Into the Woods plot hole?

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:34pm

I know there are already a couple of ITW threads going, but this is a separate question. In watching the DVD over and over with my classes, something struck me as a potential plothole. The witch's curse is on the Baker's family as it should be a "barren one" -- how is it that Rapunzel conceives children before the curse was lifted? (It would have to be before, since her prince is cast out prior to the potion being finished)...

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:36pm

It's a fariy tale...go with it.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:40pm

I was thinking about this the other day. It doesn't make much sense.

[singingwendy]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:42pm

I can't remember...was the curse placed before or after the witch took Rapunzel. If it was cast after she "claimed" her, then maybe the curse only applied to the remaining family members.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:45pm

I think she took the baby (Rapunzel) before placing the curse on the Baker. Then later she cursed Rapunzel with twins as a punishment.

Posted: 2/16/07 at 5:57pm

I think the curse was placed after the Baker and Rapunzel are born, because the family is poor and so the Mysterious Man steals the beans not knowing they were magic. and so, to pay back, the family becomes barren and the Witch takes away Rapunzel at birth...

And how are twins a punishment?

Wow, I've confused myself.

[Weez]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:03pm

And how are twins a punishment?

How are they *not*? *shudders*

[FutureAladdinOnB'Way]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:33pm

Another plothole is...Where are the twins in the 2nd act??? The last time it shows them is when the Witch is mad because Rapunzel wants to be with the Prince and it's the part where the witch finds out she lost her powers....Sooo what happens to them because evrtime you see Rapunzel after that, they are not with her

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:36pm

"How are they *not*? *shudders*"

LOL!!!!!!

My God, jasonf, you're right and so is FutureAladdinOnB'Way.

I'm telling my friends about this.

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:41pm

It states in the show that Rapunzel bearing twins was part of her punishment by the witch, along with banishing her to a desert. But in the witch's defense she was only trying to be a good mother.

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 6:52pm

The Witch took the baby before the curse was placed.

"Don't take away the baby they screamed and shriked but I did and hid her where she'll never be reached and your father cried and your mother died but for extra measure I admit it was a pleasure I said sorry I'm still not mollified and I laid a little spell on them that your family tree will always be a barren one."

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:03pm

I think the question is about when Rapunzel has her twins in the desert--which is in one of the tellings of the Rapunzel fairy tale, not about when Rapunzel is born.

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:09pm

She does have the twins before the curse is lifted but the curse was not on her. The Witch took her away before she cursed The Baker and his parents.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:12pm

I feel saying that since the Witch took Rapunzel before the curse is a racionalization. The Witch says "that your family tree will be a barren one," she doesn't say "that your house will be a barren one" or anything to that effect.

[Danielm]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:18pm

I always took it as the twins were part of the witch's punishment of Rapunzel--so it was a later curse. The twins were part of the "lesson" the witch was trying to teach Rapunzel.

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:19pm

I don't know then the only things I can think of is that either the spell didn't apply to Rapunzel because the Witch took her as her own child. Or while The Witch still had her powers she enabled Rapunzel to have the twins as part of her punishment. Rapunzel had hurt her so many the logic is that if Rapunzel had her own children she would see how they hurt their parents.

[commasplice]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 7:49pm

"Where are the twins in the 2nd act???"

Royal babysitter?

I'm listening to the prologue now, and though the Witch says, "..and I laid a little spell on them [the Baker's parents]," she also adds "You too, son." I always assumed that the curse was limited to the remaining people in the Mysterious Man's household, and since Rapunzel had been taken by the Witch, the curse didn't apply to her.

[sondheimboy2]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 9:11pm

Milky White, the cow, is taking care of the twins in the second act. That's why you don't see her in the second act, either.

[Mythus]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 10:16pm

I always assumed that the curse only applied to the men in the Baker family...silly me?

[Elphie3]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 10:21pm

What I would assume is that the curse only applies to male children and their wives - since in the "classic" sense of marrage a woman becomes part of her husbands family upon marraige. Therefore Rapunzel's children would be part of the Prince's family tree, not Rapunzel's fathers (if that makes sense.) I'm also assuming that Rapunzel was exempt from the curse since she was "adopted" by the Witch, and therefore made part of her family.

[rosekwbp]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 10:33pm

I think you're right because there is the whole discussion with The Baker and his wife about how the spell is on his house and only he can lift the spell. The male characters seem to be most effected by it.

[sadlilserenade]

Posted: 2/16/07 at 11:33pm

I think commasplice has a point. The Witch says, "You too, son. That your family tree..." etc. Not his parents' family tree, his own.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 2/17/07 at 10:57am

Commasplice is onto something I agree.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 2/17/07 at 2:20pm

While we're at it, for the witch's potion, why does the hair from the corn work?

[jasonf]

Posted: 2/17/07 at 2:27pm

I just took that as being LITERALLY "hair as yellow as corn"...

I guess the "you too, son" explanation works for why the spell doesn't work on Rapunzel...