SubscribeOscars 2008: So what if Johnny Depp can't sing?
That does it! This time it can't be, oops, an accidental oversight. The omission of Johnny Depp singing in a trailer previewing the film adaptation of the Broadway musical "Sweeney Todd" was suspicious enough when the first trailer came out. Gossipmeisters buzzed: Ha! I knew it! Johnny can't sing. This film's gonna be a flop! What the heck was director Tim Burton thinking casting Johnny in the first place?! Desperate to do damage control after that scuttlebutt made the rounds, studio reps chimed in: No, no! The movie's great! Just wait and see.
But now another trailer is out and, again, Johnny ain't crooning. What gives?
Composer Stephen Sondheim, who has seen it, says not to worry. It's great (and he doesn't have to be diplomatic — Sondheim's a notorious crank), but adds a curious warning.
"It's not the Broadway show," he told Roger Friedman of FoxNews.com. "It's only an hour and 45 minutes. A lot of the score has been cut. They've made it its own thing. You have to go in knowing that. But what they've done is great."
OK, OK, but Johnny still has to sing some tunes. Uh-oh! Inevitable disaster ahead?
Perhaps not. Such terror is what kept Rex Harrison locked in his dressing room in the Shubert Theater in New Haven, Conn., in 1955 when "My Fair Lady" was first set to go before a try-out audience. Harrison had never before sung in public — for good reason. He couldn't carry a tune. What were Lerner and Lowe thinking when they cast him in the lead of a musical planned for Broadway? It was a miracle the stage show finally opened in New Haven that night. When Harrison locked himself up, everything seemed so hopeless that the cast, crew and orchestra were given permission to disperse. Later, when Harrison begrudgingly opened the door an hour before curtain time, stage managers went berserk trying to round up the troupe. The show, alas, went on and became a classic hit.
Here is Harrison, ahem, "singing" "I'm an Ordinary Man" from "My Fair Lady":
Harrison went on to win the Tony Award for best actor, "My Fair Lady" won best musical and the production became the longest-running show in Broadway history (a distinction today held by "Phantom of the Opera"). When the show was adapted for celluloid, Harrison and "Lady" claimed the Oscars for best actor and picture next. Today Harrison is one of only eight stars to win an Academy Award for a Tony-winning role. The others: Jack Albertson ("The Subject Was Roses"), Anne Bancroft ("The Miracle Worker"), Shirley Booth ("Come Back, Little Sheba"), Yul Brenner ("The King and I"), Jose Ferrer ("Cyrano de Bergerac"), Joel Grey ("Cabaret") and Paul Scofield ("A Man for All Seasons"). Technically, there are nine, but Lila Kedrova won her Oscar first for "Zorba the Greek," then the Tony.
It's fun to wonder if Harrison might've pulled off the same triumph earlier in his career with "The King and I." After starring opposite Irene Dunne in the all-drama, no-songs "Anna and the King of Siam" in 1946 (nominated for five Oscars, it won two — I personally own William S. Darling's statuette for best set decoration), he was offered the lead in the musical version, "The King and I," but refused because he admitted that he couldn't croon.
"Sweeney Todd" won Tonys for best musical and actor in 1979, but Len Cariou had the lead male role. No one has an inkling of how Johnny Depp may do in the part now. We do know that he was so hopeless as a singer in 1990 that director John Waters had Depp's singing dubbed in "Cry Baby." But "Sweeney" director Burton hasn't pulled a Marni Nixon — Johnny bravely tackles the job himself. And good thing. After Audrey Hepburn swiped the Eliza role from stage sensation Julie Andrews (who lost the Tony Award to Judy Holliday in "Bells Are Ringing") and didn't do the singing (Marni Nixon secretly subbed, just as she did for Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Deborah Kerr in "The King and I"), Oscar voters refused to nominate Hepburn even though she portrayed the fair lady in the title of the film that won best picture.
But perhaps we "Sweeney Todd" fans shouldn't worry much, given how successful Harrison was in "My Fair Lady."
Looking back on the earliest stage days of "My Fair Lady," Julie Andrews once recalled that Harrison was "very, very demanding and selfish because he was scared to death because he had never sung before . . . . He couldn't sing, but he had an innate musicality which enabled him to kind of do a sing-speak sound, which was great and exactly right because it blended straight out of dialogue into song."
