The dark ending could have worked if the film itself had a different tone, but based upon everything that came before 'Mean Green Mother...", the happy ending fit best. Tonally. I do love that we have the two versions available and fans can enjoy their favorite ending. I mean, that's pretty rare
I know this is a year-old video, but there is another point a different video talks about. In the stage musical, when Seymour finally decides to turn against Twoey he goes down swinging. When the gun doesn't work, he tries poison, and when that doesn't work he grabs an axe. He goes into the plant's mouth hacking with the axe to the very end, trying even if he ultimately fails. In the director's cut of the movie, sure he's scrambling for options, but after the initial decision to be assertive instead of passive and face the plant, he mostly gets beat up and toyed with by Twoey. In the end, he's wrapped up in vines, gives up, and is passively eaten. This ends up being another instance where Seymour doesn't complete his character arc and compounds the unsatisfying feeling to the ending.
"Every household in America?!!" After Seymour says this, it would have been a perfect time to put an imaginary sequence of the dark ending in the theatrical movie. Seymour imagines it and then shouts, "No! Stay away from that plant!" Both parties would have been happy.
No. That would be a shitty way to go about it, because now you have dream nonsense added in. They should have grown a spine and kept the proper ending.
@@jasoncook7378 "Nothing wrong with a dream sequence." Statements like these make it clear who has zero experience story writing, or what most people actually enjoy. That sequence would have had LITERALLY zero impact. Do you think people like it just because it's there? Of course not. People like it because it has IMPACT. It has MEANING. That cheap shit you suggested would have had no meaning, because it wouldn't have been real, and because it would have not been real, it would have no impact.
There are alot of dream sequences in movies and shows and they keep putting them in. So you are wrong my friend. It does have an impact. I can spell it for you bc you don't seem to understand. @@evarchavex4800
I have been trying to figure out why the original ending didn't work, thank you so much for making this!!! didn't know about the Faust Myth before, definitely gave me more appreciation for the stage musical
Absolutely amazing job, and no, you're not the only one with this hot take. I've been trying to give this exact argument for years and have never even gotten close to doing it justice. Years ago, I was able to visit the Library of Congress and go through the Howard Ashman archive for research for my podcast, and you are exactly right. All the significant changes were made during the screenwriting phase. In the "preliminary notes" outline for the screenplay, dated November 1982, "Now (It's Just the Gas" and "The Meek Shall Inherit" appear to be cut (though, they may just not be noted or explicitly mentioned), and Mushnik's death is a cross between the stage musical and film, though there's no gun noted and though Mushnik asks about how to care for the plant, it seems like a practical question, there's no deal offered, and Seymour tells him to knock on the pod. In the first draft dated December 1983, the basics of both Orin's and Mushnik's death scenes already match what would be shot. The Meek Shall Inherit would be restored in full in the second draft (February 1984), though in the November 1984 draft, the basic idea of the song's restructuring (verse, chorus, soliloquy, final chorus) has been introduced. The early drafts seem to come from exclusively Howard, though I can't say for sure who would have had input and pushed for these changes, and it could very well could have been other directors who were attached during the development, David Geffen, or studio executives. I think another one of the problems with how the ending was handled, and specifically with The Director's Cut editing, is the length. On stage, the ending keeps up a brisk pace and doesn't dwell on any moment too long, and when it does, there's overt campiness to it. In The Director's Cut, alot of that camp is gone, and every major moment is lingered on, which isn't helped by the introduction to Mean Green Mother from Outer Space. The ending works best in a workprint in the Library of Congress' collection because it has that brisk pacing, though it completely cuts Crystal, Ronette, and Chiffon from the finale and the reprise of "Somewhere That's Green."
Thank you so much for this comment! Very gratifying to know that I'm not the only one. And so awesome that you were able to corroborate my conjecture about the screenplay changes.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 Because the argument will shift quite a bit. There are plenty of examples of humanity which exist without civilization as _we_ think of it: trampling plants and knocking down trees and throwing toxins into the air and declaring war on each other to keep repeating the process somewhere else. The terms "humanity" and "civilization" have come to mean one and the same because _we have been conditioned to think of them as such_ over a long time. I suppose I should have said "...replace 'humanity' with 'our civilization'" to better illustrate the point.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 Oh, I got that. 😁 I was giving you some food for thought, that perhaps eco-terrorists oppose not humanity in and of itself, but conquering civilization, which keeps growing until there's nothing left. They might well get a kick out of seeing industry and military being utterly demolished!
Meek shall inherit is my favorite sequence in the stage show. It’s the closest Seymour comes to turning back and the emotion always gives me chills. Love the call out.
4:54 For anyone whose seen the film just remember this one thing: The traumatic memory of watching this film is nothing compared to the traumatic memory of working on this film especially if you were a VFX artist.
Playing Audrey in my schools production and am getting more familiar in the musical and therefore my role. Thank you for making this excellent video and deepening my connection with the musical !
With how amazing Audrey 2 looked in the movie I'm not surprised by it. I mean, the puppetry was basically designed by Frank Oz. You know, friend of Jim Henson, the og Miss Piggy, puppeteer of Yoda. Yeah, that guy
Great video. I was also looking at making a video about this, but I'm glad you did it first because there's no way mine would have been this good. I basically felt that the reason the dark ending works in the play, but not the movie is that the play is a horror and the movie is an action comedy. In the movie, every choice that would make Seymour deserve his death, is converted to happenstance and inaction. Awesome job, dude.
today i will finally get the chance to watch a stage production of little shop of horrors (the local version in spanish, but close enough!) after a childhood of adoring the movie and listening to the movie soundtrack. learning so many details of the actual storyline of the stage version is so fascinating, especially when i never really understood why so many people wanted the original cut ending so badly: it does look simply awesome, but do they *really* want ellen greene to be eaten by the plant?, i used to wonder. might be a bit of a stretch, but i feel like the happy "normalizing" ending (our heroes happily, heterosexually married in their little fake-looking house in the suburbs) is a very specific reflection of the 80s mentality that big budget movies at the time had. if the original musical feels in line with something like rocky horror and the chaotic freedom of the seventies, little shop and its happy ending feels very "good shall prevail", the heroic individual over the corrupting outside force, which in hindsight isnt really what the play is about. i will always love that movie, but it does feel like a damn shame, especially when its such a well done movie that would have only taken a few changes to be more faithful to the stage production. anyways. this was a great video, in structure, delivery and content, and im forever thankful for getting me to see another facet of something that is so near and dear to my heart.
