We've All Seen It and Have an Opinion, So Here's Mine...
This past Saturday afternoon I went to see the film adaptation of "Sweeney Todd," which to this day remains my absolute favorite musical of all time, 4 am tech rehearsals non-withstanding.
And I liked it.
I didn't at first. I spent the first ten minutes bent completely out of shape by the lack of the opening Ballad and the missing sections of "No Place Like London" and "The Barber and His Wife." I also didn't know how I felt about Johnny Depp's rock-influenced take on a very operatic score. But I had paid my $7 matinee price and I was curious, so I stuck around.
"The Worst Pies in London" cheered me up, although it had little to do with Helena Bohnam Carter's rendition of it. I generally liked her interpretation of the character, but "Pies" was by far her worst song. She completely missed the humor and the manic edge of the character in that song. BUT Tim Burton's focus on maggots and other things that really shouldn't be near a kitchen kept me amused throughout the number. "Poor Thing" was decent, and by "My Friends" a curious thing happened: I started to care. Even though I know the score backwards and forwards, and between rehearsals and performances spent a good three months of my life living and breathing this show, I started to care about the characters and what happened to them.
I think the backlash among theatre people for this movie is due to a refusal to let the original go, insisting that the screen adaptation be the exact same as the stage version. And yet, the best movie musicals often bear little resemblance to their stage versions. "Chicago" is not the same on stage as it is onscreen. Have any of you ever seen the stage version of "Dreamgirls"? You'd barely recognize it, except for the shared music. No, the mark of a good adaptation is something that knows what to change to fit its given medium while remaining true to the spirit of the source material, and in that respect I think "Sweeney Todd" largely succeeds.
There are things I miss, to be sure. I will never fully agree with the removal of all of the Ballads, which are some of the most impressive songs in the stage version. And yet, for something as realistic as the "Sweeney" movie wants to be (as realistic as you can be, given the fact people are singing the whole way through), the presence of large ensemble numbers would probably stick out as false and hokey. But at the same time, "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" and "God, That's Good" are almost laughable without the ensemble parts, and it is a great tragedy that the "Johanna" quartet between Anthony, Johanna, Turpin, and the Beadle is MIA, as when sung well it is the single most thrilling piece of music in the entire show, in my opinion.
Which brings us to the other complaint leveled against the movie, the quality of the singing. In general, its thin voiced, which works much better for a score like "Chicago" than it does for a near-operatic beast of a score like "Sweeney." And yet, Sondhiem has always expressed a preference for actors who sing rather than singers who act, and a quick listen to the original cast albums of his shows support this. For such challenging music, Sondhiem is often sung by people without a large background of vocal training, and it works because they act it. The same holds true for the movie; the performers act thier songs, which makes the subpar vocal production bearable.
In fact, the person with one of the best voices in the movie, the young lad playing Toby, shows exactly the pitfall of valuing vocal tone over acting. Yeah, he gets some slack by virtue of being ten, but the kid just stands there for the entirety of "Not While I'm Around," and as a result, kills the song. Something that can be touching and heartwrenching in the theatre when acted properly is flat onscreen because there's no acting. Honestly, in the film version, I felt worse for Mrs. Lovett, because Bohnam Carter's performance made it clear how conflicted she was between her love for Tobias and the need to silence him because he knows too much. And in general, although the performers in the movie aren't great singers, they act their songs with conviction, making for a very interesting telling of the tale.
Also, although the movie's need to move quicly from point A to point B results in the shortening of most numbers and a complete mishandling of the Beggar Woman (she's barely in it), I appreciate the film's brevity. Too many movies of late with Oscar aspirations end up being pretentious, two and a half hour mis-mashes of good and bad scenes. Even Oscar winners like "The Departed" would benefit from a third party coming in and telling their director to cut them down into two hours worth of high quality rather than two and a half of mediocrity. In that regard, it's almost refereshing to see a film that is too short for its own good, although being too short to tell its tale is a flaw in the movie.
Finally, the last thing to be said in defense of the movie version of "Sweeney" is that Sondheim likes it. Whatever your personal views, you cannot discount the fact that Sondheim gave it his stamp of approval. It's his baby, and unlike some creative people (I'm looking at you, George Lucas), Sondheim hasn't done anything to indicate he's lost his touch or his judgement. Also, given that Sondheim is now 77, we can be fairly certain he isn't just saying that to be nice, as old people are generally known to speak their minds, however inappropriate it may be.
So although "Sweeney" wasn't perfect, I enjoyed it for what it was: a good adaptation of a great and very difficult stage musical. It has its flaws, but most films do, and it does a lot right. I'd go see it again. Plus, there's always the stage version for purists.
