Threaded Order Chronological Order
| My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Having finally seen the very successful Broadway revival of INTO THE WOODS, I’m finding myself a bit of an outlier. Although the production delivers on several levels, I take issue with many aspects of the direction. The pluses are clear and have been well documented. The score is beautifully played by a big orchestra, and the unusually good sound design (I was in the mezzanine) ensures that all of Sondheim’s brilliant lyrics are clearly heard. The low-tech special effects and puppetry are ingenious and engage the audience’s imagination. It’s mostly well-cast with top-notch musical theatre talents who seem to love the material and are clearly having fun; the show has a winningly ebullient energy. Some of that energy, though, feels misapplied; much of the direction is crass and tasteless, emphasizing zany humor at the expense of the script’s grace and subtlety. The musical’s aesthetic is delicately balanced between wit and sentiment, fantasy and satire. But delicacy doesn’t seem to be a part of Lear de Bessonet’s arsenal. The eclectic costume design is part of the problem. What designer wouldn’t be thrilled by the unique challenge and opportunity this material offers: to conjur up a beautiful and richly atmospheric, magical fairy-tale world? This version looks like the designer spent a few hours in costume storage at a community theatre, searching for anything that might sort-of work for each character, with no defining aesthetic or any sense of style or period. Cinderella, for example, looks much as we remember her, and might almost be comfortable in the Rodgers and Hammerstein version, but who are her stepsisters supposed to be?? Every time they came onstage they took me out of the story. Some of this would have been excusable at Encores!, where shows are put together quickly on limited tech budgets, but the move to Broadway warranted an enhanced design. Most of the actors have been either allowed or encouraged to mug shamelessly to the audience. The performances are highly physical, with obvious, choreographed gestures that border on semaphore, designed to hammer home the humor and underline anything that can be taken as a joke. Lines meant to be delivered to each other are telegraphed out to the audience instead, to the point where it sometimes feels like the characters are being burlesqued rather than played honestly. I actually lost count of the number of crotch gags. Yes, crotch gags: this might have been appropriate for A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM, but INTO THE WOODS is a subtler, more elegant work. Part of my enjoyment of the show in previous productions was the satisfaction of picking up on the subtle wit in the lyrics; the words do the work if you’re listening, and you don’t need to be hit over the head. Even the saddest and most emotionally painful moments in Act One (such as Jack’s reaction to the death of Milky White) are played cartoonishly for laughs this time around, which makes the transition to the darker and more serious tone of Act Two even more jarring than usual. The two Princes are a case in point. Remembering the original production, the humor grew from the idea that they first appear to be pretty much the idealized heroes we remember from the old stories and Disney movies; as we get to know them, their vanity and shallowness are gradually revealed, culminating in the devastatingly hilarious moment in Act Two when we realize they are transferring their allegiances to Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, leaving us effectively disillusioned. In this production, from the first moment Creel and Karl prance onstage, they are telegraphing “look at what fun we’re having playing these ridiculous nincompoops.” Blue chip performers both, they do it with flair and panache, so they get away with it. But they’re making fun of the characters rather than inhabiting them. The cat is out of the bag from the get go and there’s no journey. I blame de Bessonet. The original benefitted tremendously from the inclusion of two real teenagers as Little Red and Jack. Ferland and Wright brought effortless simplicity to the roles, a guilelessness that was invaluable in sustaining the sense of childlike wonder that makes a fairy tale poignant. Cole Thompson works awfully hard as Jack, and looks and sounds too mature. Katy Geraghty is a savvy comedienne with lots of clever ideas; she nails laugh after laugh, but she’s clearly an adult commenting all-too-knowingly on the material. There are nice surprises along the way. Brian d’Arcy James and David Patrick Kelly give two of the more honest and grounded performances; “No More” is a high point. Stephanie J. Block is allowed to mug egregiously in Act One, but then comes through with a lovely “Moments in the Woods.” I had questioned whether Krysta Rodriguez would be the right choice for Cinderella, since I think of her as a belter and have seen her play harder-edged characters, but her legit voice proves lovely and she does her best to keep it real. But the slapstick pratfalls are overdone; again, direction. Montego Glover is an exciting singer and commanding storyteller; she impresses mightily as the old crone in Act One. After she loses her powers and regains her beauty, she seems a bit unmoored, with no help from the generic evening gown. The drag-queen hair toss is another cheap laugh that violates the style and tone of the show. But like previous Witches, Glover is struggling with an insufficiently defined character. Just who is the Witch? For most of Act Two, she is haranguing the others, trying to get them to sacrifice Jack to the wrath of Mrs. Giant—the pragmatic but inhumane solution. But then at the end she turns around and sings a song about the importance of taking care of the children? Is “Children Will Listen” really sung by the Witch, or are we to intuit it as being sung by the Actress Who Played the Witch? This brings me to another issue with the show itself. Somehow I’ve always felt that the overall impact of INTO THE WOODS is a bit less than the sum of its parts. I love it because the parts are so brilliant and beautiful. But it’s almost as if Sondheim and Lapine lost confidence in their thesis before the end. At the conclusion of Act One, we get the traditional Happily Ever After, tied up in a pretty bow. And then Act Two seems meant to puncture the dream, to show us what might happen if these Grimm Brothers archetypes were real, complex, flawed people. Life is more complicated, messier, and