Concur. Usually the conceit behind a video like this is that there's going to be some suspense in the outcome if the idea is to compare and contrast multiple versions of a role. In this, he's telegraphing his choice pretty much from the get-go. You could reframe the video as "here's why I think this less well-known version of Mrs. Lovett is better than these two you're more familiar with," but then, that won't draw the click traffic in the same way. The overall takeaway from this video is more "I know everyone else loves Angela's interpretation, but here's why I like Patti's better... oh, and Helen Bonham Carter may not have been great, but she was at least somewhat better than most people give her credit for."
You say Lansbury is over the top at times- that's kind of the point. Everything she does is a little off, like everyone else in Sweeney Todd. It's that strange mix of horror and comedy, surreal and real, that make the show what it is.
She’s over the top. I saw her in SF. I was in the second balcony. And her energy reached all the way up to where I was sitting. If she was over the top thank god. I think that what Lansbury captured was the villainy of Opportunism. That while not premeditated evil. It’s ever present in her being. She’s Amoral and manipulative.
the bias here really took away from the interest I had in the video. I think it was well done but I wish the Carter and Lansbury had been given a fighting chance.
I think the fact that Sondheim wrote Lovett with Landsbury in mind gives you the obvious answer. He once said "everyone has to audition for me, except Angie." Also, Sweeney Todd is, basically, a comic strip. It comes from a penny dreadful which was a written soap opera. LuPone is amazing, but Angie will always be Mrs. Lovett.
Its a shame he went in with a biased opinion cause lansbury takes it every time for me. He didnt say one negative about patty lupone but gave both lansbury and helena critical reviews, but not a single negative thing? i smell biased and fanboy, i suppose i am as well considering ive followed lansbury nearly my whole life. but if it wasnt lansbury i can see helena being my 2nd choice.
I think her "Little Priest" part worked, but she wasn't really moving enough during "Worst Pies In London", and why wasn't she looking at Todd during "By The Sea"? I wouldn't have been able to tell she was singing to him at all. I don't mean she has to keep kissing him on the cheek, but it would help if she was actually looking in his direction. It looks like she's singing to the flute-player.
you do know that Sondheim literally wrote "by the sea" to not have space to breathe. so the way Landsbury and Boham Carter performs it is true to what its supposed to be. very fast paced. Just because Patti Lupone slowed that down doesn't mean she performed it better. honestly I feel like you were very biased. The fact that Landsbury and Bonham Carter were even able to sing that song was a challenge in itself.
Indeed, Bonham Carter says in the Blu-ray extras that she can hardly breathe during that song. But Bonham Carter recorded the song on a studio, which makes it easier than in a stage. It seems strange that the tempo was slowed down that dramatically.
Is a performance better because it's closer to the writer's intent or because it's subjectively more enjoyable? Bonham Carter is my favorite, and I think she portrays the character the best, but I'm not going to cite Sondheim for my assessment. This is entirely subjective, favoritism is the name of the game.
I never liked that song - always skip it on the recording. I know it’s to ease the tension, but it always strikes me as simply an effort to give the female lead another solo.
Good substantiated criticizing is a merit for itself. I also like HBC most and i don't like PLP this much, however, that was exactly that criticism that makes me look of what specifically those ladies and directors could convey with each nuance, why and what choices they made. And while i don't agree with his Little Priest by PLP interpretation (i think she got worst of the three), it at least gives important insights into the scene. Sure, the guy clearly has a thing for PLP, but is it wrong to have sympathies? I don't share it and i don't agree with him all along his train of thought, but still this review was both entertaining and insightful.
I don't get the simultaneous criticism that By The Sea didn't show that Lovett wanted to leave Fleet Street in some performances when he complains that she only smiled in the song where she's talking about being somewhere else. Is that not perfectly communicating that exact idea?
This video should have just been titled "Why Patti Lupone is the Best Ms. Lovett"... I mean, if you're gonna be that biased dude, can you at least be a little more subtle?
They all are great, but o don't agree that she is the best. Honestly i think she is kinda over the top sometimes. Ms Lovett must be a blabbermouth, ok, but not so histerical.
My favorite part of Little bit of Priest is the line where Lovett goes through the rapid dehumanization and objectification of the corpse. Has: Thinking of as a person Had: Thinking as a past tense person Has: Thinking of as a slab of meat.
I really disliked LuPone's portrayal. I don't think Mrs. Lovett was ever intended to be the stereotypical sexy, villainous, femme fatale. Bonham-Carter and Lansbury both at least had more original characters. The sardonic, waifish woman and the scatter-brained murderous "grandma" are much more interesting in my opinion I also think Bonham-Carter gets a lot of flack but a movie requires a different type of acting than a show.
Well those are director's choices. don't blame LuPone for that. And I think how Ms. Lovett acts is somewhat dictated by how she can contrast/bounce off of Todd, who also changes in acting choices.
Lupone was actually one of my bottom choices, didn’t like how she portrayed the character. Tried to relay on puns and jokes, rather than the personality and discombobulated character Sondheim intended her to be.
Personally, I enjoyed LuPone's performance, but not from the 2005 revival with Michael Cerveris. I enjoyed her in the 2001 concert with the legend himself, George Hearn. In that rendition, she didn't rely on jokes and comedy to play the character well
Lupone has a nice voice, like credit to her on that and I like her vocals for " By The Sea " , not saying I like it better but y'know. It sounds great. THAT SAID . . . The rush of the intro is what sells the chattiness of it all and almost overwhelming pace to be so starkly contrasted by Todd.
Gotta have to agree. Lansbury for me is just irreplaceable, she'll always be THE Ms. Lovett, then again, Helena and Lupone do give their own flare to the role. Like Burtons grimly realistic and depressing interpretation of the world and Lupone's mechanical, permanently plotting interpretation, but both deviate a bit too much from the OG "Lovett" archetype for my tastes
If this video was trying to show me how good lupone is supposed to be, I got exactly the opposite impression. It just made me appreciate the other two performances and dislike hers. I have no idea wtf he’s talking about or what she was trying to go for.
Emi there’s no reason to dislike Lupones or any one of the Lovetts. Sondheim has said on multiple occasions that he loves every actress who’s played Mrs. Lovett. And I’m going with Sondheim on this one. I don’t think there’s a ‘best’ Mrs Lovett. I love somethings about Lansbury, love something’s about Bonham Carter, and love some things about Lupone and dislike things about them respectfully. It’s all about how WE picture the character in our minds and the actress that parallels itself with our painted picture is the one we’re going to like the best. There’s nothing wrong with showing how good Lupone is because she’s amazing. The same comment would show up if he loved Bonham Carter or Lansbury. With that being said it’s important to realize that different interpretations of a character are what keeps the character interesting. This is another ideal Sondheim has supported. If everyone performed the role like Lansbury, or Carter, or Lupone we’d lose our minds (or at least I would) because the performances would become dull. And no one likes dull performances.
I feel like if he didnt care about about carters smile he wouldve picked something different. I feel like carters portrayal of lovett was acurate to the times. Plus how she did the song. By the sea. It was enchanting really seeing emotional developement in lovett right there. The soft tones to the feeling and the hopeless wanting to have her dream and sweeny.
Your wild assumptions are just that, wild! Had you cared to research even a bit, you would have discovered (on Wiki no less) that it was Sondheim who specifically sought out Lansbury when casting Lovett, so that she would add some much needed comedy to the grim drama. In fact 'A Little Priest' was written specifically for Lansbury (initially, the then "star" passed on the role as second fiddle to Sweeney, until Sondheim beefed up the character by adding more songs and dialogue). Sondheim in fact told Lansbury directly "I want Mrs. Lovett to have a music hall character", i.e be showy, i.e play the character with gusto, pantomime, and over the top theatrics as if she was "singing to the people down block". So there you go. Next time you should do some more research (facts are important these days) as theatre students and critics (who don’t do their research) will take what you say for granted.
Anonymous This is precisely why in Theatre class today a riot ensued after a student showcased this video. All agreed (including the teacher) that It’s just ludicrous (and biased) ramblings of a Lupone fan. There is no valid research or objective critical thinking undertaken.
Anonymous. I agree with every point-especially the last one. I don’t think he is interested in research, which is incredibly easy to do since Sondheim wrote a book on these points. Too bad.
Anonymous, You took the words right out of my mouth. I personally have only seen the video tape of Lansbury’s performance on tour, but I have seen and heard excerpts from LuPone’s and Carter’s performances too. Even though I am only 11 years old, I have been raised on Sweeney Todd. There is no question as to who performed it better, being that the role was literally written for Lansbury. As you said her over the top performance is what balances the show, to be comedic and tragic all at once.
Thank you! There are videos of Sondheim talking about sweeny Todd and his process of creating and directing that original performance. Researching this would have been easy and enjoyable if he tried but it definitely feels like he watched all three performances and felt like waxing poetic about how much he loves Patti Lupone. It's one thing to enjoy a different direction but another to act like you have no way of knowing what the original intent was just to CYA while you fangasm over why your fave is the best. I'm upset it took me until 15min to get annoyed.
Yeah, I think I've had enough. Musically, Lansbury had it down pat. Her mannerisms and the music theory involved with her character really stood out. LuPone just seemed off the entire time honestly, especially when she sang "By the Sea" entirely wrong. For the first 16 measures, there aren't supposed to be any breath marks. It's supposed to be fast-paced, impulsive, and really showing off the chatterbox side of the character. The bias here really makes me dislike this channel quite a bit, especially since it's the second video that I am seeing this bias without knowing much about the actual tempo/key signature of the music, complex standards of acting, and overall portrayal of characterization. There's a lack of attention to these details in these criticisms and it makes it biased and irrelevant.
Right? He talks about LuPones performance in By The Sea like she did it perfectly, when she sang it entirely wrong. She could literally sing the wrong note horribly and he would praise it.
Because Lupone doesn’t interpret music, phrasing, lyrics or her acting with the thought of the intention of the playwright, composer, writer, time period, style, character. She comes in and does whatever she wants with it, Patti-fying it. Which works for some characters, here it 100% did not. Hey she was great in Gypsy cuz it worked. But for anyone that’s seen a lot of her work, you basically know what’s she’s going to do with a role.
Lansbury was the original casting of Mrs. Lovett. The way she's acting is exactly how Sondheim envisioned it. I'm also not a fan of Lupone's accent in Sweeny Todd. It's very off. i would go so far as to saying Lupone isn't exactly the best in terms of any foreign accents. That makes sense though. She's American and it's hard to do foreign accents whilst singing- Both Lansbury and Bonham Carter are from the UK though.
exactly and Lansbury as well as HBC. Lansbury's Lovett is a great balance to Len's Sweeney whereas HBC is in a BURTON movie playing off Johnny Depp's Sweeney.
Lansbury is naturalised American. Her father was George Lansbury, and she didn't move to America until she was an adult. Watch her as the maid in the original Gaslight.
Difficulty is beyond the point. We don't give points to a botched performance bcz it was difficult to perform; instead, we get someone who can do it. Instead of paying someone who says he knows how to fix a toilet, just pay a plumber; that way it's done right in the first place. Lupone's accent is all over the place, in-and-out, and she doesn't get a pass because ''she's American".
I’m probably as biased as this guy is because Patti LuPone has my heart in her hands forever and always but I totally agree. Helena’s By The Sea was my favourite
I’m not sure if it’s a fair comparison because in the film, they have visuals. However, the musical doesn’t so it’s pure vocals. I mean Helena’s still my favourite for ‘by the sea’ , but I don’t know if that’s fair. I have to agree with him that the first part is the only comparable aspect.
I think Bonham Carter was a success as Mrs Lovett. I think there's some clear favoritism here but that went without saying. She helped bring a new generation of fans in, I can't remember a single person I've personally spoken to about the film who disliked her performance.
I personally didn't enjoy HBC's portrayal. I'm sure it has to do with direction, but I found her performance joyless and lifeless. Just my two Lincolns... 🤷♂️
@@Mrmattlansbury it was almost like a horror movie in tim burton's version of the musical.mrs lovett being joyless and lifeless is actually a good thing
@@Mrmattlansbury joyless and lifeless... It make sense tho... And beside she's in the midst of hunger and poverty coz the shop is in it's downfall. What would we expect her to feel? Happiness? Reap her cheeks smilling? 😂 just saying...
yeah there was such clear bias in this video that i almost feel like i wasted my time watching it lmao. why even make the video if you have such a clear favourite without really fully looking into the character. like he kept complaining that this character of all characters wasn't SMILING???
I mean I don’t think she did a great job. If you’ve seen the original then you’d know that she didn’t really do Mrs. Lovett justice. But we can agree to disagree
I'll admit that I came into Sweeney Todd as a Tim Burton fan and I also saw the film first, so I am a little biased. But that being said, I don't think you can compare film and stage. They're two different mediums and require different things. In addition, I think you are missing the fact that Tim Burton kind of made it his own - so Bonham Carter may have toned it down quite a bit, but if she hadn't it would have been very misplaced in the film. Also, I'm not a theatre geek, so maybe this is just me being uncultured swine (lol) but I think LuPone was soo cheesy. She was trying to make the audience laugh more than anything else. She doesn't come across like a lonely pie-maker from 18th century England going through rough times. Also, why couldn't she do a proper English accent? That was painful. And also can someone tell me wtf was with the sequined top she was wearing
Lauren I completely agree with you I mean comparing play to film was not the brightest idea in the first place, plus Patti LuPone took it upon herself to make it more of a Chicago feel to her portrayal of the character basically wanting with showing off her pipes and the costume rather than capturing the essence of the character herself. And, not to mention he was being totally bias against LuPone he found more ways to compliment Patti’s performance rather than nitpick what he thought was off about it like he did with Lansbury and Bonham Carter. Yes each director took it upon themselves to make it their own, but at least give your fair share of compliments to Angela Lansbury or Helena Bonham Carter, it’s like right from the beginning without him actually saying it upfront, he basically said “I’m gonna show you three different portrayals of the character and tell you why I like Patti LuPone better than the other two” this got me mad but I digress, the costumes, vocal range and the overall feel for the character was different because it had different actors playing the part and each actor had a different vocal range and again the costumes were up to the directors... yes Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd captured the time era very well with the costumes, dark tones of the lighting, for the film, props and the set for each scene for the film
The biggest problem I find with this review, besides the apparent bias towards LuPone, is that you used the 1982 performance to showcase Lansbury. The original stage performance was much slower, I have often wondered if this was due to time constraints since it was being recorded. If you listen to the original broadway cast recording you can hear the difference in speeds. There is also a bootleg of one of these performances on TH-cam. Bonham-Carters version is from the mind of Tim Burton, therefore it is much darker and less humorous. I have only seen bits and pieces of LuPones Lovett. It is my least favorite simply because it is so modernized in comparison. For the beginning it was obvious who was going to win based on your biased statements, it was a little disappointing.
you should watch sweeney todd in concert with george hearn and patti lupone it's a better example for lupone's version than the one he used in the video. In this version patti's performance is closer to lansbury's yet not as cartoonish which i personally like
Don't agree with you at all. 3 different performances. The original is iconic and it was written with Angela Lansbury in mind. As much as I love Lupone - it's too well sung and of course when you have the benefit of someone else's performance to develop on..... Lastly - Bonham-carter is in a newly adapted screen film. Totally a different idea and incomparable with either stage performance. So all that aside all we're really getting is you love Lupone!!! That's fine! Don't try to sell that as an"expert"!
It seems to me that you are quite the Patti Lupone loyalist: you created this video in reverse order and it shows how your entire commentary is a set up to come to your foregone conclusion that Patti, your favorite girl, is the best. When you speak of Lansbury as too cartoonish or this or that - its quite unreasonable since her portrayal emerged from the genesis of the Broadway musical play of which she was an essential part. These songs were written for Lansbury. In fact Mrs. Lovett was created from a virtual blank page for its star. When Lansbury was approached to star in this vehicle, one thing was obvious: it's was not called Mrs. Lovett, it was called Sweeney Todd. Lansbury insisted that Mrs. Lovett had to be a starring role or no thanks. She had already won 3 Tonys for Best Leading Actress in a Musical. Some songs, like By The Sea were created at her insistence. The "entity" that is Mrs. Lovett became a living, breathing character by Sondheim, Wheeler. Prince, Lansbury, and Len Cariou, the original Sweeney. All were involved in the initial creative process. Much of Lansbury's London music hall "shtick" morphed as the musical play we know today emerged from its extended Broadway preview with an initial hostile audience that was walking out in droves. FYI, there were actually pickets outside the show begging Angela to withdraw. Entire scenes were excised such as Turpet's self-flagellating. (That scene was first reinstated in the City Opera Revival.) I attended the first preview and the last. Lansbury's comic relief emerged as a necessity from the darkness that was alienating audiences. Without her, it wouldn't have lasted more than a few performances instead of a Broadway run of over a year. The otherwise brilliant Dorothy Louden bombed as her replacement and the show closed very quickly when Lansbury headed the national tour. Apparently, audiences and critics considered Lansbury definitive. Sondheim's was comments that you quote defining Mrs. Lovett are, by its very definition, defining Lansbury because "they" jointly created her. While it is fascinating to watch Lupone's revisionist Mrs. Lovett, she took it on after the show had already become a classic. Your clips derive from a revival of a classic years after the fact (the source of the clips your show of LuPone). It would be fascinating to imagine what Lansbury would have done with Mrs. Lovett after the shock and horror of the show had become passé. I know that LuPone can be magnificent. An interesting comparison of Lansbury versus LuPone can be found in Arthur Laurent's memoirs. Of course, Lansbury was the first to step into Merman's shoes in Gypsy and she was a sensation in London and won her third Tony for it in NY. He also directed every Broadway revival including Tyne Daley and Lupone - the most recent. He should have directed Bernadette Peters. What he says uniquely about Lupone is that he had to work with her for weeks, even months before rehearsals to force a Rose out of Lupone. I will extract: Patty is always Patty. (She had already done Gypsy with her director buddy, Lonny Price. another fan in the same mold as you, who believes Patty should portray any character as Patty. Lonny apparently thought Patty perfect for any Merman or Lansbury vehicle including Anyone Can Whistle in addition to the Irina Pettina role in Candide. Not even Lonny has yet imagined LuPone as Mame. I can just imagine every song rendered in Patty's unique, mannered delivery. Ugh! And although towering in voice, Sir Andrew famously fired her Patti interpolation in Sunset Boulevard and substituted the nearly voiceless but brilliant Glenn Close.) The end result of Laurent's intense discipline: "the performance of her [sic] life" - her own words finally accepting a second Tony some 25 yrs. after her first. I agree with Mr. Laurents: I had always enjoyed her but always expected HER: as Reno Sweeny in Anything Goes, Mrs. Lovett, etc. with Patty's mannerisms intact. Was it a coincidence that Patty won a Tony only twice: Evita (which was her US creation) and Gypsy where she finally let go of the mannerisms and created an honest, moving - even thrilling portrayal of Rose? (The Tony voters passed on her Reno and Nelly Lovett which should have been easy wins.) This was not a coincidence. But, beyond Patti LuPone, your dismissal of Lansbury is a dismissal of the entire show and its creative team. While its wonderful to see how other performers portray her, comparing those ladies directly with Lansbury is not fair game. Further, Ms. Carter was a non-singing actress in a movie that Sondheim thought was entirely successful as a musical movie inspired by his musical play. It was successful in its own right by not trying to be a recreation of the original musical, The Mrs. Lovett of Bonham Carter was Tim Burton's alone, who directed her with an iron fist. Again, Burton was not trying to faithfully recreate a Broadway musical. Instead, the original Sondheim musical was merely an inspiration for the movie, not a recreation. So, I would leave Bonham Carter out of this completely.
