Weakness of Sondheim's Second Acts

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 10:19am

Hey you guys-

I'm doing a research paper for my History of Theatre class about the weakness of the second acts of Into the Woods and Sunday in the Park with George, but I'm having trouble finding journals and such about them. I have found many reviews, but I think I need some more information. Do any of you have recommendations for journals or books to look at?

Thanks!
-Jess

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 10:31am

There are a lot of books about Sondheim that cover his career show-by-show. Some of the ones I've read are sort of annoyingly editorialized, but that actually may be able to help you, if you're dealing with something fairly subjective like dramatic "weakness."

Try:
Joanne Gordon, Art Isn't Easy: The Theatre of Stephen Sondheim
Stephen Banfield, Sondheim's Broadway Musicals

There are also some books that are collections of essays by various writers... I'm not sure what there is on Sunday or ITW in either of these offhand, but they're pretty easy to find if you want to look through them:
Reading Stephen Sondheim: A Collection of Essays, edited by Sandor Goodhart
Stephen Sondheim: A Casebook, edited by Joanne Gordon
They mostly deal with really specific things, though, so they might not be of use to you.

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 10:31 AM

[allofmylife]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 10:35am

That's why I was terrified when I read that Tim Burton was going to direct "Sweeney Todd" for the movies. Burton doesn't know that second (or third) acts occur in films. The result was.... well... okaaaay.........

But it was a close call.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:08am

I blame James Lapine. Baaaaad book writer.

Check out the Sondheim review. Great magazine with lots of great articles, and I would consider it a journal.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:15am

Having just recently written a paper on Into the Woods, there is next to nothing in journal articles. Most of your paper is going to be based on your analysis/synthesis.

That said, Into the Woods has a fairly strong second act when you start looking at it. A large portion of character development happens, and even though some questions are left unanswered, that's kind of the point. Life doesn't have a narrator.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:27am

I'm sorry, but by saying the 2nd Act of Into the Woods is weak, you're missing the point of the entire show. I'd actually say, though I think the entire work is well-crafted, Act I, being a set up for Act II, is weaker.

And while some consider Sunday's 2nd Act weaker, which I agree, I don't think you'll be able to pull an entire essay on the subject. Many want Act I to flow into Act II which would have been a foolish choice on Lapine's part. But as far as finding support in books for the Woods argument, I don't think you're going to find much support unless, as husk charmer noted, you have very strong ideas.

But many believe Into the Woods is about the AIDS crisis. You wouldn't have that theme without the 2nd Act. Think as a writer, not as a fan and you'll have a better paper. Perhaps it would be better to write on the Lapine/Sondheim collaboration and include Passion. But your teacher, if they know anything about musical theatre, has heard the weak argument that Woods' Act II is weak. I think people just don't like that its darker. Perhaps that could be a great focus. The darkness of the Sondheim/Lapine collaborations, you'll find a lot more to support that.

And I don't agree with Lapine being a bad book writer. I just think some audiences don't expect his books to go where they do and become writer rather than critic. Passion is a finely crafted book and I adore Sunday and Woods for the braveness to go where musical theatre hasn't gone before. Woods is in Act I musical comedy/Act II musical drama. This is hard to take for some aesthetics. It bothered me when I was younger but I appreciate it more as I get older, and I hope, wiser.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:29am

BobbyBubby-
When I was working on my ITW paper, I found a brief mention about the AIDS crisis connection, but nothing more. Can you elaborate?

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:44am

My main issue with act 2 of Into the Woods is something that no one ever seems to discuss--that in an act based around consequences of ones actions (deceit, theft, murder) the "happy conclusion" is brought on by the murder of the Giant's Wife. Ya, she wrecked a lot of stuff and killed a few characters, but so had the wolf and THAT wasn't okay.

Anyone care to change my mind and defend this?

[Jon]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:48am

Many have theorized that the Giant in Act II is a metaphor for AIDS - it kills indiscriminately, society has to stop arguing and assigning blame, and learn to work together to defeat it.

Others have theorized that the Giant represents nuclear war.

Lapine and Sondheim have denied all this. Sometimes a giant is just a giant.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:48am

sondhead-
It's not really a happy conclusion. They are doing what they can to survive. The difference is this time they know there is a consequence.

And in theory, we can also say that there are no more beans, so no more beanstalks, so if she dies, there's no way another giant (if there IS another giant) can come down and wreak havoc.

For me, the show doesn't end happily, it just pauses.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:53am

husk, you're right. It doesn't really end. The last words of the show are Cinderella singing, "I wish". Think about it.

[WaltSummersPI]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:55am

I can't think of a single Sondheim show where the second act was weaker.

Re: ITW/AIDS... I think the connection people were making was about more than just the giant, but the utter feeling of helplessness that pervades the second act. By the time we get to "Wake up: People are dying all around you", for a 1987 audience, the allusion was inescapable. However, if Sondheim and Lapine were influenced by AIDS, it was subconsciously.

