Into The Woods- Signature Superior to Broadway

[GetUp&LiveIt]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 7:30am

Recently saw Signature Theatre's "Into The Woods" in DC. It is far superior to the current Broadway revival in almost every way. Imaginative, reinvented, emotional, funny. I found the Broadway revival to be broad strokes, campy and calibrated for children's theatre. So much scenery chewing in that revival. Signature's production on the other hand is nuanced and wildly imaginative, very funny while also being very dark. 

 

 

Updated On: 12/6/22 at 07:30 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 7:32am

Well, it WAS a concert in its design...so.....  (There is another thread about the Signature's production started by someone with the same opinion.)

 

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 7:54am

Idk the set reminds me of Woods with Julia McKenzie (the doors hitting the floor etc)

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 8:47am

While the set for the signature theatre looks beautiful, I think this current revival - a transfer from NYCC - hit it out of the park in every way. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 9:25am

GetUp&LiveIt said: "I found the Broadway revival to be broad strokes, campy and calibrated for children's theatre.”

 

Huh?

 

[inception]

Posted: 12/2/22 at 9:41am

Jordan Catalano said: "

Huh?

You obviously don't read "the other board" (all that chat).  There a whole group of After8's with weird chips on their shoulders about the Broadway ITW for some reason, who constantly feel the need to drag it down.

 

[akhoya87]

Posted: 12/3/22 at 1:10am

So I just came out of this.  I do think it's worth a watch, even if you've seen the NYCC/Broadway production (which I've seen four times).  IMO, the Broadway production is better, but there are aspects of the Signature production that I quite liked.  (Not Milky White -- Kennedy Kanagawa's Milky White >>>> all other Milky Whites.)

1) I like that the Signature Narrator is a bit more dynamic (moves throughout the stage for the entire show) than the Broadway Narrator.  (That said, David Patrick Kelly's gasp-runs are hilarious.)

2) In the Signature production, Cinderella's Father is portrayed as a drunkard, so his treatment of Cinderella makes a little more sense; I never quite understood the source of the Broadway Cinderella's Father's callousness.

3) Don't @ me, but I liked Phylicia Rashad's recorded Giant better than Annie Golden's modified live voice.

4) I am going to get kicked off this board for heresy, but Erin Weaver is a better Baker's Wife than Sara Bareilles.  Sara B. has the much better singing voice; Erin's range appears to be more limited.  But I felt that Erin stepped into the shoes of the Baker's Wife in a way that Sara B. did not.  Also, the chemistry between Erin and Jake Loewenthal (who was also excellent as the Baker) - this was probably the best Baker/Baker's Wife duo I've seen.  (n.b.:  I've only seen Sara B. + NPH/Brian d'Arcy James, so it is not a long list.  We are obviously not counting Corden/Blunt.)

4a) That said, Sara B.'s Baker's Wife has a soothing/therapeutic quality that Erin Weaver's Baker's Wife lacked.  Listening to Sara's "Moments in the Woods" makes me feel like everything in the world is going to be OK.  

5) I found Katie Mariko Murray's portrayal of Cinderella to be more complex than Phillipa Soo/Denee Benton's.  I would give Phillipa Soo the edge on comedic delivery, but Katie's "No One is Alone" had much more depth -- truly acted through the song.

[WldKingdomHM]

Posted: 12/3/22 at 10:55am

I got nothing from this review but comparisons 

[akhoya87]

Posted: 12/3/22 at 11:07am

The title of the thread invites a comparative analysis.

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 12/3/22 at 3:29pm

I've seen this take several times in reference to Terry Gilliam's version in the UK and it always just makes me roll my eyes because the purpose of these productions is just so fundamentally different. 

Signature and the UK version are big, full, expansive productions giving an all-out experience. The Broadway production is a suped-up concert designed specifically to hear the score with an all-star cast, full orchestra, and original orchestrations. It's not supposed to be a big production. 

Just let different productions serve different purposes and stop trying to choose one or the other. 

[chrishuyen]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 1:27am

To add on to what jkcohen said, from the promotional bits I've seen it seems like the UK/Signature versions are adding more of a "concept" to the show, with stronger scenic/framing devices, while the Broadway/NYCC version is structured more just to let the text speak for itself (I think I was expecting something along the lines of the former when I first saw it at NYCC so I was a bit disappointed, but once I let it just be what it was, I felt I could settle in and enjoy it more).

