Adrian Lester as an Olivier Award-nominated Anthony Hope?

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 2:36pm

Adrian Lester received an Olivier nomination in 1994 for playing Anthony in the NT's revival of Sweeney Todd. Barry James was nominated in the same (supporting) category for Beadle Bamford. Very unusual imo for these roles to be nominated. These performances were obviously extraordinary. Can anyone share any memories, particularly of Lester's portrayal?

[abitoftap]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 3:21pm

My first Sweeney, first Anthony. I remember saying "this guy's going to be a star", and lo, he was (eventually). I know some people can't get on with his voice, but I love it. He really made you feel sorry for him, even though he's a bit of an idiot (the part!). The production was from Cheek by Jowl. We saw him not long after as Rosalind in as You Like It (he wears a dress well, and a pair of briefs (in Company) even better!)
The beadle was great incidentally. The most slimy, obsequious we've seen. Timothy Spall in the movie was probably the closest.

Updated On: 5/3/12 at 03:21 PM

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 3:57pm

Would love to have seen Barry James in the role.

I was just saying to a friend yesterday how much I hope Peter Polycarpou is nominated for an Olivier next year. I think he's giving the best performance in that show.

[AddisonMizner]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 4:04pm

Even better than Imelda's?

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 7:19pm

Yep, he can sing.

[06s091]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 7:53pm

Him and maybe John Bowe are probably the only ones with a chance of a nomination in the supporting category.

I think the show is pretty much guaranteed at least 3 nominations: best musical revival and best actress and actor for Imelda and Michael.
I can't think of any show currently in London (or any of those coming in later in the season) that will be able to beat Sweeney for best revival and I also think both Michael and Imelda will win their categories. Michael's win might be a little more secure than Imelda's because he is playing a role not many people really thought he would be able to pull off whereas they had total confidence in Imelda.

[AddisonMizner]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 4:21am

I totally understand that Imelda is not the best singer, but to me, Mrs Lovett is a part for a character actress and therefore doesn't have to be the greatest singer. In any case, her acting performance more than makes up for any lack of vocal prowess. It was quite simply the greatest performance I have seen from anyone in my theatre-going life! It was funny, dark, haunting and heartbreaking all in equal measure. If she doesn't win the Olivier next year, never mind be nominated for it, it will be an absolute crime!

In my opinion, it is the parts of Sweeney and Johanna that require the best singing, as they are more operatic in approach. Michael is obviously known for his voice, through his CDs and concerts etc and really does sing the “Sweeney” score well (particularly "Pretty Women" I felt), even if he doesn't quite produce the "sound" one has come to associate with Sweeney. Lucy May Barker is less convincing as Johanna and seems to really struggle with her parts of the score, particularly at the top end of the voice. She certainly was sharp a lot the day I saw the production and missed the trill completely in "Green Finch and Linnet Bird".

I also think John Bowe is worthy of a Supporting Actor nomination. He certainly brought his own take on the role, portraying the Judge in the vilest way I have seen or heard which to me is really in-keeping with the character. Both he and Peter Polycarpou are the best of the supporting players. Saying this however, I don’t think anything comes close to Imelda or Michael’s performance in this show. Both are career-defining!

The show should also get Best Lighting and Best Sound Design nominations. It is the first time I have really noticed lighting in a production, it being both extremely evocative and also highlighting key aspects within the story. The sound was also crisp and you could hear every single word of Sondheim's wonderful lyrics particularly.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:31am

I don't think you can say Sweeney and Johanna are the hardest parts vocally... For example, Alun Armstrong played Sweeney in the NT revival in '94.. He's not vocally outstanding, I think if you're a strong enough actor with a good voice, you can get away with playing Sweeney. Anthony and Johanna are the hardest parts in the show in my opinion, vocally and non-vocally because it takes a lot to impress an audience with those parts and make something out of them. They're written terribly, and they're awful sappy characters, but if you're playing Anthony and you can blow the roof off the theatre with the song 'Johanna,' the rest of the cast would want to watch out because Anthony could steal the show... Johanna's the same.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:38am

Clap we disagree yet again, yes he can sing, but cant act

[abitoftap]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:11am

I guess we've gone a bit off the original post!
However..I've always thought that Johanna is the least interesting character and I probably enjoy her songs the least. Anthony can be interesting and has some great songs if you have someone like Adrian. I've seen some productions where I really didn't care whether he got the girl or not!
We've yet to see Ball/Staunton (end of the month), but on the cast recording Ball really brings out the melodic side of the score.
By the time we saw Sweeney at the NT, Dennis Quilley had moved up from the Judge to Sweeney, so we never saw Armstrong. I've never really heard him sing apart from his Master of the House, so I'm guessing (on no real evidence) that he emphasised the acting over the singing. I'd be interested to hear if anyone heard him sing the part.

[AddisonMizner]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:53am

I think the importance of both Anthony and Johanna's roles are to show the innocence, the "light" in a corrupt society. They are the only charcters not to have been corrupted by the evil going on around them.

