Imagine a group of ten respectably talented actor/musicians sitting around in a basement full of random artifacts collected throughout the owner's life. As the actors share cocktails and commiserate on how they were unable to secure a leading role on Broadway, despite a lifetime of musical education (and a string of successful regional performances), one of them hops up from his seat and says, "I have an idea! Let's act out Sweeney Todd!"
I just saved you the pain and monetary depletion of seeing the production of Sweeney Todd currently touring the nation. You're welcome.
I have read a number of reviews of this production, including this one http://theater2.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/theater/reviews/04swee.html?_r=1 which I find the most amusing, and I discovered that theater patrons are either in total agreement with me or are playing the "you're not an artist, so you just don't get it," card, which is, by all accounts, a lame sluff trying to pass itself off as trump.
While it is true, I am not an artist by profession, I am an admirer, nay, a lover of art in many mediums, with a particular fondness for musical theater. Fancying myself a bit of a renaissance woman, I am always fascinated by unique productions and creative styles of presentation. In short, I'm not a biased traditionalist who wants nothing but facsimile revivals. As such, I can sum up this production of ST in two words, "not good."
When I first read about this "innovative" production, I learned that the whole of the stage population consisted of ten people, each would play a role, an instrument, and be part of the company, there would be no set changes, and no one would leave the stage save for intermission. My greatest fear was that instead of having truly strong voices carry the narrative or amazingly talented musicians draw the audience in, there would be instead a group of people who would be simply"okay" at doing both, and that fear was realized. As musicians, the group was average, at best, and I could feel myself blush with embarrassment as Mrs. Lovett went oompa-ing across the stage with her tuba at an inappropriate moment. "Wah, wah, oompa in a bloody, murdersome play is ironic and comical." No, it's really not.
With the exception of Mrs. Lovett, the singing was weak, and the words were difficult to understand. I felt that Mrs. Lovett was actually held back as Sweeney was unable to hit the notes that she could have harmonized with which would have allowed her to reach her obvious potential in the duets. The parts of Toby, Pirelli, and Joanna were the most noticeable poor casting choices. The rest of the cast may have been decent, but their performances, good or bad, went under the radar every time Joanna lost her breath or Toby's voice cracked. Ouch, my ears!
Distracting is the only term I can conjure to explain the scenery. Not only were the actors responsible for the music and song, they also had to move the set around which, to me, still looked like a basement with a ladder, a big black wooden box, and random junk on shelves no matter what they did. Being consistently distracted, I was unable to forget my annoyed-ness long enough to appreciate the artistic attempts (every now and then a spotlight would single out one of the items on the wall to represent an action on stage).
In sum, I've read the praise, I've heard the whining, and I'm sure the person who came up with this scheme of actors being responsible for the gamut of the production is a very intelligent guy, but this more than missed the mark. By the end, the responsibility was clearly too heavy a burden--for the actors and the audience alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment