Movie vs Musical: Sweeney Todd

Ciao all!

Three weeks of no blog posting (sorry!) and I’m back!

The past weeks have been a torrent of bubble wrap, boxes, frustration, goodbye parties, and tears. I said goodbye to BG, my home for five years, and headed to Columbus. I hate moving, but that’s over. The Boyfriend and I have been exploring the city bit by bit and applying where we can for jobs, so I’m sure I’ll give some mini updates, mostly bragging about the freaking amazing apartment we’re in (fireplace, dishwasher, washer/dryer, skylight, two floors!), but at the moment I’d much rather talk about musicals.

I will say one thing really quickly, though: It’s absolutely wonderful having Stella Crüe back with me. No pet parent should ever, ever be away from their babies. Despite having to wake up and immediately take her out rather than ease into my morning, I couldn’t be happier to have Stella back. She just lights up life.

Afuckingdorable. This is what I get to come home to when I finally get a job.

Okay, on to what promises to be a very long and very nerdy rant!

I’m a rather begrudging fan of musicals. Whenever I talk about my soft spot for them, I feel the immediate need to validate it: Oh, I but I only like the unusual ones, you know, like Sweeney Todd, Avenue Q, you know, not just some bit of fluff with cardboard cutout characters like most musicals.

Well…that’s not…exactly true. Not about my musical preference, but about musicals being mostly fluffy and two-dimensional. The truth is that musicals are as varied as movie genres. There have always been dark and twisted ones, hilarious parodies, snarky farces, and intellectual productions running right alongside pieces of cotton candy crap like the Sound of Music, South Pacific, The Pajama Game, and everything ever written by Rodgers and Hammerstein. Les Miserables, Phantom of the Opera, and Sweeney Todd have been running longer than I’ve been alive, and they’re all favourites of mine and are in no way two dimensional (er, except for the couples falling in love in Les Mis and Todd, but I’ll get to that).

You two suck.

There are plenty of people who don’t like the genre. My boyfriend is a perfect example. For some reason, I’ve been dying to watch my copy of the musical version of Sweeney Todd with George Hearn and Angela Lansbury since we moved into the new place. It’s been met with about as much resistance as my extremely laid back companion gives: A slight eye roll and a “Watch whatever you want, sweetie.”

The conversation that follows is usually along these lines:

D: Just give it a chance! Sweeney Todd is awesome! There’s blood and vengeance and

throat slitting and cannibalism!

Boyfriend: I know, I’ve seen the [Tim Burton] movie. I like the storyline.

D: Then why don’t you like watching it?

Boyfriend: I just don’t get why they have to sing. It’s not realistic.

This resistance is nothing new to me. The general population can suspend their disbelief for blue aliens riding flying dinosaurs, over-the-top explosions, ghosts and vampires, even travel-by-tornado to a technicolour town run by underpaid midgets, but when someone breaks into song to express the emotion of the moment, the fourth wall avalanches. It’s never bothered me, but I’ve been listening to musicals since I was in the womb, which apparently isn’t a normal occurrence. I’ve never been able to understand why a musical number brings believability to a screeching halt for most. Maybe because it sometimes flubs up the pacing? I don’t know, but it’s never been a problem with me, and I love it.

I’ve adored Sweeney Todd since I was a wee teenager. It’s probably the most successful black comedy I’ve ever seen, taking me from laughter to horror to tears without any awkward or forced moments. It’s been awhile, but I remember being excited when I heard Tim Burton was doing the film adaptation…and keeping it a musical. I also remember cringing just a bit when I heard that Johnny Depp would be Todd…apparently the *Burton/Depp romance was old even in ‘07. Nevertheless, I was thrilled to be able to see Sweeney Todd’s world as interpreted by my favourite director. The result was…well, let me get into the critique.

I’m trying to figure out how best to break down and compare the musical versus the movie: Yes, they’re both musicals, but musical movies are much different than those of the stage. The Nostalgia Critic, one of my favourite web series, has an Old vs New installment that breaks old and new versions of movies down by main character, supporting cast, and storyline. I think I’ll bow to the Master and break it down that way, but I’ll add a visuals category since I rant about that all the time anyway, and visuals is about the only category in which Burton is still valid. Oh, and music numbers, of course, because they always change quite a bit from stage to screen.

Okay! So without further ado, this is my judgment of Sweeney Todd: Movie vs Musical. To clarify, I have seen this musical live before, and I have the original soundtrack, I’ve even watched a youtube version that has Neil Patrick Harris playing Toby (BRILLIANT!), but the majority of my knowledge of the musical is going to be from the George Hearn/Angela Lansbury production of 198….2? 1984? Sometime in the early 80s. Either way, it’s incandescent.

