Not sure what the relevance of traditional renderings of Little Red is. Where in traditional fairy tales are Princes who spill pitch on the steps to trap Cinderella or rapping Witches? Or, in fact, where all these characters ever interacted with each other in one story?
If I'm not mistaken, in the original Cinderella, the Prince did "spread pitch on the stairs", as well as the step sisters cutting parts of their feet off to fit the shoe, and their eyes being plucked out by birds.
EDIT: Thanks for pointing that out!
Updated On: 8/12/13 at 12:42 PM
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Justincharacter is correct. In the Brothers Grimm version of the story, pitch is spread on the stairs, and bits of the stepsister's feet are cut off. This was not invented for the musical.
Little Red is oblivious to the Wolf’s lasciviousness throughout “Hello Little Girl.” She greets the wolf courteously and is continuing on her journey as the Wolf sings to himself and by extension to the audience.
At the end of the song Little Red serenely states “goodbye Mr. Wolf” and goes on her way without giving it a second thought.
“I Know Things Now” is Red’s response to the wolf ravaging her and her grandmother, and understanding that the Wolf’s earlier friendliness was a façade for his darker desires.
The sexual subtext of the Wolf’s song is certainly creepy, and it’s supposed to be. But Little Red is never portrayed as a Lolita, and I don’t think that her age makes their part of story any more or less effective.
Danielle Ferland was great, but she was taller than Chip Zien! One thing that movies require is a certain verisimilitude of young people on screen. A 16 year old would almost certainly read as adult.
And there’s one last thing about “I Know Things Now” that’s implied. At the end when she sings “Isn’t it nice to know a lot, and a little bit not” the message is that Little Red is beginning to understand the larger world and its dangers, but not the specificity of everything that the Wolf represents. The audience has picked up all of the wolf's sexual innuendo, but the girl is still sketchy about it. She's still a child.
Cinderella’s On the Steps of the Palace closes the loop of the evolution of the young characters from child to adult.
Well, you'll note that I wasn't the target of the comment in question and, frankly, I don't get corrected very often. :) I happen to agree with Miss Manners that correcting people's speech (or writing) in public is impolite. I acknowledge that it may also be impolite to call others out for doing so, so I'll let that be my last comment about this.
Inaccurate. Miramax was often used to hide Disney products behind an adult film company name. The film version of Chicago actually came about from a creative meeting about Into the Woods with Disney, where they decided to greenlight Chicago and release it under the Miramax studio name instead.
Thanks for the heads up, I knew about the stepsisters' feet but not the pitch-on-stairs part. But my point still stands. Many liberties have been taken with these characters and stories, so Little Red's age doesn't necessarily have to adhere to traditional fairy tale renderings. I side with those who believe the story involves her sexual awakening and is just icky with a 10 year old, especially this one, who comes off even younger to be quite honest.
But I guess we can't do much now but wait and see.
"INTO THE WOODS is an irreverent comedic mash-up of classic fairy tale characters and their famous stories, taking a witty look at what 'happily ever after' really looks like."
"I acknowledge that it may also be impolite to call others out for doing so, so I'll let that be my last comment about this. "
So, it's fine for you to call me out, even though you know you are being rude...
Ooooookay.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Yup. It's Disney. No surprise. I think Sondheim is at the point where he'll allow anything for $$$$. Of course, Disney producing this is major for the show and the Sondheim catalogue, but my fear from the start was that they'll turn it into total family-friendly fluff. I'll try to reserve judgement until seeing it, but that sentence is scary.
"INTO THE WOODS is an irreverent comedic mash-up of classic fairy tale characters and their famous stories, taking a witty look at what 'happily ever after' really looks like."
Maybe Disney is doing the Junior version and just not filming the second act.
Maybe he is just trying to sell it to the Disney loving public at an event where he is supposed to be selling these projects to the Disney loving public.
That being said, it is still a somewhat accurate description. It is a musical comedy, it is a mash-up, and it does explore what happily ever after really is, which is not so happily ever after.
I really don't see an issue with how it's worded. Is he wrong? Is that not what Into The Woods is about? Of course he's not going to go ahead and spill everything about the movie in the minute and a half allotted for it.
I think the first act of Into the Woods is one of the best, funniest farces ever written for musical theatre. Who cares if the D23 synopsis is a bit chirpy? For ****'s sake, it's Disney, not the New Yorker.
Describing this show as a "comedic" anything is worrisome and completely misleading.
But it is. It's a musical comedy. Are you honestly going to tell me the show doesn't often play for laughs? Sure it gets pretty serious at points, but the jokes are still there. For the love of Little Red Riding Hood pulls a knife.
Updated On: 8/12/13 at 11:22 PM
If the leaked script is any indication, they will not be sanitizing the film the way everyone is scared they will. Main characters still die, the stepsisters still cut up their feet, etc.
The only things that seemed to be taken out to "tone it down" were Rapunzel getting knocked up and her death. She runs away now instead of dying. Everyone else who died in the show dies in the film.
I really can't wait to see the ending of Last Midnight on screen. I hope it's creepy as hell.
I hope they go balls to the wall like the Revival did. You may hate the revival, but Vanessa ripping off her wig and turning back into this disturbing thing was awesome.
Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached Please Start a New Thread!