#1751
Posted: 8/23/13 at 2:55am
What about Gleason as Cinderella's Mother? :)
Updated On: 8/23/13 at 02:55 AM
Into the Woods Official Movie Thread — Page 71
#1752
Posted: 8/23/13 at 5:53am
Please, let Angela Lansbury play the freaking Granny. She will kill it in the part and it'll be a nice tribute to her friendship and years of collaboration with Stephen Sondheim.
#1753
Posted: 8/23/13 at 2:52pm
And if Bernadette Peters can manage a British accent well enough, she would be wonderful.
I was fortunate to have seen Ms. Peter's Tony winning performance in SONG AND DANCE and her "British accent" was pretty darn good! Would LOVE to see her play granny!
I was fortunate to have seen Ms. Peter's Tony winning performance in SONG AND DANCE and her "British accent" was pretty darn good! Would LOVE to see her play granny!
#1754
Posted: 8/23/13 at 3:07pm
I really do think Peters would be a hoot as Granny. It's also been a long while since she's done a broadly comic role. I remember how funny she used to be on The Carol Burnett Show.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1755
Posted: 8/23/13 at 3:12pm
Peters has such a baby face, she looks like she's still in her 40s
#1756
Posted: 8/23/13 at 3:27pm
Put her in the bonnet and gray wig and glasses and let her "crackle up" her voice, and she would be great. Remember her as "old Marie" in Sunday in the Park? And that was with no extra makeup.
And it was almost 30 years ago.
Plus her round face would go well with Sophia Grace as her Little Red. I really think it could work.
Chances are, because the part isn't very big, they will "cast locally" with someone out of London.
And it was almost 30 years ago.
Plus her round face would go well with Sophia Grace as her Little Red. I really think it could work.
Chances are, because the part isn't very big, they will "cast locally" with someone out of London.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1757
Posted: 8/23/13 at 4:44pm
How is the Giant's wife portrayed? Is she seen? or just heard? I haven't heard any mention of who should play her.
#1758
Posted: 8/23/13 at 4:56pm
From what I can tell in the screenplay, we never see the Giant's Wife in her entirety. Only hands, arms, feet, shadows, etc. I don't think we ever see her face.
Still, her voice could be done by someone well known if they wanted to.
Still, her voice could be done by someone well known if they wanted to.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1759
Posted: 8/23/13 at 4:58pm
I nominate Imelda Staunton as the Giantess.
I hope they don't use a CGI creation for the giant a la Jack The Giant Killer
I hope they don't use a CGI creation for the giant a la Jack The Giant Killer
#1760
Posted: 8/23/13 at 5:51pm
I'm going to take a guess that unless they find a 65-foot-tall woman to play the part, there will definitely be CGI involved.
EDIT: And I love Imelda! That would be a nice nod to the West End production. She won an Olivier Award for playing the Baker's Wife.
EDIT: And I love Imelda! That would be a nice nod to the West End production. She won an Olivier Award for playing the Baker's Wife.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 8/23/13 at 05:51 PM
#1761
Posted: 8/23/13 at 6:01pm
I'm just being sentimental. But I'd love to see Valerie Harper in there somewhere.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#1762
Posted: 8/23/13 at 6:05pm
What I meant by CGI was creating the character entirely digitally. I wouldn't mind it if they shot the actress with some prosthetics on green screen and just composited her into the scenes.
#1763
Posted: 8/23/13 at 10:58pm
Everyone knows Cinderella's prince also played the wolf because of the connection between the princes being hungry for young girls.
And also, for the Witch's ending, there should be no lava! WTF?
And also, for the Witch's ending, there should be no lava! WTF?
#1764
Posted: 8/23/13 at 11:33pm
Everyone knows Cinderella's prince also played the wolf because of the connection between the princes being hungry for young girls.
That is not the reason at all. The reason the Prince was double cast as The Wolf was because The Wolf is a small part and it's cheaper to hire one actor over two.
And also, for the Witch's ending, there should be no lava! WTF?
Why? Seriously, why shouldn't it? Everything else is okay, but lava is just too much?
That is not the reason at all. The reason the Prince was double cast as The Wolf was because The Wolf is a small part and it's cheaper to hire one actor over two.
And also, for the Witch's ending, there should be no lava! WTF?
Why? Seriously, why shouldn't it? Everything else is okay, but lava is just too much?
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 11:33 PM
#1765
Posted: 8/24/13 at 12:13am
they couldn't throw in an ethnic actor in there... somewhere...?
#1766
Posted: 8/24/13 at 12:52am
How do you know the wolf was only double cast to save money when I heard from official writings it was to show how the princes are like wolves. Remember the revival added a wolf to be the other prince to make this point clearer.