[SondheimNerd]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 10:15am

I've seen both. NYCC once, Broadway once and Signature once. The charm of the Broadway staging is in the performances (especially Sara B.) and the sound of the score, but it's a concert. It's not a full production. You also see the limitations of this staging with the new cast. The lightning in a bottle was Sara (and Heather), without Sara it loses a large amount of its charm.

The Signature production was strong and in some ways stronger than the Broadway production. If you took the Signature production and the NYCC cast (with a few exceptions) it would be magic. Some performances at Signature were stronger, but I think much of that comes down to direction and tone. The Broadway production is too broad for my taste. 

Also, nothing beats hearing the original orchestrations in Signature's small theater. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 10:20am

The current Broadway revival of Into the Woods is marvelous.  Period.

[GetUp&LiveIt]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 10:58am

Count me among those who didn't think the Broadway production was "marvelous." I found the acting choices to be broad (Joshua Henry and Gavin Creel's Agony being one example of how painfully campy the production is). And as a production I found it unremarkable. 

I shouldn't have made the comparison between the two and left it to a glowing review about the Signature production. I'm just baffled that what is happening in a regional theatre is far more interesting, nuanced and imaginative than what's happening on Broadway. But I guess that doesn't really surprise me.

[iluvtheatertrash]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 11:11am

inception said: "Jordan Catalano said: "

Huh?

You obviously don't read "the other board" (all that chat). There a whole group of After8's with weird chips on their shoulders about the Broadway ITW for some reason, who constantly feel the need to drag it down.

"

Into the Woods is my favorite musical. I hated the current Broadway production. Thought it lacked urgency and felt, indeed, like it was calibrated for children's theatre. 

I don't have a "weird chip on my shoulder". I paid for my ticket, which gave me the right to enjoy it or not enjoy it. Newsflash: people who don't enjoy a show aren't always doing so out of some evil motivation. 

[Kad]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 11:24am

GetUp&LiveIt said: " I'm just baffled that what is happening in a regional theatre is far more interesting, nuanced and imaginative than what's happening on Broadway."

This exposes a really deep misunderstanding of American regional theatre. It's not just... way-off Broadway, or a place for Broadway rejects. Broadway is merely the biggest and most well-known area for American theatre, but that has never made it the best.

Updated On: 12/4/22 at 11:24 AM

[jkcohen626]

Posted: 12/4/22 at 3:09pm

Kad said: "GetUp&LiveIt said: " I'm just baffled that what is happening in a regional theatre is far more interesting, nuanced and imaginative than what's happening on Broadway."

This exposes a really deep misunderstanding of American regional theatre. It's not just... way-off Broadway, or a place for Broadway rejects. Broadway is merely the biggest and most well-known area for American theatre, but that has never made it the best."

100%!!! Broadway!?! The most interesting, nuanced, and imaginative thing in American theatre? Not in a million years!!!! That's what Off-broadway and professional regional theatre is for!

And you're still missing the point that the broadway production of Into the Woods isn't supposed to be imaginative at all. It's supposed to be a bare-bones opportunity to hear this score sung by all-stars in the way it was originally performed. It accomplishes that perfectly. 

The Signature production is an opportunity to see a new imaginative production of Into the Woods and it sounds like it's accomplishing that goal too. 

It's awesome that two different productions of one show can have such different purposes and both be able to accomplish those purposes well!

[JasonC3]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 7:22am

GetUp&LiveIt said: "Count me among those who didn't think the Broadway production was "marvelous." I found the acting choices to be broad (Joshua Henry and Gavin Creel's Agony being one example of how painfully campy the production is). And as a production I found it unremarkable.

I shouldn't have made the comparison between the two and left it to a glowing review about the Signature production. I'm just baffled that what is happening in a regional theatre is far more interesting, nuanced and imaginative than what's happening on Broadway. But I guess that doesn't really surprise me."

Signature has long punched above its class, particularly with Sondheim.  Bit as others have noted, the two shows have intentionally been produced with different intentions and the staging reflects that.  Judged by those intentions, I think both succeed nicely though I agree with others who think some in the Broadway cast are taking "broad" too literally in their performances.