This is by far the most erudite and sophisticated analysis here. Indeed, I most definitely include our otherwise witty and wise commentator who here is obviously swept away by his devoted loyalty to Patti Lupone - do or die. I think any of your future analysis that includes a comparison including Ms. Lupone should have a disclaimer upfront... something akin to "WARNING: I must throw caution to the wind at the outset because, IMHO, Patty can do no wrong." Mr. Kaufman brilliantly contradicts your analysis point by point. I would also add what others have pointed out already, that Lansbury was playing to an audience in a gigantic auditorium which further justifies the alleged "mugging" you accuse her of. Further, I totally agree that you should "leave Bonham Carter out of this completely." It is well known she was muzzled by her director and the screen version of Ms. Lovett is only vaguely related (distant cousins perhaps) to the character in the Broadway musical. Even Ms. Lansbury, a friend of Bonham Carter's, has stated that it was a great shame that she was shackled by her director. Apparently she was referring to comments made by Bonham Carter herself. The movie "Sweeney Todd may or may not be a successful movie; incontrovertibly, however, it is only a facsimile of the Broadway musical through the lens of Tim Burton. As so may point out, including Kaufman, including her is nonsensical.
I adore this comment! Succinct and informative. I am a staunch anti-LuPone. It’s not that I don’t think she is talented in abundance - I just personally dislike both her acting style and her personality. Every time I have seen her in anything, it comes across (for me) as brash, hard faced and shallow. Patti LuPone going through the motions of pretending to be someone else but not letting anyone forget that she’s actually Patti LuPone and that for me makes the whole act pointless. I also die inside when I hear or watch her sing because she has incredible vocal prowess yet she doesn’t seem to connect or let herself go in any song.
What the hell were they thinking with the costumes in the LuPone version? I get that is more of a concert version than fully stage but her hair etc are so incongruous and distracting.
+Joy Woffindin It's the directing choice by John Doyle. He's very minimalist, which means he wants costumes and sets to be as simple as possible so that the audience will be mainly focused on the actors. That's what he's also done with his new Broadway revival of The Color Purple.
Patti LuPone was in a concert version, but the clips in this video are not from that version. This is from the Broadway revival, which was, as Alex Meyer said, done in a more minimalist fashion. The basic premise of this revival was that Sweeney was a patient in a mental institution, and (if I recall correctly) the other actors are all either patients or doctors there.
I prefer Angela's because, let's face it…if Mrs. Lovett actually existed, she would have been closest to Angela's portrayal: a bat-shit crazy lunatic. i mean, it's HER idea to bake people into pies. you have to be absolutely psycho to come up with that plan like that.
Yes bat shit crazy old bag. I've never seen LuPone so I can't comment but in my opinion HBC is weak in the role. Angela Lansbury nailed it for me, the perfect side kick for Sweeney Todd
@@featherelfstrom8405 I think the commenter means how downplayed his reaction is in the movie compared to say, the older Todd’s like George Hearn who let out a little laugh or AHA!
I actually prefer Helena. Her character sets a serious tone for the movie. Not to mention, it is a Tim Burton movie. Maybe I'm just biased. I love Helena Bonham Carter..
But not everything in a comedy has to be funny, it's better to have some seriousness to pull it all together. I do wish he'd stop telling Bonham Carter to smile, she's a serious character
I love Helena best for this role. She is haunting. and something about her voice goes through right through you. I know you commented on her not smiling.. but I find it creative that as she finds herself closer to Sweeney through the film, the smiles occur more and more. it's character development and she finds happiness again. after all, when Sweeney first came, her business sucked. she didn't have much going for her and she was a widow. No wonder she looked so depressed and bothered. everybody looked pretty glum in that movie, but that is your typical Victorian London. Also when it comes to the final scene, Helena takes the cake. I actually had tears in my eyes the first time I saw it. I love how Helena can make Lovett look so heartbroken at times when she can't draw Sweeney into her fantasy. it's beautifully sad.
Why is he preying only on Helena, I know it’s his opinion and I don’t want to start anything, but it’s like he’s purposefully doing it. I mean he is undoubtedly bias towards LuPone’s performance and her herself. For Angela Lansbury, he gave good reviews and bad reviews. But when it comes to Helena Bonham-Carter, he just completely loses it in the “good reviews” department. We all have our opinions and they all deserve to be heard, but I don’t stand with bias opinions, especially when he is talking against a woman (Helena) that played beautifully in the movie version of Sweeney Todd. I’m not saying that Helena’s performance was my favorite, but he didn’t have a right to beat her performance down. Save your time, don’t watch this video, all it is is him raving on and on about how “LuPone’s performance was spectacular and exquisite beyond compare.
slytherinfelton my point exactly he’s bias towards Patti LuPone and he even says it without directly saying it in the beginning he gave more reasons to praise LuPone on her performance that say what was wrong with it
bruh. Personally, I loved Helena Bonham Carter’s performance because her voice was the only one that didn’t annoy the heck out of me. Your main complaint is that she didn’t smile often, but I think that was less due to her acting and more due to the overall tone of the movie. I mean, it was directed by Tim Burton, what did you expect? Even though I didn’t enjoy Lansbury’s cartoony approach as much, at least she was able to portray a consistent character. Her performance was clear and cohesive, and her trademark scatterbrained countenance remained iconic in the minds of the audience. Meanwhile, Lupone wasn’t able to achieve either of these feats. She didn’t have any specific character about her, and her style of singing felt lackluster overall. She was either almost talking or in an opera-esque tone, which frankly I found confusing. Not only did this botch the stylistic effect of the musical, but it also made it really difficult to understand what she was saying at times. She gave the least performance out of all three, and I really don’t understand why you praise her so obsessively.
People have different preferences, however some of you criticising the broadway/musical theatre performances as "bad" singing. Lol but no offence but it comes across that you don't understand what you are talking about. Singing like this is required in a theatrical work - because the voice needs to project. Opera singers similarly must project because they do not use microphones (note briadway/west end singing is not exactly the same as opera btw). Depp and Bonham-Carter were singing in a recording studio and then lip synching on camera for a film. They have pleasant voices, but they would not get away with this on stage as their voices do not carry enough, especially Helena. That "vibrating" you describe is simply vibrato which is the result of proper placement is the voice, resonance and projection - the basics of good singing.
@@MidnightIsolde You're putting words in my mouth... not once did I say Lupone was "bad" at singing, I said she lacked the stylistic character that Lansbury and Bonham-Carter brought. Also, I never mentioned "vibrating" or vibrato but thanks for giving me the dictionary definition of a word that everyone already knows. "No offense" but if you didn't actually read my comment then don't waste my time by replying.
I don't think you can compare a theatrical performance to a movie. If Helena acted how these other ladies did while in front of a live audience, it would have been awful.
True, but she could have been much more energetic and brought much more to the role, onscreen or no. She completely misses the whole malicious side to Mrs. Lovett and plays her very timid and desperate. Mrs. Lovett is a deeply calculating force for evil in this show, more so than almost anyone else, including Todd himself. She is the one who comes up with the idea to bake people into pies for her own personal gain, feeds Todd's anger and resentment until he is ready for a murder spree, suggests KILLING Anthony, and worst of all, withholds the information that she has regarding Todd's wife so that she can keep him for herself. Helena doesn't seem to have much motivation behind any of these evil actions beyond that she had the hots for Todd fifteen years ago. She plays her as more of a victim than a driving force in the story. Sorry that was a really long rant : / but I do agree with you that if she had gone the direction of Lansbury or LuPone it would have been much too gaudy. Different mediums require different approaches!
+Maia Farinas I think a lot of people forget that TIM BURTON directed the film version with Helena... His movies are always dark with very little humor and the movie was HIS take on this classic piece. Helena brought, to me, a quieter Mrs. Lovett who saw more things than she let on. She also has the creep factor, which she does very well, considering her role as Bellatrix Lestrange. She didn't smile much at the start because there was NOTHING to smile about, almost depressed in her mundane lifestyle before Todd comes along and she realises she can have more. Her voice is lovely, which surprised me. I didn't like Angela Lasenbury's performance because, as the guy in the video said, it was just too showy and theatrical, which isn't right for this piece. And I didn't really like Patti LeBelle personally. I admit she's good, but she doesn't do anything for me personally.
That's a good point, I hadn't considered that some of the humorlessness came from Tim Burton himself, however I do think that a lot of the character's depth is lost in that performance. The thing is, I don't think there is a definitive, flawless interpretation of Mrs. Lovett. It's such a difficult part, and there's so much to work with in the material. Every interpretation brings something new and wonderful to the role, and which version you like best is really subjective and everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. So yeah... lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya, or A Little Priest, as the case may be. ; )
It's true that a different style of acting is required for camera as opposed to on stage, but Helena's acting in Sweeney Todd was subtle even for normal camera acting standards. The problem with Mrs Lovett is the same problem the Thenardiers had in the Les Mis movie: they're inherently written as bordering on over-the-top. As he says in the video, we can never know exactly what it was that produced Helena's final performance, and for my money the directing certainly was an issue (A Little Priest in the movie was excruciatingly boringly executed - pardon the pun - when it should be one of the high points), but Helena's performance as a whole just didn't seem to gel with the way the character is written. Actually the more I think about it, the more I'm certain that most of the blame lies with the direction, which is a shame because let's face it, Tim Burton plus a story about murder and cannibalism should have been a match made in heaven...or somewhere...
I love Helena Bonham Carters subtlety. the character is already crazy enough in make-up, costume and actions, that her controlled nature helps her balance it all out.
Sorry. "her controlled nature helps her balance it all out." No, its boring and terrible. Carter is talented but most of that talent is not on display in Sweeney Todd. Burton made sure of that.
It's a joke Kimberly. Clearly you've only seen Burton's shitty adaptation, otherwise you'd know that Mrs. Lovett is supposed to be a smiling, cheerful if airheaded woman, even in the face of abject poverty.
@@berkleysmith6945 The idea of cheery is subjective and given the grim, dark realism of London during that age that Burton shows and doesn't hide? She is very cheery, the cheeriest in the musical and movie. She is absolutely in love with Todd and has the bubbles, blinders absolutely on. Quirky jokes, side-eyes, fastest paced talker. She seems to share EVERYTHING and is endearing and oblivious that she is doing it because she is so lonely.
Like THATS THE ORIGINAL. I understand Helena’s thing, it’s the screen adaptation and TiM bUrToN. But with the other one, I see nothing, sorry. I see no personality. Lansbury, quick, witty, funny. Helena, quiet, annoyed, deep. The other one, nothing.
@@caprisunkid9801 bro that’s hella disrespectful to Patti Lupone “The other one” if you don’t think she’s the best Mrs Lovett that’s fair enough. But for gods sake she’s a two time Tony award winner and a legend in the theatre game.
@@owenwilliams7475 sorry, I just didn’t know her name, also, it’s ok that I personally think that someone wasn’t really fit for a role. You might think she was great, I personally didn’t. I’m sorry that it came off disrespectful. Just my opinion.
Patti LuPone is the best Lovett, but her best performance was in the 2001 San Francisco version, with George Hearn as Todd and Neil Patrick Harris as Toby
I don't know. I like Bonham Carter's performance the best because of her subtlety in those clips you showed. But what you didn't show is when she comes alive in "A Little Priest" and "Down by the Sea." She is a gloomy depressed woman who is resigned to her fate until Todd comes back into her life and gives her an alternative. In my opinion, Lansbury is just too happy and LuPone is too aware of the audience. Perhaps that's just the benefit of the nature of film as opposed to stage. On stage you have to project and you have the audience staring you in the face. While on screen, its just you and the character. You can always count on being heard and there's nobody laughing at the funny moments, you just have to trust that they're funny. The best thing is we can enjoy all these different interpretations for what they are: Each woman is making the character her own and letting what they think are the most important character traits show the most.
Personally I'm a fan of Angela Lansbury's version; I like that she almost doesn't realise the horrific nature of the plan, which creates a more sympathetic reaction at the end when Todd realises her deception and her world falls apart. You can't feel as sorry for someone who knows exactly what they're doing. I really don't like the way the film handled 'A Little Priest' in general. The whole point of the number is the contrast between the really dark idea and the fun they're having with it. They've just come up with a way to get Mrs Lovett's business on track and let Todd take his revenge on the world in one go, so they should both be happy, but they just sound bored. I get that it's two entirely different disciplines and that film needs to be a bit more subtle, but they still could have put more into it.
For the most part, I agree that Lansbury's is the strongest performance. Sweeney Todd is a dark, brooding character so Mrs. Lovett needs to be more cheerful and almost bubbly to be a good foil. That's where Carter's performance runs into problems. (Besides, it's so much more horrific when Mrs. Lovett seems to be delighted in their scheme compared to Todd's this-is-the-means-to-an-end attitude.)
Lansbury is the best. As much as I love the other two as performers, Lansbury captures Mrs. Lovett's humor and flightiness the best. HBC was just so emotionally flat. I know that was a conscious choice between her and Burton to make the character that way, but Mrs. Lovett needs to be the comic relief to Sweeney's constant darkness.
Her Lovett isn't a scheming villain or a cynical opportunist, she's a straight up cheerful psychopath. She doesn't understand that what she's doing is wrong. I love that; in fact, I feel like she didn't play this up *enough*.
I saw the original production with Lansbury and Len Cariou. Musical Theatre Mash just doesn't understand that creating a role is hard and Sondheim's score is amazingly difficult. And pleasing the audience while accommodating the limits of the stage is harder than film versions and chintzy remakes. "By the Sea", which was mentioned in particular, is amazingly difficult onstage -- it is, as noted, an interior monologue about getting away from London and being married to Sweeney Todd and there ARE NO BREAKS. Does Musical Theatre Mash have any idea how difficult that conceit is to convey much less act out??
Gotta say, there's almost nothing more infuriating than a guy telling a girl to smile more. ..... I'm just sayin'. Maybe it wouldn't have been as frustrating if you'd have smiled more during the vid~ :D
@@peppapigstrashtwin3902 Agreed on principle, but there's a long-standing tendency to demand women in particular smile. And by long-standing, I mean like centuries. So while yes, it is rude and annoying to tell anyone of any gender to smile, that's sort of like replying 'All lives matter' when people support BLM. Like, yeah. But also, no.
For me Helena takes the cake. Her view on it was more dark, how the story is supposed to be. I don't like it as a comedy, the story is so much more than cheesy jokes. Her role as mrs lovett is poor which is how London was at the time. She isn't animated, she's a person. That's why I love it.
Lovett's numbers are meant to be comedic though, A Little Priest is meant to be lighthearted and a moment of brevity after Sweeney's Epiphany. By The Sea is meant to contrast her manic obsession with Todd against Todd's cold and serious calculations.
Yet the penny dreadful from the 1840s which is the original story, has gallows humour as did the first play adaptations of it because that was the genre. The macabre as entertainment. See Todd Slaughter as Sweeney Todd in the 1936 film to get an idea of how a victorian melodrama was played. Different takes are interesting and a good thing, but you're sort of setting it up as Butons film having more realism meaning it's a more correct portrayal, but that's not really true.
