Into The Woods: the Witch and Rapunzel — Page 5

I dunno, Gaveston--I'm not sure you can read a sexual subtext into every situation in which the word "breast" appears, especially in a mother/child relationship. Many, many children DO nurse at their Mother's breast with nary a hint of salacious/incestuous intent.

---

Updated On: 8/7/12 at 08:11 PM

And in equally awful quality, her transformation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frvYKha626M&feature=channel&list=UL

Yah it's a shame that, even for such recordings, the quality is so cruddy, but still interesting to see (as a teen I listened to the much better quality audio bootleg a lot, but it's on casette and I'm not even sure I can play it any more). I agree with you about her portrayal.

I dunno, Gaveston--I'm not sure you can read a sexual subtext into every situation in which the word "breast" appears, especially in a mother/child relationship. Many, many children DO nurse at their Mother's breast with nary a hint of salacious/incestuous intent.

With all due respect, Addison, I think that's a myth. The most honest women I know admit there is something very near to sexual pleasure in breast feeding. (That does NOT mean they go on to sexually molest their children.)

Our culture is just phobic about sex in general and (more understandably) incest in particular. I don't even want to talk about the supposedly "innocent" interactions one hears about between mothers with their sons. (Obviously, I'm not immune to cultural taboos.)

Another interesting moment in the SD clip is when Cinderella's father tells her he ignored her because she reminds him "too much of (her) mother". (I don't remember if that line made the cut into the final version. I think not.) One reasonable explanation is that he found Cinderella's presence too painful; another equally reasonable explanation is that he didn't trust himself with his own daughter. Either way, we have a daughter compared to a mate and a continuation of the Oedipal/Electra themes that Bettelheim and others find in fairy tales.

-----

I did see Ellen Foley in SD, but I think my understanding of the sexual implications between Witch and Rapunzel come mostly from the lyric quoted above. I don't understand how anybody thinks that's a "non-sexual" remark from a mother to a daughter (and I agree that the fact Rapunzel was "adopted" makes no difference).

Updated On: 8/7/12 at 09:08 PM

I think there's no doubt, as originally staged, that there is meant to be a sexual element (granted, a minor one) to breast as used in Giants in the Sky.

Minor? I don't think it's minor. Whatever the literal circumstances in the plot, I think it's clear that both Little Red's and Jack's solos are reflections on their first sexual experiences.

In Jack's case, it isn't even subtext or metaphor, it's text. (The Oedipal overtones are the subtext.)

I'm not sure--but even in that old 1970s music video done for Paradise By The Dashboard Lights, they have someone else lip synching to Ellen Folley's stuff (I believe the woman they have did tour it with Meat Loaf, Karla DeVitor, but the recording uses her vocals. Later on with Bat Out of Hell II they used another person lip synching the female part of Anything For Love, so who knows...).

Around the time Foley was back as the Witch on Broadway--1989ish, she was one of the four female vocalists Steinman used for his Original Sin album, as girl group Pandora's Box (although she's not the lead vocalist of the original version of It's All Coming Back to Me Now, she islead on a number of the other songs from the album that Steinman later re-used on other projects once it flopped--it's maybe my fave over the top Steinman album).

I'd never heard of 3 Girls 3--apparently it aired three episodes, so you have a good memory--some cute clips on youtube (Debbie Allen and Mimi Kennedy!)

OK you won me over--Jack's breast line isn't minor. At any rate to suggest there's not meant to be ANY sexual element to it is simply bizarre IMHO--Sondheim even sits that lyric where he does in the music to draw emphasis to it, no matter how it's performed (and it's nearly always performed in a way to draw attention to the line).

"I really love that the show inspires discussions like this one about the subtext and allegorical layers in the show."

It's the original fairy tales, the real ones, the ones as they are SUPPOSED to be, that have the layers. And the magic. The layers and magic that make them timeless and beloved.

