MusicalGal1194
|
Issues I Have With the Revival CastAh, there are so many. Let me list, and y'all please discuss.
-Kerry O'Malley (TBW) sounds like a Marilyn Monroe wanna-be in 'Moments'. (Especially in the "Will we find each other in the woods again?" part. ARGH!)
-Vanessa is great and all, but she sounds way too crone-like in the first act. Honestly, I think that Bernadette nailed it. The Witch should be just 'old woman' sounding enough, but not so much that it dismisses the probablity of her actually being a young woman. Does that make sense?
-Laura is too shrill with her higher register.
-The costumes suck. (Sorry, I hated them)
-The Narrator was way too stiff and not animated enough.
- Both Princes seemed...indifferent. As though they were not pompous or vain at all!
-Did my eyes decieve me, or at the Tony awards when the revival cast performed, was the Wolf chasing Three Little Pigs? ACK! Seriously.
-The Witch and Rapunzel, although they had some nice comedic bits, had no chemistry as mother and daughter.
-Rapunzel was too innocent. I thought she should have been played more...I don't know...real, I guess.
- This is a funny one, but it still bothers me: during 'The Witch's Rap', Vanessa's prothstetic chin looks precariously perched the entire time-it looks like it's going to fall right off!
-Also, what was with The Witch's hair going all Medusa during 'The Witch's Rap'? Weird and unnecessary.
Annnd that's all I can think of right now. Just thought that I would share. If I can think of more, I'll edit or add another post. So, dear MdN'ers, I ask this of you: Feel free to post things that bother YOU about the revival cast! And discuss! Please 'n thank you!
|
Baker
|
It's been discussed inside out but I guess another thread can't hurt...
Question though, did you actually see it? On the one hand you seem surprised at the bit about the Three Little Pigs, but on the other hand several of your statements seem as though you saw the show (your comments about the princes, Rapunzel, and the Narrator, for example.) Unless you're making assumptions based on the CD?
|
Tumnus1031
|
In Rapunzel's defense, she was sheltered for fourteen years for the exact reason that you're complaining about. She's supposed to be innocent.
I didn't mind most of the revival cast, really (mind you, I've only heard the CD) I really liked the LRRH, mostly because she nailed the whole 'little child' and I liked her inflection in several songs better, especially "Hello, Little Girl." I HATED Vanessa and whoever played Jack. Vanessa just can't hold a candle to Bernadette, and she sounded exactly the same while she ugly and while she was pretty.
And don't even get me started on the revival Jack. 
|
mastachen
|
I actually thought Adam Wylie was one of the very few bright spots of the revival.
And the dancing cow. I enjoyed that.
|
SomeoneLikeYou
|
I totally agree with you, Musicalgal. I despise the revival for several of those reasons you said.
The Original Broadway Cast of Into the Woods is one of the most perfect casts I've ever seen. The revival cast just couldn't compare. But Laura Benanti did grow on me, I have to say.
I think the new Baker's Wife had a voice that was too good. It was very pure and very soprano, and I think that the role calls for a more mature, rich voice.
The 2nd Wolf and its subplot was just unnecessary, I think.
|
curlyhairedsoprano91
|
Let me post my list of grievances, as well (there are many). A few of these aren't grievances ... simply comments ... but they're mostly bad.
-- Kerry O'Malley. I respect the heck out of her performance, and I think that in a cast as weak as this one, she was something of a bright-spot. She was, however, miscast. I liked her voice, just ... not in this role.
-- Adam Wylie. Someone PLEASE teach this boy to get his voice out of his nose. GAH it sounded terrible. Just so ... grating, and awful, and annoying, and it made me treasure every note Ben Wright sang on the original sooo much more.
-- Vanessa wasn't ...terrible. It's sooo hard not to compare her to Bernadette, but even on the recording she was so flat. You couldn't even tell what a big part in the plot the Witch had.
-- LAURA BENANTI. Total bright spot.
-- The princes. Especially Cinderella's Prince. Major grievances there. "Any Moment" was freaking passionless. It makes me angry. I want to be seduced by pure vocal testosterone here. But no.
-- Rapunzel needed to get her voice out of her nose as well. It is possible to sing in pure head voice without sounding like a nasal mutated belt.
