I actually really liked Burton's direction. Every actor gave me their soul through their performances which is always a credit to the director, in comparison to where just one actor shines.
This movie just really hit me with all of its emotion and I really loved all aspects of it. To me the lifelessness of London seemed to signify all the things that Mr. Depp sang about. I can understand how this could be underwhelming if you didn't see this the same way, though. Very subjective.
Sweeney Todd
I suppose. We'll have to agree to disagree on the direction on this one.
Two prime examples of this are: Todd singing about his knives, a great song which is expressed by a pretty bland three minutes of Johnny Depp standing there, staring at his hand.
And then the little kid doing the hair tonic song. IMO, he should have been moving around and maybe looking like he was doin' a little jig, or at least living up his product. But again, just standing there, looking pretty uninterested.
I won't say it was bad, though. Certainly got better as it went along.
Two prime examples of this are: Todd singing about his knives, a great song which is expressed by a pretty bland three minutes of Johnny Depp standing there, staring at his hand.
And then the little kid doing the hair tonic song. IMO, he should have been moving around and maybe looking like he was doin' a little jig, or at least living up his product. But again, just standing there, looking pretty uninterested.
I won't say it was bad, though. Certainly got better as it went along.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Phtaghn!
-
WiizerFanboy
- I love Sony, because Q says so
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:48 pm
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Maul doesn't know how to express insanity in a character like Sweeney...
IMO Depp did a fantastic job showing Sweeney's insanity, especially when he was singing "My Friends"...
But yeah...As for the ending...It was a good ending. Better than the live version's ending seeing as they tried to drag the ending out a lot more...Doesn't show any more of what happened to Johanna, but if you must know, Johanna most likely lived a happy lil' life after testifying that Sweeney was responsible for quite a few deaths. Both of her captors were dead after all...
She also probably never learned that her mother became a crazy beggar or that her father became an insane serial killer... Aside from that it's all really left up to the audience to fill in the ending...That's really the kind of story it is, but also the story's not super focused on Johanna either if you noticed. The musical did make it much clearer that the story was solely focused on Sweeney Todd's story, and it didn't really want to tell much about anyone else.
IMO Depp did a fantastic job showing Sweeney's insanity, especially when he was singing "My Friends"...
But yeah...As for the ending...It was a good ending. Better than the live version's ending seeing as they tried to drag the ending out a lot more...Doesn't show any more of what happened to Johanna, but if you must know, Johanna most likely lived a happy lil' life after testifying that Sweeney was responsible for quite a few deaths. Both of her captors were dead after all...
She also probably never learned that her mother became a crazy beggar or that her father became an insane serial killer... Aside from that it's all really left up to the audience to fill in the ending...That's really the kind of story it is, but also the story's not super focused on Johanna either if you noticed. The musical did make it much clearer that the story was solely focused on Sweeney Todd's story, and it didn't really want to tell much about anyone else.
Nah, he was adequately crazy. I'm talking about motion, about energy, about doing a musical with a little bit of pizaz. I dunno man, I just think that blocking and motion could have used some work.
All I do know for sure is that my mom fell asleep while we were watching it, so engrossed, she wasn't. At least not at first, she woke up after the false Italian was introduced.
And I know that Johanna wasn't the core character, but she was a pretty pivotal piece. I mean, she's the focus of, or the singer of, three or four of the songs, which are repeated throughout the movie. I don't need a lot, but maybe a shot of her and the sailor kid running away in the street, hand in hand.
Seems pretty incomplete to just leave her cringing in a bloodied barber chair. If the characters aren't given any resolve, then why go through the trouble of building up hers and the boys characters?
It'd be like ending V for Vendetta on the shot of V's body blowing up, without the closing lines from Natlie Portman. Yeah, its not a definitive ending, but as part of the ensemble, a hint of the characters well being and possible future moves is integral to the telling of the stoy.
All I do know for sure is that my mom fell asleep while we were watching it, so engrossed, she wasn't. At least not at first, she woke up after the false Italian was introduced.
And I know that Johanna wasn't the core character, but she was a pretty pivotal piece. I mean, she's the focus of, or the singer of, three or four of the songs, which are repeated throughout the movie. I don't need a lot, but maybe a shot of her and the sailor kid running away in the street, hand in hand.
Seems pretty incomplete to just leave her cringing in a bloodied barber chair. If the characters aren't given any resolve, then why go through the trouble of building up hers and the boys characters?
It'd be like ending V for Vendetta on the shot of V's body blowing up, without the closing lines from Natlie Portman. Yeah, its not a definitive ending, but as part of the ensemble, a hint of the characters well being and possible future moves is integral to the telling of the stoy.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Phtaghn!
