Sweeney Todd

I watched this when it first aired on BBC television and, coming from London and having grown up with the Sweeney story, I was quite excited at the prospect of this version. It seemed a good idea because Sweeney began as a Victorian comic book story anyway,so dramatising it for a modern audience is the logical next step.

When I saw it, I thought it was very good. It did not, however, recapture that youthful, dark fairytale quality that I loved (and all children love) but it did create very real characters. The story is actually disturbing in the sense that Sweeney, who is himself the murderer, is character you feel sympathy toward. This television production is as a previous reviewer said 'not for all tastes', but if you get caught in the story and put it into the context that a Victorian London was actually reading this amazing tale, then this film will get you snared in it web like Sweeney got his victims in the barber's chair. For fans of this programme: You'll probably remember that this was billed as a 15 or so certificate for BBC 1 when it aired, but an 18 certificate directors cut is on release and is supposedly very good so watch out for it!

Dave Moore's TV version of the infamous tale of the bloodthirsty barber Sweeney Todd unsurprisingly bears little relation to Tim Burton's musical version released the following year. This one is much more matter-of-fact in its portrayal of Todd's descent into madness, and gives his motive for killing as revenge for being jailed in Newgate prison as a child for a crime committed by his father. Initially, there is a skewed sense of justice to Todd's reason for killing off his clients but, as his blood lust (and feelings for the neighbouring Mrs Lovett) grows stronger his reasons become less calculated.

Ray Winstone plays Todd. He is a fine actor, but loses some of his screen presence by choosing to underplay the role, his voice rarely betraying any kind of emotion. Despite this it's a choice that suits the character, even if it doesn't the actor. Cutting up his victims in the cellar of his barber shop, stripped to the waist, his bare head gleaming white and his mouth slack, Winstone makes a truly grotesque monster, one made all the more frightening because he is otherwise an extremely quiet and ordinary man.

There's a lot of violence in the film, a lot of slit throats and mutilation of corpses, but, again, it's not given any kind of sensationalistic value. Essie Davis plays Mrs Lovett, another decent character whose descent into monstrosity is sparked by the things that have happened to her rather than any inherent evil. She turns into a grotesque parody of herself as the film progresses, her beauty destroyed by pox scars, sporting fine wigs made by Todd that sit incongruously atop her ruined features. It's all very grim and dark and there is no place for humour, even of the gallows variety. Perhaps a touch of humour, especially on the part of Todd, is what is needed to both round out his character and make his monstrous actions that much more horrific

You believe in every one of the characters in this movie, as well as this being historical London. (Which it may or may not have been- the story may well be nothing but urban legend, of course.)

Ray Winston does a great job. He has done so often enough, but this one is my favorite, so far.

It's actually pulled off portraying the 'mad barber' as a kindhearted fellow who's really only slightly disturbed (aside from being plenty homicidal) in such a way that you believe it, extreme as it sounds. Well, I certainly did, at least. All thanks to very good acting and character development.

In sum, I found this movie to be far better than the musical edition of the same tale, starring Johnny Depp. But then, I always prefer psychological credibility over costumes and singing.

This was a reasonable production of an excellent musical, but I recommend the George Hearn / Angela Lansbury version every time.

In a previous comment, alan_cricketman4 from Belfast UK, states: "I can understand producers using artistic licence and having to cut details and chronologically alter events etc., but to change the facts of such a well known and well documented case is just downright silly. I suggest that very little research has been applied here (by producers and reviewers alike) and a good website to browse, and learn further details on the case, is "Court TV CRIME LIBRARY"."

I fact, Sweeney Todd was universally accepted to be an 'urban myth' up to about 1993, due to the lack of other evidence. In 1993, a new book, was published. Of this book, Wikipedia says:

"In his 1993 book Sweeney Todd: The Real Story of the Demon Barber of Fleet, the horror and crime story writer Peter Haining argues that Sweeney Todd was a historical figure who committed his crimes around 1800. However, other researchers who have researched his citations find nothing in these sources to back up what Haining claims they said".

I realise that Wikipedia is not always entirely accurate, but I think it is fair to say that what Mr Haining has done is researched a theory about the origin of Sweeney Todd, which is worthy of consideration, but far from accepted historical truth.

Sweeney Todd, a resident barber of London, has an urge inside of him to kill. As it grows and grows, he comes to fancy a young woman whom he cannot have -- both because she is married and because he is not physically capable. As they grow closer, he lets her in on his secret and a macabre friendship is born -- one a butcher and the other a maker of meat pies.

Ray Winstone is perfect as Sweeney Todd. I don't know him from much outside of "The Proposition" (which everyone loves, but I found disappointing). He has the look of a man worn down by time and heartache, cold enough to kill but sad enough to drive us to sympathy. Other people may picture Todd differently, but I think this look fully captures the darkness and emptiness of the man. All the characters have a very dirty look to them, which I also like -- no perfect conditioning in the hair and daily bathing rituals. I like it raw, and this film gives it to me.

This is not a musical version but simply a film with a dark tale to tell. It interests me to see how this one was presented. As I understand it, the original story came from the 1820s or 1840s. Yet, this film version touches on themes like abortion and the complete absence of God, which I would presume to be quite heavy for the time (though I may be mistaken).

The denial of God, morality and such is the driving force of this film compared to other versions. It's nihilism through and through, which is like the perfect medicine for someone like myself who was raised on heavy doses of Nietzsche, Kafka and Kierkegaard. Horror films often touch the evil in the world and what drives it, but few films -- horror or not -- really get to the deeper philosophic roots of the meaninglessness of the world in our modern time. Some have tried ("Dark City" comes to mind) but this one really hits the spot.

With the Tim Burton and Johnny Depp version having just been released, I presume the BBC version of "Sweeney Todd" will not get as much of a chance. But I would advise you to check it out and compare -- one is a musical, one is not. And Burton, while dark, has his own way of looking at the world. So you're not really seeing the same film twice so much as viewing an entire world fro ma different perspective, something I think is healthy for all of us to do time and again. Give this one a shot, it packs a wallop you cannot deny.