I read somewhere recently (though can't recall where!) that some view Into the Woods as an allegory for AIDS... , that the giant represents AIDS. And another point being that many of the characters who have sex end up suffering.... Does anyone know if this is a valid interpretation? and if so, what are some other points to back it up?
The thought that INTO THE WOODS is about AIDS never crossed my mind.
And appearently it never crossed Sondheim's either.
"TO LOVE ANOTHER PERSON IS TO SEE THE FACE OF GOD"- LES MISERABLES---
"THERE'S A SPECIAL KIND OF PEOPLE KNOWN AS SHOW PEOPLE... WE'RE BORN EVERY NIGHT AT HALF HOUR CALL!"--- CURTAINS
I can't tell you how many times in college I would have some professor talk about the hidden meanings and metaphors represented in various films or plays, only to find out from the authors (or filmmakers through DVD commentary) that many of those "hidden meanings" were just accidents or flat out unintentional. Which once again proves Woody Allen's take on the old saying, "Those who can't do, teach. And those who can't teach, teach gym."
I don't think it's directly about AIDS, but it definitely ties in, in that it explores how people respond to tragedies and larger than life conflicts, which the AIDS crisis certainly falls under. As for the sex thing, the only major sexual act depicted is the Baker's Wife and Cinderella's Prince, and she dies, but he really doesn't feel any consequences. I guess you could infer that Cinderella and her Prince have slept together, and she's kind of unhappy in the middle of Act 2, but again, the Prince doesn't really suffer. And the Baker and his wife have to have done it, but nothing really horrible happens as a direct consequence.
Sondheim said no, but it makes sense. Didn't he play "No One is Alone" at Michael Bennett's funeral or was that "Childre and Art"? Some song from 80s Lapine shows.
In 1987 it was not unreasonable to sit in the audience at the Martin Beck as the epicenter of the raging AIDS epidemic was right outside the walls of that theater and think that the show was a metaphorical representation of it. The creators said no, but it sure felt otherwise.
The whole world was about AIDS in 1987. At least, the world people like Namo and I lived in.
"No One Is Alone" was sung at many AIDS memorials. Mandy Patinkin sang it at the memorial at the Winter Garden for my friend Reed Jones, who played Skimbleshanks in the original Broadway cast of Cats.
But innocence was not the sole territory of the survivors.
God. Some of you people seem to forget that Sondheim didn't even write the story! So either way it certainly would have not been his intention.
Sondheim gets too much credit for his shows IMO.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
"Sondheim also agrees that he gets too much credit for his shows. He's always saying that the book writers of his musicals deserve more credit."
True.
There was a three-day Sondheim conference at Goldsmiths College in London back in 2005, at which one of the major themes explored was why the Sondheim contribution to his shows seems to overshadow the book-writers'.
As for the AIDS metaphor, just because it wasn't a conscious metaphor, doesn't mean to say it wasn't an unconscious one. But personally I don't go with it.
FindingNamo and PalJoey are right. I'm sure Sondheim and Lapine didn't consciously intend it as a metaphor for AIDS, but when you sat in the Martin Beck in 1987 and the Witch said, "Wake up! People are dying all around you," it was impossible not to think of it.
Is the Giant a metaphor for AIDS? No. But did the AIDS epidemic resonate with (I'm sure) many people at certain points while watching the original production? I'm sure it did. And it's hard to imagine that Sondheim and Lapine weren't on some level aware of it.
I remember reading (probably from an uncredible source) that not only did the original serve as a metaphor for the aftershocks of AIDS, but the revival in 2002 was metaphorical for the fight against terrorism/twin towers falling, etc.
Isn't that the fundamental nature of art? Onlookers find things the artist never intended, yet the piece still spoke to them.
NobodyHome & PhyllisR - very powerful lines to bring up.
Into the Woods is a broader allegory than just AIDS, I believe it's about life and every/any aspect of it. The Giant, to me, represents death and consequences.
You're reminding me of people you hear at the movies asking questions every ten seconds, "Who is that? Why is that guy walking down the street? Who's that lady coming up to him? Uh-oh, why did that car go by? Why is it so dark in this theater?" - FindingNamo on strummergirl
"If artists were machines, then I'm just a different kind of machine...I'd probably be a toaster. Actually, I'd be a toaster oven because they're more versatile. And I like making grilled cheese" -Regina Spektor
"That's, like, twelve shows! ...Or seven." -Crazy SA Fangirl
"They say that just being relaxed is the most important thing [in acting]. I take that to another level, I think kinda like yawning and...like being partially asleep onstage is also good, but whatever." - Sherie Rene Scott
I think people should stop trying to find the underlying metaphors and such within plays and just friggin' DO them. This is especially the case with Shakespeare. He was a great playwright, but people overanalyze his work so much it drives me CRAZY! It's like, "I don't know why he wrote the line that way. Maybe he just thought it sounded pretty. Whatever the case, I'm just going to do my job as an actor and try to connect with the text and tell the friggin' story!"
Odd argument, Distinctive, since nobody has once said in this thread that it's the job of the actor to represent specific metaphors not explicitly defined in the text. Since the dawn of speech, story telling and myth making have served the explicit purpose of reflecting back the lives of their audiences, for themselves to see themselves in it or not.
If people in 1987 saw a reflection of the AIDS epidemic during Into the Woods, the art of theatre was doing its job for them. If people saw a terrorism metaphor during the revival production, they were dumb but not "wrong".
You misunderstand me. I am happy to have audiences interpret plays any way they want. If someone saw a production of "Into the Woods" I was in and came away thinking about AIDS, and it was a valuable theatre experience for them, great. Really, I was just taking a moment to b*tch about the self-congratulatory interpretation of plays I heard for four years as a double major in Theatre and English in college and for the continued B.S. I hear from directors who are working way too hard.