Weakness of Sondheim's Second Acts- Page 2

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 3:06pm

I thought the wolf represented Red's loss of her virginity.

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 5:10pm

Speaking of Sunday, though, didn't a lot of reviews for the revival note how much stronger the second act seems in this production? That's probably important to note. Sunday existed for a good chunk of time as JUST the first act.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 5:58pm

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

Right, but Little Red is reamed for being so happy at the wolf's death.

"How many wolves have you carved up?"
"A wolf's not the same."
"Ask a wolf's mother."

Therefore, the murder of the giantess bringing about the (I'm sorry, but in the context of the show, especially musically) happy ending seems to be quite contradictory.

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 6:31pm

Nothing to add other than this is one of the best threads I've read on bww.

Carry on.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 6:59pm

I plan on talking about the evolution of the second act of Sunday in the Park with George, so thats a chunk of information there.

[Horton]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 7:11pm

I just want to say that I love this conversation, this is why i joined BWW; not so I could tell "Wkdgrl28" that seat D143 will have a full view of the stage of the Palace.

[Horton]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 7:20pm

In terms of general act II's Sondheim has been quoted not denying the weakness of many of his second acts, but he said quite often that time is what prevents them from being fixed. Because it often takes so long to fix the first act, by the time the second act needed fixing the show was so close to opening, that there just wasnt the time to fix it.
Updated On: 4/16/08 at 07:20 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 7:23pm

From what you said down at the bottom of the first page, it sounds like you'll have a lot of stuff to play with. Because you're dealing with a purported "weakness," you have to account for where it came from in that... you can talk about the critics who hold that belief, but you have to take the time (by your own analysis) to try to deal with why. That's the interesting part. Because if your stance is that they're not actually dramatically weak the way people say there are, there's a lot of room to play around with reasons why they might seem to be. Audience expectation (which goes hand-in-hand with the way Sondheim has broken the form over and over and over again), text on paper versus musical in performance, and so forth. So, basically, even if you can't find specific journal articles that are particularly on, say, the weakness of the second act in Into The Woods, there are enough ways you can work with what's out there to structure your argument. A lot of that, honestly, can be done by your analysis of the shows themselves. Does that make sense?

I'm just finishing a thesis on a Sondheim show. I had to do a lot of similar stuff.

Updated On: 4/16/08 at 07:23 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 7:34pm

"How many wolves have you carved up?"
"A wolf's not the same."
"Ask a wolf's mother."

Yeah, but that's one character. I get what you're saying (thank you for clarifying!), but it's not like the that's the entire theme of the show. It's certainly true from the Witch's perspective, but if Rapunzel hadn't died she'd probably see things differently. No one else passes an inordinate amount of judgement on her. The Wolf ate her and her Grandmother - it's not like he was some innocent.

Personally, I don't think it's a particularly happy ending at all, and I don't think the show means to have you walk away thinking it is. A lot of people are dead, the ones who remain learned some harsh and bitter lessons, but no one is especially happy. I think that the Baker, Jack, Red Ridinghood and Cinderella have all found solace in each other and there's certainly cause for optimism - which is why Cinderella is still able to wish at the end of the show - but there's so much ambivalence. Witches can be right, giants can be good, etc.

[sing_dance_love]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 7:46pm

This conversation is fascinating. i love seeing stuff like this on the board. I'm actually IN Into the Woods right now, so its giving me a lot to ponder. All I keep thinking about is how the writers mentioned how the Witch is the only person who tells the truth the entire show. Everyone else lies, steals, and manipulates to get what they want. Like we do. Everyone has faults, and these characters mirror that. They simply do what they have to do, and they try to do their best, and while doing that they do things that are wrong. In they end all they can do is, like Phyllis said, find solace in each other and hope together they can do better next time they have to go into the woods. If that makes any sense.

[Kasie]

Posted: 4/16/08 at 10:04pm

This is officially my favorite thread ever.

[Kitzarina]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 12:30am

Call me crazy, but I've never considered his second acts to be weak. Especially after being in Into the Woods this past January. The more I acted and breathed and lived with my character (Little Red, duh), the more I really came to love the second act. All of Little Red's songs might be in the first act, but all of the lovely meaty character development and acting is in the second. I'd rather act in the scene with the community and the Giant and sing "No One is Alone" than "Hello Little Girl" or "I Know Things Now" any day of the week.