Laughing at how biased this is towards LuPone. "Here's how Lansbury and Carter screwed up, but here's how LuPone did better than them" LuPone relied too much on the comedy. She made everything have a lighter tone especially in A Little Priest. Like no it's not funny. THEYRE CONTEMPLATING MURDER AND CANNIBALISM. Love Lansbury because originals are always iconic but I LOVE Carter. This musical is so dark and creepy it's like Tim Burton was destined to direct the movie. The tones and the singing in the film was absolutely incredible. Her "A Little Priest" is so twisted and creepy it's perfect
I can't stand watching LuPone. She is so self-indulgent. Lansbury is big and melodramatic in a vaudeville kind of way, which is exactly what Sondheim was going for. Her performance is specific if hammy, but it's all about the audience, not about her...it's about making them laugh. LuPone has this "look at me, hear how sultry my voice is" thing going on in all of her performances that I can't stand. She's the ultimate diva, and I just don't find her interesting to watch or listen to. She plays every character as, well, Patti LuPone. If he wanted a third to compare, he should've used Emma Thompson, not Bonham-Carter...you can't compare a film performance to stage performances, they're two very different animals. And Thompson blew the lid off of that role. She was AMAZING.
Jose Martinez I agree with your comments on LuPone’s “self-indulgence” so to speak, but I think it’s pretty obvious that “A Little Priest” is intended by Sondheim to be a morbidly comedic number. As pointed out, it’s chock full of puns about what people in different professions would taste like in pies. God it’s a boring song when you don’t play up the comedic elements. It’s like complaining that Steve Martin played up being a psychopathic person who mutilates people for his own pleasure for comedy in Little Shop of Horrors (which granted, was more blatantly comedic). “Duh, guy! That’s why it’s so funny!”
Seconded. watching halfway through I'm sitting here going '...woooow, the bias is evident, literally every single thing LuPone comes out on top? Yeahno.'. Frankly, I liked Carter's performance because of the thing that none of the rest have. While Lansbury is an AMAZING stage actor and I love all of her stuff, even including her take on this, Carter plays a better insane person. As you mentioned above, this is about cannibalism and murder, on a scale. Carter also kinda gets credit from me after playing another partly insane, partly evil person in the HP series, so she kinda had the tools to work on this one WELL. LuPone seems more like she's the stage actress for other play actor/actresses to like. Maybe she does better in the 'technical' categories or something, at least that's the feeling I get. Meanwhile the ACTUAL act of being in character and pulling off the person you're supposed to be was more believable by the other two. I use characters and actors like Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia as Morticia and Gomez Addams for a bar in this instance. Here was an actor and actress who were basically more or less iconic in their roles, even now. Twenty years or more later, you STILL constantly see image memes of these two touted as 'the great romance'. If an actor can get me to believe the character because THEY clearly do as much as those two characters did, then their performance was definitely praiseworthy. Carter and Depp more or less did so, with a few minor gaffes.
I loved Helena Boham Carter. She played her part perfectly. You have to remember that the movie was an adaptation. While the play leaned more towards comedy, the movie took a much darker, solemn tone, so the fact that her character was also more solemn made her fit in each scene. If she was trying for comedy, everything would fall flat considering both the tone (as I mentioned) and how poorly that would match with Depp’s character.
@@ChienaAvtzonI always enjoy it when people are calling the film a terrible adaptation, and then I tell them Sondheim helped make it and they immediately shut up.
I like all three and I honestly think the film adaptation is very true to it's source material for the most part with soundheim works ng with Tim Burton to really make it work so I think the movie for me is the best and the instrumentals I'm a whore when it comes to scores the vocals of everyone and yes, so is Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Lovatt
Here's my thing about Patti LuPone: I feel like she's trying SO HARD not to be Angela Lansbury that she ends up not being Mrs. Lovett either. I noticed this especially in By the Sea, where instead of being excited and wistful, she just seems kind of ... bored. She also seemed that way in Worst Pies in London. And don't get me wrong, I love Patti LuPone! Her Evita is absolutely iconic! But I don't think she's right for Mrs. Lovett. And I'm also totally okay with performers deviating from choices made by the OBC; that's part of what makes a show fresh. For example, a few years ago, I saw a traveling company of Wicked with Emily Koch as Elphaba, and Emily Koch's approach to Elphaba was quite different from Idina Menzel's, but she still captured who Elphaba is as a character. And it never felt like she was actively trying not to be Idina. Whereas with Patti LuPone, her attempts to be different from Angela kind of take me out of the story.
Totally agree, I love love Patti Lupone, but Angela Lansbury is Mrs' Lovett always for me, I love Patti in everything but I think Lansbury captures it best.
Angela Lansbury in Sweeney Todd is up there with Carol Channing in Hello Dolly, Lea Salonga in Miss Saigon, Patti Lupone in Evita, Alice Ripley in Next to Normal, Julie Andrews in My Fair Lady, etc. Her performance was genius and we're lucky to have it preserved for new generations of theater geeks to obsess over forever.
the musical not the movie. Their first choice for the My fair lady movie was Julie andrews but she could'nt do it because she was doing mary poppins. So there second choice was Audrey Hepburn@@pinkpele
Actually, Julie Andrews was NEVER Jack Warner's choice for Eliza in the film. He was always going for the then-bigger box office of Audrey Hepburn, who initially turned it down until word got out that Elizabeth Taylor was Warner's next choice. But Jack never intended to use Julie. This is well and long documented. Had MGM won the bidding war, THEN Vincente Minnelli and the Broadway leads would have gone to England and filmed on location, a la Paris and "Gigi." However, Warner Brothers outbid MGM, and the rest is history.
@@DavidN369 Yes. This is the true and accurate story. Julie was never considered and in fact, she did Poppins precisely because she didn't get to do Lady. And she blew Audrey Hepburn away (Hepburn was never a great Eliza IMHO).
Are you on Patti Lupone's payroll? Honestly. So here are some things to think about when you poo poo Angela Landsbury's choices. First, the size of the stage that Landsbury is on is about 6 times the size of the stage Lupone is on so that is why the acting is bigger and more cartoon (it's also the style of the era). Further, the tempi for By the Sea is faster in Landsbury's performance because they had limited film and were trying to keep cost down. if you listen to the recording as opposed to just the filmed version, the tempo is smaller... .
Clearly he's enamored with Patty Lepone. He completely set this, but every explanation is overwrought. Especially the last one, in which Patty is just plain terrible. She plays the role way too sultry for what that part is about.
Helena was better because she was so detached about everybody else but obsessed with Sweeney her performance really captured what kind of woman Lovett was
okay my only argument with that was none of the other women EXCEPT Helena nailed that old english slang accent like she did. The other women weren't even trying to fit the era nor were they getting the right deep, seductive tone that Helena has to offer in some areas. I do suppose she lacks the humorous affect the others shared and she played a very dry Mrs. Lovett but i don't believe Mrs. Lovett was meant to be this huge funny character. Think about it; her husbands dead, and now her true love has returned to Fleet Street. she hasn't had a companion in years so she doesn't seem as full of life anymore. That's just my opinion.
mintsuga uh... Angela Lansbury was a 60 year old English woman when she did this. I think she knows better than you and Carter combined what an "old English slang accent" might sound like.
Philip Earley Angela Lansbury was born into a posh family 😂 doesn’t mean she has the old English slang down to the tee. Sweeney Todd is set in 1846. That would be 80 odd years before she was born. I love Angela Lansbury, but her performance wasn’t well thought out in my opinion of course. Although, I believe she gave a more comedic approach which I believe was intended for the character. It would have to be between Lansbury and Bonham Carter.
Lansbury was the literal original mrs.lovett directed by the director and writer about who lovett was supposed to be so I'm pretty sure she knows who Lovett is.
Call me crazy, but I like all of them. Staging was different in all 3 (wasn't Lupone's staged in a more contemporary timeframe with the musicians all on stage, like with the stage version of Chicago?). Great parts can allow for different interpretations. I'm guessing that Sondheim signed off on all of them.
I want my seventeen minutes back, this guy was being biased and unfair.Let me tell you what the video is about LUPONE LUPONE AND LUPONE. I was waiting for him to pick the other ladies for at least one win but it never happened to my surprise [oh who am I kidding I knew this guy was only going to pick Lupone for the next round after the first 2 rounds].
HBC wasn't a singer to begin with and we have to give her props for playing this role really well. She even studied how to sing while baking, now that's some dedication there!
if im being honest i enjoyed carters preformance better than lupon simply because lupon wasnt selling the crazy lady as much as carter to me. lupon was a bit to jokey and carter was more serious XD
I was actually very, very surprised by Angela's performance! Yes- it was a bit campy at times and a little rushed but in all honesty I felt like she did a good job on nearly every song, but her first act is definitely stronger than her second act performance overall I'd argue. Helena's performance is still one of my all time favorites, both in acting and singing. Of course- she had the help of movie magic, but if that's really going to be a factor then don't put her in a competition with two stage productions. It's not fair to put her in knowing she's a film production to begin with just so you can handicap her from the start with that hanging over her head. That being said, she's still one of my favorites haha. You complained about how bleak she is and never smiles but think about it- what's she supposed to be smiling about? Her husband's dead, her ship is failing, she's essentially living in squalor and with pests infesting her home, her love from the past came back and won't pay her any mind, and the town is run by corrupt officials. Are you really going to try to argue that making human pies should cheer someone up that much? Then LuPone- oh, dear. Is she a good actress? YES! Definitely! She brought the humor out splendidly in nearly every song, especially in A Little Priest. But at what cost? Notice whenever she does her delays and stresses certain parts of the sentence that the sound warps on her. At times she shoulda so nasally that she actually ends up flat and sharp on some of the notes and that's in every song. Not to mentioned that sometimes her mouth keeps moving to sing and her body just stops having run out of things to do. She plays it off as being relaxed but that's nothing like her character was described to be (at least it was never mentioned). Personally, from the description given, the context of the show, and a bit of psychology, I think Mrs. Lovett's character is meant to be representative of the lower-class worker, someone whose suffered her whole life and in order to cope clings onto the dreams of her past fantasies. She works at her bakery full time (dispute having no customers) just to take her mind off of all the bad around her. She constantly spew forth a torrent of her own thoughts as they arrive because she needs to keep busy to avoid acknowledging the situation as a whole. She has her moments of quiet and those are meant to show her thinking only about what's greenfly happening- how can I convince him to go along with my plan, does he really want to run off with me? She only ever pauses to consider how to further chase her dreams. In the song Worst Pies in London she is moving non-stop. Why? Because she wants this person to stay, NEEDS them to stay so she can distract herself. It's because of these quirks however that make her appear humorous. Really- she's a tragedy in disguise. That being said, taking into account musical performance, purposeful acting, and the blending of misery and humor to accurately depict the character I've got to give it to Helena, Angela, and then LuPone. Helena nails every music cue while staying in character, paints subtle strokes isn't her performance like a master artist does to their canvas, and perfectly accents each humorous quality about Mrs. Lovett while reminding us of just how tragic her situation is. Angela has excellent vocals, putting on a very difficult tone and quality to her tamber while retaining the ability to actually hit her notes, but sometimes rushes through EVERYTHING, her acting is very intense and purposeful but often seems a little needless, and she very much makes the character seem more crazy or campy. LuPone. LuPone came in last because of a few reasons. The singing- she was either to loud (trying to sustain notes like she was imitating and opera singer) or too soft (I literally strained to hear her at times), her acting was actually very good but her mouth would keep going and we body would just stop- her mouth was all chatty-Cathy and her body went cold-turkey having run out of things to do on stage, by a fan. Finally, the character. She actually made some excellent character choices! But, vocally it suffered because of that. She'd stress sentences in such odd ways, which worked greatly, but would distort the sound and placement of the sound as she sang causing the pitch to sometimes distort upwards or downwards. At the end of the day- it's a musical. You can't sacrifice one part of the performance to make up for another- that's just not very good in my opinion. The reason she came lower than Angela was honestly because Angela didn't have to sacrifice any one part of her performance to have another- they all worked in random together l. That being said, I could see that, on a different day if the week I may out LuPone above Angela. That's just my take. Okay bye.
you just gave me a better, much more balanced argument than that whole 17 minute long video did 😂 and i agree with you, i think hellie bonham carter is best both vocally, and i’m the terms of capturing the misery of mrs lovetts life! but i may be biased since i’m such a big hbc fan 🤪
I believe strongly that the character is meant to be a comic foil to contrast with the sinister Sweeney. This is why Angela Lansbury's portrayal is campy. But only on the surface. I don't think anyone else has captured the balancing act between comic and tragic as well as she did. I like both the other actresses, but nobody, IMHO, has done this character as well as she.
Lupone looks more like Berg's Lulu than Sondheim's Lovette and she plays to the audience rather than the play. Lansbury IS Mrs. Lovett and she plays to Mr. Todd. Mrs. Burton plays to Mr. Burton.
+Marc Allen To be fair, that Doyle SWEENEY was directed like that, with so much of the action being played straight out to the audience, rather than from one character to another, just as in that example shown. Not my favorite concept, by any means, but it was Doyle's direction. I only saw the tour, which was quite well done (within those weird parameters), with a magnificent Judy Kaye, and it was interesting, but made me wish I could see the entire, quite good cast (don't even remember who was Sweeney, but he was fine) in a different production. Can't we get a restraining order, to keep Doyle away from American theater (and yes, I include Canada, Mexico and the rest of Central and South America in that, along with the USA)? In my head, I'm better than all of these Mrs. Lovetts. All that shows is I've got the crazy part down. Well, except for Helena B.-C., whose "Worst Pies in London" acts as an iron curtain, stopping me from ever getting further than that into the movie (pretty much everything that comes before it also adds to that barrier~I just can't take that much assault on a great show and score). The Lovett I'd most like to see is Imelda Staunton. My favorite Lovett is Angela L. on the OBCR, and in the 2nd act I got to see her do with Len Cariou on Broadway. (Didn't sneak in; some folks leaving at intermission offered their tickets to my friend and me, saying it was the worst show they'd ever seen~we gratefully went right in, and loved it. Years later, got to see Lansbury and Cariou perform "A Little Priest" at a gala performance, to do with Angela L. receiving the Meadows Award in Dallas. A couple of lines got flubbed, but it was wonderful!)
Why didn't you factor in Patti LuPone's performance from the "Live in Concert" version with George Hearn? It allows for a more direct comparison to Angela Lansbury since they're playing off the same actor, and you could have gotten higher quality audio and video from it.
I miss a comparison on the final scene, specifically the bit between "no, no, not lied at all" and "yes, I lied cause I love you". I think that moment is as important as those you analyzed, and Bonham Carter's performance of it gave me the chills (Lansbury's was a bit too loud and I haven't seen LuPone's).
For me, it's Bonham-Carter. I find Tim Burton's work to be very hit or miss, but I thought his version of Sweeney Todd was brilliant, thanks largely to Bonham-Carter, Her version of Mrs. Lovett was introspective and callous, but with a sardonicism that is just perfect for the character.
+Kevin Davis The only reason HBC got the roles is she was sleeping with the director. She was a horrible choice in both acting and singing. She is just not suited for the role. The role calls for emotion and vocal talent, neither of which she displayed.
I agree what people fail to realise is Burton is darker and not trying to bring the light humour into his character as much as the stage calls for. He used her to help reinvent the character to suit his style. If she portrayed the way the stage version calls for then it wouldn't fit the Tim Burton asthetic of the film.
Maybe Jandel actually saw Lansbury in the role. I don't get the impression that many here did. Her giddy and hyper-capitalist Lovett is what gives the show its energy. Although Depp was very good, Bonham Carter utterly ruined the film by making the story incomprehensible. She didn't have enough energy to make a successful pie shop, unlimited supply of bodies or not.
I saw Sweeney Todd five times with Lansbury (3x with Cariou, 2x with Hearn), saw the Circle in the Square Production with Lupone, and have seen the movie twice. I saw several other versions as well. Yes, Lansbury's performance was more cartoonish than the others, but that was the point. The show was so dark for its time that she had to be the comic relief. The reality is that none of them completely knocked it out of the park. But if I had to choose one performer, Lansbury would be it. Lupone has too much of a tendency to want to show off her pipes, and her English accent is absolutely atrocious. Great for Evita. Not so good for light opera.
Your comment is 7 years ago, so not sure you will see it, but I agree 100%. Lansbury was and will always be the greatest Lovett if for no other reason than the role was written for her. Your point about the slightly cartoonish aspect of her performance is spot on. And Lupone's various performances (I've seen three different ones including the "infamous" tuba one as well as the concert version in San Francisco) are all "Lupone" (as are most of her performances, its like watching Evita over and over - she is technically brilliant but mostly she makes each character about herself rather than creating a character). As for Carter, I saw the film once and that was once too many. It is terrible (IMHO) as it almost completely eliminates the humor. Grand Guignol is most often melodrama which includes a sense of humor. Burton's Sweeney is just horrific and hard to watch, IMHO.
literally thought lupone did the worst of the 3 lmao and yeah like, the whole wanting helena to smile more, completely ignorant to the emotion built into burton's rendition. He wasnt putting the original musical on film for more people to see, he created his own unique version of it, which was absolutely brilliant.........when you dont compare it to other version. Helena did what she was supposed to do in that role for that version more than the others did in THEIR role for their version, so its still fair to compare them, but saying she needed to smile more would be wrong for here role.
