Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 66

Yeah. Pretty sure.

Yep.

---

Even if that's true (which I dont think it 100% is), Miramax was still a Disney owned company meaning that to answer that question of when did Disney last win an Oscar for Best Picture, the answer is still for CHICAGO in 2002.

"Well, when was the last time they produced a live action musical that was nominated, let alone won, an Academy Award? It seems like a valid concern to me (not that I share it, but I don't really think it's unfounded)."

No, it answers that question perfectly.

No, it doesn't. The question was about their creative abilities when it comes to live action musicals. Disney placed no hand on Chicago despite it being the parent company to Miramax. It may answer the question point blank in a smart ass sense, but it did not address the intent behind the question.

Whether their name was front and center or they were a silent partner they were still involved.

I think it does matter. Just because they can sit there and collect money for it doesn't give evidence to their ability to film live action musicals.

Updated On: 8/10/13 at 10:09 PM

Disney has owned Miramax since 1993.

As for the logo, it's not exactly that community theatre logo at all.

If you want to overanalyze this logo (and believe me, I produced or designed over a hundred of them for DVD and Blu-ray releases by Hollywood studios), the font used for "Into the" is more reminiscent of the Harry Potter font used for the film series. That's no accident, I can assure you.

---

I've nevero heard if Sophia Whateverhernameis until this thread. That said, I agree with those who feel casting a 10 year old will rob the story off all the implied sexual undertones that are (at least to me) obvious in the lyrics of this song. I was assigned this song in college and worked in depth on the lyric analysis and frankly was too naive to "get it" even at 18 (granted I was really sheltered then). But I learned that yes, the second level that Sondheim clearly is referencing is sexual in nature and simply can't be implied (without it being beyond disturbing). I mean, why else is the wolf endowed? And take a look at the lyrics...excited AND scared....he drew me down, down a dark slimy path... Even the modulation at the end of that section.


Anyway....more of a rant than I intended....but I do feel that casting ANY 10 year old is a terrible idea.

---

I don't think that the actor performing the song has to be aware of the sexual implications in the song for those implications to come across, that's why it's all implied and not explicitly stated in the lyrics. It's up to the audience to catch the references and understand it, not the actor; in fact, I'd say that it's better if the actor doesn't go out of their way to make the implicit explicit, it's called subtlety. We live in an age when we want everything spelled out for us, and I'd like it if this film worked a little differently. Plus, the text vs. subtext aspect of INTO THE WOODS comes from a long line of fairy tale tradition, depending on whatever age you're at, you'll get different meanings from the stories. I still think that if you've had sex, and understand subtext, you'll get the sexual references in the Little Red/Wolf interactions regardless of the age of the characters playing them, they're just there, but an 8 year old might not have even gotten the reference in the SitP production that (IMO misguidedly) had Little Red get eaten out by the Wolf.

---

Ray, once again, you read my mind ... we are thinking alike on LIttle Red, absolutely.

---

Some interesting paintings of Little Red Riding Hood throughout the centuries ...

---

Best: "You may feel these songs are erotic and all about a young girls "awakening" sexually. You may think that a "cape and a hood" are metaphors from a condom ... and I think audiences can go there, definitely. But not the character herself. So again, I strongly disagree."

Best -- the voice of sweet sweet reason. On this at least.

---

But the conception of Little Red in INTO THE WOODS is a girl on the verge of womanhood, hence the casting of Danielle Ferland and Luanne Ponce in the original production. The casting of Molly Ephraim proved problematic because (in my opinion) she was too young to navigate what I Know Things Now was really about. The performance didn't work. Now...it could be that a really talented 13 year old could have pulled it off, but what was in front of me was an actress too young to make it work.

To make a complete left turn, I felt the same thing about the revival of BYE BYE BIRDIE. Having an actual 15 year old girl singing How Lovely to Be a Woman felt awkward to me...like I was watching someone who couldn't find the comedy of the number because she was actually in the middle of her most awkward years. A different director might have found a way to make that work to their advantage...maybe.

That's not to say that this casting can't work. I'm more than willing to go with it. But at the end of the song, Little Red needs to know things now that aren't pleasant to know. What those things are in the film remain to be seen. It could, in fact, be a shallow reading of the text of the piece, leaving the more adult subtext behind. And that's fine. I just think that the song has lost something when performed by younger actresses, and may well lose something again.