“There is, in fact, no serious social message in Sweeney Todd,” writes Richard Eder, critic for The New York Times. He calls Stephen Sondheim’s musical a “confusion of purpose” with “too much artistic power” (Eder). Set in London during the beginning of the industrial revolution, Sweeney Todd recounts the story of a demon barber who viciously murders his customers and bakes them into pies with the help of his neighbor, Mrs. Lovett. Originally published in 1846 as a “penny dreadful,”[1] The String of Pearls (Sweeney Todd) was widely acclaimed for its violent depiction of London. But as Rosalind Crone, Professor of History at the Open University, argues, “Like other genres in the culture from which [Sweeney Todd] emerged, its interest was not in promoting social reform” (Crone 4). Crone suggests that the purpose of these “penny dreadful” serial books were merely for entertainment. As Crone deftly argues, this specific story among the hundreds of other “penny dreadful” serial books only depicts the popular culture during a time of competition and technological advancement; it is not unique and many other variations of Todd’s story existed during that time.[2] Thus, any societal critiques suggested by this story, as duly noted by critics and reviewers, seem to be smeared and blurred at best. The 2007 film version of Stephen Sondheim’s musical Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street does not escape this harsh criticism.[3] Steven Vineberg, Professor of Dramatic Literature and Film at the College of the Holy Cross, asserts that Burton’s film lacks “satirical edge or political punch” because the “social milieu… [is] insufficiently dramatized” (Vineberg). While critics praised this version of the demon barber myth for its brilliant artistic imagination, their responses reflect a general agreement that the recent film, its musical adaptation, and its 19th century origins lack political and social value. Even then, however, many literary scholars refuse to believe that these stories were really that simplistic. Specifically, scholars have extensively analyzed the 19th century String of Pearls penny dreadful story. According to Rohan McWilliam, Professor of Modern British History at Anglia Ruskin University, “it is clear that the Sweeney Todd mythology was an example of the Hogarthian impulse in popular culture” (McWilliam 732). In other words, McWilliam argues that the British literature strongly satirizes society and in actuality, comments on many social and political problems. Literary analyst Sally Powell makes a similar conclusion. Powell “argues that Mrs. Lovett’s pies [actually] drew on concerns about the use of diseased meat in products for human consumption, and even more particularly, fears about the vulnerability of urban foodstuffs to corporeal contamination” (Crone 19). For Powell, the story of Sweeney Todd reveals the “dispassionate relationship between the profiteer and the abject product,” highlighting the culture[4] of commercialism and consumerism which was at the forefront of the industrial revolution (Powell 53). The story, as Powell explains, also relays the growing consumer culture[5] as blissfully ignorant[6] of the harms that come concurrently with a business-oriented society. While these scholars have found stark criticism on consumer culture and industry buried in the original story, these findings hold no real application to the recent 2007 film adaptation. Although much of the storyline is still present within Burton’s work, critics such as Riley and Vineberg regard the new adaptation as nothing more than a washed down version of its penny dreadful origins. If this is the case, are critics correct in their conclusion regarding the film? Does this newer version of Sweeney Todd hold no real societal implications? On the surface, many reviewers have viewed the film as nothing more than a horrific tale about revenge, love, and greed, filled to the brim with blood and gore (Lamberson). Upon closer analysis, however, the film points to interesting topics concerning cannibalism and our current society. While it seems as though Burton’s film has been acclaimed to hold no social or political significance, it actually critiques both our current consumer fast food culture and the fast food industry through its portrayal of cannibalism. Before we can understand how Burton’s film actually critiques the fast food industry, we have to analyze previous scholarship who has found similar conclusions. Specifically, Professor of American Studies and English, Michael Newbury argues that the horror genre may actually critique the fast food industry and our current consumer culture. In his paper “Fast Zombie/ Slow Zombie: Food Writing, Horror Movies and Agribusiness Apocalypse,” Newbury shows that in the context of a post-apocalyptic world rampant with zombies, it seems as though humanity’s reliance on fast food is thoughtless. In fact, for the sake of taste and desire, society has chosen to blatantly