Nice analysis, Aaron, but, to me, the original ending of the Little Shop of Horrors movie falls flat because of four key scenes, and they all have to do with characters dying and getting eaten: 1. Dr. Orin Scrivello, D.D.S.'s death. In the stage show, Orin is about to give a gun-wielding Seymour, who's all ready to kill the dentist on the spot, a checkup, before he [Orin] decides he needs to get some laughing gas (for Orin, not Seymour). As Orin puts on his gas mask and begins laughing, that's when the song "Now (It's Just the Gas)" begins. As Aaron said, Orin's mask gets stuck as he tries to take it off, and Seymour is presented with a choice: either help Orin take off the mask, or let him die from lack of oxygen. Seymour eventually realizes that, if he lets Orin laugh himself to death, he can claim that he [Seymour] didn't technically kill him. In the movie, however, "Now (It's Just the Gas)" is cut, and Orin, as he's dying inside the gas mask, asks Seymour, "What did I ever do to you?" Seymour replies, "Nothing; it's what you did to her [Audrey]," after which Orin breathlessly collapses instead of cackling to the grave. Now, Seymour does use Audrey as an incentive for killing Orin in the show, as he readies himself to shoot the dentist dead ("Just a flicker of pressure right here on the trigger, and Audrey won't have to put up with that pig for another day!"), but he never expresses this directly to Orin, so, in Orin's eyes, Seymour is letting him die for no reason. In the movie, though, Seymour pretty much tells Orin that he's letting him die because of his abuse towards Audrey; thus, while Orin's death in the musical and film are pretty much deserved, film Orin's demise feels even more deserved than that of show Orin. 2. Mr. Mushnik's death: In the show, Mushnik finds evidence of Seymour killing Orin, including little red dots on the shop's floor, a picture of Seymour's hat (which was left at the dentist's office), and a Mushnik's Florist Shop bag (which was used to stuff Orin's remains when Audrey II was fed). Seymour denies killing Orin (which is technically correct), and Mushnik tells Seymour to come to the police station. As he's doing so, Audrey II tells Seymour to off Mushnik just like he did Orin, justifying that if Seymour's evils were exposed, if would ruin his newfound reputation. Seymour eventually tells Mushnik that he stuffed thousands of dollars inside the plant (since he forgot the combination to the safe locker), which convinces Mushnik to step inside the plant to try and find the money, resulting in Mushnik's demise. In the film, Mushnik witnesses Seymour chopping up Orin with an axe, and later confronts him; while show Mushnik has only clues to go by when realizing Seymour is a murderer, film Mushnik really does have Seymour's number. Not helping things is that, instead of denying it, Seymour admits, "It's true, I chopped him up, but I didn't kill him!" (which, to be fair, is also true) Mushnik's not buying it, and is about to take Seymour to the police (at gunpoint!), when he reconsiders, instead giving Seymour the opportunity to leave Skid Row and lay low for decades, while Mushnik takes care of Audrey II; instead of going to the police and telling them about the murder, Mushnik in this film is willing to let Seymour get away with the murder, so long as he doesn't come back to town. This ultimately makes Mushnik's death less tragic and more karmic. 3. Audrey's death (or, rather, the events leading up to it). In the show, Seymour asks Audrey, if there had never been an Audrey II to begin with, if she would still love him. Audrey says that she does, and Seymour, in a mental breakdown, decides to destroy Audrey II before leaving Skid Row with Audrey. Thing is, he says all of this in the florist shop, within earshot of the plant. Later, after Seymour runs off to get the plant some meat, Audrey, worried sick about Seymour, returns to the shop (while singing a song called "Sominex"), only to find the alive Audrey II, which tricks her into watering it (to a reprise of "Suppertime") before grabbing her and preparing to eat her. Seymour arrives to save Audrey, but it's too late, and Audrey makes it her dying wish to have Seymour feed her to the plant. After Audrey goes out with a reprise of "Somewhere That's Green", Seymour feeds Audrey to the plant. In the film, Seymour asks Audrey the same question as in the show, with the same response (and even a marriage proposal, which wasn't included in the original show), but this time, they do so outside the shop, where the plant can't possibly hear them talking. Later, Seymour goes off to get Audrey II some meat, and, instead of Audrey returning to the shop to look for Seymour, the plant gets the idea to call Audrey (who is happy and smiling from her last interaction with Seymour instead of worried) on the phone. With the song "Sominex" being edited out of the film, Audrey receives a phone call from Audrey II, forcing her to run inside, where she is caught by the plant and almost eaten before being saved by Seymour. And after the "Somewhere That's Green" reprise, Seymour is much more hesitant to feed Audrey to the plant, slowly walking inside the shop while holding her. While in the show, the whole ordeal is kind of Seymour's fault for blabbering about his plan to leave Audrey II to die on Skid Row with Audrey II nearby (leading the plant to take spiteful action), in the film, it is Audrey II's fault entirely, and makes the plant's plan to eat Audrey out to be for simple shits and giggles. 4. Seymour Krelborn's death: In the stage show, Seymour finds out from Patrick Martin about a plan to sell leaf cuttings of Audrey II in florist shops all over America. As it turns out, this is what Audrey II had in mind from the start; thousands of bloodthirsty Audrey IIs would be numerous and (eventually) powerful enough to conquer the world. Underscored by an instrumental reprise of "Da-Doo", Seymour decides that the plant has to die right now, and so starts shooting the plant with a gun. When that doesn't work, Seymour goes for a pack of rat poison, and when that fails as well, Seymour decides to chop away at Audrey II from the inside, wielding a machete. Seymour screams, jumps into the plant, and gets eaten, and the distribution goes ahead. In the film, Seymour finds about the same deal, and the same consequences, and similarly realizes that he must stop this from happening. Underscored by the song "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space", Seymour uses a pistol and an axe against Audrey II, both of which fail (the latter is foiled by Audrey II pulling down Seymour's pants). After this, the plant toys with Seymour by trapping him in a wall of vines, before pulling down the shop's roof to crush Seymour. As Seymour climbs out, Audrey II grabs the guy and slowly pulls him into its mouth, while Seymour (silently) screams and weakly kicks his legs, after which the plant spits out Seymour's glasses. While show Seymour is actively making the effort to kill Audrey II (even if it does lead to his downfall in the end), in the film, it seems that Seymour's fate is being forced upon him.
you took the words right out of my mouth!!! I grew up on the movie, later learned it was based on a musical with a different scrapped ending, and i just last month got to watch a performance live in NYC! The adaptational changes really stuck with me Ive long felt sympathy for movie seymour, like there wasnt much else he could do in that situation, and when you look at the play he definitely has a lot more agency. his choices there feel like actual deliberate choices, and not him being a victim of circumstance getting swept up in a chaotic whirlwind of events. Just yesterday i watched another video essay posted more recently that argued that the dark ending didnt fit the movie because of seymours lack of agency *specifically* in the confrontation - whereas in the play he chooses to go into the plant in a last ditch kamikaze effort, confronting his guilt and paying the price head on in a culmination of his arc, in the scrapped movie ending he just gets beaten to a pulp and is helpless as he’s devoured, completely tonally dissonant with the rest of the film. and i hadnt seen the play’s version of the confrontation until just over a week ago, but i knew about the other cut songs and plotlines, so when i saw a comment on that video that said that movie seymours role is more passive compared to play seymours active choices, i 100% agreed! Just like you, i felt like the movie and stage performance are subtly different stories. Thank you for putting it into words! ‘The movie is no longer about seymour, but Some Other Guy. And i like this Other Guy, but when the movie abt the Nice Other Guy ends with everybody dying that doesnt feel like what you were working towards’ is my entire thought in a nutshell. Movie seymour is my poor little guy and i want him to be happy. musical seymour deserved to get eaten Also, ive had the thought before (as a non jew, admittedly) that mushnik played into the greedy jew caricature, but i hadnt considered before that the fact that in the play, he went to turn seymour in without concern for the financial impact was a testament to his true moral values. i also hadnt known that the songwriters were jewish, it makes total sense that they knew what they were doing! also also i loooved your singing you did amazingly!! Thanks for the video im chewing on this forever now
Dude, this was amazing, iv recently been going into a deep dive with little shop of horror as iv become obsessed with it after watching it for the first time and finding out about the original ending I was baffled it was originally removed, this video is fucking amazing and your personality is so entertaining, keep up the good work and I really hope you get the crowd of people to watch you that you rightfully deserve
I agree with you I do think they could have kinda saved it if they kept the moment Seymour sacrifices himself trying to kill Audrey by jumping inside of it. No it doesn’t change anything but you could play the moment up a little to match the tone of the rest of the movie it wouldn’t be the same as the musical but considering movie Seymour’s lack of action it could be the idea that he’s finally doing something. Much like in the movie, but in a more impactful way as Seymour’s just gone along with everything and is finally taking his own action, but like the musical it’s to late. Yes the endings still dark but it feels a little more earned as opposed to Audrey just picking him up and eating him. It feels like Seymour tried to fix his problem. I like both I just think if the didn’t keep the other stuff at least keeping this would have at least fixed the ending a little. Or it could make it worse I’m not sure.
