Do most people prefer the stage musical? - Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) Discussion

[–] emmy_goes_rawr07 10 years ago

I've seen both the stage musical and the movie and I personally like the movie better. The stage musical is really good and everyone has so much talent, but I definitely prefer the movie. The music sounds better to me and I think this film was much darker. That's just me though.

SPOILER

I also love Alan Rickman to death (no pun intended).

reply

[–] Sauvage_98 10 years ago

What? I prefer the masterful movie over the stage musical.

Burton usually tinkers too much in his adaptations and adds Burton touches.

And that's a good, creative thing. There would be no point in adapting existing material without adding his special touches.

http://goo.gl/fUEnI9

reply

[–] emmy_goes_rawr07 10 years ago

Agreed. ^

reply

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

I think a lot of people here have compared the film to the 1982 tour video (since there's talk of which performance was better, which was darker, etc.) but I'd rather look at the film as it exists versus the material from the stage version (of which I have seen many productions with varying talent/design/direction/etc.) to compare.

While I like what Tim Burton did with the film a lot, I much prefer the stage version for it's fuller score, use of Greek chorus, and deeper exploration of all the characters. (Again, this is not to say I necessarily prefer the 1982 touring video over the movie, just the stage version as it exists on paper.)

reply

[–] General_Electric 10 years ago

I much prefer the stage musical. There are so many comedic moments written into the show that Burton either completely misdirected or just failed to understand completely. The role of Mrs Lovett was absolutely butchered by Helena Bonham Carter as well, and I'm not speaking ironically. I think the movie is just awful.

reply

[–] Sauvage_98 10 years ago

What's the point in having comedy in a movie with a story like this? It would just ruin the whole theme. There's a couple of funny moments and that's it. That's how it should be. Burton understood the material so well and that's why he cut it.

Helena played the role perfectly and made it her own. This movie could not have been any better.

http://goo.gl/NA95XH

reply

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

Because both stage plays that came before this film were black comedies. They were designed to find the humor in the darkness of these characters and their situations. That's why a song like "A Little Priest" is filled with puns on what people might taste like if baked into pies. That song is the epitome of where the comedy comes from in this show. The audience should be grossed out more that they are laughing with these psychopathic cannibals than at the jokes themselves. That's the power of that song, and of the rest of the humor that's strategically place throughout the show.

reply

[–] wendycscott9 8 years ago

Well, just in case anyone would like to see the stage musical, it's running this weekend in Modesto (2/12 and 2/14) and next weekend in Fresno, California (2/20). I'm singing in the chorus, and I think our version is stunning. We have fabulous lead singers and the chorus is excellent, too. The director is staging it as if the chorus is a big family gathering for a once-a-year reunion where they act out the story of Sweeney Todd as a cautionary tale demonstrating the evils of revenge. If anyone is in the area, it would be worth your while to see it if only to compare it to the movie. Here is more information: https://townsendopera.com/ and http://fresnograndopera.org/.

reply

[–] Mhjm6 10 years ago

I prefer the movie because the movie just does the job of telling the story more creatively than on stage and as good as it is on both, for instance, in the movie the killings are somewhat different every time regarding his razor, plus the movie sums it up better to me. Even though the puns from A Little Priest are "cut."

reply

[–] BestOfAllPossible 10 years ago

Remember that while a film includes all elements (design, direction, performance) as a packaged whole, it's not the same on stage. There's no hard and fast rule as to how the killing should be handled, how to perform the songs, etc. You're comparing to one production.

In the recent Broadway revival, for example, when a victim was killed there was no slicing effect. They were handed a blood soaked lab coat while other cast members poured blood from one bucket into another. Very creepy in person, I can assure you. For the Judge's death in particular, after the music stopped there was only the sound of blood dripping from the buckets for a moment before Tod started singing again.

The recent London revival was set in the 1930s, a concept I wasn't terribly keen on until I saw it and was totally won over.

I've heard of other productions that do much more blood effect than even the movie did.

So, when comparing the film to one video of one performance from the tour of one production isn't the same as comparing the film to the stage version.

reply

[–] rneil95 10 years ago

I like the movie a lot, but I generally prefer the stage musical. It's hard to properly compare the two until you've actually seen a production of "Sweeney Todd" live on stage, but it's an absolutely incredible experience when done well. The movie definitely has merit, but the stage musical is just an incredibly special experience.

I don't read the script. The script reads me.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joegerardi-1 10 years ago

Stage musical, definitely. Neither lead had the vocal chops to handle the material, that that simply destroyed it for me.

Additionally, I don't think Tim Burton really got the story. Whilst it's dark and creepy, it's about loss, a very strange form of redemption, and ultimately, again, loss.

..Joe

reply

[–] StrongRex (1297) 2 years ago

How is it a redemption story? I don’t see any character, least of all the lead, changing for the better.

reply