The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion- Page 15

[michellek45]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:03pm

Kad: Alright, that makes sense. The tone whiplash is the most interesting part of the show to me.

Wynbish: Yes, my avatar is the one and only Mary Cherry.

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:06pm

Best12Bars, His age doesn't mean he's stupid. How insulting can you get?? Kids understand emotions, even if they can't express them directly. Which would make the story coming out of his games make even MORE sense. To say he can't even begin to understand is so prejudicial, and incorrect.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:17pm

Wait, this is a child, right? He's eight at most and maybe younger? And you're "insulted" that I would question how child of that age would understand the complexities of married life, wedded bliss, etc., and plan his playtime story around it?

EIDT: Why is it younger people forget that older people were younger people once, too? They would rather be indignant instead. I remember what I remembered at eight years of age. Now that I'm older, I see exactly how much I had to learn back then (and am still learning). That is something you don't know ... yet.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 01:17 PM

[artscallion]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:19pm

How is it prejudicial? There are established guides to age based development. Children learn certain things at certain ages. For a child to understand Cinderella's complicated tug of war between her desires and apprehensions, among other things, is a little bit of a stretch. I don't think it's prejudicial. I think it's established child development norms.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:27pm

isn't the entire point of the show that kids DO understand adult themes??? 'Careful the things you say, children will see and learn'

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:27pm

I forgot to put in my thoughts that the open air presentation with the wind, clouds and few raindrops (And racoons!) added a nice touch to the show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:31pm

isn't the entire point of the show that kids DO understand adult themes???'

No, it isn't.

They will SEE and LEARN, yes ... but they don't already know.

This is a kid on stage who is teaching himself all about the struggles of adult life? Come on.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 01:31 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:32pm

Again, besty, I don't think that is at all the case. Have you seen the production, either at the Delacorte or at Regent's Park?

If anything, it's a kid mimicking things he has heard and seen, that he has been told.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:37pm

Kad, so this child has already been told by one or both of his parents at his age exactly what an unhappy marriage is like? What sexual awakening is like? He knows how people feel who smother others and try to control them in the name of love? Who do bad things out of jealousy?

And he's just mimicking what he's already been told?

How old is he supposed to be? Do they say or can you tell?

You really don't think this is a stretch?

EDIT: Do you know any kids at all who play "unhappy marriage" and "sexual predator" with their dolls?

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 01:37 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:48pm

I never said his parents sat him down and told him things, a la the birds and the bees talk.

But in our world today, these things are easily at anyone's disposal and kids are more aware of the darker aspects of society at a younger age- and I can attest that it seeps into their make-believe. Certainly you have friends who are parents or nannies or baby-sitters who report all the strange games their kids play, that are oddly mature yet not? I know my childhood playtimes were rife with all sorts of distorted versions of adult drama, despite the fact I was playing with dinosaurs and Star Wars figures. It doesn't mean I understood them fully, or the emotions that drive them, but I went through the motions.

While the themes in ITW are certainly based in reality, the play itself is not. It's not realism in its execution of those unhappy marriages and smothering mothers, of infidelity and greed. It's a fantastical version of them, written in fairy tale language and often in shorthand.

And this production isn't presented as realism, either.

Is it plausible that a child would create the world word-for-word as Sondheim and Lapine have written it? Obviously not. But that is where you can suspend disbelief.

The child's age is not stated, but I guess he'd be >10.

And so, I ask you again- have you seen this production?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:48pm

The book is more successful than others in the Sondheim cannon and it's his most accessible show.

I think you mean "canon". The only Sondheim cannon I know is utilized in Please Hello.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:52pm

"I mean the original production had a wolf's penis on his costume."

I've seen some photographs of that but understood it was removed after a few performances.

I guess it was too much for audiences to swallow back then.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:52pm

I would say the kid is somewhere around 11 or 12 years old.

*spolier**

When the show opens you hear a jumble of arguing and shouting over the speakers.

*end spoiler*

Besty, I have to disagree with you a bit on this. I knew about those things at a very young age because of my home environment. No, not every child does but in the times that we live in, a lot more do. Just reading Kad's post as I am writing this and I agree.