So let's be optimistic and assume that maybe Depp can do the same sing-speak thing if he can't carry the actual musical notes. But even if he can meet the musical challenge, we must still wonder about something else.
If Sondheim has seen the movie, then it's finished. Why hasn't anyone else? At this point on the calendar, some "long lead" journalists usually get to view December releases — critics who write for monthly magazines.
Why is DreamWorks hiding "Sweeney"? Because there's a problem with it that needs hiding? Or because the studio got stung last year by feeding early, extravagant expectations over another classic-Broadway-musical-turned-celluloid, "Dreamgirls," and now wants to keep the lid on this one as long as possible?
Anyone think maybe the singing has mostly been left off the trailers to get people talking? What better way to get folks in the theater? Frankly it's a relief to see a trailer that doesn't reveal every secret a film has to offer--maybe we stand a chance of experiencing something fresh when we finally get to the movie instead of thinking, "oh, I saw that 50 times on the TV trailer." Also, I wish these "writers" would figure out that the more they bitch about things--especially enviable things--the more they reveal about themselves, and it ain't pretty. Now if I could just learn to ignore them.
Posted by: Donna Matrix | November 03, 2007 at 01:54 PM
I attended a screening of Sweeney Todd last night at Universal. This movie is amazing....Johnny's singing far exceeded my expectations. Helena Bohnam Carter was excellent as was the rest of the cast. The screening was for approx 40 people and 99% of us loved the movie and were quite pleased at the ratio of singing to speaking (75% singing, 25% speaking). It is completely faithful to the play and is only missing two of the original songs. It's a perfect running time of 1hr and 50 mins. Extremely gory but it's done over the top for dramatic effect.
Posted by: wamber21 | October 24, 2007 at 09:48 PM
Agreed with those who would like Tom O'Neil to go YouTube the first trailer again. Depp *CLEARLY* breaks into song. Yes, part of the "singing" is speak-singing, but then you do get the "vengeance" and "salvation" bit and he is SINGING. And ask any expert on Sweeney Todd the stage production, the way Depp sings that bit of the song, it matches very well with other previous Sweeneys. Do your homework.
PS- Also agreed on Dreamgirls: Dreamgirls didn't fail at the Oscars because it was overhyped - it failed because it just wasn't a brilliant film. It was definitely lacking, definitely pretentious, and only had good acting from Jamie Foxx and Jeniffer Hudson to keep it floating. The characterization of other roles was shallow and superficial. Beyonce was overhyped, and I thought Eddie Murphy wasn't anything special. So his character does drugs and dies young, oooh, dramatic and Oscar-worthy. Eddie Murphy's nomination for Best Supporting was just as weak as Mark Wahlberg's. I think it's laughable that those two can be nominated yet Alan Rickman still hasn't been nominated.
Hopefully Rickman will get some notice this year from the Academy! If not, then I'm still pulling for a mind-blowing, genre-ignoring nomination for him for Snape for HBP in 2008.
Posted by: Michelle | October 24, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Big differences between My Fair Lady and Sweeney Todd! For one thing, there is a hell of a lot more dialogue in Lady. Sweeney is about the music as much as the acting. It's Sondheim man! I, for one, think Depp doesn't have the gravitas for this role. Rickman will eat him alive. And, I think Bonham- Carter will be the standout!
Posted by: Miochelle | October 23, 2007 at 08:32 PM
"We do know that he was so hopeless as a singer in 1990 that director John Waters had Depp's singing dubbed in "Cry Baby." "
Um, no. Johnny's singing was great, it was just the wrong style of singing for that film, that's all.
Anyway, Sondheim says he does really well, so I'm going to go along with that.
Posted by: Lassoon | October 23, 2007 at 02:17 PM
Jennifer Hudson was about 3 months old when Dreamgirls opened on Broadway.
Posted by: JohnM | October 23, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Who really cares how well Johnny Depp or Helena Bonham Carter sing? The "music" in Sweeney Tood is god-awful, anyway. Just rambling on, without so much as a melody line. Comparisons to My Fair Lady, West Side Story or The King and I, are pointless, as they are filled with songs that require singers. The only reason that singers were required for Sweeney Todd on s age, is because there is so much singing, and a non-singer would never be able to maintain 8 performances a week. Not an issue with a film, particularly one where much of the "music" has been cut!
