Tim Burton & Johnny Depp Team For 'Sweeney Todd'

[Mr. Socko]

Remember Depp and Helena were in a studio recording their songs, which were probably tweaked for enhancements. Lansbury and Hearn are still terrific in performance...but after seeing the film, their look comes across as rather weak. Hearn is just wearing dirty pants and suspenders lol, that "hellish" look isn't quite there as well as it was with Johnny's Mr. T

 

[DACrowe]

Wow. Depp has a much better singing voice than the original Sweeney. Just because he's the original doesn't mean he's better.

Que?

I personally liked Depp (and HBC) in their roles a lot and will not diss either for their merits in the movie at all. I can even see people preferring the more raw and rock sounding vocals of Depp, but there is no question George Hearn is a better singer than Johnny Depp. He just has such a deeper voice and much more range.. BTW Hearn was not the original Sweeney, that was Len Cariou. Len has an even richer voice but I think Hearn gave more life to the character in the taped performance (see above) than the OBC recording, but I never saw either live, so I can't really say with any certainty on that.

And Lansbury is just amazing as Mrs. Lovett. Though I really loved HBC's interpretation and while purists cannot look past the changes, for film they really made her a much more fascinating and ultimately tragic character. She may be hilarious on stage but she is heart-wrenching on celluloid.

 

[DACrowe]

A few more...bloody clips.

Worst Pies in London:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvrXKbd0Go

The stage version of the Johanna reprise (cheesy Johanna included) and the Barber at his work. Better example of Hearn's skill as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIGFgOtPVBA&feature=related

And the wonderful (but neccessarily) cut ballad of Sweeney Todd, that is not in the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlYTBcf4jvs&feature=related

P.S. This is a taped stage show, so expect large acting and not the nuance on choreography for the camera...because it is not.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Remember Depp and Helena were in a studio recording their songs, which were probably tweaked for enhancements. Lansbury and Hearn are still terrific in performance...but after seeing the film, their look comes across as rather weak. Hearn is just wearing dirty pants and suspenders lol, that "hellish" look isn't quite there as well as it was with Johnny's Mr. T

I don't think so, because from the sound of the behind-the-scenes look that was on the Sweeney Todd MySpace page, it sounds pretty much the same.

Oh, and about the bolded part--slightly off-topic, but, with how Helena called him "Mistah T," was I the only one thinking of Helena playing a good Harley Quinn?

 

[DACrowe]

Well I always saw a correlation between the original (see Angela Lansbury) Mrs. Lovett and Harley Quinn. You can see it in Little Priest and at the end when she is scared of him, she is just a motor mouth of worship for her...puddin.

But I would avoid Harley Quinn in the movies.

 

[Bond]

A few more...bloody clips.

Worst Pies in London:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvrXKbd0Go

Yeesh, what an annoying singing voice.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

Well I always saw a correlation between the original (see Angela Lansbury) Mrs. Lovett and Harley Quinn. You can see it in Little Priest and at the end when she is scared of him, she is just a motor mouth of worship for her...puddin.

But I would avoid Harley Quinn in the movies.

I think the opposite, but, that's not what the thread's about. TANGENT! Moving on...

Yeesh, what an annoying singing voice.

Yeah, from the version I saw, she gets a lot better after that, espicially with "Poor Thing" and "A Little Priest."

 

[DACrowe]

It is intentionally annoying. The song is supposed to be sung with a lot of vibratto and switching between melodic and a cockney British accent. Carter couldn't sing with the accent, so it was dropped in the movie. Listen to her in A Little Priest or the end.

 

[Agentsands77]

I personally liked Depp (and HBC) in their roles a lot and will not diss either for their merits in the movie at all. I can even see people preferring the more raw and rock sounding vocals of Depp, but there is no question George Hearn is a better singer than Johnny Depp. He just has such a deeper voice and much more range..

Agreed.

Len has an even richer voice but I think Hearn gave more life to the character in the taped performance (see above) than the OBC recording, but I never saw either live, so I can't really say with any certainty on that.

Cariou's live performance was ten times more energetic than his work on the recording. You have to remember he destroyed his voice doing this part because he put everything into it. There's a few crappy clips of Len Cariou performing live on Broadway on YouTube, and you can get a good sense of the intensity of his performance (his "Epiphany" is quite scary):


Len Cariou's Epiphany (Live)
Len Cariou's A Little Priest (Live)
Len Cariou's Johanna (Live)
Len Cariou's Finale (Live)

There's never been as great a Sweeney, IMO.

 

[The Guard]

And there never will be. Although Depp, for not being a classically trained singer, did very, very well with the role. I don't quite agree with any previous's Sweeneys' completely-over-the-top performances. There is room for subtlety in the role, and Depp handled that excellently.

I do think, though, that the film actors likely had advantages that the stage performers didn't. For one, they're likely not moving around when they actually recorded the soundtrack, or exerting themselves half as much.

 

[DACrowe]

Or having to play to an audience of possibly thousands right in front off them to high above. Acting for a camera leaves more room for subtelty and nuance that stage performing cannot take advantage of. But on stage there is the ability to jump into the surreal easier and the abstract without losing an audience and an easier ability to connect with audiences emotionally as they are right there. The stage has its advantages too.

BTW Agent, what did you think of Cervis, because outside of a professional university production, I've only seen the revival on stage. I had mixed feelings and preferred the more traditional take the University production did and didn't particularly care for Lupone or the instruments on stage for the actors to play. But what did you think of that production?

 

[Agentsands77]

BTW Agent, what did you think of Cervis, because outside of a professional university production, I've only seen the revival on stage. I had mixed feelings and preferred the more traditional take the University production did and didn't particularly care for Lupone or the instruments on stage for the actors to play. But what did you think of that production?

