keenan-1

I finally got hold of a DVD copy of this production and was agog with curiosity, since I had read so many people praising it to the skies, particularly Angela Lansbury's portrayal of Mrs. Lovett. I saw the Tim Burton movie a few months ago and thought it over the top and overly bloody; thankfully this version is not so horrifying gory but it suffers dramatically in too many other ways for it to be in the least satisfying to me.

To begin with, the casting. George Hearn is adequate and at least shows some expression (as opposed to Johnny Depp's unending wooden face in the movie). Angela Lansbury is, quite simply, annoying. At least she has enough power in her voice to get the point across as opposed to Helena Bonham Carter's piping and expressionless little girl's voice, but subtlety seems to be only a word in the dictionary to Ms. Lansbury. One cannot be drawn into the story when one of the main characters spends her entire time mugging and winking in a "look, Ma, I'm acting!" fashion and being far too aware of the audience. This is not something that is typical of stage productions, heaven knows--I have been a regular attendee of many productions at the Stratford Festial for many years and stage actors do NOT behave in that fashion as a rule (at least those who want to continue to find regular employment do not!)...

Betsy Joslyn. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Did anybody besides me notice that she can't sing this role even vaguely appropriately? And her playing George Hearn's daughter is just creepy, considering that she was married to him at the time. Isn't she supposed to be a sweet little sixteen-year-old? Yes, I realize that this is what acting is all about, but not once did she convince me that she was any younger than about thirty-five, and the phrase "mutton dressed as lamb" seems to have been coined just for her. Her butchering of "Green Finch And Linnet Bird" had me gnashing my teeth and ready to turn off the DVD player at once. That song was done so well in Tim Burton's movie, and this was a sad shock. The song requires the vocal range of Julie Andrews in the 1960's and a purity of voice that is only comparable to that of a boy soprano. Any vibrato at all kills it dead, and Ms. Joslyn spent the entire time warbling so hard that I thought she was about to fall off of her ladder because she was trembling so much from the effort at sustaining coloratura notes with a voice that is a mezzo at best. Let us pass over the spectacle of her vibrating at least a quarter tone flat on at least three of the higher notes... This is quite simply not a coloratura role and perhaps a discerning director should have told her that--but the fact that she was married to the star might possibly have tied the director's hands.

Cris Groenendaal was adequate, but again obviously far too old for the role and there is zero chemistry between him and Ms. Joslyn, which makes the whole subplot fall completely flat. I am reminded a little of past stage productions of Wagner's Ring cycle where, due to the vocal power required for the singers to bellow over the sound of a full Wagnerian orchestra they would have to cast based upon ability to penetrate vocally as opposed to any appearance or acting ability or even a good voice, which is why you have the caricature of the massive mountainous Viking-horned Brunehilde with a triple chin and a beard, when the libretto calls for an ethereal beauty who is eternally young and bewitching. The casting of the "juvenile" leads is exactly like that--if you close your eyes you can almost believe in Mr. Groenendaal's Anthony, but as soon as you look at the screen the illusion is shattered. (And at NO time can you ever believe in Ms. Joslyn's Johanna...) For me, the rest of the production was completely lost because of three out of the four major characters were so obviously miscast. I cannot give a proper review of anything else because they were so distracting that they spoiled the rest of the production. I really can't understand why people rave about this badly-shot and self-conscious filming of a stage play. Surely there's more to camera work in the theatre than just plunking a camera down in the front row? If I want that, I'll go to a decent play, preferably at the Stratford Festival, where at least they work together for the production and aren't constantly mugging for the camera. I give it three stars only because the quality of the production apart from the antics of Lansbury and Joslyn seems adequate if not spectacular.

Probably the best thing one can do is buy the soundtrack of the film and a cast recording of this play, and then combine the two to make a bearable whole. That's what I'm going to do, and try to forget that I ever bothered to rent this wholly unremarkable production.

I just came back from seeing WALL-E with my 9-year-old son. I walked out of that theatre feeling as though I'd been hit over the head with an anvil. The message is about as subtle as a kick in the crotch, but it needs to be said and I'm just a little tired of some of the diatribes I've read that are masquerading as "reviews". People--it's a movie, and meant to be entertaining. If you personally are not entertained, that does not make it a bad movie, just not one that is right for you. And if the message strikes a little close to home and makes you uncomfortable, then maybe it's time to get off your backside and do something constructive about it, hmmmm? I go to the theater about three times a year at most--I end up renting most films from the shop because I don't like being pummeled with the noise that seems necessary on the big screen because people will not stop yakking away at the theatre. I really enjoyed the experience of watching WALL-E, and found myself laughing out loud repeatedly--and I enjoyed it far more than I did either the over-hyped DARK KNIGHT or INDIANA JONES AND THE LATEST PILE OF MONEY, both of which gave me sick headaches by the time I left the theatre.

My summary says it all. I just about peed my pants while watching PRESTO, the short. As always, PIXAR is at its best when it's working with cartoon shorts. I haven't laughed so hard since the first time I saw FOR THE BIRDS, the short attached to MONSTERS INC.. It's a great homage to the style of Warner Brothers (you'll understand when you see it; the feel of it is pure Bugs Bunny) and if the only way I'll be able to own it one day is to buy the disc for WALL-E, I consider that a bargain.

Oh, and for the record, my son, diagnosed ADHD (and currently not medicated), adored the movie, even the long stretch at the beginning when people's biggest complaint seems to be that "nothing happens". He was riveted to the screen the whole time. I'm not jumping on the bandwagon and claiming that this movie is some kind of cinematic masterpiece, but I felt that it was definitely worth the price of admission--and that's saying a great deal these days. Go to enjoy the quality of the animation, to be reminded of HELLO, DOLLY! (I'd forgotten about that movie--I really must rent it soon!), and, yes, to take away a message that perhaps it's time to be just a little more aware of what we're doing to our environment and where this might lead us. Rather than make excuses and attacking the message behind the movie, it might behoove us more to stop and ponder, if only for a moment, where we will be going.

The DVD for this movie had been on my want list for quite some time; my loving and perceptive husband found it for me and gave it as a birthday gift. I cannot be entirely rational about critiquing it because no matter how many times I attempt to view it objectively my emotions take over and it turns into psychotherapy. It says much for its power that this still happens upon repeated viewings.

For the record, for those of you who own or have access to the DVD version, I feel that the alternate ending is vastly superior to the one that ended up with the cinematic release. It has the advantage of being less Hollywood "touchy-feely" and much more meaningful and logical in a broad karmic sense. With the alternate ending, for instance, one gets much more of a sense of the children as individuals in their own rights as opposed to being bound into their only importance as part of the scripted family unit. The wheel continues to turn, affecting all of them, which is something that the alternate ending drives home and it is completely missing from the cinematic ending. I wish that they had made the braver decision rather than going for schmaltz. It's the only downside to the movie, but it is a marked source of dissatisfaction to me personally.

(Perhaps this is a case where the extras you get on a DVD aren't worth it? I might have been content with never knowing the other possibility, who's to say?)