What happened to the 1989 Sweeney Todd Revival?

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 4:53pm

I had to view the 2005 and 1989 revivals of Sweeney Todd at Lincoln Center for school for research. While I enjoyed the 2005 revival (I thought the concept was inspired, however it hit and miss) what the hell happened to the 1989 revival? The only thing I actually liked was the set. The vocals were mediocre, the acting was comical, and I don't think I saw a truthful moment the whole two and a half hours (especially from Bob Gunton).

Is there anyone who saw it live that could possibly shed more light on it or was it just a poor production?

[HollyGolightly2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:15pm

You liked the 2005 revival? I saw the national tour and fell asleep during act one (the last and only other time I did that was when I saw Les Mis at age 8 ). A quarter of the audience didn't even come back after intermission.

Eh. Perhaps I just 'didn't get it'.

Updated On: 8/29/09 at 05:15 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:18pm

The 2005 revival is one of my favorite experiences I've ever had in the theatre. I've always been puzzled by the lack of information available about the 1989 version...

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:44pm

I can see why people wouldn't like the 2005 revival. I found it very abstract and artistic but also coming off somewhat pretentious. My boyfriend LOVES that kind of stuff, so he would have loved it.

"I've always been puzzled by the lack of information available about the 1989 version..."

Shame possibly?

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:47pm

Forbidden Broadway called it "Teeny Todd"

[tellybox]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:50pm

Teeny Todd, for it's overuse of sympathizers, if I remember correctly. Oh, the 1980's.

[wexy]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 5:56pm

I saw the 89 one at Circle in The Square I think that I liked it but hey its 20 years.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 6:31pm

Despite the synthesizers, that production worked well when you were there. It was very atmospheric. I think it was the first production to present Sweeney Todd on an intimate scale and it had a certain hothouse power to it. But I can imagine it not coming through on video. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts with that production.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 6:44pm

I saw the 1989 SWEEENY at Circle in the square. Your post points up the danger of watching these archival videos. Yes you see the show but you don't get the experience. It was a good production..with some unique solutions as to how to stage certain sequences. Even so I preferred the original Hal Prince staging - which had just been seen in NY 2 years earlier at New York City Opera.

The director purposely had the actors pull back the performances, since in that setting the audience is close to the action, unlike the original staging in the huge URIS theatre. (I saw it at one of the last previews and the buzz on this new staging was already very strong so the performance had that extra special electricity...something else you wouldn't get from the video.)

I have no idea what you mean by poorly sung, except I did note at the time the reduced company played havoc with the unique harmonies in the chorus songs. Bob Gunton and Beth Fowler were both ideal as Sweeney and Mrs Lovett and Jim Walton sang Anthony's songs exceptionally well.

The reduced orchestration (two synthesizers and a percussionist) robbed us of the rich orchestral textures - and lets face it SWEENEY never sounded so good as on the OBCR - but served the piece well enough., You'd never want an OCR with that reduced orchestra but in theatre it works. Seeing the teeny SWEENEY made me realize that new productions need not mimic the original staging to work, but it was another 10 years before SWEENEY started turning up in smaller community theatre productions. In the end the power of the writing carries the show.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 7:17pm

It was whack.

John Doyle did five times more with five times less.

Plus, that amazing cast of actor/musicians was something truly unique and inspired on Broadway. Like it or not.

P

P.S. "You liked the 2005 revival? I saw the national tour and fell asleep during act one (the last and only other time I did that was when I saw Les Mis at age 8 ). A quarter of the audience didn't even come back after intermission." Yes, because national tour audiences are such good judges of art. What-ever. Were you honestly suprised they didn't return?! Also, I saw the final performance of the non-eq tour and having seen hundreds of these productions over the last twenty years I can tell you this was hands-down THE BEST, with the original tour of TOMMY coming in a close second. The acting was divine. I'm sure JERSEY BOYS and MAMMA MIA will be coming through your town soon enough so no one will have to suffer through another (act) of SWEENEY TODD again. Piss with ink, indeed.
Updated On: 8/29/09 at 07:17 PM

[HollyGolightly2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 7:43pm

"Yes, because national tour audiences are such good judges of art."

Are they really any different than the tourists who see NY shows?

And I didn't say I didn't expect them to leave. Many of the audience members were expecting the movie. (And just so you know, I saw it in Houston, not Nowheresville, Kentucky, so there were 'sophisticated, theatre-frequenting people' present in the audience. Not just a bunch of bored yokels.)

I didn't say the production was bad, just not my cup of tea. I found it very boring.

Updated On: 8/29/09 at 07:43 PM

[chrisampm2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 8:46pm

HollyG, It's possible you would have liked the 2005 production if you'd seen it with the original performers. Maybe not. But a production like this, more than most others, depends on its excitement from the actors' intensity. To judge any production based on viewing one with an entirely different set of actors seems misjudged to me.

