The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion- Page 16

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:42pm

O I absolutely mean cannon. Doesn't Sondheim just shoot his shows out of his piano?

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:42pm

^Yes, uncageg, forgot to mention that. Very good line that really shifted the tone.

I was sitting about halfway back on the right. I definitely could see his face pretty well, if that's your question.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:43pm

It's true, HeyMrMusic. Sadly, Road Show got stuck in the cannon and caused it to backfire.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:43pm

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.

broadwaydevil, if you read through the last few pages of posts, it seems some who have seen it feel exactly that way. They see Act II as the kid's nightmare after he goes to bed at the end of Act One, which still means he is generating this very adult-level story.

That sounds like a much bigger discrepancy than his age.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 02:43 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 2:46pm

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

One point of the show is that our lives are imperfect and we are only human, and quite different than what it and we are said to be in the pat lessons which kindle Cinderella complexes, facile expectations of happy ever afters, notions that giants can be killed without consequences, beliefs that right and wrong have no in betweens, that the good are perfectly innocent and the bad are purely evil, etc....

ITW is not saying that kids already understand or are, at young ages, ready to THOROUGHLY understand the adult themes explored in the show.

But ITW just might be saying that if we MERELY instill in kids minds' complete fantasies that don't prepare them for the reality and responsibilities to come, we are doing them and our future a great disservice.

This is not to imply that ITW is anti-fairy tale. Far from it. Only that it poetically recognizes that fairy tales, taken too much to heart, can be dangerous. And that because children (INCLUDING THE CHILD THAT WILL ALWAYS REMAIN IN EACH OF US) are listening, it may be important to exercise care in embracing wholesale the lessons of fairy tales.

(I have no opinion on how the show's themes do or do not work with the child narrator. I have yet to see the show.)

But according to ITW, the reason to be careful in what we say, is not that children will comprehend the whole truth (when they are ready to hear it), but that they will not comprehend it, and instead remain children forever stuck in the black and white world of the Brothers Grimm with no appreciation for the complexity of real life.











Updated On: 7/25/12 at 02:46 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:08pm

I didn't see the child as being 8/9 or 11/12.

I saw him as being of the age where he, as an individual, is starting to be aware of the issues in his life that are the themes the show deals with.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:11pm

That the Baker is also the narrator's father implies a lot of things for how the story could connect to the boy's own life.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:57pm

Where I was sitting, pretty close, he looks about 12 or so, he's not a "little" boy, which made playing with dolls curious.
I think it mostly works, he's very clear in his speaking and had his timing and lines down (more than most of the adults).


If you take the tales on face value and think of all the sub-texts as perceptions of the stories it can work. But it does get rather complicated. The pay-off of Father/Son at the end makes it worth it.

[greenguy211]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 3:59pm

Does anyone have anything more to say about Gideon Glick's Jack? I'm interested to hear how he took on the character and whether people feel he does well playing it.

[uncageg]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:02pm

I agree Kad. After seeing the original, I wondered just what kind of father the baker would turn out to be. Even though he and the baby "warm up to each other" he clearly is afraid/confused about how to handle being a single parent. And the baby is a boy. So many things could have happened.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:02pm

O I absolutely mean cannon. Doesn't Sondheim just shoot his shows out of his piano?

Ow. I just Neti'd a huge gulp of Coke Zero. And I probably deserved it.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:14pm

"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."

Pun? :P Scripps, it does seem that they downplayed that part of the costume, the filmed version (done near the end of the show's run with the original cast returning) also tries not to emphasize it but, as mentioned, it definitely is still there.

As for the argument about the child narrator--with the filmed UK production I took it that the more adult second act showed the boy's nightmare (as mentioned) with him losing control over the story. I don't think the concept is completely successful, there *are* holes, but I also think it really works in parts (apparently more successfully than a similar concept used a few years back for that American regional production with Euan Morton). It doesn't bother me that elements of the story seem too adult for the boy even in Act I--honestly I don't think a wolf that comes off as a sexual predator is something no kid that age would understand--understand is maybe the wrong word, but *know*. I knew a kid that age who used to watch Law and Order SVU with his parents (seriously) so these concepts and images would be there and I think it makes sense to have them in his head even if he couldn't make full sense of them (arguably)--which I think can work for ITW--certainly I think we can see elements on stage that go beyond the story the Boy is narrating or explaining to us, if that makes sense.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:17pm

Gideon is a cute Jack (I don't mean that to be demeaning in any way). He's very innocent and childish, without seeming like some sort of manchild. He sounds great.

[CurtainPullDowner]

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

I thought Gideon was a highlight, great sense of innocence and so cute as a ginger-boy.
His voice is very special, I just hope the sound board can help him soar a bit more, it's not a huge boy-belt so it could possibly be aided in the environment.
He's just damn cute, I and I think Denis were a little scared for him in the Rapunzel perch, it's very high and I hope he's rigged. The placing of all 4 actors for NO ONE IS ALONE is unfortunate, they need to be more accessable to the audience for such a tender song.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:31pm

I also love his delivery of, "I'm taking my cow."

