How would've

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:38pm

the subject keeps editing itself, so the question is "How would've "Into the Woods" ended if the Narrator had not died?

after all, they had to figure it out for themselves after they killed him. I'm sure the narrator had a different path for them to follow.

and while we're discussing a heady subject, has anyone taken the narrator as symbolism for God? If that is the case, the show is saying that we, as human beings have killed off God, and in doing so, religion, and nothing can be pre-ordained because there is no entity to ordain it.

I just think Into the woods lends itself to so many interpretations, and I love playing around with symbols in the show.

any thoughts on these heady subjects?



p.s if anyone complains about there being no spoiler alert because they haven't seen the show yet, You've had ample time to catch it. It's been out for over 15 years, for Chrissake.

Updated On: 8/2/07 at 01:38 PM

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:40pm

Why, thanks for the spoilers, since I've never seen INTO THE WOODS.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:42pm

see my edited response in the first post.

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:47pm

Wait the NARRATOR dies? How the hell can that be! He's outside the action- he tells the story! How can he die? I feel like the show is ruined for me. I missed the Original Broadway run, the video, the tour, the revival and numerous local productions, but I WAS planning on seeing it sometime and NOW you've ruined it for me! Thanks a lot! Go ahead and ruin Assassins, too- does Oswald kill Kennedy or not??? I'm seeing 1776 next month- PLEASE do not spoil that for me, OK?

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:48pm

I love you, joeykv.


oh, and don't bother seeing Titanic. the ship sinks.

Updated On: 8/2/07 at 01:48 PM

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:50pm

OH MY GOD! DAMN YOU!


Wait- do you mean the Movie Titanic or the Musical Titanic? no, no no, don't tell me! DON'T TELL ME!

[camp_actor]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:51pm

Hehe, that's hysterical!

[roseaddams]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:52pm

Sure, it's been out for fifteen years.

It's been on broadway from 1987-1989, and again in 2002. However, if you don't live in New York, this does you no good.

It's been done since ad nauseum by community and children's theater groups. However, if you live in a cultural wasteland (e.g., Burbank, California), there hasn't been one nearby. So, this does you no good.

You could pick up the CD, like the songs, and not know the Narrator died because there's no song specifically about the event.

You could like fairy tales, and hear there's a musical about them, and not know the Narrator died because there's no Narrator in most of Grimm.

You could develop an interest in Sondheim (say, from the recent revivals of Assassins, Sweeney Todd, or Company), and want to explore further his oeuvre. But, then you find out the Narrator died and there goes a major plot point.

There's a million different ways to be unaware of the plot of Into the Woods despite its existance for the past twenty years. Most of them involve people not spoiling it for others. Putting the information in a post marked as a spoiler is one thing, but using a spoiler as the title catches those among us who aren't familiar with the show unaware.

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:54pm

There is a DVD of the original production, as well.

And one can always find a synopsis online.

[RockabyeHamlet]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:56pm

Joe- your first post is my new signature.

I have actually never thought of the Narrator as a symbol for God. I'll have to think on that. My father has always thought the giant was the Witches mother I don't know if I believe that. I have always wanted a sequel where we see what happens when the Baker marries Cinderella and Jack and Little Red end up together.

[Bwayfan4]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 1:59pm

A "possible spoiler" for those who have not seen the show would've been nice.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:00pm

oh, come on!!! as was earlier posted, there is a video, and dvd of the show, and a little thing called amazon.com, so if you do live in Antartica, or in a barren wasteland where you have no access to a public Library, where most of them are able to get a copy for rent, you should have no problem getting hold of this story.

In September, it will have been out for 20 years. I think that entitles it to be fair ground to assume that it is public knowledge, especially on a broadway message board where Sondheim is our God.

[camp_actor]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:01pm

Does anybody seriously think that by knowing that the narrator dies at some point in the show would spoil the experience of seeing Into The Woods?

I for one would be surprised if someone didn't like the show just because they weren't shocked that the Narrator snuffed it.

This kind of thing makes me dislike the forums on BWW. It's SO irrelevant.

[Julian2]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:03pm

"I have always wanted a sequel where we see what happens when the Baker marries Cinderella and Jack and Little Red end up together."

