board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Attend the tale of Sweeney Todd!

Post Reply   Page 16 of 17  [ 324 posts ]
Jump to page « 113 14 15 16 17 »
Author Message
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 4:28 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Did you read my post E*?

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 4:38 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Alatar wrote:
Well, ask yourself this. If they have no physical relationship, doesn't the whole "By the Sea" song seem a little strange. She's saying, you know what I'd like, lets move to the sea together, and get married. Is that something you say to someone you don't have a relationship with? Sorry. You're stretching. Its obvious their relationship is at the point where she can discuss marriage as an option. That doesn't happen in platonic relationships.

Are you really suggesting that in the song she's saying, "We can go to Brighton, then you can start bonking me and then we can get married. Alright love?". No way. The song assumes a relationship or it makes no sense.
I'd agree with you for the stage play atleast. But one thing to consider, they don't have a "normal" relationship. There are other things bonding them together - i.e. murding people. They are partners in that sense whether their relationship is physical or not. And they take comfort in that partnership. So Mrs L might just be assuming that their partnership will move to the next level in time - and is using the song to try to get Todd to see the possibility too.

Back at the shop she makes a plea that "we could have a life together" - wouldn't people who lived together and slept together have already entered into a "life together"?

As *E* points out, the performances really suggest no physical relationship, not even close (even Todd's mannerisms in By the Sea). So do you think that's a negative point for the film, that the performances and By the Sea are contradictory?

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
TWT
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 4:55 pm
Wembley bound
Offline
 
Posts: 4129
Joined: Wed 25 May , 2005 7:34 pm
Location: Swiming in a fishbowl.
 
If I'm not mistaken there is more than one version of the story (not the play). Some suggest a mutual love relationship, others suggest either Sweeney or Ms. L being in love with the other.


Top
Profile Quote
Nienor SharkAttack
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 4:58 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Norway
 
Agree with *E* and Iavas. "By the Sea" is Mrs. Lovett's dream song. Also, I very much think that stage and movie should be separated. If there is anything in the stage version supporting that they are having sex, I definitely can't see it in the movie.

The line in the song? Even if it's originally meant to say that they're having a sexual relationship, I think one line in one song in a whole movie as the only sign of that, is not enough. And I can't see anything else supporting it. The line may have just "followed along with the song" without meaning much in the movie context.


Edit: Somehow (:doh1:) failed to notice that you guys had continued on page 16, post written as if you had shut up at the end of page 15. :P

Last edited by Nienor SharkAttack on Thu 06 Mar , 2008 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 4:58 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Well no, cause I don't see them as contradictory. You have to remember, I played the role, and we played it as if they were sexual partners, without any affection or "connection". Its in the character. There's no contradiction. Sweeney is focussed and obsessed. That doesn't mean he doesn't still have to eat and go to the toilet. You don't see any of those things in the film either, or in the stage play. You don't see Sweeney sitting down for Sunday dinner with Nellie, but they presumably ate.

One of the techniques an actor uses when getting into character is to workshop a "day in the life". You'd be surprised how long a day is to be constantly angry and vengeful. Then multiply it by days and weeks. You realise its a slow burn, not an angry flame.

For me there is no question that the characters as written were sexual partners (as lovers implies love which is not the case for Sweeney). I saw nothing in the film to suggest that Depp was playing the part any differently. He would have fucked her when he felt the need, just as he would eat when hungry. There's no affection on his part. Its a physical gratification. What you're looking for isn't there. There's no intimacy. No romance. He just fucks her.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 5:30 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Alatar wrote:
Well no, cause I don't see them as contradictory. You have to remember, I played the role, and we played it as if they were sexual partners, without any affection or "connection". Its in the character. There's no contradiction. Sweeney is focussed and obsessed. That doesn't mean he doesn't still have to eat and go to the toilet. You don't see any of those things in the film either, or in the stage play. You don't see Sweeney sitting down for Sunday dinner with Nellie, but they presumably ate.

One of the techniques an actor uses when getting into character is to workshop a "day in the life". You'd be surprised how long a day is to be constantly angry and vengeful. Then multiply it by days and weeks. You realise its a slow burn, not an angry flame.

For me there is no question that the characters as written were sexual partners (as lovers implies love which is not the case for Sweeney). I saw nothing in the film to suggest that Depp was playing the part any differently. He would have fucked her when he felt the need, just as he would eat when hungry. There's no affection on his part. Its a physical gratification. What you're looking for isn't there. There's no intimacy. No romance. He just fucks her.
Good points, but I really don't think it's as simple as "when you're hungry you eat". Todd may have a bloodlust but I believe he still has some standards in how he treats those he respects, and that his devotion to Lucy and Johanna should not be taken out of the equation either.