Well in V for Vendetta Portman's character was actually the lead, with V being the second lead. Interesting stuff isn't it? But there was no reason to put resolve in Johanna's story because she's actually an extremely minor character, as well as the sailor. They're only purpose in the story was to create conflict. And I already gave you a summary of what the story was hinting at with what would happen with them...
But I don't think you could put any more motion into the film without it being extremely overly-dramatic. The live musical that I watched actually seemed to have that problem. George Hearn made Sweeney into a character that constantly yelled and ran around randomly. If you want more closure on Johanna then find the musical and watch it on Youtube...I'd recommend George Hearn's performance since that's the one most people refer to when they say the musical. Len Cariou might be a good one to look into as well since it sounds like he might be closer to a median between the points you and I look for in the character, but I haven't looked into his performance yet...
I do warn you, however, that if you watch the version of the Musical I saw...Johanna's singing could very well rip your eardrums open, cause them to be inhaled into a vortex in your skull, then shoot out your eye sockets. I know they need to be loud when they're on stage but good fucking God! The pain my ears went through when she was singing...
Oh yeah...and Hearn likes to be loud at moments that should be quiet too...But he won't make your ears hurt at least...Overall the story's the same, with a few key differences at several points. The ending might give you some more closure on what happens with Johanna and Anthony...but it's gonna raise more questions than the movie's ending did I can almost guarantee...
But I don't think you could put any more motion into the film without it being extremely overly-dramatic. The live musical that I watched actually seemed to have that problem. George Hearn made Sweeney into a character that constantly yelled and ran around randomly. If you want more closure on Johanna then find the musical and watch it on Youtube...I'd recommend George Hearn's performance since that's the one most people refer to when they say the musical. Len Cariou might be a good one to look into as well since it sounds like he might be closer to a median between the points you and I look for in the character, but I haven't looked into his performance yet...
I do warn you, however, that if you watch the version of the Musical I saw...Johanna's singing could very well rip your eardrums open, cause them to be inhaled into a vortex in your skull, then shoot out your eye sockets. I know they need to be loud when they're on stage but good fucking God! The pain my ears went through when she was singing...
Oh yeah...and Hearn likes to be loud at moments that should be quiet too...But he won't make your ears hurt at least...Overall the story's the same, with a few key differences at several points. The ending might give you some more closure on what happens with Johanna and Anthony...but it's gonna raise more questions than the movie's ending did I can almost guarantee...
"But I don't think you could put any more motion into the film without it being extremely overly-dramatic. The live musical that I watched actually seemed to have that problem. "
Maybe that's where our opinions on the matter diverge here. I've always been told I'm a good actor, but when I try out for plays, my stuff doesn't seem to work. I'm a screen actor, not a stage actor. The two types of performances and blocking simply don't mesh.
Drama, since you don't have close ups and alternate camera angles, nor so many other tools of subtlety, relies upon large, sweeping motion, kinetic energy, and a manner of speaking, using the body to convey emotion along with the words. Its just not typically needed in film.
Its why 30's film seems so hokey, the actors in the old talkies were trained as classical stage actors, so their dialog is all over-emoted and unnatural.
This might SEEM like an arguement for the downplayed acting in Sweeny Todd, but to me, it still doesn't work as is for the quieter establishing moments. The script was originally written for the stage, and its mode of communication and music were created in a way that needs the emotive and melodrama of a stage actor. Johnny Depp's performance was top notch as always, but were he on stage, it would be much different, and much more fitting of the piece.
...take West Side Story for the most notable example. The idea of singing, dancing gang members is ridiculous. But it works because it is a musical way of telling a story, a representation of a life that admittedly isn't being shown in a realistic fashion. The songs themselves, while packing an emotional punch, and quick-stepping the story along, break down any sense of reality in the show, but in return give it a life and energy that a typical drama would lack.
That's what made the musical such a popular movie type up to the 60's, the energy, the fun. Directors shifted in the 70's to a more-real-all the time, grittier form of story telling that is very hard to consolidate with the musical.
Here we see Burton try to mix the two, and for me, it doesn't really work. It seems Burton tries to put too much realism by thinking "Well, if this kid were selling elixer, he'd be standing here." "If Johnny Depp were talking about his knives to Helena, he's just stand here all-crazy-like right here." ...but then they start singing, so who gives a fuck how real that would be? Make them dance! I'm not listening to any sort of great punchy dialog, its fuckin' music, so give it some life and some flair!
