"Sweeney Todd" reactions

email this story
read comments (23)
post a comment

There was a research screening last night of Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd (Dreamamount, 12.21), and it played, for most viewers, as a very satisfying musical horror film. Not a gothic London period tragedy but a classic horror flick in the vein of Phantom of the Opera, says one observer. Oh, and it occasionally morphs into an out-and-out blood bath.

Tim Burton (l.) directs Johnny Depp (r.) during shooting of Sweeney Todd.

So says one guy who attended last night's research screening of Burton's film on the Universal lot. During the focus-group discussion "there was some doubt [expressed] that it would appeal to horror fans, even though it clearly is a horror movie, the songs notwithstanding," writes Cinefantastique.com's Steve Biodrowski.

"There seemed to be a misapprehension that 'horror' equated with Saw, and that fans of that franchise and others of its ilk would [therefore] not enjoy the Burton film," Biodrowski observes.

"Personally, I think nothing could be further from the truth. The blood explodes in only a few scenes of Sweeney, but when it rains, it pours in unbelievably graphic gouts of gushing red. I can't remember when or if I ever saw this much red splashed across the screen in a mainstream studio movie.

"More important, the Sweeney character" -- portrayed by Johnny Depp -- "fits the classic movie monster mold" a la The Phantom of the Opera, Biodrowksi contends. "He does horrible things, but the audience identifies with and even roots for him to dispatch his victims, who more often than not deserve what they get."

Biodrowski's piece seems fairly comprehensive, emphasis on the "seems." The film apparently runs about 110 minutes sans end credits, according to another source. "Very brutal, very bloody," this other guy says. The Envelope's Tom O'Neil will be pleased to hear that "Depp and company don't skip on the singing" and that the "vocals are great." The film has "five more weeks of sound mixing" to go, he says.

Everyone apparently loved it at the screening "except for a handful of people, one of whom complained that the film provides "no closure" (an assertion dispute by another who says "it may or may not show you exactly what happens to everybody, but it gives you enough information to figure it out satisfactorily").

The "no closure" guy also sneered about Depp's performance, saying that he had seen the actor in similar roles too often before; he called Sweeney "Edward Scissorhands possessed by Jack Sparrow." This remark was obviously intended as criticism, although "the marketing people actually liked it," reports one poster, "saying they would like to put the comment in their promotional campaign."

Riley meets Curtis<< previous | next >>Duelling Hitchcocks

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 24, 2007 at 9:03 AM

comment #1

Sean says ...

he called Sweeney "Edward Scissorhands possessed by Jack Sparrow." This remark was obviously intended as criticism, although "the marketing people actually liked it," reports one poster, "saying they would like to put the comment in their promotional campaign."
Comments

Posted by Sean at October 24, 2007 9:59 AM

comment #2

Craig Kennedy says ...

Marketing stooges are awesome.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at October 24, 2007 10:05 AM

comment #3

JD says ...

Increasingly, this is sounding like a perfect culmination of everything Burton has been involved with, from the musical aspects of Nightmare Before Christmas and Charlie and the CF to the gothic aspects of Edward Scissorhands and Sleepy Hollow to the black comedy of everything else. Plus, Johnny Depp's in it. Even if it sucks, it could be the ultimate Tim Burton movie.

Posted by JD at October 24, 2007 10:55 AM

comment #4

dcc77 says ...

I know this post will anger many of you but as a cinephile/marketing person I take offense to the term STOOGE. I'm a fan of pure cinema as much as anyone on this site, but all of the films Jeff features are made for profit and as such the rules of capitalism (i.e. marketing is essential) apply. Frankly, some of the campaigns I've seen in the last five years are a hell of a lot more creative than the screenwriting in the movies they're promoting. The pure aesthetes among you long for a marketing-free utopia that never existed. Dreamamount execs are right to latch onto a well-written line from an early viewer.

Posted by dcc77 at October 24, 2007 11:16 AM

comment #5

christian says ...

Ooo, dcc77 is going for that "righteous indignation" dollar. That's a good market.

Posted by christian at October 24, 2007 11:42 AM

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

As the user of the term in question, I have to say dcc77 has a point. Movies are and always have been about making money and to criticize the people whose job it is to make that happen is silly.

Besides, some of my best friends are marketing stooges.

I've also seen plenty of good marketing campaigns. Good ones can be a part of the whole experience. Trying to appeal to a mass audience I know is the goal, but doing it as nakedly as this person is depressing. It's throwing up your hands and say "No, really. This movie is just a combination of a bunch of other movies you really like. Trust us. You won't be challenged." It's stooge-like.