Va bene. Andiamo!

Uber quick synopsis for those who don’t know the musical (by the by, I will be talking about the ending, so spoilers!): Sweeney Todd takes place in Jack the Ripper-era London. Todd, once a barber in London married to a beautiful young woman, was sent to an Australian prison on false charges by Judge Turpin and Beadle Bamford, who coveted his wife. Having escaped his prison, Todd returns with a new name, seeking his wife and his daughter Johanna, who was an infant when he had been sentenced. Instead he finds Mrs. Lovett, owner of a pie shop on the first floor of what used to be Todd’s home. She tells him that his wife poisoned herself after being raped by Turpin, and the Judge himself took in Johanna as his ward. Todd vows revenge, and in the meantime decides that slitting the throats of his barbershop customers and bake them into Mrs. Lovett’s pies is an excellent business venture.

Main Character

            No use talking about Sweeney Todd without first addressing…well, Sweeney Todd. Again, with the musical interpretation I’m mostly going with George Hearn’s Todd.

Er, loving the Rogue/Bride of Frankenstein streak in your hair, there, Johnny.

            Both the film and stage Sweeney Todd are largely the same; he begins as a man escaped from prison looking to reunite with his wife and child. Finding that dream shattered, he bends his ambition toward revenge and can think of little else, a fixation which ultimately dooms him. In the musical, Sweeney Todd is a brash, aggressive, and wears his emotions on his sleeve. His moods are almost manic depressive; he hits rock bottom (Epiphany), screaming about how he’ll never see his daughter and his wife committed suicide, and not ten minutes later (Have a Little Priest), he and Mrs. Lovett are laughing and dancing and utterly joyous. You never have to wonder what Todd is thinking in the musical; he’ll be chuckling or screaming about it the moment the thought pops into his head.

            In the film, Johnny Depp takes a subtler approach to everyone’s favourite homicidal barber. Far from manic depressive, the film’s Sweeney Todd tends to stay on the depressive side of the coin. In the movie, Todd’s anger and despair are simmering below the surface, ready to explode (which the film so “artfully” illustrated during the Pirelli scene as a steaming tea kettle) when the right buttons are pushed. He is far more internalized, always seeming to be off in his own head and not very aware of the events transpiring around him. The overall effect is a haunted man hyper focused on what he lost and how to avenge it.

            The stark contrast between the two can be in part due to the mediums used. The stage is not friendly to the subtle actor or a heavily internalized character, nor is the silver screen welcoming to broad gestures and exaggerated facial expressions. However, it was obvious that in the film decisions were made to make the character a darker, more stoic figure. And while I usually appreciate a subtle character to one that hits you over the face with his emotions…I have to say I prefer the musical’s Sweeney Todd to Tim Burton/Johnny Depp’s. He’s a more fleshed out and complete character, with highs and lows, joys and sorrows. He has loyalties to people like Anthony, the young sailor who saved his life, and affection (albeit fleeting) for Mrs. Lovett. Hell, in a scene where Todd’s life is at its best, we see him relaxing with Lovett on a chaise with a pipe in his mouth after a long day of work. In the film, we never get a moment like that with Todd. He’s never happy; not even close. The only time he cracks a smile is when Turpin is in his chair and he thinks he’s about to rip his throat out.

            Ladies and gentlemen, the aesthetic paragraph break. Hold your applause.

            The film Sweeney Todd is always depressed, always haunted, and always sociopathic. In fact, he’s borderline…dull! His expression rarely deviates from an angsty pout, even as he dances with Lovett and cracks jokes (Have a Little Priest) and sings about actually being content with the life he has now (Johanna Reprise). Both of the songs’ messages are rendered pointless by that omnipresent pout. Hell, he doesn’t even react when Turpin announces that Johanna is his bride to be. His eyebrows don’t even move! He just mutters a snide aside when the judge announces that Todd’s daughter is going to marry her mother’s rapist. All in all, I adore Johnny Depp as a performer, but I swear to God, Keanu Reeves could have given this character more life. Another bad moment: what happens when Pirelli reveals that he knows Todd’s true identity? He pouts…gives the sad Depp eyes. Instead of an internal monologue of, ‘fuck, how am I going to shut him up? I can’t go back! I’m screwed!’, we get, ‘Oh noes, I twied so hawd to stawt a new life and now it’s ovewr!’ Which makes his teakettle to Pirelli’s face solution a little…random.

