Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 182

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#4526

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 5:25pm

Interestingly that many object to the underplaying of several moments which I found all the funnier and truer for being underplayed.

Updated On: 12/29/14 at 05:25 PM

#4527

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 5:37pm

The cut song "She'll Be Back" will be on the dvd/BD!

It's also included in the movie vocal selections.

....but the world goes 'round

#4528

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 5:51pm

Interesting essay from KPCC, LA's NPR station. The author argues that, contrary to those whining about small changes from stage to screen (see: Rapunzel's fate), Marshall was in fact not ruthless enough in making changes that would benefit the film. I think he makes a very strong argument. The most relevant parts excerpted below; the full piece at the link.

Rob Marshall's 'Into the Woods' gets lost in Sondheim's Irony
by R.H. Greene
KPCC, Southern California Public Radio

It's just possible that the real problem is that Sondheim's self-reflexive and deconstructive impulse (his musicals are almost always and to varying degrees commentaries on the Musical itself) makes his projects unfit for screen adaptation. In movies, we miss the artifice of the proscenium, the sweat on the actor's brow. But if any of Sondheim's late-period projects held out the hope of a successful movie version it was surely "Into the Woods," a droll recombination of the fairytale form's literary DNA into something like Sondheim's masterpiece "Company," set in a realm of magic beanstalks and slippers made of glass.

The characters are straight out of the Disney pantheon (or "Shrek"): Cinderella meets Rapunzel meets Red Riding Hood meets Jack and his Beanstalk, with a generic Wicked Witch, a couple of not so charming Prince Charmings, plus a peasant couple thrown in. But the issues at stake — marital fidelity, raising children, the fear of aging and death — are complicated, and filled with gray tones which Sondheim and librettist James Lapine masterfully etched across the fairytale's Manichean black and white.

What seemed audacious when Sondheim and Lapine conceived it in 1987 ought to fit comfortably into the era of "Sleepy Hollow" and "Maleficent," but in Marshall's hands, it does not. The good news is that though populated by what old school TV shows used to call a Galaxy of Today's Brightest Stars (Anna Kendrick as an appealingly unglamorous Cinderella; Chris Pine as the nymphomaniac Prince who stalks her; Meryl Streep quite moving in the Wicked Witch role made famous on Broadway by Bernadette Peters) this is mostly a very well-sung movie. There have been controversial excisions and revisions (enabled by Lapine, who is Marshall's screenwriter), but as an introduction to one of Sondheim's more beloved scores, "Into the Woods" makes for a solid musical primer.

But though Marshall has taken a lot of flack for daring to cut out characters (most notably the stage production's Narrator, who served as a kind of Greek Chorus in the original) and for softening plot points (Rapunzel died onstage), the big problem is that Marshall isn't nearly ruthless enough in rethinking "Into the Woods" as an honest-to-God movie. There are many moments (Johnny Depp ending a scene with a stagy howl at the Moon that virtually screams "and... fade out!;" the unseen death of a major character) where Marshall embraces the limitations of stagecraft when something bigger and more cinematic is needed, as if afraid to mar the pedigree of Broadway with Hollywood's debased visual stamp.

"Giants in the Sky," Jack's coming-of-age number, where he describes finding manhood in the sexual and physical dangers available above the clouds in the Giant's Castle, is a showstopper onstage, where we're willing to accept rhetoric in place of physical immediacy. Onscreen, it's simply frustrating for a character to suddenly appear and tell us he's just had the adventure of a lifetime, and that it's too bad we missed it.

The Woods themselves — both character and symbol onstage, a kind of living maze representing moral confusion — are lush here and geographically nondescript, like a particularly plush unit set, done up in a generic Lloyd Webber-meets-Disney house style.

Perhaps most unfortunately of all, Marshall seems constitutionally incapable of conveying the pervasive satiric impulse at the heart of the Sondheim/Lapine original, which could have been called "What Happens After Happily Ever After." Without ironic distancing, the film's second half, where the characters betray each other in decidedly contemporary sexual and self-interested terms, plays as non-sequitur.

It's possible to imagine a more idiosyncratic movie director who both understands and embraces the arsenal of cinematic effects available through editing, camera movement and design transforming "Into the Woods" into a rousing cinematic triumph — the young Terry Gilliam comes to mind. But Hollywood doesn't really embrace its daring cranks and visionaries very often, as Gilliam's difficult career demonstrates. Whenever possible, today's studios like to import genius at a safe remove, and then hand it off to a reliable journeyman who won't make waves or piss off the suits. The limitations of that approach are visible in every scene of "Into the Woods," and perhaps they explain its failure best of all. It's one thing not to be up to the task of adapting a work of odd brilliance. It's something else again to not even take it on.

