s revival live, and was blown away at the time. Not every revival needs a strong concept and framing device, sometimes “safe” isn’t bad. 

Updated On: 3/19/23 at 01:14 PM

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 1:23pm

Sometimes safe is not bad, but Sweeney is not a show that benefits from being played safe in my opinion.

But as far as the broader question from the OP, my hunch (that's all it is) is that characters, plot lines, et al, that might be seen as "unsafe"  or testing evolving norms and boundaries may more often need to demonstrate that they are integral to what a show is trying to say.  If removing them or tempering them would not significantly impede plot or character development (or audience experience), there may be more calls to do so.

Shorter version:

does X need to be in the show, and if so, does it need to be done in that manner?

Updated On: 3/19/23 at 01:23 PM

[Mr. Wormwood]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 1:47pm

That's an interesting question and I think it's one that can go both ways. On the one hand, I agree that "playing it safe" isn't always ideal - especially for shows that can be re-conceptualized or shows that were intended to be a certain kind of way. I think it could be argued that Sweeney can be both of those things.

I think the problem is whenever there's a major revival of a prominent older work, there's going to be some people who are mad that the show is looking to be more amenable to contemporary audience while others are mad if anything gets changed in the slightest.

I think theater shouldn't be static but the intention matters. If the goal is not to offend or trigger people, that's not the right reason to make changes. If the goal is to have a defined and visionary new take on a classic, then I'll usually appreciate the effort and find it interesting even if I prefer the old way better (ex: Daniel Fish's Oklahoma)

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 1:57pm

I guess I find myself in the middle of this. While I love it when a revival takes a fresh take on a classic (i.e. Ivo Van Hove's West Side Story, Daniel Fish's Oklahoma! and John Doyle's Sweeney), I also love a good old fashioned production like the Hello, Dolly! revival with Bette Midler. As long as the production is of good quality, I guess I'm on board for whatever when it comes to revivals.

Updated On: 3/19/23 at 01:57 PM

[DrewBill]

Posted: 3/19/23 at 10:22pm

Interesting post, especially in light of the current "Sweeney Todd" revival.

For what it's worth, I've experienced quite a few "Sweeneys," and in my opinion, this current revival is perhaps the most PG version of it I've seen. OP is correct -- I would probably feel fine taking somewhat younger people to this production. And maybe that's not a good development.

Sweeney is a masterpiece, but it's also a very dark, violent, and disturbing show.  That was true even in its original incarnation. Downplaying that darkness alters the very point of "Sweeney."  And this production does indeed seem to downplay certain aspects of the show -- in particular, the Johanna/Turpin material as well as the explicit violence. Even Ashford's very comedic take on Lovett, which I enjoyed a great deal, goes a long way in "lightening" the show. As the OP suggests, it has all become very safe.

Completely understand the commercial motivations to appeal to the widest possible audience, as well as the desire to not make certain audience members uncomfortable.  But have those impulses diminished this show?  I think the answer may be yes.  And it would be a shame if this desire to always accommodate these sensibilities negatively impacts the choices made by other productions. 

(Side note: if I understand OP's commentary correctly, this isn't a conflict between "traditional" vs. "re-imagined" productions.  It's how certain sensitive content is addressed within a production.  A traditional production can indeed be "edgy," while a re-imagined production can also be "safe." )

Updated On: 3/19/23 at 10:22 PM

[cvleonard]

Posted: 3/20/23 at 8:53am

Thanks for this response to my OP! Yes -- it looks like you and I are pretty much exactly on the same page. This is definitely not an issue of traditional vs reimagined, it's about the sensitive content. The more I think about the realities of the business side of things (in this particular production), I have to assume that was the driving factor in toning everything down. To the extent that was the main reason, I understand it. I don't think they could have a financially successful production of this size and with this many "names" in the cast otherwise.

That being said, I think it forces two important reflective moments for other producers/directors/organizations:

(1) Is it "worth" doing a show like "Sweeney" if you have to tone it down to the point that one can reasonably call into question whether you are being true to the content of the show and the intent of the creative team? If you just want to use it as a vehicle for a Josh Groban "Sweeney" concert, then call up Encores, as that's maybe the most appropriate currently-existing "big" place to do something like that.

(2) If the toning down was, even in part, due to fears of triggering any difficult feelings in any audience members (or cast members, for that matter), then we need to stop and have a very big discussion on the consequences of moving towards that being an industry-wide expectation. Art is SUPPOSED to inspire strong feelings and emotions -- even (and sometimes most crucially) difficult and negative ones.

To experience art -- of any kind -- that challenges you and makes you uncomfortable doesn't necessarily mean that you have been harmed by that art -- although it feels like the current rhetoric is conflating those two things. It's through being challenged and being made uncomfortable that we often find our greatest capacity for growth as human beings. What does it say about us, our capabilities, and our resilience in the greater cycle of worldly existence if we seek to avoid anything that makes us feel bad? And what does it say about us as artists when we seek to compromise the message of the work because we are afraid of doing "harm" to those experiencing that work.

I think that's an honestly concerning philosophical dilemma that probably needs to be wrestled with.