Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 186

Just because I'm such a Wizard of Oz geek, I noticed a very subtle nod in the staging when Meryl as the Witch first makes her explosive appearance blasting through the door ...

She stood in the middle of the floor for a nice long moment with her costume flapping in a whipping wind as she glanced around with jerky movements and a crooked, hunched over stance ... and it reminded me very much of Margaret Hamilton's (and her able stunt double Betty Danko's) first appearance as the Wicked Witch of the West. Same high wind, flapping her costume around, same agitated stance, looking around with jerky motions.

Whether Rob Marshall intended that or not ... it immediately called to mind a "witch of a different color" from MGM's Oz.

And I absolutely loved it.

---

Gleason had a kind of ironic bemusement to the way she delivered many of her lines. Blunt's performance is much more earnest. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but that's the main difference in their performances to me.

Wow. You nailed it with that description. I truly enjoy both interpretations.

Updated On: 12/31/14 at 07:57 PM

@canmark

I disagree with how Into the Woods looked. It looked fine. That's what makes the musical so awesome, the set doesn't have to be spectacular because the story does all the work.

best12, Oh I love you. I'm a fellow Oz nerd and thought the exact same thing. Nice to know someone else was thinking it!

---

"Why did the Witch cut Rapunzel's hair in the movie, anyway? In the stage show she used the hair to trick the Prince, as he climbed up the hair thinking it was Rapunzel, but in the movie it wasn't staged that way. So, it seems she didn'r really have to cut off the braid. She could have banished Rapunzel to the swamp with her hair intact."

I think it was a punishment overall. Though she could have kept her hair intact, I think because it was the hair that let the prince in, in the first place, is what made the Witch cut it off. Remember she had this hair for sometime and it got her a man to see her....its a cruel and long lasting punishment as well as sending her away.

I have a question. In the film, the Baker's wife has a sort of "fling" with the prince. Does this happen in the musical as well (since I have never seen the show on Broadway)?

---

In the show, at least as originally staged and I believe in most productions, there is a strong intimation of sex not just kissing. Usually it's the staging, with the actors suggesting an after sex physicality. Of course, in the show Hello Little Girl is usually much more erotic than it is in the movie, not suggesting that there is actual sex between the Wolf and Red (usually, at Shakespeare in the Park there was major oral sex stage picture joke that many even on bww objected to as, er, in bad taste) but that the Wolf's ravenousness is metaphorically sexual and Red's being shown many beautiful things and her awakening to experience is metaphorically sexual.

I think the movie handled both scenes well in making some adjustments but not completely gutting the underlying sexuality for either.

Especially because Lilla Crawford is actually quite young, it would have been a huge mistake to turn up the sexualiity between Depp and her. Also of course because of wanting to turn down sexuality in general for a huge release Christmas movie about fairy tales. Still, one can't here "I Know Things Now" without drawing sexual parallels. Well, one can, but....

Similarly, the ambiguity is stronger between the Prince and Wife but it plays well from both interpretations. There is room to see their indiscretion as merely making out, but also more than enough room to see it as much more.

In other words:

You decide what's right.
You decide what's "bad".

(ok, that didn't land completely, but I tried)

***

After all this discussion, I still love this movie beyond my wildest expectations. None of the objections posted here or in reviews I've read are for me at all persuasive.

But I'm fine with people not loving or liking it.

I know what it's like to be on the dissenting side of a major musical adaptation success. I found the Les Mis movie atrocious and like many of us who explained why we didn't like it, it was fine for me that so many people disagreed with us. People disagree about art and entertainment - get used to it.

Updated On: 1/1/15 at 09:16 AM

The general movie going audience prefer happy endings. That's why we got the terrible ending to Little Shop of Horrors instead of the original cautionary ending it had.

how exactly did Marshall and, more to the point, Lapine miss - fail to deliver the point of the last half of the libretto? It's right there on the screen. In fact, much of the criticism of the movie is the criticism of the show.

Many fail to recognize what so many of us maintain. Some just don't get Act II of ITW. Others get it but are not happy with it.

But for many of us, the very real messiness and raw complicated truth of the denouement is what HAS ALWAYS most distinguisheD Into the Woods as a musical and elevates it to brilliance.

That complexity and mess, which has always been there, is on the screen.

Updated On: 1/1/15 at 12:47 PM

I'm saying people have been saying the same critical things about the resolution of Into the Woods for the last quarter century.

If they weren't saying that about the movie, then Marshall and Lapine wouldn't have at all authentically adapted the show.

And then you really would have heard major complaints!

Updated On: 1/1/15 at 01:20 PM

The only parts of this film that were remotely satisfying were the performances (some more then others) and the prologue.
I think that the movie looks a little cheap. Lapine changed the dialogue far too much and many of my favorite moments just weren't there. Then there's the whole issue with it being PG. Whoever made that decision should be shot dead on the spot.
I'm sure that Disney thought that a PG rating would make sense. It obviously didn't. Sex is implied a number of times and their attempt to tiptoe around death is ridiculous.
Marshall is not a strong enough director to pull off Sondheim. He must not have completely understood the whole second half because it came off as dull, long, and boring. This may have been due to the dull rendition of "No one is alone" sung by the wooden Anna Kendrick who refused to show any emotion at all.
I was also disappointed with Chris Pine. He was funny, but with all the cuts, he was a paper thin character. His singing is alright, but he doesn't make much of an attempt to do anything but be funny and look hot.
I also thought that Christine Baranski was only ok. I found myself thinking that, that would have been a great role to slip Bernadette Peters into the way they slipped Colm Wilkinson into Les Mis.

Meryl Streep was great and her "Stay with me" was enchanting. I liked that she wasn't really the "star" of the film and more focus was put on the Baker family. "Last Midnight" was perfectly performed, but it looked as if it were still in post production.
Emily Blunt was great. Not as great as Gleason, but still great. Blunt was sweet and more realistic in her portrayal. I also thought she had a very pleasant voice.
What the hell was Marshall thinking with "it takes two?" That was awfully filmed.
James Corden was excellent as the baker. He was kind and funny and had pretty much everything that role requires.
Lilla Crawford was my favorite part of this film. She has a great voice and her acting chops are top-notch. She's the best Little Red since Danielle Ferland.
I couldn't tell if I loved or hated "I know Thing Now." I liked the idea, but not the way it was done.
Daniel Huttlestone is pretty perfect for Jack. I love his accent and I didn't have any trouble understanding him at all. He's a good actor and a good singer.
Johnny Depp wasn't bad, but he wasn't great. I liked his costume, but it didn't really work with the rest of the film. He's not a very good singer at all and this movie proved that Depp does look like a creepy pedo.
Everyone else in the cast was perfectly fine in their roles.
I think that maybe some live singing would have made the singing sound less poppy and robotic. There are moments that could have benefited from there being some more freedom.
it's a good film, but it could've been better.

So, J_Jammer has literally never posted about anything but this movie. And he can't let a single criticism of it go by unchecked. He can't even let a single comment about what might have been done differently go by unchecked. Curious, no?

It's the only musical I actually like.

and the Big Mouse wasn't breathing down his neck. Tgere were compromises that hed to be made. I don't see how it's not darker in the film. Considering there's no happy final song to lighten the mood where you see the whole cast back.