The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion — Page 32

I saw the show early last week.

First off, I hate, hate, hate these "framing devices" directors use to put their stamp on a production. To me, it says they don't know how to direct a show in the traditional sense, that is, coaxing the best possible performances from a group of actors, and staging the show in such a way that best tells the story. Directors like Sheader don't serve their shows, they serve their egos. I'm all for innovation, but you still have to direct actors and tell the story. Adding that boring kid and his sketchy story only got in the way.

If you're directing a revival of a failed show, I applaud making changes in order to give the show a possible second life. Into the Woods, however, is a seriously good show—one of Sondheim's best. It doesn't need Timothy Sheader's changes to make it worthy of reviving. By the way, has he ever directed anything but a revival? He "re-imagines" established works, but has he ever directed a successful show from scratch?

Aside from Sheader's "interpretation", the intrusive choreography and hideous, pointless design choices, the casting left me baffled more than anything.

It's a sad thing that Joanna Merlin is no longer in the casting business. She was truly brilliant. Look at the casts of the original Company, Follies, Sweeney Todd, …Night Music, On the Twentieth Century, and Evita. Merlin was a casting director who is also a working actor AND a brilliant acting teacher. She knew talent—her standards were very high—and she knew who was right for a role. Merlin cast established stars, but cast them in roles that fit them like a glove. She also had a genius for discovering new talent. Nothing was more important for her than casting the best possible actor in a role. (I contend to this day that Phylicia Rash?d as the replacement Witch, was the producers' idea, and not hers.)

I found the cast of this "Woods" well below the standards of Broadway, which is not saying much these days. O'Hare was painful to watch and hear, Adams, while charming on film, has minimal stage presence and a very limited voice, Jack, Jack's mother, Cinderella, all sub-par. Stiles as Red Ridinghood, was adorable and nailed every laugh, but she was mis-cast; the character of Red is all about adolescent sexual awakening. Stiles has to be 30 at the very least. The Wolf/Prince was fine, but not outstanding. I adore Donna Murphy, and consider her one of Broadway's best, but even she seemed off her game, and vocally, she was all over the place.

I hope it doesn't move to Broadway. Like McAnuff's Guys & Dolls, it will just push a truly great revival of a show I love that much further into the future.

Auggie. I'm pretty sure the first NYSF musical was Two Gentlemen. And I'm also pretty sure their Threepenny was before their Pirates.

Yup! Off the top of my head:
-Shakespeare and Sondheim In the Park hoodie, tshirt, and window card
-Woods tshirt and tank
-Woods magnet
-Woods mug
-Woods Original Broadway Cast Recording
-Public Theatre tshirt and hoodie
-Public Theatre hat

That's all I can remember for now! (The In the Park hoodie was sold out when I was there on Thursday, by the way!)

Previews are over this week and the show officially opens on Thursday!

Do you know the prices of any of the items, also they accept credit right???

theatreguy - the Pirates video on Netflix says that it is the Park show, but it isn't...it is the film version.

For some reason that movie on Netflix is all kind of weird. Not in terms of the film itself, but if you read through the reviews, half of the people say it is the film version, half say it is the Delacorte version. The description says it it the Delacorte version, the poster is for the film version.

All I know is that every time I have checked, it has been the film version.

Updated On: 8/5/12 at 01:05 PM

I haven't seen that part of the film version, but I love all the encores the Delacorte version has of "With catlike tread"

Henkrik, you're right on both points, and I thank you for correcting me. I'd completely forgotten THREE PENNY, jeesh, which I saw twice (my dear friend Roy Brocksmith was the ballad singer, with the aforementioned also passed Azito; it went to the park after the Beaumont run, unless I'm crazy, and not with Julia but Phillip Bosco, alas, seriously miscast). I missed GENTS in the park. But, well, Pirates did have a superstar in Rondstadt, at her peak, and maybe that's why I conveniently forgot the others. PIRATES attracted non-theater fans in a big way. It was the event of that summer beyond anything in the past, if not (as you pointed out) the first successful musical.

---

Can anyone tell me how they're doing the Witch's exit after Last Midnight? I was a bit underwhelmed by it in the Regents Park production and was wondering if they'd rethought it.