[Wynbish]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:53pm

A few performances? It's on the DVD.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:53pm

Kad---No, I haven't. It's had one performance. That's why I asked the questions here. You seem fine with the premise. Others who have seen this same production hate the premise and find it unrealistic or at least a big stretch. There is definitely a divide, don't you agree?

I have already said that I think it could work (especially in a film version), but not without rewriting to explain how this kid is able to express these complex emotions so articulately and wisely.

EDIT:

uncageg---If he is 11 or 12, I would come closer to buying this premise, which is why I asked his age. There is a HUGE difference between eight and twelve, developmentally.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 01:53 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:59pm

The Regent's Park version is available for your viewing pleasure, if you are indeed curious.

If anything, stretches in articulation of emotion were moments I took that the boy's fantasies sort of took a life of their own.

Just as the Narrator in the original production did not sprinkle in, "...said the Witch," "...said the Baker", but you got the fact the he was "telling" the story, even though it was clearly not under his entire control and he was absent or silent much of the time.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 1:59pm

The actor playing the boy is, I believe, 11/12. His age is never directly stated in the show, obviously.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:03pm

If anything, stretches in articulation of emotion were moments I took that the boy's fantasies sort of took a life of their own.

I think that would be the key to making the premise work. Reading through the "reviews" from people who have seen it, it seems for some, it's clear they do take on a life of their own, and for others it's not clear at all. The boy is still "running the show."

Twelve makes more sense and is much less of a stretch. I could still buy him playing with toys AND starting to understand the complexities of adulthood. He's on the verge of it himself.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:11pm

Well, Besty, I do hope you see an incarnation of this production.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:15pm

I was gonna watch the Regent's Park production cause it's so reasonable...but I decided to go into the Delacorte production blind. 8/15 can't come soon enough!

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:17pm

I look forward to it, Kad.

When I first heard about the new narrator premise, I loved the idea, particularly how it paid off in the end.

It's really only been from others who have seen the production and said it's too much of a stretch that I started doubting it. And I think, for some, this kid reads younger than he does for others, which is part of the problem in buying it.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:29pm

I thought it was brilliant to do this. Kind of reminds me of what they did with Doyle's "Sweeney".

Besty, I can see what you are saying concerning the age of the child but I don't think that these days between 8 and 12 is too much of a stretch. Kids have so much information at their fingertips. I think what may define that stretch is how their parents decide to filter it and how many do or don't. (Which is not as easy these days) JMO

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:29pm

Spoilers galore:

I had no idea how old the actor was but I assumed the narrator was probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 11-12.

I also found it quite clear that the characters were taking a life of their own. In the beginning, the narrator has complete control, this is his vision. It all works out like he wanted in Act 1 but in Act 2, his characters are no longer under his control. Nothing goes according to plan and they no longer are his character but instead are individuals. It thus makes complete sense when he is killed. I really enjoyed this aspect of the production. However, I am now realizing that if you thought the entire show including Act 2 was his fantasy/dream and the characters are always figments of his imagination, then there are gaping plot holes.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 02:29 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:37pm

I have a question then, for those of you who've seen it ...

Does your location in the audience make a difference in how old you might perceive the kid to be? I would think the closer you are, the better you could see he was 12-ish.

And for a film version, that wouldn't be an issue at all.

uncageg---I don't doubt that kids are exposed to more today than we were, and we were exposed to more than our parents were. Radio, TV, and the Internet have each changed the world and the people growing up in it. Everyone is progressively more aware.

But still, processing what you've been exposed to is a whole different thing. I was exposed to some "bad things" as a child. I won't even go into it here, but suffice it to say, my childhood wasn't all sheltered and rosy. Understanding what was happening, and being able to comment on it, work through it, and speak wisely about it didn't happen for years. For some, it takes a lifetime to fully understand things that happen to us at that age.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 02:37 PM

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:38pm

broadwaydevil, that also plays into the line the witch delivers that "Some of us don't like the way you are telling it".