Also, there are many times you can be excited and scared and it not be sexual, but in exploring, coming closer to, and being devoured by the wolf, the only kind of excitment I can see in that is sexual for a man.
And yes lava makes no sense in a fairy tale woods. You know that.
Also, there are many times you can be excited and scared and it not be sexual, but in exploring, coming closer to, and being devoured by the wolf, the only kind of excitment I can see in that is sexual for a man.
And yes lava makes no sense in a fairy tale woods. You know that.
#1767
Posted: 8/24/13 at 12:56am
How do you know the wolf was only double cast to save money when I heard from official writings it was to show how the princes are like wolves. Remember the revival added a wolf to be the other prince to make this point clearer.
To give the other Prince something to do. He would be getting paid the same regardless. Audiences don't don't even have any idea that they're played by the same character unless they actually read it in the Playbill. Kind of defeats the purpose.
And yes lava makes no sense in a fairy tale woods. You know that.
But her mother's arms jutting up from out of the ground and pulling her into hell does? Really? It's not supposed to be act of nature that it happens.
To give the other Prince something to do. He would be getting paid the same regardless. Audiences don't don't even have any idea that they're played by the same character unless they actually read it in the Playbill. Kind of defeats the purpose.
And yes lava makes no sense in a fairy tale woods. You know that.
But her mother's arms jutting up from out of the ground and pulling her into hell does? Really? It's not supposed to be act of nature that it happens.
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 12:56 AM
#1768
Posted: 8/24/13 at 1:13am
Theatrefan4....read this
http://www.sondheim.com/discussions/uhm.html
"A major indication that our assumptions about characters are being challenged is the treatment of the princes. Very little is placed into a Sondheim show without careful deliberation, and one of the strongest and most interesting decisions made in the show is the casting of the same actor to play the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince. The juxtaposition of the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince in Into the Woods is one of the most crucial character decisions in the show, and a barometer of how much a particular director and production staff understand the work. Double-casting in Into the Woods is a conscious choice that is made to enhance the script and to create intentional links between characters in a show, and the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince are linked together in a number of different ways. Little Red Riding Hood thinks of herself as a tough adult, and she has always had a fascination with taking care of herself. This independence is manifested her insistence on going through the woods by herself and the absence in the show of a physical mother who directs her. That autonomy is mirrored in another one of the female characters, the Baker's Wife, who believes in her own ability to get through the woods unharmed. Her self-confidence is so profound that she tries to guide the Baker on his quest, because she feels that he will only be successful with her assistance. The Wolf and Cinderella's Prince provide opportunities for Little Red and the Baker's Wife to live out their fantasies, to disastrous ends. The methods of the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince are the keys in this equation because of their similarities. Both encounters (the Wolf/Little Red and Cinderella's Prince/Baker's Wife) are essentially seduction scenes, done from a very selfish perspective (the wolf does it to glean information about the grandmother and the little girl, and the prince does it to have another "moment" for himself). These scenes are also textually linked by the line "one would be so boring", which is spoken to both Little Red and the Baker's Wife.
By linking the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince in these ways, Lapine and Sondheim are playing off of the audience expectations for the wolf, as a predatory being, and then using those expectations to subvert the expectations of the prince. The prince from the first act is, for the most part, a fairly noble figure, and in the absence of a second act the splitting of parts may make some sense. However, starting from Act II Agony, we begin to realize that the Princes are not the noble, essentially good people that we had envisioned, but self-aggrandizing young men. This transformation becomes complete when Cinderella's Prince seduces the Baker's Wife, when the wolf aspect of the prince's character must come out, and all vestiges of nobility are lost. That does not make them bad people, but it brings us down to earth about our expectations about princes. The union of the prince/wolf reveals how they are two sides to the same coin, and that our desire to make them an object of our wishes is to place our trust in false ideals. The songs sung right after Little Red's and the Baker's Wife's realization of what happened, "I Know Things Now" and "Moments in the Woods" are both rife with uncertainty, and though morals are being stated, these morals are not clear for either one - "I should have heeded her advice, but he seemed so nice...Isn't it nice to know a lot, and a little bit not" or "Why not both instead, there's the answer if you're clever...Let the moment go, don't forget it for a moment, though". It is part of the breaking down of absolute rights and wrongs."
