The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion- Page 27

[TheHappyPhantom]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 11:45pm

"Defeatist much? Shakespeare this ain't! "

No. It's Sondheim! And deserves equal treatment in my book.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/30/12 at 11:47pm

Cooper Grodin had a medical emergency and will probably be gone through opening.
Show has been getting out around 11
"Our Little World" was never even rehearsed- no idea why it's in the program

[Owen22]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 4:56am

"No. It's Sondheim! And deserves equal treatment in my book."

How old are you...?

[gstrus2]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 10:19am

Entered the Virtual Lottery for today. I really hope to win:) Will keep you posted! Updated On: 7/31/12 at 10:19 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 11:13am

"No. It's Sondheim! And deserves equal treatment in my book."


Then you should be all for strangely designed productions set in nonspecific time periods.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 11:29am

So I saw the show yesterday and my thoughts are still very scattered as they were when I left the theater. To me, the concept behind this production is brilliant and incredibly inspired, but for some reason (could very well be lack of rehearsal) it feels wildly disjointed. Many of the actors are not just not on the same page but in a totally different world. There is an obvious lack of chemistry between the performers. The pacing is all off, both musically and dramatically. The laugh lines are still being sifted out. The set, while gorgeous, causes various entrance and exit issues.

This is one of my favorite shows of all time, but this production needs a lot of rehearsal time if it's looking to transfer. The show ran exactly three hours and at times I felt it. Even with the much maligned 2001 revival, I didn't feel that way. This INTO THE WOODS is missing a uniformity and organic flow that made the original production work so well. It's very much an ensemble piece and relies heavily on the chemistry of the cast as a whole. I'll start with the highlights of the cast.


Amy Adams surprised me. Sure, she's nothing revelatory. Sure, she's no Joanna Gleason. But she's really adorable and gives quite a winning performance. She could probably benefit from a longer rehearsal period (I'm sure she'll get better and better as the performances go on) but she won me over. Sarah Stiles is a wonderful Red Riding Hood. She's funny, charming, and precocious without being cloying. Chip Zien is also great as the Mysterious Man, clearly having a "full circle" moment with this piece all these years later. Noah Radcliffe was very, very good and thankfully gives a portrayal that isn't the typically grating "kid" performance category. And while she's not as brilliant as Laura Benanti was in the revival, Jessie Mueller is a strong presence as Cinderella.

Now, onto the rest of the cast. Donna Murphy is hamming it up as The Witch and while she brings her undeniably strong talents to the role, one couldn't help but wish for a little more from her. First of all, for the love of god, someone please lower the keys to 90% of her songs. Especially "Last Midnight." By the end, she was practically screeching and straining to hit the notes. And speed up "The Witch's Rap"! Again, she's good, but she's not great. And then there's Denis O'Hare. The second his name was announced for this show, I could envision how he would play the role. And I was right. He leans heavily on his "awkward" approach once again and his singing voice is very thin. He has no chemistry with Adams, which is a huge blow to the overall impact of the piece. They've only been performing the show for a week and it seems as if he's already phoning it in. Gideon Glick got on my nerves, for some reason. And his "Giants in the Sky" was unimpressive.

Everyone else is fine, if nothing spectacular. The real star of this show, truth be told, is the inspired production and direction. The "special effects," which are very PETER AND THE STARCATCHER-esque, are wildly imaginative and perfectly suited for this new fairy tale/nightmare approach. I particularly loved the aforementioned giant (voiced BRILLIANTLY by Glenn Close) and the witch's eery disappearance after "Last Midnight." The direction is absolutely fantastic (although again, it could benefit from more rehearsal and some ironing out here and there). The pacing is a bit off and some scenes have a bit too much lag time in between them, which could easily trim off a few minutes right there. The orchestra is strong, but again, has some issues with pacing. The opening number should feel briskly paced but it feels anything but.

