Anyone else have a problem with the ending of Into the woods? Its pretty morally disgusting

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:18am

the baker,cindy, red and jack are all happy they get to live together and start over, completely fine with the fact they killed an innocent giant. I HATE the character of jack. He's such a disgusting weasel. He's a freaking murderer. The giants wife was innocent and only wanted remorse for her dead husband.

The giants took jack in and showed him kindness and he thanks them by stealing there stuff and killing! He didn't even steal to save his family from poverty, he did it cause red dared him to! there isn't one ounce of morality in this kid and in the end they act like everything is fine and he is just sweet old jack. NO! He's a disgusting piece of crap!

The giant's wife is the real victim in this story. She isn't evil at all. She didn't deserve death.
Updated On: 11/13/14 at 09:18 AM

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:25am

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:26am

I have a problem with the ending, the beginning, and everything in-between.

In short, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:26am

Yet isn't moral relativism one of the major themes, indeed subjects, of INTO THE WOODS? One person's giant is another person's husband, another person's mother. Are we the product of genetics or environment, i.e. is a witch's temperament innate or acquired? The characters aren't smug in their various victories, they have paid an enormous price for their expeditious decisions, especially those involving loyalty and violent conflict resolution. Lapine and Sondheim let no one off the hook, but suggest every action has a reaction, every act faces a consequence. I think the sadder, wiser, lonely characters at the end are sobered and pragmatic.

Updated On: 11/13/14 at 09:26 AM

[followspot]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:30am

You think INTO THE WOODS ends with "the baker, cindy, red and jack are all happy"? Um.... OK. Perhaps Mum can explain it to you.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:31am

It's made explicitly clear that the Giant's Wife will destroy the kingdom and will not be assauged unless Jack is turned over to her to be killed. Further- the Giant's death is depicted as accidental, and that while his Wife is kind, he is not.

The story deliberately ends on a morally grey note - after all, the group is all complicit in the death of the Giant's Wife.

Updated On: 11/13/14 at 09:31 AM

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:31am

Are you sure that your problem does go back further than Into The Woods? Have you read the source material...the fairy tales. Although commonly read to children they are far from moral, ethical, kind etc Possibly this conversation would be best suited to your shrink.

[ljay889]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:31am

And of course After eight will see the movie so he can complain about it endlessly here.

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:32am

Jack is smug about his "victory". remember the dialogue inbetween no on is alone?:

Jack: Wait till my mother heres I have slain the giant.

He STILL is happy he is about to take another life. He shows no remorse. it's just a game to him. ANd then he has the nerve to be angry at the steward for killing his mother. and jack says:

Jack: After I slay the gian't wife, I will slay the steward. He has done something wrong and should be punished ( or something along those lines)

and im thinking "You piece of crap, how dare you be angry that someone killed your mother when you did the exact same thing to people who were nothing but kind to you. Your mother didn't deserve to die but you deserve to feel the emotional pain you caused to others! You brought the pain upon yourself and everyone. the bakers wife would never have died if you weren't such a rat. Rapunzel would never have died if you didn't piss off the giant wife.

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:33am

"Yet isn't moral relativism one of the major themes, indeed subjects, of INTO THE WOODS?

Yes, indeed. Moral relativism. The bane of our age, and the bad guys' best friend.

Actually, it should properly be called immoral relativism.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:35am

Moral relativism is the only thing that keeps the cognitive dissonance in everything you post here from causing your head to explode.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:36am

Jack is a child, a young teen, hardly a man with adequate experience and perspective to entirely transcend very temporary relief and a resulting need to own his success. But the ending is rife with subtext, everyone is fighting for abject survival, to make sense of the seemingly senseless. When this damaged, orphaned boy speaks with even a tinge of bravado, he reveals his painful, indeed tragic plight. Look a little deeper. It's not a cartoon. Perhaps try to find some compassion for his youth; the creators certainly did.

[tazber]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:38am

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:40am

Jack is old enough to know to not kill or steal. The witch was right, she should have fed him to the giant's wife. Or atleast make him apologize to her.

[Kad]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:43am

I think "Your Fault" pretty much establishes that every main character had a hand in causing the issue.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:44am

I have more problems with Les Miserables. Javert is just trying to do his job and he gets treated poorly. Valjean gets out of jail for stealing and then goes and steals again, this time from a Church! Valjean is the hero and Javert is the anit-hero. It's morally disturbing.

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:46am

valjean stole to save his sister and her child from starvation. that's completely different.

[broadwaybabywannabe2]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:49am

...and in the end isn't INTO THE WOODS only a musical fable anyway?...much like the Bible, ITTW's fables are not meant to be real but meant to help others learn lessions...BECAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR is the main lession to learn here...

and BTW go see a shrink already...:)

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:50am

Yea Kad but Jack is the worst of them all. the other characters did bad stuff but not with bad intentions. Jack had bad intentions. Riding hood killed the wolf cause he attacked her first. No one harmed jack.

and while we are on the subject of red and the wolf, Im glad the wolf died also. the whole "ask a wolfs mother" thing is bs. The wolf is a sexual predator and sexual predators deserve the worst pain. the wolf got the death penalty and he deserved it.

[D2]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 9:51am

Someone wasn't cast in their high school production, and hasn't quite gotten over it yet.

[TazTarney]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 10:02am

uh no. I love the show. I just hate jack. He's a pretty ruthless character if you really think about it.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 10:23am

D2... you need to first be in High School to be bitter about not being cast. What I cannot believe is that Broadway World is available on Leap Frog products.

[Fantod]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 10:30am

Yes, well the Giant's wife isn't so innocent herself, killing others than just Jack. I really don't like the second act of that show at all because it's sole purpose is pretty much to make the audience miserable, and being miserable is not something I enjoy. The show refuses to end happily, or end sadly, it just ends on this weird note where everybody that you like is dead and everybody that you hate is alive and nobody is really happy, especially the audience.

Updated On: 11/13/14 at 10:30 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 10:50am

I have great admiration for the ending of Into the Woods. I don't find it at all morally disgusting but rather, like life, morally complex and deeply troubling in the choices people have to make deep into the woods.

To find it morally disgusting is to relate to its surface facts as if it were a melodramatic good-v-evil musical. It is not that kind of show. Not by a long shot.

The audience is compelled to not be at all happy that the Giant's Wife is dead. Nor is the audience compelled to find the Giant's Wife unsympathetic. We are supposed to consider questions of community and sides and difficult choices and to understand that "no one is alone," that someone is on everyone's side - "they - as well as we - are not alone"

It's an extraordinary and extraordinarily demanding call for understanding, and presents a great many arguments. People make mistakes and do a great many things to survive, individually and communally, deep into the woods of historical wrongdoing.

You decide what's right. You decide what's good.







Updated On: 11/14/14 at 10:50 AM

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 11/13/14 at 10:51am

great response henri