The Revival is interesting as an alternate take. I'm not one of its die-hard fans. It has some nice things about it (I like its setting for the song "By The Sea" - delightfully morbid). If there's one thing I appreciate about it, it's the intimacy it creates. And the more modern take on the costumes is also refreshing, giving the show a bit of an edge. But stripping down the orchestrations isn't a win for me. So much of what I love about SWEENEY is the incredible complexity of its score. I can tolerate the reorchestrations, but I can never love them.

As far as Cerveris is concerned, I think he's kind of... boring. I never quite connect with him emotionally. I know others adore him, and I do think he's a talented actor, but I'm just not a fan.

LuPone? Well, I love her... but not in the revival. I love her in the concert setting she did (captured on the CD with the New York Philharmonic and on the lovely DVD). In that, she's lively, funny, and as great a Mrs. Lovett as I could ask for. In the revival, she's far too subdued.

I'll be seeing the current revival cast a little later this year, and a different set of performers might make me feel very different about it all. I understand that the show has become a bit more lively with subsequent performers.

 

[The Guard]

Or having to play to an audience of possibly thousands right in front off them to high above. Acting for a camera leaves more room for subtelty and nuance that stage performing cannot take advantage of. But on stage there is the ability to jump into the surreal easier and the abstract without losing an audience and an easier ability to connect with audiences emotionally as they are right there. The stage has its advantages too.

Many Broadway shows mic their actors now, so playing to a full house is less of an issue than it used to be, although more people does tend to deaden sound. There is definitely a kind of subtlety that stage actors cannot engage it, but I still think the Broadway actors could dial it down a notch and remain easily as effective as characters. Audiences become immersed in a show, and they start to see very small changes in facial features, mannerisms, etc.

Then too, a film actor has take after take after take to get things right, and on stage, you get one chance, unless you're one of those perfectionists actors who insists on stopping the show and redoing the lines you flubbed.

 

[Agentsands77]

There is definitely a kind of subtlety that stage actors cannot engage it, but I still think the Broadway actors could dial it down a notch and remain easily as effective as characters.

I don't know that I agree that all Broadway actors to do the part are too OTT. IMO, the only "recorded" Sweeney that goes into that territory is George Hearn, who really hams it up. But Len Cariou and Michael Cerveris definitely play the part in a more subdued fashion.

Audiences become immersed in a show, and they start to see very small changes in facial features, mannerisms, etc.

Not from the back row, they don't.

 

[Drizzle]

So I'm watching parts of the 1982 version on YouTube and I have to ask.... Why in the blue hell are the actors playing Johanna and Anthony look like they're 40? The characters are supposed to be teenagers.

 

[JP]

Child Labor Laws.

 

[Majik1387]

So I'm watching parts of the 1982 version on YouTube and I have to ask.... Why in the blue hell are the actors playing Johanna and Anthony look like they're 40? The characters are supposed to be teenagers.

Simply put, it was the 80's and a lot of the time, for stage acting, the actors are much older than their counterpart. Plus child labor laws, thanks JP.

 

[Drizzle]

Well they could have at least hired 20 year olds or something.

 

[DACrowe]

That is true for most stage acting. They both look to be about in their '30s, maybe late '20s in Johanna's case. Try and find a 16 year-old who can sing 8 times a week difficult material, it ain't as easy as it sounds. Besides, only people in the first 5-8 rows will notice.

 

[Drizzle]

Well, younger kids in stage productions get by easily today, as seen with "The Lion King". Yet again, there aren't as many songs in "The Lion King" as there are with "Sweeney Todd".

Anyway, wanted to share this slice of awesome with you guys:

[YT]C4psXPY4GVc[/YT]

 

[JP]

Omg!!

 

[MaskedManJRK]

The Revival is interesting as an alternate take. I'm not one of its die-hard fans. It has some nice things about it (I like its setting for the song "By The Sea" - delightfully morbid). If there's one thing I appreciate about it, it's the intimacy it creates. And the more modern take on the costumes is also refreshing, giving the show a bit of an edge. But stripping down the orchestrations isn't a win for me. So much of what I love about SWEENEY is the incredible complexity of its score. I can tolerate the reorchestrations, but I can never love them.

As far as Cerveris is concerned, I think he's kind of... boring. I never quite connect with him emotionally. I know others adore him, and I do think he's a talented actor, but I'm just not a fan.

LuPone? Well, I love her... but not in the revival. I love her in the concert setting she did (captured on the CD with the New York Philharmonic and on the lovely DVD). In that, she's lively, funny, and as great a Mrs. Lovett as I could ask for. In the revival, she's far too subdued.

I'll be seeing the current revival cast a little later this year, and a different set of performers might make me feel very different about it all. I understand that the show has become a bit more lively with subsequent performers.

Is there any video of the performance? I could only find the condenced version they did for the Tony Awards.

 

[CorpusBlack]

Wow! This movie impressed me. It's been a while since Burton has satisfied me.

 

[luke1234]

yeah it was pretty incredible

 

[The Guard]

I've seen a lot from the back row, but it depends on the makeup used, I guess. I'm not saying you see every little twinkle of the eye, but you can often tell when an actor is emoting subtly if you pay close attention to their performance.

I believe that older actors played younger parts in many shows on Broadway because Broadway, like Hollywood, is very often all about who you "are" and who you know, not just if you're the best for the role. In other words, some stage actors got Broadway jobs they may not neccessarily have been best suited for. There are plenty of younger actors who could have sung and acted those parts in the 70's and 80's (the music is really not that difficult for those who have the range).