Overall, its hard to deny how great this material is. And by the end, I was still moved by it (particularly the stroke of genius to change the narrator to the Baker's son). But I couldn't help but feel as though the production as a whole was disjointed and uneven. This is mainly due to casting and pacing, two things that are easily solvable if the show transfers to Broadway. I do think it will get stronger, better, and more cohesive with time. It's a much more ambitious production than most shows the Delacorte houses, which poses major obstacles. INTO THE WOODS, unfortunately, didn't clear all of those obstacles for me.

I'd like to see it again later in the run but I don't know how I feel about camping out at 3am... And I do hope it transfers, because I think once it's polished and tightened, it could be something truly spectacular. I do wonder though, what removing this production out of the park and putting it indoors will do. This is very much a production that benefits heavily from it's outdoor environment. Updated On: 7/31/12 at 11:29 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 11:45am

SPOILER

Also, out of curiosity, how was the death of the Baker's wife staged in the first previews?

[Kad]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 11:53am

She "fell" from the front of the tower, lowered by the rigging that pulls up the Witch and the Prince. It was slow and really didn't work.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:08pm

For me, I totally lost the "Outdoor environment" by the heavy handedness and busyness of the god awful set.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:11pm

SPOILER

How is her death staged now?


and Rocks, how was Paris?

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:11pm

Hmm...I wasn't sure this new staging of her death worked either. It seems like it's a lot better than the original staging sounds though.

[keb2]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:13pm

I was fine with Amy Adams' hair the show. It does look odd in stills, but I thought it worked fine in the show.

How do they stage the Baker's Wife's death now?

Paris as Rapunzel's prince is interesting, but I bet he's great. It definitely took me a while (i.e. until they both appeared on stage together) to figure out that there were two princes, not just one. They look (and sing) so similar!

I thought the production was just so magical, especially in the outdoor environment.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:14pm

Now, she climbs up into the top-most part of the set (used for Rapunzel's tower) during the mayhem and just sort of screams "NO" and falls backwards as the lights go out. Wasn't crazy about it.

And Paris was very good! He stumbled on one lyric, I believe, but it was barely noticeable. I do think he and Cinderella's Prince are another example of how better chemistry would help this show tremendously. They both seem a bit timid and not melodramatic enough to score the big laughs in "Agony." Granted, it was his first performance though.

[Kad]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:24pm

To be fair, the death of the Baker's Wife is a weird one to stage. Even the original production's staging was sort of odd.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:26pm

I thought Ivan Hernandez was one of the standouts. I'm sure he'll gain more chemistry with Paris.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:27pm

I was just about to post something along those lines, Kad, as I was thinking about how past productions staged it. It's very tricky to stage.

And Hernandez was a standout, as well. Forgot to mention him. "Hello, Little Girl" was never a truly note-worthy song for me until last night.

[macnyc]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:40pm

I saw the show Monday night, and it was my first exposure to any production of Into the Woods. I was favorably impressed with how well the show has gelled after a reportedly rocky start.

Someone (maybe Kad) said earlier, though, that monitors had been installed so that the actors could see the conductor. I didn't see any monitors. Where are they? With or without monitors, though, the cast didn't miss any musical entrances, at least that I noticed, and I thought the orchestra sounded very nice. I felt a couple of times, though, that the performers were overmiked.

Little Red was very funny, and I enjoyed every second she was on stage. Her costume was kind of silly, though, like something out of Godspell. And I absolutely hate Amy Adams' wig! Every time I looked at her during the three hours, I thought, "Yuck!" If that was Paris Remillard's first performance as Rapunzel's prince, props to him! He looked and sounded great.

We were chatting with another theatergoer on the way out, and he said that Cooper Grodin has appendicitis. That's just hearsay, though, so take that with a grain of salt.




Updated On: 7/31/12 at 12:40 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:41pm

The monitors are placed over the stairs at gates 2 and 3.

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:43pm

Yeah, I was in gate 3, and I believe I sat right in front of the monitor.

[macnyc]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 12:48pm

Oh my goodness, I was sitting right in back of a monitor, and I didn't even realize what it was. Thank you for pointing that out. I was near gate 2. Ljay, you had a great seat!

