The Wonder that is "Into The Woods"- Page 4

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/30/05 at 4:56pm

I was so confused when they told me there was an Act 2. Still am, actually. :) However, after being forced to listen to it, I like it a lot!

To me, the WHOLE POINT of the show is Act II. Act I may be fun, but it's Act II that elevates the show from a pastime to powerful, poignant art.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 3/30/05 at 9:46pm

Blue Wizard... how is it one so young has such tremendous insight? Of course you are right. Act II is where the heart of the show can be found. (Same with SUNDAY IN THE PARK) Without ACT II, the first act becomes just an extended stunt. Those who dearly love the show, love it because the 2nd act gives you something to care about. And that is why WOODS is a show more rewarding and enjoyable on subsequent viewings but a little hard to get through the very first time.

[kangaroo]

Posted: 3/30/05 at 9:59pm

I agree... I really liked the second Act because it gives you an extension of each of the stories... what happens after happily ever after, when the curtain closes. I mean, they could end it with just Act I, but the Act II gives the real extension... and intertwines the characters even more. I love how everyone finally meets in Act II, and it gives you 3-d complex characters with almost every single person and tells you their story {while connecting it with the other characters}

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/30/05 at 11:10pm

That's not even why I like Act II. Without Act II, the first act (and the entire musical) has no meaning.

INTO THE WOODS is about facing the consequences of your actions and the strength of Community. In Act I, the characters blindly seek out to fulfill their own wishes -- their stories weave in and out of each other, but each person is governed by their selfish motives. They seem to get what they wish, but Act II reveals that the world is not as simple as that. Note how the vast majority of the songs are set up as lessons: each character has something to learn. In the end, the biggest lesson they must learn is that their actions, no matter how small and whether intentional or not, have consequences on everyone else. Tbest way to face the reality of life is to band together as a community and think about each other, as the four remaining characters do.

Everything seems so black and white in the first act, but in Act II you discover this is not so. Is the lady giant bad? Jack stole from her house and killed her husband. The most poignant moment in the play for me is "No One Is Alone," when the Baker tells Jack not to take revenge on the steward for killing his mother, while Little Red is torn about helping to take out the giant. "Witches can be right, giants can be good: you decide what's right, you decide what's good." Decisions are more difficult than they seemed in the first act. It's in Act II that the characters learn that maybe it isn't good "to stray, Or tempt the wolf, or steal from the giant," and where they learn the true complexity of life: "the way is dark, the light is dim."

Updated On: 3/30/05 at 11:10 PM

[DivaMommy]

Posted: 3/30/05 at 11:30pm

I guess I don't understand how Into the Woods is hard to watch - my 2 and 4 year old girls love it!

Seriously - It's one of those shows that bring a tear to my eye everytime I watch - No One is Alone and Children Will Listen the biggest culprits.

And the whole Bakers Wife roll in the hay with the Prince is the story of the Bakers Wife - a woman who is married and should be happy but constantly looks for more. I love how all the stories are intertwined - the Baker and his wife and Rapunzel and so on!

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 4/1/05 at 1:06am

Sorry to bump this thread up, but I wasn't completely satisfied with my own explanation of what I feel is the meaning of INTO THE WOODS. So I think Sondheim wrote it best:

Careful the wish you make,
Wishes are children.
Careful the path they take,
Wishes come true,
Not free.
Careful the spell you cast,
Not just on children.
Sometimes the spell may last
Past what you can see
And turn against you...

Careful the tale you tell.
That is the spell.
Children will listen..

[perfusion]

Posted: 4/1/05 at 9:31am

Every since I found this thread I've been listening to the obc,London & revival recordings.While they are all different, I think they are all good in there own way.But the obc is still my favorite.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 4/1/05 at 2:30pm

The original OCR is still the best, nicely condensed to a 70 minute CD. I have tried repeatedly to find something about the London cast disc but have never warmed to any of the performers. My 2nd choice would be the 2002 Revival cast but I did enjoy that production more in the theatre. Somehow it didn't translate as well to a recording. And rarely does a revival cast top the original.

[iheartmark]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 3:03am

"I know I'm in the minority regarding this but I felt really underwhelmed by Peters"
This makes me so sad! I first watched the video when I was 7 or 8, and I have loved her since then! She's one of the first people that made me want to be in theater! *hugs my Into the Woods CD and video* ...I admit maybe its cuz she's the first person I ever saw in that role, but I remember idolizing her and wanting to be the witch on Broadway when I grew up... I <3 Bernadette Peters!!!...!

[BillFinn]

Posted: 4/10/05 at 3:49am

I am speaking specifically towards "Urban" and "munkustrap178".

Are you kidding? Had you seen Kerry O'Malley in the role, you would have seen just how boring, wrong, and bland the role can be."

pretty white bread bland

Kerry O'Malley was none of these things. She was by far my favorite Baker's Wife and many others. People were always complimenting her and Stephen DeRosa on the chemistry they had on stage and off stage since they became such good friend. With the revival came a younger cast. A younger cast means different perceptions. If I hear one more person say "Laura Benanti was better than Kim Crosby by far!" or anything to that effect, I will scream. No one is better than the other. Here's a lesson in acting. There are different actors who take on different perceptions with roles. Do you understand that? I hope you do. Now with that in mind, Kim Crosby played the role nerdy and insecure. She wasn't THE Cinderella just as Kristin Chenoweth isn't THE Glinda. Actors come and go and there is only one role and they bring different perceptions and input into them. Just because Laura Benanti wasn't nerdy or more humble as Cinderella doesn't mean she sucked because she didn't. Laura brought assertion and beauty to the role. She brought a big brassy voice. She brought a reincarnation when it came to Act II.

As for Kerry O'Malley, do you remember what I just said? I hope to God you do. The OBC cast was older. Joanna Gleason played the role as an older, middle aged woman. Kerry O'Malley played the role off more as a woman in her late 20's, early 30's. This is so clear when she says "What was THAT!" and the chemistry between her and Laura Benanti. "Oooooo the prince must have reaaaaaaaally taken a liking to youuuuuuu! Hahaha." Two young women sharing a sexual innuendo and giggling like school girls. You're telling me that was bland? Are you telling me when Kerry was in tears at the end singing "No One is Alone", that was bland too? Kerry was firey and spirited and she skipped the hell out of that skip. She was determined, she was loud, HELL SHE WAS IRISH!

People have different opinions and different favorites, but please. Learn that no one is better than someone else when it comes to role. Yes, someone can suck and you can say they suck and they probably do by majority. But when it comes comparing the OBC to the REVIVAL, with both casts filled with extraordinarly talented people, it's very ignorant of you to say one is better than the other. They're both equally good, but different takes on the role! Now if you're gonna talk about Vanessa, that's another story... :)