I also wrote an 8 page paper on the show for my Capstone class last year. I don't feel that you can understand anything about the characters unless you view the consequences of their first act choices. That's what makes the show so brilliant--it shows that the "ever after" isn't always so happy.

[chip08ME]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 1:37am

I just finished my school's opening night of Into The Woods and I fail to find the second act to be weaker.

The four (Little Red, Baker, Cinderella and Jack) at the end have found some form of happiness. They finally understand what the consequences of getting their wishes are. If you listen to each vocal line in "So Happy" (especially the Baker's), they sound anything but happy. They are obviously not content (as opposed to what the narrator says) but they know they should be since they received their wish.

Yet, they continue to wish for more. In the end, they realize that things need to be done as a community. I feel like that's what justifies the killing of the giant. Her death is for the greater good.

I think the thing about the Giant's death that shows that they've matured is Cinderella and Little Red's conversation in which Little Red fears her mother and granny wouldn't be proud of her. She's learned that killing someone (whether it be a giant, a wolf or a person) is hard to justify. But they realize that if the wolf is to remain alive, they won't.

I'm rambling. But the second act is so fascinating to me beacause it is the consequences. And even after the giant dies, the show doesn't end. Cinderella still wishes for something else. But we can only hope that her wish will be influenced by what she's learned in the woods.


ps - i love this thread!

Updated On: 4/17/08 at 01:37 AM

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 2:00am

"but it's not like the that's the entire theme of the show."

Yea, but it IS the premise of the 2nd act's existence, that is, the characters dealing with the consequence of their act 1 issues, so I'm saying it seems to be a contradiction of his act 2 premise.

Like I've said before, it has always appeared like Lapine painted himself into a corner with the plot of act 2. I don't find the Giantess' death bringing about the happy ending (please listen to the Giant's Death music--it's nothing but celebratory) satisfying, but I also don't know of another plausible conclusion to his plot.

I'm glad to see all the posted love for this thread, because I love it too! It reminds me of why I still read this board--interesting and thought-provoking discussion.. and the fact that I'm not getting flamed for not liking something that other people like

[Boq101]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 2:43am

As much as I love this thread (And I do love it!) I do worry about the fact that people seem to corner all of these shows as Sondheim shows only. I think Lapine has just as much to account for. If you think about it, did any of the shows that Sondheim did with Prince have lousy second acts?

Most of the shows Sondheim writes WITH HIS COLLABORATORS don't really pan out in two acts if you really think them through. Company has no plot and therefore wouldn't really need an intermission if it weren't for the running time, Follies happens in almost real time and is affected when a second act is put in place. A Little Night Music does end at a specific point, but that part of the plot really isn't all that interesting, they all decide to go to the country: intermission!

I think the reason why SITPWG and ITW get such a bad rap about their second acts is because they are the only two Sondheim musicals in which a considerable amount of time passes between each one and things don't flow as seamlessly. This break in time causes a break in story and it really becomes more about two different shows divided by an act, in which case the latter fails due to time constraint.

Am I making sense? Sorry if I ramble, it's late and I just really wanted to put in my thoughts.

If you really want something to chew on in terms of Sondheim shows, you should write a report on women, or better yet mothers.

[commasplice]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 3:31am

Nothing to contribute to the debate at the moment, but I wanted to suggest to the OP that she use WorldCAT to look for dissertations and honors theses and the like. You should be able to get just about anything you find there through interlibrary loan. I wrote a seminar paper on A Little Night Music last semester, and I was able to get my hands on an unpublished dissertation that proved to be helpful (especially because the supplemental materials included an insightful interview with Sondheim), so it's definitely worth a look.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 8:16am

thanks commasplice. I'll try that.

[Yankeefan007]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 8:19am

The thing about INTO THE WOODS and SUNDAY is that both acts are self-contained. SWEENEY TODD has a full Two-Act structure, whereas it's feisable that the former two can be performed as One-Acts.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 9:45am

I'd argue that their first acts are self-contained, but that their second acts depend on their first acts. I don't think you'd care about the characters if you just started with them in act two.