            Another qualm of mine with the film Todd is that they made a very big effort to suck every ounce of likability from the character. They took away any joy he could have expressed, any moments of compassion or emotion other than “Fuck my life.” In the beginning of the musical, when Todd and Anthony return to London on a ship, he is friendly toward him, shaking his hand and engaging in conversation. When Anthony returns, saying he has fallen in love with Johanna (I know, le coincidence, but it’s a musical, roll with it), and Mrs. Lovett suggests that Todd get Anthony to bring Johanna here and then murder the boy to reunite with his daughter, he struggles with it. He has a sense of loyalty to the young man who saved his life. And he also seems to genuinely like Anthony. In the film, Todd won’t even look at Anthony when he leaves the ship, letting the poor guy’s hand hang in the air when he tries to bid the barber farewell. And as for Mrs. Lovett, Todd’s almost constant companion, he never shows her affection. He barely makes eye contact with her. She’s nothing to him from the second she steps on screen to the second she’s thrown into the oven. Granted, she still ends up in the oven in the musical version, but the musical Todd interacts with Lovett, embraces her warmly and slips into a comfortable life with her for a bit while business is booming for both of them. Disagree if you will, but I prefer my homicidal butcher to have a human side rather than walking around resembling the Tragedy theatre mask for two hours.

Advantage: Musical.

Supporting Cast

            Sweeney Todd has a great supporting cast with some of the most memorable character’s you’ll meet onstage. I’ll start with the source of Todd’s haunted existence, Judge Turpin.

            Judge Turpin, the villain of the story, is a cruel London judge, perverted by his own power (and in other ways). He uses his influence to arrest, convict, and ship an innocent barber to Australia just to get into the guy’s wife’s knickers. He does seem to have some semblance of a conscience, as he takes in the woman’s infant after the deed is carried out, though that dissipates as soon as the poor girl hits puberty.

            In the musical, Turpin is played as dark, diabolical, and utterly perverted. At first he seems almost like a doddering old man, almost senile with a very “I’m too old for this shit” vibe when he’s working. He almost seems harmless until you see him with Johanna. The minute he croons, “How sweet you look in that…light muslin gown.” my skin crawls. The entire dark history of their relationship is horrifically apparent in that moment. Despite his obvious…molesty…relationship with his ward, he does seem to have guilt issues with it, as seen in the scene where he’s flogging himself and praying for guidance about his desire for Johanna (Mea Culpa, though he only seems to flog himself in the 1982 version…in other productions he’s just praying in a tormented fashion.) Even that moment of conscience is overshadowed by his lust, as he decides that if he marries Johanna, it would be socially and religiously acceptable to rape her! Thanks for the tip, Jesus!

Oh, Alan Rickman, you're like that dad whose approval we will crave for the rest of our lives.

            In the film, Turpin is played by every Harry Potter fan’s favourite geriatric bad boy, Alan Rickman. As with Sweeney Todd himself, the character was given a bit of a reboot. Rather than a leering letch, Alan Rickman, much like Depp, takes a subtler approach. Rickman paints a far sterner, colder picture to Judge Turpin, keeping Johanna quite literally locked away in a room in his home. His lust for Johanna is more…let’s say muted.  He and Johanna don’t even appear together onscreen until he catches her trying to run away, and though Johanna insinuates later that her life with Turpin has been hellish, it is not really shown in the film. In fact…the film kind of took all of Turpin’s perviness away. The muslin gown line is scrapped, he never leers at Johanna, and Mea Culpa never occurs. Aside from insinuating that he reads a ton of pornographic books, the film’s Turpin isn’t the least bit letchy. Actually, his behaviour in regard to Johanna can easily be interpreted as overprotectiveness. In a two second scene, Turpin lifts a painting and reveals a hole in the wall through which he can see Johanna sitting in her window. A little creepy, yes, but his action could easily be interpreted as making sure Johanna never leaves her room or never signals to anybody below. And Turpin’s decision to marry her, “In order to protect her from the evils of this world”, seems more of an honest thought than a half-assed excuse to fuck a young girl. And Turpin is even given a moment of true affection for Johanna, in a single line. When she has run off with Anthony, Sweeney Todd lures his rival to his barbershop with the promise of reuniting him with her. He tells Turpin that Johanna begs his forgiveness. Turpin gives him the most heartbreaking look that I can’t even describe…like his heart just swelled…and says softly, “Then she shall have it.”

More Rickman, since I can't seem to find musical shots.

