lonewriter
|
Finally saw the movieI loved it. Depp did a great job and I loved the boy who played Toby, he could play Oliver Twist in Oliver! Alan Rickman did a great job too (I bet Harry Potter never knew Snape could sing  ) Overall, I liked it very much and will be adding it to my collection of movie musicals.
|
Salome
|
I loved the film of course but I disagree with you on Toby. I though he was a TERRIBLE actor.
|
Joshua
|
| Salome wrote: | | I loved the film of course but I disagree with you on Toby. I though he was a TERRIBLE actor. |
He was a terrible actor. I very much liked his voice, though. And I read he was 12/13ish during filming. My God, I was at least a tenor at that age. Not a soprano.
|
Mistress
|
*sigh* I feel I've died a little...I brough a copy of the Hearn/Lansbury film into one of my classes because my teacher was interested. ANyway it was VHS and she didn't ahve a VHS player at home so we watched it in class...and all the movie fangirls (teacher included) HATED it...they're still adament that the Depp film was better...it's just made me very sad  ...I don't really know why...I mean the Depp film is good enough...but I guess since I've sort of taken on a crusade to get people into the original show, it hurt to fail this one time.
|
kiwitechgirl
|
The thing is that as a film (and purely as that), the Depp film is better. As a reproduction of Sondheim's masterpiece, the Hearn/Lansbury version is miles better (and the Hearn/LuPone concert version is great too, love or hate Patti!) but they weren't designed as films, they're filmed versions of a stage production, and that makes a difference to non-musical theatre people.
|
musical_maven
|
| Mistress wrote: | | *sigh* I feel I've died a little...I brough a copy of the Hearn/Lansbury film into one of my classes because my teacher was interested. ANyway it was VHS and she didn't ahve a VHS player at home so we watched it in class...and all the movie fangirls (teacher included) HATED it...they're still adament that the Depp film was better...it's just made me very sad ...I don't really know why...I mean the Depp film is good enough...but I guess since I've sort of taken on a crusade to get people into the original show, it hurt to fail this one time. |
 awwww..............cheer up Mistress! 
|
Mistress
|
It wasn't just that the Hearn/Lansbury film was visually too differenr for them, they hated the acting and singing...they thought of all things, that lansbury was off key (she was perhaps, a tad loud at times) I knew they weren't gonna like Betsy Joselin (her voice makes me twitch too sometimes when she sings Green Finch, while her Kiss Me is much better)
Anyway, I get it...it's not so bad since the film was such a good adaptation. Thnaks for the comfort too...I feel a lot better.
|
Sweeney Hyde
|
| Mistress wrote: | | It wasn't just that the Hearn/Lansbury film was visually too differenr for them, they hated the acting and singing...they thought of all things, that lansbury was off key (she was perhaps, a tad loud at times) |
I'm finding out that the bleeders don't realize that the harmonies are different from the show to the film...very different...especially in A Little Priest...but they're supposed to be jarring...it's one of the many elements of the song that make it brilliant.
|
Joshua
|
| Sweeney Hyde wrote: | | Mistress wrote: | | It wasn't just that the Hearn/Lansbury film was visually too differenr for them, they hated the acting and singing...they thought of all things, that lansbury was off key (she was perhaps, a tad loud at times) |
I'm finding out that the bleeders don't realize that the harmonies are different from the show to the film...very different...especially in A Little Priest...but they're supposed to be jarring...it's one of the many elements of the song that make it brilliant. |
My mom is convinced that Ange is singing off key in A Little Priest.  And she said that harmony is horrible. I, however, have always loved the harmonies--even from the first time I heard them.
|
dolbinau
|
I feel the 2007 film is better entertainment, but the 1982 recording is (for the most part) better music. Since the 2007 film is a lot more contemporary-sounding (vocal wise) people may find it hard to get used to.
The 1982 DVD has the best recording of Epiphany, ever, IMO. I have ripped the audio, but if it was only sightly better quality :'(  .
