Into the Woods — Page 2

I saw both live and there's no doubt that the original was better. Except for the cow.

In the second act of the revival, I was routing for the giantess. Really hoped that she would step on them all.

I'd have to say revival. As wonderful as the original is, the revival holds a special place in my heart. I thought Vanessa Williams was sublime as the Witch, her smooth vocals created a different tone for the Witch's songs, "Last Midnight" being a huge standout. The set was absolutely gorgeous and the lighting was amazing. I loved Kerry O'Malley as the Baker's Wife, who played it much sweeter than Joanne Gleason (although, Gleason was incredible). The entire cast, with the exception of Adam Wylie and his buzzsaw vibrato, was top notch. I know Marylouise Burke isn't much of a singer and had a lot of trouble with the music, but I liked her characterization. And I thought Molly Ephraim was cute, although she did miss some of the funny lines that Danielle Ferland nails. "Into the Woods" was the first show I fell in love with and it remains my all-time favorite.

Oh, and, John McMartin was fabulous.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 10:24 AM

The original, with the exception of Chad Kimball, the only truly innovative new idea that Lapine brought to the revival. The Tony Award was a joke that they won for revival that year. They obviously felt guilty about giving the award to Phantom!

---

agreeing to disagree about Red and Jack's mom, Quibbler, but you are so right about John McMartin...he was amazing and really deserved his nomination for a role that was annoying in the original. I am sorry I forgot about that.

---

By the way, I loved the way that the Baker's Wife's death was staged. I think it had much more of an effect than the original staging. The way the Broadhurst shook when the giant approached was thrilling.

And perhaps it's a matter of which one I saw live. I wasn't around for the original, so I have only seen the DVD. Perhaps it's harder to connect to something that isn't live? I don't know how it felt to be there in the Martin Beck theatre when the giant struck, so it's a little harder for me to say which one was ultimately more effective. But, I loved the shadow.

Updated On: 8/25/05 at 10:42 AM

While the original is my favorite, there are aspects of the revival that I prefer, Laura Benanti’s Cinderella and Chris Sieber’s Prince being the main ones.

I do wish that the original ending of "On the Steps of the Palace" were kept since I really prefer Ms. Benanti's version up until the end.

The original production was better. In the second, they seem to be act just the text rather than the subtext.

---

Omg, when i saw the revival it was Vanessa Williams' last week and who was playing Stepmother....Joy Franz....i was so excited at the stage door, i was liek i love you....she was liek you don't knwo who i am i was like....YOU ARE JOY FRANZ THE ORIGINAL STEPMOTHER!....she was like whoa you are good!

Bwaybaby18- The three pigs and second wolf were talked about for the original production, but were never used. There were a number of other fairy tale inclusions that ended up being cut, for the better in my opinion.(like the Baker's Wife being poisoned by Snow White's apple)

Original for me was way better, Bernadette Peters was funny as the witch.

But she brought this maturity to the role that most 16 year olds couldn't.

---

A lot of people hated the Revival... it's almost hip to not like it... I thought it glowed with magic... Vanessa Williams doesn't have the acting chops really... but it made her role stand out less... which was effective because the witch is NOT the main character of the musical... having Bernadette Peters play the role off sets the balance of what should be a completely ensemble piece... Joanna Gleason's acting was SO good and SO likeable she JUMPED out of the ensemble... I think it that hurts the flow of the show... Also, the revival seemed to performed without ironic quotation marks like the original was... I think the original goes so far out of it's way to point up the pyschological subtext... you lose the elements of character and story... those elements lead the revival (obviously in my opinion) and the subtext was well represented as well... The whole production really seemed magical to me and I think that's how a musical about fairy tales should come across. A side note, when I saw the revival Jack was played by Chad Kimball and Little Red was played by Kate Reinders... both gave magnificent performances that I can't imagine were topped by the actual performers... As for the Tony Award being a joke... Did you see Oklahoma? Not the Hugh Jackman video but the production that opened on Broadway? It was not quite what it should have been (the sets were quite marvelous). Also, how could the Tonys be embarassed about giving the Tony to Phantom? Phantom of the Opera is THE musical phenomenon of that decade... it's still running and most likely will run for a long time... both Into the Woods productions lost money... I'm not saying Tonys are given according to box office returns.. but Phantom should NOT be sniffed at.

kc

kc

---

"Also, how could the Tonys be embarassed about giving the Tony to Phantom? Phantom of the Opera is THE musical phenomenon of that decade... it's still running and most likely will run for a long time... both Into the Woods productions lost money... I'm not saying Tonys are given according to box office returns.. but Phantom should NOT be sniffed at."

Foolish statement. The Tonys like any awards show doesn't always give the award to the most deserving performance. Number of wins, number of nominations, age, experience, etc. They all play a role! You just basically said the Tony's were made credible by box office returns. So saying "I'm not saying Tonys are given according to box office returns.. " is foolish.

---