            I actually like the film’s Turpin. He’s stern, overprotective, cold, and kind of a dick, but he has a human side, and he seems genuinely affectionate toward Johanna, emotionally hurt and rejected when she tries to run away from him, and genuinely joyous when he thinks she wants to come back to him. What can I say, I kind of like the guy.

            And that’s the problem.

            Sweeney Todd is an extremely dark story with an extremely dark protagonist. When a story has a protagonist that slaughters people and sells their flesh as food, the antagonist has to be an even more reprehensible character so we can appropriately root for such a bad antihero. The film seems to have gotten this mixed up. Depp sucks all likability and relatability from Todd, and Rickman injects likability and sympathy into Turpin. My question is…why? Exactly whom are we supposed to be rooting for? In the musical the two were well-balanced, and the black humour attached to the homicide/cannibalism softened Todd’s reprehensibility (ha! Totally didn’t know that was actually a word til I typed it out!). What were they thinking taking that away? Regular readers of my blog know that I’m all for fleshing out an antagonist, but not at the expense of the character whose side we’re actually supposed to be on!

            They also seem to try to make a strange parallel between Turpin and Todd. In both versions, Turpin condemns a prisoner to death by hanging. In the musical, the prisoner was a frail-looking man, shaking excessively and holding his arms over his head in a desperate plea for mercy. In the movie, probably to make up for Turpin’s new more likable image, the prisoner was…a child. Yeahhh…not sure if they were trying to be light there, but seeing a child condemned to hang by Alan Rickman was just…comical. The parallel to Todd happens right after Todd kills Pirelli. In the musical, he isn’t exactly bloodthirsty afterward. He doesn’t regret for a second what he did, but he isn’t chomping at the bit to do it again or anything. It’s something that needed to be done, and he did it. In the film, Todd makes a show of staring hungrily at his razor, and when Lovett mentions that Toby, the simple-minded boy servant of Pirelli, is still downstairs, Todd snarls, “Send him up.” ominously. I have to admit, I rolled my eyes at that point. That was totally unnecessary. But it seemed that filmmakers were trying to draw a parallel between protagonist and antagonist. Now, normally I love it when they blur the line between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and show that the pro and antagonist aren’t all that different (Batman and the Joker in The Killing Joke springs to mind), but in a story where the protagonist is a throat slasher, that line has already been blurred…duh. Why bother with the whole “We’re not so different, you and I.” motif when hero and villain are both bad people? The focus should be strengthening the protagonist in these situations, not darkening him. He’s already dark! He’s well-done, for Chrissakes. Practically burnt. It’s a delicate balance with these kind of stories, and the filmmakers seemed determined to mess it up for no reason whatsoever.

            Sorry for the long rant. I’ll be briefer with the other cast members, except for Mrs. Lovett.

 

            The biggest contrast between the film and the movie lay (lie?) largely with the character of Mrs. Lovett, Sweeney Todd’s companion/accomplice/possibly lover. In the musical, Lovett is played by Angela Lansbury. In the film, she’s portrayed by Burton’s womanthing, Helena Bonham Carter. The performances couldn’t be more different.

            Mrs. Lovett is a boisterous, energetic, and silly woman in the musical. She bounces off the walls, is almost always grinning and has an almost drunken party girl feel to her. You love her instantly, as she provides some serious comic relief. Her first appearance onstage shatters the ominous tone in which the show had started with the song Worst Pies in London, which is still my favourite song to sing when I’m doing anything in the kitchen involving flour and dough. She falls for Todd instantly, actually stating that she’d always had a “fondness” for him, as she knew him when he was Benjamin Barker, and follows him with the blind devotion of a faithful dog throughout the entire show. Lovett is hilarious, and if I didn’t sing like a tone-deaf goat, it would be a dream of mine to play her.

            When I saw Bonham Carter was cast as Lovett, I was very interested to see what she was going to do for the role. She obviously wasn’t the kind of actress who could portray her in a slap-happy comedic light, like usual; she would have to put a new spin on the role. Well when I finally got to see the film, I discovered I was right; Bonham Carter didn’t take the comedic route with Mrs. Lovett. She took out the character’s light whimsy and instead she…zombie through the role like a tired mother running lines with her 8-year-old for his class’s Thanksgiving play.