I think the "Final Scene" is absolutely unmatched by the movie, though.
|
Joshua
|
[quote="dolbinau"I think the "Final Scene" is absolutely unmatched by the movie, though.[/quote]
The final scene in the movie was way underacted and shallow. It was beautifully done on the 1982 DVD, the best unmatched version, IMO. George Hearn made me cry in that scene. And I rarely cry...sort of...
|
RainbowJude
|
The problems with Burton's SWEENEY | dolbinau wrote: | | I feel the 2007 film is better entertainment, but the 1982 recording is (for the most part) better music. |
That's complete rubbish; the 1982 filmed production is fantastic entertainment and far more entertaining than the 2007 film any way you look at it.
| dolbinau wrote: | | I think the "Final Scene" is absolutely unmatched by the movie, though. |
| Joshua wrote: | | The final scene in the movie was way underacted and shallow. It was beautifully done on the 1982 DVD, the best unmatched version. |
While I'm not sure that the use of the word "unmatched" is grammatically correct in the above quotes, the film's final sequence in no way reaches the depth achieved in the libretto of the stage production. Yes, the final image of the bloody 'pieta' is fantastic but there's nothing underneath it in the film to move it away from melodramatic excess and make it profoundly tragic. This is because of the way Lucy has been set up and handled throughout the film, leaving Depp very little to play except a basic recognition of the Beggar Woman as his wife and his rage against Mrs Lovett. Because the material that defines his fundamental misjudgment - in particular, the the first sequence involving the Beggar Woman - there's no opportunity for Barker/Todd to recognize that aspect of his part in these events, as there is in the play.
The result is something that is vastly reduced in its complexity - again revealing two of Tim Burton's major career flaws as a director: (a) that he provides style over substance and (b) that he doesn't really know how to get the best possible performances from his actors. This works for the most part in a whimsical piece like Big Fish or a light comic book fantasy like Batman Returns but in the case of Sweeney Todd - when there is a complex piece of writing being adapted to the medium of film - we can clearly see that Burton, still at home with the characteristic elements of his style, grapples less successfully with what's going on in the sub-text of the piece and the depth that this could give to the images he creates on screen.
Later days
David
|
dolbinau
|
| Quote: | | That's complete rubbish; the 1982 filmed production is fantastic entertainment and far more entertaining than the 2007 film any way you look at it. |
(In your opinion). - In my opinion, staged productions only work best if you see them in person. 'Suspending disbelief', especially of the sets etc.. doesn't work too well on film as it does in real life.
| Quote: | in particular, the the first sequence involving the Beggar Woman - there's no opportunity for Barker/Todd to recognize that aspect of his part in these events, as there is in the play.
|
This is just one instance, I don't think it's that significant. Hearn's over the top 'Oh no, Oh my God" ruins the scene, for me.
|
RainbowJude
|
Suspension of Disbelief.... | RainbowJude wrote: | | That's complete rubbish; the 1982 filmed production is fantastic entertainment and far more entertaining than the 2007 film any way you look at it. |
| dolbinau wrote: | | (In your opinion). - In my opinion, staged productions only work best if you see them in person. 'Suspending disbelief', especially of the sets etc.. doesn't work too well on film as it does in real life. |
Oh please, opinion.  Opinion is the thing people like to flash around, fall back on and hide behind around here when they don't know how to back up an argument.
Of course stage productions work best when you see them in person, because they're meant to be seen live. But the filmed stage production of Sweeney Todd is not a stage production, it was filmed for television and is meant to be watched as such. The filmed stage production is not a film either, and therefore you have to suspend your disbelief in a different way to appreciate it. But that power lies within you as an audience member, not in the piece itself.
This is not to say that the filmed stage production Sweeney Todd is perfect. It also has problems in the way it was filmed, for example - some of the angles chosen are really strange - or in the fact that Betsy Joslin's performance has no reigns on it. But from a completely objective point of view - and this has nothing to do with opinion - the structure of the libretto is far more complex, far more refined, far more intricate and far more successful that the structure of the screenplay. So on the page the show is already more entertaining than the film.