-- 3 little pigs = DUMB.
Probably more, I don't feel like writing anymore.
|
Baker
|
Re: Issues I Have With the Revival CastSome rebuttles. I agree with some of your statements though, like the narrator being boring.
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Vanessa is great and all, but she sounds way too crone-like in the first act. Honestly, I think that Bernadette nailed it. The Witch should be just 'old woman' sounding enough, but not so much that it dismisses the probablity of her actually being a young woman. Does that make sense? |
I actually enjoy Vanessa's performance, but that's because I don't compare her to Bernadette. I actually don't go ga-ga over Bernadette's performance - she annoys me at several points in the show. Vanessa's acting is much more interesting to me - plus she's hysterical during Our Little World.
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -The costumes suck. (Sorry, I hated them) |
I wholeheartedly agree except for Little Red Riding Hood's Act I costume. I just love it.
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Did my eyes decieve me, or at the Tony awards when the revival cast performed, was the Wolf chasing Three Little Pigs? ACK! Seriously. |
Don't pin that entirely on the revival. That was a concept from the original version that got cut and was restored.
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Rapunzel was too innocent. I thought she should have been played more...I don't know...real, I guess. |
If you locked up a thirteen-year-old in 1994 and gave them no clue as to what was happening in the outside world, no clue that there were even other people outside their prison, and released them today, would you expect that person to be very fleshed-out and have a great personality? No. You wouldn't.
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Also, what was with The Witch's hair going all Medusa during 'The Witch's Rap'? Weird and unnecessary. |
So what? Bernadette's lifting chair is weird and unnecessary. The fact that the OBC Wolf is anatomically correct is weird and unnecessary. The giantess's head falling at the end of the show in the OBC is weird and unnecessary (and it looks hideously fake). Andrew Lloyd Webber is weird and unnecessary. It's just a fun little element to the show. In the revival, the Witch has a constant snake theme. Her staff is snake-like, her hair does the snake thing, I think there's a few other things that I can't think of as well. It's just something fun they did. I like it.
|
MusicalGal1194
|
Re: Issues I Have With the Revival Cast | Baker wrote: |
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Did my eyes decieve me, or at the Tony awards when the revival cast performed, was the Wolf chasing Three Little Pigs? ACK! Seriously. |
Don't pin that entirely on the revival. That was a concept from the original version that got cut and was restored.
|
Alas, you're right. It's true that I shouldn't pin that entirely on the revival. It's just...I found it so odd!
| Baker wrote: |
| MusicalGal1194 wrote: | | -Also, what was with The Witch's hair going all Medusa during 'The Witch's Rap'? Weird and unnecessary. |
So what? Bernadette's lifting chair is weird and unnecessary. The fact that the OBC Wolf is anatomically correct is weird and unnecessary. The giantess's head falling at the end of the show in the OBC is weird and unnecessary (and it looks hideously fake). Andrew Lloyd Webber is weird and unnecessary. |
Agreed, and I also thought the same 'weird and unnecessary' thing about the lifting chair, too! Also, I concur that ALW is weird and indeed unnecessary.
And to everyone else, I have not seen the revival in person but have seen many a video and recording. I was not fortunate enough to see the revival but I still felt the need to see it, hence this thread being created.
Also, I actually enjoyed Adam Wylie's performance. I think his voice has some character that's perfect for Jack. I prefer his performance over that of Ben Wright's. [/i]
|
Baker
|
I like both Adam and Ben, really.
|
Tenalto
|
I've only heard the cast recording, so that's what my judgments are based off.
-I think that BW and Cinderella sound too similar.
-The transposed songs (especially the Witch's) irritate me to no end.
-The changes in lyrics -- really, why? Especially in "Greens, Greens," the flow just gets broken when she begins the "my mistake" rhymes, then goes back with the original lyrics.
-Having Jack and LRR pop into the end of "Steps of the Palace" makes me unreasonably mad. They've already had their self-discovery songs; let Cinderella have hers all by herself! We've already been told that Jack and LRR have learned something new.
-The Baker sounds so dispassionate throughout. "No More" turns into a snore-fest.
-Actually, most everyone sounds rather spiritless compared to the OBC.
-The Princes lack any zing.
