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

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

"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.

A few performances? It's on the DVD.

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.

---

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.

---

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!

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

---

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