I just wanted to add that seeing this show completes my Sondheim trifecta for the year: Follies, Merrily We Roll Along, and Into the Woods! Good times.




Updated On: 7/31/12 at 12:48 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 2:40pm

Alright, it has taken me a little time to process my reactions to this particular production. Some of the production was sheer genius, some was absolute disaster; much like the production, some of the casting was sheer genius, while others were absolute disasters. It was definitely a testament to the material on the page – as well as a deeply rooted love for this work – that still left me moved by the end.

Donna Murphy turns in a spectacular performance as the Witch. Her choices are wonderful and she took what she was given and she runs with it. The only issues I had pertaining to her were very clearly the fault of the director. Amy Adams is a delight as the Baker's Wife. She is solid, she is likable. She plays it with sincerity as a housewife who loves her husband and wants a child. She never veers into digging for a cheap laugh. Ellen Harvey's turn as the dominatrix Stepmother was wonderful. She delivers a line with the precision of a sharp shooter. Sarah Stiles is absolutely inspired as Little Red. During the Prologue, I found myself thinking “Uh oh, what is she doing?”, but half way through “Hello, Little Girl” I found myself thinking “The director is making some god awful choices, but this girl is doing some brilliant work” and she had me wrapped around her finger. Quite possibly my favorite performer of the night.

Seeing Chip Zien as the Mysterious Man was wonderful. Very full circle, as has been said many times before. Glenn Close's voicing of the Giant is absolutely chilling and terrifying. I was delighted to see (well, hear) that she did not play the giant as a loud, booming ogre. She dug in, she found depth to the words and she played the levels. You actually find the Giant not only scary, but absolutely sympathetic. Wonderful work, ms. Close.

I did not care for the depiction of the Prince's at all, and Ivan Hernadez's Cinderella's prince had about 10 too many line readings that were DIRECTLY lifted from Robert Westenberg. Gideon Glick has a few good beats as Jack, but nothing more. He was entirely grating all too often he was going for the cheap laugh and rehashing his exact performance as Ernst from Spring Awakening. This brings me to the biggest flaw in the company, Denis O'Hare. I appreciate playing some things that aren't on the page and his performance clues you in to a few extra connections not directly stated, but wow. He manages to make the Baker dull, completely unlikable and a few of his lines – major ones at that – are delivered as if he were onstage in a 6th grade cafetorium. He has absolutely ZERO chemistry with anyone on stage, most critically with Amy Adams (you can see her reaching to him and him giving NOTHING back), and he shows no musicality and is often a bit painful to hear sing the score.

The direction has moments of genius. The realization of the Giant was startling even though I knew what to expect and quite probably one of my favorite visual feats of the year so far. The incorporation of Milky-White was spot-on. The puppet was mostly well design and perfectly puppeteered by various company members – I particularly liked the way Milky-White would react to the actor and hang / shake her head every time Jack said or did something foolish. The use of the Stepsisters post-blinding was delightful and their eyeballs were.. wow. The beanstalk was a delight. How they treated Rapunzel's twins in act two was shocking and unexpected and gasp-inducing. Rapunzel as an alcoholic was rather interesting.

Beyond that, much of the direction is a flat-out disaster. The Narrator, while performed well, is a horrible mistake. He is very, VERY actively involved in the story the entire time and characters acknowledge him throughout and start to address him directly, which is blatantly at odds with the moment where the characters realize he is there and pull him into the story to feed him to the Giant. The added 'prologue to the prologues' add unnecessary running time while adding nothing to the story, the body double having nightmares is distracting and the transition with Denis O'Hare running off stage to create the bookend while Amy Adams and Donna Murphy sing a beautiful “Children Will Listen” ruins the final tender moment of the show and turns the finale into a Sally Struthers 'adopt a starving child' infomercial.

The story-theatre (referred to by some as “Peter and the Starcatcher” style work at some moments – The Giant, Grandmother's house, but are more often than not cheap and gimmicky and vastly at odds with the large (for Woods) cast and vast scale of everything else.

