Angela was NOT playing just Angela.

Quite the opposite, in fact. Patti played Patti, like she has done for ages now.

I have to say, I prefer concert-version LuPone to Lansbury.

While I do agree that Patti was, in a sense, playing herself, I think that method worked. I think it enabled her to really play with the audience and enjoy a joke with them instead of spouting off punchines at them. While I think she was less in touch with the emotions behind the character itself, I think she was more involved with the audience and probably allowed them to have a more enjoyable time.

I meant Angela IS a legend in herself, and Mrs. Lovett is totally hers. And I DID NOT said she was playing herself.



Mi a fasz lenne, ha nem forgatnád ki az ember minden szavát, picsafejű?

From what I've seen of Lansbury's Lovett, she is only a 3-dimensional character once you find out her motives. She doesn't really show you that she's covering things up-- I mean, I know that's the whole point of her batty facade, but she never makes you wonder if she's hiding something when you first see it, you just see a sort of looney middle-aged woman. BUT I haven't seen the entire Hearn/Lansbury show, so this is subject to change.

When I think of the actual character of Mrs. Lovett, it never occured to me to think of her as evil; I always thought of her a survivor, doing whatever it takes to make a living (hence her idea about a good way to dispose of Sweeney's victims.) some things she did selfishly, though, such as neglecting to tell Sweeney the truth about Lucy, but hey, she's human, (as someone said earlier in this topic.) She didn't strike me as being particularly deep. That's just my personal interpretation of her. When I saw the Burton movie version, HBC exactly fit the way I thought of her.

I do see why the above might not work on stage, though. and I'm not saying that she's a misunderstood heroine, either. She is, now that I'm really thinking about it, a bad person. You have to draw the line somewhere, and she didn't, nor did she care to.

I don't get quite what this means Do you mean Lansbury portrayed Lovett too layered? And I'd say Lansbury's Lovett facade is anything but batty...

man I just re-read what I wrote and that is possibly the most confused rambling I've ever read.
So, to clear things up: No, Dvarg, I didn't think that Lansbury was layered enough, because she never makes you suspect her. But, when thinking about what I thought earlier, I realized that your not suspecting her is the point. As several people have pointed out in this thread. So, just don't read the first part of my last post. And also, I didn't mean that Lansbury's Lovett facade is batty, I mean that the facade that Lansbury's Lovett has is batty. So Lansbury is playing Lovett who is acting batty. Is what I meant.[/quote]

This video is a great tool for comparison. It really demonstrates the movie's lack of energy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8zz4AVABkM

Also, the comments left by fangirls are highly amusing. Worth a good laugh.

Yeah, it does, but it works much better when it's just in the context of the movie.

Helena Bonham Carter and Angela Lansbury are the two that i am patricuarly fond of.
HBC perhaps because that is how i would play mrs lovett. and lansbury cause i love her voice and the buns.

Film is a totally different medium..Helena could be as broad and energetic as Angie if she were directed to do so. in the film it woulsnt have worked.

Angie is by far the best..Beth Fowler next.

but Helena was great in the film medium.

I loved Patti's take on the role but Angela Lansbury is and always will be the greatest Lovett of them all.