Riedel: No 'Woods' on B'way- Page 2

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 10:35am

I think this production could benefit greatly from a longer rehearsal period, and would probably be a lot better and tighter on Broadway, but I agree that it should just call it quits after September 1st. It had a nice run, it extended, it got some pretty favorable reviews, that should be more than enough for The Public.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 11:26am

To those that have seen the London production and this one, are there any differences? I don't see why they would need an extended rehearsal period? I mean, I know it's a big undertaking, but if the director already knows the staging, then isn't it just basically plugging the actors into the show?

I saw it the other night in the park, and while I loved aspects of it (the witch's death was so great, and wouldn't work indoors). But the Baker's Wife's death was....um....a letdown.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 11:43am

SPOILER ALERT

SPOILER ALERT

Ripped Man -

I saw the show in previews, so i'm not sure if it's changed or not, but does the baker's wife's death still happen with her falling back into the 'tower' and the audience seeing a dummy fall to the ground? I thought it was pretty great when i saw it, but not sure if it's changed...

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 9:00pm

It's not fair to blame changes from the London transfer to the Park being the reason for an extended rehearsal period. I'm not sure if there were changes to the staging, but even if there were none, you STILL need adequate rehearsal time to rehearse the actors, tech the show in a new space its never played before, and then time for the actors to get used to the set and costume changes. This production seems like it was difficult to settle in to.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 10:27pm

"Why is GIANT, a musical based on an epic novel which was a popular Hollywood movie, be non-commercial? It would seem to be the first R&H type new musical in decades."

As Growlers said, it's LaChiusa. And not an R&H type show at all. Even in its last revision it was over 3 hours (well over), has a score that most critics have called "ambitious" (and I'd love to hear, but that usually means they don't find it commercial), has had mixed reactions in its two previous productions, it reverts to some of the less umm crowd pleasing elements of the novel rather than the movie... It's true Hammerstein adapted Ferber before, but I'm not sure it really could be done as an R&H style musical.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 10:32pm

What Capn said.

This was a just a VERY ambitious project for Shakespeare in the Park, in terms of the short rehearsal period, etc.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 10:41pm

It was the director's job to get this production ready in time. I've seen some really incredible musicals done in less than 2 weeks (one being Into the Woods) and you would never have guessed that they only had less than 2 weeks to rehearse.

I don't care how "creative" this director is or how well received the production was in London. Part of his job is, in fact, to get the show ready in the amount of time given. If this was going to be a tight rehearsal process, it should have been scheduled to the second. That's part of the job.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 11:02pm

wickedfan, while that is true, what would you like for the director to have done? Pulled a rabbit out of a hat? What if his amount of rehearsal time given was only one day? Would you still have expected it to happen with the same (or better) results? Sometimes, things just don't come together within the time constraints and the production suffers from it. We are not familiar with the rehearsal schedule nor the other factors to consider to make this production happen. Did you consider that perhaps he did the best he could given the rehearsal schedule and conflicts? I, too, have seen ambitious productions come together in a short time, and more successfully than this production. Doesn't matter. Each situation is different. Maybe time wasn't managed well. Maybe it was. We weren't in the room, so it's not fair to use time constraints as a reason to blame the director. He may have had no other options.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 11:25pm

Capn- Keep in mind that I have not seen the production. I am not commenting on the quality of the production nor am I commenting on this specific rehearsal time process. I am saying that a director knows how much time they are given and that they have to plan accordingly. That doesn't mean "I have 2 weeks? I have to recreate everything in 2 weeks?" It means that they have to decide how they are going to have the highest quality, most clean production possible in that amount of time. That means keeping some stuff, simplifying others and eliminating others altogether. This has nothing to do with technical issues with set, lights or costumes. Well, it does in the sense that the designers must know what they are creating based on conversations on concept with the director. But a director has no control over how soon those elements are completed. Those are other departments and with the Park, weather is a whole other section that no director has control over.

What a director DOES have control over is having his or her cast head into the theatre during technical rehearsals knowing 100% what they are going to do on that stage. Lyrics, dialogue, music, staging, and choreography. Character development grows as actors continue with the production.

I've been in productions where we didn't get scripts until half way through the rehearsal process, didn't have a theatre confirmation until a week before the show, had cast changes constantly and so many other issues. And sometimes it didn't come together in the end and other times it did. It was the mark of a director who was on top of their job and one who wasn't.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 8/15/12 at 11:49pm

What the director didn't have control over in this case though was the weather which wiped out at least a full day of tech and the final dress. Still, this seems like it would be a common problem with an outdoor show in NY in late July/August so really plans should have been made accordingly. If there was not adequate rehearsal time, then I suppose that's the Public's fault. Yes, these productions always need to come together fast, but if it's an ambitious project, more rehearsal time is a necessity.

It's very difficult to point the finger at someone specific knowing really no details other than that it clearly wasn't audience ready. I don't mean that just from the standpoint of the early previews (which were at least a week away from being audience ready just given the shape of the show and how long it took to correct some fundamental problems) but also from the "frozen" version of the show which still appears to be a developing project. There is blame that should be somewhere, but it's not really our duty or place to decide where that blame should go - whether it was the producers, director, creative team, actors, etc.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 1:00am

SPOILER ALERT

Yes, it happens the same way. I didn't see the dummy falling, but maybe that's because of where I was sitting. I Just though tit seemed add to have her climb all the way up only to fall down? I mean, that doesn't make much sense? Why not have it be something more creative, like with the witch. Just seemed like a lame idea.