And as for being able to enjoy the movie more than the filmed stage production merely because the latter is a filmed stage production - well, that has more to do with a hurdle you've put between yourself and the filmed stage production or, it seems, any filmed stage production in general. The trigger to suspend belief, as I've said above, lies within the audience. If one can't make that shift, then there's little point in trying to evaluate anything at all.
| RainbowJude wrote: | | In particular, the the first sequence involving the Beggar Woman - there's no opportunity for Barker/Todd to recognize that aspect of his part in these events, as there is in the play. |
| dolbinau wrote: | | This is just one instance, I don't think it's that significant. Hearn's over the top 'Oh no, Oh my God" ruins the scene, for me. |
That's like saying that it isn't significant that Oedipus slept with his mother or that it isn't significant that Macbeth met the witches on his return from the battle. The ramifications here reach far more widely than a mere comparison between the film and the filmed stage production. That scene is an essential cog in developing the narrative of Sweeney Todd. Missing it out dilutes the tragedy of the piece; it becomes a straightforward revenge melodrama. A really good example of a straightforward revenge melodrama, yes - but there is so much more to Sweeney Todd than that.
Later days
David
|
dolbinau
|
| Quote: | | Opinion is the thing people like to flash around, fall back on and hide behind around here when they don't know how to back up an argument. |
So you're saying that the 1982 DVD is definitively more entertaining than the 2007 adaptation? This is obviously arguable considering an entire class (before) hated it.
| Quote: | | Missing it out dilutes the tragedy of the piece; it becomes a straightforward revenge melodrama. A really good example of a straightforward revenge melodrama, yes - but there is so much more to Sweeney Todd than that. |
To each their own, but I don't see much difference in Lucy recognising Sweeney at the beginning compared to recognising him to at the end; Sweeney still appears to have some contact with her throughout the film so it's not as if she was some random who walked in from the streets he just happened to kill.
When Sweeney is reflecting on her death- Instead of the annoying old beggar woman shouting from the streets who once offered sex/begged she is just the annoying old beggar woman shouting from the streets.
| Quote: | | Of course stage productions work best when you see them in person, because they're meant to be seen live. But the filmed stage production of Sweeney Todd is not a stage production, it was filmed for television and is meant to be watched as such |
It really is (for the most part) just a stage production caught on film with some fancy angles to make it a little more interesting...
|
Salome
|
Hearn's Oh God No! was just as real and pasionate as Olivier's HOWL WInd rant in King Lear. sheer raw emotion.
|
crazy_beggar_woman_10
|
I don't know, I just, every "OH MY GOD" session i've seen in the Hearn/Lansbury and in the concert version seem over the top to me, too. Also, Tim Burton was more into the internal that you can't get from stage productions, thus why Johnny didn't scream, and why there were no chorus members. I missed the chorus members once I saw what it was like with them.
I must apologize, but I just never like Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Lovett. I mean, I know, she was the original and all, but I just don't like her version. I know you say the stuff was supposed to be harsh, but I don't know...my opinion.
|
Sweeney Hyde
|
| crazy_beggar_woman_10 wrote: | | I don't know, I just, every "OH MY GOD" session i've seen in the Hearn/Lansbury and in the concert version seem over the top to me, too. |
I absolutely hate people that say this. I'm sorry, but I think it's utter bull crap. What the hell would you do if you just killed your spouse that you had thought to be dead for 15 years? Have a moment of quiet realization? Doubt it.
| crazy_beggar_woman_10 wrote: | | Also, Tim Burton was more into the internal that you can't get from stage productions, thus why Johnny didn't scream, and why there were no chorus members. I missed the chorus members once I saw what it was like with them. |
Actually, there was no chorus because they ran out of time with Depp's daughter getting sick.
