skygiants | (no subject)

We interrupt this Yuletide to bring you: SOME OPINIONS ABOUT THE INTO THE WOODS MOVIE.

My opinions are ... mixed! Very mixed. Also, very biased; I know my love for Joanna Gleason, Bernadette Peters and Chip Zien does not allow me really to provide a fair opinion on anybody else attempting to fill their shoes. And yet, and yet.

I mean, I was half-expecting a travesty, and it certainly was not a travesty. Everyone could sing! Chunks of it were amazing. Almost everyone killed it when it came to their major numbers -- every time we went into a song, I'd be sitting there thinking angry and resentful thoughts about how they didn't do any of the buildup right, and it wasn't going to work, and then we'd get three amazing minutes of song and I'd be like "...ok, fine, but YOU DIDN'T EARN THAT." They almost never earned it. But those three-minute segments were nonetheless fantastic. (OK, except for "I Know Things Now," I'm sorry Lilla Crawford, you did your best, but that curtain dream sequence did ... not do it for me. And I also was not carried away by ... like, any of the Witch's songs, until "Last Midnight," but to give Meryl her due she ROCKED "Last Midnight," even though they earned that maybe least of all.)

And Chris Pine chewed every piece of scenery he could find and loved every minute of it, and did I laugh straight through AGONY IN A WATERFALL? Yes, yes I did. Totally worth the price of admission. Anna Kendrick was great -- the staging of "On the Steps of the Palace" was also genuinely fantastic -- and I did really like a lot of the little stuff they did at the beginning that built the village into a world; Jack's mother staring at Cinderella's birds, the stepsisters' carriage splashing other characters as they went by.

Emily Blunt ... Emily Blunt gave an amazing performance, to give her her due, and "Moments in the Woods" was amazing, and mostly I'm cranky because the character she chose to play isn't my Baker's Wife. I knew that she wasn't going to be from the very beginning, when we see her fussing with the Baker to give Little Red more cookies instead of rolling her eyes and taking them out of her hands. Nope, nope, nope. I spent a while trying not to be that person who's like "but it's not the saaaaaame!" because people can and should put their own spin on a character, but all those sharp Slytherin edges that the Baker's Wife has got in the original are what I'm here for, and personally I don't want them softened.

I don't know, I mean, it's a Disney movie, everyone was softened. Except for Rapunzel's prince, who, like, again, from the minute they had Chris Pine show up on a black horse with stubble to contrast against the nice clean-shaven Prince #2 on his white charger, I was like, "we're not getting Agony 2, aren't we." And we didn't. And Rapunzel rides away with Prince #2, and that's FINE, and it's not like I miss the two mystery potato babies that disappear in Act 2 anyway (...OK, I totally do miss the two mystery potato babies that disappear in Act 2, but THAT'S ON ME and I fully acknowledge it) and it's not like I'm wedded to Rapunzel's death, but, but. Also if Rapunzel doesn't die then the Witch's arc makes no sense, but the Witch's arc makes no sense anyway because --

-- well, that's the other character who wasn't softened, was the Witch, who instead went the other direction and became much more a cartoon villain. They cut out a HUGE chunk of the middle, including the entire scene of the Witch as the Baker's Wacky Sitcom Neighbor, and, I mean, I get it. You can't make a Disney movie three hours long. But if you don't have the Witch as a sort-of ally in the middle, and if you don't have the explosion of guilt and loss that is Rapunzel's death -- and if you've been softening all the sharp flawed selfish edges that the heroes have got, all along -- then you haven't earned "Last Midnight." You haven't gotten to a place where you can turn all the fairy-tale narratives on their heads, where you can have the Witch say, "I'm not good, I'm not bad, I'm just right," and believe that maybe it's true. The fact that for the three minutes that Meryl Streep's singing you could believe it anyway is a testament to her abilities as a performer and an actress, so kudos to her for that. But for me "Last Midnight" is kind of the point of the whole thing, so if you haven't earned that, then you've missed it.

But then maybe that all goes back to not having a Narrator. Which, again, I get -- and the decision to have James Corden narrate as the Baker instead, telling the story to Baker Jr., isn't unprecedented or anything. But the point of having a Narrator is that you've got this story, and you've got this man telling the story, and then you have all these vibrant, flawed, three-dimensional characters struggling to burst out further than the words he's locking them down with and the roles they're written to play. And that's not there in this movie.

