oyceter | (no subject)

Got Into the Woods from Netflix. Am very confused now. I've never listened to the score before, so it was a little hard at times figuring out what everyone was singing.

Spoilers

There's this very dizzying switch in tones that happens during the musical, from the frothy, funny, but mostly forgettable first half, to the rather disjointed but more interesting second half. The first half is mostly a telling of the stories of Cinderella, Jack of beanstalk fame, and the Baker and his wife, who want children, and how they gallivant around trying to lift a curse. Rapunzel, the witch, and Little Red Riding Hood all make their own appearances. And while much fun is poked at the fairy tales, ultimately everything is tied together in a nice big knot for the finale to Act 1 (which I thought was the finale, period, and was rather glad to find out that there was another act coming). I did like the parallel of Red Riding Hood and Jack's songs, about having found something rather scary and exciting and eye-opening at the same time. I sort of wish that had been followed through.

The second act just really confuses me. There's the sudden serious turn, which was rather welcome after the slight fluffiness of the beginning. But suddenly we have several random deaths thrown in, some of which are taken seriously and some of which are not. And then there's the entire talk about killing the Giantess rampaging through the kingdom, and there is a more nuanced discussion of whether or not the Giantess should in fact be killed or not. The witch also reminds Red Riding Hood that the wolf killed earlier had a mother too. And then they go off singing that no one is alone, that everyone's actions affects everyone else, and then they go off and whack the giantess anyhow.

It didn't quite seem fair to me. I mean, one can see the argument for killing off the wolf, given the eating of various people and malicious intent in general. But the giantess is right -- Jack went off and invaded her house and stole her things and then went off and killed her husband. So they go kill the giantess because she is rampaging and stepping on people left and right. But then, the Baker argues against killing the Steward for killing Jack's mother, and everyone in general seems to think that giving Jack to the giantess to be killed is wrong, despite prior damages. The general consesus seems to be that offing people for prior mistakes is not a good thing to do. But right after that consensus, they go and blind the Giantess and kill her without a second thought. Does the Giantess not apply for some reason?

Maybe I just need to sit down a think a bit more about it. But it felt really rather off to me.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

But suddenly we have several random deaths thrown in, some of which are taken seriously and some of which are not.

One of the problems with the video is that that performance had a particularly poor audience, as they laugh at some inappropriate moments. None of the deaths in the second act that seem to be comical due to the audience's reaction, are funny at all, as they usually play on stage, such as with Jack's mother and Rapunzel. The only really comedic one is when they turn on the Narrator, which isn't just a meta joke but has some disturbing thematic significance, too. Interestingly, in his very next play, Sondheim used the characters-turning-on-the-narrator concept again, in Assassins, when the Assassins gang up on the Balladeer and drive him off the stage in Another National Anthem.

But right after that consensus, they go and blind the Giantess and kill her without a second thought. Does the Giantess not apply for some reason?

One of the major lessons of the play is that in some circumstances the regular rules we have been taught growing up have to be ignored. Killing the Giantess is not the ideal option, but they have no other choice in this situation. She will not listen to reason, is still a very real danger, and has already killed many of their friends. It isn't so simple as "kill her without a second thought." Take for example this exchange with Little Red and Cinderella:

Little Red: I think my granny and my mother would be upset with me.
Cinderella: Why?
Little Red: They said to always make them proud. And here I am about to kill somebody.
Cinderella: Not somebody. A giant who has been doing harm.
Little Red: But the giant's a person. Aren't we to show forgiveness? Mother would be very unhappy with these circumstances.

Into the Woods is a very complex play, particularly in how the seeds for destruction (and rebirth) in the second act are all laid in the seemingly light operetta of the first act. The first act is the fairy tale, and the second is reality. In the real world, Jack has to pay for his crimes, Rapunzel's family must suffer for stealing the radishes, Cinderella and Rapunzel's princes eyes do not stop wandering after "happily ever after," etc. If you rewatch the first act, every single thread of the second was set up in the first. Sometimes the confusion of the first distracts us from the simplest little actions, such as Cinderella flinging the last bean that the Baker's Wife tries to trade with her for her golden shoes. As with most Sondheim plays, it really rewards multiple viewings.