disregard their personal welfare. In one of the analyzed scenes of 2002 film 28 Days Later, Newbury explicates that “The fast and rabid zombies of the very recent years embody quite literally the unrestrained, manic, hyper accelerated, and mindless appetite of the contemporary food consumer: an eater, according to apocalyptic journalists, produced by food marketing, fast-food chains, manufacturers of junk food, and corporate slaughterhouses” (Newbury 103). The appetite of today’s consumers is searching for a quick and easy solution to their diets that will satisfy not only their hunger and thirst but also their taste and wants. In this quotation, Newbury not only compares consumers with the zombies themselves, he actually asserts that the zombies in the film are in fact “us” - mindless and rabid, eating everything and anything. When speaking in regards to the food industry, Newbury attributes this “zombie” culture to the “unsustainable, unhealthy, deeply commercialized food system” (Newbury 100). Much scholarly work has pointed towards this same conclusion on our current food culture.[7] Although Newbury lays a solid premise for the horror genre, his paper focuses more on zombie films and their connection to fast food. Burton’s film, however, can be directly applied to Newbury’s analysis. Much of the film reflects on the food industry as an extremely economical and urban machine. According to Riley, Mrs. Lovett provides the fundamental connection between the film and the industry, “firmly establishing [herself] as the quintessential businesswoman: resourceful, practical, profit-driven, and ruthlessly amoral” (Riley 209). In one particular dark scene, after discussing how to rid the dead body of one of Sweeney Todd’s victims, Mrs. Lovett steals a pouch of coins from the victim’s breast pocket, casually saying, “Waste not, want not” (Sweeney Todd). By not wanting to waste the man’s money in his pocket, Mrs. Lovett demonstrates her money-driven personality. Furthermore, her black dress blends seamlessly with her shop; it is as if she was an integral part of the machine. Her eyes are coated with thick eyeliner and her garments barely cover her exposed breasts (Fig. 1). Ironically, in the face of grotesque circumstances - in this case murder - the industrial “machine” continues to operate. Mrs. Lovett is not only unfazed by humanities’ worst crime, but also takes advantage of this opportunity to make money. Her attire reflects her seductive nature, even using her body as a means to entice men. In the same way, the fast food industry desires to be seductive, luring people to consume their fatty foods. The industry acts in the shadows, often hiding the negative health consequences from its consumers. Most famously put by a 2008 documentary Food, Inc. by Robert Kenner, “The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re eating, cause if you knew, you might not want to eat it” (Food, Inc). In the end, the goal of the industry is only to sell its product using any way possible, disregarding the legality and morality of its processes. Legality and morality are clearly not an issue of concern for the fast food industry; efficiency, however, is of utmost importance. Acting under this efficiency in mind, Mrs. Lovett and Sweeney Todd conclude that the best way to rid the dead body is to grind it into meat and bake it into meat pies for the public’s consumption. Mrs. Lovett constantly chirps “no time like the present” as to signify her immediate approval for this idea; she realizes that this use of human meat was a way for her to gain more customers and actually sell “meat” in her meat pies (Sweeney Todd). With the death of the first gentleman, Todd and Mrs. Lovett decide to take revenge on a larger scale, killing innocent civilians and developing a prolific business. Todd, however, is the section of the industry that supplies the resources to create Mrs. Lovett’s product. In one particular scene, Todd holds his shaving razor under the eerie light from the sky window (Fig. 2). The minor chords in the background accompaniment boom as he raises his arm declaring, “At last, my arm is complete again” (Sweeney Todd). The music and this scene identify Todd as a living part of the murder machine – the supply for Mrs. Lovett’s meat pies. He is part of the industry itself, cold and unforgiving. He cares only about his cause, his money, and his need; consumers and their needs are second to his own. Similarly, the fast food industry operates using the chain of production as demonstrated by Mrs. Lovett and Todd. Certain factories specialize in providing the beef for burgers, potato for fries, and chicken for the chicken nuggets. These are all a sector of the industry, separated to make production faster and more efficient. Todd and Lovett’s business reflects this method of assembly out of efficiency, amorality, and illegality. Although on the face of it, efficiency has no negative connotations, the fast food industry values this speedy