I don't know. It's got the outside shape of Into the Woods, and it's beautiful to look at and to listen to, but I miss all the twisting, uncomfortable complexity at the heart.

Crossposts: http://bookelfe.livejournal.com/400642.html

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

ambyr

I think this has pretty much solidified my decision not to see it :-/.

From:

skygiants

I mean, there were definitely things about it that were worth it! I'm also just SO BIASED. I am that crotchety person sitting in the audience shaking a cane muttering about how much better things were in my day.

From:

ambyr

Hah, you should have heard me after seeing the 2002 revival. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THERE ARE TWO WOLVES, WHY?

From:

ceitfianna

I wasn't going to see it anyway but this is fascinating to read your thoughts. Earning it is such a great way to put how a good musical works and Sondheim always makes his characters earn it.

I might rent it someday and I'm glad that there were moments that worked. Also since I knew this was coming out, I've been looking forward to your thoughts on it.

From:

skygiants

Yeah, I mean, if nothing else, seeing it made me think a lot more about the structure of Into the Woods itself, and how it hangs together the way it does -- why the things that work do work. Which is valuable!

And I mean, I would watch the movie again. And be sad and irritated at all the same things that made me sad and irritated first time around, but.

From:

adiva_calandia

Honestly, I was waiting to hear your thoughts before going to see it; there's a decent chance I'll go see it in the week I'm here, but ... I'd like to have my expectations managed. So thank you for the review!

(I am so worried about "I Know Things Now," though. D: That and "No More" are my touchstone songs.)

From:

skygiants

ahahaha I feel so responsible now! I DO KNOW PEOPLE WHO LOVED IT, please don't let my opinion influence you overmuch ...

(I'm still SO MAD they cut "No More." There was no reason to! And they actually played up the Baker's dad issues in dialogue, so I DON'T UNDERSTAND.)

From:

petra

The achy place where No More wasn't but the instrumental was, so that the people who knew the words could have it in their heads and everyone else could enjoy James Corden weeping, INFURIATED ME.

From:

skygiants

ME TOO. I just don't understand why the gap was! THIRTY SECONDS OF SINGING WOULDN'T HAVE KILLED YOU.

From:

pedanther

There's an explanation of why they cut "No More" in this interview, if you're interested. (Note: I make no representations as to whether it is a good or satisfying explanation. But it's an explanation.)

From:

skygiants

...indeed it is.

"I always feel on film you have to earn a ballad, because it’s a different kind of pacing," says Rob Marshall. YES. YES YOU DO. SO EARN IT. Sigh.

From:

pedanther

Right. Okay. Once you've taken out the Narrator, and Agony 2, and the rest of the things you've mentioned, I'm pretty sure what's left isn't Into the Woods.

I'm saddened, but not entirely surprised, because I was always dubious about Into the Woods working as a movie, and especially so once Rob Marshall was announced as director, because although he's theoretically got form as a director of movies adapting musicals, from my point of view what he's got is form as a director of movies adapting musicals he doesn't quite get. ("All the non-diagetic musical numbers are happening in the protagonist's head" is pretty neat hook for some musical somewhere, but Chicago is not that musical.)

From:

skygiants

I actually really enjoy the Chicago movie, but I also don't have anything like the emotional attachment to Chicago that I do certain other musicals (like ... this one.) I mean I do think a large part of the problem is just that they had to cut so much of the second act to fit it into normal movie-length; there's really no part of the show that's expendable. (I think. IN MY PARTIALITY AND BIAS.)

From:

pedanther

Ooh, sudden thought: would Into the Woods work as a prestige TV miniseries, the kind that has two movie-length episodes aired on successive nights? You'd get a version of the act structure, and less need to cut things out because of time.

On the other hand, there'd still be the expectation of detailed realism and a solid fourth wall, which were some of the other reasons I was dubious about a film from the outset.

From:

skygiants

I don't know, I think in a miniseries with a little experimentation you could totally do the kind of heightened metafiction you need to make the Narrator work on film -- think something like Pushing Daisies (or Jane the Virgin now.) But you'd have to be willing to take the risk to try it.

