Blasphemous preferences
So, I finally got down to watching the 1982 PBS release of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, my favorite musical of all time. And, it was surprisingly dank and sludgey. I loved it! Except for Angela Lansbury. She stuck out of the production like a sore thumb.
Where everybody was in a dark sickly satire of sludge and much, Angela Lansbury was playing to the cheap seats in a boisterously over-the-top quirkiness. She was in her own quirky musical somewhere else off broadway. Maybe that was the point...as I've read she was supposed to be a music hall classic. But, she didn't fit. The musical is hilarious enough without her doing strange little jigs and acting like she was doing vaudeville.
Maybe she owned that role like that because this type of black satire was uncommon back then on Broadway? To settle in the "Pearl Clutching" crowd? I don't know. I just know her acting was not to my tastes for what a Mrs. Lovett should be like.
But, Lansbury had some pipes. I loved her voice. When she's singing, she's amazing. Hearing her go through some of those notes are heaven.
Compare this to Helena Bonham Carter in the film version of Sweeney Todd. Girl owned the role of Mrs. Lovett, but she couldn't sing worth a damned. Her Mrs. Lovett was a comedic performance of emotional depth which elevated the sludge into something more icky, which is amazing for Sweeney Todd. But, her vocals were god awful. She's not a singer.
In my opinion, Mrs. Lovett should be quirky, but in a semi-self-pitying way. Somebody who has a cynical sense of humor but isn't in her own world. Mrs. Lovett is not a music-hall vaudvillian. She's just as brutal as Sweeney Todd...maybe even more so since she goes along with the plan cheerily.
Now, its well known that Sweeney Todd is one of the hardest singing roles to do. But, this dichotomy begs the question:
Which is more important in a musical: Acting or Singing?
Where everybody was in a dark sickly satire of sludge and much, Angela Lansbury was playing to the cheap seats in a boisterously over-the-top quirkiness. She was in her own quirky musical somewhere else off broadway. Maybe that was the point...as I've read she was supposed to be a music hall classic. But, she didn't fit. The musical is hilarious enough without her doing strange little jigs and acting like she was doing vaudeville.
Maybe she owned that role like that because this type of black satire was uncommon back then on Broadway? To settle in the "Pearl Clutching" crowd? I don't know. I just know her acting was not to my tastes for what a Mrs. Lovett should be like.
But, Lansbury had some pipes. I loved her voice. When she's singing, she's amazing. Hearing her go through some of those notes are heaven.
Compare this to Helena Bonham Carter in the film version of Sweeney Todd. Girl owned the role of Mrs. Lovett, but she couldn't sing worth a damned. Her Mrs. Lovett was a comedic performance of emotional depth which elevated the sludge into something more icky, which is amazing for Sweeney Todd. But, her vocals were god awful. She's not a singer.
In my opinion, Mrs. Lovett should be quirky, but in a semi-self-pitying way. Somebody who has a cynical sense of humor but isn't in her own world. Mrs. Lovett is not a music-hall vaudvillian. She's just as brutal as Sweeney Todd...maybe even more so since she goes along with the plan cheerily.
Now, its well known that Sweeney Todd is one of the hardest singing roles to do. But, this dichotomy begs the question:
Which is more important in a musical: Acting or Singing?