Omg im 51 and a friend of mine when I was around 9 my best friend who just moved on my street her dad was in California doing the first musical as my friend said...I love this movie
I knew I wasn't the only one who thought Somewhere that's Green and Part of your World were the same song! This is a great video and your voice is lovely. :)
I agree with a lot of what you said, but you have fundamentally misunderstood Seymour‘s motivations. In the soliloquy you literally sang he says “you’ve got no alternative, Seymour, old boy. Though it means you’ll be broke again and unemployed; it’s the only solution, it can’t be avoided, the vegetable must be destroyed. But then… There’s Audrey. Lovely Audrey… If life were tawdry, and impoverished as before, she might not like me. She might not want me. Without my plant she might not love me anymore.“ he is not doing it for fame and fortune and the American dream (and at several points when that’s all that’s on offer he says no), he’s doing it for her. In “Feed Me“ the plant initially tries to tempt him with fame and fortune and sex with starlets and gets nowhere until he mentions Audrey, and only convinces Seymour to kill people because they stand between him and her, singing in Suppertime, “think about… your future with Audrey.” If he was ever in it for the fame and fortune it’s because he thought he needed that to win the girl, and in both the movie and stage musical when Audrey says she would still love him even if there had never been an Audrey II, that’s when he decides to end it. Ultimately, I think the original ending fails in the movie because once Audrey dies there’s a drastic shift from being very realistically portrayed fantastical situation to being a completely stylized, dream like B-movie. Not only do people not want to see the characters they’ve fallen in love with die, that last 10 minutes just doesn’t gel with the previous 75.
The belief you're owed a partner ("Dat pusst" as our presenter said) for a lot of men IS part of their American dream. Look st dudes saying the government should give them girlfriends
I'm glad that you pointed this out because there were a couple of times I thought "Seymour wasn't doing it for the fame or money" as I watched this video. You are right, the fame and the money were means to an end: he thought he needed them in order to win her heart. Once he realizes she will love him without the things, then he felt safe letting the plant go (or rather, running away from it).
This is still one of my favorite movie musicals! I like both endings, but, I still prefer the director’s cut ending. My hopes is that if it comes out in 4K they restore the longer cut of Orin’s death and Mushnik’s death and also restore the full version of “The Meek Shall Inherit”. At least with the full versions of those 3 scenes, it would help make the original ending a little more cohesive.
I have been obsessed with the original ending since I saw Rick Moranis mention it while promoting the film on Good Morning America in 1986. Yes, I'm THAT old. In 1998 the DVD was released with the original ending as a bonus feature, but then it was recalled, because David Geffen didn't approve it. However, I did obtain a copy of that recalled DVD... and I still think that may have been one of the best days of my life. I love that ending, I wish it could be THE ending. But, I do also (kind of) understand why it's not. Heck, even with the "happy" ending, it has continued to be one of my favorite films all these years later.
This is the first analysis of Little Shop Of Horrors that examines how the whole the whole thing is about the evils of capitalism. Awesome! The “green” of the plant represents money and how people will do anything to get it. Nice job!
Aaron I'm sorry I was a bad friend and just straight up forgot to watch this until now which I very much regret because it is fucking excellent and I want the whole Internet to see it
I was today years old (actually yesterday) when I learned 1986’s Little Shop of Horrors had an alternative ending. I know, I know! We should have known! Ms McLeod, music teacher, would either put this on or Amadeus whenever she graded papers. Seriously and I’m not even kidding, I happened to see the original ending only yesterday and I’m 45. There’s a lot to unpack.
Quite frankly, as a dumb kid from Los Angeles, I was unable to tell the Jewish villain from the Italian villain and all in between with these films 🤷♀️. What did he do tho? How is that important?
Loved the video! Truly. I saw Little Shop on the Big screen decades ago. It’s origin story, plot and subtexts and how they changed by adaptation… I had no idea. I literally wasn’t aware enough of the ideas, to notice them; nor how they were referenced. In short, I was blind to the invisible war on culture, or rather, the dueling propaganda campaigns which prevent one from forming a rational thought. You’re right, as far as the director’s responsibility in how that propaganda war develops. Perhaps a lost opportunity. Or maybe, a deeper layer of satire? As you said, the picket fence ending is far more appropriate, given the previous few dozen minutes of the viewers’ experiences. BTW, that a cappella song was amazing!
(I realize I'm commenting on a 2 year old video) I really recommend you check out some of the original workprint if you haven't! All of the problems are still there but fwiw, original cut Seymour is way more obviously picking up what the plant's putting down, actively manipulates the conversation until Mushnik is close enough, and doesn't try to warn him. That part among some others were definitely reshoots and they all make Seymour seem a lot more innocent. I still think the movie breaks the pacing of the play too much to earn the ending though. I never thought about the added implications from the Mushnik changes 😬
I want to add that while the changes to the script in Suppertime rob that scene of the thematic elements needed to make Seymour sufficiently culpable, the cinematography and music are still doing the work. The dancers wearing sparkly dresses while always in shadows or silhouettes, the dissonance in their singing hanging for much longer compared to the stage version since the dialogue is paced more slowly, and of course Twoey's slow movements to communicate silently to Seymour What Must Be Done. Bonus points for Twoey looking in the mirror when singing "When he's gone the world will be yours." Up until we cut to Seymour's grossed out reaction, visually the film is telling us that he's about to *choose* to do something gruesome. And then the script ruins it by forcing his hand. Fantastic video btw.
100% agreed. Seymour's turn away from his morals is glossed over in the movie, making it far less satisfying for him to be punished. The original ending just doesn't fit the changes made for Hollywood.
One other tiny detail in Orrin's death scene that further undercuts the "Seymour succumbs to temptation" arc. In the stage version, apart from briefly mentioning her just before he tries to shoot Orrin and loses his nerve, he doesn't talk about Audrey. "Now, for the girl! Now, for the plant! Now, yes I will! But I can't," is all the mention she gets. And then Orrin spends two whole verses yelling at and then begging Seymour for help while Seymour talks himself into letting Orrin die. In the film version, on top of the issues you pointed out, just before Orrin dies, he asks Seymour "What'd I ever do to you?" And Seymour replies "Nothing, it's what you did to her." And while, yes, we knew Orrin was violently abusive, reminding us of that right as he dies makes the murder (if you can even call it a murder in the film version) seem much more righteous.
The other issue at hand is, there are a lot of patter songs in the second half, which communicate the whirlwind our characters have been thrown into. Halfway through the "hold please" song, it stops dead in its tracks to reverently whisper "The Rose Bowl." I went to see the show at Beverly Arts Center the other night, and it struck me as wholly absurd that the Rose Bowl should pick this no-account florist's shop in Skid Row for its float, because no way do they have the infrastructure to do that. Then it hit me: _Audrey is magical, not alien. Audrey is subtly twisting the world to further the dream. Bigger plant, bigger antenna to broadcast bigger thoughts._
When you say “[little shop is not] actually a movie about Seymour Krelborn, [it’s] about this new fuckin guy”, I’m not sure that’s actually true. This video is awesome and your criticisms are otherwise super true and you’re totally right about how the adaptations affect the tone, but the 1960 film really was a B movie and I see the more innocent characterization in the 80’s film as them intentionally trying to bring back the original dopey Seymour character. In part the more upbeat tone of the 80’s movie compared to the musical can be traced back to the 1960 movie, I would really recommend watching it because it would be really interesting to see how considering that would affect your analysis :0 awesome vid tho!!
1. Excellent rebuttal to Frank Oz's arguments on why the ending failed. I agree that the main reason the ending failed is because they changed the 'Suppertime' scene and wrote out Seymour's sacrifice at the end, which would have redeemed his character. 2. Enjoyed your rendition of Seymour's part in 'The Meek Shall Inherit'. 3. What did you think of Murnau's 'Faust'? It's one of my favorite silent films, especially that version of Mephisto. Really good special effects as well.
tad late but THANK YOU. i hadn't watched a full performance of the play, and something always vaguely bugged me about the 86 film; i was never sure if it was being ironic about its treatment of gender roles or not. like, the suburban scene in something green is clearly ridiculous, but the movie never actually deconstructs it meaningfully, and at best just says "well she dies later, so there." (resultingly i cringed somewhat at Suddenly Seymour because it seemed to be fully agreeing with the gender roles presented.) there were also these abandoned thematic bits about class, like the whole song about skid row, and audrey saying she stays with orin because he makes good money, that just... don't go anywhere. this put the pieces together perfectly. (additionally the audrey iis' rampage in the 86 original ending becomes a lot more arbitrary since it doesn't serve as the collapse of the american dream but instead just "alien invasion oooo" with mild themes of capitalism bad.)