From:

sovay

Also, very biased; I know my love for Joanna Gleason, Bernadette Peters and Chip Zien does not allow me really to provide a fair opinion on anybody else attempting to fill their shoes.

I dunno. I have a mild immunity to Into the Woods as a show, having performed in it in high school (Cinderella's Mother), and I am in fact extraordinarily fond of James Corden for an actor I've seen in one show ever, but the Baker doesn't look or sound like anyone but Chip Zien to me.

but all those sharp Slytherin edges that the Baker's Wife has got in the original are what I'm here for, and personally I don't want them softened.

One of the things that makes the musical work is that none of the characters have exactly the personalities of their archetypes. Chip Zien has some nervy, nebbishy edges as the Baker and they're different edges than his wife. Rapunzel is about as fucked-up as you would expect a person in her position to be.

and it's not like I'm wedded to Rapunzel's death, but, but. Also if Rapunzel doesn't die then the Witch's arc makes no sense, but the Witch's arc makes no sense anyway because --

AAAAAH WHAT. How can you have a second act if Rapunzel does not squashed in it? Does that leave the Baker's Wife as the only person who gets stepped on by the giant sort-of-AIDS metaphor? Doesn't that completely reconfigure the morality of the second half of the show in uncomfortable ways?

including the entire scene of the Witch as the Baker's Wacky Sitcom Neighbor

. . . no rap about the rampion?

But then maybe that all goes back to not having a Narrator.

AAAAAH WHAT.

YOU CAN'T TAKE THE NARRATOR OUT OF INTO THE WOODS. THE NARRATOR GETTING KILLED BY THE STORY HE'S LOST CONTROL OF IS ONE OF THE BEST AND MOST UPSETTING PARTS OF THE SECOND ACT. ALSO IT MAKES LISTENING TO ASSASSINS FOR THE FIRST TIME PERHAPS UNNECESSARILY HILARIOUS AS YOU WONDER IF SONDHEIM HAS IT IN FOR NARRATORS AND THEN YOU SEE BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON WHERE THE NARRATOR DOESN'T EVEN MAKE IT THROUGH THE FIRST ACT AND YOU JUST LAUGH LIKE A LOON.

IN SHORT, I OBJECT.

Edited Date: 2014-12-27 07:46 pm (UTC)

From:

rachelmanija

This sounds like the perhaps-apocryphal high school production where they decided Act II was too disturbing and only did Act I.

From:

moonling

Our school actually did that! Jr high, not high school, and I was only in 5th grade at the time and don't remember much about it, but. It definitely happened.

From:

skygiants

I have definitely heard of high schools doing that. ... I actually tried doing that with a ten-year-old babysittee at one point in my teenaged years, but she went ahead and watched the whole thing anyway, and then confronted me the next day with her trauma. I was like, "I WARNED YOU!"

From:

lnhammer

This is a standard thing, apparently. And I have seen it.

---L.

From:

sabra_n

Oh, it's not apocryphal. There's an official licensed show called Into the Woods Jr., intended for younger performers, which is pretty much as you describe.

From:

skygiants

YES about the Baker's edges. One of the small things that infuriated me most is at the end, when the Baker and Jack are in the tree, and Jack says he's going to kill the Steward -- in the original, the Baker says don't, and Jack argues, and the Baker, completely numb from grief and exhaustion and over his head, just washes his hands of the whole matter -- "FINE, then kill him." And then he pauses and says, "No, don't," and you get No One Is Alone. But you need that moment of exasperated failure -- just total inability to cope, even after he's come back, even after he's decided to to try. And this film cuts that; it's such a little line, but it's so important! And he doesn't hesitate about having Red and Jack live with him at the end, either. He doesn't even have that gleefully avaricious moment of imagining everything the five gold pieces can buy. All those little human edges, sanded away.

THE BAKER'S WIFE DOESN'T EVEN GET SQUASHED. She falls off a cliff, because Disney decided it wanted to go all the way with Disney death cliches, and also, who cares about the metaphor?

The rap about the rampion is still there! "Giant's just like us, only bigger," is not, which is relevant for MORE REASONS than just the Witch's characterization. The entire opening to the second act is sliced away wholesale -- we basically go straight from Cinderella and the Prince's wedding to everyone in the forest, arguing with the giant.