Johanna can be interesting. I think it all depends on the actress playing the part. The traits of the character are all there within the subtext of the show. An actress can either choose to play Johanna as innocently as possible (as Lucy May Barker does in the current revival) or she can be played as slightly unhinged. Johanna has probably suffered years of sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of the Judge and so may be slightly unhinged, probably a self-harmer. This to me makes the character much more interesting! I believe this is how Emma Williams played the role in the Royal Festival Hall concert staging? It is also hinted at in the Tim Burton film version, but is not fully explored. This makes the relationship between her and Anthony much more believeable. She sees him as some sort of "savoiur" helping her escape from the grasp of the Judge and towards a better life.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:56am

Emma Williams was a great Johanna, not sure if thats how she played it but there was something awkward about it, it wasnt just the innocent little girl.

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:59am

246015, that's a really good discussion on Johanna - can you discuss Anthony's character, his importance to the show, his role in the show, how he can be played in different ways (if any), etc. - I'd love to hear your thoughts

[Scripps2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 2:05pm

"Johanna has probably suffered years of sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of the Judge and so may be slightly unhinged, probably a self-harmer... I believe this is how Emma Williams played the role in the Royal Festival Hall concert staging?"

Confirmed.

Musicaldudepeter: try and get hold of the BBC radio broadcast of the NT Sweeney. Adrian's characterisation sounds a bit wimpy to me (Anthony as naive innocent rather than heroic figure) and Barry James is truly vile (this is a compliment) as the Beadle. Just listen to him deliver the line about bouncing his daughter on his knee; you just know what he's really thinking of.


Updated On: 5/4/12 at 02:05 PM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 2:15pm

In a sublime production drian Lester was undoubtedly the weak link. He was vocally inadequate, brought nothing revelatory to the role, and, I hate to say it, smacked of tokenism.

Armstrong was a fine actor and was not noticeably limited in singing the role in character. Quilley was (as ever) a master.

What can I say about Barry James- one of the truly great character actors- he was perfection in the role, perfection in 'She Loves Me' and numerous other roles. If I had to choose one person to have in every show, it would be Barry James. Just incredible.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 3:02pm

You may not like Adrian Lester's voice and acting skills (I do, but there you go), but to say that his casting was tokenism is utter nonsense.
He was part of Cheek by Jowl. Are you saying his presence in that company was tokenism?
I'm not going to bore anyone with his subsequent stage career, but really.
Rant over.

[AddisonMizner]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 7:28am

I think Anthony is a more difficult role to analyse in the way that I have Johanna. There is very little, if any subtext within the show for this particular role - it is all on the surface. Anthony is often played as a very "wet" character, however I believe him to ultimately be a very heroic figure. While Sweeney and Mrs Lovett are out to fulfil there own needs and desires and to avenge wrongs done to them etc, Anthony is out to save and protect Johanna from any harm. He is, as I have said before, the "light" in the piece. His character is a reflection of what society can be.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 10:01am

@ abitoftap
I am totally aware of his career before and after.

In 'Company' his presence felt right, justified and beneficial.

None of those adjectives applied in this particular staging of 'Sweeney'. Don't jump to lazy conclusions.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 12:32pm

I guess my question is therefore, assuming the tokenism bit is that Lester is black, why you would say that applied in Sweeney, but not Company?

(I'm also not sure why you felt I was jumping to a lazy conclusion!)

Updated On: 5/6/12 at 12:32 PM

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 12:41pm

Well, company was not produced by the National Theatre, which (quite naturally) feels it must represent the whole community. I don't want to have this blow up into some huge matter, but there are times when casting at the National has appeared to be swayed by one agenda or another (and not just skin colour).

This is not an issue of colour-blind casting but what suited the production as a whole. I take it you saw Company? That production was very contemporary, metro-sexual and Adrian Lester fitted into that picture beautifully.

In Sweeney, he simply did not, and so as I said before, whether it was conscious or not, intentional or not, it gave the impression ("it smacked of" were my original words) of tokenism.

Having said that Declan Donellan directed the show and obviously knew him from Cheek by Jowl. So it could be that they just knew each other. At that point in history, though, AL had no amazing track record in musical theatre, so there was no clear compelling argument for his casting before any number of fantastic other musical theatre actors.

[abitoftap]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 12:53pm

I suppose it comes back to colour blind casting. Carousel (NT again) had Clive Rowe as Mr Snow which I don't know whether you feel also smacked of tokenism.
I did see Company and again I enjoyed it.
If you argue that Lester wasn't up to the job in Sweeney, that's a perfectly fair view to take. My view is that I just don't think his casting could be criticised as tokenism (smacking of or otherwise)

[devonian.t]

Posted: 5/6/12 at 2:13pm

No, Clive Rowe fits perfectly with my point: not only could he sing the role (beautifully), but he also complemented the roleand its function in the plot. So again, Clive Rowe suited the production's world-view, whilst Adrian Lester did not.