*sigh* I'm just glad that I was given this cast recording and didn't buy it myself.
|
thegirlfromack
|
K this has little to do with this post, but 2 months ago I was in London and I saw a poster for a show labeled "Into the Hoods," which is an urban take on Sondheim's masterpiece. Not really a revival but more of a non-conventional twist to the work... in a way... I don't know... thought it was interesting. Ignore me. k bye.
|
Tumnus1031
|
| curlyhairedsoprano91 wrote: |
-- Adam Wylie. Someone PLEASE teach this boy to get his voice out of his nose. GAH it sounded terrible. Just so ... grating, and awful, and annoying, and it made me treasure every note Ben Wright sang on the original sooo much more.
|
My thoughts exactly.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall.
|
Pannic
|
| Tumnus1031 wrote: | | curlyhairedsoprano91 wrote: |
-- Adam Wylie. Someone PLEASE teach this boy to get his voice out of his nose. GAH it sounded terrible. Just so ... grating, and awful, and annoying, and it made me treasure every note Ben Wright sang on the original sooo much more.
|
My thoughts exactly. |
Mine, too.
|
Baker
|
| ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Cinderella holds him the whole time in the OBC.
|
Tumnus1031
|
LOL my friend asked that while we were watching the OBC. Just randomly she goes "Wait a sec...where'd the baby go?"
I looked around and I couldn't see it so I was like, "Hm...maybe they leave him on the rock." Y'know, the rock/platform thing that goes on and offstage.
I also like new Last Midnight Lyrics. I liked the end ending "Mother, here I come!" but I think it would have had more impact if Vanessa had held the note longer and hadn't slurred it down at the end.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
| Baker wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Cinderella holds him the whole time in the OBC. |
Are you kidding? All those bruises for nothing?
|
Baker
|
Yeah, Little Red hands him over to Cinderella at some point (not sure when... maybe even before they enter for the scene?) and she keeps him all the way through the Baker's return from singing "No More."
|
Joshua
|
| ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Not really. The lyrics don't answer that question. They just downgrade the song and get rid of the best lyrics in the song. The only thing one has to do in a production to 'answer' the question is just have Cinderella or Little Red holding the baby during the scene, unlike in the OBC Production. I find it odd that we don't really see what happens, though. Maybe it there in the background and we didn't catch it? I don't know I'll have to watch it again.
|
Baker
|
| Joshua wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Not really. The lyrics don't answer that question. They just downgrade the song and get rid of the best lyrics in the song. The only thing one has to do in a production to 'answer' the question is just have Cinderella or Little Red holding the baby during the scene, unlike in the OBC Production. I find it odd that we don't really see what happens, though. Maybe it there in the background and we didn't catch it? I don't know I'll have to watch it again. |
Yes, they do. The lyrics tell you exactly where the baby is - in the Witch's arms. It would be awkward and weird for her to sing directly to the baby if Cinderella was holding him.
|
Joshua
|
| Baker wrote: | | Joshua wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Not really. The lyrics don't answer that question. They just downgrade the song and get rid of the best lyrics in the song. The only thing one has to do in a production to 'answer' the question is just have Cinderella or Little Red holding the baby during the scene, unlike in the OBC Production. I find it odd that we don't really see what happens, though. Maybe it there in the background and we didn't catch it? I don't know I'll have to watch it again. |
Yes, they do. The lyrics tell you exactly where the baby is - in the Witch's arms. It would be awkward and weird for her to sing directly to the baby if Cinderella was holding him. |
I'm sorry. I meant that the scene could have been done without the changing of lyrics but still with the answering of the question by simply having someone hold the baby. Not that they don't answer the question, but that it could've been done without changing the lyrics because that's not the only way to answer the question.