-Jared W. Wietbrock
PS - Love it or hate it, if you saw the movie the producers have your money, which is all they really care about. So think about that the next time you walked into the movies convinced something will be garbage (because honestly, most of you who hated it probably went in expecting to hate it).
And I liked it.
I didn't at first. I spent the first ten minutes bent completely out of shape by the lack of the opening Ballad and the missing sections of "No Place Like London" and "The Barber and His Wife." I also didn't know how I felt about Johnny Depp's rock-influenced take on a very operatic score. But I had paid my $7 matinee price and I was curious, so I stuck around.
"The Worst Pies in London" cheered me up, although it had little to do with Helena Bohnam Carter's rendition of it. I generally liked her interpretation of the character, but "Pies" was by far her worst song. She completely missed the humor and the manic edge of the character in that song. BUT Tim Burton's focus on maggots and other things that really shouldn't be near a kitchen kept me amused throughout the number. "Poor Thing" was decent, and by "My Friends" a curious thing happened: I started to care. Even though I know the score backwards and forwards, and between rehearsals and performances spent a good three months of my life living and breathing this show, I started to care about the characters and what happened to them.
I think the backlash among theatre people for this movie is due to a refusal to let the original go, insisting that the screen adaptation be the exact same as the stage version. And yet, the best movie musicals often bear little resemblance to their stage versions. "Chicago" is not the same on stage as it is onscreen. Have any of you ever seen the stage version of "Dreamgirls"? You'd barely recognize it, except for the shared music. No, the mark of a good adaptation is something that knows what to change to fit its given medium while remaining true to the spirit of the source material, and in that respect I think "Sweeney Todd" largely succeeds.
There are things I miss, to be sure. I will never fully agree with the removal of all of the Ballads, which are some of the most impressive songs in the stage version. And yet, for something as realistic as the "Sweeney" movie wants to be (as realistic as you can be, given the fact people are singing the whole way through), the presence of large ensemble numbers would probably stick out as false and hokey. But at the same time, "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" and "God, That's Good" are almost laughable without the ensemble parts, and it is a great tragedy that the "Johanna" quartet between Anthony, Johanna, Turpin, and the Beadle is MIA, as when sung well it is the single most thrilling piece of music in the entire show, in my opinion.
Which brings us to the other complaint leveled against the movie, the quality of the singing. In general, its thin voiced, which works much better for a score like "Chicago" than it does for a near-operatic beast of a score like "Sweeney." And yet, Sondhiem has always expressed a preference for actors who sing rather than singers who act, and a quick listen to the original cast albums of his shows support this. For such challenging music, Sondhiem is often sung by people without a large background of vocal training, and it works because they act it. The same holds true for the movie; the performers act thier songs, which makes the subpar vocal production bearable.
In fact, the person with one of the best voices in the movie, the young lad playing Toby, shows exactly the pitfall of valuing vocal tone over acting. Yeah, he gets some slack by virtue of being ten, but the kid just stands there for the entirety of "Not While I'm Around," and as a result, kills the song. Something that can be touching and heartwrenching in the theatre when acted properly is flat onscreen because there's no acting. Honestly, in the film version, I felt worse for Mrs. Lovett, because Bohnam Carter's performance made it clear how conflicted she was between her love for Tobias and the need to silence him because he knows too much. And in general, although the performers in the movie aren't great singers, they act their songs with conviction, making for a very interesting telling of the tale.
Also, although the movie's need to move quicly from point A to point B results in the shortening of most numbers and a complete mishandling of the Beggar Woman (she's barely in it), I appreciate the film's brevity. Too many movies of late with Oscar aspirations end up being pretentious, two and a half hour mis-mashes of good and bad scenes. Even Oscar winners like "The Departed" would benefit from a third party coming in and telling their director to cut them down into two hours worth of high quality rather than two and a half of mediocrity. In that regard, it's almost refereshing to see a film that is too short for its own good, although being too short to tell its tale is a flaw in the movie.
Finally, the last thing to be said in defense of the movie version of "Sweeney" is that Sondheim likes it. Whatever your personal views, you cannot discount the fact that Sondheim gave it his stamp of approval. It's his baby, and unlike some creative people (I'm looking at you, George Lucas), Sondheim hasn't done anything to indicate he's lost his touch or his judgement. Also, given that Sondheim is now 77, we can be fairly certain he isn't just saying that to be nice, as old people are generally known to speak their minds, however inappropriate it may be.
So although "Sweeney" wasn't perfect, I enjoyed it for what it was: a good adaptation of a great and very difficult stage musical. It has its flaws, but most films do, and it does a lot right. I'd go see it again. Plus, there's always the stage version for purists.
-Jared W. Wietbrock
PS - Love it or hate it, if you saw the movie the producers have your money, which is all they really care about. So think about that the next time you walked into the movies convinced something will be garbage (because honestly, most of you who hated it probably went in expecting to hate it).