The only "layers" provided by these tiresome, mean-spirited distortions are puerile, smug, pretentious pap. And let's not forget ugly. (Would that we could!) Those are layers no show needs. And no audience, either.

AfterEight--As much as I love a wafer-thin chocolate/mint treat, I couldn't disagree with you more than I do, and your use of the phrase "SUPPOSED to be"--with the all-caps emphasis thoughtfully provided by you--is the surest sign that your argument is not strong.

No story is "supposed" to be interpreted in only one way--unless you happen to work for the Vatican Doctrinal tribunal--especially a body of stories as ancient and rooted in the regional, oral tradition as Fairy Tales.

You may well--and understandably--find the sexual, incestuous and political interpretations of 'Into the Woods' discussed in this thread distasteful. You may not see the basis for people's interpretations. I continue to be somewhat mystified by Gaveston's passionate certainty about the line of incest running through the relationship between the Witch and Rapunzel. YOU may find the ideas discussed tiresome and ugly. So much of life is both tiresome and ugly. In fact, some of the ugliest behavior you could ever want to read about is found in the "real" Fairy Tales--Matricide, Patricide, Fratricide, infanticide, infidelity, physical and mental abuse. You may have enjoyed the Disney film "Snow White and the Three Dwarves ("Dwarfs!") but you can't wish away the "ugliness" of the source material's genre. And you cannot--or should not--tell people "how" to interpret a story.

It seems to me that if a show is going to be vital, stimulating and thought-provoking, it--and it's audience--desperately need these layers.

---

Updated On: 8/8/12 at 09:28 AM

AE--You are correct; I misunderstood your previous comment.

I can't defend 'Into the Woods' against charges of being both 'juvenile' and 'pretentious' because I take you at your word that that is how the show strikes you. I don't experience it in those terms, but I might grow to find it so if I were better-versed than I am in Perrault, Hoffmann, et.al.

For me, the show has proven to be a reference point that I return to--literally--constantly. In particular, the way that Cinderella's character discovers and explores the ironic emptiness of "getting" her wish. I understand that ALL of the characters make that discovery, but--for me--her lines/lyrics resonate especially powerfully (see my signature line, below).

'Into the Woods' continues to give me real, visceral pleasure. I'm sorry it doesn't do the same for you. Please read that line without a trace of sarcasm of irony. I really do wish that everyone got as much from this show as I do--it pains me when I play the OCR or the DVD for someone and they are not moved and transfixed as I am.

---

I actually was lucky enough to see Ellen Foley's interpretation of the Witch during the end of the run on Broadway. Though I wouldn't say it was a 'dykey' interpretation, it certainly did have a hard edge. Rock 'n Roll, certainly. And I thought it worked very well. My guess is any inherent qualities an actress has will come through the role of the Witch (which is not particularly well defined...that's a feature, not a bug. It allows the actress to bring the full force of her personality to bear, which is why it's considered the 'star' part). Peters has great warmth, and so the relationship with Rapunzel appeared more maternal and loving. Rashad had a regal, imperious tone which made her seem like a neglectful mother. Foley was both younger and harder-edged, so there seemed to be a sexual aspect in the relationship that wasn't fully explored by the other two women.

I'm very interested to see what Murphy brings, as I find her an interesting combination of Peters' warmth and Rashad's imperiousness. I also would have been fascinated by Zeta Jones or even Menzel's Witch.

SonofRobbieJ- i love your analysis of the Witch. I agree with everything you're saying. I found Donna Murphy's Witch to be the most selfish of any witch I have seen/heard. That's not to say her interactions with the other characters weren't as interesting, but her motives were more clear to me than previous interpretations. I also found her transformation to have waaaaay more contrast than normal. While 'ugly' her mobility is very limited and she is forced to use her 'crutches' to hobble around very slowly. Once 'beautiful' she became very agile and physical which I found kind of fascinating. I knew she'd be phenomonal vocally but I wasn't expecting her to be so impressive with her movement.

Well...I'm seeing her next Wednesday night, barring rain. I'm very excited to see it!