Historyboy, (Spoilersahead)





A person dressed as the forrest floor pulls himself up through the ground grabs her and pulls her down into through a trap in the the stage floor. A rather creepy effect.

---

I saw the show on Friday night. Overall my impresson is that although I enjoyed it...I forgot how it drags. Mind you - I love this show but even for me it tends to feel like forever to deliver all of the information because of all the intangled characters and plots.

I really did not like the addition of the boy as narrator. The script already has entirely too much going on to add yet another level of characters. The show is sappy enough at the end without having the father find the kid in the woods for their moment.

I am not a giant Donna Murphy fan (Sorry Whizzer) but I absolutely believe that she is the main reason to see this production. Although I am not a purist and I admit that I do love Bernadette Peters a lot...Donna nailed the part of the witch. Donna was the only one who delivered her songs with enough power and emotion to actually choke me up. Overall the rest of the cast was adequate. They did a good job but unfortunately they did not wow me.

I liked the stage and the various levels. What bothered me was finding myself distracted and asking questions instead of staying involved in the show...
- How did the cow get on the second level?
- How did Rapunzel get the baby carriage on the second level.
- Why didn't the tree deliver the gown to her from the second level? Why was it handed to her on ground level?

The parts that I did find the stage clever were when the beanstalk grew and how the witch climbed up to Rapunzel. I liked the tower a lot. So then I wondered...Will they use the tower in the second act and I was pleasantly suprised to see how how they did.

My biggest problem with the show was the costumes. When the cast first came out I sat there trying to figure out who was who! I was sitting four rows from the back center. So from that distance the muted costumes were drab and blended in with the earthy set. There was nothing sophisticated about them. When I envision fairy tales I easily imagine the characters popping off the page/set without a second thought on who they are supposed to be. Here are my actual thoughts as I deciphered them:

- Katy Perry type with the dark rim glasses from the nerdy music video in a cheap prom dress, long in back and very high in the front...OH Cinderella!

- Dominatrix with a skunk pelt on her back....ugh Cinderella's stepmother.

(yes Whizzer - the ugly stepsisters did look like rejects from the Hunger Games' Panem)

- Molly Ringwald wearing a "short bus" helmet, stripped socks and has a deep dark nymphomanaic laugh and a red jacket...OH Little Red Ridinghood.

- Berger! What is Berger from Hair doing in this show? Berger is solicitating the Molly Ringwald character - OH that is the wolf.

- Prince Harry or maybe one of the Harry Potter boys...Oh Jack.

- Pair of flamboyant heterosexual males, Liberace and his brother George...costumes too poofy and far from regal, maybe wrong time period, missing the powdered white wigs...damn - those are the Princes!

- Joan Crawford in a lime green dress. Much sweeter than Mommy Dearest...Cinderella's mother.

- Drunk hobo with a mountainous garbage heap on his back. Is that the nudist guy from the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy show years ago? Mysterious man costume was too junky.

- The Goose from War Horse transferred and is now playing Jack's hen.

As for props...the modernization didn't work and also was distracting. Jack's mother owns a PINK dustbuster! She walked out with a plunger and wears bunny slippers. Made me groan. Cinderella's tree branch birds were stupid. From the back of the theater they looked like branches being waved about.

Some of the direction I thought was great: when Jack was singing "Giants in the Sky" and mentioned his mother - she appeared briefly as if hearing her son calling her but then wandered back to her work and in "Your Fault" when Jack joyfully skipped across the stage singing "it's not my fault at all."

I did like the way the beanstalk "grew" (won't explain so I don't give it away).

I liked the way the female giant appears (and the lighting) but after hearing from the witch that the giant is a human - WHY - did they make her appear like a mechanical robot! I can 'look through' puppetry and appreciate it even when abstract but the jaws of life with lipstick didn't read living 'human' giant.

All and all by the end of the show I did have a smile on my face. I enjoyed it but would have more if it weren't for the distractions I mentioned above. I do not believe this will be a successful transfer by any means whether it be for those listed above (directly relating to this specific production) or overall because the show is overly weighed down with densely woven character issues. Doubt I would want to spend another three hours sitting through this production again before it ends.

Updated On: 8/6/12 at 08:52 AM

Thank you Wynbish - I corrected the name spelling.