The double casting is intentional...not a way to save money. It's pretty common knowledge. Cinderella's prince is pretty predatory and heartless.
http://www.sondheim.com/discussions/uhm.html
"A major indication that our assumptions about characters are being challenged is the treatment of the princes. Very little is placed into a Sondheim show without careful deliberation, and one of the strongest and most interesting decisions made in the show is the casting of the same actor to play the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince. The juxtaposition of the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince in Into the Woods is one of the most crucial character decisions in the show, and a barometer of how much a particular director and production staff understand the work. Double-casting in Into the Woods is a conscious choice that is made to enhance the script and to create intentional links between characters in a show, and the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince are linked together in a number of different ways. Little Red Riding Hood thinks of herself as a tough adult, and she has always had a fascination with taking care of herself. This independence is manifested her insistence on going through the woods by herself and the absence in the show of a physical mother who directs her. That autonomy is mirrored in another one of the female characters, the Baker's Wife, who believes in her own ability to get through the woods unharmed. Her self-confidence is so profound that she tries to guide the Baker on his quest, because she feels that he will only be successful with her assistance. The Wolf and Cinderella's Prince provide opportunities for Little Red and the Baker's Wife to live out their fantasies, to disastrous ends. The methods of the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince are the keys in this equation because of their similarities. Both encounters (the Wolf/Little Red and Cinderella's Prince/Baker's Wife) are essentially seduction scenes, done from a very selfish perspective (the wolf does it to glean information about the grandmother and the little girl, and the prince does it to have another "moment" for himself). These scenes are also textually linked by the line "one would be so boring", which is spoken to both Little Red and the Baker's Wife.
By linking the Wolf and Cinderella's Prince in these ways, Lapine and Sondheim are playing off of the audience expectations for the wolf, as a predatory being, and then using those expectations to subvert the expectations of the prince. The prince from the first act is, for the most part, a fairly noble figure, and in the absence of a second act the splitting of parts may make some sense. However, starting from Act II Agony, we begin to realize that the Princes are not the noble, essentially good people that we had envisioned, but self-aggrandizing young men. This transformation becomes complete when Cinderella's Prince seduces the Baker's Wife, when the wolf aspect of the prince's character must come out, and all vestiges of nobility are lost. That does not make them bad people, but it brings us down to earth about our expectations about princes. The union of the prince/wolf reveals how they are two sides to the same coin, and that our desire to make them an object of our wishes is to place our trust in false ideals. The songs sung right after Little Red's and the Baker's Wife's realization of what happened, "I Know Things Now" and "Moments in the Woods" are both rife with uncertainty, and though morals are being stated, these morals are not clear for either one - "I should have heeded her advice, but he seemed so nice...Isn't it nice to know a lot, and a little bit not" or "Why not both instead, there's the answer if you're clever...Let the moment go, don't forget it for a moment, though". It is part of the breaking down of absolute rights and wrongs."
The double casting is intentional...not a way to save money. It's pretty common knowledge. Cinderella's prince is pretty predatory and heartless.
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 01:13 AM
#1769
Posted: 8/24/13 at 3:10am
* * * * * SPOILERS AGAIN * * * * * *
First of all, it's described as a "lava-like substance," not actually "lava" per se.
Second of all, it's a witch being pulled under ground by the arms of her dead mother ... and you're worried about the "lava" not being realistic?
LOL
Thirdly, the substance becomes the tar pit where they trap the Giant's Wife, which makes more sense than them trying to spread enough tar on the ground to trap a giant (where would they get that much tar in such a short amount of time to stay hot and spread on the ground in the forest?). Believe it or not, even in their fairy tale world, this makes more sense and takes less time to do or explain to the audience. I actually thought it was a nice transition from one event to the next.
But as far as the Wolf being the Prince, I actually think there might have been a conscious decision to double-cast the role on stage with the same actor to help allude to the opinion that "wolves" can be "princes" and vice-versa. However, they are clearly not the same person (no werewolf prince, since the wolf is actually killed in the story and skinned). I don't think this is a vital aspect of the casting. The Witch still sings the lyrics in "Stay With Me" to make that very point clear:
Princes wait there in the world, it's true.
Princes, yes, but wolves and humans, too.
The Wolf also disguises himself as Little Red's Granny, so he is a wolf pretending to be human to get what he wants.
I don't think much is lost by the double-casting. And I think in a film, you actually would run the risk of confusing the audience, thinking they are supposed to be the same person (aka a werewolf).
Also remember that James Lapine wrote the screenplay himself, and he in no way alludes to the idea that the Wolf "reminds us" of the Prince and vice-versa. They are definitely two separate characters in the story.
First of all, it's described as a "lava-like substance," not actually "lava" per se.
Second of all, it's a witch being pulled under ground by the arms of her dead mother ... and you're worried about the "lava" not being realistic?