He and Sarah Stiles have nice chemistry.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 4:36pm

"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."

Usually, I'm with you--Hell, I'm one of the few people on here who would largely prefer to see revivals use the original designs and choreography, more often than not. But, maybe because I am *so* familiar with ITW's original staging due to the DVD, I admit this production--at least the UK version as filmed, was a bit of a revelation to me. No, it doesn't all work, but it did make ITW feel fresh to me in a way it hadn't in so many other productions (including the revival--I think this is certainly much more interesting than Lapine's revival, though I admit I'm a bit confused by, at least in London, how some of the revival's changed lyrics are kept and some not). Again, some of that is probably because ITW got me into Sondheim when I was 10, and I probably watched it a good 50 times, so...

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:31pm

Having consulted the Scripps archives (and emerged with dust in my hair, insulation in my nostrils and spiders crawling up my trouser leg), I was thinking of an article in the Liz Smith column of the Daily News dated 18th October 1987, which implies but doesn't explicitly state that the wolf's genitalia was being removed.

Happy to correct my mis-remembering of the article as I'm always glad when penises are where they should be.


Updated On: 7/25/12 at 05:31 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:39pm

Between a wolf's legs?

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:44pm

Best12Bars - I agree such an interpretation makes no sense. I guess it's up to the audience then to fill in the gaps. To be honest though, it will probably be best to see it for yourself to know exactly how it's staged and conveyed. It never even crossed my mind that one could interpret the second act as some sort of nightmare. So either it's not clear and my mind just happened to fill in the gaps (which is possible) or well, maybe the minds of a few posters here were a bit confused... (is that politically correct?)

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 05:44 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 5:53pm

"Between a wolf's legs?"

What possible use would the warderobe staff have had for it otherwise?





Updated On: 7/25/12 at 05:53 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:50pm

I saw the show in Regents Park and this is what I gleaned from it.

SPOILERS

It was inferred (to me clearly, not so much to friends) that the Narrator/Little Boy's mother had recently passed. Every time the Baker's Wife came on, as Narrator, his voice changed, he was very obviously angry at her. The boy KNOWS death, that's why he dies in the nightmare Second Act based on his toy/action figure playing of the First Act during the day. The death of a parent will hasten the aging of any child.

He had had a (possibly many) fight(s) with his Father who was probably having trouble with a young boy who didn't know why his mother was taken from him so soon. It is why he alone comes to find him at the end of the play. Its also AMAZINGLY moving when the Baker's Wife sings her part of the Finale to the REAL dad. I hope this is still in the staging.

Unfortunately I'm in LA and can't see the show as I won't return home to NY till September. So for those who have seen it, please let me know if these concepts are still at work in this production.

Updated On: 7/25/12 at 06:50 PM

[The Josh]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 6:59pm

^ That's what I got out of it. I figured that the story was, at least in part, influenced be events in the boy's life. I'm pretty sure that what you describe is still in the play, unless I'm remembering incorrectly.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 7:18pm

Wow, that is a whole lot of story. And if that truly is what it is, none of that is needed at all. It's not what the show is about, at least in this media. I agree that something like that could possibly work as a framing device for a film. Onstage? How is the audience expected to infer all of those details when the plotlines are convoluted enough? That is asking a lot of the audience. We never see the boy grieving. We only see him unpacking a bag and playing with dolls while scenes are taking place. I certainly didn't see any anger towards the Baker's Wife. I thought he got in the way of the story we are trying to follow. The staging does this concept no favors as nothing is particularly lucid. James Lapine's versions were very easy to follow. No clutter or extra baggage needed. It just does the show a disservice in my opinion.

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 7:51pm

All I can say, MrMusic, is that I've seen "Into the Woods" many times. It has never made me cry.

The Regents Park production left me embarrassingly devastated and close to sobbing at the end. What was moving was the combination of the father and son coming to an understanding and then the Baker's Wife/Boy's Mother, magically, for a moment, crossing over from the story and speaking to the Father (who obviously doesn't hear her).

Also, MrMusic, this production is ONLY happening because of the critical success of the Regent's Park production. We've already had a recent revival. Why do this play again so soon if its just another "typical" staging?

I would also argue that this concept is EXACTLY what the show is about.







Updated On: 7/25/12 at 07:51 PM

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/25/12 at 8:09pm

And to be fair, the Lapine revival which was arguably more Disney-fied (for lack of a better word) was, IMHO, an uninteresting approach to the material which didn't make any revelations. I'm not saying this production (again judging from the recorded version) is or should be even remotely definitive, but I agree with Owen that it doesn't take away or change from the theme or message of the original. I also think the piece can be still enjoyed without trying to figure out the child narrator backstory if one doesn't want to, but I do get that an argument could be made for it confusing some people.

Someone mentioned that Our Little World isn't used in this staging--is that true? Also, it seems like nobody felt the Witch's transformation worked--admittedly in the UK it was extremely basic (she walks behind a tree and quickly transforms while the audience is distracted by the death of the Mysterious Man).