I mean i've been in love with HBC since i was like 8 but as she's not a musical actor and she was in her goth husband's solemn film I find she did great. But i think its so obvious Angela is THEE Lovett. She has a great balance of all the things the Lovett role asked for. Patti Lupone is a great actor but I find her Lovett a bit strange? She's a clever as hell actor but I almost find her too analytical and thinking like way too much at points? In short Angela is my true Lovett. But by a mile Helena's By The Sea is my favourite 😊
All three performers are phenomenal - they all brought something different, unique and special to the role. Angela Lansbury, aside from effectively creating that character, brought an eclectic mix of manic optimism and cheerful practicality to her rendition of Mrs. Lovett, which was considered the definitive interpretation of that role. She also very brilliantly embodied the comic relief that helped make the initial show a hit - it's an important balance to be had, being a revenge-tragedy about serial murder and cannibalism and all, and the comedic aspects are necessary in order to both offset and lend to the darker elements of the story. Patti LuPone also delivered an excellent performance, and I would say that of the three Mrs. Lovetts, her voice showcases the most polish. I also appreciate that she did a few things differently with her take on Mrs. Lovett, and funnily enough it's also the reason why some people aren't as big a fan of her rendition - she took a little bit of liberty with the vocals in the role here and there, deviating a little from the way Sondheim meant for the role to be performed. And to be fair, Sondheim was notorious for challenging his performers with unconventional, and often difficult compositions; the song "By The Sea" is a popular example - Mrs. Lovett straight-up doesn't breathe in the first sixteen measures of that song, and a big part of the reason is that the song is meant to specifically showcase her manic, chatty nature, and while Sondheim's original intent with the song provided both comedy and character insight, it's not the most practical composition. That being said, I thoroughly enjoy Patti's rendition of Mrs. Lovett. As for Helena's rendition - I'll be honest, I wasn't the biggest fan, initially. In general, I found Tim Burton's film very flat, especially compared to the dark vibrancy inherent in the stage versions. That being said, I've softened towards Helena's performance since, because very honestly, it's a pretty great performance. On a technical level, she is one of the least experienced singers to take on the role of Mrs. Lovett; her singing is lovely, but her voice sometimes felt a bit weak, and she definitely had issues with vocal projection during specific numbers. However, watching the film now, I can definitely appreciate what she brought to the role. In particular, the way that she performed alongside Johnny Depp in "The Finale", when Mrs. Lovett's treachery against Sweeney comes to light; in the stage version, when Sweeney discovers that the beggar woman he just killed was his wife Lucy all along, Mrs. Lovett goes hypermanic, mad and shrill while admitting that she'd allowed Sweeney to believe his wife dead because she herself was in love with Sweeney. The way that Helena played it, on the other hand - Mrs. Lovett's confession in the film is much quieter - sad and pleading, and almost guilty, as she confesses to Sweeney why she did what she did. It lends something very poignant to that scene, particularly as it leads directly to her own fate at Sweeney's hands. Helena may be the least polished as a singer, but she absolutely nailed what Mrs. Lovett is all about, and what she did with that role, in my opinion, was ultimately very beautiful.
Lansbury is the best singer, and I think you're forgetting these are all from different decades, and the Lansbury is from that older school training of musical singing and acting (bigger and louder a la Ethel Mermen)
So.... Let's just talk some quick facts... Lansbury's performance (which I did see on Broadway in 1979) was created to played in one of the biggest houses on Broadway, and the version for PBS that you're using was later taped in Los Angeles at a theater even BIGGER than the Broadway house, so the fact that her performance seems big or showy when captured on camera has to be an acceptable "gimme" for an era when musicals were not being made into movies and the PBS Great Performances series was the only way to capture these shows rather than allowing them to disappear forever. I'm fairly certain the performances of the original cast of A Chorus Line would seem way over the top as well, but I sure do wish it had been taped for prosperity. Additionally, the vaudevillian aspects of her performance was absolutely meant to contrast the very dark world inhabited by Sweeney. The balance struck between moods was expertly achieved by all the performers, and Prince's direction was peerless. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: the PBS tape does not truly capture the scope and magnificence of the show as it played out live on stage. I've seen the show many times: the Doyle revival, the Baranski production in DC, the recent revival in London... none of them have ever come close to the electrifying heights achieved by the original. Bonham Carter's performance was designed for film, which not only means "smaller" but also without any need to accommodate audience reaction (or any in the moment playing off of audience reaction). She also can't sing. While she is a great actress, and brings her usual professionalism and craft to the role, she really has no business playing the part (and wouldn't be if her husband wasn't the director). But again, compromise: with movie musicals back but in questionable standing (Rent bombed), after 25+ years this was the director/stars cocktail that got the movie made. It didn't work on many levels, and her performance (except for some very good moments in non-musical scenes) was forgettable... or should I say, indistinguishable from every other heavily made up and costumed character she has played for Burton. Patti LaPone... I love Patti LaPone... she was the ONLY thing in any way, shape or form enjoyable about that God-awful John Doyle production of Sweeney. LaPone always gives a magnificent, multi-dimensional performance full of well-thought-out choices and a complete dedication to the audience. Like Lansbury before her, LaPone gave a vaudevillian performance in that production, but the house was easily 1/2 the size (maybe smaller), so her performance was necessarily smaller than Lansbury's... but also, your tape is a bootleg of very low quality, so that is creating an additional gauze between the performance and you as an at-home viewer. Perhaps this gives you the feeling that this performance is stellar (and it was very good), but taken as part of the package, she was hamstrung by a grievously conceived production that just didn't work in a Broadway house.
I dont know, seems like you had your mind made up and made this video backwards from that conclusion rather than actually go through the evidence fairly.
i completely disagree with your judgements about Lansbury, as she created the role with Sondhiem, his original concept was high and cartoony which creates horror against the violence. lupone's performance is almost as bland as carter's. landsbury had more love and maliciousness and opportunistic than the others. lupone's specifically was so underwhelming, it's like she phoned it in. i was shocked. it's too obvious to make mrs lovett dark on the surface and plotting so villainously. she's a survivor, an amoral opportunist, but she's not some slick sexy villainess. the way Sondhiem intended was landsbury. but you're also using a taped performance as a judge, on the soundtrack it's obvious she had more versions that are more what you'd like to see. as for the Little Priest intro, she gets the idea then tries to check if todd's game. she can be putting it together, but the joke is she still trying to get him to realize what she's already figured out. but it was nice to see them all next to each other.
Staunton was my favorite, I love her, she is such a sweetheart in real life but her ability to transform into a sickly sweet conniving character is second to none, take her portrayal of Umbridge
I don't think the film was ment to be funny it's creepy like most of Tim burton films (witch I love) infact I didn't think it was a funny musical till I watched the theater vision, still i love the film best but would love to see it live
I agree with you, while the play is more about dark humour, the film tries to show decadence. They are very different and obviously that requires a different type of character. Bonham-Carter is psycho crazy, while Lupone and Lansbury had lost their minds.
Leah Holmes actually it's supposed to be both. it appeals to really dark humor because no matter what the word choices and puns all still in there the humour is just darker coming from Burton. but this guy is so biased it's no joke
Leah Holmes exactly! to compare it a screen play is ridiculous. The theme behind the movie was to be full of gore and slight darkness that brings out the really twisted nature of the play thats cannot be seen on stage.
Lansbury without a doubt is the high water mark of Mrs. Lovetts. It takes incredible skill to sing those songs so well with all of their big and little moments and all while maintaining the unfiltered raw zest for life - at any cost! - that is at Mrs. Lovett's core. How do you bring to life a character who's desperately trying to keep her pie shop a float financially, had a soft spot for Benjamin Barker, falls easily into Sweeney's plot for revenge, knows just how to dispose of Sweeney's victims economically, sings ebulliently of the seaside and her goofy vision of marriage with Sweeney, smothers Sweeney with not so subtle flirtations and kisses, cares for Toby so tenderly until he begins to interfere with her romantic plans for Sweeney? See Angela Landsbury's Mrs. Lovett. Brilliant! And of course, because she was the first to breathe life into the character she had the direct input from the creator as to who Mrs. Lovett was and how he envisioned her. Landsbury never tried to compete with the darkness of Sweeney Todd. That would've been a mistake. And she never tried to make Mrs. Lovett snide or sour. That would have been easy and boring. Mrs. Lovett was an amoral opportunist shopkeeper on Fleet Street who had a soft spot for Benjamin Barker. Yes. But she had her own personality that is revealed by all of her silly romantic joyful joie de vivre moments that revealed her oh so wonderfully strange, fun, spirited, and JOYFUL Mrs. Lovett-ness.
It's hard for me to really judge LuPone's portrayal (and I love her work). All the nonsense with the musical instruments and the peculiar costumes simply did not work at all for me - sometimes doing things just to be different or revolutionary ain't always the right choice...it often turns out to look just gimmicky. Helena (who I also like enormously) could not sing the score, plain and simple. Doing disservice to what practically amounts to an opera is unethical, for want of a better word. I think Lansbury (bury, not BERRY...she did not grow on a tree) still aced it. Her Broadway replacement, Dorothy Loudon, was also marvelous.
LOL BUT but....l swear l've eaten Landsberrys... right off the bush....vine...tree? As for the video, l agree, Patti's the best. Though, I would have loved to seen Angela do it LIVE! after all, she IS, the only actress I've ever associated with the role. & I'll bet Dorothy Loudon was wonderful!
Honestly, I think I might have enjoyed this video better if it weren't clear, at least to me, that Ms. LaPone was the favorite. I have only seen the Tim Burton version of Sweeney Todd, so seeing the performances side by side was enlightening, but I think Helena Bonham Carter's performance was more in tune to the style of a Tim Burton film. There is always something... dark and morbid about his productions and I think her performance of Mrs. Lovetts fit that style to a T. From what I saw of Angela Lansbury's performance, I got the impression of a happy little psychopath, perky and nuts. Ms. LaPone's clips were a little hard only because of the quality of the video and the angle made it a little difficult to see her facial expressions clearly. However, She seemed to run a happy middle ground between our Perky and Crazy Mrs. Lovetts and are more dark and Sociopathic Mrs. Lovetts.
+Eleonore Malinowski The problem is that Tim Burton cast based on marquee and selling rather than talent and qualifications. That he so horribly miscast his wife shows where his mind was... and it was not in his head. Burton had a chance and he wasted it. Bad casting aside he had a duty to the fans. Even if much of the play was edited out for the theatrical version he had a duty to film the play in its entirety, including not butchering the songs (but the HBC's and Rickman's voices that was a lost cause anyway) and to include them in an expanded DVD version. He just simply did not film half the play and hoped no one would notice.
In Tim's defence, 99.9% of musical movies will pick big named actors rather than the people who should. Looking at it that way, and also remembering that non of them are theatre starts, I think they did a pretty good job
The play isn't comedy based. It's a thriller musical. LuPone's was too comedic. I think that with Mrs. Lovett's story, Helena was brilliant. Sure, it was a film, but we are looking at their embodiment of the character and psychological aspect and state of mind Mrs. Lovett is in to make pies of out people to help Sweeney with his revenge spree. I think Helena Bonham was the best at Mrs. Lovett's role. It's not a comedic thriller musical, it's just a THRILLER musical.
For a musical that isn't a comedy there sure are a lot of jokes in the book. Fair enough maybe the film didn't go down the comedy route but the stage version is certainly comedic, yes it's dark but that doesn't mean it can't also be a comedy.
It's really hard to take the film seriously when the film cut the ballad of Sweeney Todd out of the production. (I mean, the name of the play is Sweeney Todd and this was the title song.)
Picture for a moment how you'd manage to adapt the Ballad of Sweeney Todd into the movie. Every single song is sung by a character and that keeps the tone. There is no narrator either. The Ballad of Sweeney Todd would bring the viewer out of the experience and say 'oh yeah, this is a film'.
Actually, yes it IS - it's meant to be a have comedic elements, not just be a thriller. You can see that clearly if you sit down with the text of the musical and go through it carefully. The stage versions did pick that up and the performers fleshed it out. The film version as a whole completely missed whole dimensions of that black comedy.
Somebody had their mind made up ahead of time and created reasons to backup his choice.
lol
Concur. Usually the conceit behind a video like this is that there's going to be some suspense in the outcome if the idea is to compare and contrast multiple versions of a role. In this, he's telegraphing his choice pretty much from the get-go. You could reframe the video as "here's why I think this less well-known version of Mrs. Lovett is better than these two you're more familiar with," but then, that won't draw the click traffic in the same way.
The overall takeaway from this video is more "I know everyone else loves Angela's interpretation, but here's why I like Patti's better... oh, and Helen Bonham Carter may not have been great, but she was at least somewhat better than most people give her credit for."
You say Lansbury is over the top at times- that's kind of the point. Everything she does is a little off, like everyone else in Sweeney Todd. It's that strange mix of horror and comedy, surreal and real, that make the show what it is.
She’s over the top. I saw her in SF. I was in the second balcony. And her energy reached all the way up to where I was sitting. If she was over the top thank god. I think that what Lansbury captured was the villainy of Opportunism. That while not premeditated evil. It’s ever present in her being. She’s Amoral and manipulative.
the bias here really took away from the interest I had in the video. I think it was well done but I wish the Carter and Lansbury had been given a fighting chance.
Same
right jeez Wtf is going on in his brain smh
Same
I think the fact that Sondheim wrote Lovett with Landsbury in mind gives you the obvious answer. He once said "everyone has to audition for me, except Angie." Also, Sweeney Todd is, basically, a comic strip. It comes from a penny dreadful which was a written soap opera. LuPone is amazing, but Angie will always be Mrs. Lovett.
Its a shame he went in with a biased opinion cause lansbury takes it every time for me. He didnt say one negative about patty lupone but gave both lansbury and helena critical reviews, but not a single negative thing? i smell biased and fanboy, i suppose i am as well considering ive followed lansbury nearly my whole life. but if it wasnt lansbury i can see helena being my 2nd choice.
@@M1ghtyM4x agree I thought Lansbury is definitely the best
@@M1ghtyM4x there was a real life Sweeny Todd.
@@BigDaddyChungus1 i actually wasnt aware but it does make sense. Thanks for the info
I thought he wrote it with Patricia Routledge in mind.
Anyone get angrier each time you knew he was going to be biased towards Lupone.We get it Lupone is like your Streisand or Peters
+hopidy hop I know I did.
I think her "Little Priest" part worked, but she wasn't really moving enough during "Worst Pies In London", and why wasn't she looking at Todd during "By The Sea"? I wouldn't have been able to tell she was singing to him at all. I don't mean she has to keep kissing him on the cheek, but it would help if she was actually looking in his direction. It looks like she's singing to the flute-player.
Lupone wishes she was Peters.
Oh I can guarantee you he loves some peters...
Yes!
you do know that Sondheim literally wrote "by the sea" to not have space to breathe. so the way Landsbury and Boham Carter performs it is true to what its supposed to be. very fast paced. Just because Patti Lupone slowed that down doesn't mean she performed it better. honestly I feel like you were very biased. The fact that Landsbury and Bonham Carter were even able to sing that song was a challenge in itself.
Indeed, Bonham Carter says in the Blu-ray extras that she can hardly breathe during that song. But Bonham Carter recorded the song on a studio, which makes it easier than in a stage. It seems strange that the tempo was slowed down that dramatically.
This! Seems like these people don't actually know anything about the show at all
Is a performance better because it's closer to the writer's intent or because it's subjectively more enjoyable? Bonham Carter is my favorite, and I think she portrays the character the best, but I'm not going to cite Sondheim for my assessment. This is entirely subjective, favoritism is the name of the game.
I never liked that song - always skip it on the recording. I know it’s to ease the tension, but it always strikes me as simply an effort to give the female lead another solo.
I mean, he gave a disclaimer that there really is no winner and that all three are wonderful. It’s his video, he can be biased.
Quick synopsis of this video,
Lansbury -bad, criticism, negativity
Bonham carter- bad, criticism negativity
Lupone- praise, glory , absolute adoration
Repeat for 17 minutes
Riley Summers I was literally thinking that the whole time. I was like just throw Lansbury and Bonham Carter away 😂🤣💀
True I was thinking that the whole time tbh I like bonhom carter the best
Good substantiated criticizing is a merit for itself.
I also like HBC most and i don't like PLP this much, however, that was exactly that criticism that makes me look of what specifically those ladies and directors could convey with each nuance, why and what choices they made. And while i don't agree with his Little Priest by PLP interpretation (i think she got worst of the three), it at least gives important insights into the scene.
Sure, the guy clearly has a thing for PLP, but is it wrong to have sympathies?
I don't share it and i don't agree with him all along his train of thought, but still this review was both entertaining and insightful.
Riley Summers literally the second bit I knew who he liked the most
Thanks for saving 17 minutes of my life.
"Smile Helena!"
Smile? In a Tim Burton movie?
Seriously..
you should have known better...
Ugh. Men XD
@@annaodonnell5 I know right ugh
There's literally smiling in most of his movies....
I don't get the simultaneous criticism that By The Sea didn't show that Lovett wanted to leave Fleet Street in some performances when he complains that she only smiled in the song where she's talking about being somewhere else. Is that not perfectly communicating that exact idea?
*Bonham Carter’s character sees a dead body and contemplates how to remove it, a situation to say the least
MTM: “Oh come on, why isn’t she smiling?!”
This video should have just been titled "Why Patti Lupone is the Best Ms. Lovett"... I mean, if you're gonna be that biased dude, can you at least be a little more subtle?
I agree it cringed me out. Then again I have major bias for Carter being the best Lovett.
Exactly
I love Lansbury and since she was the original I was shocked at this DISRESPECT to her!!!
Get over it emo girls. Patti is the best, and a class act.
They all are great, but o don't agree that she is the best. Honestly i think she is kinda over the top sometimes. Ms Lovett must be a blabbermouth, ok, but not so histerical.
