Apples2for10
|
Character Discussion: Beadle BamfordI so love these "Character Discussion" threads, and this one just came to me! The Beadle has always been an interesting character to me. He is, obviously, a great antagonistic force, and yet he still retains some very gentlemanly qualities. Appearancewise, he's always very dapper, with his English Bowler hat and neatly trimmed facial hair. I think Beadle is a very contradictory character, seeing as he has lines like "I'm always happy to oblige my friends and neighbors", but rips the heads off of birds! In terms of acting, from what I've heard, Beadle is a very difficult character to sing. Though he doesn't have a lot of songs, the times that he does sing, he reaches these ridiculously high notes. Overall, I think Beadle is very under-used in the show, but the times that he is onstage are very good.
|
TychoBrahe
|
I agree. It's a shame Parlor Songs is so often cut.
|
javertim
|
My favorite thing about the Beadle is that he is a villain and is sung by a countertenor (or was at least written for a countertenor). Most musical theatre and opera villains are written for basses and bass-baritones, so it's very refreshing to have one with such a high tessitura.
|
bwayluvor31
|
I love The Beadle because he always scared me more than Turpin. Turpin at least has a conscience (a very twisted and selfish conscince, but it's there), Beadle however always struck me as a very sociopathic character; and that terrifies me. He's unbelivably charming, but seems to have no concept of moral right and wrong. Plus, he's not the main villain, whihc allows him to lurk in the background as this incredibly creepy shadow/counterpart to the judge.
|
LesMisForever
|
| bwayluvor31 wrote: | | I love The Beadle because he always scared me more than Turpin. Turpin at least has a conscience (a very twisted and selfish conscince, but it's there), Beadle however always struck me as a very sociopathic character; and that terrifies me. He's unbelivably charming, but seems to have no concept of moral right and wrong. Plus, he's not the main villain, whihc allows him to lurk in the background as this incredibly creepy shadow/counterpart to the judge. |
I think i disagree little bit, if not entirely. The Beadle is your typical "Yes Man". He is willing to do anything to keep his boss happy. However, is he worse than the judge? i beg to differ. Ultimately, he is not doing that for his own pleasure, but to please the judge. He is a tool. While i am not excusing him from his deeds, i think the ultimate responsibility lies with the judge.
|
TychoBrahe
|
You have a point with the "yes man" argument. Bamford is very slimey, one of the worst kind of hypocrites. "Anything to oblige my friends and neighbors." And his small duet with Pirelli at the end is CREEPY as sin! As well as his passing mention when court is dismissed that could hint at child molestation.
|
EponineBarker
|
| Quote: | | And his small duet with Pirelli at the end is CREEPY as sin! |
Oh God, that part freaked my out so much when I listened to it for the first time! 
|
bwayluvor31
|
| LesMisForever wrote: | | bwayluvor31 wrote: | | I love The Beadle because he always scared me more than Turpin. Turpin at least has a conscience (a very twisted and selfish conscince, but it's there), Beadle however always struck me as a very sociopathic character; and that terrifies me. He's unbelivably charming, but seems to have no concept of moral right and wrong. Plus, he's not the main villain, whihc allows him to lurk in the background as this incredibly creepy shadow/counterpart to the judge. |
I think i disagree little bit, if not entirely. The Beadle is your typical "Yes Man". He is willing to do anything to keep his boss happy. However, is he worse than the judge? i beg to differ. Ultimately, he is not doing that for his own pleasure, but to please the judge. He is a tool. While i am not excusing him from his deeds, i think the ultimate responsibility lies with the judge. |
I'm not saying that the Beadle is responsible for anything in particular, I'm saying that if given the opportunity, he always seemed much more sinister than the judge to me. Yes, I agree that in the show, he primarily works to please the judge, but he also works on his own. He goes to question Mrs. Lovett on his own because of complaints from people, not on orders from the judge. My point was about the feeling that the character gave me, not about his niche in the story.
I think that Turpin is totally the more destructive villian, but the Beadle is far more creepy.
|
Salome
|
but isnt a yes man willing to do things for the sake of pleasing his boss more vile than a man with a conscience trying to do what is right but having his own selfish acts come out?
think of Thomas Cromwell who ordered all the exectutions for Henry VIII. he did it to please his boss.
|
LesMisForever
|
| Salome wrote: | but isnt a yes man willing to do things for the sake of pleasing his boss more vile than a man with a conscience trying to do what is right but having his own selfish acts come out?
think of Thomas Cromwell who ordered all the exectutions for Henry VIII. he did it to please his boss. |
Salome...you are introducing politics now  .