LOL
Thirdly, the substance becomes the tar pit where they trap the Giant's Wife, which makes more sense than them trying to spread enough tar on the ground to trap a giant (where would they get that much tar in such a short amount of time to stay hot and spread on the ground in the forest?). Believe it or not, even in their fairy tale world, this makes more sense and takes less time to do or explain to the audience. I actually thought it was a nice transition from one event to the next.
But as far as the Wolf being the Prince, I actually think there might have been a conscious decision to double-cast the role on stage with the same actor to help allude to the opinion that "wolves" can be "princes" and vice-versa. However, they are clearly not the same person (no werewolf prince, since the wolf is actually killed in the story and skinned). I don't think this is a vital aspect of the casting. The Witch still sings the lyrics in "Stay With Me" to make that very point clear:
Princes wait there in the world, it's true.
Princes, yes, but wolves and humans, too.
The Wolf also disguises himself as Little Red's Granny, so he is a wolf pretending to be human to get what he wants.
I don't think much is lost by the double-casting. And I think in a film, you actually would run the risk of confusing the audience, thinking they are supposed to be the same person (aka a werewolf).
Also remember that James Lapine wrote the screenplay himself, and he in no way alludes to the idea that the Wolf "reminds us" of the Prince and vice-versa. They are definitely two separate characters in the story.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 03:10 AM
#1770
Posted: 8/24/13 at 4:00pm
Well, a lava-like substance does sound slightly better, but it still doesn't sound like it fits what you would find in either a real forest or a fairy tale forest. I could understand an effect that is supposed to be magic like a magic glow, flashes of light, mist, smoke or fire. It's just lava would only be from an island or something.
And I think they would have time to smear real pitch. It's not like the play or movie says they only have a very limited time. And they only have to put it in one spot. And it doesn't have to be shown to the audience where they get it and how they do it, the play doesn't and just has the conversations with Cinderella, her prince and Little Red. They could just show Jack and the Baker finishing it up before they climb into the tree.
And I think they would have time to smear real pitch. It's not like the play or movie says they only have a very limited time. And they only have to put it in one spot. And it doesn't have to be shown to the audience where they get it and how they do it, the play doesn't and just has the conversations with Cinderella, her prince and Little Red. They could just show Jack and the Baker finishing it up before they climb into the tree.
Updated On: 8/24/13 at 04:00 PM
#1771
Posted: 8/24/13 at 5:02pm
Here is my two cent opinion (and it might not even be worth that!) on the "lava-like substance". First off, who is pulling the witch into the ground? Her dead mother...secondly, where is the mother most likely coming from? H*@$...and thirdly, what do you think of or see H*@$ depicted as? Fire and brimstone with lava-like substance all around. (At least that's how I'VE seen it portrayed. Why does this sound so rediculous? A forest, 42nd street, a desert. This could happen anywhere if someone from H*@$ was dragging your behind down.
#1772
Posted: 8/24/13 at 6:58pm
I think it's hilarious that out of these three things:
1) A wicked witch
2) Her dead mother's arms pulling her under the ground
3) Lava bursting out of a random sinkhole anywhere on the planet
The one people find "unbelievable" is the one that can and does actually happen.
Time to crack open a geology book ... or just turn on the news, methinks.
1) A wicked witch
2) Her dead mother's arms pulling her under the ground
3) Lava bursting out of a random sinkhole anywhere on the planet
The one people find "unbelievable" is the one that can and does actually happen.
Time to crack open a geology book ... or just turn on the news, methinks.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#1773
Posted: 8/24/13 at 10:17pm
girl get over it. The script is written. The actors are cast.
"Girl, this cupcake is the jumpoff"- Adriane Lenox
#1774
Posted: 8/26/13 at 7:49pm
Lava doesn't come from the ground in European forests.
I don't think the witches are from or going to Hell. Part of the point of this musical is gray morality and "witches can be right". And Hell doesn't have physical fire anyway, it's spiritual fire that wouldn't make a real pit of a sticky substance on the ground.
I don't think the witches are from or going to Hell. Part of the point of this musical is gray morality and "witches can be right". And Hell doesn't have physical fire anyway, it's spiritual fire that wouldn't make a real pit of a sticky substance on the ground.
#1775
Posted: 8/26/13 at 7:54pm
You're right. You should probably not go to this movie.
The whole thing is just unrealistic. You should wait until they make one with real witches and logical lava.
Hey, I like that for a screen name!
Logical Lava.
The whole thing is just unrealistic. You should wait until they make one with real witches and logical lava.
Hey, I like that for a screen name!
Logical Lava.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Maximum Thread Size of 5,000 Messages Reached
Please Start a New Thread!
Please Start a New Thread!
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95