George just puts so much more emotion into the role than Johnny it's not even a contest. I do like the way Johnny says "I want you bleeders!" better, though.Originally Posted by Electroshock Therapy
I like the stage version, too. George Hearne is the Sweeney in the 1982 stage release. I like how it's generally brighter and plays out more like a dark comedy. But I also like the moodier film version, too. They're so different, yet the same. I kinda like that.
George Hearne was great! I loved his portrayal of Sweeney because he could actually have fun and laugh! But... something in Depp's performance seemed more villainous. I know the musical is suppose to make Sweeney a complicated person, and even sympathetic. But Sweeney Todd is a classic English villain. Even if he's a little cliche, I really like him.George just puts so much more emotion into the role than Johnny it's not even a contest. I do like the way Johnny says "I want you bleeders!" better, though.I like the stage version, too. George Hearne is the Sweeney in the 1982 stage release. I like how it's generally brighter and plays out more like a dark comedy. But I also like the moodier film version, too. They're so different, yet the same. I kinda like that.
I have the book version of the old Sweeney Todd stories that came out in a mid-1800's periodical, and I've seen an old film loosely based off those stories, and Sweeney was a very mean character. The original was supposed to be an unsettling tale, after all, about a cruel and greedy man who killed people to steal their riches. Then his accomplice would bake their remains into pies. (There's more to this story, but in my opinion, much of it is rather dull, and the best parts happen around Sweeney's pitifully short role.) The character was abusive and conniving to get what he wants. While Depp's version is still based of the sympathetic character of the musical, he seems to also channel that outward darkness of the classic character.
So I think the reason I prefer the movie is that it's the best of both worlds: it has the script of the comedic yet tragic modern play, and the cruel and melancholy atmosphere of the older story.
Last edited by Electroshock Therapy; 01-08-2015 at 01:46 AM.
Huh, never knew all that. Of course it's based off a book.
I need to take up reading again.
I'm not a huge fan of musicals although Wizard of Oz is one of my favorite movies of all time. A few people have mentioned Sweeney Todd which is absolutely amazing...and of course Dancer in the Dark because I love everything that includes Bjork. Other than that I will pass on them.
"geroeen, pulsa nyet, tolska tanee pre chem"
"Beauty is a perception tainted by ego;
Love is an extension of great emotion;
Fear is the result of uncertainty;
Sadness is a collection of misery."
I love musicals, but I've honestly not had much experience actually watching them. I was in them in high school and a couple of years afterwards. Fiddler on the Roof and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers are my favorites that I've acted in. They were just a ton of fun. The Music Man, on the other hand, I hate with a passion. It's probably a fun enough musical to watch, but it wasn't fun to be in. That might be the directors' fault though. I do think it would have been a ton of fun to be Harold Hill, and I also would have settled for the barbershop quartet. I've never gotten to be a lead character though. Beauty in the Beast was weird in that I really enjoyed actually being in it.... but there were a lot of bad memories during rehearsals.
Les Miserables is my favorite that I've seen though, and it is a life goal of mine to perform in a production of it. I think I'd make a pretty good Javert honestly. Enjolras would be a ton of fun to play too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