Alternative title: man tries (extremely poorly) to pretend he's giving every actor a fair shot while he gushes over his mistress, Patti lupone
😂😂😂😂😂
When I think she is THEE most miscast bcz her acting and singing abilities are questionable
@@valentinomiller6251 that's not fair to say, she has an incredible range, just listen to her version of Ladies who lunch
@@valentinomiller6251 I feel like she can act, but she can’t voice act while she sings
annaleigh Ashford tops all ❤
My favorite part of Little bit of Priest is the line where Lovett goes through the rapid dehumanization and objectification of the corpse.
Has: Thinking of as a person
Had: Thinking as a past tense person
Has: Thinking of as a slab of meat.
The bias is real
Musical Theatre Mash I'm sorry what now?
Musical Theatre Mash on
allstarz123456 so so true
There’s no bias it’s about who’s the best.
are you supposed to not be biased about your own opinions? lol
I really disliked LuPone's portrayal. I don't think Mrs. Lovett was ever intended to be the stereotypical sexy, villainous, femme fatale. Bonham-Carter and Lansbury both at least had more original characters. The sardonic, waifish woman and the scatter-brained murderous "grandma" are much more interesting in my opinion I also think Bonham-Carter gets a lot of flack but a movie requires a different type of acting than a show.
Not to mention she acted as she was _directed_ to, by Tim Burton. Tim Burton has a very specific aesthetic and overal style.
Exactly, in the movie they're trying to make the story as realistic as possible which goes to explain choices like the lack of chorus members
HBC's disinterested mumbling put me to sleep
@@josephinegrant8941 Don't need to start a movie hate train...
Well those are director's choices. don't blame LuPone for that. And I think how Ms. Lovett acts is somewhat dictated by how she can contrast/bounce off of Todd, who also changes in acting choices.
Lupone was actually one of my bottom choices, didn’t like how she portrayed the character. Tried to relay on puns and jokes, rather than the personality and discombobulated character Sondheim intended her to be.
Nyaleengi
I hadn’t seen LuPone’s version till this video but I wholeheartedly agree. It was a style choice but it was a bit overdone.
Personally, I enjoyed LuPone's performance, but not from the 2005 revival with Michael Cerveris. I enjoyed her in the 2001 concert with the legend himself, George Hearn. In that rendition, she didn't rely on jokes and comedy to play the character well
Lupone has a nice voice, like credit to her on that and I like her vocals for " By The Sea " , not saying I like it better but y'know. It sounds great. THAT SAID . . .
The rush of the intro is what sells the chattiness of it all and almost overwhelming pace to be so starkly contrasted by Todd.
Look at you making an intelligent, informed observation. Applause.
Gotta have to agree. Lansbury for me is just irreplaceable, she'll always be THE Ms. Lovett, then again, Helena and Lupone do give their own flare to the role. Like Burtons grimly realistic and depressing interpretation of the world and Lupone's mechanical, permanently plotting interpretation, but both deviate a bit too much from the OG "Lovett" archetype for my tastes
are theater kids always this picky
it depends
sometimes yeah sometimes no
but i myself am never this picky
so no, not every single one of us is like this don't worry
Generally yes
Yes
-Theater Brat 3948593035
Yes!
Ha, so are Opera Kids.
If this video was trying to show me how good lupone is supposed to be, I got exactly the opposite impression. It just made me appreciate the other two performances and dislike hers. I have no idea wtf he’s talking about or what she was trying to go for.
Emi there’s no reason to dislike Lupones or any one of the Lovetts. Sondheim has said on multiple occasions that he loves every actress who’s played Mrs. Lovett. And I’m going with Sondheim on this one. I don’t think there’s a ‘best’ Mrs Lovett. I love somethings about Lansbury, love something’s about Bonham Carter, and love some things about Lupone and dislike things about them respectfully. It’s all about how WE picture the character in our minds and the actress that parallels itself with our painted picture is the one we’re going to like the best. There’s nothing wrong with showing how good Lupone is because she’s amazing. The same comment would show up if he loved Bonham Carter or Lansbury. With that being said it’s important to realize that different interpretations of a character are what keeps the character interesting. This is another ideal Sondheim has supported. If everyone performed the role like Lansbury, or Carter, or Lupone we’d lose our minds (or at least I would) because the performances would become dull. And no one likes dull performances.
Why are you so obsessed with Helena Bonham Carter smiling?
I know. Seriously.
Smile, Helena! Smile.
... in a Tim Burton movie.
Right.
*shakes head*
RIGGGGGGGGGGGGGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Damn right? Haha like common her smiling would break glass in a Tim burton film lol
I feel like if he didnt care about about carters smile he wouldve picked something different. I feel like carters portrayal of lovett was acurate to the times. Plus how she did the song. By the sea. It was enchanting really seeing emotional developement in lovett right there. The soft tones to the feeling and the hopeless wanting to have her dream and sweeny.
Your wild assumptions are just that, wild! Had you cared to research even a bit, you would have discovered (on Wiki no less) that it was Sondheim who specifically sought out Lansbury when casting Lovett, so that she would add some much needed comedy to the grim drama. In fact 'A Little Priest' was written specifically for Lansbury (initially, the then "star" passed on the role as second fiddle to Sweeney, until Sondheim beefed up the character by adding more songs and dialogue). Sondheim in fact told Lansbury directly "I want Mrs. Lovett to have a music hall character", i.e be showy, i.e play the character with gusto, pantomime, and over the top theatrics as if she was "singing to the people down block". So there you go. Next time you should do some more research (facts are important these days) as theatre students and critics (who don’t do their research) will take what you say for granted.
Anonymous This is precisely why in Theatre class today a riot ensued after a student showcased this video. All agreed (including the teacher) that It’s just ludicrous (and biased) ramblings of a Lupone fan. There is no valid research or objective critical thinking undertaken.
Anonymous. I agree with every point-especially the last one. I don’t think he is interested in research, which is incredibly easy to do since Sondheim wrote a book on these points. Too bad.
Anonymous, You took the words right out of my mouth. I personally have only seen the video tape of Lansbury’s performance on tour, but I have seen and heard excerpts from LuPone’s and Carter’s performances too. Even though I am only 11 years old, I have been raised on Sweeney Todd. There is no question as to who performed it better, being that the role was literally written for Lansbury. As you said her over the top performance is what balances the show, to be comedic and tragic all at once.
Thank you! There are videos of Sondheim talking about sweeny Todd and his process of creating and directing that original performance. Researching this would have been easy and enjoyable if he tried but it definitely feels like he watched all three performances and felt like waxing poetic about how much he loves Patti Lupone. It's one thing to enjoy a different direction but another to act like you have no way of knowing what the original intent was just to CYA while you fangasm over why your fave is the best. I'm upset it took me until 15min to get annoyed.
YES! he's so unbelievably biased towards LuPone. The least he could've done is TRY to hide it and pretend to be interested in the actual facts
Considering Angela Lansbury created the role, that character is hers IMO.
True she was such an amazing actress and her singing was perfect for the characters. I miss her so much.
Yeah, I think I've had enough. Musically, Lansbury had it down pat. Her mannerisms and the music theory involved with her character really stood out. LuPone just seemed off the entire time honestly, especially when she sang "By the Sea" entirely wrong. For the first 16 measures, there aren't supposed to be any breath marks. It's supposed to be fast-paced, impulsive, and really showing off the chatterbox side of the character. The bias here really makes me dislike this channel quite a bit, especially since it's the second video that I am seeing this bias without knowing much about the actual tempo/key signature of the music, complex standards of acting, and overall portrayal of characterization. There's a lack of attention to these details in these criticisms and it makes it biased and irrelevant.
Right? He talks about LuPones performance in By The Sea like she did it perfectly, when she sang it entirely wrong. She could literally sing the wrong note horribly and he would praise it.
Because Lupone doesn’t interpret music, phrasing, lyrics or her acting with the thought of the intention of the playwright, composer, writer, time period, style, character. She comes in and does whatever she wants with it, Patti-fying it. Which works for some characters, here it 100% did not. Hey she was great in Gypsy cuz it worked. But for anyone that’s seen a lot of her work, you basically know what’s she’s going to do with a role.
Lansbury was the original casting of Mrs. Lovett. The way she's acting is exactly how Sondheim envisioned it. I'm also not a fan of Lupone's accent in Sweeny Todd. It's very off. i would go so far as to saying Lupone isn't exactly the best in terms of any foreign accents. That makes sense though. She's American and it's hard to do foreign accents whilst singing- Both Lansbury and Bonham Carter are from the UK though.
exactly and Lansbury as well as HBC. Lansbury's Lovett is a great balance to Len's Sweeney whereas HBC is in a BURTON movie playing off Johnny Depp's Sweeney.
Lansbury is naturalised American. Her father was George Lansbury, and she didn't move to America until she was an adult. Watch her as the maid in the original Gaslight.
@@LynneConnolly The point remains. She grew up in England so had a grasp of the various English accents in a way that no American could.
Difficulty is beyond the point. We don't give points to a botched performance bcz it was difficult to perform; instead, we get someone who can do it. Instead of paying someone who says he knows how to fix a toilet, just pay a plumber; that way it's done right in the first place. Lupone's accent is all over the place, in-and-out, and she doesn't get a pass because ''she's American".
@@valentinomiller6251 100%
Helena was my favorite for "By the Sea."
Polly Pockets Helena was my favorite for all
I’m probably as biased as this guy is because Patti LuPone has my heart in her hands forever and always but I totally agree. Helena’s By The Sea was my favourite
Charlotte Bates i feel the same i love how even in her imagination Sweeney is not intrested in her at all 😂😂😂😂😂
I’m not sure if it’s a fair comparison because in the film, they have visuals. However, the musical doesn’t so it’s pure vocals. I mean Helena’s still my favourite for ‘by the sea’ , but I don’t know if that’s fair. I have to agree with him that the first part is the only comparable aspect.
@@Lucy-nw4im But damn, those visuals in By The Sea are stunning.
I think Bonham Carter was a success as Mrs Lovett. I think there's some clear favoritism here but that went without saying. She helped bring a new generation of fans in, I can't remember a single person I've personally spoken to about the film who disliked her performance.
I personally didn't enjoy HBC's portrayal. I'm sure it has to do with direction, but I found her performance joyless and lifeless. Just my two Lincolns... 🤷♂️
@@Mrmattlansbury it was almost like a horror movie in tim burton's version of the musical.mrs lovett being joyless and lifeless is actually a good thing
@@Mrmattlansbury joyless and lifeless... It make sense tho... And beside she's in the midst of hunger and poverty coz the shop is in it's downfall. What would we expect her to feel? Happiness? Reap her cheeks smilling? 😂 just saying...
yeah there was such clear bias in this video that i almost feel like i wasted my time watching it lmao. why even make the video if you have such a clear favourite without really fully looking into the character. like he kept complaining that this character of all characters wasn't SMILING???
I mean I don’t think she did a great job. If you’ve seen the original then you’d know that she didn’t really do Mrs. Lovett justice. But we can agree to disagree
I'll admit that I came into Sweeney Todd as a Tim Burton fan and I also saw the film first, so I am a little biased. But that being said, I don't think you can compare film and stage. They're two different mediums and require different things. In addition, I think you are missing the fact that Tim Burton kind of made it his own - so Bonham Carter may have toned it down quite a bit, but if she hadn't it would have been very misplaced in the film. Also, I'm not a theatre geek, so maybe this is just me being uncultured swine (lol) but I think LuPone was soo cheesy. She was trying to make the audience laugh more than anything else. She doesn't come across like a lonely pie-maker from 18th century England going through rough times. Also, why couldn't she do a proper English accent? That was painful.
And also can someone tell me wtf was with the sequined top she was wearing
Lauren I completely agree with you I mean comparing play to film was not the brightest idea in the first place, plus Patti LuPone took it upon herself to make it more of a Chicago feel to her portrayal of the character basically wanting with showing off her pipes and the costume rather than capturing the essence of the character herself. And, not to mention he was being totally bias against LuPone he found more ways to compliment Patti’s performance rather than nitpick what he thought was off about it like he did with Lansbury and Bonham Carter. Yes each director took it upon themselves to make it their own, but at least give your fair share of compliments to Angela Lansbury or Helena Bonham Carter, it’s like right from the beginning without him actually saying it upfront, he basically said “I’m gonna show you three different portrayals of the character and tell you why I like Patti LuPone better than the other two” this got me mad but I digress, the costumes, vocal range and the overall feel for the character was different because it had different actors playing the part and each actor had a different vocal range and again the costumes were up to the directors... yes Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd captured the time era very well with the costumes, dark tones of the lighting, for the film, props and the set for each scene for the film
@@samalberino669 I love the film. These theater geeks are so pretentious.
@@jeromealday614 I'm a huge theatre geek, but I have to admit the film is way better than the musical.
Lauren Right? I mean they liters sing about how miserable everything is
Agreed
The biggest problem I find with this review, besides the apparent bias towards LuPone, is that you used the 1982 performance to showcase Lansbury. The original stage performance was much slower, I have often wondered if this was due to time constraints since it was being recorded. If you listen to the original broadway cast recording you can hear the difference in speeds. There is also a bootleg of one of these performances on TH-cam.
Bonham-Carters version is from the mind of Tim Burton, therefore it is much darker and less humorous.
I have only seen bits and pieces of LuPones Lovett. It is my least favorite simply because it is so modernized in comparison.
For the beginning it was obvious who was going to win based on your biased statements, it was a little disappointing.
^^^^
Your disability at recognizing true talent is disappointing.
its 1979 genius lool
you should watch sweeney todd in concert with george hearn and patti lupone it's a better example for lupone's version than the one he used in the video. In this version patti's performance is closer to lansbury's yet not as cartoonish which i personally like
Don't agree with you at all. 3 different performances. The original is iconic and it was written with Angela Lansbury in mind.
As much as I love Lupone - it's too well sung and of course when you have the benefit of someone else's performance to develop on.....
Lastly - Bonham-carter is in a newly adapted screen film. Totally a different idea and incomparable with either stage performance.
So all that aside all we're really getting is you love Lupone!!! That's fine! Don't try to sell that as an"expert"!
Angela Lansbury will always be Mrs Lovett for me. He wrote it for her
It seems to me that you are quite the Patti Lupone loyalist: you created this video in reverse order and it shows how your entire commentary is a set up to come to your foregone conclusion that Patti, your favorite girl, is the best. When you speak of Lansbury as too cartoonish or this or that - its quite unreasonable since her portrayal emerged from the genesis of the Broadway musical play of which she was an essential part. These songs were written for Lansbury. In fact Mrs. Lovett was created from a virtual blank page for its star. When Lansbury was approached to star in this vehicle, one thing was obvious: it's was not called Mrs. Lovett, it was called Sweeney Todd. Lansbury insisted that Mrs. Lovett had to be a starring role or no thanks. She had already won 3 Tonys for Best Leading Actress in a Musical. Some songs, like By The Sea were created at her insistence. The "entity" that is Mrs. Lovett became a living, breathing character by Sondheim, Wheeler. Prince, Lansbury, and Len Cariou, the original Sweeney. All were involved in the initial creative process. Much of Lansbury's London music hall "shtick" morphed as the musical play we know today emerged from its extended Broadway preview with an initial hostile audience that was walking out in droves. FYI, there were actually pickets outside the show begging Angela to withdraw. Entire scenes were excised such as Turpet's self-flagellating. (That scene was first reinstated in the City Opera Revival.) I attended the first preview and the last. Lansbury's comic relief emerged as a necessity from the darkness that was alienating audiences. Without her, it wouldn't have lasted more than a few performances instead of a Broadway run of over a year. The otherwise brilliant Dorothy Louden bombed as her replacement and the show closed very quickly when Lansbury headed the national tour. Apparently, audiences and critics considered Lansbury definitive. Sondheim's was comments that you quote defining Mrs. Lovett are, by its very definition, defining Lansbury because "they" jointly created her. While it is fascinating to watch Lupone's revisionist Mrs. Lovett, she took it on after the show had already become a classic. Your clips derive from a revival of a classic years after the fact (the source of the clips your show of LuPone). It would be fascinating to imagine what Lansbury would have done with Mrs. Lovett after the shock and horror of the show had become passé. I know that LuPone can be magnificent. An interesting comparison of Lansbury versus LuPone can be found in Arthur Laurent's memoirs. Of course, Lansbury was the first to step into Merman's shoes in Gypsy and she was a sensation in London and won her third Tony for it in NY. He also directed every Broadway revival including Tyne Daley and Lupone - the most recent. He should have directed Bernadette Peters. What he says uniquely about Lupone is that he had to work with her for weeks, even months before rehearsals to force a Rose out of Lupone. I will extract: Patty is always Patty. (She had already done Gypsy with her director buddy, Lonny Price. another fan in the same mold as you, who believes Patty should portray any character as Patty. Lonny apparently thought Patty perfect for any Merman or Lansbury vehicle including Anyone Can Whistle in addition to the Irina Pettina role in Candide. Not even Lonny has yet imagined LuPone as Mame. I can just imagine every song rendered in Patty's unique, mannered delivery. Ugh! And although towering in voice, Sir Andrew famously fired her Patti interpolation in Sunset Boulevard and substituted the nearly voiceless but brilliant Glenn Close.) The end result of Laurent's intense discipline: "the performance of her [sic] life" - her own words finally accepting a second Tony some 25 yrs. after her first. I agree with Mr. Laurents: I had always enjoyed her but always expected HER: as Reno Sweeny in Anything Goes, Mrs. Lovett, etc. with Patty's mannerisms intact. Was it a coincidence that Patty won a Tony only twice: Evita (which was her US creation) and Gypsy where she finally let go of the mannerisms and created an honest, moving - even thrilling portrayal of Rose? (The Tony voters passed on her Reno and Nelly Lovett which should have been easy wins.) This was not a coincidence. But, beyond Patti LuPone, your dismissal of Lansbury is a dismissal of the entire show and its creative team. While its wonderful to see how other performers portray her, comparing those ladies directly with Lansbury is not fair game. Further, Ms. Carter was a non-singing actress in a movie that Sondheim thought was entirely successful as a musical movie inspired by his musical play. It was successful in its own right by not trying to be a recreation of the original musical, The Mrs. Lovett of Bonham Carter was Tim Burton's alone, who directed her with an iron fist. Again, Burton was not trying to faithfully recreate a Broadway musical. Instead, the original Sondheim musical was merely an inspiration for the movie, not a recreation. So, I would leave Bonham Carter out of this completely.