I'm not sure if I could see them pairing off like that. I could see them forming a family, but not nessacarily married.

Interesting thought about the Narrator=God. I actually think that that makes a lot of sense. I think it could be interpreted in relation to growing up. The rules and regulations of childhood and our parents become hated and are then dissmissed. We then have to figure out our own rules, which we impart to our children (who will listen), and then the cycle begins AGAIN. Think of of the finale:

Into the woods/then out of the woods/and happy ever after!

I wish . . .

Updated On: 8/2/07 at 02:03 PM

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:10pm

oh, I like that, Julian.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:21pm

Since the narrator works to rather cliched predispositions- especially in Act 1, I suspect that given free reign in Act 2 the Narrator would have engineered a rather bland, unsatisfying ending in which no character learned to make autonomous decisions.

I definitely see the narrator-god analogy, and the overall message of the show takes a Humanist viewpoint: it is in the hands of people to solve the world's problems without relying on other-worldly intervention.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:24pm

"You've had ample time to catch it. It's been out for over 15 years, for Chrissake."

So just because something has been out a while means everyone automatically should know what happens? Or have seen it? Gosh, I haven't seen every damn show on Broadway, so I better hurry up and see every single show ever made!

Have some courtesy for those who haven't seen it. Whether something's been around 1 year, 15 years, or 100 years doesn't give people a right to ruin key plot points. People who do this are completely ignorant.

[Action2]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:25pm

I think I heard that in an EARLY version of the show, the narrator was actually the baker's child...recounting the story he had been told. Obviously, that changed and the character became something/someone else...but I LOVED the idea of the story going full circle.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:27pm

I agree- act two probably would've ended just as sweetly and "ever afterly" as act one. No one would have learned anything, and would've kept wishing for more than they had.

so if you take God as narrator position, I guess the show is saying that we are better off without religion because then we are held accoutable for our own actions, and cannot blame them on anything else. WE are forced to think for ourselves, make our own decisions, and live with whatever consequences may arise. It may have been easier with a narrator, but the rewards are greater if we are accountable for ourselves.

[millie_dillmount]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:28pm

"oh, come on!!! as was earlier posted, there is a video, and dvd of the show, and a little thing called amazon.com, so if you do live in Antartica, or in a barren wasteland where you have no access to a public Library, where most of them are able to get a copy for rent, you should have no problem getting hold of this story."

You're right, but those are things people do out of their own choosing and can control what information they seek out. If you want to make a post about the narrator dying, go ahead, but at least post a spoiler warning out of courtesy.

"I think that entitles it to be fair ground to assume that it is public knowledge, especially on a broadway message board where Sondheim is our God."

This is where people are ignorant...

[camp_actor]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:29pm

I'm bored of this conversation about "spoilers" - there's a similar one happening concurrently on another board. It's dull.

The Narrator dies. So does the Giant. And his wife.
Sweeney Todd dies. So does Lovett.
Coalhouse Walker dies. So does Sarah.

Can we move on?

[americanboy99]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:30pm

Okay.

SPOILERS!

[popular_elphie]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:31pm

Thank you, millie_dillmount.

I haven't gotten around to seeing yet. What shows have you not seen that are on Broadway at this current moment? I'll tell you some plot points. You have to have seen them already, right? They're on Broadway right now!

I still have yet to see HELLO, DOLLY!, GUYS AND DOLLS, MISS SAIGON, INTO THE WOODS, and other well-known Broadway shows. Be considerate, please.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:32pm

"So just because something has been out a while means everyone automatically should know what happens?"

no, but the people that were upset seemed to show some interest in the show, and when I show some interest in something, I look it up. In this day you can easily find out anything you want to. So if they hadn't known about it by now, they were never gonna know it. and the show isn't ruined becuase these people now know that the narrator died. they still don't know how he died, and it is only a plot point, not the entirety of the story.

get over yourself.

[Pippin]

Posted: 8/2/07 at 2:35pm

I've never seen Mamma Mia! so go ahead spoil the ending. I don't give a hoot. what is more interesting is the show got up to that point, not the actual act of it happening.