Awesome video, and I'm sorry that the algorithm didn't send me here until now. I do have some disagreements (which is how such things work). As is the case in other Faust narratives, Seymour loses everything and surrenders his soul. Why? As you point out, he has several inflection points. He allows the Dentist to die when a "good" person would have saved him, for example. Is the point that men are expected to surrender their base humanity in service of the woman he loves? Seymour sells out not only his own moral code, but sacrifices humanity. Why? He loves Audrey and he knows that she wants a certain (extremely modest) standard of living. Men and women make these sacrifices every day for the men and women they love. To be fair to both protagonists, neither is asking for the moon. Audrey wants a very "boring" and relatively low-cost comfortable living. Seymour wants the love of a loving woman. I think that's part of the quiet tragedy of Little Shop. The Goethe and Marlowe Faust narratives are much more high-stakes: access to all knowledge in the world, etc. Seymour just wants the love of a good woman. But your essay is good, aside from whatever misgivings I have. I subbed and I'll keep an eye out. It's fascinating how different a Faust narrative is in film in the 1980s from those written hundreds of years before.
11:19 Kate Bush, surely? Especially in the 70s and early 80s. It definitely did get way more tamed later on as she learned to sing "with more balls" as she put it
Moral of the story, you know that a script is a beautifully written masterpiece if you can completely ruin the plot by taking away the smallest singular detail.
Personally I think the ending of the black and white movie would have worked just fine in the film. Seymore, Audrey, Orin, and I think Mr. Mushnik die, but so does the plant. The bad actors get their comeuppance and the world doesn’t end because the story is contained.
When I came back home from seeing the theatrical version the other day, I was uncertain about the ending at first. I don’t know what it is about not getting a “happy ending” that upsets me so, but then I had a thought: Maybe. There *was* a happy ending. I merely rooted for the wrong character. Pun intended.
You find me scrolling through the vast vaults of RUclips looking for more Little Shop content to gnaw on. You find me listening in awe to this, with a newfound appreciation. Sure, I'd heard some of these arguments before, but you articulated and expanded on them well, enough that I'd love to share this with my castmates in my all-consuming quest to learn as much about Little Shop as possible... And yeah, I said castmates! I'm performing in this show in March, for my second performance as Audrey II, and my third performance in the show overall (it's my fave musical by far), and I love this to pieces! You could almost imagine Audrey II singing a modified version of 'The American Dream' from Miss Saigon and it would lyrically be very apt. An interesting thing of note: you mention the American Dream/capitalism as something that eats itself alive and only causes its own destruction. Now, in both musical and film, if we see Audrey II alone as the extension of that American Dream (though of course all of the characters, as you said, embody it), it emerges victorious, eating the entire world, seemingly unstoppable. But the problem remains once it has taken over the world (or uni/multiverse)- what does it eat next? Itself. This is a modern extension of the Norse myth of Jormungandr- the serpent eating its own table- another excellent parallel of the destructive and divisive power of capitalism. But what an essay. Bravo, bravo, bravo!
So I saw the movie for the first time recently, never seen the play before but I would disagree and say the subtext was not lost on me while viewing it, and I don't neccesarily think making Seymour a more sympathetic character necessarily takes away from it either, I would argue it definitely does reframe it a bit in the sense that it illustrates that capitalism predates on everyone, regardless of whether you're someone who's actively antagonizing someone or just someone trying to make ends meet, That being said... on initially watching the film the character of Mr Mushnik resonated with me initially because a common thing I see when it comes to people defending capitalism is "oh this person feeds you, offers you a place to stay and gives you a job, you shouldn't be so ungrateful!" only for that person to be manipulating and taking advantage of you for their own gain..... That is before I realized that Mr. Mushnik is supposed to be a Jewish stereotype, which honestly that's on me for being an idiot.
Great video about a movie I love dearly, you presented a good argument. But I think the core foundation of your arguments is fundamentally flawed. 1) you say that Seymour's motivation was, essentially, success. Money and perhaps recognition and status...but that's not true. Seymour's motivation was Audrey and to feel a sense of belonging (I do agree with you on that part). Sure he didn't want to be poor, he wanted out of Skid Row like everyone else, but he wasn't really motivated to do so...except when he thinks money and success will get him the girl. His goal of acquiring financial success is really just a means to get the girl. Seymour thinks that money is what will be appealing to Audrey (after all, she's dating a frigging dentist who is probably the wealthiest guy they know) so he wants to obtain money so that he can have something to offer her. (I'd also even argue that money made Mushnik respect him more and showed him more acceptance, so once he started to feel appreciated, that was a motivator too...but that alone wasn't enough to push Seymour over the dark edge) Even when Audrey II offers him all of the things success can bring, he didn't take the plant up on the offer. It is only when the plant suggests that doing evil things could help Seymour have a future with Audrey does it have Seymour's attention. This is further emphasized by the (rather convenient) witnessing of Orin abusing Audrey...well, that's all Seymour needed to be all in. This is emphasized even more in "Suppertime" when Audrey II reminds Seymour that not feeding it Mushnik would jeopardize his future with Audrey. At the end of "The Meek Shall Inherit" he mutters to himself about his dilemma how he is afraid of losing Audrey. He says "I never should have started but I did but now if I don't feed it it'll die. And I'll lose her, I'll lose everything." Once Audrey tells him she will marry him, he is no longer invested in the plant...he is ready to just leave it to wither and die so that they can go live a quiet life together. Also 2) it really really REALLY bothers me that you say Audrey "willingly stays with an abuser"...Um, Audrey is TERRIFIED of Orin. Everyone is terrified of him...except maybe his nurse, she seems like she knows how to handle him lol Orin is an actual threat to Audrey's life and she knows this...she even says as much. When the street urchins tell her to leave Orin she says that she can't because "If he does this to me when he likes me, imagine what he'd do if he ever got mad." He is a guy that you can't say no to. Now she's stuck with him and all she can do is dream about an idealized version of life that she imagines when she sees the happy people in those magazines. What she really wants is to be loved and to live a quiet little life and raise a family with someone that makes her feel safe and not someone who is holding her hostage. (I have seen this movie at least 30 times and the play once and the original about 4 times and I have watched the original ending over and over just for fun...I love all things Little Shop so pardon my long windedness...I really did enjoy your video!)
The dark ending could have worked if the film itself had a different tone, but based upon everything that came before 'Mean Green Mother...", the happy ending fit best. Tonally. I do love that we have the two versions available and fans can enjoy their favorite ending. I mean, that's pretty rare
I know this is a year-old video, but there is another point a different video talks about. In the stage musical, when Seymour finally decides to turn against Twoey he goes down swinging. When the gun doesn't work, he tries poison, and when that doesn't work he grabs an axe. He goes into the plant's mouth hacking with the axe to the very end, trying even if he ultimately fails. In the director's cut of the movie, sure he's scrambling for options, but after the initial decision to be assertive instead of passive and face the plant, he mostly gets beat up and toyed with by Twoey. In the end, he's wrapped up in vines, gives up, and is passively eaten. This ends up being another instance where Seymour doesn't complete his character arc and compounds the unsatisfying feeling to the ending.
*My family who keeps forgetting to water our flowers:*
“We did it guys! We saved Cleveland, and Des Moines, and Peoria, and New York! And the theater!