scarier than traditional fairy tales would have us believe, the writers seem to be saying, and it’s a mistake to think a story can be wrapped up tidily with a facile moral. But then they turn around and make that very mistake themselves at the end of the second act: bringing all the dead characters back onstage, reprising the title song, and tacking on a final “message” number that, however lovely, can sound sanctimonious because it doesn’t really grow out of the story that came before. Could they have left us with the messiness and the loss and the unanswered questions? That might have been more honest… but it probably wouldn’t have felt like the way to end a Broadway musical. INTO THE WOODS gives the impression of wanting to be a little more subversive than it is. But the piece succeeds in revealing surprising humanity and intriguing contradictions in iconic characters. With more discerning guidance, this production’s supremely talented cast could have done that better. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: Circlevet 10:42 am EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I agree 100% with your assessment especially in regard to The Princes. Obviously the score is always a joy and Brian D'arcy James is exceptional. | |
| reply to this message |
| Perhaps this owes to its originating at Encores. | |
| Last Edit: TheOtherOne 08:41 am EST 11/19/22 | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 08:40 am EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Might it have been developed with the understanding that it was to be performed for people who already knew it and were fans? This might have skewed the production too far into “let’s show ‘em a good time!” mode. The original cast might have been better at balancing this. I haven’t seen it and am only surmising from what I’ve read here. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| What are folks' take on the original cast vs. replacements? | |
| Posted by: DistantDrumming 12:26 am EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I really enjoyed reading your well written critique. I have to wonder if some of what's being described is attributable to some combination of... weaker replacements (in some parts) and later-in-the-run sloppiness. Anyone one here seen the original cast of this revival and then come back to see the replacements later in the run? I ask, because when I saw this production very early in its run I was not struck by a great deal of mugging (other than from an unfortunately over the top performance of Joshua Henry.) Even Gavin Creel (who, I agree, based upon recent TV performances has gone too broad) was fairly restrained. Most of the cast performed exquisitely the night I saw it -- most especially Sara Bareilles, Brian d'Arcy James and Phillipa Soo. My biggest disappointments were the strangely mechanical misfire of Patina Miller's Witch and $57 production design that forced all of the action downstage. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Phylicia Rashad as The Witch. | |
| Posted by: portenopete 11:45 am EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: What are folks' take on the original cast vs. replacements? - DistantDrumming 12:26 am EST 11/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| I am guessing that Phylicia Rashad was brought in as a way to keep interest high in what was the top-billed role (although it is very much an ensemble show). She was at the height of her Cosby Show fame and presumably she did her three-month stint when the TV show was on hiatus. I was not a Cosby fan so she wasn't an exciting replacement for me. I had bad luck with Bernadette as I saw Sunday in the Park just a week or so after she left. I finally got to see her in Gypsy, thank God, even though I remember Maureen Moore went on quite regularly in that. My main memory of Rashad was her imprecise diction. I'm never a lover of sloppy consonants in any song (nor am I a lover of extreme and unnatural crispness) but in Sondheim and specifically in a song like The Witch's Rap, it was kind of lethal. She had great warmth and her vocal tone was beautiful, but if I hadn't listened to the OCR a thousand times I doubt I'd have been able to get much of what she was saying. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: theatreguy40 01:42 pm EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I had been hearing glowing reports about this revival and was beginning to feel that I would need to go see it. However --- I did see the presentation of "Agony" on television and was completely turned off by it. I felt the exact same way as you do about the approach to the material (at least as far as that song is concerned): over staged, cartoonish, ungrounded, and obviously not trusting the material! How can you NOT trust it? The lyrics do all the work but in this production the performances of the two Princes with their over-emphasis of the "jokes" and the grand gestures just reduce everything into nothing. Very disappointed. So, just having seen that clip, I realized what the whole show must be like. I love the show -- saw it several times in it's original form, have "taught" it in a musical theatre deconstruction class, and have also directed the show. There's too much there in the material to love and I feel seeing this revival will only make me regret my choice to see it -- so I shall pass on it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: Randolph 11:51 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. I couldn't agree more. I found the production, despite its talented cast, to be a big disappointment. Director-less, cartoonish, and juvenile. The sporting-event audience only made things worse. Over the years, it seems INTO THE WOODS has morphed from a thoughtful adult musical into children's theatre. It was all kind of depressing. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Agreed | |
| Posted by: Pashacar 11:37 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Plenty to like, but so much lost along the way. A friend we went with who doesn't see much theater said afterwards, "If they're up there not taking it seriously, I kind of feel like why should I?" I felt that was a good summation of the production. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 02:48 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Wow. Your review makes me really not want to see it. I'm happy with the video of the original, the movie, and the Central Park production. I don't need another production but people were so enthusiastic about it, I thought I was missing out. Now, I think I'll save my money. Thanks! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: conciergekey 12:28 pm EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - KingSpeed 02:48 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I feel like a lot of the hype is being created by a very young crowd who never knew previous productions. They also don't always appreciate subtly. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Not missing out on anything | |