But, No, i don't regard the "Yes Men" worse than the main men, especially in the cases of Kings, or dictators. I have NO sympathy whatsoever with Kings/dictators, and i hold them responsible for their deeds. And especially kings like Henry VIII, who were strong men. If those kings/dictators wanted to stop those excutions, they could have easily done so. But, they approved of it, and just let someone else do the dirty job for them, so they might look nice, and pretty.
And i don't buy that they have concious. Not the Judge Turpin, not Henry VIII.
And really, i don't call the Judge Turpin one with concious. He lusts after Johanna, and he knows it is wrong, but still goes with his plan.
The Beadle doesn't show any emotions because he is indifferent to her.
|
bwayluvor31
|
| LesMisForever wrote: | | Salome wrote: | but isnt a yes man willing to do things for the sake of pleasing his boss more vile than a man with a conscience trying to do what is right but having his own selfish acts come out?
think of Thomas Cromwell who ordered all the exectutions for Henry VIII. he did it to please his boss. |
Salome...you are introducing politics now .
But, No, i don't regard the "Yes Men" worse than the main men, especially in the cases of Kings, or dictators. I have NO sympathy whatsoever with Kings/dictators, and i hold them responsible for their deeds. And especially kings like Henry VIII, who were strong men. If those kings/dictators wanted to stop those excutions, they could have easily done so. But, they approved of it, and just let someone else do the dirty job for them, so they might look nice, and pretty.
And i don't buy that they have concious. Not the Judge Turpin, not Henry VIII.
And really, i don't call the Judge Turpin one with concious. He lusts after Johanna, and he knows it is wrong, but still goes with his plan.
The Beadle doesn't show any emotions because he is indifferent to her. |
But the fact that the judge knows what he's doing is wrong proves that he does have a conscience, he just doesn't follow it. His self punishment scene says that loud and clear. And I don't agree that the Beadle's lack of emotion is due to indifference. He acts indifferent to everyone in the show; including the Judge. Is he indifferent to everyone?
And yes, people like the judge (or kings) had the power to stop the damage from being done, but in their heads, the damage is justified and and (at least in Turpin's case) they feel that they are acting for everyone's benefit. Turpin may lust after Johanna, but he also believes that by controling her, he is protecting her. Similarly, a mass murderer, like Hitler, believed that he was saving the human race by exterminating the people he felt would hold back society. What he did was horrible and wrong, but he didn't see it that way, he thought he was saving the world.
|
LesMisForever
|
| bwayluvor31 wrote: |
But the fact that the judge knows what he's doing is wrong proves that he does have a conscience, he just doesn't follow it. His self punishment scene says that loud and clear. And I don't agree that the Beadle's lack of emotion is due to indifference. He acts indifferent to everyone in the show; including the Judge. Is he indifferent to everyone?
And yes, people like the judge (or kings) had the power to stop the damage from being done, but in their heads, the damage is justified and and (at least in Turpin's case) they feel that they are acting for everyone's benefit. Turpin may lust after Johanna, but he also believes that by controling her, he is protecting her. Similarly, a mass murderer, like Hitler, believed that he was saving the human race by exterminating the people he felt would hold back society. What he did was horrible and wrong, but he didn't see it that way, he thought he was saving the world. |
Basically, what are you saying, and please correct me if i am wrong, that Hitler is better than the soldier who pulled the trigger.
I am sorry, but i simply don't accept that.
Knowing what you are doing is wrong doesn't make you one with conscience. On contrary, makes you one WITHOUT conscience.
Having a conscience meaning not harming people. Furthermore, all the Judges' deeds are motivated by selfishness in my opinion, and not by conscience, or even misguided interpretation of laws , or ideal.
Look at Javert for example. This guy had genuine believes (wrong as they might be), because when he realised how wrong he was, he committed suicide. Turpin, only made more plots following his desires.
Beadle is indifferent to all characters is not something extraordinary. On contrary, that is the norm. None of them is important to his own personal life. They are just part of his job.
|
bwayluvor31
|
| LesMisForever wrote: | | bwayluvor31 wrote: |
But the fact that the judge knows what he's doing is wrong proves that he does have a conscience, he just doesn't follow it. His self punishment scene says that loud and clear. And I don't agree that the Beadle's lack of emotion is due to indifference. He acts indifferent to everyone in the show; including the Judge. Is he indifferent to everyone?
And yes, people like the judge (or kings) had the power to stop the damage from being done, but in their heads, the damage is justified and and (at least in Turpin's case) they feel that they are acting for everyone's benefit. Turpin may lust after Johanna, but he also believes that by controling her, he is protecting her. Similarly, a mass murderer, like Hitler, believed that he was saving the human race by exterminating the people he felt would hold back society. What he did was horrible and wrong, but he didn't see it that way, he thought he was saving the world. |
Basically, what are you saying, and please correct me if i am wrong, that Hitler is better than the soldier who pulled the trigger.
I am sorry, but i simply don't accept that.