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 11:59am

Is this a HS or College paper? If it's a college paper, I suggest you search Jstor, and I suggest you do not use the Applause style books or anything like that, as they are more coffee table books than real scholarly works.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 12:02pm

I think you have the start of a great paper but I'd encourage you to think outside the box with this one.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 12:24pm

The fact that Act II is incredibly important to Into the Woods as a whole doesn't make it impossible for it to be the weaker act. It's not about the themes developed in the act and the negating of the "fairy tale ending," it's about dramatic structure and material. Act I is pretty flawless. It's tight, focused, with most of the best music. The problem of the first act being stronger than the second is a problem in a LOT of musical theatre. The second act of ITW, while excellent and incredibly important from a thematic perspective, is not quite as focused or efficient as the first act. Again, this opinion is NOT a reflection on the IMPORTANCE of Act II to ITW as a whole. Without Act II, the piece merely exists as a tightly-written, hilarious farce. The entire thematic point of the musical ceases to be. I love Act II, but from a structural standpoint, I think people are very justified in saying it is weaker than Act I.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 12:38pm

"sondhead-
It's not really a happy conclusion. They are doing what they can to survive. The difference is this time they know there is a consequence.

And in theory, we can also say that there are no more beans, so no more beanstalks, so if she dies, there's no way another giant (if there IS another giant) can come down and wreak havoc."

So now that they know there are consequences, they do the same stuff anyways? I agree with the survive part--I think Lapine painted himself into a corner here because I can't imagine another way to end the story without it being incredibly hokey, but I think it's not a very satisfying ending at all.

Taryn--EXCELLENT way of putting it.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 12:40pm

Taryn, while this could be, I suspect younger viewers feel Act II is weaker because it is dark. I still feel the structure is perfect but I think a well-rounded theatergoer is justified if this as long as it isn't because of the darkness but from a general understanding of how musicals are structured.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 12:43pm

I don't think it has to do with sheer age so much as it does, simply, expectation. I remember when my mother went to see the revival of ITW, and she came back telling me that she loved the first act, but that the second act was just awful because it was dark and scary, when she thought it was going to be a typical fairy tale all the way through. It's just about what you want to or expect to see -- and while yes, maybe young audiences are often part of the group who expects a happy ending, it's not limited to young naivete. Sondheim's whole challenge-the-happy-ending convention is a huge part of what often makes people uncomfortable about his work.

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 12:43 PM

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 1:55pm

It comes down to some audiences writing the show as it happens rather than letting the writer take them on an unexpected journey. You're right about expectations Em. They often turn critics into directors and audiences into playwrights. There are plently of happily ever after fairy tales but from the original Broadway artwork alone, I can't imagine an audience being shocked by Act II. Now the revival is different with a much happier Act I consider most of the characters are very unhappy the entire first half though it isn't as dark, they still are missing pieces of themselves they don't find until tragedy hits. I actually find the end of Act II to have a realer sense of happines instead of the false sense of security the characters feel from their material wishes.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 2:26pm

Thanks for your comments everyone.

This is a college paper- and it does not reflect my opinion at all. I was having a conversation with my professor about the revival of Sunday- and somehow he got on the topic of Sondheim's "weak" second acts. I told him that, when done properly, I didn't think it was necessarily weak (I thoroughly enjoyed it in the revival, but cannot follow it at all on the video of the OBC). He recommended that I write my research paper on this- finding journals and such about why some of his musical's have this weakness, and then discuss why I thought the revival worked.

Something like that. Heh.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 2:31pm

"Taryn, while this could be, I suspect younger viewers feel Act II is weaker because it is dark."

Not here at least. I mean, I'm youngish (22) and I'm definitely not turned off by darkness. I actually feel the show worked best in London when the first act wasn't directed as slapstick-y, but rather darker and bigger making the acts a little more congruous.

I feel Act 2 is weaker because the structuring/pace/plotting just aren't as good as Act 1, just like Taryn said.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 2:49pm

Jstor actually has very little on Sondheim...trust me, I looked.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 2:51pm

Yeah, JStor isn't particularly useful when it comes explicitly to musical theater; it's better for finding things to pad and contextualize your argument.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 3:00pm

In fact, most of my "book" work came from a book called "The Witch Must Die" it doesn't deal with ITW directly, but some of the common themes are there.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 3:04pm

My main issue with act 2 of Into the Woods is something that no one ever seems to discuss--that in an act based around consequences of ones actions (deceit, theft, murder) the "happy conclusion" is brought on by the murder of the Giant's Wife. Ya, she wrecked a lot of stuff and killed a few characters, but so had the wolf and THAT wasn't okay.

I'm not sure I get the connection between the Giant's Wife and the Wolf here. The wolf was also killed.

The Giantess wasn't going to stop until she had Jack, and the only person willing to give Jack up was The Witch. I think every person who makes it to the end of the show understands the consequences of their actions and what got them to the point they are when the show ends.