Fiasco's INTO THE WOODS

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 12:03am

ITW is my favorite SS show, and I've seen it numerous times. The tour hits San Francisco in March. I'm a bit anxious when I hear a show has been reinterpreted. I'm a bit of a purist. But I'm always willing to be open to new ideas. 

Did anyone see this in DC or on the tour? Did you like the staging? 

[CoreyRyan3]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 12:18am

This is the same production (if I'm not mistaken) that ran Off-Broadway, produced by Roundabout? 

Saw that production and absolutely adored it. 

I am a HUGE Into the Woods fan, but not a huge purist like you self-identify. I thought this was the best production of this musical I have ever seen. It was more heartbreaking, the story was more present than ever, the relationships were stronger than ever, and the theatricality and inventiveness of the direction are at an all-time high. I also wish we were able to get a cast recording with the new interesting orchestrations for this production, played on small instruments throughout the show by the cast, and a single piano which circles the stage throughout the production. 

I hope you check back in once you've seen it with your opinion. Mine is obviously very high.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 12:24am

I adored it as well. I'm not an Into the Woods purist myself- I love the original cast, of course, but I always found that something in the ending never quite worked for me. This production works better than any I've seen before. It's not the same cast as the Roundabout, but Fiasco is a really smart company, and I've no doubt they cast actors who do equally excellent work. It's well worth your time. 

[kjck89]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 2:17am

I saw it in DC! I had never seen ITW (not even the film!) so Fiasco's was my first introduction to the show. The actors were so well-rounded playing numerous characters and also playing the musical instruments. It was also very clear when the actors would switch characters. There have been some other productions I've seen when this wasn't executed well and I was really confused. 

What was great about it was that even though it was a musical, the focus was still on the actors and their talent. The set and props were very minimal but still effective. I wouldn't say I'm a huge ITW fan, but since this is your favorite show I would highly recommend it. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 2:23am

I'm on the other side of this one. I found that the "we'll create a mega musical with the lowest budget" schtick got very tiring veryfast. It played for laughs way too hard and the show itself just got on the way of how original they thought they were.  It had charming moments, but this was to me a 'concept over show' evening. 

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 11:00am

For my "one-woman Into the Woods" that just played 54 Below, I took some notes from the Fiasco concept. Some of them worked and some did not...kind of like what Blaxx said, even though I wanted the music to tell my story more than lecture-like exposition. Rewrites are in order.

That said- please continue sharing your thoughts...

[wonkit]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 6:39pm

I am not a purist and I went to a performance of this ITW production in New York with high expectations that a smaller production might make the music and story come through with more immediacy. Sadly, I am not a fan. The cleverness wears rather thin after a while, and the cleverness itself is not particularly original or insightful. But the main issue I had was the absence of any really good singers. This was especially dreadful in  "Agony" where the performance came across as really painful karaoke.  SO I second what black said.

 

[Wildcard]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 6:57pm

Not worth it with Broadway ticket prices. For $10, maybe

[upinlights]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 11:21pm

I saw it two weeks ago on tour, and I LOVED it! Tickets were a bit pricey, but the arrangements were flawless. I'm really not familiar with Into The Woods so I might not be a great source on this, but I thought it was a very well done production. I agree with someone above that they do aggressively play for laughs, but it is a very clever and original production. 

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/14/17 at 11:43pm

Best version of this show so far. 

[PatrickDC]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 3:38pm

I saw the tour last night. I enjoyed it overall, and feel Fiasco’s minimalist approach generally works. The staging is clever, as are the use of the props and costumes, though nothing struck me as too original. I did like the use of shadow figures during the Red/Wolf/Granny scenes, and the killing of the female giant was so simple but to my imagination very well done.

Act 2 dragged a bit, as it occasionally does for me when seeing ITW. As I’d grown tired of the wink-wink-nudge-nudge cleverness, I decided to focus more on the words, themes, and messages. This show resonates with me on such on deeply personal level, and I was present to the action on stage, but my mind was also drifting to other places and experiences.

The performers were clearly having a very good time (maybe more than the audience at times). Lots of friends of performers in the front row, given the amount of fourth wall breaking before both acts as the performers assemble. My buddy made an apt comment, this felt like a college production. I agree. I’m not sure I would have felt as positive about the show had I paid Broadway prices at the Roundabout. I thought the acting and singing, while perfectly fine, didn’t rise to what I would expect from Equity actors. At Intermission I looked in the Playbill to confirm this was an Equity show. While looking at the curtain-less stage before Act 1, seeing the ladder and other props, I knew exactly had this would all play out. And I was right. I wouldn’t be surprised if the cast and crew originally just met up in a cluttered attic and in true Micky and Judy fashion said “Hey kids, let’s put on a show!”

