blackbird_fly
|
Amazon ReviewWhile surfing Amazon, I came across this gem of a review for Into the Woods. It's lengthly, so I shortened it:
| Quote: | I saw this production on Broadway the week it opened. It made no sense then, it makes no sense now. I defy anyone who hasn't listened to the album with the lyrics in his hand to say what the heck is going on at any particular point. The lyrics are unintelligible in the theater. I've seen this show a half-dozen times, trying against all hope to figure out what makes it popular, and I still can't even begin to figure out what the plot is...
The libretto - well, there are so many things wrong with it, where to start? First, the utter disrespect for the original fairy tales, twisting them to fit the potted theme - excuse me, gentlemen, Cinderella does NOT go "into the woods"! Jack does NOT go into the woods with the cow. Second, the inability to use the original fairy tales for a through-line, having to invent the lame story of the Baker and his Wife. So why not just stick to the Baker story, or the fairy tales? Well, because Sondheim isn't happy until he's crapped all over stories that have enchanted the West for hundreds of years with his own perverse maunderings. Third, the incessent, whiny moralizing. Sondheim has turned into a twisted version of Hammerstein; first he rebelled by being seemingly amoral ( I stress the seemingly, he has always been moralistic in his work), now he moralizes but only after making you sick to your stomach. His shows have to "mean" something, something "deep," something "profound," like Be careful what you wish for (like a new Sondheim show), or Art isn't easy (no, but the best art looks that way). On top of all that, Sondheim breaks all his own rules for lyric writing in this piece, stuffing it with off-rhymes, assonance, etc. It is simply sloppy.
What stuns and amazes me is that the more outrageously bizarre he got, with Sunday in the Park, Into the Woods, and the worst of all, Passion, the more esteemed he became! Why do people worship this man who celebrates illness and neurosis? Are we so desperately unsure of ourselves that we automatically esteem something that makes us queasy or that we don't understand?
|
|
music is my life!!!
|
^^^
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
sorry, but thatt is so funny! Did they not understand the play? It's so much better than those dreary fairy tales lol
|
ConverseSneaker
|
I'm caught between laughing and getting sick to my stomach.
|
Tumnus1031
|
I remember seeing this review when I ordered the DVD. I also remember wishing that the person who wrote this review would go die in a fire.
I'm still wishing that.
|
dolbinau
|
I respect his opinion is more than "OMG IT SUX ITS OVERRATED !!1111".
|
blackbird_fly
|
| dolbinau wrote: | | I respect his opinion is more than "OMG IT SUX ITS OVERRATED !!1111". |
Yeah, I give him (her?) credit for writing a coherent explanation and explaining why he didn't like it. It's just that he completely misses the point (and a lot of what he was confused about is obvious, like the plot for ITW.)
|
Tenalto
|
...And then Bizarro Superman went swimming in the air.
|
what_the_heck013
|
Here's another review, again from Amazon, of the 2002 revival. I think it very eloquently states how I feel about that recording:
I occasionally teach a high school class on Stephen Sondheim, and it begins with "Into the Woods". I am a tremendous admirer of the piece and the original version in which the cast created such memorable, fresh, and remarkable performances that the revival had two options: 1 - Recreate the original and risk becoming a caricature or imitation or 2 - Try to reinvent the piece with new interpretations on the lines and the songs.
This revival chose road #2, and the problem is that the original interpretations and characters were so definitive that this revival becomes incredibly muddled and, well, ordinary in its endeavor to be different.
Vanessa Williams is weak here because she never lets go of her personal essence for the sake of a character. In her endeavor not to sound silly or ridiculous as the Witch, she ends up sounding silly and ridiculous as herself - especially in the opening scene. (But hey, it was almost LuPone, so I guess we should be thankful)
I have been an admirer of Gregg Edelman since "City of Angels", but Gregg, who let you say "You're travelin' so fleetly"? And Gregg, you need a singing partner in "Agony" who is worthy of singing with you.
The Little Red is charming here, and is also played by a little girl. Her innocence and sweetness offer some beautiful recordings, but are inconsistent with the character.
Jack's voice is nice, but it is not legitimate and it's a little strange. In fact, many of the leads and most of the ensemble have a bizarre weak quality to their voices which leaves the ensemble numbers kind of flat.
Cinderella is excellent, and is the only one to hold her own against her counterpart in the original by creating something new, workable, and well performed.
The Baker is fine, and his wife is a wonderful and sweet soprano. However, the urgency, subversiveness, and grit of Johanna Gleason's performance is not here and necessary for the character, I feel.
I guess, on that note, I should say that this recording is fine, and that those who are a fan of the work will find things to love about it. It is worth having, but I guess for me, the glue that holds "Into the Woods" together is it's cleverness - and clever this ain't.
|
fjays
|
| what_the_heck013 wrote: |
Vanessa Williams is weak here because she never lets go of her personal essence for the sake of a character. In her endeavor not to sound silly or ridiculous as the Witch, she ends up sounding silly and ridiculous as herself - especially in the opening scene. |
I agree with that review actually. Especially that part ^^
|