END OF SPOILER

Also, design wise, why did they need so much playing room in front of the set? Was that a site line thing? It just seemed like a ton of dead space most of the time.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 2:33am

They have been putting up shows outdoors and dealing with weather at the Delacorte for 50 years now, I have been going to these shows for 40 of those years and that first preview was just about the worst ready I've seen. Stop blaming the weather, the director did this show outdoors before where they also have weather.
It was poorly rehearsed. When I saw it 2 weeks later, the sound and music problems were fixed. Maybe the director was promised more time but he has to tale some blame for the early bad buzz which hurt the show.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 3:20am

i saw GIANT in DC but not in Dallas. i have to say i find the score MUCH more accessible than LaChiusa has a reputation of achieving. The story is epic as is Ferber's other work SHOW BOAT, but i heard no reports that the Dallas production was also over three hours. i have to say, and i know it's subjective, that to me the running time is not so relevant because the power of his music is so appealing. He has really seemed to channel all the many musical styles to be found in Texas and made still a Broadway score. In talking with other theatre people i respect who saw it in DC, i wondered if it may be better served as something that to my knowledge has not been tried before with musicals...rather than cut it to fit the ever-shortening format of modern Broadway shows, give it two nights to perform. Like NICK NICK or ANGELS IN AMERICA or the UTOPIA trilogy, let the material and not the timeclock rule the endeavor. It wouldn't be for everyone, but nothing is. i found UTOPIA pretentious and overwrought despite amazing perfs and design, but many adored it. i found THE KENTUCKY CYCLE as seen in development at U-Iowa mesmerizing, but NYC yawned. That's why Baskin Robbins makes more than 31 flavors.

Updated On: 8/16/12 at 03:20 AM

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 3:20am

bygones for the double post

Updated On: 8/16/12 at 03:20 AM

[timote316]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 11:07am

Can we stop with the whole notion of "this production was designed for the park" stuff? So was Hair, and that worked out fine. The set and whatnot would be tweaked for a typical theater, and it would, most likely, work the same way.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 11:31am

Sure, the set can be tweaked, although it would need to be more than tweaked to fit into any theatre on Broadway. But that isn't the real issue - more fundamentally is the fact that for Into the Woods, unlike Hair, part of the main reason many are enjoying the production is for the sole reason that it's outdoors.

Hair was a phenomenal production made only more magical by being at the Delacorte. When it transferred, it was still an excellent revival, though it had certainly lost a bit of the magic. Into the Woods, in its current state, is a production that is made worthwhile, in my view, only because it's outdoors. I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the show because it's a beautiful show and because it's outdoors. There were certainly some other highlights, but the production, by and large, is nothing special or "transfer worthy." Therefore, there need to be some fundamental changes including casting, (partially due to lack of availability of stars and partially due to miscasting) choreography because the current state of "choreography" would never work on a Broadway stage, directing, and certainly they need to decide exactly how they're approaching all these rewrites and revisions. The child narrator, lyric changes to accommodate it, and all the other book changes need to certainly be fleshed out if not entirely revisited and redone.

That makes the production more than an easy transfer and explains why it's a bit more complicated than just downsizing the set.

[Midnight Radio]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 12:56pm

This production does not emphasize the fact that it is outdoors more than any other production of Into the Woods. I still don't understand why many people are saying that it is absolutely necessary for this production to be outside. Which part?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 1:56pm

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 1:59pm

Well, for one a 4 story set would overwhelm the show if confined on a Broadway stage.. the height would never fit in a Broadway house, the Giant effect would not look nearly as impressive. beyond that, part of why is not tangible. Part of it is the essence of the show... the spirit of this production, the thing that ads the most to it, is the delacorte setting. Really, without that, you focus in a lot a more and notice what a mess is really there.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 2:04pm

I think a more intimate environment would assist in reigning in the staging, which seems to be the general issue the critics have with the direction (and really with the show).

As for the set, it will have to be modified-but I suspect if scaled down it still could work. (There are some tall stages out there. It's a pity the Circle in the Square is so small-that type of theater would be perfect. I think the Lunt could work after A Christmas Story closes as well. The St. James also has a relatively tall stage.)

I do think it would be interesting to see how they change it for Broadway (and I do hope it gets there-it has improved tremendously over the course of its run). Who knows? Maybe the changes will be for the better.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 2:17pm

The LUNT has a tenant after A CHRISTMAS STORY.

[dreaming]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 2:19pm

I think I know who it is.

The Rodgers also might work okay.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 2:25pm

I don't think it's transfering anyway, but the orchestra seating at the Rodgers would cut off most of that set.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 5:27pm

The whole appeal is that it's a show about being lost in the woods that is lost in the woods. That's the basic point. If you put it indoors then it's just another production of Into the Woods with a child narrator. It's not like people are leaving saying "Wow, the decision to make it a child is so coo."

There's real dirt, real trees, which is surrounded by real trees and real dirt. It would just wouldn't be as surprising.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/16/12 at 6:03pm

The whole appeal is that it's a show about being lost in the woods that is lost in the woods.

What does that even mean??