♪AAAAAND BERWYN....♫
"Every household in America?!!" After Seymour says this, it would have been a perfect time to put an imaginary sequence of the dark ending in the theatrical movie. Seymour imagines it and then shouts, "No! Stay away from that plant!" Both parties would have been happy.
Nah, I prefer the original ending
No. That would be a shitty way to go about it, because now you have dream nonsense added in. They should have grown a spine and kept the proper ending.
Nothing wrong with a dream sequence. Most people seem to think it is a good idea. A small minority might not like it but can't please everyone.
@@jasoncook7378 "Nothing wrong with a dream sequence."
Statements like these make it clear who has zero experience story writing, or what most people actually enjoy.
That sequence would have had LITERALLY zero impact. Do you think people like it just because it's there? Of course not. People like it because it has IMPACT. It has MEANING. That cheap shit you suggested would have had no meaning, because it wouldn't have been real, and because it would have not been real, it would have no impact.
There are alot of dream sequences in movies and shows and they keep putting them in. So you are wrong my friend. It does have an impact. I can spell it for you bc you don't seem to understand. @@evarchavex4800
I have been trying to figure out why the original ending didn't work, thank you so much for making this!!! didn't know about the Faust Myth before, definitely gave me more appreciation for the stage musical
Absolutely amazing job, and no, you're not the only one with this hot take. I've been trying to give this exact argument for years and have never even gotten close to doing it justice.
Years ago, I was able to visit the Library of Congress and go through the Howard Ashman archive for research for my podcast, and you are exactly right. All the significant changes were made during the screenwriting phase. In the "preliminary notes" outline for the screenplay, dated November 1982, "Now (It's Just the Gas" and "The Meek Shall Inherit" appear to be cut (though, they may just not be noted or explicitly mentioned), and Mushnik's death is a cross between the stage musical and film, though there's no gun noted and though Mushnik asks about how to care for the plant, it seems like a practical question, there's no deal offered, and Seymour tells him to knock on the pod. In the first draft dated December 1983, the basics of both Orin's and Mushnik's death scenes already match what would be shot. The Meek Shall Inherit would be restored in full in the second draft (February 1984), though in the November 1984 draft, the basic idea of the song's restructuring (verse, chorus, soliloquy, final chorus) has been introduced. The early drafts seem to come from exclusively Howard, though I can't say for sure who would have had input and pushed for these changes, and it could very well could have been other directors who were attached during the development, David Geffen, or studio executives.
I think another one of the problems with how the ending was handled, and specifically with The Director's Cut editing, is the length. On stage, the ending keeps up a brisk pace and doesn't dwell on any moment too long, and when it does, there's overt campiness to it. In The Director's Cut, alot of that camp is gone, and every major moment is lingered on, which isn't helped by the introduction to Mean Green Mother from Outer Space. The ending works best in a workprint in the Library of Congress' collection because it has that brisk pacing, though it completely cuts Crystal, Ronette, and Chiffon from the finale and the reprise of "Somewhere That's Green."
Thank you so much for this comment! Very gratifying to know that I'm not the only one. And so awesome that you were able to corroborate my conjecture about the screenplay changes.
@caitlyncarvalho7637For "humanity" substitute "civilization."
@caitlyncarvalho7637 Because the argument will shift quite a bit.
There are plenty of examples of humanity which exist without civilization as _we_ think of it: trampling plants and knocking down trees and throwing toxins into the air and declaring war on each other to keep repeating the process somewhere else.
The terms "humanity" and "civilization" have come to mean one and the same because _we have been conditioned to think of them as such_ over a long time.
I suppose I should have said "...replace 'humanity' with 'our civilization'" to better illustrate the point.
@caitlyncarvalho7637 Oh, I got that. 😁 I was giving you some food for thought, that perhaps eco-terrorists oppose not humanity in and of itself, but conquering civilization, which keeps growing until there's nothing left.
They might well get a kick out of seeing industry and military being utterly demolished!
You have a wonderful personality! Also I love your singing. You were spot on with the notes. And above all, you hit the nail on the head with this. 💜
Meek shall inherit is my favorite sequence in the stage show. It’s the closest Seymour comes to turning back and the emotion always gives me chills. Love the call out.
4:54 For anyone whose seen the film just remember this one thing: The traumatic memory of watching this film is nothing compared to the traumatic memory of working on this film especially if you were a VFX artist.
Playing Audrey in my schools production and am getting more familiar in the musical and therefore my role. Thank you for making this excellent video and deepening my connection with the musical !
With how amazing Audrey 2 looked in the movie I'm not surprised by it. I mean, the puppetry was basically designed by Frank Oz. You know, friend of Jim Henson, the og Miss Piggy, puppeteer of Yoda. Yeah, that guy
Great video. I was also looking at making a video about this, but I'm glad you did it first because there's no way mine would have been this good. I basically felt that the reason the dark ending works in the play, but not the movie is that the play is a horror and the movie is an action comedy. In the movie, every choice that would make Seymour deserve his death, is converted to happenstance and inaction. Awesome job, dude.
today i will finally get the chance to watch a stage production of little shop of horrors (the local version in spanish, but close enough!) after a childhood of adoring the movie and listening to the movie soundtrack. learning so many details of the actual storyline of the stage version is so fascinating, especially when i never really understood why so many people wanted the original cut ending so badly: it does look simply awesome, but do they *really* want ellen greene to be eaten by the plant?, i used to wonder.
might be a bit of a stretch, but i feel like the happy "normalizing" ending (our heroes happily, heterosexually married in their little fake-looking house in the suburbs) is a very specific reflection of the 80s mentality that big budget movies at the time had. if the original musical feels in line with something like rocky horror and the chaotic freedom of the seventies, little shop and its happy ending feels very "good shall prevail", the heroic individual over the corrupting outside force, which in hindsight isnt really what the play is about. i will always love that movie, but it does feel like a damn shame, especially when its such a well done movie that would have only taken a few changes to be more faithful to the stage production.
anyways. this was a great video, in structure, delivery and content, and im forever thankful for getting me to see another facet of something that is so near and dear to my heart.
Nice analysis, Aaron, but, to me, the original ending of the Little Shop of Horrors movie falls flat because of four key scenes, and they all have to do with characters dying and getting eaten:
1. Dr. Orin Scrivello, D.D.S.'s death. In the stage show, Orin is about to give a gun-wielding Seymour, who's all ready to kill the dentist on the spot, a checkup, before he [Orin] decides he needs to get some laughing gas (for Orin, not Seymour). As Orin puts on his gas mask and begins laughing, that's when the song "Now (It's Just the Gas)" begins. As Aaron said, Orin's mask gets stuck as he tries to take it off, and Seymour is presented with a choice: either help Orin take off the mask, or let him die from lack of oxygen. Seymour eventually realizes that, if he lets Orin laugh himself to death, he can claim that he [Seymour] didn't technically kill him. In the movie, however, "Now (It's Just the Gas)" is cut, and Orin, as he's dying inside the gas mask, asks Seymour, "What did I ever do to you?" Seymour replies, "Nothing; it's what you did to her [Audrey]," after which Orin breathlessly collapses instead of cackling to the grave. Now, Seymour does use Audrey as an incentive for killing Orin in the show, as he readies himself to shoot the dentist dead ("Just a flicker of pressure right here on the trigger, and Audrey won't have to put up with that pig for another day!"), but he never expresses this directly to Orin, so, in Orin's eyes, Seymour is letting him die for no reason. In the movie, though, Seymour pretty much tells Orin that he's letting him die because of his abuse towards Audrey; thus, while Orin's death in the musical and film are pretty much deserved, film Orin's demise feels even more deserved than that of show Orin.