production over the welfare of its consumers. The film is plain in its critique of this process. As Mrs. Lovett journeys to refill her “meat” supply, she walks into a dark cellar and proceeds to grind human flesh out of an immense machine. The meat plops onto her pan and the sound of gears and grinding overwhelm the viewing experience (Fig. 3). The camera angles frame the meat to accentuate the grotesque process. The darkness of the screen depicts a cold scene, absent of joy. While this practice is difficult to watch, Mrs. Lovett seems to be apathetic towards her line of work. She is neither bothered nor delighted by throwing humans into a pit of fire or a gigantic grinder. Burton’s film critiques the fast food industry and blames it for its immorality and inhumanity. As identified in many documentaries,[8] the fast food industry has often been the culprit of food adulteration, feeding consumers harmful products, much different than advertised. Some viewers, however, argue that this reading is too radical. Sweeney Todd is but a “fable about a world from which the possibility of justice has vanished, replaced on one hand by vain and arbitrary power, on the other by a righteous fury that quickly spirals into madness” (Scott). They argue that the film is nothing more than a story driven by anger, grief, and revenge. While their argument seems appealing, a closer analysis reveals that the film actually goes further and critiques our degrading eating culture. Immediately following the depiction of the meat grinding in Mrs. Lovett’s cellar, Burton juxtaposes this scene with one of happiness and joy. Candles light up the restaurant’s tables as hundreds of customers sit eating the new meat pies (Fig. 4). Candles are often used for special occasions. They romanticize dinners and provide light in the darkness. Interestingly, even in the midst of candlelight, all of the customers are oblivious to the true ingredients of the pies; their oblivion to them is bliss, suggesting a deeper viewing more than merely a scene about Todd’s manic revenge. Newbury provides an explanation for this in his connection between zombie films and the fast food industry: “The candlelight dinner scenes seek to recover … a world before the dominance of corporate and fast food” (Newbury 106). Most of the time, these scenes are actually only a façade of reality. Newbury identifies that dinner scenes in the midst of natural candlelight actually reflect a fake sense of reality, a fake sense of control and purpose. While the consumers believe they are eating quality food, they are actually actively participating in cannibalism. With this picture, it seems that Burton illustrates an important message in regards to our daily consumption. No man or woman questions the origins of their pie nor asks for the nutritional values or ingredients. They are content with their ignorance. In fact, the only two characters who actually question the pie shop’s practices are a street orphan and a beggar woman on the street. The street orphan is but a boy, holding no real authority in the face of the public. The beggar woman holds no status in society. Her voice is peculiar and flaky, signifying her powerless state in the face of industry. Together, they are the most disrespected in society, spited for their low status and class. The public refuses to listen to them and even when they voice their opinions in the store, they are quickly shooed away: “Get her out!” cries Mrs. Lovett (Sweeney Todd). In this case, cannibalism depicts the consumer culture of today. Although many people have reported on the health issues of fast food, we, as mindless zombies, continue to consume what we know as unhealthy. Specifically, it shows the consumer ignorance and negligence towards the origins of fast food. We want quick, easy, fast food, regardless of our health. In its extreme, we could be cannibals without even knowing. But what is the purpose of cannibalism in the film? Is it merely to show our degrading consumer culture? The film actually not only critiques our consumer culture but goes further to ask us to change our eating habits. While cannibalism is representative of culture,[9] in film, however, cannibalism can mean more than this; it can relay a powerful voice. According to Maggie Kilgour, Professor of English Language and Literature at McGill University, when seen in literature and film, “Cannibalism is thus again a means of satire, a trope with which we parody more idealized myths about ourselves” (Kilgour 241). In other words, cannibalism is a literary tool[10] many authors and directors use in order to portray and comment on societal issues. With this understanding, Kilgour’s claim can be tied to Burton’s film to show the actual meaning of cannibalism in the film. In order to digest the meaning of cannibalism in Burton’s film, however, cannibalism must holistically be regarded as barbaric. This seems to provide the line of division between the civilized world and the savage world. Crystal Bartolovich, Associate Professor of English at Syracuse University, argues in her essay “Consumerism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Cannibalism” that “The cannibals are most in need of retraining.” (Bartolovich 220). Bartolovich argues that cannibals and their origins are barbaric in nature. They are in need of “retraining” and do not belong in a civilized world.