Into The Woods: the Witch and Rapunzel- Page 4

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/5/12 at 11:09pm

"It's not incest if they were never related."

Sorry. Parents having sex with their adopted children is incest.

And, no, I have never interpreted the relationship of the witch and Rapunzel in or out of ITW as erotic. Of course, It could be interpreted that way. It could be directed to suggest that. But Is it a valid interpretation? IMHO, not.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 2:12am

While it can be played that way, I don't think the Witch has much of a sexual relationship with Rapunzel. She clearly appreciates her beauty, but she does so to protect her from the world--the witch has lost her own beauty, and she doesn't want Rapunzel to make the same mistakes as her. I think, as suggested earlier in this thread, each of the main characters from pre-existing stories (Jack, Little Red, Cinderella, and Rapunzel) comes of age and has some sort of sexual awakening. Rapunzel has an over-protective mother who wants to shield her from the world, locking her in a tower where no man can reach her, keeping her "pure" and beautiful. Of course, Rapunzel gets frustrated with these circumstances and finds a way to rebel against her mother, and she then gets pregnant. If the two had a sort of sexual relationship (of course, with a one-way attraction) wouldn't the witch want to parade Rapunzel around, showing her off? Instead, she locks Rapunzel in a tower where she is hard to find.

[onedaymore]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 3:01am

You make a good point, Danny, about the younger characters' sexual awakenings. Yet I also must ask- don't you think the Witch locking her away could mean that she's trying to keep Rapunzel for herself?

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 3:15am

That may be so, but the witch makes it clear that she thinks Rapunzel will stay, for lack of a better word, "pure" in the tower. "Our Little World" is about the untainted world they have created. If the witch really wanted Rapunzel sexually, wouldn't that contrast what she was trying to do for Rapunzel? I think that the witch thought that all of her actions were in Rapunzel's best interest.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 8:14am

My theory: it's easy, and in most cases valid, to equate Judge Turpin/Johanna with The Witch/Rapunzel. They have a lot in common:

1) composer/lyricist, 2) hair as a plot point, 3) hair as a lyrical inspiration, and as the ingenue's primary physical feature 4) traumatizing haircuts, 5) a sheltered maiden 6) an overbearing overprotective guardian/adoptive parent 7) who is, to a greater or smaller extent, unsympathetic and unattractive (in the case of ITW about to regain her appeal through magic,in the case of ST, about to (modestly) lose some of his crudeness through better grooming), who sees/comes to se his/her unattractiveness as something to work on as it impacts their respective subplot, 9) in each case the character standing in the way of young love is scarred by its progress, and reacts by abandoning his/her child, leaving her alone (in Bedlam/in the desert and ultimately in the world), 10) the antagonist to young love sees controlling and restricting the ingenue as the right and proper thing to do, 11) the reclusiveness and unobtainability of the young woman in her tower is in each case highly significant scenically and musically and 12) the young woman has been wrongly taken from her true parents in the central back story of the play, 13) the ingenue's experiences are so painful that she is extensively scarred by the final curtain, her young man may not be what she thought he was (even in Johanna's case, she grows at least temporarily mad and poignantly distrustful of Anthony), 14) intense rivalry for the maiden's affections and jealousy of the parental figure for the beautiful young man who wants his/her "child."

No wonder many would feel the eroticism that drives Judge Turpin's interest in Johanna would also apply to the Witch's for Rapunzel!

But it doesn't. Or, let me put this less dictatorially. I don't see it.













Updated On: 8/8/12 at 08:14 AM

[artscallion]

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

Very interesting and well thought out comparison!

And I agree that the lesbian thing just isn't there. I don't find any of the arguments for such a thing compelling or able to hold water.

[Kad]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 11:50am

I don't see the incest angle either, in any production of ITW. It's about the Witch's overprotection and overwhelming desire to be a mother.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 12:05pm

I don't think Sondheim would be foolish enough to give gay people a bad name like that. By making them out to have sexual relations with their adopted kids. Next!

One thing struck me while reading this thread: that people generally think it's somehow better that later productions have literally SPELLED OUT that the Baker's Wife has sex with the prince in the woods. I mean, it's not a bad thing but I got that she was unfaithful and had more than a kiss with him way back when I first saw the taped performance as a kid on my brothers BETAMAX video cassette recorder!

Subtlety. It's gone nowadays.