Just sitting down and watching the film without any prior knowledge I don't think many people would conclude they were having sex. Even if the desire got too strong, I would imagine him going to a prostitute rather than complicating his partnership with Mrs L, which he really wants to avoid.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 6:09 pm
I've cried a thousand oceans, and I would cry a thousand more if that's what it takes to sail you home.
Offline
 
Posts: 11477
Joined: Fri 29 Oct , 2004 2:22 am
 
Alatar wrote:
Did you read my post E*?
Yes, why?




*E*

_________________

[ img ] For always.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 8:34 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Cause you ignored every point I made. I figured maybe you missed it.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R*
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 10:49 pm
I've cried a thousand oceans, and I would cry a thousand more if that's what it takes to sail you home.
Offline
 
Posts: 11477
Joined: Fri 29 Oct , 2004 2:22 am
 
Uh, rude. I read your posts, I just don't agree with their conclusion. It doesn't matter what Mrs. Lovett does or says because her point of view is not an accurate reflection of the relationship. She's the one with the fixation, therefore it's Sweeney I would look to for an idea of how things really are. And he can't even stand to touch her, let alone have sex with her.

If your argument is that only people who are boinking want to get married, then any number of couples could refute that. Or to make it an even more fanciful notion, how many young girls fawn over some actor they have a poster of on their closet door? Doesn't make it a two-way relationship, physically or emotionally.

The body doesn't need sex to survive, so I don't believe it is one of those unseen-but-assumed-to-have-occured things like going to the bathroom, especially with so many onscreen cues that nothing happened between them. This guy doesn't even run off to find his daughter or pay his respects to his dead wife, I can't imagine he feels like bothering much with sex. Many serial killers have sexual hang-ups anyway. Sweeney is focused on revenge, and that alone. Sure he eats and drinks, we seem him do as such... while contemplating how to get his revenge. It's all he's thought of for fifteen years. I can't say that Lovett's infatuation with him was as intense during that time, but it certainly picked up again once he returned and she had an in. Even during their final waltz, she: is still infatuated with him; he: is focused on revenge. Their relationship only exists in the first place because she has a thing for him. He'd be able to get by without her, but of course it helps that her greed also translates into a practical way of dispatching those bodies. It's a business partnership more than anything.

How the actors play it in other versions does not quite apply because even a slight difference in how they move or deliver their lines can change everything about a scene. Comparing the film to the 2001 concert version, one of the biggest differences that I noticed was Lovett's relationship with Toby. In the film she obviously cares about him and tries to talk Sweeney out of killing him. In the concert, she seemed rather blase about getting rid of the guy and barely acknowledged him as he sang "Not While I'm Around." So while I can buy that perhaps Sweeney and Lovett have a bit of sexy time now and then in the play, there seems to be a concerted effort in the film to show that Sweeney no like the touchy. I gotta go with that. The line about rumpled bedding contradicts the theory, but there is no lack of crazy fantasies in that head of hers and so I don't feel it's a big stretch.




*E*

_________________

[ img ] For always.


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Thu 06 Mar , 2008 11:38 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
No rudeness here. I said:
Alatar wrote:
Well, ask yourself this. If they have no physical relationship, doesn't the whole "By the Sea" song seem a little strange. She's saying, you know what I'd like, lets move to the sea together, and get married. Is that something you say to someone you don't have a relationship with? Sorry. You're stretching. Its obvious their relationship is at the point where she can discuss marriage as an option. That doesn't happen in platonic relationships.

Are you really suggesting that in the song she's saying, "We can go to Brighton, then you can start bonking me and then we can get married. Alright love?". No way. The song assumes a relationship or it makes no sense.
You said:
Quote:
She wants to get married. He doesn't even want to touch her.
Since that doesn't address any of the reasoning behind assuming marriage is on the cards with a platonic business partner I assumed you had missed my post. If, in fact, you just ignored those points, then the rudeness is not mine, but yours.

My argument is certainly not that only those who have sex want to get married and I can't see where I inferred that. My argument is that people who are not in any kind of relationship do not discuss marriage. Also, please remember that "By the Sea" is a duet, Sweeney continually reassures her with "Anything you say". Granted he is placating her, but it's a couple behaviour.

Your argument is that she wants marriage but he doesn't. Fine. Lots of people are in that situation. They don't tend to just assume it will happen and tell the other party that they will get married in a few years, after having had lots of sex.

You claim he shows no interest in her at all, even shrinking from her touch, yet you think its believable that she would assume he will marry her despite apparently rejecting her advances.

Sweeney does not like her showing affection, "the touchy" as you call it. Yet he allows her to speak of them getting married. And again, I say, the lyric explicitly states that they are sleeping together. The argument that this refers to some imaginary time in the future and not the here and now is a stretch, not the opposite.

Still, we all see what we want. Unless Depp and Bonham-Carter contradict it, I will assume they're playing the characters Sondheim wrote, who were lovers.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
*E*V*E*N*S*T*A*R*
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 12:28 am
I've cried a thousand oceans, and I would cry a thousand more if that's what it takes to sail you home.
Offline
 
Posts: 11477
Joined: Fri 29 Oct , 2004 2:22 am
 
Except that my last several posts in this thread have been in response to your own, so there has been no ignoring of points.




