Sneak peek reax: 'Sweeney Todd' is — hooray! — 'fantastic'
Actually, the Cinefantastiqueonline.com spy who attended a test screening of "Sweeney Todd" on Tuesday night insists that it is "absolutely fantastic, one of the best things Tim Burton has ever directed!" adding, "The movie is pretty much your dream of what it would be, when you first heard that Burton and Johnny Depp would be turning the Stephen Sondheim musical into a movie: it’s a dark, brooding horror-musical-comedy that hits all the right notes."
The spy also gives raves to the supporting perfs that could turn into Oscar noms: Sacha Baron Cohen as a flamboyant rival barber, Alan Rickman as evil Judge Turpin and Timothy Spall as muttonhead Beadle Bamford.
What I find odd about this spy report is that this viewer says this version of "Sweeney" is "clearly a horror movie, the songs notwithstanding . . . . The actor demands that we sympathize and root for Sweeney as he slashes his way through half the throats in London."
Yes, "Sweeney Todd" is a horror tale, but it's also a love story: a man for his departed wife, a man for his daughter, the daughter for a young beau, a pie baker (Helena Bonham Carter) for a psycho barber who fills her pies with meat and heart with song. Those intense yearnings seem to be played down by director Burton, who's renowned for love of gore. So I'm not surprised by this report. In fact, this spy notes, "The blood explodes in only a few scenes of 'Sweeney,' but when it rains, it pours — in unbelievably graphic gouts of gushing red. I can’t remember when or if I ever saw this much red splashed across the screen in a mainstream studio movie."
Still, the gushing seems to be easy to swallow because it's rendered in muted and unrealistic colors. And, besides: "The Sweeney character fits the classic movie monster mold: he does horrible things, but the audience identifies with and even roots for him to dispatch his victims, who more often than not deserve what they get."
If Burton really has played down the romantic longings of the Broadway "Sweeney" to give us more of a dead-on horror flick, that's a perfectly legitimate, revised interpretation, which even I — as a longtime lover of the stage tuner — applaud, if it really works. The minute I heard that Burton was directing a film version with Johnny and Helena, I knew he'd have to reinterpret the whole thing. Johnny and Helena are too cute to be believed as the frumpy, dedraggled misfits of the Broadway show. And if Johnny doesn't have the operatic lungs to belt out this show's lush music with the bravura of original Sweeneys Len Cariou and George Hearn, then viewers will get a different emotional experience no matter how well Johnny manages to muddle through otherwise. I'm not saying viewers would get a lessened experience, just a different one.
What about the singing? It's well known that Depp is no crooner. Director John Waters had to have his singing dubbed in "Cry Baby" back in 1990. But Johnny seems to adequately handle the responsibility that comes with performing the lead role in one of Broadway's greatest musicals — indeed, possibly its greatest — which swept the Tony Awards in 1979.
When polled, "a near unanimous majority of the audience thought Depp and his co-stars passed the test," reports the spy. "Personally, I thought it was clear that neither Depp nor Rickman is a trained Broadway singer, but it doesn’t matter because they put so much acting into the songs that the lyrics become sung dialogue. I’m not saying their voices were off-key or flat, just that you could tell they were not going to throw back their heads and belt out notes that would shatter a champagne glass." READ MORE
Johnny only played guitar in his bands. He was never a "crooner". Tom just said Waters had to have Johnny dubbed for singing. Tom did not say it was because he was so bad (although lacking the necessary vocal versatility to fit a genre isn't normally considered "good" anyway).
Posted by: tat | November 03, 2007 at 05:04 PM
Nancy: I never did say Snape was evil and I am the last person who would ever claim that as I've spent years supporting the character, particularly the past two when everyone thought he was evil as evil can be. I simply said that Snape is "vile, vicious, and creepy" and those are accurate words to describe the way Rickman plays the character. And according to people posting about ST, Rickman plays the Judge as an even more vile, vicious, and creepy character than Snape. Which, given to the fact that I think he should be nominated for playing Snape in Half-Blood Prince in 2008, is saying something. What really everything comes down to this year is how much screen time he has in ST, whether he stands out from the cast, and whether the Academy realizes how worthy of an actor he is. And if he doesn't get nominated this year, I swear to God it ought to be for Snape then for HBP simply because the level of understanding he has for that character and everything he puts into the role is just remarkable. And besides, more critics raved about Rickman's 7 minutes of screen time in Order of the Phoenix than they did of anyone else in the cast, except maybe Imelda Staunton. But I'm digressing. Point being, I'm hoping Rickman gets recognized soon because he has such talent which unfortunately never seems properly utilized. He has said before that his work depends on which scripts come through the mail slot: he has not had many winning films and it would be nice for a big studio film like Sweeney Todd to push him to a new level. That's what happens with Oscars - you get more recognition.
Posted by: Michelle | October 25, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Another person who saw the preview has reported on it in detail in the talkinbroadway chat room. He also is very enthusiastic. For those interested, he reports in great detail on the musical program. Apparently, the songs cut are relatively few. For those interested in this info. in specific detail, I've attached the URL.