Knowing what you are doing is wrong doesn't make you one with conscience. On contrary, makes you one WITHOUT conscience.
Having a conscience meaning not harming people. Furthermore, all the Judges' deeds are motivated by selfishness in my opinion, and not by conscience, or even misguided interpretation of laws , or ideal.
Look at Javert for example. This guy had genuine believes (wrong as they might be), because when he realised how wrong he was, he committed suicide. Turpin, only made more plots following his desires.
Beadle is indifferent to all characters is not something extraordinary. On contrary, that is the norm. None of them is important to his own personal life. They are just part of his job. |
I don't think having a conscience means not harming people. I think having a conscience means being aware of what you're doing (whether it's right or wrong) and being able to weight the consequences against the motivation. The point is that because of the Beadle's indifference, he would never do that; he just follows orders. If the judge says pick flowers, he picks flowers, if the judge says kill, he kills; with no thought on his part to what he is doing. I think that's far more terrifying than someone you can talk to and reason with (even if they are a raging lunatic). To put it on other words; I'd rather meet the person who sent the hit man than the hit man himself because the hit man will shoot me no matter what, but his employer can be talked to.
I apalogize for making it seem like I think Hitler was better than the soldiers, because I didn't mean it at all to come out like that. Just like I don't think the judge is better than the Beadle, I simply think he's less terrifying. The soldiers were more terrifying than Hitler in that sense; they were the ones who physically killed people. (that was not a praise for Hitler by the way, just so you know).
|
LesMisForever
|
| bwayluvor31 wrote: |
I don't think having a conscience means not harming people. I think having a conscience means being aware of what you're doing (whether it's right or wrong) and being able to weight the consequences against the motivation. The point is that because of the Beadle's indifference, he would never do that; he just follows orders. If the judge says pick flowers, he picks flowers, if the judge says kill, he kills; with no thought on his part to what he is doing. I think that's far more terrifying than someone you can talk to and reason with (even if they are a raging lunatic). To put it on other words; I'd rather meet the person who sent the hit man than the hit man himself because the hit man will shoot me no matter what, but his employer can be talked to.
I apalogize for making it seem like I think Hitler was better than the soldiers, because I didn't mean it at all to come out like that. Just like I don't think the judge is better than the Beadle, I simply think he's less terrifying. The soldiers were more terrifying than Hitler in that sense; they were the ones who physically killed people. (that was not a praise for Hitler by the way, just so you know). |
Thank you for your reply, and i also would like to apologise if i implied that you are somehow condoning, or praising Hitler.
I see your point, and fair enough. We just disagree . (if not entierly  )
I don't think though the comparisson of one case, and large scale killings is fortunate by either of us.
|
Salome
|
but remember a man like thomas cromwell created the ideas that he brought to Henry VIII. he didnt merely carry out Henry's wishes. he created the ideas and in order to gain favor for himself and further himself he fed the King's ego.
that is more vile than doing something..however wrong..because you 'feel" it.
|
LesMisForever
|
| Salome wrote: | but remember a man like thomas cromwell created the ideas that he brought to Henry VIII. he didnt merely carry out Henry's wishes. he created the ideas and in order to gain favor for himself and further himself he fed the King's ego.
that is more vile than doing something..however wrong..because you 'feel" it. |
I am sorry Salome, i don't buy those arguments. Their purpose is to make kings look better. Blame it on those around them.
Yes, those around them are pretty bad lot themselves most of the time, but that doesn't excuse them one iota. The king chooses his men.
|
bwayluvor31
|
| LesMisForever wrote: | | bwayluvor31 wrote: |
I don't think having a conscience means not harming people. I think having a conscience means being aware of what you're doing (whether it's right or wrong) and being able to weight the consequences against the motivation. The point is that because of the Beadle's indifference, he would never do that; he just follows orders. If the judge says pick flowers, he picks flowers, if the judge says kill, he kills; with no thought on his part to what he is doing. I think that's far more terrifying than someone you can talk to and reason with (even if they are a raging lunatic). To put it on other words; I'd rather meet the person who sent the hit man than the hit man himself because the hit man will shoot me no matter what, but his employer can be talked to.
I apalogize for making it seem like I think Hitler was better than the soldiers, because I didn't mean it at all to come out like that. Just like I don't think the judge is better than the Beadle, I simply think he's less terrifying. The soldiers were more terrifying than Hitler in that sense; they were the ones who physically killed people. (that was not a praise for Hitler by the way, just so you know). |
Thank you for your reply, and i also would like to apologise if i implied that you are somehow condoning, or praising Hitler.
I see your point, and fair enough. We just disagree . (if not entierly )
I don't think though the comparisson of one case, and large scale killings is fortunate by either of us. |
 More then happy to agree to disagree.
|