[followspot]

Posted: 8/6/12 at 12:58pm

Whatever happened to class?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 1:50am

Frankly, I am gobsmacked that so many posters I respect refuse to see the homoeroticism in the relationship between the Witch and Rapunzel. I'll admit I saw the San Diego workshop where it was even more obvious, but, henrik and Kad, how do you get past these lyrics (which were quoted above):

"What would you have me be?
Handsome as a prince?
But I am old,
I am ugly,
I embarrass you.
You are ashamed of me."

What sort of mother talks this way? Only one in the Freudian or Bettelhim worlds where the sexual tension supposedly inherent to parent/child relationships is made explicit.

Moreover, the Witch doesn't just say it, she gives up all her supernatural powers to be young and beautiful again. For whose benefit but Rapunzel's? We certainly don't see the Witch express interest in anyone else.

For the record, knowing the above doesn't make "Children Will Listen" any less moving to me. These are allegorical characters; I don't confuse them with real people.

[ChairinMain]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:37am

the original San Diego production has been referenced a few times in this discussion, and I thought I'd weigh in since I recently had the opportunity to watch a video of that production. (Please note that I am not indicting that I personally own this video, am selling it, or have shared it with others...I am merely stating that I have viewed it.) It was a fascinating experience to see the show in a gestational and much less effective form; Act one is effectively as we know it with a few songs missing and a couple of dialogue changes, but the shape and purpose of act two is significantly different: the Baker's wife dies offstage from eating Snow White's poisoned apple, there is an extended death scene for Little Red's Granny, and there is an explicit romantic pairing at the end of the show between the Baker and Cinderella. The theme of parents and children isn't quite as explicit ("Children Will Listen" is not in the show in any form), although Cinderella's, Red's and Jack's relationships with their absentee fathers get more discussion. The shows doesn't quite have its central point in place, though it comes close, to an extent.

The difference most relevant to this discussion is that Rapunzel never refers to the witch as "mother" at all; she calls her "Dame Gothel." Neither "Stay with me" or "Witch's Lament" are in the show, and the two characters are never onstage together in Act Two. It's not explicitly a mother-daughter relationship; it's not explicitly romantic, either, and Rapunzel discusses the witch as a parental figure but they do not appear to be as close as they were on Broadway.

Significantly, Rapunzel's rant in Act two about her perpetual unhappiness is delivered not to the Witch but to the group that is about to encounter the giant for what is in this version the second time: Her prince, the Baker, Little Red, Cinderella, and the Royal Family. The Witch, hunting for Jack after an early encounter with the giant (in which only the narrator dies), is not even present. Rapunzel's reasons for unhappiness are not leveled solely at the witch here but at her history in general, and she then very explicitly runs in the same direction as the giant, clearly committing suicide. (Cinderella gets a terrific line at her death where, shaking her clothes to get her sister-in-law's blood spatter off them, she complains: "Oh, this dress is RUINED!")

I did not see Ellen Foley's Witch being played as explicitly gay, as some have suggested (she does wear some leather in act one.) She's not very maternal, either...in fact she really doesn't do much with the part. Frankly, when they added the Witch's additional motivations of protecting then avenging Rapunzel, they drastically strengthened a weak character. In the San Diego version, she does very little to "earn" the impact of Boom Crunch (But she does sing the heck out of it.) Rapunzel has even less to do than she does in the finished version, in fact the part is small enough that the role is doubled with one of the stepsisters, Florinda, played by Kay McClelland. this leads, incidentally, to only Lucinda making it out of the Giant's attack on the palace alive so McClelland can do Rapunzel's death scene. (it also leads to a great gag where the Stepmother realizes Rapunzel's tears cure blindness and positions Lucinda so the weeping girl restores her sight.) She's barely onstage at all: with no "Stay with Me" to be sung to her, Rapunzel seems a very minor character indeed.

The whole plot-line really needed a rewrite, and it thankfully got one. You can't really use it to argue for or against a romantic interpretation of their relationship, because in the San Diego version the two women barely have one.

I will say that in the finished version of the show, I've never really considered the lesbian subtext, though I've always believed it apparent in the fairy tale itself (Anne Sexton's treatment of Rapunzel in "Transformations" is especially good reading for those interested in this interpretation.) the subtext is there, but I'd argue against playing a romantic relationship, and if you MUST make it sexual, it should be one-sided and very subtle. The Witch and Rapunzel's relationship is important to the themes of the show as a parent-child relationship, not as a romantic pairing. The Witch's possessive nature can be explored perfectly well with her as a mother, without delving into this particular type of love.


