Into The Woods: the Witch and Rapunzel- Page 5

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 7:54pm

Sorry, but there's a world of difference between:

"I am old. I embarrass you because you and your hipster friends think I'm old-fashioned."

And:

"I am old and ugly. I embarrass you. What would you have me be? Handsome as a prince?"

No woman in my family ever said the latter to any of her children. Yes, we've all known mothers who COMPETE with their daughters by trying to stay too youthful in appearance, but that effort is directed at others in a way we never see the Witch compete directly with Rapunzel.

What mother asks her daughter if she would rather her mother looked like her boyfriend?! Even as a guilt trip, that's weird.

Now what is the witch literally doing in the tower with Rapunzel? I don't know and I don't care. I don't assume it is literally sex any more than I assume the wolf literally has sex with Little Red. But the metaphor is pretty damn obvious unless one just refuses to see it.

For that matter, the Giantess isn't Jack's mother, but what are we talking about with a giant woman who enfolds young Jack in her "giant breast"? The point is that the line between parental love and sexual attraction is blurred throughout the first act.

Oh, and while I'm at it, there's no such thing as Santa Claus.

(Thanks to ChairinMain for the summary of the SD production. It's been 25 years and I'm sure I conflate it with the umpteen productions I've seen. I've long wondered why I don't remember more of Ellen Foley. I love her!)

Updated On: 8/7/12 at 07:54 PM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:11pm

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

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:21pm

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.

Here's Ellen Foley (who I love toothanks to her Steinman work, I wonder if she played the part differently when she was a Broadway replacement?) doing Boom Crunch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9IGLtHQnqc

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:22pm

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

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:41pm

Interesting--thanks for posting the links, Eric.

I can't honestly say I could understand many of her lines or lyrics, but she clearly inhabits a more sexual/lascivious version of the Witch than any I have seen previously. I can imagine that seeing her performance would lead one to different conclusions about the Witch's relationship with the other characters.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:44pm

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.

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 8:49pm

There's a lusty, Petra-ish (from 'Little Night Music) quality to the way she carries herself, even when she's not practically nibbling on Cinderella's ear..

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 9:08pm

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

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 9:14pm

Thanks for the clips, Eric. I've been an Ellen Foley fan since her variety show, "3 Girls 3". I listened to BAT OUT OF HELL for years before I realized it was she on the record. Do you know why she wasn't credited on the vinyl or audiotape versions of the album?

(Please answer quickly before After Eight arrives to accuse me of not doing my own research.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 10:37pm

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.)

[musicaltheatreman2]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 11:21pm

this sound clip is pretty funny. i can see why you think the witch relationship with rapunzel is wierd lol http://****yeahstephensondheim.tumblr.com/post/28442785098/have-you-been-confused-about-the-online-chatter

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 5:00am

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).

[westcoast_wannabe]

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

I love this thread. Discussions like this are why Into the Woods is my favorite musical. I was a kid when the OBC performance was first broadcast on PBS and I loved it then just because it was a musical about fairy tales. As a kid I could love it for what it is on the surface... A musical about fairy tales. As I got older I was able to appriciate the more complex issues of loss, personal responsibility, and parent / child dynamics that the show explores. I really love that the show inspires discussions like this one about the subtext and allegorical layers in the show. Just before Into the Woods was on PBS my parents took me to see my first musical, the national tour of Cats. Seeing Cats was a magical experience I sat on the aisle in the third row orchestra and I got to pet a cat. I loved everything about the show and it fostered a life long love of theater. As I got older the magic of Cats wore off. It was a lavish musical about Cats with some catchy tunes when I was a kid and that remains to be all it is. Into the Woods on the other hand is a show that has become more magical with time. I could love it as a kid for what it is on its surface and I love it even more as an adult for all of its layers and nuances. I always say

Cats is a musical I grew out of, Into the Woods is a musical I grew up with.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 7:25am

"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.

[Brian07663NJ]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:25am

yes there are a multitude of ways to interpret relationships: Witch/Rapunzel, Wolf/Little Red Ridinghood, Jack/Female Giant... and how any could possibly be thought of as sexual.

Just this morning I was thinking and almost shocked that I let out an audible sound of pleasure last night while eating a steak. How my eyes rolled. How I guarded it all to myself and didn't want anyone to even touch it. Then I realized - does this mean I am into bestiality? NO...still think those relationships are all being overanalyzed. Yes Into the Woods has a LOT of awakenings but I don't think it is a lesbian relationship between the witch/Rapunzel.

Will someone please call Stephen and/or James and straighten this out?

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:28am

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

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 10:05am

Addison,

You don't understand. The layers are already in the original tales --the way they were and are supposed to be (no need to capitalize twice) -- and far richer than anything Into the Woods has to offer with its simultaneous juvenile and pretentious take on them. Perrault is beautiful and profound. Into the Woods is trying and sophomoric.

The ugliness derives from splattering mud on characters that are meant to be as they were meant to be.


P.S. There were seven dwarfs. According to Webster, both plurals are correct.

Updated On: 8/8/12 at 10:05 AM

[Addison D.]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 10:27am

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.

[After Eight]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 11:25am

"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."

Addison,

I wholly understand these feelings, and I applaud them. We all would love to have our family, friends, and other theatre-lovers love the plays we love, and experience the same joy that we do. That's the good part of human nature. And it hurts when you recommend something you love to another who then doesn't like it. It's deflating. I'm sure, in part, it's a blow to our ego. (and there are some very fragile egos on BWW.) But more so, I think, it's due to the thought of letting someone else down, and the idea of their missing out on something wonderful.


So it pains me to offer dissenting opinions on shows that other people love. I don't enjoy spoiling other people's fun, though I've been accused of just that. But as painful as it is for me, if a theatre discussion group is to have any validity, there has to be honest expressions of opinions.

I waited until there were over a thousand posts on Into the Woods before I ventured my comments, precisely so as not to rain on other people's parade.

But when I read about the multiple "layers" in Into the Woods, I felt the need to respond.

You had a visceral reaction to Into the Woods. Mine was no less visceral. Just of another sort.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 11:59am

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.

[westcoast_wannabe]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 12:35pm

After Eight I realize that many of the layers in Into the Woods are intrinsic the source material and fairy tales in general. But one of my favorite discussions about Into the Woods was what character represented God. Some thought that it was the Witch, others thought the giantess, I argued the Narrater (though I argued that point more for arguments sake than as my personal belief). All the arguments were valid and it made for great conversation. I've also appreciated (though I don't subscribe to) the idea that the giantess represents the AIDS crisis of the eighties. All great fairy tales should have multiple layers and there are lines in Into the Woods that propel discussions intrinsic to the source material as well as create new aligories specific to Into the Woods.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 1:18pm

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.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 1:18pm

double post
Updated On: 8/8/12 at 01:18 PM

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 2:00pm

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

[bwaydreamer]

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

I dont' know if this has been said or not yet but Bluewizard - re your question about how the Witch gets her power back at the end of Last Midnight. She loses the beans again when she throws them around during the song "here you want a bean... beans are made for making you rich". Then the curse comes back that her mother placed long ago, "alright mother when, lost the beans again. Give me claws and a hunch just away from this bunch...". She gets her powers back and BOOM. Hope that helps