Sondheim Sucks!

I actually found the non-musical bits of Forum reminiscent of bad Mel Brooks (like "History of the World Part 1"). Lots of potentially funny gags shot with no clue that something called "comedic timing" even exists. What makes "Blazing Saddles" and "Young Frankenstein" so funny is not just that the material is better, but that they were timed and edited beatifully.

First of all, I can certainly blame Sondheim for at least part of why I didn't like the movie (at least the first half hour until I turned it off) since I hated 2 of the first 3 songs.

Also, like I said, I'm married to a Sondheim fan, who also used to work in theatre. She plays audio tapes and sing his songs and I can really say that as far as Musical Theatre goes, I really don't like his music. I find his lyrics pointless and his music almost non-existent. For musicals, I really like Rodgers & Hammerstein, My Fair Lady, Mary Poppins, etc. The better songs in those musicals seem like they could have been great songs on their own, whereas the majority of Sondheim songs remind me more of opera - just the plot moving forward with rhyme and melody.

Just my 2 cents.

How can you say that one cannot get a sense of Sondheim's work because most of it has not been filmed? You're only naming the ones that had film "adaptations" made.

Many of his shows have been preserved in a filmed version of their original Broadway versions filmed in the theatre so a viewer can get a sense of exactly how Sondheim (and his collaborators) meant for it to be presented on the stage and not after various screenwriters and adapters have changed and cut up the narrative and song selection and order and settings to turn it into a film. Looking right here on IMDB you can see that such versions exist of 'Passion', 'Into the Woods', 'A Little Night Music' (onstage as well as the crappy filmed adaptation from the 70's), 'Sunday in the Park with George' (his finest), and 'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street'.

Sweeney Todd will probably not work as a film -- it works in the theatre because all the gore is obviously not real and it's up there a hundred feet away on the stage. How are we going to react when it is going to look very real indeed and is in close-up on a 40 foot-high movie screen? It becomes a very different show.

Indeed you are right about it being a very different show. But as for "probably not work[ing] as a film --" I hope you've changed your mind now that you've seen it. I am a longtime singer and live theater fan...and I loved the movie for many reasons.

Regarding the gore - Sweeney ranks pretty low on the "gee this looks real and it scares me" meter.

Regarding Depp's Sweeney: In my opinion, he blows to hell all the operatic, puffed-up baritones with 10-mile-wide, forced vibrato I've heard in various Broadway performances (including, sadly, the 2005 revival). Same with the Mrs. Lovett characters (Jayzus Patti, do you have to *beep* scream??). I know that live theater has to be ramped up, but geez, we're all in the same room. And you're mic'ed, for godsake. Relax.

Depp and Bonham-Carter are untrained, sure - but that's what makes his Sweeney and her Lovett so tragic and believable. They sing - as well as act - like real people. (Not to mention he's gorgeous.) There's no division between the singer and actor, which really seems to work for non-theater-going audiences.

Then again, I've always had differing opinions on what makes good singing than my opera-singer friends. If the singing complements the story, and doesn't get in its way, it's good. One bad example was the Johanna character in the movie. When I first heard the opening notes of "Green Finch and Linnet Bird," I though, "Wow, beautiful! Bel canto for sure." Then she sang a long note, and I cringed as I heard heavy, warbling vibrato in a 17-year-old voice distorting the pitch all to hell & back. Wrong. Lazy. Bad form.

Didn't mean to turn this into a movie review..but there it is. Back to Sondheim sucking.

I'm not sure if you're referring to ME as mister "i hate musicals," but I certainly like them as much as the next guy. No, I don't get out to the theatre as often as I'd like, but a job and kids will do that. Anyways, I was referring to the SONGS, not the production, and I think I can judge the songs pretty well whether I hear them on stage, in a movie, or on an audio recording. And as for my overall opinion of Sondheim's songwriting, see the title of this thread :-)

And as I said before, I know a lot of people really like him, and I can respect that, but my opinion stands unchanged.

It's pointless to base any opinion on musicals, or Sondheim, on this movie, since as many have pointed out, this movie is a terrible representation of a Sondheim show as it has cut so many of the songs. This thread never should've been started--its entire premise is false.

Weird that Sondheim is not credited on IMDB for this movie.

Feel free to start one; I can take it :)

[deleted]

"Webber makes musicals for the masses, I equated him to the Michael Bay of musicals"

Beautifully said. Equally talentless. Really sounds like something I could have said! But Sondheim definately does have plenty of melody, catchy even sometimes (look at Sweeney, Forum, Company etc.) and he even tends to develop it contrapuntically, harmonically and greatly.

"Weber makes musicals for the masses, I equated him to the Michael Bay of musicals."

I'm no fan of Andrew Lloyd Webber, but that is a major insult that I don't think even he deserves.