After Eight, fair enough. Like I said in my other comment, I'm going to pass my own judgement because that is all that is fair. To me you seem quite nice, but I was merely stating that others had reason enough to have their opinions of you because they have "known" you for longer than I have. I am very thankful that you were nice to me in the beginning when everyone else thought that I was a "sock puppet", but to be fair they were just on the defensive. I don't know if you ever saw that other thread, but I eventually proved who I was and a few apologized to me via PM, and I just considered it no harm no foul because I wasn't belittled for too long. So I am not just going to trust what they say about you, just acknowledging that they might have their reasons for the way that they think about you.
And in our cases, not sound ones, being the implication.
Among the most rational, intelligent, longest-standing posters here, not a single one of them can stand you, but of course that doesn't fit your narrative, so that mountain of evidence must be jettisoned without consideration or reflection.
CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES
I have a real problem with the end of a number of musicals:
HELLO DOLLY- a vulnerable older widow makes a highly suspect decision about her future happiness based on grounds which seem psychologically grounded in her inability to escape the grief of her departed first husband. Apparently we should celebrate her emotional fragility and irrational approach to her future security and happiness.
LA CAGE AUX FOLLES- a couple with a firm moral outlook are blackmailed into abandoning their principles in order to avoid undeserved shaming by the paperazzi. An emotionally fragile fading star performer is expected to reconcile with the lover who betrayed him and virtually banished him from his own house in the desire to hypocritically pose as a respectable heterosexual father.
DEAR WORLD- unpunished murder in the sewers; need I say more?
MACK & MABEL- a self-deluding,unrepentant, neglectful, philandering work obsessive attempts to rewrite history and reclaim the woman he drove to heroin addiction, possible murder and an early death.
- and all with the zippiest, most hedonistic, unapologetically breezy music indeed!
Odious! Outrageous! Vile! Putrescent!
(I hope I haven't willfully ignored the moral complexity of any of these works- what kind of a poster would that make me?)
"wow henrikegerman. Ive never really thought of it that way. you are right. thankyou for giving me a different prosepective."
_ Taz - OP
No thread can possibly be stupid in which I have challenged an interpretation and succeeded in bringing the challenged OP - thank you Taz! - to an understanding that "Act II is brilliant. I see that now."
Fantod, cherish AfterEight's friendship while you can. Because I can guarantee it will be eventually go away, when he will decide that your opinions, tastes, or writing style no longer fit in with his worldview and will lament that a bright bulb on this board has dimmed. And then you will be added to his bizarre narrative of his time on this board, in which he is a humble and kind truthteller, one of the regrettable few who is immune to the cabal of tasteless self-proclaimed intelligentsia constantly hoisting odious works upon the naive ticket-buying public and a constant victim of baseless attacks by lesser minds, who yearns for a simpler time in the early 80s, when the last good new musical, La Cage aux Folles, was written.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
PalJoey is a class of his own to the point where NO ONE will ever take that away from him. He's a treasure and one of the absolute best members of the boards.
His posts (and that of the late Margo Channing) are one the true reasons why I joined in the first place.
No. It is one of the best musicals around. It states you better be careful what you want/wish or the tale you tell that is the wish because there will be consequences to that wish/action.
See, I think that's what's so screwed up about Into the Woods. Are they saying that we aren't allowed to just randomly hope for things? Does James Lapine just want us to be happy with what we have, even if it is miserable, and never want something else? These characters weren't talking to genies, they were just talking to the air. How in any way did any of the characters deserve their fates? They just wanted things. You as a person probably have hopes and dreams, but do you deserve to have everyone you love killed because of that? It just infuriates me.
Fantod, I'm sure you know Lapine isn't saying "Just be content with what you have and never wish for anything." He's saying, "Be aware that the wishes you make and the actions you take have consequences. Always."
The characters aren't just "talking to the air", as you put it. They all take actions to achieve their desires.
I'm slightly confused what everyone is trying to say to me. I'm sure that's not what Lapine wanted, but it's the first impression I get from the show with the whole "careful what you wish for" theme.