Gimme Grease, gimme Singin' in the Rain, hell, gimme Little Shop of Horrors as musicals with better direction.
So, that's my opinion. We'll be agreeing to disagree on this one. I'll definitely check out the original stage play though, to see more accurately how well it translated over. Maybe that'll but some new perspective on the whole thing.
Though, I also disagree with the notion of Johanna only being a MacGuffin in the play. She and sailor boy have songs and eat up a lot of screen time to be considered 'minor characters'. Not minor so much as they are supporting, and I'd like to know if she ever changed her mind that life is hell and never ending torment, or if she ran out scared and got picked up by a madam and spent the rest of her life in a brothel, or whatever.
Maybe that's where our opinions on the matter diverge here. I've always been told I'm a good actor, but when I try out for plays, my stuff doesn't seem to work. I'm a screen actor, not a stage actor. The two types of performances and blocking simply don't mesh.
Drama, since you don't have close ups and alternate camera angles, nor so many other tools of subtlety, relies upon large, sweeping motion, kinetic energy, and a manner of speaking, using the body to convey emotion along with the words. Its just not typically needed in film.
Its why 30's film seems so hokey, the actors in the old talkies were trained as classical stage actors, so their dialog is all over-emoted and unnatural.
This might SEEM like an arguement for the downplayed acting in Sweeny Todd, but to me, it still doesn't work as is for the quieter establishing moments. The script was originally written for the stage, and its mode of communication and music were created in a way that needs the emotive and melodrama of a stage actor. Johnny Depp's performance was top notch as always, but were he on stage, it would be much different, and much more fitting of the piece.
...take West Side Story for the most notable example. The idea of singing, dancing gang members is ridiculous. But it works because it is a musical way of telling a story, a representation of a life that admittedly isn't being shown in a realistic fashion. The songs themselves, while packing an emotional punch, and quick-stepping the story along, break down any sense of reality in the show, but in return give it a life and energy that a typical drama would lack.
That's what made the musical such a popular movie type up to the 60's, the energy, the fun. Directors shifted in the 70's to a more-real-all the time, grittier form of story telling that is very hard to consolidate with the musical.
Here we see Burton try to mix the two, and for me, it doesn't really work. It seems Burton tries to put too much realism by thinking "Well, if this kid were selling elixer, he'd be standing here." "If Johnny Depp were talking about his knives to Helena, he's just stand here all-crazy-like right here." ...but then they start singing, so who gives a fuck how real that would be? Make them dance! I'm not listening to any sort of great punchy dialog, its fuckin' music, so give it some life and some flair!
Gimme Grease, gimme Singin' in the Rain, hell, gimme Little Shop of Horrors as musicals with better direction.
So, that's my opinion. We'll be agreeing to disagree on this one. I'll definitely check out the original stage play though, to see more accurately how well it translated over. Maybe that'll but some new perspective on the whole thing.
Though, I also disagree with the notion of Johanna only being a MacGuffin in the play. She and sailor boy have songs and eat up a lot of screen time to be considered 'minor characters'. Not minor so much as they are supporting, and I'd like to know if she ever changed her mind that life is hell and never ending torment, or if she ran out scared and got picked up by a madam and spent the rest of her life in a brothel, or whatever.
Ia! Ia! Cthulhu Phtaghn!
To clear up a few things, in the original Broadway show, Joanna did get away with Anthony. He comes up to the barber shop after Sweeney leaves and they whisk away, but it is suggested that because of what she saw in the barber shop, she's slightly scarred.
Also, there are a few songs that have Joanna in them that were cut out, not to mention many of her lines. This may seem like a bad thing, but really all those lines served to do was to illustrate that she was really rather two-dimensional and vacuous. She was never intended to be a pivotal character, just a means to fill out the plot. The main focus of the play was Sweeney and his madness, and thus it is so with the movie. She served her purpose as being the glowing-white sheen to Sweeney's mad darkness, and once she became tainted, I guess Burton saw fit to clip her remaining scene. Kind of odd, but considering there was really nothing more she had to offer, I'm not arguing.
Also, there are a few songs that have Joanna in them that were cut out, not to mention many of her lines. This may seem like a bad thing, but really all those lines served to do was to illustrate that she was really rather two-dimensional and vacuous. She was never intended to be a pivotal character, just a means to fill out the plot. The main focus of the play was Sweeney and his madness, and thus it is so with the movie. She served her purpose as being the glowing-white sheen to Sweeney's mad darkness, and once she became tainted, I guess Burton saw fit to clip her remaining scene. Kind of odd, but considering there was really nothing more she had to offer, I'm not arguing.