Posted by: JohnM | October 23, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Mr O'Neil,
I am an Argentinian journalist and writer and last September I attended the Tim Burton's Awards Ceremony at the Venice Film Festival, where a footage of Sweeney Todd was presented, as well. I must say that I was totally impressed by Johnny Depp's acting (even when I consider him one of the greatest actors) his performance at ST was just magnificent. And particularly his singing was absolutely fantastic, GREAT. I also had the opportunity of meeting him and talk to him, and I can say that he is not only a very talented man but truly a very nice and humble person. If I were you, I would consider re-writing this whole article again...!
Posted by: Andreinna | October 23, 2007 at 07:46 AM
Mr. O'Neil,
Obviously marketing has been carefully planned for Sweeney Todd. So much controversy surrounding a trailer? You must sideline for their marketing dept. If so, I really do appreciate your article. I believe once the initial scuttle dies down, "long-lead" journalists will be allowed pre-release viewing. Don't you agree?
Common sense tells us that covetous Depp followers will only view ST to pitiously try and fulfill a lifelong aspiration to belittle Mr. Depp. However, Johnny's Fans, otherwise inquisitive goremongers and eccentric geniuses will see the film because he sings in it. I'm sure his agent knows some will be drawn to Sweeney simply because it could be the debut of Johnny's singing career - or not. I know he can sing. The perfection of his initial sonant performance will only be criticized by those that are paid for negative hype or have nothing better to do with their time.
Johnny Depp has a genuine humble attitude that allows him to grow continually. He is pure creative genius.
Posted by: Tessa | October 22, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Actually, Johnny Depp was going to sing in 1990 in the movie Cry Baby. The reason John Waters didn't have him really sing was because no one else in the movie was going to sing themselves, therefore John Waters did not want to have an unbalance between who's lip singing and whos not.
This is said by John Waters himself in the special features on the Cry Baby DvD.
Posted by: Ariel Sepulveda | October 22, 2007 at 07:58 PM
While I suspect that Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter aren't going to be great at singing, I think the main reason they are hiding the musical aspects is so they can trick the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp fanboys who recoil at the mere thought of a musical into going to the movie. If you think about it, it makes sense because anyone who would come to see Sweeney Todd because it was a musical already knows its a musical so the trailer doesn't have to focus on that aspect of the movie. To be honest, with the exception of Hairspray, these sort of "non-musical" musical movie trailers are quite common (see Chicago, Moulin Rouge!, Rent, etc.). Oftentimes, that treatment makes sense because its often weird and off-putting to see a song from a musical out of context in a 2 minute trailer. What I found most interesting was that there was absolutely no mention of Sondheim in either trailer. That was what made me realize they were trying to hide the musical aspects of the film
To those of us who follow movie releases and stuff it seems bizarre that people wouldn't realize Sweeney Todd is a musical, but I bet there are plenty 16 year old boys who will see this preview and think "AWESOME! Johnny Depp, Tim Burton, and LOTS OF BLOOD!" and not realize that this is an adaptation of an almost operatic Sondheim musical.
Finaly, it has nothing to do with being burned by Dreamgirls, which lost the Oscar nom because it was bad and overhyped, not because it was a musical. If people had see Dreamgirls earlier in the Oscar season, no one would have been predicting it for Oscar noms.
Posted by: chasgoose | October 22, 2007 at 09:42 AM
actually there is a new trailer you can find it on reelzchannel.com that has johnny singing in it and he does have sort of an anguished rock voice which is sexy.
Posted by: artfreak | October 22, 2007 at 09:12 AM
We all know Johnny can do no right by you! You have a deeply personal problem against Johnny for some unknown reason. You obviously are prejudice against this man that stems from envy. You have never had a kind word to say about this very humble, sweet, and talented man. You even criticized his acceptance speech on last years People's Choice Awards! Pathetic! Johnny did sing in the first trailer so you might want to do your simple job and research for 2 seconds before spreading lies!
