The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion — Page 13

I thought the child actor did a fine job, but the concept just doesn't make sense to me. What is the whole second act then? Is it Inception? They don't really explain too much. The killing of the Narrator was also uncomfortable. And why would the show continue after that?

^Die.

Bwahahaha, that picture!

But yeah, if you want to see Chip Zien do a lot of ensemble dancing...here ya go!

For those wondering, the "non-Equity ensemble" plays various fairy tale characters like Hansel and Gretl, the Three Pigs, the Huntsman, etc.

The wolf is a pedophile? He's a wolf. When your dog humps your child, is it a pedophile? Not to mention that the child is already being gastronomically devoured, which is alarming enough without the sex. If your dog actually ate your child, it goes without saying that it would be more tragic than a hump.

Seriously, though... obviously I understand the not so subtle innuendo of Hello Little Girl is highly erotic, and that there's a fine line between it being fun and repulsive. But doesn't the fact that the character is a wolf and not an adult human being, coupled with the fact that Little Red isn't - and for these reasons - shouldn't be played by an actual child, allow sufficient cover for the fun of this?

I'm speaking generally. If that fine line is being vulgarly crossed in this production, it's because they've jumped the wolf. And if the ingestion of the child has become simulated cunnilingus, they might well - I say this having not seen it - gone for the obvious, where leaving it to the imagination would not only not be revolting, it would be better storytelling.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 09:02 AM

The whole character of Red is supposed to be about her curiosity and sexual awakening...straying from the path for the nice, but not nice. So any sexuality is really about Red, not the wolf. As Henrik said, he's not a predator; he's just a wolf doing what wolfs do. It's Red's sexuality that we should be paying attention to here.

---

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 09:28 AM

*THERE MAY BE SPOILERS LYING WITHIN THIS POST*

There has been some confusion and discussion about the boy narrator and I'm chiming in because I love the concept.

The show starts, we hear an argument between a father and a son. A boy walks on and he appears sad and hurt. I presume he's run away. He takes out some toys from his bag and begins the show with "Once Upon a Time."

So here's a boy playing and using his imagination to comfort himself and take him out of his problems. I love this because I think we all did that when we were kids right? And it justifies why we're being told the story. Our toys and our imagination were our best friends when we were kids.

At the end of Act One the boy narrator climbs into a sleeping bag while the rest of the cast is performing the act one finale. He goes to sleep just after he says "To Be Continued."

Now this is where I got a little confused. Act Two starts and the boy walks on again... but the sleeping bag he feel asleep in is still on stage and it looks like there's someone there. What's going on? And then I wondered if Act Two was a dream. And then some action happens that proved that the actions of Act Two was indeed a dream.

So... Act One: Imagination and Play time with a little boy. Act Two: Nighty Nightmare.

Maybe this is not extremely clear in the staging but I still liked it. Anyone else?

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 09:53 AM

Apologies. Fixed it.

Yes, henrik, it did go there when she was being devoured.

Vampyre, I understood that to be what happens in this concept. But when the Narrator gets killed by the Giant, then the show should have just ended right there. It's not justified in the text, which was a huge problem for me throughout the show.

*SPOILER ALERT...MAYBE?*

I'm with you, jag. Even though the boy narrator dies in the second act it is still only a dream and so he wakes up at the end. Maybe the text doesn't support that but its a nice interpretation from the director. Though perhaps its not staged clearly? I don't know... I'm not a director so I wouldn't know how to clarify that.

(Possible spoilers) I understand that's the conceit of the second act and everyone has an opinion of the success of this conceit in the show. However, in this production, they get rid of the framing device when the Narrator gets fed to the Giant. If the second act is a dream, it should end with his death and they should have skipped to that final scene. Otherwise, there are no stakes at all. I think the concept could be interesting and work, but it was not successfully executed with the staging of it. You don't understand the concept until the very end. And then it leaves the audience questioning what they just saw. Is it real? Is the boy telling a tale about his father? Why does he have a doll of himself? Why does the second act begin exactly like the first but the characters talk to him? It just raises more questions than reveals about the story in my opinion.

Yes, I think something like that would have been clearer.

I think it boils down to this. The show is preachy enough with its morality tale. Adding more to it makes it overly and overtly preachy.

Not gonna say more other than what I've read so far basically gels with the recent, tired trend of adding distraction in a misguided attempt to reinvent something that doesn't need it, and would be much more effective sans the gimmick.

Not saying the only right way of doing anything is by copying the original, but there needs to be a return to a focus on effectively telling a story. And more focus on serving the material and not one's ego.

---

I think when COMPANY is done next, Bobby should be played by a child to show how emotionally immature he is.