I knew from ages back that there wasn't going to be a Narrator, and I was ALMOST resigned to it. I had braced myself for that going in! And in the first act you can almost get away with it, but the second act is SO HOLLOW WITHOUT HIM. (I really need to see Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.

From:

sovay

But you need that moment of exasperated failure -- just total inability to cope, even after he's come back, even after he's decided to to try. And this film cuts that

Dammit!

All those little human edges, sanded away.

That's a shame. Corden can actually do small human tragicomic moments! What is his Baker like, if he doesn't have edges?

THE BAKER'S WIFE DOESN'T EVEN GET SQUASHED. She falls off a cliff, because Disney decided it wanted to go all the way with Disney death cliches, and also, who cares about the metaphor?

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

"Giant's just like us, only bigger," is not, which is relevant for MORE REASONS than just the Witch's characterization. The entire opening to the second act is sliced away wholesale -- we basically go straight from Cinderella and the Prince's wedding to everyone in the forest, arguing with the giant.

I think I wasted all my dumbstruck on the previous discovery, but you can imagine that if I had any bewildered disapproval left, it would go here.

And in the first act you can almost get away with it, but the second act is SO HOLLOW WITHOUT HIM.

Seriously, I can't figure out how any of the emotional payoffs the second act are supposed to work given the structure you describe here. And since the entire point of Into the Woods is the second act—I am not saying that it's emotionally or musically uninteresting or that it provides no new twists on its source material, but structurally the first act could be replaced by any number of fairytale mashups; it gets everyone to the happy-ever-after, after which all hell breaks loose—then I don't understand why film the musical at all, if you're going to core it out so badly.

I really need to see Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson.

I don't know if there was a visual record made of the Broadway cast! SpeakEasy had some excerpts available on their website at the time, but I don't know if these can still be viewed. I can recommend the original cast recording without reservation and I suspect you would greatly enjoy any production you could find, just for the bits that work. When it's on, it's batshit.

From:

petra

I feel like everything they chose to film was well done, but. BUT.

No one should ever spoil the Witch's un-hagging, let alone the Witch herself in her first scene, wtf. It should be an astonishing side-effect. (And Meryl is too old; the Witch needs to be young enough not to be able to be Rapunzel's mother, at least in appearance.)

I missed both the Narrator Incarnate and the Mysterious Man intensely. (And the instrumental "No More" was just infuriating.")

Little Red and Jack were both creepy-young for their respective defloration-metaphor stories, or, as my SO put it, "Wow, they really cast Johnny Depp as a pedo, didn't they?"

The Baker's Wife fell off a WHAT NOW NO.

I didn't need an Agony reprise, since it's quite clear that at least Pine-Prince is a sleazeball, but Rapunzel shouldn't have survived, no. The giant should've smushed them both. More smushing for everyone!

THERE WAS PLENTY OF TIME FOR "RAPUNZEL, RAPUNZEL. WHAT A STRANGE NAME." from BOTH princes. and it IS. it means LETTUCE. it's worthy of NOTE. Also, I love that line.

There wasn't even 30 seconds of Ever After and that seemed a cheat for everyone, along with the insta-third-trimester.

That said. All that said. "Agony" was brilliance incarnate, and I loved the staging of "Giants in the Sky."

But the best meta-casting was Frances de la Tour as the Giant, formerly appearing as the headmistress of Beauxbatons.

From:

skygiants

Omg, the witch's un-hagging. I feel like First Act Witch is also something they really should have gone full film monster CGI on, like, OK, Meryl, it's nice that you got a magical hairdo and manicure, but you could have also fixed these problems with a visit to the salon instead of making everyone run around panicking for three days ...

Yeah, I was NOT a fan of Comedy Pedophile Johnny Depp Wolf (a jacket full of candy? SERIOUSLY?) and they clearly were just ducking all the metaphors in Jack's story as hard as they possibly could. RAPUNZEL AND HER PRINCE COULD'VE SMUSHED TOGETHER. I would've been OK with that. But we missed the whole scene where Rapunzel flings her long-term damage at the Witch, and the Witch has to confront it, and that's crucial for both of them.

