Into the Woods Broadway Revival, 2002

I liked it, I thought it was mostly nicely cast, and a pretty production. But I do recall being in the minority. Especially as it was the first Broadway revival, pretty much everyone I knew was pulling the "Well Vanessa isn't Bernadette" and "these two aren't Joanna and Chip." cards instead of trying to see it for what it was. I also do remember criticisms for the updates.

I feel like one of the things this production did was inspire all the community and regional productions since. You don't know how many of those productions I've seen where the set has been the big rolling storybooks, the birds on the fishing line thing, the lullaby "Last Midnight", etc.

Also, this was the first Broadway bootleg I ever saw. It was on "Google Video" around 2005-2007 along with a boot of Good Vibrations. I randomly stumbled upon it, and was flabergasted it existed.

Jordan Catalano said: "The changes really pissed me off. It was my first real exposure to the fact that Sondheim liked to tinker with his shows, even when I consider them perfect the way they were and honestly I’ve never really enjoyed any changes he’s made to his older shows besides the new ending of “Assassins”."

Jordan, does that mean you don't like "Country House" from Follies?! lol

To me it felt like there wasn't a vision for it beyond, let's do it basically the same thing again and make unnecessary tweaks.

It's very much a Broadway show from the early 2000s where it's trying to be bigger and more accessible with large audiences and it's really clearly before John Doyle and others stepped in to focus on finding the paired down humanity within Sondheim's work. There's just something kinda garish and bloated about this production. Sondheim's brilliance doesn't get to stand out as much.

My biggest issue with Vanessa Williams is you could tell she felt uncomfortable being silly. The witch leans very nearly into camp for a lot of Act One and has a grounded humanity in Act Two. And Kerry O'Malley never owns the Baker's Wife like she should. She really gets kinda lost in the mix where that role is usually the one that stands out the best.

It's a broken record thing to say but Laura Benanti walks away with that revival. And I think it was many people's first introduction to her and how brilliant and nuanced of a performer she is. And I think maybe the only thing I learned from that revival is don't under estimate the role of Cinderella. There's lots to mine as Laura did.

I will say I'm sure Act Two was really chilling to watch in ways, coming off of 9/11 having just happened. And I'm sure a lot of the intention from that moment fed into how they approached this revival.

Also, I've always thought Jack and Little Red are concepts of children so every time they are played by actual children and not young adults/pubescent teens the "game" of Into the Woods isn't as effective.

The subtext of I Know Things Now and Giants in the Sky with children playing those roles completely vanishes.

But I suppose it's to buoy the parental element on No One is Alone?

While this doesn't compare to the original, it was still waaaaay better than the most recent Roundabout revival which was terrible and truly a fiasco. The best production I have seen since the original was the Hollywood Bowl one."

I loved the Hollywood Bowl one. It was very straightforwardly honoring the original Bernadette production. It felt like a loving homage to what the nerds who have seen the PBS production over and over want out of the show.

I thought the Fiasco Roundabout revival was fascinating. I didn't think EVERYTHING worked but when it did work I found it really special and I thought it brought all of what makes Into the Woods profound forward. It needed stronger performers but conceptually with a few tweaks it could've been a work of art.

Updated On: 2/3/22 at 03:31 PM

Jordan Catalano said: "Given my feelings for this musical, friends were fascinated that I enjoyed the Roundabout production. While not perfect, it was so far removed from even trying to be what I know and love so much that I was kind of able to see it through a different lens. There was nothing there at all to make me think “Why are they doing it THIS way?” because once the entire thing is stripped down and you’re basically starting from scratch, I could just sit back know I’d have nothing to compare it to.


if that makes sense."

That's exactly how I felt. They knew the vision very clearly of what this was, and so I was game to go for that ride. There was a confidence to it.

I definitely think there's a greater beautiful revival of this show to be had, but I'm glad it existed.

And I don’t disagree with you at all. It was still the first time I had ever really been able to see the show live and not be able to compare to some thing far superior. It was almost like a weird little concert.

rattleNwoolypenguin said: "Also, I've always thought Jack and Little Red are concepts of children so every time they are played by actual children and not young adults/pubescent teens the "game" of Into the Woods isn't as effective.

The subtext of I Know Things Now and Giants in the Sky with children playing those roles completely vanishes.

But I suppose it's to buoy the parental element on No One is Alone?"

Are you comparing the actors cast as Jack and Little Red in the revival to the original cast? Because, interestingly enough, Danielle Ferland (born in 1971) and Ben Wright (born in 1969) were 16 and 18 respectively when the original production opened in 1987, and Molly Ephraim (born in 1986) and Adam Wylie (born in 1984) were also 16 and 18 when the 2002 revival opened.

Granted, most will likely remember Danielle and Ben as slightly older, since the filming that we are all familiar with didn't take place until 1989, but it does seem Lapine wanted to consistently cast the two roles on the younger side.