2. Mr. Mushnik's death: In the show, Mushnik finds evidence of Seymour killing Orin, including little red dots on the shop's floor, a picture of Seymour's hat (which was left at the dentist's office), and a Mushnik's Florist Shop bag (which was used to stuff Orin's remains when Audrey II was fed). Seymour denies killing Orin (which is technically correct), and Mushnik tells Seymour to come to the police station. As he's doing so, Audrey II tells Seymour to off Mushnik just like he did Orin, justifying that if Seymour's evils were exposed, if would ruin his newfound reputation. Seymour eventually tells Mushnik that he stuffed thousands of dollars inside the plant (since he forgot the combination to the safe locker), which convinces Mushnik to step inside the plant to try and find the money, resulting in Mushnik's demise. In the film, Mushnik witnesses Seymour chopping up Orin with an axe, and later confronts him; while show Mushnik has only clues to go by when realizing Seymour is a murderer, film Mushnik really does have Seymour's number. Not helping things is that, instead of denying it, Seymour admits, "It's true, I chopped him up, but I didn't kill him!" (which, to be fair, is also true) Mushnik's not buying it, and is about to take Seymour to the police (at gunpoint!), when he reconsiders, instead giving Seymour the opportunity to leave Skid Row and lay low for decades, while Mushnik takes care of Audrey II; instead of going to the police and telling them about the murder, Mushnik in this film is willing to let Seymour get away with the murder, so long as he doesn't come back to town. This ultimately makes Mushnik's death less tragic and more karmic.
3. Audrey's death (or, rather, the events leading up to it). In the show, Seymour asks Audrey, if there had never been an Audrey II to begin with, if she would still love him. Audrey says that she does, and Seymour, in a mental breakdown, decides to destroy Audrey II before leaving Skid Row with Audrey. Thing is, he says all of this in the florist shop, within earshot of the plant. Later, after Seymour runs off to get the plant some meat, Audrey, worried sick about Seymour, returns to the shop (while singing a song called "Sominex"), only to find the alive Audrey II, which tricks her into watering it (to a reprise of "Suppertime") before grabbing her and preparing to eat her. Seymour arrives to save Audrey, but it's too late, and Audrey makes it her dying wish to have Seymour feed her to the plant. After Audrey goes out with a reprise of "Somewhere That's Green", Seymour feeds Audrey to the plant. In the film, Seymour asks Audrey the same question as in the show, with the same response (and even a marriage proposal, which wasn't included in the original show), but this time, they do so outside the shop, where the plant can't possibly hear them talking. Later, Seymour goes off to get Audrey II some meat, and, instead of Audrey returning to the shop to look for Seymour, the plant gets the idea to call Audrey (who is happy and smiling from her last interaction with Seymour instead of worried) on the phone. With the song "Sominex" being edited out of the film, Audrey receives a phone call from Audrey II, forcing her to run inside, where she is caught by the plant and almost eaten before being saved by Seymour. And after the "Somewhere That's Green" reprise, Seymour is much more hesitant to feed Audrey to the plant, slowly walking inside the shop while holding her. While in the show, the whole ordeal is kind of Seymour's fault for blabbering about his plan to leave Audrey II to die on Skid Row with Audrey II nearby (leading the plant to take spiteful action), in the film, it is Audrey II's fault entirely, and makes the plant's plan to eat Audrey out to be for simple shits and giggles.
4. Seymour Krelborn's death: In the stage show, Seymour finds out from Patrick Martin about a plan to sell leaf cuttings of Audrey II in florist shops all over America. As it turns out, this is what Audrey II had in mind from the start; thousands of bloodthirsty Audrey IIs would be numerous and (eventually) powerful enough to conquer the world. Underscored by an instrumental reprise of "Da-Doo", Seymour decides that the plant has to die right now, and so starts shooting the plant with a gun. When that doesn't work, Seymour goes for a pack of rat poison, and when that fails as well, Seymour decides to chop away at Audrey II from the inside, wielding a machete. Seymour screams, jumps into the plant, and gets eaten, and the distribution goes ahead. In the film, Seymour finds about the same deal, and the same consequences, and similarly realizes that he must stop this from happening. Underscored by the song "Mean Green Mother from Outer Space", Seymour uses a pistol and an axe against Audrey II, both of which fail (the latter is foiled by Audrey II pulling down Seymour's pants). After this, the plant toys with Seymour by trapping him in a wall of vines, before pulling down the shop's roof to crush Seymour. As Seymour climbs out, Audrey II grabs the guy and slowly pulls him into its mouth, while Seymour (silently) screams and weakly kicks his legs, after which the plant spits out Seymour's glasses. While show Seymour is actively making the effort to kill Audrey II (even if it does lead to his downfall in the end), in the film, it seems that Seymour's fate is being forced upon him.
you took the words right out of my mouth!!! I grew up on the movie, later learned it was based on a musical with a different scrapped ending, and i just last month got to watch a performance live in NYC! The adaptational changes really stuck with me
Ive long felt sympathy for movie seymour, like there wasnt much else he could do in that situation, and when you look at the play he definitely has a lot more agency. his choices there feel like actual deliberate choices, and not him being a victim of circumstance getting swept up in a chaotic whirlwind of events.
Just yesterday i watched another video essay posted more recently that argued that the dark ending didnt fit the movie because of seymours lack of agency *specifically* in the confrontation - whereas in the play he chooses to go into the plant in a last ditch kamikaze effort, confronting his guilt and paying the price head on in a culmination of his arc, in the scrapped movie ending he just gets beaten to a pulp and is helpless as he’s devoured, completely tonally dissonant with the rest of the film. and i hadnt seen the play’s version of the confrontation until just over a week ago, but i knew about the other cut songs and plotlines, so when i saw a comment on that video that said that movie seymours role is more passive compared to play seymours active choices, i 100% agreed!
Just like you, i felt like the movie and stage performance are subtly different stories. Thank you for putting it into words! ‘The movie is no longer about seymour, but Some Other Guy. And i like this Other Guy, but when the movie abt the Nice Other Guy ends with everybody dying that doesnt feel like what you were working towards’ is my entire thought in a nutshell. Movie seymour is my poor little guy and i want him to be happy. musical seymour deserved to get eaten
Also, ive had the thought before (as a non jew, admittedly) that mushnik played into the greedy jew caricature, but i hadnt considered before that the fact that in the play, he went to turn seymour in without concern for the financial impact was a testament to his true moral values. i also hadnt known that the songwriters were jewish, it makes total sense that they knew what they were doing!
also also i loooved your singing you did amazingly!! Thanks for the video im chewing on this forever now
Dude, this was amazing, iv recently been going into a deep dive with little shop of horror as iv become obsessed with it after watching it for the first time and finding out about the original ending I was baffled it was originally removed, this video is fucking amazing and your personality is so entertaining, keep up the good work and I really hope you get the crowd of people to watch you that you rightfully deserve
This is was a really good video essay!
I agree with you I do think they could have kinda saved it if they kept the moment Seymour sacrifices himself trying to kill Audrey by jumping inside of it. No it doesn’t change anything but you could play the moment up a little to match the tone of the rest of the movie it wouldn’t be the same as the musical but considering movie Seymour’s lack of action it could be the idea that he’s finally doing something. Much like in the movie, but in a more impactful way as Seymour’s just gone along with everything and is finally taking his own action, but like the musical it’s to late. Yes the endings still dark but it feels a little more earned as opposed to Audrey just picking him up and eating him. It feels like Seymour tried to fix his problem. I like both I just think if the didn’t keep the other stuff at least keeping this would have at least fixed the ending a little. Or it could make it worse I’m not sure.
This was actually a really great analysis of the movie versus the theatrical play. I definitely learned a few things. Thanks for making it.
Omg im 51 and a friend of mine when I was around 9 my best friend who just moved on my street her dad was in California doing the first musical as my friend said...I love this movie
I knew I wasn't the only one who thought Somewhere that's Green and Part of your World were the same song! This is a great video and your voice is lovely. :)
one of the best theater themed video essays ive seen! great job my guy
Loved this man!! Please make more of these!!