I thought the staging of "Giants" was pretty good also, and as aforementioned I loved the staging of "On the Steps of the Palace." And "Agony" was so good! The songs just got better and better as the show went on, and the rest of it got worse and worse.

From:

next_to_normal

OK, Meryl, it's nice that you got a magical hairdo and manicure, but you could have also fixed these problems with a visit to the salon instead of making everyone run around panicking for three days ...

UGH RIGHT? Also, it makes the moment when Rapunzel doesn't recognize her seem extremely silly, because it's obviously the same person with a new hairdo and a manicure, so why WOULDN'T she recognize her? I mean, that is the least of my problems with that scene, lol, but GOD THE MORE WE TALK ABOUT IT, THE MORE THINGS I THINK OF THAT THEY GOT WRONG AND IT MAKES ME SAAAAAADDDDDDDD.

From:

sdelmonte

Pretty sure we will see it, with low expectations. Your review was much more positive than some I have seen, like the one that declares it's our society's obligation to never let Rob Marshall direct anything else ever again.

From:

skygiants

Low expectations is I think the way to go in. The lower your expectations, the happier you will probably be made by the things that really are done quite well!

From:

ladymondegreen

If I go see it, my expectations are going to have to be "they made a movie with some of the songs from Into the Woods set in a new story that is a bad fanfiction of the story I know." or I'm probably going to have a reaction much like some of those posted above.

From:

next_to_normal

I HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THIS POOOOOST.

My feelings were much the same. Basically, I feel like most of what was actually there, they did well, but so much of it was missing, and that made it feel super-disjointed and weird and it made me sad.

Then again, OMGWTFWATERFALL. Will never not be worth watching.

From:

skygiants

Yeah, it was just -- man, I'm mostly sad about how many feelings I didn't have. Except for when someone was singing fantastically (OR WATERFALL), I spent most of the movie analyzing how it was and wasn't working instead of being carried away by emotions.

From:

next_to_normal

I spent most of the movie analyzing how it was and wasn't working instead of being carried away by emotions.

YES exactly. I mean, it's possible that I am anal and would do this anyway, but I don't have a problem feeling the emotions of, say, the Hunger Games movies, even while I'm thinking of the changes from the books.

I am actually impressed you were able to do that much big-picture thinking, lol, like whether or not the musical numbers were earned. I found myself cataloging each individual line or joke or exchange, and I feel like I don't have a good sense of whether they worked in connection with other scenes or songs or what have you.

From:

lnhammer

Wait, no Narrator-as-character?! No Rapunzel's death?!?!

Hrmmm. I think I'll wait on this one.

---L.

From:

skygiants

I knew both of those things going in so I had used up my righteous indignation about that ages ago! Instead I just had sad disappointment that even what was left did not measure up (except for the things that did, and there were a few things that did, so ... that's nice!) :(

From:

lnhammer

ObGokusenIconLove

From:

batyatoon

I'M SO DISPROPORTIONATELY ALLCAPS FURIOUS ABOUT THEM GETTING RID OF THE NARRATOR

ASK ALEX, HE WILL TELL YOU HOW DISPROPORTIONATELY ALLCAPS FURIOUS I AM

From:

skygiants

TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL, BATYA

(I don't know how they could have done it but they should have tried)

From:

batyatoon

I REALLY FEEL, IN FACT, DISPROPORTIONATELY ALLCAPS FURIOUS

and actually I can think of at least two ways it could have been done, with the easiest being a Rod-Serling-style narration -- i.e., not too differently from how it's generally done on stage.

From:

januar

Many many months later, I have finally seen this movie! I'm not as strongly attached to the original musical as you are, but there were still some differences that made me go 'why?' Like the lack of Agony 2. And the lack of the narrator. And the squishing of Act 2. And Rapunzel and her prince getting their happy ending, because they don't!

Speaking of the narrator, it's obvious (at least to those who know the musical) where the narrator dies in the film. You have a good chunk of the movie with this voice telling you things, and then suddenly you never hear it again, without any explanation.

Oh! And I wasn't a fan of the girl who played Red. Mostly because I've been influenced by your 'lol no' icon of her.

Edited Date: 2015-08-17 10:06 pm (UTC)