this production is not perfect by any means, but I can honestly say the thought of child abuse did not enter my mind at all while watching it (or afterwards, for that matter). ::shrugs::
I'm 28, and not by any means a Shakespeare fan. I've got a Masters in theatre, so it's not from lack of exposure or understanding either.
And I do appreciate a new and non-traditional take on Into The Woods, I just don't like when they force it to be a silly, pointless comedy like Princess Bride. The show has a darker, more important messages, and that interpretation weakens it.
It's not unusual for a revival to be more about the director than the material. In opera, it's standard. Some people enjoy that, some don't. I usually prefer a simpler approach, but that's just me.
I've seen the recording of the London version of this show, and I felt the same that the comedy weakened it. It should be verbal not physical with the Witch jumping up and down like a spoiled child. Those moments were painful to watch, but really my only complaint with the show. Although, I honestly thought even the original was a bit too silly.
For what it's worth, in Sondheim's book he compares the plotting of the first act of Into the Woods to Forum, calling them both farces. So though you may not like the comedy being emphasized, at least one of the creators feels that the show should be comedic, at least in the first act.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
Well I've always disagreed with that. Forum is the only Sondheim show I absolutely detest. I love the rest. I'm not saying the show isn't funny, I just find physical comedic repulsively common.
You find physical comedy "repulsively common"? Really? I find myself wondering if you even like to see anything comedic, as apparently you would just vomit from the sickening ordinariness of it all.
And in the case of Into the Woods, physical comedy is written into the script, it's not like it was added for this particular production. Think for example, of Cinderella's numerous pratfalls. I don't know why you seem to be holding this show up as some bastion of untarnished perfection, but I think you're talking about a very different show than the one that is actually written.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
So it sounds like the reverted back to the Regents park staging of the death. It's an awkward scene but it sounds a lot less awkward then what they tried to do.
"Oh look at the time, three more intelligent plays just closed and THE ADDAMS FAMILY made another million dollars" -Jackie Hoffman, Broadway.com Audience Awards
It's funny when Sondheim says things like FOURM and INTO THE WOODS are the best constructed musical farces, or James Lapine is the only person who can write musical librettos AND direct them too. Some people might say he's a little biased.
But then, look at the people and productions his shows and statements can be compared to: VICTOR/VICTORIA, Arthur Laurents' NICK AND NORA. The list goes on...
This may have already been discussed in any of the 20-something pages here, but does Shakespeare In The Park handout Playbills or programs of any kind? And do they sell any window cards?