Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 161

The Vanity Fair review reads more like disappointment that it wasn't the stage version.
It's not reviewing the film based on its own merits

Exactly.

@ray, you are so right about that. I'll wait for The New York Times to come around.

Fashion magazine? Have you ever read Vanity Fair?

^^^ You are right, my bad. Still, it's not the kind of publication that I personally hold in high regard in terms of film reviews.

---

Kind of on-topic because of box office competition... Sony officially canceled the Christmas day release for "The Interview"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/sony-cancels-release-interview-758924?facebook_20141217

Somewhere, I read that people were speculating it's a publicity stunt, but come on...

Updated On: 12/17/14 at 05:16 PM

Fear. The classic case of terrorist fear...

*sigh*

Updated On: 12/17/14 at 05:32 PM

@jimmycurry01, I'm talking about Manohla Dargis, she's a better critic than A.O Scott in my frank opinion.

The EW reviewer just sounds like yet another person who would rather not see any of the dark, unpleasant stuff happen in the story. Some of these people would probably write almost the same articles if reviewing the stage show.

Well, not everyone is a fan of that deconstruction, and that is a very appropriate thing to write about in a review. The darkness will not be everyone's cup of tea.

This is in response to the review saying that jack and LRRH shouldn't be played by children.

It is more realistic to have children who are entering their teenage years singing about their sexual revelations.
Children are faaaaaar more sexual then we think and its done in a very subtle way in Into the Woods.

Also... wasn't Danielle Ferland around 15 when she played the role? And Idk how old Ben Wright was, but I always assumed that he was playing a child.

idk... Lilla Crawford is the love of my life and I'm just happy to see her in a film of this magnitude. I don't think that she's miscast at all. She's actually kind of perfect.

correction... she IS perfect.

Here's the thread just for reviews that I made...

https://forum.broadwayworld.com/readmessage.php?thread=1078646&dt=3


Anyway, discussion about the other stuff.

Some people in here said some fans don’t understand why Rapunzel’s fate was changed.

HEY, I understand why Rapunzel’s fate was changed for the movie. It was Disney not wanting her to die, as revealed by Sondheim and Lapine themselves in that one article. I understand why they changed it to her running away from the Witch, because it makes sense that Rapunzel would hate the Witch and her running away is a replacement for her death. I understand it. But that doesn’t mean it was good to do. It was the original author’s work being censored. Being compromised. Compromised is even the word Lapine used in an interview with a question about it. It changes the meaning of the "Witch’s Lament", and the whole rest of what she does. Not in action, but in emotion and meaning. And that is not keeping to what the original play meant. How is “No matter what you say, children won’t listen” a bad thing now that “not listening” is what makes Rapunzel have a happy ending with her prince? Why does the Witch care so much about getting Jack to the Giant if Rapunzel’s still alive? Why does the Witch leave the world if Rapunzel is still alive?

Icecreambenjamin and Musical Master: The stepsister with the raspy voice is Tammy Blanchard. She is Florinda, the one who says, “Thank you” to Cinderella when she says “You look beautiful” and who says “No she didn’t!” to Lucy Punch as Lucinda when she says “She meant me.”

And lastly, so in "Moments in the Woods" when the Baker's Wife sings, “a baker for bread”, she means a baker for living? A baker for daily, normal, stable life?

How is “No matter what you say, children won’t listen” a bad thing now that “not listening” is what makes Rapunzel have a happy ending with her prince?

Because the witch is very selfish and possessive, and thinks that the ONLY way Rapunzel can be 'happy' (but really she's talking about her own happiness) is if she stays a child, and dependent on her forever. She doesn't WANT Rapunzel to go off with the prince (she stops them in the stage show too, so this isn't a change.) IMO what the witch is refering to in the movie is Rapunzel not listening to her when she says she loves her and wants her to stay in the tower. The witch can't understand why Rapunzel doesn't just do what she wants - she can't fathom that Rapunzel has a will of her own, and wanting to leave and live a life of her own is healthy.

If you really want to get analytical about it, this might stem from the fact she loved her own mother, and her mother put a curse on her, basically 'rejecting' her. The witch's attitude is, 'I'm so much better than my own mother, I love you, why can't you just stay here? I would have done that if given the choice.' In fact in the stage version the witch has the lines, "Why could you not stay safe behind walls, as I could not?" She thinks she's giving Rapunzel a choice she didn't have, and Rapunzel should stay out of gratitude.


Why does the Witch care so much about getting Jack to the Giant if Rapunzel’s still alive?

Because Rapunzel rejected her/abandoned her. The witch is just trying to, in her eyes, be practical and stop all the damage. Again, this isn't a change from the show either; you may ask why she does it in the stage show, since the giant killed Rapunzel and logically she shouldn't really want the giant to get what it wants.

Why does the Witch leave the world if Rapunzel is still alive?

Because Rapunzel has said she hates the witch and never wants to see her again. She's made herself 'dead' to the witch, and that's way, way worse than her actually being dead because it was a conscious choice and not the result of an accident. The witch leaves the world because she, basically, can't handle losing control of her 'daughter'. She's fed up. (again, not a big change from the show.)

Updated On: 12/18/14 at 07:38 AM