I agree with a lot of what you said, but you have fundamentally misunderstood Seymour‘s motivations. In the soliloquy you literally sang he says “you’ve got no alternative, Seymour, old boy. Though it means you’ll be broke again and unemployed; it’s the only solution, it can’t be avoided, the vegetable must be destroyed. But then… There’s Audrey. Lovely Audrey… If life were tawdry, and impoverished as before, she might not like me. She might not want me. Without my plant she might not love me anymore.“ he is not doing it for fame and fortune and the American dream (and at several points when that’s all that’s on offer he says no), he’s doing it for her. In “Feed Me“ the plant initially tries to tempt him with fame and fortune and sex with starlets and gets nowhere until he mentions Audrey, and only convinces Seymour to kill people because they stand between him and her, singing in Suppertime, “think about… your future with Audrey.” If he was ever in it for the fame and fortune it’s because he thought he needed that to win the girl, and in both the movie and stage musical when Audrey says she would still love him even if there had never been an Audrey II, that’s when he decides to end it.
Ultimately, I think the original ending fails in the movie because once Audrey dies there’s a drastic shift from being very realistically portrayed fantastical situation to being a completely stylized, dream like B-movie. Not only do people not want to see the characters they’ve fallen in love with die, that last 10 minutes just doesn’t gel with the previous 75.
The belief you're owed a partner ("Dat pusst" as our presenter said) for a lot of men IS part of their American dream. Look st dudes saying the government should give them girlfriends
I'm glad that you pointed this out because there were a couple of times I thought "Seymour wasn't doing it for the fame or money" as I watched this video. You are right, the fame and the money were means to an end: he thought he needed them in order to win her heart. Once he realizes she will love him without the things, then he felt safe letting the plant go (or rather, running away from it).
This is still one of my favorite movie musicals! I like both endings, but, I still prefer the director’s cut ending. My hopes is that if it comes out in 4K they restore the longer cut of Orin’s death and Mushnik’s death and also restore the full version of “The Meek Shall Inherit”. At least with the full versions of those 3 scenes, it would help make the original ending a little more cohesive.
I have been obsessed with the original ending since I saw Rick Moranis mention it while promoting the film on Good Morning America in 1986. Yes, I'm THAT old. In 1998 the DVD was released with the original ending as a bonus feature, but then it was recalled, because David Geffen didn't approve it. However, I did obtain a copy of that recalled DVD... and I still think that may have been one of the best days of my life. I love that ending, I wish it could be THE ending. But, I do also (kind of) understand why it's not. Heck, even with the "happy" ending, it has continued to be one of my favorite films all these years later.
Good video bro! I hope frank somehow gets a look at this so he can see why test audiences reacted the way they did.
Just watch this show recently and appreciate your analysis very much, also your singing is awesome, looking forward to future video essay!
My child will be watching this movie the second they leave the womb.
This is the first analysis of Little Shop Of Horrors that examines how the whole the whole thing is about the evils of capitalism. Awesome!
The “green” of the plant represents money and how people will do anything to get it. Nice job!
Aaron I'm sorry I was a bad friend and just straight up forgot to watch this until now which I very much regret because it is fucking excellent and I want the whole Internet to see it
This was so well done.
You put my own feelings about the film into words perfectly!
Really enjoyed the video 👍
Thank you! I love Little Shop and I often thought about how much of Seymour's agency is questionable with the film! You worded it perfectly
Loved this video! You did a great job!
Great video!!!!! I’m also a huge fan of Little Shop of horrors and have two videos about it on my channel that you might like.
Shoutbout to David Geffen for seeing the show off-Broadway and seeing the greatness.
I was today years old (actually yesterday) when I learned 1986’s Little Shop of Horrors had an alternative ending. I know, I know! We should have known! Ms McLeod, music teacher, would either put this on or Amadeus whenever she graded papers.
Seriously and I’m not even kidding, I happened to see the original ending only yesterday and I’m 45. There’s a lot to unpack.
Quite frankly, as a dumb kid from Los Angeles, I was unable to tell the Jewish villain from the Italian villain and all in between with these films 🤷♀️. What did he do tho? How is that important?
Loved the video! Truly.
I saw Little Shop on the Big screen decades ago. It’s origin story, plot and subtexts and how they changed by adaptation… I had no idea. I literally wasn’t aware enough of the ideas, to notice them; nor how they were referenced.
In short, I was blind to the invisible war on culture, or rather, the dueling propaganda campaigns which prevent one from forming a rational thought.
You’re right, as far as the director’s responsibility in how that propaganda war develops. Perhaps a lost opportunity. Or maybe, a deeper layer of satire? As you said, the picket fence ending is far more appropriate, given the previous few dozen minutes of the viewers’ experiences.
BTW, that a cappella song was amazing!
(I realize I'm commenting on a 2 year old video) I really recommend you check out some of the original workprint if you haven't! All of the problems are still there but fwiw, original cut Seymour is way more obviously picking up what the plant's putting down, actively manipulates the conversation until Mushnik is close enough, and doesn't try to warn him. That part among some others were definitely reshoots and they all make Seymour seem a lot more innocent.
I still think the movie breaks the pacing of the play too much to earn the ending though. I never thought about the added implications from the Mushnik changes 😬
If you want another dark musical adaptation of the Faust myth, check out DePalma's 1974 Phantom of the Paradise.
I want to add that while the changes to the script in Suppertime rob that scene of the thematic elements needed to make Seymour sufficiently culpable, the cinematography and music are still doing the work. The dancers wearing sparkly dresses while always in shadows or silhouettes, the dissonance in their singing hanging for much longer compared to the stage version since the dialogue is paced more slowly, and of course Twoey's slow movements to communicate silently to Seymour What Must Be Done. Bonus points for Twoey looking in the mirror when singing "When he's gone the world will be yours."
Up until we cut to Seymour's grossed out reaction, visually the film is telling us that he's about to *choose* to do something gruesome. And then the script ruins it by forcing his hand.
Fantastic video btw.
100% agreed. Seymour's turn away from his morals is glossed over in the movie, making it far less satisfying for him to be punished. The original ending just doesn't fit the changes made for Hollywood.
One other tiny detail in Orrin's death scene that further undercuts the "Seymour succumbs to temptation" arc.
In the stage version, apart from briefly mentioning her just before he tries to shoot Orrin and loses his nerve, he doesn't talk about Audrey. "Now, for the girl! Now, for the plant! Now, yes I will! But I can't," is all the mention she gets. And then Orrin spends two whole verses yelling at and then begging Seymour for help while Seymour talks himself into letting Orrin die.
In the film version, on top of the issues you pointed out, just before Orrin dies, he asks Seymour "What'd I ever do to you?" And Seymour replies "Nothing, it's what you did to her." And while, yes, we knew Orrin was violently abusive, reminding us of that right as he dies makes the murder (if you can even call it a murder in the film version) seem much more righteous.
The other issue at hand is, there are a lot of patter songs in the second half, which communicate the whirlwind our characters have been thrown into.
Halfway through the "hold please" song, it stops dead in its tracks to reverently whisper "The Rose Bowl." I went to see the show at Beverly Arts Center the other night, and it struck me as wholly absurd that the Rose Bowl should pick this no-account florist's shop in Skid Row for its float, because no way do they have the infrastructure to do that.
Then it hit me: _Audrey is magical, not alien. Audrey is subtly twisting the world to further the dream. Bigger plant, bigger antenna to broadcast bigger thoughts._
Can't she be both?
Nice video
When you say “[little shop is not] actually a movie about Seymour Krelborn, [it’s] about this new fuckin guy”, I’m not sure that’s actually true. This video is awesome and your criticisms are otherwise super true and you’re totally right about how the adaptations affect the tone, but the 1960 film really was a B movie and I see the more innocent characterization in the 80’s film as them intentionally trying to bring back the original dopey Seymour character. In part the more upbeat tone of the 80’s movie compared to the musical can be traced back to the 1960 movie, I would really recommend watching it because it would be really interesting to see how considering that would affect your analysis :0 awesome vid tho!!