Updated On: 8/7/12 at 04:37 AM

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:30am

Plenty of parents have responded to their children - "I am old, I embarass you" and it has nothing to do with sexual interest. Children grow up and do not want to even stand near their parents. Parents gush over their children all the time. The kid could do the most awful thing and the mamma bear is going to lash everyone to protect and defend the offspring. Watch TLC's Toddlers & Tiara's and you will vomit at the parental fawning. The kid smiles and poses...the parent melts.

When Rapunzel sings the Witch is merely enchanted by her child. Not her biological child but one she raised from an infant so consider it a strong love similiar to an adoption.

I read this post yesterday and was frankly a bit disgusted at the thought. It never even remotely crossed my mind that there was a lesbian relationship either one way or both. I think it is really reaching for straws to think that there is.



Updated On: 8/7/12 at 08:30 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:38am

That's how I always viewed those lyrics, Brian.

The Witch is playing maternal guilt after feeling she has been replaced as Rapunzel's sole object of affection. It's not necessarily sexual.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 9:17am

I'd also point out that the Witch does not know that restoring her youth and beauty would rob her of her powers, so she is not sacrificing those powers for anyone. Remember that after her transformation she attempts to place a spell on Rapunzel and her Prince and fails, and only THEN learns that she lost her powers in the transformation.

And I agree with Brian, plenty of kids are embarrassed by their parents for any number of reasons, including the way they look. I guess if all children who are ashamed of their parents are having incestuous affairs with them it adds a whole new layer to Judy's character in A Chorus Line.

"But my mother would embarrass me so
When she'd come to pick me up at school
With all those great, big, yellow rollers in her hair
No matter how much I begged her and she'd say:
What are you ashamed of your own mother?"

[followspot]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 9:54am

No one has suggested that the Witch and Rapunzel are having "an inscestuous affair." Good Lord. It's only been noted that in some productions of ITW the hint of a sexual attraction on the Witch's part (perhaps unacknowledged even to herself) seems layered over the obvious "possessive parent" theme. Oy.

Updated On: 8/7/12 at 09:54 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 10:53am

Gaveston, I didn't see the SD workshop. I only saw the original Broadway production - that is until tonight when I'll be in the Park.

I can only repeat that this never occurred to me. To the extent that there is a Freudian/Bettelheimian aura of parent/child sexual dynamic, ok; but if one is a Freudian/Bettelheimian one can justify seeing that in almost every parent/child relationship in any probing psychologically perceptive play. Might there be Oedipal conflict in ITW? - sure - but, if so, it is - like all Oedipal dynamics - subconscious and indistinguishable from any Freudian interpretation of anything else, a reading legitimately rooted in the subconscious and, most importantly for this discussion, the universal - not a reading which could validly distinguish the Witch and Rapunzel relationship from those in the multitude of plays in which a parent raising a child and dealing with letting go is considered in terms of profound underlying sexuality. Not one which would convincingly suggest overt longings and intentions. Sure, a director might impose that. I would vehemently disagree with such an interpretation. I took this thread as a discussion of whether there is something of an overtly incestuous nature about the Witch's longings and needs.

By the way Sondheim asserts that Bettelheim wasn't really the model, but rahter that it was Jung. Jung's collective unconscious, as applied to mythic stories which were one of his motherloads (oops, sorry to be so naughty!), just like Bettelheim's fairy tale theory, supports that the themes here, and their underlying erotic layers, are universal and general, not pointing to a parent/child sexual dynamic between the Witch/Rapunzel which would either exceeds human commonality or imply sexual predation.

The question here is not whether there is actually a sexual relationship between the Witch nd Rapunzel - no one indeed is arguing that - the question - as I understood it - is whether the Witch has a motivating sexual attraction to and sexual intentions for Rapunzel. No.

I agree with Kad that the handsome like a prince lyrics are about guilttripping, embarrassment, a controlling parent's inability to let go when confronted with puberty. When Billy says "many a likely lad pursues her from her faithful dad, but my little girl gets hungry everynight and she comes home to me," that line also projects a father's typical possessiveness and protectiveness of his child from the threat of a lover. The Witch isn't a typical character (neither is Billy for that matter) and she is not typical in her possessiveness, but she is nothing more than archtypal in the underlying subconscious sexuality of her relationship with her daughter. Her possessiveness is raised to a supernatural fairy tale extreme, but the libidinal temperature is no different than Billy's for his unborn child. Rather, she is arcehtypal raised to an extreme - Freud and Bettelheim are interested in the universal and in archetypes. Not in lifetime television incest.