The thing is, there is always a balance between art and commerce and people who are fans of the art should always be fighting for it. The bean counters will always have their say, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't resist them every step of the way.

(lighting torches, rounding up the villagers)

Posted by Craig Kennedy at October 24, 2007 12:14 PM

comment #7

Edward says ...

Damn, where did I put that pitchfork?

Posted by Edward at October 24, 2007 12:23 PM

comment #8

dcc77 says ...

Thanks for the (backhanded) compliment cjKennedy. For the record, in the business community it's the finance and accounting people who count the beans. The marketing department spends them, or, to continue the metaphor, plants them in the minds of the public. Resistance to the message is not only futile, it's counter-productive. Recognize that every film has the right to be properly positioned to break through the clutter. If the campaign repells you, don't see the film. Personally, I make my decision on what movies to see based on more than the studio's slant.

Posted by dcc77 at October 24, 2007 12:24 PM

comment #9

christian says ...

Thre's nothing wrong with effectively marketing a movie and in fact that's one of the few joys the ad world has given us is great posters etc.

But when you put the marketing folk in charge of filmmaking, then you get exatly what we've had over the past decade. "Branded" soulless, barren, homogenized films that are focused group to death using all the fancy demographic bean-counting that still leads to them not knowing anything.
And putting products in every scene so the movies have become commercials for themselves.

Posted by christian at October 24, 2007 12:29 PM

comment #10

Craig Kennedy says ...

Yeah, that was the crappiest apology ever.

Is it fair to say there are good marketing people and bad marketing people and this to me is an example of a bad one? I'm not saying successful, I'm saying good.

Also, I don't worry too much about marketing spin, but I worry a great deal when it impacts the creative process. You know, "hey, can we make this Sweeney character a little more Sparrowy? audiences love that."

I see enough movies that after-the-fact marketing doesn't really have an effect on me. I think it's aimed at getting the attention of the people who only see a handful of movies each year. But to the extent that marketing decisions come before creative ones, well I worry.

And yes, I know bean counting and bean selling are different things, but to me the end user, they're a part of the same monster. Without them, I know the movies I love wouldn't exist but if you can't be an idealist about art, well...

Posted by Craig Kennedy at October 24, 2007 12:34 PM

comment #11

lazarus says ...

Nice Bill Hicks ref, christian.

No, seriously. If you are, do.

Posted by lazarus at October 24, 2007 12:59 PM

comment #12

christian says ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDW_Hj2K0wo

Posted by christian at October 24, 2007 1:26 PM

comment #13

dcc77 says ...

Nothing I just read resembled an apology so I'm confused, cj. If you were trying to slam my aNalogy then you're no Jack and the Beanstalk fan. (I have a small niece; shoot me).

I would never recommend that the marketing department dictate creative decisions. If I did, I would find the commentary on this site pointless and distasteful. I'm all for idealism, even I find some of the purist notions on this site charmingly quaint. Expecting Hollywood to purge itself of all brand integration is naive and not worth debating.

The best we can hope for with respect to non-commerically-influenced filmmaking is the Pulp Fiction scenario: an independently-produced film wins at Cannes and is picked up by a savvy distributor who allows the tidal wave of critical praise (and a few choice excerpts from the film) to sell the film in lieu of necessary-but-evil, bean-counted marketing. The hype was mostly critic-generated and for once the product met and ultimately surpassed our expectations.

Posted by dcc77 at October 24, 2007 2:06 PM

comment #14

christian says ...

"and for once the product met and ultimately surpassed our expectations."

May I suggest that refering to films as "product" is part of the problem?

Posted by christian at October 24, 2007 2:15 PM

comment #15

dcc77 says ...

It's a synonym for "film". I'm trying to vary my nouns for easier reading.

Product = output

Posted by dcc77 at October 24, 2007 2:24 PM

comment #16

le corbeau says ...

As a marketing person (well, copywriter), I didn't come here to talk marketing, so here's something completely different: Tod Slaughter as Sweeney Todd circa 1936.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUuCGQbUORY

Actually, I suppose this is marketing too...

Posted by le corbeau at October 24, 2007 2:39 PM

comment #17

Craig Kennedy says ...

Can someone hand me a shovel please? If I can make this hole I'm standing in just a wee bit bigger, I may be able to fit this couch in and then I'll at least be making a douche of myself in comfort.

Mgmax: that Sweeney is just Squire William Corder possessed by Stephen Hawkes.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at October 24, 2007 2:57 PM

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

"Recognize that every film has the right to be properly positioned to break through the clutter."

This is the language people use to convince themselves that they should work on marketing campaigns for awful films, one of which will be #1 at the box office this weekend.

Posted by jeffmcm at October 24, 2007 2:58 PM

comment #19