Rob Marshall Directing Into the Woods Film For Disney — Page 5

What I meant with that was that you can't blame just Tim Burton for what happened with SWEENEY. That's all I meant. :)

"I'm not sure what you mean when you say the show is "flexible". It scares me, though. Then you say the show is "far from perfect" and I'd like you to back that up with your opinions on what exactly does not work within this show because honestly, it's one of Sondheim's most perfect shows and I don't think I've ever once heard someone say "Well it would work if..."

I know I'll get lambasted for this but the characters spend an insane amount of time telling us what happened and we don't see much show (better in act 2). Film will certainly help out here, but flashbacks don't work for an entire film. People are on here ranting about "in their head" Marshall work, well a lot of this show takes place in people's heads. Alternatively, in Sweeney we get these incredible scenes of action and showing what is happening now, its not afterthought.

Also the show is chuck-full of subplotting and crazy details that I find distracting. It just goes on and on and I'm at a loss as to who is our protagonist. This might play better in film, I don't know, but in musical theatre it gets cumbersome. I have a feeling this is gonna end up more like Wicked and it will be the Witch's POV, giving Disney an edge on this genre.

There are meat on the bones of the show but things like the song "Giants in the Sky" is just gonna be weird and could be cut out and made into action. We lose a beautiful song but again something cinematic action.

The reason I suggest flexibility is because the scope of this show is vast. You don't need every song to tell the story on film. Again (not a popular opinion) but I've seen people leave performances of this show at intermission because they felt it was over then. IMHO there is no clue, other than a playbill to tell the audience wait! there's more show. The first act is LONG, in a movie this will have to truncated considerably. But it's not gonna ruin the arch.

Updated On: 1/11/12 at 11:41 AM

You're right, Roscoe. Even though we don't agree, I do respect your opinion. I actually love that people don't see things the same way. It fascinates me that people can experience the same thing and come away with entirely different reactions. I only get pissed about it when it turns into a "you just didn't get it, did you?" kind of smarmy bitchiness, or a superior attitude that "I know more than you do." As strong as your opinions are, Roscoe, they aren't condescending, nor are they personal attacks against anyone else's opinion.

Anywhoooo ...

The "dumbing down" in Sweeney is Burton thinking the audience can't understand why a group of people is singing at the same time. He thinks it's totally unrealistic. I find that hilarious coming from a surrealist filmmaker like Burton, but that's his own contradictory reasoning. He doesn't think it makes sense for small or large groups of people to be singing the same thing at the same time ... so he cuts ALL of it. No other reason. That's definitely a "dumbing down," in my book.

---

Updated On: 1/11/12 at 11:51 AM

"Name me one example of this, please."

-Giants in the sky
-I know things now
-On the Steps of the Palace (yikes keep this one:)

These more character to character but here post-action more telling:

-A very Nice Prince
-Agony

"And please tell me how "Giants in the Sky" is going to be weird or any more "weird" than any other song sung?"

It's weird to me because he is in flashback the whole song. It works on stage because heck we can't see giants. We need to see this in film.

darquegk---first of all, I love "park and bark." LOL

There's a lot of that in Into the Woods, and it's a problem for a film.

I Know Things Now
Giants In the Sky
Steps of the Palace

All "park and bark" songs, where characters stand and tell you all about things they've done and learned in the recent past, rather than show you. It's a problem I have with the original stage musical, too. I grew to love those songs, but it's a major no-no dramaturgically to have so much of the primary action taking place off-stage and having characters just tell you about it.

Two choices ... cut the songs, or use them as a narrative for some spectacular flashbacks. I hope they try the latter. While Jack sings Giants in the Sky, or Cinderella sings Steps of the Palace, we can see what they're describing in flashback. Of course if you see it, you may not need to describe it in addition, which means those songs can be trimmed down, too. It's more important that we find out what they learned from their adventures. We should "see" the adventure (not hear about it), and then "hear" what they learned from the experience. That advances the plot.

