At last, my arm is complete again!

[ironymaiden]

i finally saw the film Sweeney Todd. i enjoyed it. i'm looking forward to watching it again with C in tow.

it's a solid adaptation and i think if you have no experience of the play you won't know that there's anything missing.
in the play, the beggar woman is batshit crazy and repulsive. she follows up her melodic begging for alms with explicit and nearly violent offers to prostitute herself. in the film she felt more like a random homeless person. i was much more inclined to pity her, and it reduced the impact of the reveal after her death.

i never liked "Kiss Me", but pulling that scene means that Johanna really does come across as the girl Turpin sees, an ungrateful slut. there's zero development of the Johanna/Anthony relationship, and then we have no Turpin turn at singing "Johanna" to tell us just how creepy he is. the peephole and that thing about the books didn't really cover it for me.

i understand why they pulled out the chorus. but why couldn't we have the Ballad of Sweeney Todd over the credits? AND WHERE WAS THE STEAM WHISTLE? THE STEAM WHISTLE!

the choices made about using CG felt halfassed to me. the opening credits are cartoonish, but so borderline as to look shoddy rather than a choice to do the titles in animation. the closing pool of "blood" looked like nail polish, and just freaking weird after all the practical work that had come before. (my comments on this after viewing led to a discussion of why i know what real jetting blood and spatter looks like. suffices to say i'm a farm girl. they did great work with the stains and spatter.) i wish they had done the work to cut the flow pattern in the floor and adjust the color to brighten the liquid in post-production, since they were desaturating everything anyway. it would have been worth the time and money. or used the CG and the nailpolish texture throughout. whichever.

i appreciated the casting. (oh, for more than a glimpse of Tony Head!) it's delightful to see the stubble on Turpin's cheek and Mrs. Lovett making her choice during "Not While I'm Around". it's good to see more of London, and to step into the "By the Sea" fantasy.

it can't replace the play. (in addition to seeing it live, listening to several cast recordings, and watching more than one video version, i spent a deal of time studying it in a theatre history class. i'm perhaps more entrenched in my relationship with it than most.) it's my Favorite Musical Ever. i doubt anyone could make a film adaptation that would be perfectly satisfying to me, but this one is pretty darn good. i recommend it to anyone who can stomach the throatcutting and indirect cannibalism.

(and what the hell? it's been out for a week and the guy in front of me had no idea it was a musical?)

Comments

[steve98052.livejournal.com]

I think the reason they made the blood look a bit fake was that full realism might have turned off viewers who were there for the music, the drama, the performances, the lovely period look, and so forth. Better they leave fully-realistic gore to the torture-porn genre, I think. The killings should have dramatic effect, not revulsion.

At least that's my haven't-seen-it-on-stage impression. Now I want to see a stage production.

Incidentally, I remember an episode of Judging Amy where the daughter, probably around 10 at the time, was the student in charge of a school play. She guided the group toward the selection of Sweeny Todd for their late elementary school play. That was the first I heard of Sweeny Todd, but I got the point that it was a shocking choice from the reaction of the little girl's mother and grandmother. (And for most of the show's run, she was the cutest kid on television, until she started turning semi-rebellious teen.)

[ironymaiden]

i'm absolutely fine with fake-looking blood. i felt like it was not handled with enough intention, and i wish the application had been consistent throughout the film. it didn't feel like an artistic choice, it felt cobbled together.

i see how i might not have been clear enough in the post. because the choice was made to make the throat cuttings a practical makeup effect, and the stains and spatter so realistic, the CG blood at the end called attention to itself. if *i* was looking to make the violence less jarring, it's the throat cuttings that should have been extra-fake, not the bleeding out.

[steve98052.livejournal.com]

I see what you mean by the inconsistency. I assume that the start titles looked different because it was a different effects crew. That's OK, since titles often have a somewhat different look from the main show. But I see what you mean about the blood at the end.

Also, did your screening have an ad for Sweeny Todd right before the film started, after all the other promotion stuff? We had that, after the Dolby Train, which (if present) is usually the last thing to roll before the film? I don't think I've ever seen an ad for a film run right before the film, except on television.

[ironymaiden]

strange. no, there wasn't an ad for the film. i was amused by the apparent difficulty of matching the film with previews - i wish i had written them down - romantic comedy, romantic comedy, horror...

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

It was silly to start chatting just as you were going out the door...

Actually great to know who to go to for spatter. You have no idea (or perhaps you do) how useful that is.

I never cared much for the Anthony/Johanna relationship, so it was hard for me to miss it in the movie. It did bother me that Anthony was so feminine. I mean, I know he'd be young, but he was as girly as Johanna (M keeps referring to him as the "Scarlett Johanssen" character) which made it difficult for me to believe he'd really stand up to Turpin and the beadle and "steal" his Johanna. I never saw Johanna as a slut, just a young girl who fell for the first guy who was close to her in age and not an incestuous figure.

I think they eliminated both the whistle and the prostitution aspect of the hag so's not to offend the big middle of the country. I can't think of any other reason. I didn't see her as eliminated, but she was significantly changed with that aspect gone. I agree it impacts (negatively) the effect at the end on Sweeney, and alters what our feelings might be about the monster Mrs. Lovett was, who had some part in the crazy woman's downfall (or at least I always saw it that way, she knew who she was, she knew about the poison, she let her be out on the street as a whore instead of doing anything in the shop yadda yadda times is hard and them pussycats is quick.) After all, she was quick enough to sacrifice poor Toby, if she could've, when the going got thick.

I didn't mind the fake blood at the beginning, it was the opening credits. I did mind the fake blood at Sweeney's death. That was just silly.

But the biggest crime in a movie that I pretty much liked (my favorite version is still the one I saw in Toronto oh so many years ago with Len Cariou and Angela Lansbury, but that's probably because I was virgin and had no idea, and I liked Cariou's the best so far for the Operetta) WHERE WAS THE BALLAD DAMMIT.

There was no reason not to give us the ballad over the end credits. M insisted we had to leave, really, there weren't going to be any "extras" or funny bits tacked on. I was still waiting for the damn ballad.

For that holiday thing, M gave the the book with the original 1786 story, which has been fascinating to read (The Pearl Necklace). Completely different. Sweeney is a Villain, out and out. Fascinating.