Yea, but it IS the premise of the 2nd act's existence, that is, the characters dealing with the consequence of their act 1 issues, so I'm saying it seems to be a contradiction of his act 2 premise.

I don't see the contradiction. I'm with you on the fact that the second act is the characters dealing with the consequences, but the witch's transference of the loss of her "child" onto the murder of the wolf is her deal, no one else's.

I still respectfully disagree that we're meant to take the ending of act two as a happy ending.

[BkCollector]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 9:58am

The ending of Into the Woods for me is much like the ending of Candide, but Candide is waaay better.

It's supposed to be ambiguous, the plots of Candide and ITW mirror each other a lot actually. We are supposed to be taken from this incredibly prescribed fairy tale world where everything is just as it should be (or in the case of ITW, as you would expect it to be) including the ending, and then by the actual end of the second act, you are left wondering what happens, which is exactly what happens in real life, we keep wondering what will happen, and we don't know if it's going to be good of bad, but we still have to keep going "into the woods" or in the case of Candide, we still have to "build our house and chop our wood" and who knows what tomorrow will bring.

In my opinion Candide's ending is more life affirming, but very similar to ITW.

[sondhead]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 1:01pm

"I still respectfully disagree that we're meant to take the ending of act two as a happy ending."

Not that I can change your mind.. but listen to the Finale--but for the "Children Will Listen" reprise, it's entirely jumpy happy peppy music happy-conclusion music!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 2:36pm

Yes, but the lyrics are all warnings about how to not f-ck up when you inevitably have to go back into the woods.

[beyondthebreakofday]

Posted: 4/17/08 at 5:57pm

"The thing about INTO THE WOODS and SUNDAY is that both acts are self-contained. SWEENEY TODD has a full Two-Act structure, whereas it's feasible that the former two can be performed as One-Acts."

The second acts of these shows are SO dependent on the first acts that I don't see how they can be performed separately. In the case of Sunday, we need the first act to leave us with that sense of unease, of incompleteness (firmly rooted in "We Do Not Belong Together" and Dot leaving George behind) so that Act II is earned. The immense outpouring of emotions that happen about halfway through the second act with "Move On" until the end, are so heart-wrenching because we are seeing the completion of a story-even if it has taken four generations to get there. To see Dot on stage with George the grandson brings together all our feelings that the story in Act I was not quite finished--and finally brings the story together. This is where I think the whole story comes together--finally, after four generations, grandson George is able to realize what George Seurat could not all those years ago, and he learns it with the help of Dot's book and the voice of Dot from the past. Act I and Act II are entirely interdependent.

I can see "Putting It Together" being performed separately- I think this song has a different message, or should I say an additional message to give to the audience (about the difficulty of selling yourself/your work) but as soon as we get back to Paris and that island, we need the memory of all those beautiful images and lyrics/scenes from Act I.

[LiTtLeDaNcEr729]

Posted: 4/18/08 at 10:00am

Just wanted to bump this thread back up and see if anyone else had some input.

[cisic]

Posted: 4/21/08 at 1:16pm

I was reading this thread last week and found it provoked some interesting thoughts. I felt I had to post this week, because I've just seen the revival of Sunday in the Park with George.

If I had posted last week, I would have talked about how I always say that Sweeney is my favorite musical, but Sunday has the best score. I had only ever seen the video of the OBC of Sunday, and I loved it, but I felt the book didn't quite work in the second act. The show seemed disjointed. I first saw this video when I was 15.

Ten years later I have finally seen a live production of Sunday. And the second act does not seem disjointed or separate or weaker at all. I don't know if it was just seeing the show live, or if there is something superior about this newest production (I would love to hear other people's thoughts), but it truly seems like a complete, whole, and brilliant work. Everything fit together so well, and there were so many connections. Watching the OBC video, the first act seemed more important. Seeing it live, the second act really comes to the front, because all the messages of the first act come to light, and the show really comes full circle.

I'll post a full review later, but for now I will say that this production of Sunday in the Park was the best directed production of a musical I have ever seen.