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

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:08am

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?

[kyle4]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:20am

i saw the FIRST PREVIEW and i BLOGGED about it

HERE >>> http://thetheaterbuff.typepad.com/the-theater-buff/2012/07/into-the-woods-first-preview-thoughts-1.html

on my BLOG !!!

SPOILER -- I LOVED IT !!!

[aasjb4ever]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:27am

^Die.

[Overkill]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:05am

In an interview with Chip Zien:

Q: Have you been in touch with James Lapine and Stephen Sondheim since jumping back in?

CZ: I wrote [Sondheim] an email and said, “There’s a lot of dancing. The Mysterious Man is dancing.” He wrote me back and said, “The Mysterious Man doesn’t dance.” I said, “He does in this production.”

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 7:29am

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.

[ShbrtAlley44]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 8:12am

Curtain, I agree about Mueller's costumes. They made her look heavy. Another reason she didn't come off as Cinderella for me.

There's also enough going on without the narrator playing with props and Barbie dolls.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:02am

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

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:27am

This is my favorite show. Always has been always will be. But after reading this thread so far, I'm seriously thinking of just sitting this out.

[artscallion]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:28am

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

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:52am

Henrike -

In the original production, the wolf's penis was used as a suggestion of sexual activity. Obviously Little Red is played by an adult, which to me means that it isn't disturbing. If a 12-year-old played Little Red, I think my reaction would be a bit different.

Also, I think the argument that the wolf isn't a human is a bit bizarre. It's a fairytale, not the real world. The wolf speaks and cleverly deceives Little Red. To me, that's the definition of a predator. It's quite clear the wolf represents something else. The point of the story tale isn't to tell children about the dangers of wolves. I think we all can get the not so subtle idea about the dangers of interacting with strangers.

[VampyreCamp]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:53am

*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

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 9:56am

Some of you guys really need to use spoiler alerts.

[VampyreCamp]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:03am

Apologies. Fixed it.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:03am

Jordan - that would be a big mistake. I love the show, it's not quite my favorite, but it's up there. There are some flaws, many of which can certainly be rectified after a week or so but the fact remains that I can't think of anything much more enchanting than seeing Into the Woods at the Delacorte.

Ljay - probably every post could use a spoiler alert...

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:14am

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.

[jagfkb]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:28am

^I thought of it that the rest was still his dream, almost like when you dream and are observing from afar. Made sense to me.

[VampyreCamp]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:35am

*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.

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:36am

HeyMrMusic - isn't the narrator killed in the original production also? How is that unique to having a child narrator?

I think it works quite well. The narrator helped moved the story along and sets up characters in the first act, much like what the narrator does in fairytales. The death of the narrator means a departure from the traditional fairytale and a journey away from comfortable. That's why the second act reads much less like a fairytale. Every character is now alone.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 10:36 AM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 10:58am

(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.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:03am

Spoilery:

Or maybe have the kid wake up then and continue on with his playing? That could maybe explain why everything goes to pot after that. He is annoyed that he died in his own dream about his world, so then he just sits there as main characters die.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:09am

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.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:11am

Or maybe just don't mess with perfection.

I HATE this child narrator because, well, it's stupid and also because it makes absolutely no sense. I wish I could even say "I see what they were trying to do here..." but I can't. I think Steve got high one night while watching cartoons and eating his second box of Fruity Pebbles and had a "awesome idea" that to me, just doesn't work.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:13am

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.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:14am

You shouldn't be reading this thread if you're not expecting spoilers. It's a discussion thread about what people have seen.

Enter at your own risk, but don't bitch about it when they actually discuss it.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 11:16am

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