            Mrs. Lovett was the most disappointing thing in the movie for me, honestly. She was…flat…in voice and in performance. She rarely had an expression on her face, she rarely mustered up any feeling in her voice, and every time she, uh, “sang”, my eyelids sank like weights in water. Much like her husband and his directing lately, Bonham Carter had a sleep-walking mentality to this role. Boring…boring boring BORING. She sucked all the life out of the character and replaced it with absolutely nothing. I swear to God, she either couldn’t possibly have cared less about the role, or she actively tried to piss off fans of the musical. She only had one moment of emotion to remind the audiences that she is, in fact, an actress, and not some crazy-haired middle aged goth they scooped out of a bar and threw into makeup: When she locks Toby in the cellar because he was asking too many questions about Todd. She locks the door and, for just a moment, looks completely heartbroken, and you see the fantasy she had built in her head—of her and Toby and Todd living happily ever after by the sea—crumbling. That was her character’s fall, much like Todd’s fall in the musical (it didn’t exist in the film), her point of no return. And thank God it was there, or honestly, I would’ve lost all respect for Bonham Carter as an actress. Dear God, is that a look of regret on her face? Of, dare I say, sorrow? Thanks for the sliver of effort there, Helena. Still, her coasting in this film and subsequent massacre of a fantastic character was absolutely unforgivable.

            Todd and Lovett have no chemistry whatsoever onscreen. Due to Todd being all…dark and haunted by the past…he treats Lovett like an object, barely aware of her, constantly dismissing her, and not even giving her enough attention to lash out at her. This doesn’t matter too much because the film’s Lovett, who is supposed to be in love and pining for Todd, doesn’t seem to give a shit that he’s treating her like dirt. When they’re together on screen, they’re flat. When they’re singing, they’re sleep-inducing. Any attempted moments of tension (right after By the Sea) or affection (Have a Little Priest) between the two utterly fail.

Apparently they saved all their chemistry for the photos.

            All right, moving on to Toby, Pirelli’s servant who becomes Lovett’s surrogate child. In the film, Tim Burton’s love for little boys with haunted eyes overtakes his better judgment and he casts a kid who looks exactly like the kid in Sleepy Hollow, only without any semblance of acting skill and minimal singing skill. In the musical (at least the version I’m speaking of), Toby is played as a slow-witted, childlike young man (once he was played by Neil Patrick Harris…fuck yes!), and I honestly prefer it that way. It makes his affection for Lovett a little more abstract and lends itself to more talented actors to portray him and strengthen the role. Unlike the film, who sacrifices a fantastic finale to keep their cash cow (Depp) in the final frame, the musical ends with the police discovering everyone’s corpses in the bakehouse, and Toby, hair white from the shock of what he’s seen, turning the giant meat grinder and chanting “Smoothly…smoothly…smoothly…” The result is absolutely haunting. Don’t get me wrong, the ending of the film still makes me tear up, but it’s very dull in comparison.

You rock, NPH.

            Quickly about Pirelli and Beadle Banford: Sacha Baren Cohen played Pirelli, the con-man street barber, and surprised everyone with the fact that he can actually act without the intention of making bystanders uncomfortable. He does a very good job, and I like his choice to give Pirelli a normal low-class British accent when he reveals he isn’t actually Italian. In the musical, Pirelli is far more theatrical, literally performing for people on the London streets to get a shave from him, with an over-the-top and obviously fake Italian accent. But when he reveals that he’s a fraud, he slips into an equally over-the-top and obviously fake Irish accent, and I never liked that. Gotta give it to the film for that, though I still prefer the musical Pirelli’s performance, so hammy I’m not sure orthodox Jews are allowed to watch it.

            Hehe….baaad joke.

            Moving on.

            Beadle Bamford: Played by a huge castrati falsetto dressed in dizzying hounds tooth in the musical, and played by (here’s a big surprise) Timothy Spall…who Timothy Spalls all over the role. That man has to get out of his typecasting limbo. I’m not particularly attached to the character, and I enjoyed both performances. Both were delightfully pompous and made my skin crawl, especially Spall’s pervy sadistic glances at inappropriate times, like when Turpin is raping Lucy and when Bandford is beating Anthony.

Ladies and gentlemen, Wormtai--er, I mean, Beadle Bamf--ah fuck it, same role, more fingers.

            Now to the cardboard cutout couple in almost every musical ever made: the young ones that fall in love faster than a Disney princess, here named Anthony and Johanna. I have to be honest, those two bug the hell out of me in the musical. Anthony is a wide-eyed, simple-minded sailor who bears a striking resemblance to Fred in Scooby Doo. The actor just barely hides his sexuality as he prances innocently about the stage, acting like the obviously dank and wretched city is the best place on Earth. In fact, he sings about how London’s amazing. Luckily Todd chimes in and rains on his pride parade-er-I mean, parade. His naïve stupidity makes me want to strangle the bastard. And Johanna…? Oh dear God. I have one word for that bitch in the musical: SHRILL! She’s so stupid and air-headed and idiotic and loud and…shrill. I skip past Green Finch and Linnet Bird every single time I watch the musical version. For those of my readers who are curious and/or gluttons for audible punishment, here’s her version of this song:

.............................Dear sweet deaf zombie JESUS.

