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

"Defeatist much? Shakespeare this ain't! "

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

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

How old are you...?

"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.

---

SPOILER

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

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

---

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.

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.

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

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

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

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 - 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.

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.)