pixeltracker

John Doyle's Into the Woods?- Page 2

John Doyle's Into the Woods?

MisterRussell Profile Photo
MisterRussell
#25re: John Doyle's Into the Woods?
Posted: 4/13/06 at 11:31am

John Doyle is a one-trick pony. The sooner we tire of his gradually-cloying "innovation" the better.

Mother's Younger Brother Profile Photo
Mother's Younger Brother
#26re: John Doyle's Into the Woods?
Posted: 4/13/06 at 11:32am

*sigh*

I agree. This concept is entirely gimmicky and without any contextual relevance the shows. I think it's "neat" for a while, but I soon find myself wondering what the artistic value is in having the actors "break the wall" and play their own instruments.

joshy Profile Photo
joshy
#27re: John Doyle's Into the Woods?
Posted: 4/13/06 at 1:13pm

There is a fascinating article (but I can't remember where I read it) where the artistic reasoning behind this concept is explained. It's about the fact that the pace and rhythm of musicals being controlled by strangers in suits (the people in the orchestra pit) who have no emotional investment to the story. By stripping away the artifice of the orchestra, by showing you all the workings of the musical, all you can see is the story. The actors control everything and it's not fake anymore...I don't know if I have explained it well. But to me it works very well for some shows, like Sweeney and Mack & Mabel, and it could work for others, but obviously there are many it wouldn't help at all.

Boq101
#28re: John Doyle's Into the Woods?
Posted: 6/25/07 at 12:55pm

What I worry about is that John Doyle is a gret director when he works sans instruments as well as with instruments, people on Broadway might not be keen on hiring him to do a regular show anymore.

SeanMartin Profile Photo
SeanMartin
#30re: John Doyle's Into the Woods?
Posted: 6/25/07 at 2:15pm

>> Funny how people think that a new technique that is successful on Broadway is old after only one show is playing on Broadway and one more is announced.

As I've pointed out before:

(1) it's two Sondheim shows

(2) in two successive seasons

(3) on two sets that are essentially mirrors of each other.

There's nothing new here, sorry. And in COMPANY's case, it was just plain and simple a bad idea that didnt work nearly as well as people would have you believe.


http://docandraider.com


Videos