[raggballad2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 9:07pm

I saw the national tour of the 2005 production on tour, and I thought it was brilliant. Even sitting in a huge touring house all the way in the last rows of the theatre, I still felt pulled into the story and the staging was really intriguing. It was interesting to see this show usually done on a large scale with such a minimalist design, and I think most of the audience loved it as well here. The actors were all amazing, including the understudy for Sweeney David Garry and Lauren and Ben from the Brodaway production. But I definitely agree that this production is not for everybody...some friends saw and and told me they just "didn't get it," especially with the movie coming out the same time the tour rolled around.
Updated On: 8/29/09 at 09:07 PM

[gypsy4]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 9:08pm

I thought the 2005 concept was pretty impressive.

[binau]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 9:28pm

"John Doyle did five times more with five times less. "

There isn't much information about the 89 revival around, (as people have mentioned in this thread), but was Doyle's revival really 'less'?

I mean, 2 synths and a percussionist, and a bear stage ('apparently') sounds like the production was smaller than Doyle's..(can someone elaborate more on this?)

[Hest882]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 9:39pm

I saw the 2005 revival tour in San Francisco and the audience was enthralled, as was my husband (who was lucky enough to see the original Broadway production as a kid) and I. As a recall, the SF production was even extended. I was skeptical going into it, that a stripped down version could do it justice, but I was swept away from the first notes. I do have my own criticism of the production, in that I think parts would be hard to follow for people not already familiar with it, but other than that it was great.

[beltingbaritone]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 9:47pm

"I mean, 2 synths and a percussionist, and a bear stage ('apparently') sounds like the production was smaller than Doyle's..(can someone elaborate more on this?)"

The orchestrations were definitely less, and it was blatantly obvious. However, the set was more elaborate than the 2005 revival and was actually my favorite part. The 2005 revival had one universal set and the scene changed by the actor's position (like the repositioning of the central coffin, the use of the ladder, and the many chairs).

In the 1989 set, at the head of the stage was an assemblance of Mrs. Lovett's shop and Sweeney Todd's barbershop, very similar to that used in the original. The only difference is that it was stationary. Then the rest of the stage extends like a runway where there were moveable set pieces that created the rest of London, the bakehouse, the patio outside the meat pie shop, etc.

Sorry, I can't really think of the best way to describe it. ^^;

[sondheimfan2]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 10:14pm

I saw the 1989 revival (Teeny Todd) at Circle in the Square and found it very enjoyable. The environmental design had the audience sitting right in the middle of Fleet Street with laundry hanging overhead. The production transferred from the York Theater, and the critics praised it for its environmental staging and its small-scale focus, allowing audiences to really experiences the nuances of Sondheim's masterpiece.

btw- I could not warm-up to the 2005 production. It did nothing for me, but I can appreciate Doyle's effort.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:08pm

""John Doyle did five times more with five times less. "

There isn't much information about the 89 revival around, (as people have mentioned in this thread), but was Doyle's revival really 'less'?

I mean, 2 synths and a percussionist, and a bear stage ('apparently') sounds like the production was smaller than Doyle's..(can someone elaborate more on this?)"

Ahem, there was NO orchestra in John Doyle's production.

The actors were the orchestra.

Did you see it?


P

[binau]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:49pm

I've 'seen' it...of course. Even if the actors were playing the instruments, 9-10 pieces of brass/woodwind plus an actual piano is more than two synths and a percussionist.

As I said, I don't know much about the 89 revival at all so I was asking for more info....

Hypothetically, If the 89 production consisted of an almost-blank stage (which somebody described to me on this forum ages ago, obviously not that correctly or exaggerating etc..) and only two or three musicians off a stage I wouldn't describe it as being significantly "more" than the Doyle production..

(This is why I was asking for more info so I could see your claim to be true)..

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:53pm

I can't comment on the staging, since I didn't see the 1989 production, but the 1989 production had a slightly larger cast. I might say it's almost a negligible difference, but it was worth mentioning.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:54pm

"It was whack.

"John Doyle did five times more with five times less."

1989 called and would like you to return its slang.

[sparrman]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:58pm

There's another thread on this from not too long ago. I found the NY Times review, and it praised Gunton very highly indeed.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 8/29/09 at 11:59pm

I almost said "whack attack".

So there we are.

Next drink's on me, lover.

P

P.S. I'm "forever your girl".
Updated On: 8/30/09 at 11:59 PM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 8/30/09 at 12:10am

At the time, people still remembered the original (only ten years had passed). People remembered Angela Lansbury followed directly by Dorothy Loudon's loopy performance. Two great actresses. And the Broadway production brought grand guignol bigness to the piece.

I don't think the 89 production was well thought out. It was like it was presented on a shoestring budget. And imo, Circle in the Square has always been a crappy theater space.

The Forbidden Broadway parody was hilarious. They used hand puppets for Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett and the lyrics were changed to "Teeny Todd."