Why did the last revival of Into The Woods close?- Page 3

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 7:16pm

Artscallion, that's exactly the production I was talking about. Those designs are GORGEOUS!

[g4rat]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 7:16pm

artscallion That looks very interesting. I think a more stylistic aproach like that would be great to do for another revival.

[Over the Moon]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 7:26pm

ok im thinking disney? i mean it was quite interesting in the prologue. mehhh

[Over the Moon]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 7:43pm

the bakers wife reminds me of Eliza in my fair lady///2 wolves 3 little pigs? Oy Vey

[BroomstickBoy]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 8:17pm

Wasn't the role of the Witch almost given to Patti Lupone?

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/21/08 at 11:37pm

The pictures artscallion posted were of the dazzling 2005 Stratford Festival production. Not only did it look brilliant, the entire ensemble cast was fantastic. A totally unique take on the show. This is the one that should have gone to Broadway. What a shame that neither Sondheim nor LaPine could make it up to Ontario to see it.

[Matters]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 12:35am

I wasn't really a fan of Stratford's production. From a design standpoint it was awsome and had some really innovative moments (the wolf costume, grandma's house, rapunzel's tower, bird gloves) but aside from Kyle Bair and Amy Walsh I didn't find much of the cast memorable. The 1920s approach was cool but I was a bit taken aback when the witch became a pilot for the finale, and the white mosquito hats the ghosts wore didn't work for me. I also couldn't see the justification behind them existing in a snow globe, although thats just the perception i had as an unenlightened 18 year old.

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 12:47am

not to sound stupid, but what exactly was so special about the london production? i know it was darker and i've heard many, many people go on about how amazing it was, but i always found the recording lackluster and the tempos slow. i'd love some information about the production.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:09am

I actually wanna hear more about the Stratford production, I LOOOVE the designs from the pictures but what were some of the changes made?

[RockabyeHamlet]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:27am

"And dont forget Marylouise Burke who is amazing in everything she does!"

Burke made me wish I was deaf in BOTH ears.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:33am

Haha, Rockabye, you're not the first one I've heard that from.

[cabaretman24]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:42am

i can say it was not vanessa she was amazing. Revivals usually do not run that long anyway. And they were saying Susan lucci was taking over for vanessa would you but tickets lol

[Matters]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:42am

stratford production reflection for those who're curious:

there wern't many changes to the book or score that i remember, there was one part during 'a very nice prince' where cinderella and the baker's wife went into a bit more of a duet to the tune of 'agony'. I went to see it with the cast of my school's production of ITW so we managed to get a q&a session afterwards and i think the director said that sondheim approved the change but didn't write it. but dont quote me on that.

there were other noteworthy things that wern't technically changes so much as unconventional interpertations. Heres some stuff i remember, in point form:

- Little Red started out the show in the convention red hood but as the show progressed her wardrobe eventualy changed to a pair of denim overalls.
- the narrator was portrayed as more mysterious then the mysterious man. Both in costume and interpertation.
- grandmother's house was done by having a quilt take up the entire stage, it did a cool forced perspective thing that i can't think to describe properly
- the production was set in canadian woods and that influenced the type of leaves and trees that were used in the design scheme.
- the time period was the 1920s, lots of the female characters had their hair bobbed and the era was most prominent in the cinderella storyline design-wise. the director said it was because he wanted it to be in a time that was long ago & far away but still within the last century.
- the overall blocking was much more controlled and linear then usual. The best way to describe this is the approach taken to the first & second midnights- rather then having people run accross the stage in frantics they just walked in a straight line accross the stage at a controlled pace, not acknowledging the other characters. some walked forwards, some walked backwards. hard to describe, but visually effective.
- most of the set and costumes were black or white, in the prologue everything was mostly white. The witch's costume was the first bit of color seen (aside from red's cape). The witch was basically a vegetable- she was mostly green and her costume looked like it was compiled out of stuff you'd find in a garden. Then for the transformation she was in black and white like everyone else (one of the teachers who went on the trip said the transformed witch almost looked like a dominatrix)
- rapunzel wasn't in a physical tower, her dress was a platform about 20 feet high....hard to describe, but there are pictures.
- the entire production was set in a snow globe, which wasn't blatently obvious but some of the smarter people on my field trip figured it out and explained it to me. The show started with the narrator saying "once upon a time" and shaking the snowglobe, throughout the show there were projections on the cyc of faces watching the action onstage (people looking into the snowglobe), and then *MINI SPOILER* when the mysterious man died, he gave the snowglobe to the baker *END MINI SPOLIER*
- All the ghosts at the end were wearing hats with white fabric covering their faces, which as i said earlier looked like mosquito hats.