1. Excellent rebuttal to Frank Oz's arguments on why the ending failed. I agree that the main reason the ending failed is because they changed the 'Suppertime' scene and wrote out Seymour's sacrifice at the end, which would have redeemed his character.
2. Enjoyed your rendition of Seymour's part in 'The Meek Shall Inherit'.
3. What did you think of Murnau's 'Faust'? It's one of my favorite silent films, especially that version of Mephisto. Really good special effects as well.
Liked for the singing
tad late but THANK YOU. i hadn't watched a full performance of the play, and something always vaguely bugged me about the 86 film; i was never sure if it was being ironic about its treatment of gender roles or not. like, the suburban scene in something green is clearly ridiculous, but the movie never actually deconstructs it meaningfully, and at best just says "well she dies later, so there." (resultingly i cringed somewhat at Suddenly Seymour because it seemed to be fully agreeing with the gender roles presented.) there were also these abandoned thematic bits about class, like the whole song about skid row, and audrey saying she stays with orin because he makes good money, that just... don't go anywhere. this put the pieces together perfectly.
(additionally the audrey iis' rampage in the 86 original ending becomes a lot more arbitrary since it doesn't serve as the collapse of the american dream but instead just "alien invasion oooo" with mild themes of capitalism bad.)
Awesome video, and I'm sorry that the algorithm didn't send me here until now. I do have some disagreements (which is how such things work). As is the case in other Faust narratives, Seymour loses everything and surrenders his soul. Why? As you point out, he has several inflection points. He allows the Dentist to die when a "good" person would have saved him, for example. Is the point that men are expected to surrender their base humanity in service of the woman he loves? Seymour sells out not only his own moral code, but sacrifices humanity. Why? He loves Audrey and he knows that she wants a certain (extremely modest) standard of living. Men and women make these sacrifices every day for the men and women they love.
To be fair to both protagonists, neither is asking for the moon. Audrey wants a very "boring" and relatively low-cost comfortable living. Seymour wants the love of a loving woman. I think that's part of the quiet tragedy of Little Shop. The Goethe and Marlowe Faust narratives are much more high-stakes: access to all knowledge in the world, etc. Seymour just wants the love of a good woman.
But your essay is good, aside from whatever misgivings I have. I subbed and I'll keep an eye out. It's fascinating how different a Faust narrative is in film in the 1980s from those written hundreds of years before.
11:19 Kate Bush, surely? Especially in the 70s and early 80s. It definitely did get way more tamed later on as she learned to sing "with more balls" as she put it
Moral of the story, you know that a script is a beautifully written masterpiece if you can completely ruin the plot by taking away the smallest singular detail.
When I saw that ending yeeeeear later😢☹ 🤯😫😫😫😫
Personally I think the ending of the black and white movie would have worked just fine in the film. Seymore, Audrey, Orin, and I think Mr. Mushnik die, but so does the plant. The bad actors get their comeuppance and the world doesn’t end because the story is contained.
When I came back home from seeing the theatrical version the other day, I was uncertain about the ending at first.
I don’t know what it is about not getting a “happy ending” that upsets me so, but then I had a thought:
Maybe.
There *was* a happy ending.
I merely rooted for the wrong character.
Pun intended.
You find me scrolling through the vast vaults of RUclips looking for more Little Shop content to gnaw on. You find me listening in awe to this, with a newfound appreciation. Sure, I'd heard some of these arguments before, but you articulated and expanded on them well, enough that I'd love to share this with my castmates in my all-consuming quest to learn as much about Little Shop as possible...
And yeah, I said castmates! I'm performing in this show in March, for my second performance as Audrey II, and my third performance in the show overall (it's my fave musical by far), and I love this to pieces! You could almost imagine Audrey II singing a modified version of 'The American Dream' from Miss Saigon and it would lyrically be very apt.
An interesting thing of note: you mention the American Dream/capitalism as something that eats itself alive and only causes its own destruction. Now, in both musical and film, if we see Audrey II alone as the extension of that American Dream (though of course all of the characters, as you said, embody it), it emerges victorious, eating the entire world, seemingly unstoppable. But the problem remains once it has taken over the world (or uni/multiverse)- what does it eat next? Itself. This is a modern extension of the Norse myth of Jormungandr- the serpent eating its own table- another excellent parallel of the destructive and divisive power of capitalism.
But what an essay. Bravo, bravo, bravo!
Yes the original was faulty but the ending was epic.
So I saw the movie for the first time recently, never seen the play before but I would disagree and say the subtext was not lost on me while viewing it, and I don't neccesarily think making Seymour a more sympathetic character necessarily takes away from it either, I would argue it definitely does reframe it a bit in the sense that it illustrates that capitalism predates on everyone, regardless of whether you're someone who's actively antagonizing someone or just someone trying to make ends meet,
That being said... on initially watching the film the character of Mr Mushnik resonated with me initially because a common thing I see when it comes to people defending capitalism is "oh this person feeds you, offers you a place to stay and gives you a job, you shouldn't be so ungrateful!" only for that person to be manipulating and taking advantage of you for their own gain..... That is before I realized that Mr. Mushnik is supposed to be a Jewish stereotype, which honestly that's on me for being an idiot.
Saw movie all right as child..
#DisneyDiva
You can't drop vines in a cinema. More's the pity.
who is this guy
Great video about a movie I love dearly, you presented a good argument. But I think the core foundation of your arguments is fundamentally flawed. 1) you say that Seymour's motivation was, essentially, success. Money and perhaps recognition and status...but that's not true. Seymour's motivation was Audrey and to feel a sense of belonging (I do agree with you on that part). Sure he didn't want to be poor, he wanted out of Skid Row like everyone else, but he wasn't really motivated to do so...except when he thinks money and success will get him the girl. His goal of acquiring financial success is really just a means to get the girl. Seymour thinks that money is what will be appealing to Audrey (after all, she's dating a frigging dentist who is probably the wealthiest guy they know) so he wants to obtain money so that he can have something to offer her. (I'd also even argue that money made Mushnik respect him more and showed him more acceptance, so once he started to feel appreciated, that was a motivator too...but that alone wasn't enough to push Seymour over the dark edge)
Even when Audrey II offers him all of the things success can bring, he didn't take the plant up on the offer. It is only when the plant suggests that doing evil things could help Seymour have a future with Audrey does it have Seymour's attention. This is further emphasized by the (rather convenient) witnessing of Orin abusing Audrey...well, that's all Seymour needed to be all in. This is emphasized even more in "Suppertime" when Audrey II reminds Seymour that not feeding it Mushnik would jeopardize his future with Audrey. At the end of "The Meek Shall Inherit" he mutters to himself about his dilemma how he is afraid of losing Audrey. He says "I never should have started but I did but now if I don't feed it it'll die. And I'll lose her, I'll lose everything." Once Audrey tells him she will marry him, he is no longer invested in the plant...he is ready to just leave it to wither and die so that they can go live a quiet life together.
Also 2) it really really REALLY bothers me that you say Audrey "willingly stays with an abuser"...Um, Audrey is TERRIFIED of Orin. Everyone is terrified of him...except maybe his nurse, she seems like she knows how to handle him lol Orin is an actual threat to Audrey's life and she knows this...she even says as much. When the street urchins tell her to leave Orin she says that she can't because "If he does this to me when he likes me, imagine what he'd do if he ever got mad." He is a guy that you can't say no to. Now she's stuck with him and all she can do is dream about an idealized version of life that she imagines when she sees the happy people in those magazines. What she really wants is to be loved and to live a quiet little life and raise a family with someone that makes her feel safe and not someone who is holding her hostage. (I have seen this movie at least 30 times and the play once and the original about 4 times and I have watched the original ending over and over just for fun...I love all things Little Shop so pardon my long windedness...I really did enjoy your video!)
50s*
This just tells me that people are pun intended pansies.