Coming to Terms with Sweeney Todd

Yeah, I may be a comic loving, bacon eating, former Prince listening freak. But here's something I rarely advertise: I love Stephen Sondheim musicals. When you say the word 'musical' among the general populace, you get looks that range from quizzical and uncomprehending, to sometimes vague disgust. At least superhero comics are in the general populace's attention span. Yeah, liking them may be weird, but with the dizzying amount of television, movies and advertisements that play off the superhero concept, there is a certain amount of cultural cachet and acceptance.

Musicals? Forget it. Musicals are looked on as hokey, simplistic, sappy, girlie, etc. You're watching a play and for no good reason, one of the actors break into a corny song? Why? What in the Good Lord's name would compel someone to do something so stupid as sing in the middle of the play? And why would anyone in their right minds spend good money, park their butts down and watch such a thing? Even those creators who've been successful in the recent past, like Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice, have been dismissed as unchallenging escapist entertainment. Neither of those names are considered to be great artistic geniuses. More to the point, neither has done much to refute the general public's disdain for the artform.

To counteract this perception, you now have musicals that:

• base their entire production around a pop music act's song catalog--ala Abba, Billy Joel, Queen or even Bob Dylan.
• are theatrical versions of movies--like The Producers, Young Frankenstein, Hairspray or Spamalot.
• are Disney-sponsored adaptations of their own cartoons--like the Lion King and Beauty and the Beast.
  

The obvious idea behind this trend is that these show types bring a familiarity that's more likely to stir a potential audience's interest. Putting on a theatrical production is not cheap and it's a risky financial proposition. Like the movie studios shelling out movies based on old TV sitcoms, Saturday morning cartoons, or yes, even comic books, Broadway needs something to hook the widest audience possible, perhaps at the cost of its own "artistic soul".

And that's why I love Sondheim. In the face of the decline of the American musical, Sondheim is the one figure who found continued success in pushing the medium's conventions, theatergoing public taste be damned! Whether its in subject matter, songwriting or stage presentation there's more often than not something new to be experienced in a Sondheim musical. I could go on and on about this point, but will save this part of the discussion for another day. I want to get to the meat of this post and write about the Sweeney Todd film adaptation.

I didn't quite know what to expect from this movie. Tim Burton usually is 50/50 with his film adaptations: loving that Sleepy Hollow/Headless Horseman/Depp movie, but detesting his Planet of the Apes adaptation. And for a time, he was tasked with producing and directing the Superman movie, which would have been a disaster, because from his interviews and pre-production plans, he obviously hated the character. Hey Burton, the corny stuff is what makes Supes so cool!!! I won't go into his Batman films, outside of the fact that he didn't really care about Batman as a character either. The first film should have been called "Joker Loves Batman". The second should have been called "Penguin, Catwoman and the 'more cowbell' guy with Micheal Keaton making a cameo appearance as Batman."

But enough about that. I think Sweeney Todd is probably the best recent Broadway to Hollywood translation I've seen since West Side Story. Like the best of film adaptations, it added dimensions to the work that its original format, whether by design or genre constrictions, could never envision. For example, the use of blood in the movie. Blood is a tricky thing to pull off on stage and though I've never thought about it until now, the lack of it in the stage production actually provided the audience a comfortable sense of distance. Not so with the movie; Sweeney is slathered in the fake red goo from head to toe for good portions of the movie, which makes sense since it is a horror film. Another improvement in the movie is how the whole Judge Turpin/Anthony "don't touch my daughter" scene unfolds. It always rung a little hollow and quick for me in the stage production, while the film's scene is more organic and a much better introduction to the evil character of Judge Turpin. The entire "Pretty Women" sequence (performance, editing, shot selection, etc.) was exceptionally well done.

What did I not like about the movie? The character of Anthony in the movie is a dumb girlie man, which is not an impovement over the stage production's usual casting of the dumb manly man. Also the humor that permeates the stage show, is less evident in the movie. For example, the movie's song/discussion between Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett concerning the meat pie/murder revelation rings somewhat flat and joyless.

What about the singing? Well, the quality of Depp & Company's vocal acumen is appropriate for the film. Nothing to write home about, but it doesn't detract from the movie one bit. You need to make allowances for such things. It's important for these musicals to find people who can act first, sing second. How pretty a lyric is sung means nothing if you're not buying the character or story. And with advanced recording technology and techniques these days, you can pretty much make up for any singer's deficiencies (see any song in the current top 40). Depp & Company weren't required to project their voices the way one would have to for a stage production. For singing, that's half the battle. It's not necessarily the range of high and low notes that gets you. It's the stamina of having to do it repeatedly for a significant and continuous block of time. Your voice is produced by muscles that need constant exercising to perform optimally. Singing is exertion. In fact I would suggest that to be a MLB starting pitcher and a performing singer are very similar in demands on one's stamina. We're talking about a very specific exhausting activity that is segmented to one area of a person's body. For a pitcher, it's an arm. For a singer, it's the vocal cords.

Okay, last point. Sweeney has been traditionally sung by a low baritone/bass voice. Depp has a girlie baritenor/tenor range. It'll be interesting to see how this affects later live productions of Sweeney. Has a precedence been set for casting tenors in a historically deeper toned role? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who cares!