| crazy_beggar_woman_10 wrote: | | I must apologize, but I just never like Angela Lansbury's Mrs. Lovett. I mean, I know, she was the original and all, but I just don't like her version. I know you say the stuff was supposed to be harsh, but I don't know...my opinion. |
Give me actuall reasons for not liking her Lovett instead of this cop out and I may respect your opinion...but so far...you've just stated you don't like it without any real reasons.
|
crazy_beggar_woman_10
|
| Sweeney Hyde wrote: | | I absolutely hate people that say this. I'm sorry, but I think it's utter bull crap. What the hell would you do if you just killed your spouse that you had thought to be dead for 15 years? Have a moment of quiet realization? Doubt it. |
I would be cool with it if it sounded a little more real. If it were just a scream, the OH MY GOD just sounds kind of...I wouldn't say fake, because that's not the word. Just, off maybe. Its just an opinion.
| Quote: | | Actually, there was no chorus because they ran out of time with Depp's daughter getting sick. |
Really? Well then I heard it wrong.
| Quote: | | Give me actuall reasons for not liking her Lovett instead of this cop out and I may respect your opinion...but so far...you've just stated you don't like it without any real reasons. |
Well all right then. I only thought if I listed examples someone would quote by quote tell me why each example was the way Mrs. Lovett was supposed to be.
I don't like the sound of her voice; it grates on my ears. Her manner struck me as quite annoying. I suppose her acting portion of Mrs. Lovett wasn't what really got to me, I guess it was mostly her voice. I prefer, ah, Patti Lupone's Mrs. Lovett. I saw the concert version on youtube, and I think she just as the right combination of Mrs. Lovettisms.
Sorry for my 'cop out' explanation, but to tell you the truth its one of those things that you find hard to describe. Who knows, maybe it was just that particular performance. Maybe if I'd seen different recordings of her at different times as Mrs. Lovett, I would have liked her better. I asked forgiveness for my differing opinion, I wish I didn't have to feel like I was on trial for treason for it.
|
Little_Nell
|
You should never ask forgiveness for an opinion. However you can't expect to air one without having to explain it to people who might not agree with you.
Were there no redeeming features in Lansbury's performance at all? Personally, I have found aspects that I love in every portrayal of Mrs Lovett that I've seen. Likewise, there are things that I haven't liked so much, e.g. dodgy cockney accents - but that doesn't mean that an individuals performance is simply bad, it's just different to the way you'd prefer it to be done. And we can't always get what we want!
|
Salome
|
I love hpw she thinks LuPone is a better singer thna Lansbury. thats hysterical.
also she doesnt understand that ACTING comes first in a performance. and Lansbury is 5 times the actress LuPone is.
When I saw the recent revival I wanted to strangle LuPone and often times Cerveris.
|
crazy_beggar_woman_10
|
I didn't say I thought she was better. I said I preferred her version. Please don't tell me what I do not understand.
| Little_Nell wrote: | You should never ask forgiveness for an opinion. However you can't expect to air one without having to explain it to people who might not agree with you.
Were there no redeeming features in Lansbury's performance at all? Personally, I have found aspects that I love in every portrayal of Mrs Lovett that I've seen. Likewise, there are things that I haven't liked so much, e.g. dodgy cockney accents - but that doesn't mean that an individuals performance is simply bad, it's just different to the way you'd prefer it to be done. And we can't always get what we want! |
I know we can't always get what we want, I'm not that stubborn, and I know her performance isn't simply bad, it is just different to the way I'd prefer it to be done. That's really all I meant. I was just hoping that people might be a little more open minded to an opinion instead of...never mind, really, I guess let me think. Lansbury. Its not as though I didn't think she was a very good actress, because I don't deny that. I mean obviously she is, she got a Tony and whatnot for the part. She and Hearn seemed to work well together.