|
lastmidnight.alex
|
| Joshua wrote: | | Baker wrote: | | Joshua wrote: | | ConverseSneaker wrote: | | The one thing I actually do like about the revival is the new lyrics in Last Midnight. It offers a much wider range of emotions rather than just scary mad frustration. Of course, it also answer the question of 'where is the baby?' that I always ask myself during that scene. In my production, I carried the doll during the whole scene and tried to protect it from the Witch. My knees got very bruised when we fell down because I was holding that baby and couldn't stop my fall. |
Not really. The lyrics don't answer that question. They just downgrade the song and get rid of the best lyrics in the song. The only thing one has to do in a production to 'answer' the question is just have Cinderella or Little Red holding the baby during the scene, unlike in the OBC Production. I find it odd that we don't really see what happens, though. Maybe it there in the background and we didn't catch it? I don't know I'll have to watch it again. |
Yes, they do. The lyrics tell you exactly where the baby is - in the Witch's arms. It would be awkward and weird for her to sing directly to the baby if Cinderella was holding him. |
I'm sorry. I meant that the scene could have been done without the changing of lyrics but still with the answering of the question by simply having someone hold the baby. Not that they don't answer the question, but that it could've been done without changing the lyrics because that's not the only way to answer the question. |
I don't understand what "question" about the baby you're talking about.
If you watch the OBC, especially the DVD, duirng Act II it shows various scenes where either the Bakers's Wife, Little Red, or Cinderellla holding the baby. I mean people would get very agitated and bored if they kept hearing a baby crying in the background everytime the said person walked on holding it.
And in "Last Midnight" Cinderella is hoding the baby while the Witch is singing and it is still shown where the baby is in the original lyrics because she says:
Witch: Your all liers and theives. (points to all of them)
(points to the Baker)
Like Your Father!
(Points to Cinderella who is holding the baby.)
Like your son will be too!
(Cinderella then holds the baby away from the witch.)
And in the Revival the changed line your referring to is the part where the Witch is singing to the baby in her arms until giving it back to the Baker which I personally don't like just because the song was about the Witch telling the characters that they were all in the wrong from the beginning and that they are all just "Nice." But it was an interesting interpretation of it though, I just feel the orginal had more of an impact for the Witch's final number before she destroys herself.
|
Baker
|
It's a question only because you can't just listen to the show and know where the baby is. Although someone is always holding it (Cinderella in this case) the baby isn't referenced from the point that the Baker and his Wife leave him with Little Red Ridinghood until he leaves after Last Midnight, at which point he says, "I think my child would be happier in the arms of a princess." Even this, though, can leave you wondering who's been holding him up to this point - presumably Little Red or Cinderella, of course, since Jack and the Witch don't arrive until the scene has already begun and we assume that if the Baker was holding him, he would be crying. Having the Witch hold him instead of Cinderella or Little Red shows a little diversity and a ton of character for both the Witch and whoever was holding the baby. It's intriguing to watch the Witch interact a baby, since she must have done so previously when she snatched up Rapunzel. Is this how she treated Rapunzel? Also I doubt Cinderella or Little Red would willingly hand the baby over to the Witch, so at some point they must have felt it safe to lay him down throughout all the accusaitons...
That was a bit long-winded. Sorry about that.
|
Pannic
|
I saw a production with some high schoolers where the Witch was holding the baby, but still singing the original lyrics.
Though it was a bit awkward as the Baker kept running at the Witch, trying to grab the baby.
That Baker still beat the crap out of the guy in the revival, though.
|
lastmidnight.alex
|
| Pannic wrote: | I saw a production with some high schoolers where the Witch was holding the baby, but still singing the original lyrics.
Though it was a bit awkward as the Baker kept running at the Witch, trying to grab the baby. |
That is the only thing I didn't like about that song in the Revival because it takes your attention away from the song because everyone is trying to grab/run after the baby because everyone thinks the Witch is going to kidnap and you miss what is being said in the song.
The Witch never showed interest in the Baker's baby during Act II or before so it doesn't make sense for her to be running around with it in her final song. She already knows that she failed at being a mother during her "Lament" after Rapunzel dies from being squashed by the Giantess because she was scared of the world. That's why she went after Jack because she felt like he killed her by bringing the Giant here. Just like in her lines from Act II:
"You people are so blind! It's because of that boy there's a giant in our land. While you all continue talking about this problem I'll find that lad and serve him to the Giant for lunch!" (Goes to look for Jack.)
"Wake up! People are dying all around you, you're not the only one that suffered a loss. (looks away for a second then back) When your dead your dead."
|
Baker
|
| lastmidnight.alex wrote: | | The Witch never showed interest in the Baker's baby during Act II or before so it doesn't make sense for her to be running around with it in her final song. She already knows that she failed at being a mother during her "Lament" after Rapunzel dies from being squashed by the Giantess because she was scared of the world. That's why she went after Jack because she felt like he killed her by bringing the Giant here. |
The lines you quoted have nothing to do with this, so I'll just skip over that part...
