The Public Theatre's Shakespeare/Park presents INTO THE WOODS -- Discussion- Page 34

[E.Davis]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 12:40pm

I don't have the slightest idea. I suggest a photo caption contest.

She looks like a squirrel.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 12:58pm

It's actually a pretty funny gag. Adams literally climbs up the Steward's body in an attempt to get the shoe back from him.


That picture is ridiculous, hahahaha. Updated On: 8/7/12 at 12:58 PM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 1:10pm

How long is the show now?

[Myglass989]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 1:25pm

Potential spoilers below?

I noticed that when the Witch picks up one of Rapunzel's babies towards the end after Rapunzel dies, the baby seems to fall and turn to dust. Does anyone know what the deal is with that? Are both babies dust? (Also, whatever happens to Rapunzel's prince, is he ever accounted for?)

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:44pm

Are Jack Broderick and Noah Radcliffe alternating the role of the Narrator now?

[nasty_khakis]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:53pm

*SPOILERS*

The implications whent he Witch discovers the babies are "dust" is that they've been dead for QUITE a while. Rapunzel who is drinking and crazy has been pushing around two dead babies in a pram for months. It's quite chilling and makes the witch turn cold, bitter, and angry.

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 3:55pm

SPOILERS

^ That's what I took from it as well. The twins died from neglect during Rapunzel's downfall. I can't remember if Donna did it when I saw it, but she now screams when she discovers the twins are dead.

And yet again, the Witch loses another opportunity to be a mother.

Updated On: 8/7/12 at 03:55 PM

[Sondheimtime]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:25pm

----SPOILER---

My interpretation: Now that Rapunzel is gone the twins have in essence died with her, turning to dust.

They were linked to her, when she was banished by the Witch. Now the Witch can't have them either. Spell broken.

That sort of mythical idea...

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:32pm

I remember that in the Regent's Park version. VERY powerful moment that emphasizes the witch's desire for motherhood. I thought it was brilliant.

[Myglass989]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 4:38pm

Thanks, all! Just another interesting/complex moment in this production.

I did think that once Rapunzel died, the twins died with her (although that doesnt make lots of sense), but I also like in a morbid and perverse way the idea that she had been pushing around dead babies for a while. Shows how unstable and out of it she had become. She blames the Witch for making her perpetually messed up and unhappy, which, in turn, has destroyed her ability to be a fit mother and provide "grandchildren" to the Witch. Careful the things you do, children will see and learn...

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:02pm

*possible spoiler?*

I loved how Rapunzel came out from behind the set in the Regent's Park production pushing the stroller and drinking out of the alcohol bottle. The lighting was so cool for that part. I loved how it was lit from behind so it silhouetted Rapunzel and the stroller... Do they still do that for the Public?

[Kad]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:06pm

Ljay- yes, the boys are now alternating.

And it looks like someone finally told Broadway World that Paris Remillard has been playing Rapunzel's Prince.. only took them a week.

[KirbyCat]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 5:25pm

Did the babies turn to dust in the desert?

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 6:31pm

Besty, I loved reading your thoughts on the original ITW tour. Chuck Wagner posted a short video clip of him as the Wolf in the tour on his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PP5asj5vP8

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 6:34pm

(interestingly, from that brief clip it seems that the set was simplified for the tour--more 2 dimensional).

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 6:40pm

"(Also, whatever happens to Rapunzel's prince, is he ever accounted for?)"

He loses interest in favour of Snow White (or is it Sleeping Beauty)?

[Wynbish]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 7:05pm

I wonder if, when Sarah Stiles heard she would be playing Little Red in a great, star-studded production of Into the Woods, she thought she'd be wearing this


Even the Wolf needs standards

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 8/7/12 at 7:46pm

i loved the little red costume, in addition to most of the costumes in this production. I thought they were inventive and full of imagination. The costume fits in perfectly with the way Sarah Stiles portrays the character, in my opinion.

[ACL2006]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 12:06am

didn't see this posted, but they've extended an extra week.
Into The Woods Extends Through Sept. 1

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 12:23am

Just back.

It is always sad when an actor you love fails in a great role. It is doubly sad when two such actors do it in the same show. As the Baker and his Wife, O'Hare and Adams lack warmth, charm, love, wit, comic chops, and chemistry. And even presence. Adams's singing is ok. O'Hare's is horrible. Shockingly, Adams's gestures are trite and mechanical to the point of amateurishness. The duo's insipid costumes only emphasize the blandness of their performances. To summarize, the two characters who are the heart and soul of this musical disappear on that stage, brutally outclassed by everything else around them. I couldn't begin to explain how so much went wrong with Adams's performance. But it strikes me that O'Hare may be miscast. When Adams sings "You're passionate, charming, considerate, clever," all I could think is "NOT IN THIS SHOW HE'S NOT!"

Sorry. I am sincerely not enjoying reporting any of this.