*E*

_________________

[ img ] For always.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 12:40 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Al, you didn't address my last post..
Quote:
My argument is that people who are not in any kind of relationship do not discuss marriage.
My response was that they ARE in a kind of relationship, just not a typical one, making the discussion of marriage believable without sex having to be involved.

You could be right about the movie, but personally I do not assume they are Sondheim's characters in areas not directly addressed by the movie script. I look at the movie as a standalone piece, taking all hints from what's contained in the movie only. I can't remember if you were on the "movie should be judged as a standalone piece" side during the LOTR days :P

I don't see Depp's Sweeney as a character who would -

a) Let lust get the better of him
b) Use Mrs L like a piece of meat
c) Desire the resulting complications in their relationship
d) Be cruel enough not to even acknowledge the act in his behaviour with her afterwards

That's my interpretation, but the only way to know would be to ask Depp, HBC or Burton.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 10:02 am
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
E, I don't want to fight. Your last few posts were thought provoking and well thought out. We just happen to disagree on this.

Iavas, your argument might hold water were it not for the fact that she mentions sex as a foregone conclusion in the song. Basically, your argument depends on first removing the one concrete statement in the Movie and then arguing the body language and visual clues. Those would be valid, were it not for the fact that they are trumped by a definitive statement in the script.

It reminds me of the Balrog wings debate. There were loads of very convincing arguments to support the theory that they had physical wings. The only problem was that to argue that side you first had to discard Tolkien's unambiguous description of shadow "like" vast wings. Once you started to claim that "like" actually really meant "actual", you could suupport it a dozen different ways. The problem is that's not what he said. He said "like".


You're doing the same thing here. You're saying "Maybe she meant", instead of simply accepting the fact that she said what she said. Occam's Razor applies here. Usually the simplest explanation is the truth. If she says they're having sex, they probably are.


The only argument I can see in your favour is that perhaps they made a different decision with the characters, but felt it wasn't worth altering the lyrics to support the change. To me thats a bridge too far.


Incidentally, there's nothing extra in the script of the Stage play to suggest that they're having sex. I'm working from the same page as you guys on this.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 1:43 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
If we want to get technical, there is no way to definitively prove what time period the "rumpled bedding" line applies to. Any 'descriptive' line in By the Sea could apply to that future setting only. That being the case I think it's fair game to look at other clues as well to work out what's going on in the present.

On stage I feel more time is devoted to the two having a 'pleasant' relationship, such as the scene where they plan the body disposal and the chair arrives. Their interaction is quite couply there. A Little Priest is longer. In By the Sea Todd is atleast relaxed rather than brooding. Also in the film there are extra little moments where the distance between the two are highlighted.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 1:46 pm
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
I thought the FOTR movie had put the balrog debate finally to rest.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 2:23 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
Its a fair point Iavas, but for me its simply a stretch I don't need to make. The characters are completely believable to me as they are, and I see no contradiction with the lyric, so I feel no need to look for other explanations. Like I said, its Occam's razor.
Quote:
Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem", or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 2:41 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
I don't think anyone who's been in online debates for years needs to see the definition of Occam's razor :P

From my perspective the film would be weakened if this one line is taken at face value, because it does not jive with the actor's performances at all for me. (Unlike the stage play where it could fit).

I cannot wrap my head around film Todd and Mrs L having a physical relationship, and it's not hard for me to place the line in the context of Mrs L's daydreaming, so I guess we'll just say that it works for both of us in different ways!

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Alatar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 2:43 pm
of Vinyamar
Offline
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 4:39 pm
Location: Ireland
Contact: ICQ
 
:thumbsup :yes:

But I promise next time I watch I'll pay more attention.

_________________

[ img ]
These are my friends, see how they glisten...


Top
Profile Quote
Nienor SharkAttack
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 10:14 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1858
Joined: Thu 28 Oct , 2004 2:34 pm
Location: Norway
 
Nienor SharkAttack wrote:
Finally saw it tonight. Liked it a lot, but, to my surprise, I actually found it too bloody. I knew There Will Be Blood, and I didn't think I'd mind (I usually don't), but... I did. :neutral:
I feel a strong need to withdraw this statement. :P I've thought about it, and it's definitely not the blood I have a problem with. It's the throat cutting. I don't mind blood and violence in movies, but I seriously have an issue with close-ups of throats being cut. It's just so... I can feel it. Not so with watching people getting shot or stabbed or having their heads cut off or whatever. But I can feel the throat cut - and I don't enjoy that!

So this is definitely the wrong movie for me to love. :D

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Fri 07 Mar , 2008 11:20 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
I'm okay with seeing a throat cut.. it's WRISTS I cannot watch. Now that I feel.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 16 of 17  [ 324 posts ]
Return to “Made in Dale: Hobbies and Entertainment” | Jump to page « 113 14 15 16 17 »
Jump to: