The good news is that
Into the Woods was the second highest grossing film on Christmas Day and it finished third overall for the weekend.
The bad news is that I didn't
love it.
Let me compare Into the Woods
to a piece of chocolate cake. Right off, you may either love or hate it
because you might like or dislike chocolate, cake, or both. If you've
never had chocolate cake before-- this may be the most delicious thing
you ever tasted. If you like chocolate cake-- this may be satisfying;
but if you love chocolate cake, this may be underwhelming or a
complete disappointment. There are still others that will find-- good or
bad, dry or moist-- they are just grateful to have a slice of cake.
For me, this version of ITW is missing key ingredients. Or to draw from the script-- the potion is missing it's
hair as yellow as corn. It didn't work for me.
The original
Into the Woods clearly explores the price that comes with wishes, what is really
happily ever after; and the importance of teaching children, wishes
as
children and the hope that exists in children themselves. Much of this
is lost or brushed aside in the film. Instead of a film using fairy
tales to tell a bigger story, it's just a film telling fairy tales with a
slightly different ending.
The movie is beautifully filmed and
features an outstanding cast. BUT-- I found it visually too dark; and
with the major plot changes, I was never drawn in or emotional involved.
I
have some pretty strong opinions about this particular film because
I've had a long personal attachment to the stage version of
Into the Woods.
 |
| Poster for the original Broadway production of Into the Woods. |
I
saw the original 1987 Broadway production-- twice, the 1988 first
national tour, worked the theater where the second national tour began
in Chicago (non-equity), saw the 2002 Broadway revival, designed the set
and costumes for a local high school production; and have seen
literally
dozens of professional and amateur productions over the years.
The stage version of Into the Woods is
visually
a combination of light (colorful) and dark images, where the movie was
visually dark from start to finish. The village and castle scenes in the
movie all had a dingy, dirty feel as opposed to embodying color, light
or any fairy tale magic. Emotionally, the movie is pretty much gray from
start to finish. I didn't feel the passion of the dreams and wishes
from the major characters; which is problematic because it leaves no
real reason for them to go into the woods to begin with. We never truly
see even a glimpse of the
happy ever after they are so desperate to achieve.
Even in the worst productions I've seen, no matter how badly acted or staged-- I've always been moved by
No One Is Alone. Except in the film. To borrow from another musical, I felt
nothing.
Some
might feel that it is to Disney and director Rob Marshall's credit that
they didn't Disneyfy the look of the film. I see it as a missed
opportunity to enhance the story. I really would have appreciated seeing
some of the beauty and opulence of the castle, for example. Instead, it
was dark and drab, as was the brief wedding imagery.
In adapting
for the film, the writers chose to edit and whitewash the deeper,
meaningful moments of the story. Combining that with the lack of
passion, it left very little to get emotionally involved in.
Without Rapunzel's demise, we lose the witch's profound grief that propels her into a frenzied
Last Midnight. Without a larger presence of the Baker's Father (Mysterious Man, or not) and the cut song
No More, we lose what is the cathartic moment that leads to the Baker's return to his new
family. As a result, the intensity and the
pure, desperate passion is lost from characters' motivations.
 |
| Cast of Disney's film, Into the Woods. |
One
of the early moments in the film set the tone for me. Jack's Mother,
played by the incredible Tracey Ullman, was directed to be purely a
serviceable character on screen. (In the stage version, she is a warm,
witty and lovable character.) I believe this was done to lessen the
audiences' attachment and thus, later in the film: the reaction to her
death; which also seemed somewhat muddled. Jack didn't seem terribly
upset when he found out his mother was gone, nor did Little Red over her
Granny. (
And did it bother anyone else that Little Red suddenly looked like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz for the remainder of the picture?)
The
character of the Witch and Meryl Streep's performance have to be looked
at separately. First, I didn't feel like the other characters really
feared the Witch and her power as much as they saw her as a means to get
what they wanted, or as an obstacle in doing so. Second, since the film
chose to let Rapunzel ride off with the Prince, future unknown--
instead of becoming a victim of the giant; it lessened the Witch's loss.
These two points affect the whole dynamic of the Witch's antagonistic
role in the story, as well as her motivations.
Meryl Streep,
easily the greatest American actress of our time, fully embodied what
the film set out to portray. Though I hoped for a much more powerful
performance, Streep filled the bill the way the story has been adapted,
perfectly. One thing I noticed, having listened to the soundtrack since;
you don't really grasp the incredible technique and emotion Streep
brought to the character-- vocally, in one viewing in a theater. Meryl
Streep doesn't just sing musical roles-- her vocalization is a
well-crafted extension of her character's development and expression.
Every word, phrase and guttural sound is perfection.
I liked the
introduction of the blue moon to the story, opposed to just the passing
midnights of the stage version. I thought it gave a clearer
understanding of why the spell had to be broken
now.
For me, the best and only
perfect moment in the film was
Agony.
It was beautifully acted and staged. If the entire film had this energy
and attention to detail, it could have been the best stage
musical-to-film ever made.
 |
| Composer/Lyricist Stephen Sondheim. |
I remember thinking about two-thirds of the way through:
Where is all the music?
A substantial amount was cut and occasionally reduced to underscoring.
This is composer Stephen Sondheim’s baby. Though he and original book
writer James Lapine were actively involved in the film, I feel they
caved in to the studio pressures, too much, just to get this film made.
From
all that I read leading up to the film's release, Disney was concerned
about the original version being too dark (plot-wise), too many main
character deaths and wanted to make it more family-friendly. The result
is a watered down story that still, in my opinion, is not a family
movie.
Into the Woods, on screen, felt like it was too
long. This is ironic since it was 20 minutes shorter than the stage
version, not including an intermission. It was more than a little slow
and disjointed at times.
I'm sure people completely unfamiliar with
ITW
will have a completely different reaction to the film. And that's okay.
I just hope it's a positive experience. The very best thing that could
come out of the film is that it might encourage a new audience for the
stage version. The film versions of other more recent movie musicals
have done a great service to building and keeping audience interest in
live theatre.
I can only hope that this film will contribute to that trend.
Dreamgirls (2006) Directed by Bill Condon and adapted from the Tony Award-winning original 1981 Broadway musical
directed and choreographed by Michael Bennett. Dreamgirls was nominated
for 8 Academy Awards, winning two Oscars: Sound Mixing and Best
Supporting Actress for Jennifer Hudson.
Chicago (2002) Directed by Rob Marshall (Into the Woods). Screenplay by Bill Condon (Dreamgirls).
West Side Story (1961) Based on the classic 1957 stage musical, the film is a true representation of the original stage material and by far, my favorite movie musical of all time.