Who is she regaining her beauty for if not Rapunzel? For herself and whatever comes her way.... just like anybody else who longs for his or her youth and the sexual power it restores.







Updated On: 8/8/12 at 10:53 AM

[NoHSMisNotAMusical]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 12:14pm

I don't think the San Diego workshop can be considered canon, from the bits I've seen and from what I've heard, it's a very different show than what eventually ended up on Broadway.

I think the argument for there being lesbian undertones is very weak, however I have enjoyed reading this thread very much. The "I am old, I am ugly..." are something a parent would say. I see how some people are equating the Witch/Rapunzel relationship with the Johanna/Turpin relationship, but honestly I think the Witch only loves Rapunzel in a motherly way.

Also if anyone has a video of the SD workshop, I am definitely not interested. Definitely not.

[NoHSMisNotAMusical]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 12:14pm

Double post Updated On: 8/7/12 at 12:14 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:25pm

Chunks of the SD production are on youtube. However it seems to be earlier in the run than the video I've seen which includes Children Will Listen as part of the now cut 2nd Midnight. I forgot that the Wife died by eating the poisoned apple...

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:27pm

"
Also, do the Prince and the Baker's Wife have sex or just make out? From watching the OBC movie I've always interpreted as just kissing but I'm interested to hear how other productions portray it."

The OBC production does chastely fade the scene away just before the sex, but I've always been sure it was sex there too.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:30pm

The relationship between the witch and Rapunzel has always been odd. I remember the video I had with Shelley Duvall as Rapunzel when I was little... The relationship was just weird.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:37pm

that Faerie Tale Theatre episode is a sentimental fave of mine--Jeff Bridges as the prince was one of my first crushes... (And Gena Rowkands as the Witch scared the crap out of me as a kid) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a07JiFr3Ak

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:50pm

This discussion has been really interesting. But what seems to be missing in the whole 'it's just a motherly love' argument is that it's a REALLY F*CKED UP version of motherly love. It's dark and twisted and manipulative and violent. This isn't M'Lynn and Shelby discussing diabetes here. It's ugly. And the obsession with Rapunzle and the desire to restore her former youth and beauty to please her can certainly add a shade of homoeroticism to the relationship. It's not the whole thing. But it could be one light color in the interplay between them. The exploration of maturing sexuality and its effect family dynamics is old as time itself. What else is the story of Adam and Eve? Eve matures first (by eating the fruit of knowledge) and then lets Adam eat her fruit. Then they realize they're naked and they have to leave their idyllic home and youth, never to return in quite the same way. These themes play out in so much great art and they play out beautifully in Into the Woods.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:30pm

Of course it's supremely ****ed up. But that's not the issue. The issue isn't really the eroticism in question being homo either.

The issue is whether the underlying erotic tensions are between an outrageously controlling supernatural being and a victimized child or that of an outrageously controlling supernatural being and a victimized child whom she wants to ****.

At least that's how I understood the question. (and, with apologies to OP who may not have meant the question that way, that's how I and many others have interpreted the question).

Choose the former and the erotic tension is a universal parent/child correlative magnified to fairy tale extremes. And highly Bettelheimian.

Choose the latter and it's quite a different story. And quite operatic and fascinating. But not, as far as I can see it, anything having to do with the themes and objectives of Into the Woods or the character of the Witch. The Witch is a lonely, wounded, brilliant, cantankerous, vindictive, needy, funny, narcissistically smothering mother. But she is not a sexual predator.








Updated On: 8/7/12 at 05:30 PM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 6:03pm

Any artist--even Mr. Sondheim--sends their creation out into the world and relinquishes control over the meanings and interpretations that people will discover within the Work. Sondheim can state "definitively" that the Giant was not a metaphor for the AIDS crisis, but I cannot hear the line "I warned you that you can't rely on the Royal Family to solve your problems" without picturing Nancy Reagan in her Adolfo suits smiling and waving while my friends got sick and died. A story about people complacently--and misguidedly--waiting for the ruling class to respond to their sorrow is much larger than any one issue or event, but I was a gay man in New York City in the 1980's and that's what the Giant will always mean to me.

As far as the Witch and Rapunzel--I'm with SonofRobbieJ. I've always understood it to be about negotiating the impossibly fine line between protection and isolation, and the ways in which parenting can become pathological out of the best of motives. I've always found it profoundly moving and insightful, and I--personally--don't need to add incest to the mix to regard being a parent as one of the scariest parts of the Woods anyone can wander into.

But if you see incest, then you see incest--no-one can tell you you're wrong.