Posted by: Lora | October 22, 2007 at 08:36 AM
I thought Atonement was this year's Dreamgirls :) I'm sure they're just not showing Johnny singing because they're worried that some male fans might be turned off if they know it's a musical ala Phantom a few years back.
Posted by: Edward Douglas | October 22, 2007 at 05:05 AM
If Sondheim says it is great, I'll trust his word on it. From what I recall from earlier press reports, before filming began, Johnny had to audition for Sondheim. Whether Johnny sings or talk-sings like Harrison, I have no doubt he is going to be brilliant.
Posted by: Cindy | October 22, 2007 at 03:55 AM
Maybe there should be an Oscar for courage regarding the choices an actor makes.
Certainly Depp would have won at least 15 of them, had this one existed for the last 20 years.
Instead, and maybe even better, Depp has been granted with maybe the highest possible honour the Academy can give to an actor who is not into the Faustian sell-out of his integrity to Hollywood: "the NO Oscar For Refusing To Walk On The Leish".
Year after year.
Posted by: Merlot | October 22, 2007 at 03:08 AM
Oh I think I can remember really well that Johnny is singing a bit in the first trailer and it sounds great. I mean, ok it's just a bit but a very good one.
And Johanna's sister is totally right. Yeah right another die hard JD fan.
Posted by: Marlene | October 22, 2007 at 02:26 AM
Dear Tom, you still can't get over the Dreamgirls debacle haven't you? I hope your "Dreamgirls" for this year, Charlie Wilson's War would implode spectacularly and get zero! nominations come January!
Posted by: David | October 22, 2007 at 12:24 AM
Wait, what if this is all a ploy? What if all this Johnny can't sing will actually win him his Oscar? Just stay with me on this for a sec. I think that Johnny can sing and the whole reason there is no singing in the trailer is all anticipation and also, Oscars. Its better to be under hyped than over hyped (see Dreamgirls last year...) and Johnny will have a better chance to get nominated and win if people who watch the movie first are blown away by his singing rather than have bits and parts in the trailer. I think this is one of the smartest marketing ploys so far this Oscar year...
Posted by: Mike B. | October 21, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Uh, "I WILL HAVE VENGEANCE, I WILL HAVE SALVAAAAAAATION!!!' Ring a bell? I'm really really embarrased for you Tom. Watch it again, then maybe issue a correction to this whole article?
Posted by: Marshall | October 21, 2007 at 10:54 PM
"But now another trailer is out and, again, Johnny ain't crooning. What gives?"
It's because they are going to make several non-teaser trailers that are going to focus on one part of the movie, this particular one (which I don't think they were meant to leak) is focused on the bloody, revenge-y part of the Sweeney Todd story, one of the next ones are going to focus on the musical part of the story.
*breathes*
Posted by: Courteney | October 21, 2007 at 10:27 PM
Tom maybe you need to rent Sweeney Todd again and compare the part where Depp sings to Cariou's singing the same part. They are pretty much the same except Depp conveys the madness better than Cariou. Funny how you're so quick to expect the worst from Depp when you haven't seen anymore than a trailer. Stop your speculating and wait until the film comes out. Of course, you've already made up your mind, so I guess it doesn't really matter.
Posted by: CalGal | October 21, 2007 at 08:22 PM
"Why is DreamWorks hiding "Sweeney"?"
Well look at all the films that weren't hidden. Margot at the Wedding, horrible reviews. Elizabeth the Golden Age, horrible reviews. Evening (remember that one), horrible reviews. etc
Posted by: AJ | October 21, 2007 at 07:46 PM
To andrew:
Short answer yes, long answer no. Yes, Jennifer Hudson did win an Oscar for playing a role for which someone won a Tony award. However, the actors and actresses mentioned in that list each won both the Tony and Oscar for the playing the same role on stage and in film. Hudson has not won a Tony award.
Posted by: Conor | October 21, 2007 at 06:59 PM
He does NOT sing on either of these trailers. He kinda pulls a Rex Harrison talky type thing on Trailer #1, but he certainly does not SING.
After you gobble your own crow, you might try a side order of Mrs. Lovett's meat pies. You'll LUV 'EM!
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | October 21, 2007 at 06:54 PM