[binau]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 7:58am

Would Sara B, Phillipa S, Patina, BDJ really be described as ‘broad’? To my ears from the cast recording these sound like good quality nuanced Sondheim performances. At least in the context of course that this is a fairy tale musical comedy not THE BAND’S VISIT, so I think a little bit of broadness comes with the territory haha. 
 

Regardless of the design choices that were clearly constrained for economic reasons (which was the right business decision I would suggest given how Sondheim shows seem to fare in terms of grosses), it’s really hard to find this scale of talent outside Broadway in my opinion. In a regional theatre you might get one of these actors stopping by but not all of them and all at once. 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/5/22 at 10:32am

GetUp&LiveIt said: "Count me among those who didn't think the Broadway production was "marvelous." I found the acting choices to be broad (Joshua Henry and Gavin Creel's Agony being one example of how painfully campy the production is). And as a production I found it unremarkable.

I shouldn't have made the comparison between the two and left it to a glowing review about the Signature production. I'm just baffled that what is happening in a regional theatre is far more interesting, nuanced and imaginative than what's happening on Broadway. But I guess that doesn't really surprise me."

GetUp&LiveIt, compare away.  Why not?  

We simply disagree on the worth of the Broadway production.  This being a forum, let's disagree! 

What you see as painful broad camp in the Henry Creel Agaony, I see as delightful witty camp. I see nothing about the Princes or Agony inconsistent with camp. 

[GetUp&LiveIt]

Posted: 12/6/22 at 8:41am

Guess my post takes on new meaning now as the two productions appear to be pitted against each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2022/12/06/into-woods-broadway-kennedy-center/

If I were Signature, I'd be pissed today with the announcement of the tour coming to the Kennedy Center almost immediately after they are closing. Also does the Kennedy Center really think Into The Woods will sell out a 2,500+ seat house for 30 shows, especially after Signature's production has been running for 3 months in the same market? 

 

 

Updated On: 12/6/22 at 08:41 AM

[blaxx]

Posted: 12/6/22 at 9:12am

GetUp&LiveIt said: "Guess my post takes on new meaning now as the two productions appear to be pitted against each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/theater-dance/2022/12/06/into-woods-broadway-kennedy-center/

If I were Signature, I'd be pissed today with the announcement of the tour coming to the Kennedy Center almost immediately after they are closing. Also does the Kennedy Center really think Into The Woods will sell out a 2,500+ seat house for 30 shows, especially after Signature's production has been running for 3 months in the same market?



"

The only "meaning" within your post is that you are more fond of one production than the other, that's it. 

Your thoughts won't discredit the Broadway production, no matter how hard you try.

[inception]

Posted: 12/6/22 at 10:51am

When I look at the videos for the Signature Theatre production I really don't see it as being anything more than other productions I have attended, excepting of course the bigger,  more lavish set than what is used in the current Broadway production.

I saw an excellent production in 2019 at Chicago's Writers Theatre:

 

 

[inception]

Posted: 12/6/22 at 11:04am

If you really want to see what playing this show more broadly would look like, then this trailer for the outdoor production that played the 2014 Oregon Shakespeare Festival will give you a taste with it's cartoonish costumes.  I remember there were fireworks, but also I thought Javier Muñoz was an exceptional Baker.

 

[akhoya87]

Posted: 12/6/22 at 11:32am

(1) There's a lot to like about both productions, and they complement each other well. 

(2) The Kennedy Center has a broader "reach" than Signature.  There are lots of folks in the DMV area who are aware of the Kennedy Center who also have no idea that Signature even exists.  

(3) There are plenty of people in the DMV area who would (a) go see a show at the Kennedy Center featuring Broadway-acclaimed actors and actresses, (b) would not go to New York to see the same said show, given the expense involved, and (c) would also not go to Signature Theatre's production.

(4) I'd wager that there are plenty of people who live in the DMV area who've seen either the NYCC/Broadway version, and would pay money again to see it on their "home" stage.  I haven't seen SJB, and thought about seeing the show at the St. James.  Now I'll keep my powder dry and see it here in D.C.

(5) Thirty performances is a lot for D.C.  I do wonder whether the Kennedy Center will be able to fill all those seats.  But I don't think the Signature production is going to be a major factor re:  whether all those seats will be filled.