Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Last Edit: HadriansMall 01:54 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 01:52 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| On the train back to London so please excuse typos. This production has only a passing ressemblance to the show created by Sondheim & Lapine. The bones are there but the vital organs have been excised. The Good: The capital C concept works and the visuals are stunning - though sadly sometimes overwhelm. Little Red, Jack, and The Baker’s Wife are all turning in fine performances. (some of) The Bad: Eliminating the Narrator /Mysterious Man and replacing them with this new cadaverous Music Hall MC / Undertaker / Death Himself. This is really a problem in Act 2. With the Baker’s Father no longer in the show (some really stupid business with a found letter and some lyric changes) this scene is fairly pointless. Gilliam tries to add tension with some more stupid business with a noose and a hanging tree but it doesn’t work. The Princes are played as effete idiots. Not one shred of connection can be perceived between the Prince and Cinderella. Really tacky staging of the indiscretion between the Baker’s Wife and the Prince (now witnessed first hand by Cinderella) No destroyed grave of Cinderella ‘s mother. Making No One is Alone all about killing the giant. That song seemed to be in Gilliam’s way so he just staged what he wanted around it. Mixed bag of acting. I really did not care for the cast (probably the direction) but I felt Cinderella and the Witch were very miscast. The worst thing to ever happen to INTO THE WOODS was someone deciding Milky White needed to be a puppet/actor. Happy to answer and questions but this is already long. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 02:14 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - HadriansMall 01:52 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Your impressions seem to track with what I've read elsewhere. The Stage called it "opulent but overstuffed." The Telegraph crowed about the production "sticking it to woke warriors" but did not seem to like the acting or singing ("a must-support rather than a must-see"). The Guardian also praised the aesthetics, but said the characters feel generic and the humor is dampened. Lots of references to pantos by various critics. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 03:19 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 03:15 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - MockingbirdGirl 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| The Telegraph crowed about the production "sticking it to woke warriors" but did not seem to like the acting or singing ("a must-support rather than a must-see"). Like their fellow travelers here they have no clue how to help, only how to step on things like giant babydolls. Does any potential investor for this challenged show really want to hear that the show's best come-hither is that it scratches an anti-woke itch? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 04:55 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - singleticket 03:15 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| There’s nothing anti-woke (using their phrase - I detest « woke » as a pejorative) in the production. Perhaps they are just talking about Gilliam himself (who was in the audience today which I felt was strange since the show already opened. Perhaps the transfer is nigh) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 09:22 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - HadriansMall 04:55 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I detest « woke » as a pejorative The word "woke" is properly the past tense of "wake" - as in "I woke up from my short nap and felt as tired as I was before." Otherwise, I do not recognize any other use of the word. I didn't like it when it was being used in a positive socio-political sense, and I don't like it now that it's become a travesty of itself. Onward... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 11:28 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - Chromolume 09:22 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| Or as in “I woke up from my obliviousness to systemic oppression and the colonial mindset, and I’m even more tired than before”. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 07:31 pm EDT 09/02/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - Singapore/Fling 11:28 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think a lot people react to the exhaustion of the implication that until 0-5 years ago no white people in America had any notion or understanding of this, which is wildly inaccurate and short-sighted. I'm not here to have a whole debate on the term or the extent of the good or bad the term and the way the "woke" movement moves or voices itself etc, there's an e enormous amount of work and progress still to do... but it's the implication that no one knew there was any systemic oppression, or that all or most white people are automatically in an active colonial mindset until woken up by social media posts that many who are progressive but cringe at "woke" are reacting to. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 02:30 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - MockingbirdGirl 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| On the singing - some of the actors (I’m looking at you, Witch) we’re really having trouble staying with the orchestra. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 02:23 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - MockingbirdGirl 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t generally read reviews before I see a show but definitely interested to read them now. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: jjbkvm 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - HadriansMall 01:52 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| What is the capital C concept? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) | |
| Posted by: HadriansMall 02:22 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - jjbkvm 02:12 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| The stage is decked out as an Edwardian Dolls Theatre. On the stage is that same doll’s theater strewn next to it are some child’s toys and found items (a vase with a single flower - Cinderella’s Mother’s Tree, The bean cans that become Rapunzel’s Tower, à push puppet that is Milky White) a little girl comes out and begins playing. She is joined by the « Narrator « and they begin the show with 2 « Are you ready? » one directed at each other and one at the audience. Then the show begins. Throughout more like items appear, a giant pocket watch, a plastic chicken, a harp shaped giant Christmas ornament) and for act 2 a GIANT pair of baby doll legs followed later by an immense severed baby doll head. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: here's a few visuals from the BBC | |
| Posted by: Guillaume 09:44 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
| In reply to: re: Terry Gilliam’s INTO THE WOODS (spoilers) - HadriansMall 02:22 pm EDT 08/27/22 | |
|
|
|
| It looks interesting visually. At least far better than that rehearsal video that was posted a while back on here with that Grim Reaper doing coarse acting. | |
| Link | BBC |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
Time to render: 0.052184 seconds.