            The film did one thing that made me okay with buying it: They fixed Anthony and Johanna. They’re given far less screen time in favour of focusing on the headliners on the cast list, but they make the most of the scenes they have.

            Anthony is still somewhat naïve, but in a far more toned down way. And I have to admit…his face is absolutely fascinating to me. It looks so wide-eyed and childlike…and then something happens with his eyebrows when he’s angry or frustrated, and…it like twists into a truly frightening, dark face. He looks like he’s just teetering on the line of insanity, and the tiniest thing is going to make him snap. Honestly, I’d be okay with Jamie Campbell Bower taking the title role in a reboot a few years from now. Or now. Now would be cool too.

Anthony/Antony (depending on the version) in the musical. VS...

......eep!

           Johanna, who was just a bit of nothing fluff with a voice that would deafen screech owls in the musical, is far quieter, with barely any lines. Physically, she’s another Tim Burton movie stereotype: a young actress with a child’s face and gigantic breasts (Hello, Christina Ricci). But her character is haunted. Like I said, she hardly says anything, and she hardly interacts with anyone, but something about her draws you into her story.

            The film also put a better spin on their lightning-strike romance, at least in my eyes. This is my take on it, and you guys can disagree with me if you’d like, because this little storyline I’m going with right now could very well be reaching. Yes, Anthony immediately falls for her: he hears her singing, looks up, sees a hot chick, and it’s over. But Johanna reacts to him in a far cooler way. She gives the barest of smiles when she sees him looking at her from the street. But I think she sees Anthony not as someone to fall in love with, but her ticket out from under Turpin’s thumb. She doesn’t know Anthony at all, and since their screen time is cut, they have no romantic interaction with each other like they do in the play. This makes Johanna seem like she’s using Anthony as an escape. She doesn’t cling to him or cuddle up to him or show any real affection toward him whatsoever, even when he rescues her Fogg’s Asylum. He could have been anyone, anyone on the street who noticed her, she’d go with, she’d do anything to get away from Turpin. That makes her far more fascinating to me than an airheaded shrill blonde who fell in love in five seconds.

            I think that about covers it for the supporting cast. Though the film improved Anthony and Johanna and did a few things to soften the over-the-top quirks of the musical production’s characters…I have to go with the musical. Mrs. Lovett is an utter disgrace and they can’t decide whether or not they want you to hate Turpin, and those are the two most important characters in the story other than Todd himself. You just can’t fuck those up and expect a passing grade.

Point: Musical

Storyline

            The storyline between the musical and movies stays the same in principal: Homicidal barber, the pies are people, throat slashing and the ultimate doom of the main characters.  It’s really the tone that’s the biggest difference between the two. The musical is a black comedy, a genre which makes light of normally really dark subject matter, in this case murder and cannibalism. The tone of many of the murders (most of them during Johanna Reprise) is a humourous one, as well as the baking of their corpses into pies. There are serious parts, especially toward the end, but for the majority of the show, you’re laughing, even if you feel just a little bit dirty doing it.

            The film took a different route, as I’ve mentioned, changing the genre to a thriller/suspense. They took all of the humour out of the characters and out of every scene but By the Sea, replacing it with a more ominous feel. I understand the urge to do that; the content of this show is dark and ominous to begin with, and with actors like Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman on the cast, a black comedy might have been a bit of a stretch. However, I strongly feel that they should have taken the musical aspect out of the film. Many of the songs are still built for black comedy: Have a Little Priest, By the Sea, Worst Pies in London, etc…they’re all laced with puns and meant to be comedic. Changing the tone of everything else, but keeping the exact same songs, makes no sense. Pair that with dull acting, and you have a very bad recipe.

            This one’s easy. If something’s written as a black comedy, keep it that way.

Advantage: Musical

Visuals

            There is little more different between the stage and the silver screen than the visual elements. Onstage, scene changes happen right before the audiences eyes, or during a blackout. Depending on the show, sets have to be able to move and quickly for an efficient scene change. In film, scene changes happen in a second, and scenes themselves tend to have far more to them.

