The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion — Page 14

All the characters in Bobby's life can come to life out of his coloring book!

re: Into the Woods, I actually like the idea (in theory) of a child playing with his toys while he invents the story on the spot ... with one major exception: this story is WAY too clever and wise for a child to invent ... or even initiate. I think it might work better on film, perhaps, but it would really need a rewrite to allow these characters to "know things now" that a child narrator wouldn't even begin to understand.

---

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 11:20 AM

And Desiree should be a Disney Channel-esque tween star just to show that even at 14, it's not too late to find true love.

Broadwaydevil, I think we are almost in complete agreement, but I'm surprised you find the wolf not being a human bizarre. Since Aesop, animals have been given the power of speech and other human traits in fables, fairy tales and even adult literature (in addition to Little Red Riding Hood, Pinocchio, The Three Little Pigs, Watership Down, The Wind in the Willows, Chronicles of Narnia, The Wizard of Oz, Happy feet, The Lion King, Peter Rabbit, Animal Farm, The Little Mermaid - to just scratch the surface).

I saw the original production of ITW so I'm well aware that the wolf was anatomically correct. Not only male humans, but also male wolves have penises.

And I think the 3 Little Pigs should be three twinks from Chelsea who are, y'know.

***continued spoiler?***

Yes, I kind of saw it as a dream in the second act. Even a nightmare as the second act is darker. They made it quite obvious that he was still in the sleeping bag and from the movement was possibly having a bad dream. I loved the whole concept and it brought the lyrics to Children Will Listen home. I think it is fine that the boy dreams that he dies. It is a dream and can continue beyond that. JMO

---

I usually just lurk on the boards, but between comments I've been reading here and the Morgan James twitter fiasco last night, I decided to finally join and post. I saw the preview last night, and I thought they did quite well. I posted this in the other Into The Woods thread, but I thought I'd share it here too:

Everyone should take into account that they had one week of technical rehearsals to get this gigantic show up on its feet. I doubt they had six full 10 out of 12s since it isn't Broadway, but let's pretend that they did. The first half of those rehearsals would have been in broad daylight (read: NOT show conditions) and probably not in costume. You also obviously can't set lights, at least not accurately, during the daytime. They must have come in from noon until what...about 5? and then taken dinner. 7 until midnight would, I assume, be in (or closer to, at the start) "show conditions" - costumes, lights, accurate time of day/natural light. That's only five hours a day, which means only 30 hours total of actual tech time for a huge musical. They also lost, let's guess and be conservative, about 3 hours because of rain. That brings it down to 27 hours, even though I would be willing to bet it was more than 3 hours that the rain hindered their schedule. We all know how much it rained this past week here in the city. I am not even going to count the canceled preview/rescheduled tech day since it rain that entire evening for them. If you were there last night and saw the show, you will understand why they have to stop in the rain between the choreography and all of the stairs. 27 hours of real tech time. That is nothing.

If that was too long or hard for you to follow, then just read this:

The fact that they did even half as well last night as they did during their FIRST PREVIEW is a spectacular feat. In two weeks when they open, then and only then I think we can all judge as harshly as we want. Until then, let us try to be supportive of this amazing cast, crew, and creative team that is trying to put up a brilliant show. I applaud the great work we saw last night, and I look forward to seeing it again after opening if I can snag another ticket somehow.

All of that being said, I am speaking on the topic of their performance. If you don't like this production's concept, that is certainly a whole other discussion.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 11:38 AM

I actually hope they use the child narrator premise (with some rewriting) for a film version. It will need something to kick it off, other than a "Masterpiece Theatre" style introduction by a suit-and-tie narrator with a book in hand.

That works well on stage (I love it, actually), but for a film, I can't see it working.

But since this is a stage production, I don't know why they did it, except to enhance the ending and the point of "children will listen" and pass on what they have learned, as you say, Kad.

---

jagfkb's interpretation is exactly the interpretation I came out of the Regent's Park production with, back in 2010. The concept brought a consistency to the whole show rather than the usual feeling that Act II is a sequel to Act I.

For me, this concept enhanced what was previously an also-ran in the Sondheim canon making it into a major work. I doubt I'll see a better staging of Into The Woods in my life.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 11:58 AM

A score does not an entire show make, though.

I'm in the camp that thinks Into the Woods completely works as written. The book is more successful than others in the Sondheim cannon and it's his most accessible show.

i decided that the boy/narrator was LITERALLY the CHILD of the BAKER and his WIFE...

he has grown up.... and is processing the earlier drama/tragedy by playing/storytelling....

that was why they used the ACTUAL BAKER !!!

this makes sense to me... and i felt it had GREAT impact!

p.s. here is my BLOG POST on the show >>

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

off to the gym !!!

---

Michelle, is your avatar Mary Cherry?

Holster, you can print the weather report a million times but that doesn't explain not being ready on time. Outdoor theatre has been around from the cavemen to the Great Greeks and in this country forever, this director has done a version of this production outdoors already and should know where the problems are. The actors got lost in the score several times, hearing the band and how to catch up should have been solved. A lot of the nervousness and line flubbing came from being uncomfortable with the stairs, set, props etc. If the set is that complicated you build an indoor set to rehearse on when it rains. It's all in the planning.
Another example is the witch transformation (which sucks). Even the simple way of subbing actors (as is written into the script) you need a quick reveal to be magic. Ever see a magician lift a curtain in front of himself the drop it in a second and be someone else? Do that! Here thry chose to undress Murph on stage. It don't work at all. But if you do that have the costume ready soon enough to rehearse it till it's as fast as possible (you could rehearse that in the concession stand if it rains). It's called bad planning.