This is by far the most erudite and sophisticated analysis here. Indeed, I most definitely include our otherwise witty and wise commentator who here is obviously swept away by his devoted loyalty to Patti Lupone - do or die. I think any of your future analysis that includes a comparison including Ms. Lupone should have a disclaimer upfront... something akin to "WARNING: I must throw caution to the wind at the outset because, IMHO, Patty can do no wrong." Mr. Kaufman brilliantly contradicts your analysis point by point. I would also add what others have pointed out already, that Lansbury was playing to an audience in a gigantic auditorium which further justifies the alleged "mugging" you accuse her of. Further, I totally agree that you should "leave Bonham Carter out of this completely." It is well known she was muzzled by her director and the screen version of Ms. Lovett is only vaguely related (distant cousins perhaps) to the character in the Broadway musical. Even Ms. Lansbury, a friend of Bonham Carter's, has stated that it was a great shame that she was shackled by her director. Apparently she was referring to comments made by Bonham Carter herself. The movie "Sweeney Todd may or may not be a successful movie; incontrovertibly, however, it is only a facsimile of the Broadway musical through the lens of Tim Burton. As so may point out, including Kaufman, including her is nonsensical.
Us theatre people are the only ones who will right multiple paragraphs in the TH-cam comment section about Sondheim and Lansbury.
I adore this comment! Succinct and informative. I am a staunch anti-LuPone. It’s not that I don’t think she is talented in abundance - I just personally dislike both her acting style and her personality. Every time I have seen her in anything, it comes across (for me) as brash, hard faced and shallow. Patti LuPone going through the motions of pretending to be someone else but not letting anyone forget that she’s actually Patti LuPone and that for me makes the whole act pointless. I also die inside when I hear or watch her sing because she has incredible vocal prowess yet she doesn’t seem to connect or let herself go in any song.
This is amazing
@@ClassyContralto "I also die inside..." ! (I appreciate the honesty).
I have greatly enjoyed reviewing these replies to this video.
What the hell were they thinking with the costumes in the LuPone version? I get that is more of a concert version than fully stage but her hair etc are so incongruous and distracting.
hated the look
+Joy Woffindin It's the directing choice by John Doyle. He's very minimalist, which means he wants costumes and sets to be as simple as possible so that the audience will be mainly focused on the actors. That's what he's also done with his new Broadway revival of The Color Purple.
minimalist? try looks like a high school recital. and is the bald guy really supposed to be sweeney todd?
Patti LuPone was in a concert version, but the clips in this video are not from that version. This is from the Broadway revival, which was, as Alex Meyer said, done in a more minimalist fashion. The basic premise of this revival was that Sweeney was a patient in a mental institution, and (if I recall correctly) the other actors are all either patients or doctors there.
Ends up looking rather like a low-rent version of The Addams Family. ;)
I wonder who his favorite is *cough* Lupone *cough cough*. I like Helena.
"I wish she'd just smile"
Umm, you know this isn't the Sound of Music right?
This is just a video on you greasing up lupone....
You’re comparing three completely different types of production.
I prefer Angela's because, let's face it…if Mrs. Lovett actually existed, she would have been closest to Angela's portrayal: a bat-shit crazy lunatic. i mean, it's HER idea to bake people into pies. you have to be absolutely psycho to come up with that plan like that.
Yeah, but there are different flavors of crazy, and it's all to desperately claw out a better position in life.
Yes bat shit crazy old bag. I've never seen LuPone so I can't comment but in my opinion HBC is weak in the role. Angela Lansbury nailed it for me, the perfect side kick for Sweeney Todd
Or very, very desperate. How familiar are you with Dickensian London?
This isn’t about Mrs. Lovett, but I love how in the burton adaptation, in A Little Priest Sweeney just goes “ah” I find it hilarious idk why
It's supposed to, so that's good!
Sweeney does that in literally every show.
@@featherelfstrom8405 I think the commenter means how downplayed his reaction is in the movie compared to say, the older Todd’s like George Hearn who let out a little laugh or AHA!
Liked Bonham-Carter's interpretation more... Not subtle, and totally blends with the character interpreted by Depp (Todd)...
Yeah
I do too. She's like number one on my list, lansbury comes in second, and the other person comes in third.
@@lizziekilburn2302 Exactly.
I actually prefer Helena. Her character sets a serious tone for the movie. Not to mention, it is a Tim Burton movie. Maybe I'm just biased. I love Helena Bonham Carter..
When it comes to the stage, however, I much prefer LuPone.
...except the play is a sort of a comedy.
Same
Devin Randolph a
But not everything in a comedy has to be funny, it's better to have some seriousness to pull it all together. I do wish he'd stop telling Bonham Carter to smile, she's a serious character
Personally my favourite is Bonham Carter.
But this video felt like it one of them was being praise a bit too much.
Hearn (to Lansbury ): Mrs. Lovett!!!
Bonham-Carter: Mrs. Lovett, sir.
LuPone: * *struts around playing tuba, utterly insane* *
I love Helena best for this role. She is haunting. and something about her voice goes through right through you. I know you commented on her not smiling.. but I find it creative that as she finds herself closer to Sweeney through the film, the smiles occur more and more. it's character development and she finds happiness again. after all, when Sweeney first came, her business sucked. she didn't have much going for her and she was a widow. No wonder she looked so depressed and bothered. everybody looked pretty glum in that movie, but that is your typical Victorian London. Also when it comes to the final scene, Helena takes the cake. I actually had tears in my eyes the first time I saw it. I love how Helena can make Lovett look so heartbroken at times when she can't draw Sweeney into her fantasy. it's beautifully sad.
Why is he preying only on Helena, I know it’s his opinion and I don’t want to start anything, but it’s like he’s purposefully doing it. I mean he is undoubtedly bias towards LuPone’s performance and her herself. For Angela Lansbury, he gave good reviews and bad reviews. But when it comes to Helena Bonham-Carter, he just completely loses it in the “good reviews” department. We all have our opinions and they all deserve to be heard, but I don’t stand with bias opinions, especially when he is talking against a woman (Helena) that played beautifully in the movie version of Sweeney Todd. I’m not saying that Helena’s performance was my favorite, but he didn’t have a right to beat her performance down. Save your time, don’t watch this video, all it is is him raving on and on about how “LuPone’s performance was spectacular and exquisite beyond compare.
slytherinfelton my point exactly he’s bias towards Patti LuPone and he even says it without directly saying it in the beginning he gave more reasons to praise LuPone on her performance that say what was wrong with it
Ikr, I really didn't like how he always told her to smile
Thanks for your advice! I won't watch this sht!
bruh. Personally, I loved Helena Bonham Carter’s performance because her voice was the only one that didn’t annoy the heck out of me. Your main complaint is that she didn’t smile often, but I think that was less due to her acting and more due to the overall tone of the movie. I mean, it was directed by Tim Burton, what did you expect?
Even though I didn’t enjoy Lansbury’s cartoony approach as much, at least she was able to portray a consistent character. Her performance was clear and cohesive, and her trademark scatterbrained countenance remained iconic in the minds of the audience.
Meanwhile, Lupone wasn’t able to achieve either of these feats. She didn’t have any specific character about her, and her style of singing felt lackluster overall. She was either almost talking or in an opera-esque tone, which frankly I found confusing. Not only did this botch the stylistic effect of the musical, but it also made it really difficult to understand what she was saying at times. She gave the least performance out of all three, and I really don’t understand why you praise her so obsessively.
Really? I couldn't watch the movie because Carter sings like a little girl. Like the mediocre girl in a high school play.
@@pcbassoon3892 to each their own ig
People have different preferences, however some of you criticising the broadway/musical theatre performances as "bad" singing. Lol but no offence but it comes across that you don't understand what you are talking about. Singing like this is required in a theatrical work - because the voice needs to project. Opera singers similarly must project because they do not use microphones (note briadway/west end singing is not exactly the same as opera btw). Depp and Bonham-Carter were singing in a recording studio and then lip synching on camera for a film. They have pleasant voices, but they would not get away with this on stage as their voices do not carry enough, especially Helena. That "vibrating" you describe is simply vibrato which is the result of proper placement is the voice, resonance and projection - the basics of good singing.
@@MidnightIsolde You're putting words in my mouth... not once did I say Lupone was "bad" at singing, I said she lacked the stylistic character that Lansbury and Bonham-Carter brought. Also, I never mentioned "vibrating" or vibrato but thanks for giving me the dictionary definition of a word that everyone already knows. "No offense" but if you didn't actually read my comment then don't waste my time by replying.
@@professionalcrier4535 they were replying to someone else but forgot to click their comment cause the other person said something about that
I don't think you can compare a theatrical performance to a movie. If Helena acted how these other ladies did while in front of a live audience, it would have been awful.
True, but she could have been much more energetic and brought much more to the role, onscreen or no. She completely misses the whole malicious side to Mrs. Lovett and plays her very timid and desperate. Mrs. Lovett is a deeply calculating force for evil in this show, more so than almost anyone else, including Todd himself. She is the one who comes up with the idea to bake people into pies for her own personal gain, feeds Todd's anger and resentment until he is ready for a murder spree, suggests KILLING Anthony, and worst of all, withholds the information that she has regarding Todd's wife so that she can keep him for herself. Helena doesn't seem to have much motivation behind any of these evil actions beyond that she had the hots for Todd fifteen years ago. She plays her as more of a victim than a driving force in the story.
Sorry that was a really long rant : /
but I do agree with you that if she had gone the direction of Lansbury or LuPone it would have been much too gaudy. Different mediums require different approaches!
+Maia Farinas I think a lot of people forget that TIM BURTON directed the film version with Helena... His movies are always dark with very little humor and the movie was HIS take on this classic piece. Helena brought, to me, a quieter Mrs. Lovett who saw more things than she let on. She also has the creep factor, which she does very well, considering her role as Bellatrix Lestrange. She didn't smile much at the start because there was NOTHING to smile about, almost depressed in her mundane lifestyle before Todd comes along and she realises she can have more. Her voice is lovely, which surprised me. I didn't like Angela Lasenbury's performance because, as the guy in the video said, it was just too showy and theatrical, which isn't right for this piece. And I didn't really like Patti LeBelle personally. I admit she's good, but she doesn't do anything for me personally.
+Linda Gregory lepone* I don't know why I put patti labelle. "Do forgive me if me head's a little vague" xD
That's a good point, I hadn't considered that some of the humorlessness came from Tim Burton himself, however I do think that a lot of the character's depth is lost in that performance. The thing is, I don't think there is a definitive, flawless interpretation of Mrs. Lovett. It's such a difficult part, and there's so much to work with in the material. Every interpretation brings something new and wonderful to the role, and which version you like best is really subjective and everyone's opinion is just as valid as everyone else's. So yeah... lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya, or A Little Priest, as the case may be. ; )
It's true that a different style of acting is required for camera as opposed to on stage, but Helena's acting in Sweeney Todd was subtle even for normal camera acting standards. The problem with Mrs Lovett is the same problem the Thenardiers had in the Les Mis movie: they're inherently written as bordering on over-the-top.
As he says in the video, we can never know exactly what it was that produced Helena's final performance, and for my money the directing certainly was an issue (A Little Priest in the movie was excruciatingly boringly executed - pardon the pun - when it should be one of the high points), but Helena's performance as a whole just didn't seem to gel with the way the character is written. Actually the more I think about it, the more I'm certain that most of the blame lies with the direction, which is a shame because let's face it, Tim Burton plus a story about murder and cannibalism should have been a match made in heaven...or somewhere...
I love Helena Bonham Carters subtlety. the character is already crazy enough in make-up, costume and actions, that her controlled nature helps her balance it all out.
Sorry. "her controlled nature helps her balance it all out." No, its boring and terrible. Carter is talented but most of that talent is not on display in Sweeney Todd. Burton made sure of that.
Dude, you must not have gotten the memo about men telling women to smile. Why would she smile? Her life is so dreary.
Kimberly Djikstra Yeah, I didn't get that either. Smiling wouldn't even fit the bad assery that was Ms. Lovett in Tim Burton's version.
@@JLDReactions Badass? You mean extremely lethargic and terribly dull?
It's a joke Kimberly. Clearly you've only seen Burton's shitty adaptation, otherwise you'd know that Mrs. Lovett is supposed to be a smiling, cheerful if airheaded woman, even in the face of abject poverty.
He read off a description of miss Lovett that said she was cheery. If that’s a big part of he character then she should probably smile
@@berkleysmith6945 The idea of cheery is subjective and given the grim, dark realism of London during that age that Burton shows and doesn't hide? She is very cheery, the cheeriest in the musical and movie. She is absolutely in love with Todd and has the bubbles, blinders absolutely on. Quirky jokes, side-eyes, fastest paced talker. She seems to share EVERYTHING and is endearing and oblivious that she is doing it because she is so lonely.
This man really tried to argue that Lansbury isn’t the best Lovett LMAO
shes the most natural mrs lovett lol
Fr
Like THATS THE ORIGINAL. I understand Helena’s thing, it’s the screen adaptation and TiM bUrToN. But with the other one, I see nothing, sorry. I see no personality. Lansbury, quick, witty, funny. Helena, quiet, annoyed, deep. The other one, nothing.
@@caprisunkid9801 bro that’s hella disrespectful to Patti Lupone “The other one” if you don’t think she’s the best Mrs Lovett that’s fair enough. But for gods sake she’s a two time Tony award winner and a legend in the theatre game.
@@owenwilliams7475 sorry, I just didn’t know her name, also, it’s ok that I personally think that someone wasn’t really fit for a role. You might think she was great, I personally didn’t. I’m sorry that it came off disrespectful. Just my opinion.
I respect your opinion but I disagree with you
+Biggest Liberace Fan Same.
Agree , to be honest his whole video was one sided.
Patti LuPone is the best Lovett, but her best performance was in the 2001 San Francisco version, with George Hearn as Todd and Neil Patrick Harris as Toby
which sided?
Bias bias bias
Lansbury was definitely my favorite; Lupone didn’t seem to really fit the character for me and Carter did better than I thought she would
I don't know. I like Bonham Carter's performance the best because of her subtlety in those clips you showed. But what you didn't show is when she comes alive in "A Little Priest" and "Down by the Sea." She is a gloomy depressed woman who is resigned to her fate until Todd comes back into her life and gives her an alternative.
In my opinion, Lansbury is just too happy and LuPone is too aware of the audience. Perhaps that's just the benefit of the nature of film as opposed to stage. On stage you have to project and you have the audience staring you in the face. While on screen, its just you and the character. You can always count on being heard and there's nobody laughing at the funny moments, you just have to trust that they're funny.
The best thing is we can enjoy all these different interpretations for what they are: Each woman is making the character her own and letting what they think are the most important character traits show the most.
I agree 100%
+SteamPunkPrincess Gs DITTO!!!!
+Zack Finta Amen
same over here
It's just By the Sea not down by the sea
Personally I'm a fan of Angela Lansbury's version; I like that she almost doesn't realise the horrific nature of the plan, which creates a more sympathetic reaction at the end when Todd realises her deception and her world falls apart. You can't feel as sorry for someone who knows exactly what they're doing.
I really don't like the way the film handled 'A Little Priest' in general. The whole point of the number is the contrast between the really dark idea and the fun they're having with it. They've just come up with a way to get Mrs Lovett's business on track and let Todd take his revenge on the world in one go, so they should both be happy, but they just sound bored. I get that it's two entirely different disciplines and that film needs to be a bit more subtle, but they still could have put more into it.
I agree with you about the film...plus Helena's unenthusiastic singing puts me off.
For the most part, I agree that Lansbury's is the strongest performance. Sweeney Todd is a dark, brooding character so Mrs. Lovett needs to be more cheerful and almost bubbly to be a good foil. That's where Carter's performance runs into problems. (Besides, it's so much more horrific when Mrs. Lovett seems to be delighted in their scheme compared to Todd's this-is-the-means-to-an-end attitude.)
Lansbury is the best. As much as I love the other two as performers, Lansbury captures Mrs. Lovett's humor and flightiness the best. HBC was just so emotionally flat. I know that was a conscious choice between her and Burton to make the character that way, but Mrs. Lovett needs to be the comic relief to Sweeney's constant darkness.
Her Lovett isn't a scheming villain or a cynical opportunist, she's a straight up cheerful psychopath. She doesn't understand that what she's doing is wrong. I love that; in fact, I feel like she didn't play this up *enough*.
I saw the original production with Lansbury and Len Cariou. Musical Theatre Mash just doesn't understand that creating a role is hard and Sondheim's score is amazingly difficult. And pleasing the audience while accommodating the limits of the stage is harder than film versions and chintzy remakes.
"By the Sea", which was mentioned in particular, is amazingly difficult onstage -- it is, as noted, an interior monologue about getting away from London and being married to Sweeney Todd and there ARE NO BREAKS. Does Musical Theatre Mash have any idea how difficult that conceit is to convey much less act out??