Listen, all I'm trying to say is I don't prefer her in the role of Mrs. Lovett. I don't question the reason you guys all like her, I don't think anything different of you. Like what you like. Now may I dislike what I dislike?
|
dolbinau
|
| Quote: | | I love hpw she thinks LuPone is a better singer thna Lansbury. thats hysterical. |
My opinions are only based off recordings but I prefer LuPone's singing in Sweeney Todd to Lansburys 'duck-like' voice (even if intentional).
That being said Patti's performance in the 2000 concert DVD and recording weren't that good at all, her studio recording was excellent though IMO. What can you expect though?
Lansbury was good on both the OBC album and the 1982 DVD, I just don't like how she portrays the character.
|
Mistress
|
| dolbinau wrote: | | Quote: | | I love hpw she thinks LuPone is a better singer thna Lansbury. thats hysterical. |
My opinions are only based off recordings but I prefer LuPone's singing in Sweeney Todd to Lansburys 'duck-like' voice (even if intentional).
|
I think I actually have to agree with you a bit. Though Lansbury is the better actor by far, LuPone's voice is easier to enjoy. It takes a while to get into Lansbury's voice I think is maybe partly why my class hated the DVD...they weren't to used to broad, theatre-style acting or singing, or Lansbury's extremely silly Lovett. LuPone's Revival Lovett was considerably tones down an darker, closer to HBC's Lovett but less sympathetic and mousy. That's where I stand...I hiope no one shoots me for sort-of liking LuPone XD
|
Little_Nell
|
I have to say, both Lansbury and LuPone's accents irritate me, rather than their actual voices. I don't understand why Angela Lansbury sounds so odd (on the DVD that is) - she is English after all and a Londoner at that - but she seems to switch between cockney and a Bristolian/Cornish accent for some reason. I suppose LuPone has an excuse but she seems to slip in and out of her cockney accent pretty frequently.
Not really important in the grand scale of things. I'm sure no one else has even noticed this and I'm just being ultra picky here, but it is the one thing that bugs me when I'm watching them!
|
Pounce
|
| Joshua wrote: | | dolbinau wrote: | | I think the "Final Scene" is absolutely unmatched by the movie, though. |
The final scene in the movie was way underacted and shallow. It was beautifully done on the 1982 DVD, the best unmatched version, IMO. George Hearn made me cry in that scene. And I rarely cry...sort of... |
I agree. Depp didn't release his anguish well enough when he realized it was Lucy. The ending is adequate but it could have been better.
Plus Joanna's escape didn't seem believable. All that was needed is for ST to hear a scream, be distracted, and have Joanna bolt for freedom. A second scream would have convinced ST to investigate rather than pursue Joanna.
|
Salome
|
| Little_Nell wrote: | I have to say, both Lansbury and LuPone's accents irritate me, rather than their actual voices. I don't understand why Angela Lansbury sounds so odd (on the DVD that is) - she is English after all and a Londoner at that - but she seems to switch between cockney and a Bristolian/Cornish accent for some reason. I suppose LuPone has an excuse but she seems to slip in and out of her cockney accent pretty frequently.
Not really important in the grand scale of things. I'm sure no one else has even noticed this and I'm just being ultra picky here, but it is the one thing that bugs me when I'm watching them! |
there is no excuse for LuPone.
|
Little_Nell
|
You know that, I know that... I was just trying to be nice. 
|
Brunnhilde
|
So I'm not the only one who felt that Johnny wasn't desperated enough at the end?
I adore George Hearn. I cried, too.
OMG it was horrible, when I first saw it I thought nobody will survive it... but didn't know who was the Beggar Woman. At the end, when Johnny started to watch her, I thought: "Come on, what's so interesting about the ol' hag? And then: NOOOOOOO! That hurts! 
So I searched for the Hearn version and now I have the preciousss.
Other version I'd like to see is the concert with Bryn Terfel as Sweeney and Philip Quast as the Judge. I don't know if a DVD exists? I'm a diehard fan of both.
Poor Philip... in the hands of a Terfel-like mad beast. That man is frightening.
|
Mistress
|
I wish I coulda seen Quast as the Judge (I loves me some Philip Quast)
|