FULL PIECE HERE

Updated On: 12/29/14 at 05:51 PM

#4529

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:25pm

Just my two cents:

Having just seen this, I understand what people mean when they say they made the best film version of this musical that could have been made. As I was watching it in the theater, I couldn't understand why I was so amazed by the stage version but underwhelmed by the film version. The film is wonderful, but I felt like something just got lost in translation.

A few minor quibbles:

One of the things I noticed is that much of the humor seems to disappear. Many of the funnier lines are glossed over or thrown away. For example, at the beginning during The Witch's Rap, the line (and I'm paraphrasing here, so please forgive me) "Oh, but that's another story, nevermind" gets so much more attention and reaction on stage. But in the film it seems like it got lost. Another example is LRR's "Oh, how uneasy I feel" line. It was delivered so perfectly by Lila, but it seemed to get lost, too. Then there were humorous lines that were dropped by the screenplay. LRR's line to Jack at the end, "Well, I can be your mother," was dropped, and perhaps a few others. There was humor in the film, it just didn't seem as humorous as the stage version.

Another thing that bothered me was the computer graphics on Meryl Streep after the Witch's transformation. It made her character look completely computer generated and was very distracting.

Also, the Witch's decision to give up and leave (die?) at the end seemed to come out of nowhere. She had spent the entire film trying to achieve her goal, and then once she gets it she gives it up so quickly. I understand her daughter leaves her and she's supposed to de devastated, but I feel like we don't get to feel her devastation. One moment she's arguing with the others, then the next moment she decides she's had enough.

One more quibble: I felt like LRR was the one character whose motivations were not in line with the others. Every other character had a wish they were trying to fulfill, but LRR seemed to just be the victim of circumstances. She didn't really have a major goal she wanted to accomplish. Her "I wish" seemed emptier than the others. Her character arc is the same in the stage version, so I guess my beef is with the source material rather than the movie. But the movie made me notice more problems with the book than the stage version did.

Okay, ONE more thing: I think the movie suffered from leaving out "No More." The action had slowed down by that point in the story, and there was plenty of time for reflection and introspection. I think it would have solidified the Baker's resolve to return to the group and face his responsibilities and expressed his frustration and disappointment. They totally could have left that song in there.

I know it sounds like I have a lot of complaints, but I really did love this film. So well done!

#4530

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:39pm

I was so excited for this movie and as I was watching it I was completely entranced and I loved it. Once the movie was over I started noticing some of the issues that the movie had and how what I thought was perfection had some flaws. My biggest issue with this movie is the baker's wife's death. It just didn't really work for me. Overall I thought the movie was a very good adaption of my favorite musical ever.

#4531

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:42pm

Universal overestimated Unbroken's weekend gross by more than a million dollars. ITWs outgrossed it and was #2 for the weekend. It ended up with a $12,700 per screen average, which is fantastic.

Updated On: 12/29/14 at 06:42 PM

#4532

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:45pm

That's awesome! Websites have update their lists.

#4533

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:52pm

I haven't seen the new numbers yet but YAY. I am definitely seeing it again before the end of the year...Congrats to all involved..

#4534

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 6:54pm

I think the humor is hodden because people need to hear the audience laugh as a prompt. I laugh when it's funny despite the audience's lack of awareness of what is.

#4535

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 7:06pm

Per Box Office Mojo, here are the latest INTO THE WOODS numbers (today at 12:00pm.)

Total Lifetime Grosses [12/25-12/28]
Domestic: $46,141,663
Foreign: $2,700,000
Worldwide: $48,841,663

It was ranked as the #3 best opening weekend for a live-action movie musical (1974-present), trailing behind ENCHANTED by only a few million and HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL 3 by nearly ten million. That being said, those two movies opened in 1,000+ more theaters than INTO THE WOODS, which gives INTO THE WOODS the higher Gross % Potential.

Disney should be absolutely thrilled by this response, although the staying power of these numbers as the holidays fade away will be most telling. This could signal a continued resurgence for movie musicals, though.....

Source: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=intothewoods.htm

Updated On: 12/29/14 at 07:06 PM

#4536

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 7:28pm

Based on Playbill Vault, the two Broadway productions (before inflation) made a combined total of: 44.583029 million US$

#4537

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 8:03pm

The number are officially in and it is now number 2.

#4538

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 8:04pm

jacob - adjusted for inflation, that number would be much quite higher. The Vault probably should have done that, since it's a moot point when unadjusted... It's like comparing apples to oranges.

#4539

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 8:30pm

I really hope it continues raking in money. Hopefully word of mouth is good and hopefully fans see it more than once. I think this film is great for repeated viewing. My mother, who never watches a movie more than once, said she would like to go again. I thought that was cool.