Gotta say, there's almost nothing more infuriating than a guy telling a girl to smile more.
.....
I'm just sayin'. Maybe it wouldn't have been as frustrating if you'd have smiled more during the vid~ :D
P S 😂😂
Preach
"CAN EVERYONE PLEASE STOP TELLING WOMEN TO SMILE!?"
-Nicole Watterson
**Telling anyone to smile, in general*
@@peppapigstrashtwin3902 Agreed on principle, but there's a long-standing tendency to demand women in particular smile. And by long-standing, I mean like centuries.
So while yes, it is rude and annoying to tell anyone of any gender to smile, that's sort of like replying 'All lives matter' when people support BLM. Like, yeah. But also, no.
For me Helena takes the cake. Her view on it was more dark, how the story is supposed to be. I don't like it as a comedy, the story is so much more than cheesy jokes. Her role as mrs lovett is poor which is how London was at the time. She isn't animated, she's a person. That's why I love it.
Lovett's numbers are meant to be comedic though, A Little Priest is meant to be lighthearted and a moment of brevity after Sweeney's Epiphany. By The Sea is meant to contrast her manic obsession with Todd against Todd's cold and serious calculations.
Agreed
Yet the penny dreadful from the 1840s which is the original story, has gallows humour as did the first play adaptations of it because that was the genre. The macabre as entertainment. See Todd Slaughter as Sweeney Todd in the 1936 film to get an idea of how a victorian melodrama was played. Different takes are interesting and a good thing, but you're sort of setting it up as Butons film having more realism meaning it's a more correct portrayal, but that's not really true.
Laughing at how biased this is towards LuPone. "Here's how Lansbury and Carter screwed up, but here's how LuPone did better than them"
LuPone relied too much on the comedy. She made everything have a lighter tone especially in A Little Priest. Like no it's not funny. THEYRE CONTEMPLATING MURDER AND CANNIBALISM.
Love Lansbury because originals are always iconic but I LOVE Carter. This musical is so dark and creepy it's like Tim Burton was destined to direct the movie. The tones and the singing in the film was absolutely incredible. Her "A Little Priest" is so twisted and creepy it's perfect
I can't stand watching LuPone. She is so self-indulgent. Lansbury is big and melodramatic in a vaudeville kind of way, which is exactly what Sondheim was going for. Her performance is specific if hammy, but it's all about the audience, not about her...it's about making them laugh. LuPone has this "look at me, hear how sultry my voice is" thing going on in all of her performances that I can't stand. She's the ultimate diva, and I just don't find her interesting to watch or listen to. She plays every character as, well, Patti LuPone.
If he wanted a third to compare, he should've used Emma Thompson, not Bonham-Carter...you can't compare a film performance to stage performances, they're two very different animals. And Thompson blew the lid off of that role. She was AMAZING.
"Like no it's not funny"
IT'S A SONG FULL OF PUNS
A Little Priest is supposed to be a comedic number, the characters even laugh while singing it.
Jose Martinez I agree with your comments on LuPone’s “self-indulgence” so to speak, but I think it’s pretty obvious that “A Little Priest” is intended by Sondheim to be a morbidly comedic number. As pointed out, it’s chock full of puns about what people in different professions would taste like in pies. God it’s a boring song when you don’t play up the comedic elements. It’s like complaining that Steve Martin played up being a psychopathic person who mutilates people for his own pleasure for comedy in Little Shop of Horrors (which granted, was more blatantly comedic). “Duh, guy! That’s why it’s so funny!”
Seconded. watching halfway through I'm sitting here going '...woooow, the bias is evident, literally every single thing LuPone comes out on top? Yeahno.'. Frankly, I liked Carter's performance because of the thing that none of the rest have. While Lansbury is an AMAZING stage actor and I love all of her stuff, even including her take on this, Carter plays a better insane person. As you mentioned above, this is about cannibalism and murder, on a scale. Carter also kinda gets credit from me after playing another partly insane, partly evil person in the HP series, so she kinda had the tools to work on this one WELL.
LuPone seems more like she's the stage actress for other play actor/actresses to like. Maybe she does better in the 'technical' categories or something, at least that's the feeling I get. Meanwhile the ACTUAL act of being in character and pulling off the person you're supposed to be was more believable by the other two.
I use characters and actors like Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia as Morticia and Gomez Addams for a bar in this instance. Here was an actor and actress who were basically more or less iconic in their roles, even now. Twenty years or more later, you STILL constantly see image memes of these two touted as 'the great romance'. If an actor can get me to believe the character because THEY clearly do as much as those two characters did, then their performance was definitely praiseworthy. Carter and Depp more or less did so, with a few minor gaffes.
I loved Helena Boham Carter. She played her part perfectly. You have to remember that the movie was an adaptation. While the play leaned more towards comedy, the movie took a much darker, solemn tone, so the fact that her character was also more solemn made her fit in each scene. If she was trying for comedy, everything would fall flat considering both the tone (as I mentioned) and how poorly that would match with Depp’s character.
Well said, I completely agree!
Or, Tim Burton and his cast don't understand the show.
@@brandonburrell8517 - Tim Burton was directing a film adaptation, and adapted the play with Sondheim. The mediums are completely different.
fr
@@ChienaAvtzonI always enjoy it when people are calling the film a terrible adaptation, and then I tell them Sondheim helped make it and they immediately shut up.
Bro, you could've just named the video "Why Patti LuPone is the best Mrs. Lovett".
i think everyones decision is based more on if they like musical theater or if they like horror movies and dark undertones.
YES! But is it weird I love both?
Horror and dark undertones for me
I like all three and I honestly think the film adaptation is very true to it's source material for the most part with soundheim works ng with Tim Burton to really make it work so I think the movie for me is the best and the instrumentals I'm a whore when it comes to scores the vocals of everyone and yes, so is Helena Bonham Carter as Mrs Lovatt
Bonham Carter will always be my favorite, her voice is amazing in the movie and she's a fantastic actress but Lansbury was really good
Here's my thing about Patti LuPone: I feel like she's trying SO HARD not to be Angela Lansbury that she ends up not being Mrs. Lovett either. I noticed this especially in By the Sea, where instead of being excited and wistful, she just seems kind of ... bored. She also seemed that way in Worst Pies in London. And don't get me wrong, I love Patti LuPone! Her Evita is absolutely iconic! But I don't think she's right for Mrs. Lovett. And I'm also totally okay with performers deviating from choices made by the OBC; that's part of what makes a show fresh. For example, a few years ago, I saw a traveling company of Wicked with Emily Koch as Elphaba, and Emily Koch's approach to Elphaba was quite different from Idina Menzel's, but she still captured who Elphaba is as a character. And it never felt like she was actively trying not to be Idina. Whereas with Patti LuPone, her attempts to be different from Angela kind of take me out of the story.
this
Totally agree, I love love Patti Lupone, but Angela Lansbury is Mrs' Lovett always for me, I love Patti in everything but I think Lansbury captures it best.
Angela Lansbury in Sweeney Todd is up there with Carol Channing in Hello Dolly, Lea Salonga in Miss Saigon, Patti Lupone in Evita, Alice Ripley in Next to Normal, Julie Andrews in My Fair Lady, etc. Her performance was genius and we're lucky to have it preserved for new generations of theater geeks to obsess over forever.
Julie Andrews wasn’t in My Fair Lady 😂
the musical not the movie. Their first choice for the My fair lady movie was Julie andrews but she could'nt do it because she was doing mary poppins. So there second choice was Audrey Hepburn@@pinkpele
Actually, Julie Andrews was NEVER Jack Warner's choice for Eliza in the film. He was always going for the then-bigger box office of Audrey Hepburn, who initially turned it down until word got out that Elizabeth Taylor was Warner's next choice. But Jack never intended to use Julie. This is well and long documented. Had MGM won the bidding war, THEN Vincente Minnelli and the Broadway leads would have gone to England and filmed on location, a la Paris and "Gigi." However, Warner Brothers outbid MGM, and the rest is history.
@@DavidN369 Yes. This is the true and accurate story. Julie was never considered and in fact, she did Poppins precisely because she didn't get to do Lady. And she blew Audrey Hepburn away (Hepburn was never a great Eliza IMHO).
@jonrosen7980 Audrey did what she could, but, EXACTLY.
I'm sorry, but I am old school with this one. Angela Lansbury was amazing. Her performance is so animated and comical.
Are you on Patti Lupone's payroll? Honestly.
So here are some things to think about when you poo poo Angela Landsbury's choices. First, the size of the stage that Landsbury is on is about 6 times the size of the stage Lupone is on so that is why the acting is bigger and more cartoon (it's also the style of the era).
Further, the tempi for By the Sea is faster in Landsbury's performance because they had limited film and were trying to keep cost down. if you listen to the recording as opposed to just the filmed version, the tempo is smaller... .
Teladian2 Bless this comment.
He's incredibly biased, it's blatantly obvious.
Clearly he's enamored with Patty Lepone. He completely set this, but every explanation is overwrought. Especially the last one, in which Patty is just plain terrible. She plays the role way too sultry for what that part is about.
Raymond Bingham I too am a patty fan but the tone is off for me and maybe it would be different if I had seen it live.
*lansbury
I have to agree with others! You are too in love with Lupone to be critical!
I liked Bonham Carter's performance better than Lupone's tbh
Ana Laura same gurl same
me to and she was pregnant at the time so he should go easy on her
Helena was better because she was so detached about everybody else but obsessed with Sweeney her performance really captured what kind of woman Lovett was
I like the performance, but the singing sounds very robotic, like they used a lot of autotune.
PERIODT
okay my only argument with that was none of the other women EXCEPT Helena nailed that old english slang accent like she did. The other women weren't even trying to fit the era nor were they getting the right deep, seductive tone that Helena has to offer in some areas. I do suppose she lacks the humorous affect the others shared and she played a very dry Mrs. Lovett but i don't believe Mrs. Lovett was meant to be this huge funny character. Think about it; her husbands dead, and now her true love has returned to Fleet Street. she hasn't had a companion in years so she doesn't seem as full of life anymore. That's just my opinion.
mintsuga uh... Angela Lansbury was a 60 year old English woman when she did this. I think she knows better than you and Carter combined what an "old English slang accent" might sound like.
Philip Earley Angela Lansbury was born into a posh family 😂 doesn’t mean she has the old English slang down to the tee. Sweeney Todd is set in 1846. That would be 80 odd years before she was born. I love Angela Lansbury, but her performance wasn’t well thought out in my opinion of course. Although, I believe she gave a more comedic approach which I believe was intended for the character. It would have to be between Lansbury and Bonham Carter.
Old English slang accent???? Could you people possibly be talking about a Cockney dialect?
Forgot what the correct term was for the dialect used was called. Thank you :D
Lansbury was the literal original mrs.lovett directed by the director and writer about who lovett was supposed to be so I'm pretty sure she knows who Lovett is.
Call me crazy, but I like all of them. Staging was different in all 3 (wasn't Lupone's staged in a more contemporary timeframe with the musicians all on stage, like with the stage version of Chicago?). Great parts can allow for different interpretations. I'm guessing that Sondheim signed off on all of them.
Agreed
I absolutely agree with you. They each brought something different to the role. This guy just seems to be a bit of a know-it-all. 😂
I want my seventeen minutes back, this guy was being biased and unfair.Let me tell you what the video is about LUPONE LUPONE AND LUPONE. I was waiting for him to pick the other ladies for at least one win but it never happened to my surprise [oh who am I kidding I knew this guy was only going to pick Lupone for the next round after the first 2 rounds].
I had the same thought
Captain Underpants This guy is a yerk.... a wanna be actor that quite hasn't got what it takes
Saying a person is 'simply and obviously the best' without backing it up with evidence is rather sloppy.
...and lazy af.
in my opinion Lupone was better at the STAGE performance. but I don't see you how could compare a performance on stage to one on the screen.
HBC wasn't a singer to begin with and we have to give her props for playing this role really well. She even studied how to sing while baking, now that's some dedication there!
Love how “Wait” is her solo and arguably Helena did it best and it’s not in here.
if im being honest i enjoyed carters preformance better than lupon simply because lupon wasnt selling the crazy lady as much as carter to me. lupon was a bit to jokey and carter was more serious XD
I was actually very, very surprised by Angela's performance! Yes- it was a bit campy at times and a little rushed but in all honesty I felt like she did a good job on nearly every song, but her first act is definitely stronger than her second act performance overall I'd argue.
Helena's performance is still one of my all time favorites, both in acting and singing. Of course- she had the help of movie magic, but if that's really going to be a factor then don't put her in a competition with two stage productions. It's not fair to put her in knowing she's a film production to begin with just so you can handicap her from the start with that hanging over her head. That being said, she's still one of my favorites haha. You complained about how bleak she is and never smiles but think about it- what's she supposed to be smiling about? Her husband's dead, her ship is failing, she's essentially living in squalor and with pests infesting her home, her love from the past came back and won't pay her any mind, and the town is run by corrupt officials. Are you really going to try to argue that making human pies should cheer someone up that much?
Then LuPone- oh, dear. Is she a good actress? YES! Definitely! She brought the humor out splendidly in nearly every song, especially in A Little Priest. But at what cost? Notice whenever she does her delays and stresses certain parts of the sentence that the sound warps on her. At times she shoulda so nasally that she actually ends up flat and sharp on some of the notes and that's in every song. Not to mentioned that sometimes her mouth keeps moving to sing and her body just stops having run out of things to do. She plays it off as being relaxed but that's nothing like her character was described to be (at least it was never mentioned).
Personally, from the description given, the context of the show, and a bit of psychology, I think Mrs. Lovett's character is meant to be representative of the lower-class worker, someone whose suffered her whole life and in order to cope clings onto the dreams of her past fantasies. She works at her bakery full time (dispute having no customers) just to take her mind off of all the bad around her. She constantly spew forth a torrent of her own thoughts as they arrive because she needs to keep busy to avoid acknowledging the situation as a whole. She has her moments of quiet and those are meant to show her thinking only about what's greenfly happening- how can I convince him to go along with my plan, does he really want to run off with me? She only ever pauses to consider how to further chase her dreams. In the song Worst Pies in London she is moving non-stop. Why? Because she wants this person to stay, NEEDS them to stay so she can distract herself. It's because of these quirks however that make her appear humorous. Really- she's a tragedy in disguise.
That being said, taking into account musical performance, purposeful acting, and the blending of misery and humor to accurately depict the character I've got to give it to Helena, Angela, and then LuPone.
Helena nails every music cue while staying in character, paints subtle strokes isn't her performance like a master artist does to their canvas, and perfectly accents each humorous quality about Mrs. Lovett while reminding us of just how tragic her situation is.
Angela has excellent vocals, putting on a very difficult tone and quality to her tamber while retaining the ability to actually hit her notes, but sometimes rushes through EVERYTHING, her acting is very intense and purposeful but often seems a little needless, and she very much makes the character seem more crazy or campy.
LuPone. LuPone came in last because of a few reasons. The singing- she was either to loud (trying to sustain notes like she was imitating and opera singer) or too soft (I literally strained to hear her at times), her acting was actually very good but her mouth would keep going and we body would just stop- her mouth was all chatty-Cathy and her body went cold-turkey having run out of things to do on stage, by a fan. Finally, the character. She actually made some excellent character choices! But, vocally it suffered because of that. She'd stress sentences in such odd ways, which worked greatly, but would distort the sound and placement of the sound as she sang causing the pitch to sometimes distort upwards or downwards. At the end of the day- it's a musical. You can't sacrifice one part of the performance to make up for another- that's just not very good in my opinion. The reason she came lower than Angela was honestly because Angela didn't have to sacrifice any one part of her performance to have another- they all worked in random together l. That being said, I could see that, on a different day if the week I may out LuPone above Angela.
That's just my take. Okay bye.
you just gave me a better, much more balanced argument than that whole 17 minute long video did 😂 and i agree with you, i think hellie bonham carter is best both vocally, and i’m the terms of capturing the misery of mrs lovetts life! but i may be biased since i’m such a big hbc fan 🤪
I believe strongly that the character is meant to be a comic foil to contrast with the sinister Sweeney. This is why Angela Lansbury's portrayal is campy. But only on the surface. I don't think anyone else has captured the balancing act between comic and tragic as well as she did. I like both the other actresses, but nobody, IMHO, has done this character as well as she.
"Patti's performance almost reinvents the whole role." Yeah, I'd say so. Apparently Fleet Street is in America instead of lower east London now?
Lupone looks more like Berg's Lulu than Sondheim's Lovette and she plays to the audience rather than the play.
Lansbury IS Mrs. Lovett and she plays to Mr. Todd.
Mrs. Burton plays to Mr. Burton.
+Marc Allen To be fair, that Doyle SWEENEY was directed like that, with so much of the action being played straight out to the audience, rather than from one character to another, just as in that example shown. Not my favorite concept, by any means, but it was Doyle's direction. I only saw the tour, which was quite well done (within those weird parameters), with a magnificent Judy Kaye, and it was interesting, but made me wish I could see the entire, quite good cast (don't even remember who was Sweeney, but he was fine) in a different production. Can't we get a restraining order, to keep Doyle away from American theater (and yes, I include Canada, Mexico and the rest of Central and South America in that, along with the USA)?
In my head, I'm better than all of these Mrs. Lovetts. All that shows is I've got the crazy part down. Well, except for Helena B.-C., whose "Worst Pies in London" acts as an iron curtain, stopping me from ever getting further than that into the movie (pretty much everything that comes before it also adds to that barrier~I just can't take that much assault on a great show and score).
