|
There is no original tale. But Joanna Gleason is so warm and her acting so good that she gives the impression of a complex, conflicted character. Every character has something to like. No. For Sondheim, catchy is rare.
Isn't a prince who likes to kiss comatose women just a little, you know, disturbing.As a historian, I would welcome a chance to sit down with Lapine and take him to task for the obvious fiction: he said he went to the "original" tales to make this story. Bernadette Peters sings and acts beautifully but I think the director made her just a little too nasty, even for a witch. Weaving all the stories together (Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, Rapunzel) and introducing proletariet characters in the Baker and his Wife, catchy music. These are folk traditions and no one knows who wrote what.
It was only on the third viewing that I realized how much of that has to do with the wonderful acting. the only weak singing is the Narrator, but he is not meant to sing well. He didn't. On top of which, they did not grow "corn" in medieval Europe--a key plot point-- and the Baker of that time did not run a little shop. It's like the Ring Cycle.
There's a lot right with this musical, and with this particular production. If you just pay attention to the words, the Baker's Wife is really not a nice person. She is a liar and a cheat and terribly, selfishly immature. And Chip Zien as the Baker is good in every way.Kim Crosby as Cinderella also acts better than the material and sings like an angel. I would not mind the anachronisms if they hadn't made such a big deal about going to "original" sources, but, whatever gets you publicity, I guess. You totally get what's going on halfway before any one song is over. Beautiful is to be expected, but not catchy.The story has a great start: get all the couples together in the first act and then examine: What would living in a tower for her whole life do to Rapunzel.
It goes from moving to tedious and stays there for just about the whole second act. That's not what they meant by Baker; they mostly meant the person to whom you brought your food for baking because so few had ovens. The cast is uniformly marvelous. Biggest complaint is the thing runs so darn long. If you have a lot of time and really like Sondheim, this is a great show.
The Bottom Line:I'm willing to extend the play Into the Woods the benefit of the doubt since it has legions of followers and filmed adaptations are rarely successful, but on screen the musical is undone by a fundamental disconnect between the entertaining and lively first half and the slow and uninvolving second half; I suppose it'll do for people who are interested in the material and can't find it on a stage, but it's not a very enjoyable watch.2.5/4
I was disappointed that this wasn't the original Broadway production, but an American Theater production. I was also disappointed it was not close-captioned. Although I don't feel the seller was misleading in any way, I do wish this information had been provided.
I thought this movie of the play was amazing. The songs were well written and was a great performance.
In my opinion, this production was good for one thing--giving me a few minutes of sleep time. I tried to care about the characters, but I couldn't. I just couldn't get into this long musical play. I tried to like the characters, but couldn't. I kept waiting for the song, "Children Will Listen." Once I heard it, I used the rest of the time for sleep. I love musical theatre, but, for me, this didn't cut it.
|