| Posted by: Genealley 09:24 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - KingSpeed 02:48 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I don’t get the hype for this production. Nothing special, fresh or even entertaining. Milky White is the only thing to remember. Especially irritating is the portrayal of the Witch. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 12:38 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you for your incisive criticism, especially regarding the inconsistencies in the Witch’s character and the musical’s attempt to jam together a brilliant, metaphysical conclusion that just isn’t there. And there are great things in the production, as you said. And said so well. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: theaterisok 12:35 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 12:27 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Very late night response to your wonderfully written post. One comment though, maybe a question. Did you actually see the original on Broadway? The Princes did exactly what the Princes are doing now, right from their first entrance. Also Cinderella did exactly the same prat falls she is doing now. In the exact same way. These were both Lapine directorial choices that Lear was paying homage to. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: Revned 01:11 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - theaterisok 12:35 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the kind response and for taking the time to read my long post! Dating myself here, I did see and love the original, both onstage and on TV. I understand what you’re saying, but in both of the cases you mention, I feel there are significant distinctions. I remember Kim Crosby stumbling and falling and skidding across the ground as Cinderella. But in the revival there are added somersaults that I don’t remember Crosby doing. Just one example of a joke being coarsened by being taken too far. To my eye, the approach to the princes was markedly different. Westenberg and Wagner were more grounded, and delineated the characters with a much lighter touch. The wit was more subtle and the musical staging of “Agony” was much simpler and more elegant, without the flamboyant gestures and showy choreography Creel and Karl are doing. They also wore very handsome uniforms, which created a more romantic and dignified effect than the garishly colorful fop costumes used in the revival. |
|
| Link | "Agony" 1987 |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: portenopete 09:19 am EST 11/18/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - Revned 01:11 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| I also really enjoyed reading your thoughts, probably because I feel a kinship with the sentiment you expressed about the coarsening of a show that is chock-a-block with Sondheim's trademark insight and wit and that I think is best served by a subtler approach. One of the best things about Robert Westenberg's original Cinderella Prince was his extreme humourlessness. I suppose Chuck Wagner took more or less the same approach, but he was possessed of genial, California surfer looks, whereas there was something about Westenberg's physiognomy- those broad, bony planes on his face and his deep-set eyes- that gave him a seriousness that seemed effortless. I saw him as George Seurat, as well as in both the live and PBS versions of Into the Woods- and I suspect that was his general style in most things he did. Gavin Creel- lovely though his voice may be- has always had a lightness about him that is about as far from Westenberg's stolid presence as I can imagine. As his fame and the audience adoration of him have grown over the years, it seems whenever I see him he is spending at least half of his performance slyly glancing out at the audience and grinning, the way a child in a school play would search out his parents and give them a little wave. (Andy Karl is a spectacular buffoon and in the right role- particularly Bruce Granit in On the Twentieth Century- he has been absolutely perfect.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My take on INTO THE WOODS | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 02:34 pm EST 11/21/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - portenopete 09:19 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for remembering Andy Karl in ''On the 20th Century.'' He should've won the Tony for that (and ''Groundhog Day,'' as far as I'm concerned). | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sophistication? What's that? | |
| Posted by: peter3053 04:00 pm EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: re: My take on INTO THE WOODS - portenopete 09:19 am EST 11/18/22 | |
|
|
|
| We live in an age of extremes, it seems, and that tips over into performance, often. The original production was elegant, and with sophisticated theater magic; and exquisite costume design. It was up against Phantom, which was elegant, and with sophisticated theater magic, and exquisite costume design. In a time when people dressed to go to the theater, and went, prepared to listen, and absorb thoughtfully. HELL, NOW, I LOVE IT - I'VE GOT TO STAND UP, EVEN MID-SONG, AND SCREAM MY LOOOOOOVVVVVE!!!! WHOOO!!!! SHE HELD A LONG NOTE - WOW! HE PULLED A FACE!!!!!!!! Ah well, every day a little death. (I shudder to think what may be on stage in the Sweeney Todd revival - blood? You want blood????!!!!) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sophistication? What's that? | |
| Posted by: portenopete 07:18 pm EST 11/19/22 | |
| In reply to: Sophistication? What's that? - peter3053 04:00 pm EST 11/19/22 | |
|
|
|
| Well, there's London. That's better. Showing signs of allcapsitis, too, but generally there's a grown-up vibe at the theatre. And the odd show- The Band's Visit comes to mind- elicited a hushed and reverential reaction when I saw it, enough that I didn't imagine Ethel Barrymore spinning in her grave. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.109845 seconds.