But the "park and bark" straightforward approach on film would be completely bizarre, not to mention deadly boring.

---

Updated On: 1/11/12 at 12:07 PM

Brick---they did NOT cut the choral singing because Depp's kid was close to death. Songs are pre-recorded anyway. And most of those choral numbers didn't involve Depp in any capacity.

Watch the behind-the-scenes interviews with Tim Burton on the DVD or BD. He tells you that he doesn't like choral singing. At all. Period. So he asked that all of it be taken out for the film.

---

Updated On: 1/11/12 at 12:10 PM

I second love for "park and bark" lol.

Yea, there is another alternative and that is give them someone to sing to. The flashbacks would work if Jack was singing to some peasant love-interest or another character. Steps of the Palace same deal. It would suck if they lose these two.

This is just me riffing, but it could be cool if the imagery appears fanstasystyle as they're telling it to the other character. But it's still weird as an audience member to not see it happen in real time. Who doesn't want to see her actually stuck to the steps of the palace?!

I don't buy it. I saw that interview, too, and knowing the facts surrounding the situation like the hiring of Christopher Lee, and as a director myself, it sounded like bull**** you make up to justify a last-minute choice you have to make.

Steve Sondheim loves collaborations and loves movies -- he said he would have loved being a director of photography. However, he WILL be active in this project, and he WILL most definitely be there in the recording studio. And I'm sure he'll be more involved because Lapine is writing it, and they conceived the musical together originally. That's a big thing we have to remember; original writer, composer, and director will be working on the project. (And I imagine, because it's Sondheim, Paul Gemignani and Jonathan Tunick or Michael Starobin will have involvement too). I think we have to wait and see how it will pan out. It has the potential to be really great and a lot of fun. We'll just have to wait and see...

best12, I can see that the "park and bark" songs will be challenging, but that doesn't mean it can't be done well on film. I can't see them cutting these wonderful songs from Into the Woods for the movie, and think it would be a very big mistake to do so. And think you are right that a flashback mode will be used; hopefully with artful crosscutting to the aftertelling. "The Steps of the Palace" and "I Know Things Now" have a past perfect tense.

But I can also see "Giants in the Sky" cross cut between Jack's experience presently in the giant's house - rather than flashback - and his later telling, with the song beginning with him first arriving in the sky and seeing the giants, taking it out of the "park and bark" mood. Unlike the other two the lyric is at least partially written in present tense, with the first/title line lending itself to Jack's first sight of the giants and later lines, "and she gives you... and she draws you...." allowing for present tense action; with crosscutting to later reflection: "and you know things now..." (of course, parallel to Red's title line), although even that line could be said, rather than in "park in bark" mode upon Jack's arrival back on terra firma.

There are creative ways without cutting songs. This, and pure flashback, are just some suggestions to overcome adaptation challenges.

On the subject of which, I'm reminded that I thought a movie version of Chicago, that most theatrical of musicals, was a terrible idea. I was happily surprised that it turned out to be a surprisingly wonderful movie.

For me, it didn't work, and for you, it did, Roscoe. And there you have it!

As for those "park and bark" songs, they can't really cut them without seriously hurting the overall story and character development for Jack, Cinderella, and Little Red.

While each of those songs describes something that happens off-stage (bad), they also have the characters evolve by the end (good). They "know things now," as Red says. They have changed. They are not the same people anymore. So, while the numbers are problematic, there is an essential element in each of them. I'm sure they won't be cut, but they might be trimmed, and the definitely need to be rethought as far as presentation. Perhaps Sondheim can or will write new lyrics, bridges, or verses for each. Who knows? I like that he will be hands-on with the film. And as long as Marshall and Lapine (who I assume is adapting his own work, based on these early film meetings so far) will guide him in the right direction, I have no reason to doubt that Sondheim can make it work for the screen.

---

More than anything else, it depends on how excited Disney really is about it. If they're really committed to this project, it will definitely happen. They have the money and the means. They don't need anybody else's help. It's not like an "indy" film approach to a musical.

If not, then no.

---