Okay, for those that know- that title may be a bit dark, but it is a perfect encapsulation of the thought process that led me here.
I was sitting in rehearsal, practicing the 2nd Act is surprisingly light on ensemble, and I had a theory that was interesting but would be too upsetting to share with the cast. So I was going to share it online. But when I opened the internet- Nicolas “Nicky” Brendon is dead at 54. Now yes… people may dislike him as a person because of his struggles with drugs and alcohol and domestic assault and the law and I’m never going to be the person that says, “Let’s ignore all of that because he was an artist!” That’s not my style. In fact, I entirely wrote him off as an artist and as a person (in many ways) after he was busted with drugs and alcohol, then gave his twin brother’s name to the cops. There’s “You’re fucking up your life” and then there’s “You’re trying to escape accountability by fucking up your brother’s life.” That… is big with me. And yes… there are thousands, possibly millions of people in this world who say “Xander Harris should have been killed off in Welcome to the Hellmouth not Jesse!” And here is where I piss everybody off..... as a heterosexual teenaged boy with mostly women as friends? Xander reflected my experiences. It’s easy to judge him with 2020 vision. But in 1996? Do y’all remember how fervent gay panic was? Do you remember how “a dude hanging out with girls” was instantly considered a loser and gay? Have you EVER developed a crush on a friend you knew you didn’t have a shot with? Have you ever kind of suspected a friend of yours had a crush on you; but you didn’t want to pursue it, but you didn’t go into it because you wanted to preserve the friendship? NOW YES- the script would take paths like “Xander’s insane jealousy over Buffy cases trouble” or “Xander and Willow kiss, causing devastating consequences to everyone’s relationships!” But that kind of stuff is what we call in television “Developing a conflict to either progress or stall story”. And Joss is a douche who explicitly says that he doesn’t like when his characters are happy or comfortable because he doesn’t see that as “compelling or entertaining”..... which should have said a lot about him. And I’m not a full throated Xander-apologist. He does do shitty things. But here’s a question for you: Did Xander move in to Joyce Summers’ house and take the main bedroom and then tell a resurrected Buffy to get a job to pay the bills? Did Xander ever actually murder a human being and then be accepted back into the group with open arms? I’m just saying… Xander is Evil, Willow is Awesome is also… kind of a bad take. (Which saying… I’m sure will get me crucified). ALL OF THAT TO SAY.... Nicky’s passing is sad. And alarming. I know he “lived hard” but when an actor who was playing a High School student while you were a High School student dies? It… hits you in a specific way. A very… “Yeah, so… I might not have a lot of time left” kind of way. Which leads into things like “I’ve wasted my life and I’m going to die miserably alone” kind of thinking.
SO.... onto the Sweeney Todd Theory. NOW… I propose this with NO buy in. I like the common interpretation, it’s fine. There’s no reason to change it, to challenge it, or to question it. BUT… that being said?
THE FOLLOWING WILL BE A DISCUSSION OF PLOT POINTS AND CHARACTERS FROM “SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET”. WHAT FOLLOWS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND/OR MAKE NO SENSE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE SHOW OR READ THE STORY. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO MOVE ON IF YOU WISH TO PREVENT YOURSELF FROM BEING SPOILED TO PLOT POINTS IN THE SHOW
Now… that out of the way? I want to start by asking a question: WHAT is the audience perspective of the show? WHO is telling the story? That question in itself is odd because.... we’re not perceiving this from TODD’s perspective… there’s backstory we never get. How did he get off Australia? How long had he been at sea before The Bountiful saved him? How long did The Bountiful sail before reaching London? Was it a stroke of luck or planned intention that the first ship he ran across was going to where he wanted to go? FURTHER- prior to meeting Mrs. Lovett- what exactly was his plan? Because… he arrives in London not knowing the fates of his wife and daughter. Are they alive? Are they dead? Did she remarry? Todd isn’t our narrator. BUT he is a narrator because you’ll remember… other than what the audience is watching.... there are 2 “stories” told- both in Act 1, both to the same music, both intentionally leaving important information OUT. That information being left out BECAUSE of who the story teller is and how the story teller feels about who they are sharing the story with.
TODD to ANTHONY:
There was this barber and his wife. And she was beautiful.”
Anthony is a young romantic sailor looking for adventure and beauty. We start this tragic tale by telling the boy of this beautiful woman and end the story honestly admitting that.... we don’t know how it ends.
LOVETT to TODD:
There was this barber and his wife. And he was beautiful.”
Lovett is establishing immediately that her character wanted Benjamin Barker. That she fancied him. Loved him, maybe, in her own way. She’s communicating to the “stranger she thinks is Barker” that *I think you’re beautiful and wonderful and talented. Now let me tell you what happened to your wife.... and why you’re ACTUALLY free to be with me now!”
In both cases.... we’ve established “unreliable narrators.” Of course… Todd isn’t our definition of “unreliable narrator”.... all he did was not tell the boy that HE was that barber… but that suggests a rule we just accept.... the narrator using this melody and motif is telling the truth but leaving things out. When Lovett uses the same melody and motif to tell the story of Lucy Barker.... we don’t question it. We accept it as truth. AND we don’t apply the rule consciously because we get an upsetting story with a tragic conclusion and think “That’s it.” Of course, at the end of the show, we realize the rule WAS in effect: but leaving things out particularly IDENTIFYING INFORMATION. In Todd’s story he left out “and the barber was me” and in Lovett’s story she left out “and the crazy beggar woman on the street is your precious Lucy!” And of course, by the time all is revealed- it is too late. Todd has killed the Beggar Woman, realizes what he’s done, confronts Lovett who tellingly said, “I never lied, said she took a poison, never said that she died” and Todd kills her as well.