Posted by: kern | October 25, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Having seen the original production several times (and the cable version with a better acted Sweeney from George Hearn than Cariou's near-zombie), I have had my doubts about the conception of this film. If Depp actually pulls it off, he'll win the Best Actor Oscar because he's wrong for the part in several ways. Carter perhaps too, she's even more wrong. As there is almost always only one film version of anything, particularly musicals, you'd hope for the most. Burton in the past has been too cute in style for this kind of work. But perhaps....
The thickness of his layering of style might have helped his cast. Alan Rickman - if he can sing, and the judge's songs are difficult - would actually have been more my Sweeney with Meryl Streep as Mrs. Lovett. They could have pulled off all aspects of the work. This is an adult musical and the principals have been through hell.
Of course after the morning makeup calls Depp and Carter were too.
Posted by: Sondheimite | October 25, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Great to hear the praise for this movie. Can't wait to see Johnny in this, and it's wonderful that it is getting Oscar buzz. For the record though, in the comment about Alan Rickman being more evil then Snape, read the 7th Harry Potter book. Snape is not evil. Far from it.
Posted by: Nancy | October 25, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Tom, I hate to nitpick as this is the closest you've come to having anything positive to say about one of my favorite actors, but I have to question your statement that Burton is "nenowned for love of gore." Where exactly is this love of gore evident in his body of work? Just a question.
As I stated, this article is, for you, positively glowing, however I can see you lining up your arrows in the subtext. As you have yet to see Sweeney Todd, surely I'm mistaken. Surely you wouldn't be planning your attack before you've seen the film yourself. Creating a list of imagined failings and then seeing those failings in the film whether they exist or not would be bad journalism, wouldn't it? Perpetuating a rumor that has been repeatedly denied by the parties involved for 17years is a bit sloppy, but who has time to fact-check such piddly details? And at the expense of such a good snark, who would? No you.
I hope you love Sweeney Todd because if you do I have the feeling it will be against your will, and there is some sweet revenge in that for me.
Posted by: Sandra M | October 24, 2007 at 10:37 PM
I also attended this screening Tuesday night and the report Tom refers to is pretty accurate. I, for one, thought Depp's singing was fantastic because the emotion behind the singing was so intense. Yes, the love story of Barker is a key factor in the film as well as being the driving force behind Todd's actions. I didn't see this film as a horror movie as apparently the person that wrote the piece Tom refers to did. It's a a psychological thriller tragedy set to music. I guess the amount of blood is why some will refer to it as horror. I'm not a horror fan myself, and even though the blood flowed freely, it fit with what was happening and often had strong dramatic effect. The Depp/Carter pairing is great and they're a treat to watch together. I have to disagree with the one person that said that this was a similar portrayal to Edward Scissorhands/Capt. Jack Sparrow. I just don't see the connection----Sweeney is a man who's been victimized and through his desire for revenge has gone insane. I don't see that in either Edward or Capt. Jack.
Posted by: CalGal | October 24, 2007 at 10:28 PM
"What about the singing? It's well known that Depp is no crooner. Director John Waters had to have his singing dubbed in "Cry Baby" back in 1990."
Tom, why are you persisting in this lie after you were repeatedly corrected in the previous Sweeney item? Johnny was dubbed to fit the style of the film, not because of the quality of his voice. John Waters has repeatedly said so. You're as bad about Depp as Wells is about Peter Jackson.
Posted by: Marshall | October 24, 2007 at 09:55 PM
I've read all about it. Can't wait to see it. Once again I'm sure it has to be really awesome. Johnny Depp & Tim Burton are like magic, when it comes to movies. Depp would be absolutley great an anything he does. Burton is also a great director.
Posted by: Ann Hall | October 24, 2007 at 07:15 PM
Snape, Snape, Severus Snape. DUMBLEDORE! Ron Ron Ron weasly. hehe. I'm so happy, I'm ecstatic!
Posted by: AJ | October 24, 2007 at 04:07 PM
Nice to hear you may have finally come around, Tom! Thank you for such a glowing report this time on Depp. I know its difficult for you, so I sincerely thank you. For the record, Johnny is a "crooner", had a band, and John Waters did not "have" to have Depp's voice dubbed, he just decided on another vocal for Cry Baby and has said repeatedly that Johnny can sing. But hey, whose being picky? Overall, I'm proud of you!!
Posted by: Lora | October 24, 2007 at 03:01 PM
Finally, this website showing some love for this movie. I've been saying, it's the dark horse for the Oscars, over such glossy flicks as American Gangster or Charlie Wilson's War. And please, people, honor Alan Rickman with a nomination!!! Seriously. Word has it he's more vile, more vicious, and even creepier than Snape ... and that's saying something.
Posted by: Michelle | October 24, 2007 at 02:44 PM
I don't believe Tim Burton is renowned for gore. When has he used it previously except in the relatively bloodless beheadings in SLEEPY HOLLOW?
As for calling SWEENEY TODD a horror film, I am not a fan of trying to evade the genre label out of embarrassment. I also called the movie a "horror-musical-comedy."
Regarding emotional underpinning, that is played up very strongly - it is what motivates the violence and makes it palatable to the viewer.
However, it is a stretch to called SWEENEY TODD a love story. By the time we meet Sweeney, he is a bitter, vengeful man whose better nature has long since been destroyed. All that is left of his love for his wife and his daughter is a desire for revenge. The movie captures this perfectly.
Posted by: Steve Biodrowski | October 24, 2007 at 02:36 PM