There is little connection with the audience since a solid 70% of the action is staged far upstage and on the upper levels of the set. There is a VERY notable disconnect. Half of it seemed to be “We built it, so let's use it” and you'd see actors shouting at one another across stage levels. Blocking and staging was flat out sloppy. All too often – especially when characters sit by one another – the action would seem to be directed in no particular direction. The reinstatement of Cinderella's Father was pointless. You could really tell that it was done to get Zien onto the stage and the director didn't want him there. You sat there while the clock ticked and at least 5 minutes of running time was added to the show while you watched the Witch's entrances and exits as Donna Murphy hobbled off to the far reaches on her crutches before the action continued. You also had times were you'd hear the orchestra vamp for days as you waited for the large cast to climb stairs (single file!) and transition to different levels of the set or cross the vast playing space in ways that should NOT have happened – most notably at the tail end of Act One. It often felt that the director didn't give a wit about the pacing or what was on the page and he'd make them stretch it to do what he wanted...

Would I see it again? Yes. I love “Into the Woods” and the the experience of seeing it outdoors, with the elements that I liked, was wonderful. Should it transfer? No. I would love to see a GOOD production on Broadway. This isn't it, kids.

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 3:04pm

Oh! I completely forgot to address the sexual nature of the show.
There was a LOT of sex - particularly in Act One, so they must be toning it way down for the family matinee. Even the playbill states that the Public wants Woods to be a gateway to Shakespeare in the Park for kids. REALLY?

The Witch reaches the brink of orgasm every time she hears Rapunzel sings and the tower climb was the equivalent of a phone-sex line. You see Little Red get molested and then raped. The Golden Harp is a Jersey Shore streetwalker who is clearly servicing Jack. There was even a moment or forced sexual tension between Jack and Little red in Act Two.

Now, I am certainly NOT a prude and I wasn't horrified at what i saw, but I have a major issue with the sexuality and that is the child Narrator.

If we are to believe that this story is being told by a child and eventually becomes his nightmare, what is the implication?

Is this a commentary on the sexual awareness of 10 year olds and if so, why? particularly where Little Red becomes the "naughty girl who wants it". Because the dynamics displayed are primarily parent-child and molestation and rape and are narrated by the child, are we supposed to think that the narrator was being sexually abused and he is acting them out through the story? If so, we should anyone be HAPPY when the father comes to find him??

It is a critical, critical, CRITICAL mistake.

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 3:11pm

broadwayguy2 - while i see where your points are coming from, I think you are digging a bit to deep, in my opinion.

Kids are exposed to sexuality through media every day. If this production were a film it would be rated PG (maaaaybe PG-13). 10 year olds watch PG-13 movies, so I don't see why it would be unusual for a 10 year old to have seen similar situations acted out in movies/tv.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 3:15pm

I honestly didn't think the show was THAT sexualized. Sure, the Little Red/Wolf scenes are highly sexualized, but I don't really think that's exactly an unheard of approach to that fairy tale.

But I do have to wonder how they'll perform the truncated version for families, considering most of the sexualized stuff is in the first act.

Updated On: 7/31/12 at 03:15 PM

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/31/12 at 3:22pm

Fan,
As an eldest sibling with much younger siblings and nieces and nephews, I am very aware of that fact. I'm not saying that displaying ANY sexuality would be inappropriate and raise questions and as a HUGE lover of Grimm, I am very familiar with the theme of Little Red. However, the level and style of sexuality displayed in this production, as narrated by a child, would raise the eyebrow and cause a person to question. I brought up the point to two friend yesterday who work with children and both said to me that if a child told a story and were that graphic about it, they would speak up as to the possibility of abuse. I don't feel I am digging deep at all.

(And as the victim of physical and emotional - not sexual - abuse as a child, I can tell you firsthand that when a child calls for help, it's often in that way and all too often, as was in my case, people don't listen and chalk it up to kids being exposed to things in media.)