The Lovett I'd most like to see is Imelda Staunton. My favorite Lovett is Angela L. on the OBCR, and in the 2nd act I got to see her do with Len Cariou on Broadway. (Didn't sneak in; some folks leaving at intermission offered their tickets to my friend and me, saying it was the worst show they'd ever seen~we gratefully went right in, and loved it. Years later, got to see Lansbury and Cariou perform "A Little Priest" at a gala performance, to do with Angela L. receiving the Meadows Award in Dallas. A couple of lines got flubbed, but it was wonderful!)
+Marc Allen Different styles and different directors. Don't forget they are an important part of the equation.
Why didn't you factor in Patti LuPone's performance from the "Live in Concert" version with George Hearn? It allows for a more direct comparison to Angela Lansbury since they're playing off the same actor, and you could have gotten higher quality audio and video from it.
Why would a murdering woman working in a depression in a pie shop riddled with vermon be smiling. Carter gets my vote.
I miss a comparison on the final scene, specifically the bit between "no, no, not lied at all" and "yes, I lied cause I love you". I think that moment is as important as those you analyzed, and Bonham Carter's performance of it gave me the chills (Lansbury's was a bit too loud and I haven't seen LuPone's).
For me, it's Bonham-Carter. I find Tim Burton's work to be very hit or miss, but I thought his version of Sweeney Todd was brilliant, thanks largely to Bonham-Carter, Her version of Mrs. Lovett was introspective and callous, but with a sardonicism that is just perfect for the character.
She's an amazing actress don't get me wrong. But she cannot do Sondheim, she can do the play, butt not tge music
+Kevin Davis The only reason HBC got the roles is she was sleeping with the director. She was a horrible choice in both acting and singing. She is just not suited for the role. The role calls for emotion and vocal talent, neither of which she displayed.
I agree what people fail to realise is Burton is darker and not trying to bring the light humour into his character as much as the stage calls for. He used her to help reinvent the character to suit his style. If she portrayed the way the stage version calls for then it wouldn't fit the Tim Burton asthetic of the film.
+Robert Jones
No, its not the darkness Burton is potrying, it that HBC has a horrid singing voice.
It's darker b/c that's the only thing Timmy knows. The musical is a gleeful political farce. They call it "black humor." Burton left out the humor.
No one:
Musical Theatre Mash: which seems good until you see an alternative *pans to Lupone*
Hands down. Lansbury.
Your opinion would carry more weight and be much more interesting if you tell us WHY you feel this way.
Hands Down. Lupone
Maybe Jandel actually saw Lansbury in the role. I don't get the impression that many here did. Her giddy and hyper-capitalist Lovett is what gives the show its energy. Although Depp was very good, Bonham Carter utterly ruined the film by making the story incomprehensible. She didn't have enough energy to make a successful pie shop, unlimited supply of bodies or not.
I saw Sweeney Todd five times with Lansbury (3x with Cariou, 2x with Hearn), saw the Circle in the Square Production with Lupone, and have seen the movie twice. I saw several other versions as well. Yes, Lansbury's performance was more cartoonish than the others, but that was the point. The show was so dark for its time that she had to be the comic relief.
The reality is that none of them completely knocked it out of the park. But if I had to choose one performer, Lansbury would be it. Lupone has too much of a tendency to want to show off her pipes, and her English accent is absolutely atrocious. Great for Evita. Not so good for light opera.
Your comment is 7 years ago, so not sure you will see it, but I agree 100%. Lansbury was and will always be the greatest Lovett if for no other reason than the role was written for her. Your point about the slightly cartoonish aspect of her performance is spot on. And Lupone's various performances (I've seen three different ones including the "infamous" tuba one as well as the concert version in San Francisco) are all "Lupone" (as are most of her performances, its like watching Evita over and over - she is technically brilliant but mostly she makes each character about herself rather than creating a character). As for Carter, I saw the film once and that was once too many. It is terrible (IMHO) as it almost completely eliminates the humor. Grand Guignol is most often melodrama which includes a sense of humor. Burton's Sweeney is just horrific and hard to watch, IMHO.
literally thought lupone did the worst of the 3 lmao
and yeah like, the whole wanting helena to smile more, completely ignorant to the emotion built into burton's rendition. He wasnt putting the original musical on film for more people to see, he created his own unique version of it, which was absolutely brilliant.........when you dont compare it to other version. Helena did what she was supposed to do in that role for that version more than the others did in THEIR role for their version, so its still fair to compare them, but saying she needed to smile more would be wrong for here role.
I mean i've been in love with HBC since i was like 8 but as she's not a musical actor and she was in her goth husband's solemn film I find she did great. But i think its so obvious Angela is THEE Lovett. She has a great balance of all the things the Lovett role asked for. Patti Lupone is a great actor but I find her Lovett a bit strange? She's a clever as hell actor but I almost find her too analytical and thinking like way too much at points? In short Angela is my true Lovett. But by a mile Helena's By The Sea is my favourite 😊
and comparing Helena to Lupone is a great disservice. They're not even in the same category
All three performers are phenomenal - they all brought something different, unique and special to the role. Angela Lansbury, aside from effectively creating that character, brought an eclectic mix of manic optimism and cheerful practicality to her rendition of Mrs. Lovett, which was considered the definitive interpretation of that role. She also very brilliantly embodied the comic relief that helped make the initial show a hit - it's an important balance to be had, being a revenge-tragedy about serial murder and cannibalism and all, and the comedic aspects are necessary in order to both offset and lend to the darker elements of the story. Patti LuPone also delivered an excellent performance, and I would say that of the three Mrs. Lovetts, her voice showcases the most polish. I also appreciate that she did a few things differently with her take on Mrs. Lovett, and funnily enough it's also the reason why some people aren't as big a fan of her rendition - she took a little bit of liberty with the vocals in the role here and there, deviating a little from the way Sondheim meant for the role to be performed. And to be fair, Sondheim was notorious for challenging his performers with unconventional, and often difficult compositions; the song "By The Sea" is a popular example - Mrs. Lovett straight-up doesn't breathe in the first sixteen measures of that song, and a big part of the reason is that the song is meant to specifically showcase her manic, chatty nature, and while Sondheim's original intent with the song provided both comedy and character insight, it's not the most practical composition. That being said, I thoroughly enjoy Patti's rendition of Mrs. Lovett. As for Helena's rendition - I'll be honest, I wasn't the biggest fan, initially. In general, I found Tim Burton's film very flat, especially compared to the dark vibrancy inherent in the stage versions. That being said, I've softened towards Helena's performance since, because very honestly, it's a pretty great performance. On a technical level, she is one of the least experienced singers to take on the role of Mrs. Lovett; her singing is lovely, but her voice sometimes felt a bit weak, and she definitely had issues with vocal projection during specific numbers. However, watching the film now, I can definitely appreciate what she brought to the role. In particular, the way that she performed alongside Johnny Depp in "The Finale", when Mrs. Lovett's treachery against Sweeney comes to light; in the stage version, when Sweeney discovers that the beggar woman he just killed was his wife Lucy all along, Mrs. Lovett goes hypermanic, mad and shrill while admitting that she'd allowed Sweeney to believe his wife dead because she herself was in love with Sweeney. The way that Helena played it, on the other hand - Mrs. Lovett's confession in the film is much quieter - sad and pleading, and almost guilty, as she confesses to Sweeney why she did what she did. It lends something very poignant to that scene, particularly as it leads directly to her own fate at Sweeney's hands. Helena may be the least polished as a singer, but she absolutely nailed what Mrs. Lovett is all about, and what she did with that role, in my opinion, was ultimately very beautiful.
Lansbury is the best singer, and I think you're forgetting these are all from different decades, and the Lansbury is from that older school training of musical singing and acting (bigger and louder a la Ethel Mermen)
So.... Let's just talk some quick facts... Lansbury's performance (which I did see on Broadway in 1979) was created to played in one of the biggest houses on Broadway, and the version for PBS that you're using was later taped in Los Angeles at a theater even BIGGER than the Broadway house, so the fact that her performance seems big or showy when captured on camera has to be an acceptable "gimme" for an era when musicals were not being made into movies and the PBS Great Performances series was the only way to capture these shows rather than allowing them to disappear forever. I'm fairly certain the performances of the original cast of A Chorus Line would seem way over the top as well, but I sure do wish it had been taped for prosperity. Additionally, the vaudevillian aspects of her performance was absolutely meant to contrast the very dark world inhabited by Sweeney. The balance struck between moods was expertly achieved by all the performers, and Prince's direction was peerless. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt: the PBS tape does not truly capture the scope and magnificence of the show as it played out live on stage. I've seen the show many times: the Doyle revival, the Baranski production in DC, the recent revival in London... none of them have ever come close to the electrifying heights achieved by the original.
Bonham Carter's performance was designed for film, which not only means "smaller" but also without any need to accommodate audience reaction (or any in the moment playing off of audience reaction). She also can't sing. While she is a great actress, and brings her usual professionalism and craft to the role, she really has no business playing the part (and wouldn't be if her husband wasn't the director). But again, compromise: with movie musicals back but in questionable standing (Rent bombed), after 25+ years this was the director/stars cocktail that got the movie made. It didn't work on many levels, and her performance (except for some very good moments in non-musical scenes) was forgettable... or should I say, indistinguishable from every other heavily made up and costumed character she has played for Burton.
Patti LaPone... I love Patti LaPone... she was the ONLY thing in any way, shape or form enjoyable about that God-awful John Doyle production of Sweeney. LaPone always gives a magnificent, multi-dimensional performance full of well-thought-out choices and a complete dedication to the audience. Like Lansbury before her, LaPone gave a vaudevillian performance in that production, but the house was easily 1/2 the size (maybe smaller), so her performance was necessarily smaller than Lansbury's... but also, your tape is a bootleg of very low quality, so that is creating an additional gauze between the performance and you as an at-home viewer. Perhaps this gives you the feeling that this performance is stellar (and it was very good), but taken as part of the package, she was hamstrung by a grievously conceived production that just didn't work in a Broadway house.
I dont know, seems like you had your mind made up and made this video backwards from that conclusion rather than actually go through the evidence fairly.
i completely disagree with your judgements about Lansbury, as she created the role with Sondhiem, his original concept was high and cartoony which creates horror against the violence. lupone's performance is almost as bland as carter's. landsbury had more love and maliciousness and opportunistic than the others. lupone's specifically was so underwhelming, it's like she phoned it in. i was shocked. it's too obvious to make mrs lovett dark on the surface and plotting so villainously. she's a survivor, an amoral opportunist, but she's not some slick sexy villainess.
the way Sondhiem intended was landsbury. but you're also using a taped performance as a judge, on the soundtrack it's obvious she had more versions that are more what you'd like to see.
as for the Little Priest intro, she gets the idea then tries to check if todd's game. she can be putting it together, but the joke is she still trying to get him to realize what she's already figured out.
but it was nice to see them all next to each other.
Sondheim has since said Ms. LuPone was closest to what he actually envisioned.
+sash grace that's maybe what he changed his mind to, but his original description is nothing like lupone.
,truly
@@sashgrace5069 *Sighs.* Source?
Something tells me you're a Patti LuPone fan ;)
Yes because she’s incredibly talented. It’s not his fault she’s the best.
Staunton was my favorite, I love her, she is such a sweetheart in real life but her ability to transform into a sickly sweet conniving character is second to none, take her portrayal of Umbridge
I don't think the film was ment to be funny it's creepy like most of Tim burton films (witch I love) infact I didn't think it was a funny musical till I watched the theater vision, still i love the film best but would love to see it live
I agree with you, while the play is more about dark humour, the film tries to show decadence. They are very different and obviously that requires a different type of character. Bonham-Carter is psycho crazy, while Lupone and Lansbury had lost their minds.
Agree! It's supposed to be creepy not funny.
Leah Holmes actually it's supposed to be both. it appeals to really dark humor because no matter what the word choices and puns all still in there the humour is just darker coming from Burton. but this guy is so biased it's no joke
i agree 100%
Leah Holmes exactly! to compare it a screen play is ridiculous. The theme behind the movie was to be full of gore and slight darkness that brings out the really twisted nature of the play thats cannot be seen on stage.
I really don't like Patti's performance. I mean she's a gifted performer but idk she seems far too self aware. Plus there's that accent 😒
exactly how i feel.
Shes so talented but oof! That accent!
Lansbury without a doubt is the high water mark of Mrs. Lovetts. It takes incredible skill to sing those songs so well with all of their big and little moments and all while maintaining the unfiltered raw zest for life - at any cost! - that is at Mrs. Lovett's core. How do you bring to life a character who's desperately trying to keep her pie shop a float financially, had a soft spot for Benjamin Barker, falls easily into Sweeney's plot for revenge, knows just how to dispose of Sweeney's victims economically, sings ebulliently of the seaside and her goofy vision of marriage with Sweeney, smothers Sweeney with not so subtle flirtations and kisses, cares for Toby so tenderly until he begins to interfere with her romantic plans for Sweeney? See Angela Landsbury's Mrs. Lovett. Brilliant! And of course, because she was the first to breathe life into the character she had the direct input from the creator as to who Mrs. Lovett was and how he envisioned her. Landsbury never tried to compete with the darkness of Sweeney Todd. That would've been a mistake. And she never tried to make Mrs. Lovett snide or sour. That would have been easy and boring. Mrs. Lovett was an amoral opportunist shopkeeper on Fleet Street who had a soft spot for Benjamin Barker. Yes. But she had her own personality that is revealed by all of her silly romantic joyful joie de vivre moments that revealed her oh so wonderfully strange, fun, spirited, and JOYFUL Mrs. Lovett-ness.
It's hard for me to really judge LuPone's portrayal (and I love her work). All the nonsense with the musical instruments and the peculiar costumes simply did not work at all for me - sometimes doing things just to be different or revolutionary ain't always the right choice...it often turns out to look just gimmicky. Helena (who I also like enormously) could not sing the score, plain and simple. Doing disservice to what practically amounts to an opera is unethical, for want of a better word. I think Lansbury (bury, not BERRY...she did not grow on a tree) still aced it. Her Broadway replacement, Dorothy Loudon, was also marvelous.
LOL BUT but....l swear l've eaten Landsberrys... right off the bush....vine...tree?
As for the video,
l agree, Patti's the best.
Though, I would have loved to seen Angela do it LIVE! after all, she IS, the only actress I've ever associated with the role. & I'll bet Dorothy Loudon was wonderful!
Honestly, I think I might have enjoyed this video better if it weren't clear, at least to me, that Ms. LaPone was the favorite. I have only seen the Tim Burton version of Sweeney Todd, so seeing the performances side by side was enlightening, but I think Helena Bonham Carter's performance was more in tune to the style of a Tim Burton film. There is always something... dark and morbid about his productions and I think her performance of Mrs. Lovetts fit that style to a T. From what I saw of Angela Lansbury's performance, I got the impression of a happy little psychopath, perky and nuts. Ms. LaPone's clips were a little hard only because of the quality of the video and the angle made it a little difficult to see her facial expressions clearly. However, She seemed to run a happy middle ground between our Perky and Crazy Mrs. Lovetts and are more dark and Sociopathic Mrs. Lovetts.
Different Directors call for different things
+Eleonore Malinowski The problem is that Tim Burton cast based on marquee and selling rather than talent and qualifications. That he so horribly miscast his wife shows where his mind was... and it was not in his head. Burton had a chance and he wasted it. Bad casting aside he had a duty to the fans. Even if much of the play was edited out for the theatrical version he had a duty to film the play in its entirety, including not butchering the songs (but the HBC's and Rickman's voices that was a lost cause anyway) and to include them in an expanded DVD version. He just simply did not film half the play and hoped no one would notice.
In Tim's defence, 99.9% of musical movies will pick big named actors rather than the people who should. Looking at it that way, and also remembering that non of them are theatre starts, I think they did a pretty good job
I think its a tie with Helena, and Angela, there both incredible actors. Know the video was ok but you were so biased rude.
Lansbury's "Little Priest" is so far superior to Lupone's that I can only imagine Patti paid you.
Marc Allen Boy, I WISH Patti payed me! She does send me all the phones she confiscates...so there's that.
I think the original is almost always the closest to what the creators want, and therefore the definitive version.
You... sure do want her to smile, huh?
The play isn't comedy based. It's a thriller musical. LuPone's was too comedic. I think that with Mrs. Lovett's story, Helena was brilliant. Sure, it was a film, but we are looking at their embodiment of the character and psychological aspect and state of mind Mrs. Lovett is in to make pies of out people to help Sweeney with his revenge spree. I think Helena Bonham was the best at Mrs. Lovett's role. It's not a comedic thriller musical, it's just a THRILLER musical.
For a musical that isn't a comedy there sure are a lot of jokes in the book. Fair enough maybe the film didn't go down the comedy route but the stage version is certainly comedic, yes it's dark but that doesn't mean it can't also be a comedy.
TheGaby1515 I thought Helena nailed it because she's amazing!!!
It's really hard to take the film seriously when the film cut the ballad of Sweeney Todd out of the production. (I mean, the name of the play is Sweeney Todd and this was the title song.)
Picture for a moment how you'd manage to adapt the Ballad of Sweeney Todd into the movie. Every single song is sung by a character and that keeps the tone. There is no narrator either. The Ballad of Sweeney Todd would bring the viewer out of the experience and say 'oh yeah, this is a film'.
Actually, yes it IS - it's meant to be a have comedic elements, not just be a thriller. You can see that clearly if you sit down with the text of the musical and go through it carefully. The stage versions did pick that up and the performers fleshed it out. The film version as a whole completely missed whole dimensions of that black comedy.
I don’t like patty’s version, carter is my favorite always and forever