"Into the Woods is a very complex play, particularly in how the seeds for destruction (and rebirth) in the second act are all laid in the seemingly light operetta of the first act."

Yes. When i wrote "I actually tend to want to stop after the first act because i know dark and depressing stuff is ahead," i meant to add that although i want to stop watching there, i can't because having seen it before i see so clearly all the stuff that is set up and know that there is so much that hasn't yet been dealt with.

"One of the major lessons of the play is that in some circumstances the regular rules we have been taught growing up have to be ignored."

Agreed. Although it bears pointing out the characters don't reject the tenet that killing people is bad, that human life gets priority over all other kinds, though the potential for the former is broached by the witch, and the latter is problematized in the whole discussion over the problem of the Giantess. "Last Midnight" is possibly my favorite bit of the whole show.

You're not good, you're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good, I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the witch.
You're the world.

"Last Midnight" is possibly my favorite bit of the whole show.

You're not good, you're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good, I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the witch.
You're the world.

Completely agree. In the recent Broadway revival with Vanessa Williams, those lyrics were actually changed, which made me want to tear my hair out. It changed to (singing to the baby):

You're so pure
But stay here,
And in time, you'll mature,
And grow up
To be them,
So let's fly,
You and I,
Far away.

I'm the hitch,
I'm what no one believes...etc.

The end is changed too to...

I'm leaving you alone,
Squirming in the mess that you've made.
Fix it on your own,
Time for me to go, I'm afraid.

Back to what I know,
Back to long ago,
Safe inside the world that I'm from
Better ugly and spurned
With my powers returned--

And I fear, midnight's here.
Time to disappear...
Mother here I come!!!

I think Sondheim should have left well enough alone and kept them the way they are. The original is so much more powerful and meaningful, whereas the new lyrics seem rather trite and dumbed down.

What the HELL? I've been quoting "You're not good, you're not bad, you're just *nice*" for years. It describes so many situations so well.

Yeah, that and the fact that Vanessa Williams is NO Bernadette Peters, and none of the new actors came close to matching the originals, and the fact that the sets weren't as good, really didn't make me like the revival at all. I went home and watched the DVD of the original afterwards to cleanse my brain.

Wait, she sings

You're so pure
But stay here,
And in time, you'll mature,
And grow up
To be them,
So let's fly,
You and I,
Far away.

to the baby? *boggles* What about

You're all liars and thieves,
Like his father!
Like his son will be too!
Oh, why bother?
You'll just do what you do!

She has given up on humans. She is watching people getting killed around her because no one will do the practical thing and sacrifice the one boy (oh the "Gift" parallels...) but instead they just stand around trying to figure out who's to blame (as if there's ever solely one guilty party). She tried to raise Rapunzel but Rapunzel turned on her, as children so often do, so i don't see her as eager to try again with the Baker's kid.

And yeah, "Better ugly and spurned / With my powers returned..." is so trite and dumbed down compared to the powerful original. Especially because my interpretation of the original was that she didn't even necessarily demand that she get her powers back along with the curse of being ugly and spurned just so long as she was able to get the h*** out of Dodge -- away from the Giantess (so as to not be killed) and away from all these humans (who are driving her crazy).

Punish me the way you did then!
Give me claws and a hunch,
Just away from this bunch
And the gloom
And the doom
And the boom

Nothing about powers in there, and i think it works better that way, on a lot of levels.

Totally. The original lines have resonance beyond the play's particular situation, and the new lines are very specific, and besides that, overstate the point in the case of the Witch being swallowed by the ground (I liked the ambiguity of what her fate would be.), and miss the point with regards to the lines about the baby. They tried this half-assed thing where for a moment it seems like the Witch is going to take the baby with her, which is why the lines were changed...but it wasn't convincing, and again not nearly as resonant as the original lines, and the emotions behind them.