I loved everything else about this production. Murphy is nothing short of spectacular. And she looks great! The rest of the cast is uniformly wonderful. The standouts: Mueller, soulfully underplaying, sings angelically. Stiles, whom I found terribly annoying in On A Clear Day, makes Red's every moment vivid, true, witty and fascinating. Zien does everything one would expect from him and more. Glick is charming. Zbornik - a great impressionist, here she seems to be cleverly channeling Katey Sagal - is hilarious.

The framing device and use of the child narrator is compelling and makes the final scenes much richer than they were. The hot scenes do not jump the sexual shark, at all. Innuendo is kept in proper balance with the wolf's dinner, the suggestion of going down on Red - based on the position of her body beyond the sheet - may be unmistakable, but only unmistakable as a metaphorical inference, not as an actual event. As such, it remains just this side of too much. The choreography works quite well and the special scenic effects are first rate (of course one might want the Witch's transformation to be more presto chango, but it's not belabored, and, being in the park, I give them a handicap). With the notable exceptions of Adams and O"Hare, and the Steward's (which I don't really get at all), the costumes work well.

I don't know why the twins turn to dust, but I'm fascinated by it and find it thought provoking. Maybe the kids were her delusion. Maybe Rapunzel smothered them just like she was smothered. Maybe she neglected them in her madness.

One more thing. Murphy's "Last Midnight" alone is, worth the price of admission, or in this case worth standing in line for hours for.




















Updated On: 8/8/12 at 12:23 AM

[wicked1492]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 1:35am

I saw the first preview and was so worried about Amy's mechanical, bland, typical gesturing and general choices, but thought she'd definitely grow out of that after a few performances and start to make some new discoveries and choices...so sad that it doesn't sound like she is.

I couldn't figure out the Steward's costume either. I thought maybe the Princes were supposed to be "pop star princes" or something to that effect and he was their manager... Maybe? Who knows. It needs to be made clear and that shouldn't be something the audience has to figure out or mull over too much.

It's general, bland choices and sacrificing the brilliant material for an innovative LOOK that are holding this production back.

Updated On: 8/8/12 at 01:35 AM

[ljay889]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 1:57am

I saw an early preview, and I thought Adams was fabulous. Just my opinion.

I honestly think whoever plays this role will never be good enough for some people. Gleason's performance is so ingrained in all of our heads.

Updated On: 8/8/12 at 01:57 AM

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 2:03am

I can only speak for myself, ljay, but my dislike of Adams in the show has nothing to do with memories of Joanna Gleason. While it's undeniable that Gleason made a profound impact in the role, from what I've read, most people who take issue with Adams have said the same thing- she's turning in a very bland performance without making any specific choices.

The Baker's Wife has a pretty spectacular journey of coming into her own and truly learning something new about herself and the world around her over the course of the story, and though she couldn't be more charming, I don't think Adams delved into any of that. Her Baker's Wife is the exact same person from beginning to end, and she plays no subtext and charts no emotional arc to speak of. "Moments in the Woods" was a perfect example for me of why I was so troubled by her- that song is full of complex and vivid emotion that gives the actor performing it a world of things to play, and I felt like Adams did absolutely nothing with it other than sing it pleasantly. She goes through the entire show being spunky and cute, but she doesn't come close to scratching the surface of what is (for my money) the most interesting character in the piece.

It's a very serviceable performance, to be sure, but it's not anywhere near memorable or effective in the least.

Updated On: 8/8/12 at 02:03 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 8:14am

IJay I admit that for me Gleason's Baker's Wife is one of the most truthful, umforgettable performances I have ever seen. But for me Adams is one of the great talents of her generation. I was thrilled when she was cast in Into the Woods and, if anything, would have bent over backwards to love her performance. I am not going to believe for a second that your finding her fabulous in the show is an illusion. I only ask in return that you believe that when I say I thought she wasn't good in it, it is not based on my devotion to Gleason's portrayal. Our opinions of Adams's work here, though opposite, can be equally genuine.

Wicked the only thing the Steward's costume vaguely suggested to me is that he spent his day on the golf course instead of ministering to the kingdom. Not a bad choice, perhaps, but, as you said, it wasn't clear and there is no reason we should be left to surmise. (And unlike the dusty twins, this particular mystery has no poetry, rather than intrigue us, it merely nonplusses.)

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Amy's hair, while not quite as bad as it appears in some stills, is horrid.











Updated On: 8/8/12 at 08:14 AM

[Baiseur82]

Posted: 8/8/12 at 9:46am

Wicked, last night the show ran for about 2 hours 50 minutes (started at about 8:10 and ended at 11 exactly)

Just to throw in my 2 cents on the show, I absolutely loved the production. I agree that Dennis was the extreamly weak link. I hated his performance (As a side not I do love Dennis usually) I guess I am in the minority but I really liked Amy's Bakers Wife. The obvious stand outfit me was Donna Murphy as The Witch she was IMHO perfection! I also really liked the new child narrator take a lot. I feel like it added something new to the show for me and I personally enjoyed it.
I absolutely loved the set and the giant was stunning! Over all I think this is a great production and well worth the time I wated for my free tickets!