Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

The stage version can be as bloody as the director and designer want it to be. A big difference between stage and film is that film is done once and then exists forever. Stage can be done differently every time there's a new production. A new production of Sweeney Todd will be opening in NYC very soon, a transfer from London which looks to be very different from both Hal Prince's original and Tim Burton's movie.

As much as I love the film, in terms of material (because when you speak of the stage version, the only thing you can look to that's always the same is script and score) the full stage score is more satisfying to me.

But I don't know if there have been two many stage directors that have intended the stage production to be as bloody as Tim Burton wanted it for his movie. And I know the that movies are done and they are done forever, but guess what somebody can always do a remake of it later on. And also it depends on how much space you have to work with. I also a smaller production of it, and the doors that led to the Auditorium of the stage space it was in, as this theater has more then one theater Auditorium in them, and the door that one had were used for the doors of the bakehouse. And I know that there is going to be a new production of it coming near me as well, so it will be interesting the staging for it as well.

There have definitely been productions of Sweeney Todd bloodier than the movie was. My point is that when comparing the stage version to the film you can't compare just one production. Stage shows are written specifically to be done differently over and over. In comparing a movie to a play you need to look at the scripts almost exclusively.

The movie of Sound of Music is better than the stage version, not because of Julie Andrews' performance in particular or because of how the Do Re Mi sequence goes throughout the city. It's because the placement of songs in the movie is more effective than in the stage version.

In my view the movie of Sweeney Todd, as good as it is, is not as good as the stage version because of the placement of the songs and because of songs that were cut from the film which (to my mind) could have been kept in and worked cinematically.

But you do have to understand that for a film that they wanted to keep under a 2 hour running time, as the stage show is longer and plus when you throw in an intermission that will go 15 minutes or longer, I mean after all does often the second act of a musical start exactly 15 minutes after the first act ended, as a lot of shows have a 15 minute intermission or so they say. I have never seen the movie version of Sound of Music and I will take you for your word, but isn't the movie just about 3 hours long? Well the songs in the movie of Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street are almost all in order, of how you seen it on stage, expect for songs Johanna (act 2) and God that is good.

I understand why they did the movie the way they did and for the most part, I enjoy it. There are a number of musical elements that I thought still could have worked which they chose not to utilize (I loved the idea of having ghosts sing the Ballads, and I thought they could have kept some of the chorus elements in "Pirelli's Miracle Elixir" and "God, That's Good") but I see why they chose to do it how they chose to do it. I do wish they'd introduced the Beggar Woman earlier, as they do in the play, because you don't have any context for her in the first scene. When she's introduced singing (especially when there's so much less singing than in the stage show) it gets people guessing how she fits into the story and many people guessed her secret. I understood why they cut the Quartet completely, but I did feel that it had such cinematic potential. I also thought that "The Letter" could have been incredibly cinematic, as it's an ensemble quintet in the stage show, but I always thought all five voices could be Sweeney on film. I didn't expect that they'd keep that, but I do still think of how cool that could have been. I also really didn't love Helena Bonham Carter for most of her portrayal of Mrs. Lovett, particularly when she was singing. I would have preferred to see Imelda Staunton (who was incredible in the role on stage in London) or Toni Collette, who did audition for it.

But the main thing is that you asked which we prefer and why. I prefer the stage show for all of the reasons I stated, mainly that there's more musical storytelling and I prefer hearing the full score. I wasn't disparaging the movie, which I think did a terrific job for the most part. I actually watch the movie regularly because I'm so taken with the visuals, the orchestration, and most of the performances. But if you ask me which I prefer, I'll take the full score for the stage show any day.

Also, because I think you'll enjoy this, as far as the bloodiness of various stage productions, take a look at the Judge's Return in this Spanish language production from Barcelona: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykCP-an1wao

Ands I know like you mention a lot expect for a few of the songs are sung in their entirety in the movie. Like take for example Ladies In Their Sensitivities, this is the song that Beadle Bamford sings to Judge Turpin, when he reveles his pans to marry Joana. And you are correct that they introduce her later in, and you don't see her bother Mrs Lovett as she does in the show. And also spoiler warning to those who might not have seen either or, how about the reaction Sweeney Todd gives in the movie, then compared to his reaction in the stage musical, when he discovers who the Beggar woman really is. If you haven't seen it, watch the stage version on dvd with George Hearn and Angela Lansbury.