[11] While it seems like Bartolovich’s claim regarding cannibals has little relation to Burton’s film, it actually presses us to change our current consumer eating culture. As seen in previous analysis by Bartolovich, cannibals in a civilized society were expected to be “retrained” and “tamed” for the good of society. We, as cannibals in a civilized society consuming fast food products, are in need of taming. If a cannibalistic culture does not belong in a civilized society, than a fast food culture must also not belong. Specific scenes in Burton’s film affirm this same conclusion. Burton uses roaches as a means to distinguish the difference in public reaction on roach and human pies. This difference reveals the need for consumers to modify their diets. In the beginning of the film, Mrs. Lovett is seen as a pitiful store owner without any “real” meat pies to sell to her customers. Instead, she uses insects, specifically, roaches, as a substitute for meat. Mrs. Lovett seems to disregard sanitation; insects scurry off the floors and counters at every movement (Fig. 5). She sarcastically sings that her pies are “the best pies in London;” all the while she is roughly and rather disgustingly cooking her pies (Sweeney Todd). In one instance, she blows dust off one of her pies and serves it to Todd. All in all, this addresses a larger picture of food adulteration. Roaches eat the garbage of humans; they thrive off of the filth of the streets. Eating Mrs. Lovett’s pies means that one is, in essence, eating the sewers of London. Interestingly, unlike Mrs. Lovett’s meat pies, the public stayed away from her roach pies. While it is clear that the public disliked these pies, why were they so eager to try Mrs. Lovett’s new and improved meat pies? The ingredients of the new pies were in reality worse than the original roach fillings. Consumers, however, were more satisfied with not knowing the contents of their pies. They cared only about the taste of the food; nutrition was secondary. Burton purposefully juxtaposes these two different reactions to show the extremity between the two reactions. As a society, we should be even more disgusted with the idea of eating one another. This, however, was not the reaction in the film. The street orphan shows Burton’s ultimate critique on our consumer culture. Representative of the minority population who appreciates the simplicity of eating, the street orphan was the only person who, upon eating a human pie, immediately discovers a bone and spits it out (Fig. 6). He finds the truth of the situation and is horrified by the implications. Burton is saying something unique about our consumer culture. The film suggests that, like the street orphan, it is imperative to be wary of the origins of food. While the fast food industry constantly lures consumers to eat its food, such consumption should be considered as cannibalistic. In a civilized society, this practice must be “retrained.” While Burton shows us the problems of the food industry and our consumer culture, there is a key part of his commentary that is missing. The end of the movie gives little sense of hope. It seems the only way of stopping the consumption of pies is to physically kill the industry itself. In the end, both Todd and Lovett are killed: Todd killed by his own blade and Mrs. Lovett killed by the oven, a metaphor that the industry one day will kill itself through its greed and carelessness for consumers. This, however, seems rather gloomy. In fact, Burton provides no hint towards a solution for the fast food industry’s production of unhealthy foods and the consumer culture of eating these foods. Newbury may shed light on this situation. In his analysis of zombie films, he found that in most cases, apocalyptic films contained no solution towards the zombie diseases. Perhaps Burton’s film is more similar to the zombie genre than previously hypothesized. Much like Newbury’s findings, Burton posits a similar dismal conclusion: no matter the solutions available, consumers will not change their mindset. The industry will not die until it kills itself. We will always be “cannibals” in this fast food dominated world. [1] A type of British fiction publication that printed stories in series [2] To note, in 1826, the Terrific Register published a short story entitled ‘Horrible Affair in the Rue de la harpe at Paris’ which also relayed the story of a demon barber with cannibalistic tendencies. [3] According to Brian Patrick Riley, esteemed lawyer and writer for the Literature Film Quarterly, “Burton’s adaptation results in a more coherent, if somewhat