Sweeney Todd moves to Romania ... no, not *that* Sweeney Todd
Filed under: Drama, Music & Musicals, DIY/Filmmaking
I couldn't have been the only one that thought something was a little weird, when I heard that Ray Winstone was complaining about not being able to shoot the Sweeney Todd movie in London. Okay, well, let's step back a sec: actor Ray Winstone (you should know him from Sexy Beast) threw a bit of a fit at a press conference this week, in regards to the 2004 closing of a tax loophole that's had "a disasterous effect" on the British film industry. "It seems that when a man who wants to make lots of money finds a tax loophole to make films, the government doesn't like that," Winstone said. "[But] each time a film doesn't get made, 400-500 people are out of work - people who pay their taxes." He's primarily upset because his most recent film, Sweeney Todd, had to shoot in Romania instead of London. "It's about London and I want to make it here, but it
would cost two or three times more to make it here. The money comes out
of the country and goes somewhere else."
Okay, so, those are valid points about the inherent problems of government regulation on the film industry. But because I'm something of a nerd about musicals, as soon as I saw that the transplanted film was Sweeney Todd, I did a bit of a double-take.
Various versions of Stephen Sondheim's musical, which was itself based in part on a 1936 film, have been bouncing around Hollywood for ages. Most recently, Sam Mendes announced that he planned to direct a version, from a screenplay by John The Aviator Logan, and Broadway people have been gossipping that Russell Crowe might star. So is the Winstone project the same film? Or are there all of a sudden two seperate, competing Sweeney Todd movies?
From what I can tell, the answer to both questions is "no" - judging
from various fragments, it looks like Winstone has shot a non-musical
version of Sweeney and, at least according to the future-tense verbs in this piece,
Mendes' version hasn't yet gone into production. But if I'm wrong, I'm
sure there's a Broadway baby out there who will let me know ...
P.S.: This a great article about Sondheim, and his cinematic potential, by film critic Scott Foundas.
_thumbnail.jpg)
Celebs Return to Their Most Iconic Roles for Photo Shoot
Check Out Concept Art From Marvel's Futuristic Theme Park
Chris Weitz to Direct Two-Part 'Breaking Dawn' Finale?
Girls on Film: The Academy's Shallow Actress Pool_thumbnail.jpg)
Alec Baldwin Becomes Latest to Threaten Retirement
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-21-2005 @ 1:11PM
Angela said...
Okay so what's the deal? I realize he wants to shoot the movie in London because it's about London, but now he has a rare opportunity to provide jobs for a poor and impoverished country like Romania - a country struggling to rise above government corruption and provide better living conditions for her people. Evidently England doesn't need the income, eh? I say, "Bravo!" While in Romania, he should consider doing a film about the Romanians.
V?ul??entru s?ermite?omentariile mele.
Angela
Reply
7-22-2005 @ 9:04AM
Mihai said...
Angela is mostly right but I'd just like to point out that Romania is not as "poor and improverished" as you think. On a world level, it can't be classified as a poor country. It's one of the richest Southeastern European states, in fact. So, instead of saying this movie will "rescue Romania from poverty", it's rather about it providing foreign investment in what is a fairly low-cost and competitive location to shoot (Romania). The "poor" image is a big stereotype.
Reply
8-03-2005 @ 9:32PM
Samuel said...
Hes right and what do you mean you don't know who he is.
The government a load of bollocks, crippling industry at every turn, I like Labour for somethings but for other the good old handbag days of zero tollerence would have seen an end to this stupid bureaucracy
Reply