This is all acceptable, symmetrical… no reason to question any of it. We all know that Lovett told the truth but obscured the “she’s still alive” part.... some accept Lovett’s reasoning (to spare Mr. Todd) some suggest nefarious and selfish reasoning (Lovett always loved Barker and had found a way to nab him). Case closed.
BUT.... WHAT IF.... Lovett isn’t just “unreliable in the way Sweeney is.” What if Lovett was more of what she claimed to be. Let’s start with a specific assumption: Surviving poisoning doesn’t turn you into a half-mad beggar woman. The type of neurological derangement exhibited by the Beggar Woman is far more typical of people suffering from syphilis. The Beggar Woman even vacillates between lucidity and gentleness begging for alms.... to boisterous and aggressive offering sex for money. This alone doesn’t deny Lovett’s story. The argument can be made that, after surviving the poisoning- Lucy was homeless, destitute, and depressed- therefore turned street walker, caught syphilis, and went mad. That could certainly happen without shaking Lovett’s story. AND what Lovett’s story says the Judge did certainly falls inline with what we know about his character! This evil old man is going to force his ward, essentially his daughter into marrying him! He’s a sick evil old man!
BUT… what if Lovett isn’t just “unreliable narrator.” What if Lovett is a woman with minimal facts, town gossip, and an agenda?
Lovett was NOT and would NEVER HAVE BEEN invited to the fancy ball she describes in Poor Thing. So… what she claims happens there? Is not a first hand account. She heard it from somebody. Who maybe heard it from somebody else? Who maybe heard it from somebody else? etc- you see my point. So peel it back. What can it be said that Lovett had FIRST HAND knowledge of?
Corrupt Judge making eyes at the Barber’s Wife. Lovett wants the Barber but can’t have him. The Judge sends the Barber away. The reason for this is assumed to be corruption (and likely is). The Judge and the Beadle frequently make stops at the Barber’s wife’s home and are turned away repeatedly. The Beadle arrives one night at the Barber’s Wife’s house to tell her the Judge has changed his mind. When Lucy returns home, she stays inside (in her bedroom) for a very long time. When she is seen next, she’s half-mad and unfit for society.
That’s what Lovett knows first hand. Now, again, there’s NO REASON to doubt Lovett’s story, despite acknowledging it is built upon gossip. HOWEVER… even the very first time I watched Sweeney Todd, d’you know what I thought immediately after Barker was transported?
Lucy has no way of making money for her and her daughter. How are they going to pay their bills? How are they going to eat?
The Judge and The Beadle arrive multiple times. What if they weren’t there to say “Be Mine! Or stay in there, bother!” What if they were there to do 1 of 2 or both of the following:
(1) Lucy, you’re drowning in debt and may soon have to sell your daughter just to put food in your own belly! Marry me and escape this impoverished self-destruction! Think of your baby!!
or
(2) Lucy, you’re drowning in debt. As the local magistrate, it is within my power to protect you from debt collectors or feed you to them! At the moment, my magnanimity is secure. But I can’t hold them at bay forever. And the longer they wait, the higher the interest. The sooner you come to your senses and do as I command, the faster your debt will be wiped clean!
Both of those traditionally evil and traditional manipulation tactics that wealth and power have always used against damsels in distress through story and history. SO… the party? That could have been anything. Including what Lovett said. But here’s another suggestion:
What if when Lucy arrived… she was confronted with the Debt Collectors and Turpin? It wasn’t “get her drunk and rape her”. It was coercion and worse. Either Turpin himself saying, “My dear, I can hold them off no longer. Will you embrace me and allow me to be your protector? Or must I unleash them upon you?” Again… rapey, but not necessarily rape. (These guys were always shitty like that.) AND THEN… what if a deal was struck. Lucy would give Turpin her daughter to adopt, and thus protect from her debts. But she would not give herself to Turpin. Leaving the matter of the debt. Where she was forced into or had no other choice but prostitution… with nary a schilling for herself… literally being locked away in her own house while the debt collectors acted as shitty pimps, essentially saying “We’ve got a bird what can’t say no. You give me 4 schillings and she’s yours for the night.” Thus causing the syphilis and sexual/emotional breaks, all of it.
AGAIN… Lovett’s story explains that as well. It doesn’t really explicitly cover how Turpin gained legal custody of Johanna but the audience assumes corruption. SO… why would Lovett tell the one story if this story was a possibility? And I think THAT shows Lovett in a better light, actually. She wasn’t going Mean Girls Teenage Queen Bee Bitchy with the story she told Todd. She was protecting him. JUST AS SHE SAID SHE WAS DOING before she dies. Which is the sweeter story to return to if you have to return to a horror:
(A) Your wife was tricked, subdued, raped, and killed herself; or
(B) Your wife was tricked, subdued, forced into prostitution, and is now insane and has seen more dick than hot meals for the last 18 years.
This whole thing doesn’t add anything to the story, sure. But there were always the things that bothered me with Lovett’s version especially knowing at the end that she is intentionally an unreliable narrator.
It always bothered me that
(1) Lovett wasn’t at the “party”… she wouldn’t know what happened there
(2) Lovett’s version quite literally pretends that Lucy doesn’t need to have income of any kind.... considering how frequently concepts of wealth and power versus the impoverished and struggling are in this show.... that conceit “she doesn’t need to make money” is a glaring oversight
(3) Even the first time I saw the show, I said “She couldn’t have been poisoned into the version we see- that’s syphilis!”
So.... my theory is weak. It’s unnecessary. It adds nothing to the lore of the show. But it came to mind so I’m sharing it!
Loading comments...