INTO THE WOODS reviews..... — Page 5

Well actually, at some performances, the show will end after act 1.

I don't understand how I'm being stupid about the show. I shouldn't have to rely on my prior knowledge of it to piece together the frenetic staging. It should all be there in the storytelling or else why bother seeing a revival? And it's a legitimate question: if I found it confusing as a fan of the show, how would someone whose first exposure to the show is this production feel about it? We shouldn't mock theatregoers for being confused; this can be a confusing show when there isn't precise focus.

I admit to not being the most persuasive or eloquent commenter here. Thank you for answering my question.

And yes, I know it's not a regular occurrence, hence my winky face.

^ Exactly. If you have at least one brain cell, it shouldn't be hard to figure out.

Whatever you think of Ben, I agree this time he is absolutely right and stated what a lot of people were hinting at but couldn't quite explain: The concept of a child narrator DOES NOT work because the show is not written from a child's view. The sophisticated wordplay, sexual innuendoes etc. are Adult concepts. And adding to that, it is NOT needed. ITW has enough characters and stories and has little room for a back story of a troubled household and runaway child.
As for transferring, The Public may deny it but a profitable transfer was always on their minds. But that's kinda backwards. First you do the best show you can and than mayhaps the public will clamour for it and warrent a move. (Like PENZANCE did). What scalpers are getting IS a good way to see what the PAYING audience wants to see. As someone said, don't expect any big changes if it moves, only if this catches fire will a move be a good idea.

keb, are you saying the characters are aware that a child is telling their story and that adds to their need?
There is plenty in the original writing to give them motive, the idea that a marriage that could go stale and lead to squabbles could be helped by a child is right there in the writing.

Without the backstory of running away a child might work as a narrator but they have to be removed not part of the plot (till the second act), maybe you could have another actor who looks like the child grown older tell the second act, but do it as written.

And I doubt there is a child on the planet who when asked what Little Red Riding Hood looks like, would reply: she wears a bicycle helmet and a pink tutu.

keb, are you saying the characters are aware that a child is telling their story and that adds to their need?
There is plenty in the original writing to give them motive, the idea that a marriage that could go stale and lead to squabbles could be helped by a child is right there in the writing.

Without the backstory of running away a child might work as a narrator but they have to be removed not part of the plot (till the second act), maybe you could have another actor who looks like the child grown older tell the second act, but do it as written.

Oh no—and granted, I didn't see the opening number (standby line, was seated late), but for me, having the narrator be a child just really hammered home how much the baker & his wife wanted a child, almost rubbing it in. And then the way that everything came together so nicely (I thought) in the second act with the Mysterious Man as the Baker's father, and the narrator as an alternate universe version of the Baker's child, and knowing that the narrator and the Mysterious Man were originally written as one character, I thought it gave the show a nice sense of everything coming full circle.

Again, that's just my interpretation, and I'm other people (especially people who saw the beginning of the show) have different interpretations, but I thought it worked.

And if I'm already suspending my disbelief enough for all of these characters to be neighbors in a fairy tale kingdom, and for them to be singing their feelings, and for a collection of twigs to be a cow, and for a tree and some branches to be a giant, for me it wasn't a huge deal to further suspend my disbelief that a child could tell this story.

Maybe this is getting into like Inception-level overanalyzing, but at times, I almost felt like the narrator might have even been the Baker's projection of a child (a la Next to Normal)

I have just as much of an agenda as anyone on these boards. My arguments and rebuttals aren't the best, but I try to contribute intelligent discussion and provide an interesting angle. I don't think I'm a bad person and I don't post nasty comments. To my knowledge, I haven't bashed anyone if their opinions differed from mine. If I've offended anyone or said anything incriminating that people may or may not buy, I apologize.

Stay classy, all.

Would you please stop trying to throw shade on this revival by either being stupid about one of your favorite musicals or (as I believe) furthering an agenda of attempting to swerve opinion on a production you don't like by exaggerating and trying to confuse people by reinterpreting reviews

HeyMrMusic is NOT being stupid. His comments are always very thorough and intelligent. I do not think he is trying to swerve anyone's opinion. He is merely expressing his own. And he has not misinterpreted any reviews. He just stated he agreed with some things certain reviews said and why.

---

I loved the child narrator. I personally had no problem with the child narrator because the show is written from an adult point of view.

The show is built - and has always been built - on the collective unconscious, metaphysics, magic realism, and the parent-child psychodrama. If one can accept magic beans, one should be able to accept a precocious 12 year old. The collective unconscious is shared by people of all ages.

The narrator has always had a self-referential all seeing point of view, he has always been a post-modernist conceit. He is not sacrificed to the giant because the characters depend on him for knowing the outcome of the story. If one can accept this, one would think one should be able to accept that the narrator is a child.

The child, though played by a child, need not be seen as a literal child. When we are asked to consider that "Children Will Listen," the show is not simply talking about humans in their youth. It is talking about all of us. To use a cliche, the "inner child" is central to this adult (though child-friendly) book about fairy tales, their purpose and meaning, and what needs to be addressed beyond them, the rest of the stories: that "witches can be right, giants can be good, someone is on our side/their side, and no one is alone."

Possibly, I might feel that a child narrator would be difficult to accept if the child were a 7 year old. But the child is played by a boy old enough so that the suspension of any disbelief on his ability to imagine the story as it is told is not too big a leap. And a contemporary boy at that. In the present day, children of that age are exposed to far more and far grittier realities that even those probed in Into the Woods.

Finally, I find it hard to conceive of anyone fully enjoying Into the Woods without keying in to one's imagination at its most all encompassing and open minded.

Updated On: 8/13/12 at 09:59 AM

Don't know if this has already been posted, but...
The REAL Village Voice review..its a pan

---