True that she's never showed interest in the baby before... but so what? That makes it all the more striking. A woman capable of terrible things picks up this innocent little baby. It's just a different statement - in the original, it was all about the Witch accusing the others of being "nice" poeple while in the revival it's about how even this pure little baby is going to grow up and make mistakes and do things he shouldn't do, just like everyone else. It's reverting back to the idea of the cycle that we've talked about before, how things sort of repeat themselves in different manifestations.
The Witch has no plan to keep the baby, I think. She's not trying to be a mother again.
|
ConverseSneaker
|
| Baker wrote: | | lastmidnight.alex wrote: | | The Witch never showed interest in the Baker's baby during Act II or before so it doesn't make sense for her to be running around with it in her final song. She already knows that she failed at being a mother during her "Lament" after Rapunzel dies from being squashed by the Giantess because she was scared of the world. That's why she went after Jack because she felt like he killed her by bringing the Giant here. |
The lines you quoted have nothing to do with this, so I'll just skip over that part...
True that she's never showed interest in the baby before... but so what? That makes it all the more striking. A woman capable of terrible things picks up this innocent little baby. It's just a different statement - in the original, it was all about the Witch accusing the others of being "nice" poeple while in the revival it's about how even this pure little baby is going to grow up and make mistakes and do things he shouldn't do, just like everyone else. It's reverting back to the idea of the cycle that we've talked about before, how things sort of repeat themselves in different manifestations.
The Witch has no plan to keep the baby, I think. She's not trying to be a mother again. |
I think why she is suddenly now noticing the baby in the revival was that during thier fighting, the baby is forgotten when before it was always being cared for, and she's disgusted by this, that they'd abandoned this child without thought(though not purposefully) for thier own sakes.
|
Salome
|
John McMartin as the Narrator/Mysterious Man was sheer brilliance. the legend and sondheim vet was actually better than Tom Aldredge in the original.anyone who says he wasnt dynamic and totally engaging in the role didnt see him. He got a Tony Nomination for the role.
the worst of the cast were Kerri O'Malley,Laura Benanti, and unfortunately Vanessa Williams...williams wasnt awful but she was miscast.
|
Tumnus1031
|
| Salome wrote: | John McMartin as the Narrator/Mysterious Man was sheer brilliance. the legend and sondheim vet was actually better than Tom Aldredge in the original.anyone who says he wasnt dynamic and totally engaging in the role didnt see him. He got a Tony Nomination for the role.
the worst of the cast were Kerri O'Malley,Laura Benanti, and unfortunately Vanessa Williams...williams wasnt awful but she was miscast. |
Why do you think Laura Benanti didn't do well? I thought she was one of the standouts, personally. Compared to some of the actors *coughAdamWyliecough* I thought she did fine. Nowhere near Kim, of course, but still good.
|
dolbinau
|
| Salome wrote: | | williams wasnt awful but she was miscast. |
Is this more apparent on stage?
|
Salome
|
if you havent seen both versions you shouldnt be discussing it.
yes..williams wasnt right for the role but she was not a disaster.
Benanti was a wreck as cinderella. wylie was not good either..and o'malley was even worse than benanti.
John McMartin was perfection. He made the show.
the 2 Princes..Greg Edlemann and the actor who played Rapunzel's Prince..were also perfectly cast. (Edelmann was a cast replacement for Westenberg in the OBC as well).
|
Monsieur D'Arque
|
The original is on DVD. The revival is, though I'm required by law to say I don't condone bootlegging, THE REVIVAL IS ALL FREAKIN' OVER GOOGLE VIDEO, AND A SIMPLE SEARCH OF INTO THe WOODS WILL REVEAL THE ENTIRE REVIVAL FOR THE PUBLIC TO WATCH.
There's no reason anyone shouldn't be able to compare the two.
|
dolbinau
|
| Quote: | | if you havent seen both versions you shouldnt be discussing it. |
What? Relevance?
The reason I asked you is (assumably) you own both the recording+have seen it on stage.
|