#4540

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 9:52pm

I think that this film has what every holiday film wants, staying power. It's still going to be in the top 5-10 in a matter of weeks before it finally fizzles out.

#4541

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 9:59pm

^ "Frozen" :P lol.

#4542

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 10:29pm

The Soundtrack is now #7 on iTunes, surpassing Frozen.

#4543

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/29/14 at 11:44pm

My favorite part about when I saw it, was basically every. single. grown adult in that room, were audibly groaning during the entire toe and heel cutting off scene, and the dad two seats down from me was full on squirming in his seat, meanwhile i was cackling. I was just like, they didn't even SHOW anything, they didn't even show blood, aside from the small dab of it on the guy's glove when he showed the prince. It was priceless how unnerved they all were. They would never survive the true versions of these tales.

#4544

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 12:42am

^ Same thing happened in my theater. I heard an adult man yell, "Oh God!" during that scene, haha. I guess it is kind of shocking that it happens, if you're not familiar with the story.

#4545

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 1:38am

@HorseTears

For a review that wanted brevity, that sure the hell wasn't.

#4546

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 1:48am

I thought it was pretty good. I would have changed some things. I loved Meryl and Emily. Didn't care for Corden until It takes two and the end of the film. I didn't think Anna did much acting wise. I did like On the steps though.

#4547

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 2:30am

Really, truly had a great time tonight seeing the film! There were just times it felt "disney-fied" that took away from it - like the deaths, and humor.

Also, "Act 2" REALLY bothered me. I think they really f*cked up here in order to make it PG-13 or family friendly. Gone was the message and punch of the original material, and in it's place was a super random extra 30 minutes of a movie that had seemed to have wrapped up already.

Still a huge fan of the film, but I wish they would have taken more risks instead of playing it safe.

#4548

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 7:10am

Yes the second act didn't have the gravitas or the impact that makes Into The Woods so spectacular and profound. I think it has more to do with Disney putting time constraints on the film. If they had let them expand it to 2 hours and 20 or 30 minutes, then I think Act 2 wouldn't have felt so hijacked and unimportant.

My main problem with Act 2 is the execution of the deaths. Seemed like the director was afraid to do them. I'm especially taking about the Steward killing Jack's Mom. It's a wonderful scene in the play.

I think it was the best film it could have been under the Disney name and not being allowed to go over 2 hours, but the second half deserved better. The first half was great.

#4549

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 8:02am

Love this fan art ... if MGM had made a "golden era" version of INTO THE WOODS ...

Into the Woods Official Movie Thread

"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."

blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22

#4550

Official Into the Woods Movie Discussion Thread

Posted: 12/30/14 at 8:26am

I don’t find that KPCC piece persuasive at all, mostly because I disagree with his conclusions – “Giants in the Sky” didn’t frustrate me, I didn’t think Marshall’s woods look like Webber-meets-Disney (whatever on earth the hell that means), and the third act didn’t feel like a non-sequitur – but this argument particularly sticks in my craw.

…the big problem is that Marshall isn't nearly ruthless enough in rethinking "Into the Woods" as an honest-to-God movie. There are many moments (Johnny Depp ending a scene with a stagy howl at the Moon that virtually screams "and... fade out!;" the unseen death of a major character) where Marshall embraces the limitations of stagecraft when something bigger and more cinematic is needed, as if afraid to mar the pedigree of Broadway with Hollywood's debased visual stamp.

For Mr. R.H. Greene, does making an “honest-to-God movie” mean killing off all of the piece’s theatrical elements? The howl at the end of “Hello, Little Girl” is part of the song’s button. Sorry. Musical-theater songs have buttons. Even Sondheim, whose musicals, yes, often include subtle meta commentaries (though to imply they ever overwhelm is misguided), employs the old-fashioned musical button. So, if the howl is too theatrical and screams “and… fade out!” – though maybe Mr. Greene should see more theater, as this moment more accurately screams “and… blackout!” – what does he think of musical buttons? Don’t those always scream exactly the same thing? “Lights down! End of scene!” They’re stagey. Do we cut those for the movies? Do we cut orchestral flourishes? Do we excise all trappings of theatricality? Is the suddenness of characters bursting into song “too theatrical”? If these are his complaints in Sondheimland, Jesus Christ, what does he think of the films “My Fair Lady,” “Guys and Dolls,” and “Oliver!”?

Adaptation from stage to screen is a tricky business, but Mr. Greene wants to shear all of the theater out of musical movies, and that’s ludicrous.

CHURCH DOOR TOUCAN GAY MARKETING PUPPIES MUSICAL THEATER STAPLES PERIOD OIL BITCHY SNARK HOLES

Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached
Please Start a New Thread!

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $60

Tickets From $71