INTO THE WOODS reviews.....- Page 4

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:35pm

dreaming...
they could save a lot of money on the transfer if they dumped the 3 level set and went with simple backdrops they fly in and a gently sloping platform that can move around the stage.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:39pm

Brian-I've no doubt they will change the set drastically. How much remains to be seen (any announcement of a transfer pending naturally). It all depends who is producing this (I assume the Public will co-produce on a certain level) and what they want.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:45pm

I wasn't really bothered by the set. The costumes on the other hand I hated because from my seat in the back they blended in too much with the set. I understood that they were trying to go more normal/realistic (whatever word you want to describe them as) but from a distance they didn't pop.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 12:50pm

Point taken, but I liked the integration of costumes and set. I know other people didn't like it either-I happen to think it's a neat touch. It allows the lyrics and acting to do their job.

Updated On: 8/10/12 at 12:50 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:21pm

Again, I have only seen the Regents Park production, and from looking at photos of the set, though much the same, it seems much further away from the first row than in London. Adding that fact to the three stories, the intimacy of the original might have been lost (but might be regained in a smaller Broadway house). There was a charm to that production that at the time, wishing against hope (hoping against wish?) it might play Central Park, I feared might be lost as the Regents Park stage (usually a beautiful oak platform) had been removed, and the grove of real actual park trees behind it were incorporated into the set. I knew that couldn't happen in Central Park.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:36pm

Actually, outside of institutional theaters (Roundabout, Lincoln Center) limited runs are generally employed only when entirely financially feasible; that means at least break-even in the short run, and the hope of a small profit. This one still seems dubious, because of the cast and rehearsal costs and considerable re-design challenges. As for the precedent, park-to-Brodway shows: Remember, DROOD, PIRATES, TWO GENTS and HAIR all ran with replacement casts; both DROOD and PIRATES had fairly long runs by replacing stars with stars, albeit lesser ones. If that is viable with this production, I'm sure it will have to be considered. But with the staging and stylization conceit panned by the paper of record, this transfer presents myriad commercial challenges. Everyone hates the power of the Times, but in this case, its power is an unavoidable factor when blended into a financial equation.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 1:37pm

Amy Adams is one of the biggest actresses right now, she's a three time Oscar nominee, she has been in critical *and* popular hit films, she's definitely a huge draw, much more than the title INTO THE WOODS.
Any chance this would transfer at all with a different big name as the Baker's Wife if Adams is unable to transfer? Also, I wonder if they'll pursue a big name to replace Murphy, I can't imagine she'll be able to commit to a Broadway run with her new CBS show coming out in the Fall. Though that show looks soooo bad that hopefully it'll get cancelled soon and she can do this on Broadway were it to transfer.

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:38pm

A "limited run", I believe, uses a different contract for most unions, thus bringing down the costs significantly. If a limited run extends, something happens monitarily retroactively...don't quote me exactly on this exactly though, its just bits and pieces I've picked up on the way...

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 2:51pm

No, it doesn't.

A Broadway Production Contract is a Broadway Production Contract. The length of the run does not matter. If a show wants to extend, then there are new contract negotiations and new opportunities for the agents to get more for their clients, but that's irrelevant. Contracts only specify minimum terms, and those don't change because a show extends.

Nonprofits have a different contract, so if this transfers as a Public Theater production (like a Roundabout or a Lincoln Center production) then they would be under a LORT contract and have cheaper terms. But again, the length of the run does not matter.

ANYTHING GOES has the same contract type and, therefore, the same minimum terms, as HARVEY, even though AG was an open run. THE BOOK OF MORMON has the same contract type as THE BEST MAN.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:23pm

This would only turn a profit in a limited run if Ricky Martin played the Narrator.

[wicked1492]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 4:33pm

I could see Ricky running away from home after a fight with his "daddy."

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 5:41pm

Precisely. Brantley would definitely have a change of heart.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 5:42pm

I think it's marketable for a limited run with Amy Adams.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 5:49pm

If they do transfer I hope they put back "Our Little World." I miss it.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 5:52pm

After watching the video clips, I have decided that Donna Murphy's Witch costume is one of the coolest and creepiest things I have seen. Especially during in Stay With Me when she unfurls her talons from her crutches.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/10/12 at 6:57pm

I couldn't tell she had talons. I only saw a walking mouth on crutches since she just blended into the set. These costumes benefit from close-up shots. They were not designed for the Park.

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:12am

I love the show, have seen it countless times in its original Broadway production, but that production has never been equaled, and certainly not here.

The show does need more focus, several of the leads would have to be recast, and a limited run would be no more profitable than it has in earlier productions.

It's a wonderful show, glad I saw it even with its flaws, but a move to Broadway? I think not.

[keb2]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 12:28am

I mostly agree with the Time Out New York review.

It can be difficult to revisit a show one knows well without the baggage of hope and expectation. Into the Woods is lovely, dark and deep—but it has promises to keep. The Public’s outdoor staging, directed by England’s Timothy Sheader (with Liam Steel as codirector), doesn’t try to keep those promises so much as liberate them; rather than retracing the familiar route of Lapine’s original direction, it takes new paths. Some come to thorny ends; others reach fresh discoveries. The journey is not painless, but by the end I was firmly on this production’s side.

http://www.timeout.com/newyork/theater/into-the-woods-1

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:29am

So basically, it needs better direction and focus. Not unlike what the negative reviews have stated.

I honestly think many are siding with this production because they know the show so well. I wonder how someone without prior knowledge to the show would react to it. I would imagine they would be confused. I know some people near me thought the show ended after act 1. They were also finally realizing by intermission that these were the characters from the famous fairy tales.

[JeanGudio]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:46am

Venessa Williams is better than Donna and it looked amazing and this does not . Why see this it looks awful but they could have casted anyone why not someone who can act the role

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:49am

Mr. Music. There were people who thought the play was over after Act One in the original production as well. And people probably WISHED the show was finished after Act One during the Vanessa Williams revival..

[JeanGudio]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:51am

Amy can sing but her acting is very bland and great for the movies but not the stage. Natascha Richardson managed why can't Amy?

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 1:53am

I know some people near me thought the show ended after act 1. They were also finally realizing by intermission that these were the characters from the famous fairy tales.

I have seen three different productions of Into the Woods. Every time someone thinks it is over after act 1. As for people not knowing they were fairy tale creatures... well I don't know what they missed. With names like Cinderella and Little Red Riding Hood and Rapunzel, I do not know how they could miss it even if the costumes are modern...

[keb2]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 2:03am

HeyMrMusic—I'd never seen the show before (somehow, don't know how I didn't, suppose I live under a rock or something), but I agree with the Time Out review.

[Owen22]

Posted: 8/11/12 at 2:07am

Dear Mr. Music. Excuse the run-on sentence but Would you please stop trying to throw shade on this revival by either being stupid about one of your favorite musicals or (as I believe) furthering an agenda of attempting to swerve opinion on a production you don't like by exaggerating and trying to confuse people by reinterpreting reviews and making inane comments such as this production of Into the Woods and this production only making people think it was over after Act One.

The Time Out review actually praises the directors, its there in black and white. Are you just assuming we're all too lazy to read for ourselves?