Sweeney Todd

J

JB Seesselberg

Member
I'm surprised there wasn't already a thread about Sweeney Todd, so i guess i'll start one.

I've been a big fan of the show, so I was kind of skeptical when it was announced that Tim Burton would be directing the adaptation. Not that I think he did a bad job (I mean, the film was nominated for 4 golden globes), but it's just the commercialism that surrounds Burton that would leave a nasty mark. And the fact that he seems to use the same cast over and over again also added to the skepticism.

However, when I saw the movie on Friday, all skepticism was blown away. It was very well-executed, and I was suprised at how well Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter performed the roles. To see it onstage with the implication of a slit throat is one thing, but to see it up-close with arterial bleeding left and right is quite another.

As far as the visual, I absolutely love color correction. The fact that everything in London was very subdued, with the only vibrant colors being those having to do with violence (the blood, Pirelli's costume, etc.) very much signified what really stood out in Sweeney's mind as the thought of revenge consumes him. In contrast, all the dream sequences were in bright colors, to accentuate how much of an escape the imagination can be.

Overall, I thought that the film itself was shot beautifully, the performances were amazing, and all four nominations are well-deserved.

Anyone else's take?
 
Saw it tonight and loved it on every level! The music was magnificent, the performances were great, the cinematography was gorgeous! Definitely a must see!
 
I saw it last night and I agree that it was very well done.

Before reading up on the movie and then watching it, i wasnt really familiar with the story...so I was surprised at how violent it was. Its pretty much a horror movie...but a very good one.

The music, acting, direction, and cinematography were all fantastic.
 
I saw it yesturday

Johnny Depp was fantastic and the cinematography was beautifully dark.

The music was great...you can't beat the irony at the end also
 
this is about my favorite musical and I've seen it many times on stage, so am pretty stoked. Hope it lives up.
 
Huge fan of the stage show, now a huge fan of the movie. Tim Burton took the script and the music and made his movie. He didn't focus on how to transfer a stage show to the screen ala The Producers. He just made his own little horror film that happened to have singing in it. I thought it was fantastic. Great acting all around.

And that fantasy scene about the house by the sea was fantastic.
 
Oh, man. I aw the original cast show way back when, and listened incessantly to the original cast LPs (this was before home video) to the point where I still have every word of the show memorized. I was hopeful and leery of this production...

Much of it was better than I expected, expecially the visuals. I was happily surprised to see how much of the music (and musical character) remained intact.

But the singing performances (and their sound mixing) were awful. The typical complete disconnect between "talking mode" and "singing mode", with abrupt transitions. Pure, clean, "musical" voices, rather than the gritty and far more expressive voices of the stage cast. Also a disconnect of sorts between the music and the motion of the performers - one peek at Lansbury's LIVE intricate weave of song, acting, and percussive cooking really puts Bonham Carter to shame. Burton chose (or, more likely, the actors could only handle) a very intimate, close-miked quiet singing sound which didn't match the situations or especially the sound of the movie... most especially noticeable in the second half of the movie when Depp almost always speaks in a nice, angry growl, then transitions into song in a sweet high clear voice. Blech!

The amount of blood spurting seemed a bit much, but that doesn't bother me too much... and I sorta liked the re-engineering of the barber chair that made the victims crash so nastily onto their heads.

And one pet peeve for the real stage version fan - something from the original cast album that may even have been cut from the show before the Broadway opening - Anthony refers to Joanna's yellow hair, very good, but then later Sweeney also describes her as having yellow hair, while planning her rescue with Anthony (who's to pose as a wig-maker's apprentice knowledgeable about hair). In the stage show, there's a major musical number where Sweeney chastises Anthony for the crudity of the description, and sings of the variations in hair color, staring with something like "there's tawny, golden, saffron, there's flaxem, and there's blonde"... and going on for a while. But this is nitpicky, no?

The one thing I really missed was the steam whistle and main "Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd" chorus (they're sorta integral)... I think they could have been worked in easily, and to great effect; or at least brought in over the end credits. The music was there throughout the film, which was nice, but I missed the really big operatic crowd's "Swing your razor wide, Sweeney, hold it to the skies! Freely flows the blood of those who moralize!" and the descriptions ("Sweeney was smooth, Sweeney was subtle, Sweeney would blink and rats would scuttle. Sweeney pondered and Sweeney Planned..." etc.) building into the huge outraged screams of "Sweeeeeeeeeeeneeeeeeey!" And I can tell you, in the theater and even listening to the cast album, that steam whistle had EVERYONE jumping out of their seats whenver it went off.

So, in all - not as bad as I had feared, but not something I'd have ever gotten so involved with, or known every word to, 30 years after seeing it, like the play. Anyone who really likes the movie should check out the DVD of the stage show with Angela Lansbury (unfortunately with George Hearn rather than Len Cariou as Todd) for another perspective... and imagine, at least, how the movie "coulda been" with Lansbury instead of Helena Bonham Carter! The combination of better musical talent and the movie's look would have been great!
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with ullanta on the point that Helena Bonham Carter was miserable. I did enjoy Depp's performance though. This ranks as one of my favorite movie musicals, but I should note that I usually despise movie musicals.
 
Visually great fun - and funny, too (black and white at the country picnic!)

Really wonderful casting.

But first-degree f'ing earslaughter. The weird hackful atonality of the music just had me looking at my watch (experiment demonstrated that watching it muted was an experience pretty well superior to watching it sound-on...)

And, as visually fun as it was...Helena Bonham Carter in witchy paleface makeup, stark lighting, the usual Burtonesque flourishes...even when Dante Ferretti designs, it comes out looking a Burton show...haven't I seen so much of this before, again and again over...?

Which all averages out, to...meh.
 
i only saw this last night. The in your face cinematography was rather enjoyable. Many times I felt closer than I wanted to be, and in the context worked very well. I liked the starkness of the movie.

I think thats all I really liked. Story overall was thin, I knew halfway through the crazy woman was really his wife and that her natter about mischief etc was going to find her on the end of his blade. The villian was weak. Fair enough he had the man exiled in the earlier days. Then we see him sentence a boy to death in court, but when the young saviour goes after beadle and the wagon all the judge can say is here I am??? I thought he had power? Have him arrested and racked? But no, just a few lame words. The only thing that ever stood in Sweeneys way the young saviour.

I really did like the cinematography though. I thought the actors did a good job with what they had, keeping in mind Johnny Depp and Helen Bihnam carter are not stage actors. Then again this is not the stage either is it?

Oh almost forgot.. I thought the boy was great.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top