            The musical’s set is a subject that a good handful of my friends are better qualified to talk about than me, but I’ll give it a shot anyway, from the perspective of an audience member. The set was very, very clever, with the piece chunk being a rotating structure that was Mrs. Lovett’s pie shop on one side, her living room on the other, and the barber shop up top. The rest of the settings are largely minimalistic and illustrated more by props and actors than set pieces: Pirelli’s cart and a crowd of extras on the ‘streets of London,’ a wheeled staircase with Johanna on top of it for Turpin’s home, etc. It was very cleverly done.

Unfortunately THIS was the best shot I could find of the musical set. You'll just have to watch it. ;)

            In the film, we see London Tim Burtonified: with sharp angles, fog, and dark blue-grey light filters. And it’s wonderful. Burton didn’t stylize it like he tends to nowadays…it was more of a feel than weird architectural structure and black and white stripes…more Batman than Willy Wonka. Though it irked me that the barber shop resembled the attic in the Inventor’s castle in Edward Scissorhands, it was wonderful to see London dark, dank, and in perfect form for this story. There were a handful of negatives about it, though…namely the computer effects. I could have done without the entire opening sequence, with the CGI version of the barber shop and the chair and the blood and the pies…I understood the mood, but the actual special effects were horrible. There was also a terrible transition from the scene of Anthony and Todd getting off the ship to the steps of Mrs. Lovett’s Pie Shop. It was so bad. And the blood effects were bad, too…strangely bad for how much blood is in the film. The blood looks fake, it’s the wrong colour, and the effects are a little over-the-top. Case in point: When Todd…er, stabs Turpin with a razor. Stabs him. Come on…

            Tough choice given the cleverness of the musical set, but I’ve got to give this one to the film. One of the biggest advantages of the silver screen is the ability to really bring sets to life. Filmmakers aren’t limited by time or location like plays are, and Burton did exactly what we all hoped he would do: He brought the world of Sweeney Todd to life.

Point: Film

Music

            Now to reel this gigantic critique to an end, let’s bring in the music. Now, in both film and musical, the same songs were used with relatively few changes to lyric or structure. However, there are some serious marked differences between the two versions of this story. Most of these differences are, unfortunately, due to the utter lack of voice from the actors in Burton’s film. My apologies to Depp, one of my biggest celebrity crushes. I actually do like his voice. I really, really do. But the music they’re dealing with here is Sondheim. Singers with professional training sometimes have trouble with this guy. Directors should NEVER underestimate the power of a well-trained voice to make a song successful. You can have a red carpet name and reputation, but musicals are about the songs, and if you’re going to keep it a musical, you’d better have someone who sings (Joel Shumaker, I’m looking at you, you herpalitic anus). And though Depp gives it a great shot, his voice just doesn’t…can’t hold up to Sondheim. And Bonham Carter? Yeah, don’t make me laugh.

            Honestly, though, the film made one of the best decisions ever in the music department: They got rid of that god fucking awful Ballad of Sweeney Todd that runs through the musical. Fans of the musical, pretty please don’t slaughter me. I know I’m in the minority on this one…but God Dammit, I despise that fucking song. It’s shrill, self-indulgent, deliberately jarring…it’s just obnoxious. The lyrics are so freaking…I can’t find the right word. They glorify Sweeney Todd in a way normally reserved for preteen customers of Hot Topic. Swing your razor high, Sweeney/Hold it to the skies/Freely flows the blood of those who moralize…Swing your razor high, Sweeney/Hear it singing! Yes!/Sink it in the rosy skin of righteousness! Barf! They talk Sweeney up to, saying he plans like a perfect machine…when he isn’t really much of a planner at all. The song is inaccurate as well as annoying and ends up just disintegrating into the entire chorus literally screaming Sweeney at the top of their lungs. Fuck it and may Sondheim stick the pen he used to write it firmly up his ass to remind him of his mistakes.

            Dear Gods of the Musical, don’t strike me down for using the name of Sondheim in vain…

            Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed switching the opening from the chorus screaming praises glorifying a hot-tempered (though jovial) murderer to a fantastic instrumental version. Unfortunately (other than Green Finch and Linnet Bird), the music goes downhill from there. Worst Pies in London is a joke, and, well:

Have a Little Priest…a disgrace in the movie. It’s supposed to be the showstopper! And…it’s so…BORING. I never thought this song would ever be boring. There was a moment where Bonham Carter, if she gave a shit about the role, could have given the character and story a bit of growth. In the song, Todd looks and pays attention to her for the first time in the entire movie. He’s actually seeing her. This could have been a great moment, seeing as Lovett is supposed to be pining for Todd during the entire story, but neither Depp nor Bonham Carter take advantage of it. They continue with their dull boring boringness.