less ambitious, text” (212). [4] This disconnection of the “profiteer” from their product comments on the apathy of commercial businesses towards the general welfare of the consumers. For them, the desire for money and success overrides any other desire for social reform or humanitarian improvement. [5] In fact, “so thoroughly seduced are they by the “magic” of an industry that delivers hundreds of delicious and affordable pies, so happy are they to fulfill their desire for the commodity, that they do not wish to question the product’s origin or the integrity of its production” (Powell 51). [6] This blatant portrayal of ignorance may be connected with political and social reform during the 1820s and 1860s, resulting in the 1875 Sale of Food Act which specifically “addressed the issue of food adulteration” (Price). [7] In many scholarly documentaries, similar connections between consumer culture and the food industry have also been made. Morgan Spurlock’s 2004 documentary-turned book Don’t Eat This Book, also points to this same issue. In the end, consumers were blissfully unaware of their food’s origins (Spurlock). [8] Schlosser and Wilson’s book Chew on This locates the actual origins of fast food, from their smell and coloring, all they way to their flavor and taste. Shockingly, the book reveals that the unique texture and taste of McDonald’s French fries is attributed to being cooked in beef-fat and that McDonald’s genetically modified chickens to have fatter breasts for mass production (Schlosser and Wilson). [9] Peter Hulme, Professor in Literature at the University of Essex, also concurs with this finding. In his introduction of a collection of literary research on anthropophagy called Cannibalism and the Colonial World, Hulme posits that cannibalism is a “feature of life” and “is practiced over the seas and beyond the hills” (Barker, Hulme, and Iverson 3-5). [10] In her work “The Function of Cannibalism at the Present Time,” she concludes that “for us, cannibalism is inversely a means of demystification, a satiric weapon which literalizes in order to expose the dark truth under our ideals” (Kilgour 259). In essence, Kilgour regards cannibalism as a tool to truly see the truths and hypocrisy in our society. [11] This conclusion is starkly similar to Patrick Brantlinger’s observation in his book Taming Cannibals. In the historical context, white Anglo Saxon explorers set to tame cannibals as a means of creating civilization. This “taming” of men describes how society needed to exterminate this cultural practice (Brantlinger). Works Cited Barker, Francis, Peter Hulme, and Margaret Iversen. Cannibalism and the Colonial World. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. Bartolovich, Crystal. "Consumerism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Cannibalism. Print. Brantlinger, Patrick. Taming Cannibals: Race and the Victorians. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 2011. Print. Crone, Rosalind. "From Sawney Beane to Sweeney Todd: Murder Machines in the Mid-Nineteenth Century Metropolis." Cultural and Social History 7.1 (2010): n. pag. Ingentaconnect. Web. 8 Apr. 2013. Food, Inc. Movie One, 2008. Kilgour, Maggie. "The Function of Cannibalism at the Present Time." Print. Lamberson, Carolyn. "'Sweeney' Side up." The Spokesman-Review [Spokane, WA] 8 Feb. 2013: n. pag. Print. McWilliam, Rohan. "The Wonderful and Surprising History of Sweeney Todd: The Life and Times of an Urban Legend. (review)" Victorian Studies 50.4 (2008): 731-32. Print. Newbury, Michael. "Fast Zombie/ Slow Zombie: Food Writing, Horror Movies, and Agribusiness Apocalypse." American Literary History 1st ser. 24.Spring (2012): n. pag. Project MUSE. Web. 13 Apr. 2013. Powell, Sally. "Black Markets and Cadaverous Pies: The Corpse, Urban Trade and Industrial Consumption in the Penny Blood." Victorian Crime, Madness and Sensation. Cornwall: Ashgate, 2004. 45-58. Print. Price, Mark. "Why Meat Can No Longer Be Considered a Cheap Commodity." Telegraph UK [London] 17 Feb. 2013, Retail and Consumer sec.: n. pag. Print. Riley, Brian P. ""It's Man Devouring Man, My Dear": Adapting Sweeney Todd for the Screen." Literature Film Quarterly 38.3 (2010): 205. Print. Schlosser, Eric, and Charles Wilson. Chew on This: Everything You Don't Want to Know about Fast Food. Boston [Mass.: Houghton Mifflin, 2006. Print. Scott, A. O. "Murder Most Musical." New York Times 21 Dec. 2007: n. pag. Print. Spurlock, Morgan. Don't Eat This Book: Fast Food and the Supersizing of America. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 2005. Print. Sweeney Todd, the Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Dir. Tim Burton. Prod. Richard D. Zanuck, Walter F. Parkes, Laurie MacDonald, and John Logan. By John Logan and Stephen Sondheim. Perf. Johnny Depp, Carter Helena Bonham, Alan Rickman, and Timothy Spall. DreamWorks SKG, 2007.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
writersSamuel C Archives
September 2014
Categories
All
|