sorry, that was long, but its late and i felt like seeing what others would make of these interpertations :)

Updated On: 1/22/08 at 01:42 AM

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:46am

Nasty-
Which London production?

If it was the original, from what I have read, was phenomenal.

It's physical desgin was a curved wall with lots of doors. The walls were papered and there was a single grandfather clock at the back center. In act two, the wallpaper all tore, revealing other layers, and the clock exploded out, giving the impression that time was destroyed. Then, at the end of "Last Midnight" all the doors slammed open and the stage was filled (from through the doors) with blinding white light...signifying that the world of the Giant had invaded their own.

[yeslets]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 1:49am

damn, i wish i could have made it to stratford that year! la sigh.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 6:38am

"not to sound stupid, but what exactly was so special about the london production? i know it was darker and i've heard many, many people go on about how amazing it was, but i always found the recording lackluster and the tempos slow. i'd love some information about the production."

Actually, several of the songs are notably faster on the London cast recording than they are on the Broadway cast recording (though later in the Broadway run and on the video, some of those songs were taken faster than they were on the recording of the production).

I rather like the recording, but though the design was striking, what I've seen and heard of the production through TV clips and audios leaves me uncertain whether I would have liked it.

I don't recall the revival getting better reviews than the original production (as was stated earlier in the thread), but perhaps I'm just not remembering correctly.

It was certainly a lackluster production as far as I was concerned, but it's interesting to see how many different perceptions of it are out there, even among those who didn't like it.

For instance, I thought the problem with Williams was that she seemed too nice, that her Witch did not have any (believable) edge or anger to her.

Anyway, I could easily see auditioning both Emily Skinner and Daphne Rubin-Vega for, say, the Baker's Wife or the Witch.

But the production did end up lacking any interesting point of view. It seemed intended to be a more family-friendly production of the show, which I thought was a mistake.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 7:23am

I actually liked the physical production, the sets and costumes and general direction of the revival more than the original production. For me, the big problem with the revival was the generally lackluster cast, a problem shared with the same year's disastrous revival of OKLAHOMA. Vanessa Williams' Witch was a major letdown, although she did look stunning in that red dress.

The little girl playing Red Riding Hood and the kid playing Jack were particularly annoying. I remember at one point thinking, "Go ahead, toss Jack to the Giant's Wife, nobody will miss him."

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 1/22/08 at 12:28pm

The text at Stratford was essentially the same as always.

Fans will be interested to know that this production included “Our Little World” and restored the sections of “A Very Nice Prince” and the Witch’s “Lament” that were included on the original Broadway cast recording but deleted from the show.

Thank you, Matters; you recalled even more details than I did. Unlike you I thought the performances were great, notably Bruce Dow as the Baker. Susan Gilmore costume as the Witch was a forest of garden greens. Her transformation into a biker chick was...odd. But she sang exceptionally well.

By the time I saw the Stratford staging I had seen the original Broadway cast (twice), the closing performance on Broadway, the national tour, and a half dozen regional productions. I have always enjoyed the show and looked forward to Stratford's staging. I was not prepared to be so totally blown away but the design and the performances. (My review is in The Sondheim Review, which featured a shot of Rapunzel in her tower on the cover.)

As with all live theatre, once the show closes it lives on only in memory.