By the Sea…is sung during a trip to the lovely…CGI field with a single tree. All of the humour that used to be in the entire show is crammed into this single song. And it makes no sense with the rest of the movie. The tone, not the song. The song is important to convey Lovett’s future plans and attachment to Todd. Granted, Todd’s expression during the wedding is funny, but it’s the Big-lipped Alligator Moment of the movie. And God damn, with Carter singing, it’s so boring.

I don’t believe Todd is hitting rock bottom/snapping in the film during Epiphany. Johnny definitely tries with his facial expressions, but his voice lacks the emotion while he sings. Though his ‘I want you, bleeders’ gives me shivers. But the lyric ‘And my Lucy lies in ashes’ is my absolute favourite in the show, and it’s swallowed by the orchestra, as Depp’s (and Bonham Carter’s) voice often is. Sad Dee. Once again, untrained voices cannot stand up to Sondheim’s music. They can’t keep up with the pacing, can’t reach the right notes, and can’t hold their own against the orchestra. Really the only person in the cast who can even keep up with the music is Alan Rickham. Pretty Women isn’t nearly as cheerful as it is in the musical, but it’s pretty good. Their voices blend well and though Todd happens to be savouring the moment just before he’s supposed to gut Turpin, it’s oddly soothing.

            Anyway, despite the positives (and the death of the usual opening song really is amazing), the musical wins. The actors know what they’re doing and they carry the songs the way they’re meant to be.

Advantage and Ultimate Win: Musical

            Okay, I lied, I have two teensy points that I didn’t fit into any of the upper categories that I’d like to address really quickly and then I swear to deity I’m done.

            The ending of the film bugged me quite a bit. Depp takes a subtler approach, and the pouty face returns, this time appropriately. And when he sings, ‘Lucy, I’ve come home now’ are so sad…buuuut then Depp goes back into blank face when he’s singing ‘Oh my God, what have I done?’. Absolutely no expression. Not even numb shock. Just…apathy. When he throws Lovett into the fire, it’s boring. When he holds Lucy in his arms, it’s boring. Hell, even when Toby the sewer dweller returns and slits Depp’s throat, it’s boring. Throat slit, exit Toby. I understand the film impulse to close the movie with a shot of their star, but cutting the discovery of the cellar and Toby’s incredibly creepy ‘smoothly’ scene, in my opinion, was a mistake. Though with the acting-deficient child they cast as Toby, maybe it wasn’t such a bad choice. In the musical version, Hearn is explosive in his discovery, again this could be due to the stage being unfriendly to subtlety. Despite the lack of subtlety/internal pain, it doesn’t really make the ending any less heartbreaking. The way he takes Lucy into his arms at the end, cradling and clinging to her, makes me tear up. Though I’m not sure how I feel about Toby’s big speaking part. Seeing his hair all white and his mind broken, but the whole Paddy Cake thing is a little trite. The absolute end, though, with the police there and him talking about grinding the meat to make the pies, “Smoothly…smoothly…” is absolutely haunting, absolutely perfect.

            And finally, in the film there is a moment between Todd and Johanna that just isn’t there in the musical version. It comes when Johanna, in disguise, hides in the trunk in the barber shop and witnesses Todd murder Lucy (ooh, witnesses the death of her mother without realizing it..didn’t even think of that…wow!). In both versions, Todd very nearly kills Johanna, not realizing who she is, but is interrupted. In the musical, it was very much glossed over, “Woo, thank goodness he didn’t kill Anthony’s girlfriend!” but the film reminds the audience that these two are father and daughter, who never knew each other because of a horrible tragedy, and only the audience knows it. “Forget my face.”…I still get goosebumps.

            All right…whew. I’m done. So done. Done doney done done. I love you all. See you next week.

Nap time.

*I’m not sure if this has ever been mentioned on Bite Me, but Tim Burton is my favourite director despite his laziness the past ten or so years. He still made Batman, Edward Scissorhands, and Nightmare Before Christmas—no amount of selling out for money can reverse those masterpieces—and he’s still at heart a visionary…which actually makes me angrier that he’s been sleepwalking through directing. And Johnny Depp is one of my absolute favourite actors; he’s versatile and, when his heart is in it, gives 100% to the role he’s in. But God dammit I am so sick of Burton and Depp doing things together. Willy Wonka and Dark Shadows alone warrant a separation for, oh, say, twenty years. And oh dear God Alice in Wonderland, I can’t believe I forgot about that disaster.