My two quibbles are 1) any traditional theater is too big for this production, it needs something smaller and intimate, say the Music Box, and 2) I missed a larger orchestra performing the score.

One reference my buddy and I couldn’t figure out was regarding pianos. The side of stage left was covered in gutted piano bodies. The proscenium was framed on wood pieces resembling piano keys. The backdrop was draped in miles of rope, at first I assumed this was to signify the woods, but of course, it’s piano wires (or maybe both). And a piano on a rolling platform is a prominent set piece, played throughout the show. But why pianos? I thought I knew the show very well, and I can’t get the reference…if in fact one was intended. Maybe it was just a design choice with no meaning.

[Hamilfan2]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 4:30pm

I would LOVE to see this production but unfortunately it is not touring anywhere near me .   Any chance there is a pro-shot of this somehwhere?

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 7:27pm

It's a FIASCO alright. They are shoving this small chamber show into huge barns such as the Ahamanson and charging top dollars. This show has one piano, a reduced cast of actors, most of whom are not great vocalists. 

Support your local CLO by seeing a musical with a full orchestra and trained musical theatre actors rather than see this. For those of you in LA, there are some fine CLO's in the LA area that do great productions: Musical Theatre West and 3D Theatricals come immediately to mind. 



 

[Mike66]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:33am

Scarywarhol said: "Best version of this show so far. 

 

"

I saw the original production years ago on broadway.  loved it'

saw this in nyc.  loved every minute of it. 

hated the movie'

go see this --

[Fantod]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:01pm

It's an interesting production, and certainly worth seeing if you're a fan of the show.

I adored the staging, finding the found-object style to be perfect for the material. The score is also of such a nature that reducing the orchestrations does no damage whatsoever. 

What I found more problematic was the direction of the acting, with so many of the actors mugging their lines really hard in order to force a laugh out of them, which goes against Lapine's bone-dry humor style.  The cast fared better in the second act, when they could stop trying so hard and just perform. 

I still don't like the second act, though I appreciate that it does have purpose. I just find it hopelessly didactic and unnecessarily cruel (I would like it more as a standalone work) and think that its plot construction is rather sloppy. The first act is still fantastic. 

As I said before, if you're a fan of the show, it's worth seeing. If you've never seen it, stick to the DVD of the original cast.

[wendy72]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 10:40pm

I loved Fiasco's production. They weren't the greatest singers but the acting was excellent (I didn't feel they were mugging, as another poster noted). The way they do it stripped bare and with character doubling shines more of a light on the story telling, which I really love. And it's innovative and breathless and joyful. I don't know how the touring cast is. I can see how some people might find the gimmick gets tired after a while, but I felt engaged the whole time, and it's one of my favorite shows. Post back if you go see it! 

[Miles2Go2]

Posted: 2/8/20 at 1:41am

Just got home from seeing The University of Oklahoma’s school of musical theatre’s production of Into The Woods. Didn’t think this warranted its own thread. Since from what I could tell, this shared some similarities with the stripped down Fiasco version, I thought I’d post here.

This was the university’s inaugural production of their downtown series which took place in a venue which usually seems to host private events. It was set in-the-round with folding chairs for the audience. Obviously, you aren’t going to get Broadway production values with a university production, but I really enjoyed it. It was set in 2020 with cell phones, etc... Modern clothing for most part. Inventive, minimal staging. Metal structure in middle of room served as both the tree and the beanstalk. Of course, with young performers, you aren’t necessarily going to get all around believable older characters and I think those actors probably chose well not to overdo it with trying to play their characters as old. Some really lovely singing/acting especially on behalf of the actresses playing Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, and the Witch. Both the Baker and the Baker’s Wife had lovely moments towards the end of Act 2. I actually cried toward the end (No One Is Alone/Children Will Listen).

I admit that my only reference is the movie (which I love), but I do love the score. Act 1 is longer than those of most modern musicals. I hadn’t expected to laugh so much during Act 1. But then things get serious in Act 2 after the characters get their supposed happily ever after at the end of Act 1. Of course, fairy tales are just parables so that added heft to Act 2. The director’s note in the program also put me in a philosophical/existential mood. In it, he referenced the flipside of happiness: fear, disappointment, and loss. Also, he referenced that some critics in 1987 interpreted the destruction befalling the characters in Act 2 as an allegory for the AIDS epidemic. Apparently, Sondheim has downplayed that idea, but I’m sympathetic to the idea especially as the remaining characters have to redefine what family is after experiencing so much loss. Anyway, if you live in Oklahoma City area, I’d say it’s worth checking out especially since its $25 general admission. I believe it’s only playing through Sunday. It has me clamoring for a Broadway revival although I know it probably wouldn’t be profitable minus some star casting.

Updated On: 2/8/20 at 01:41 AM