A Movie Review
Steve and I had a movie night last night and we saw Into the Woods. I have been hearing / reading mixed reviews of the flick. It seemed to me that folks who were fans of the play enjoyed it whilst those who had never seen the play were less than thrilled. I am a fan of the play. My daughter, Andrea, and I would sing the soundtrack in the car. We even went to a community college production of it when we lived in South Florida many moons ago. In fact, I had been singing the show's tunes all day yesterday. In contrast, Steve has never seen it. Worse, the other Sondheim play that I love (Sunday in the Park with George) put Steve to sleep.
Last night proved my theory. I enjoyed the movie. Steve, who admitted that the songs were good, wasn't as impressed. He felt it dragged. The thing is, I could easily see why. I felt the second half of the movie seemed to drag on forever. If I took away my enthusiasm for the play, I would have been pretty fidgety. The thing is, the second act is the main thrust of the story. This is where we see what happens after the happily ever after. It should have been exciting not boring. It should have been eye opening not sleep inducing. What went wrong?
The story arc in the play is presented in two acts. In the first act, you have the retelling, of sorts, of familiar fairy tales woven into the story of three unique characters, a Baker, his Wife, and the Witch. The Witch sends the Baker and his Wife on a quest in the woods to collect four items she needs to lift a curse set upon her decades earlier. They need to collect all the items before the Blue Moon rises in three nights. If they succeed, the Witch will lift a curse she placed on the Baker. As the couple rushes about the woods, they cross paths with a variety of familiar characters - including Cinderella, Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, and Jack of beanstalk fame - each of whom is in pursuit of his own desires. This act concludes with the usual happily ever after. The second act presents the soul of the play. It explores what happens after happily ever after and discovers the future isn't quite so bright and shiny as the fairy tales would lead you to believe. Sometimes getting what you want isn't so great.
I think the main problem with the movie is it tried to stay as close to the play as possible. It's a noble pursuit, and as a fan I appreciate the movie respecting its predecessor, but what works on the stage doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen. For instance, as I said the play is presented in two acts. Between the acts is an intermission. Even on the recording of the play there is a break. The audience can sense the gear change. In the movie, there is no Act One nor Act Two. It moves seamlessly from one story arc to the next, using Cinderella's wedding to her prince as a means to pull all the characters back together and into the woods. This could be jarring to those unfamiliar with the play. It was like the movie ended, but it didn't. It created a sloppy stitching together of two story arcs into an uncomfortable whole.
Another example is a matter of size. There isn't as much singing in the later portion (and a song was even cut - but more about that later) and a lot more dialogue, so the tempo slows. Since the movie's world is so much more expansive than the confines of the stage, the story cannot rely upon the frenetic energy of the players to keep the energy up when the singing ebbs and exposition increases. On the stage, the woods may be massive, but everyone performs within that singular finite space. As actors enter and exit the stage, they keep up the energy level. In the movie, the woods really are massive (or at least seem to be) and the camera moves to the action as one scene jumps to the next. The audience does not get that same injection of energy. The movie script should have taken this into consideration and beefed up the latter scenes rather than rely so heavily on the original script.
Finally, I think the second-half plot gets a bit muddled thanks to an omission of a song and significant character point. In both versions, there is a song in the first portion called "Agony" that is sung by the two princes. They are brothers and they are one-upping each other in their agony over their respective loves. The first prince laments that his princess (Cinderella) keeps running from him. The other prince bemoans the fact that his love, Rapunzel, is locked within a high tower with no way out. The final lines of the song go:
C's Prince: Always ten steps behind.
R's Prince: Always ten feet below
Both: And she's just out of reach.
Agony!
That can cut like a knife.
I must have her to wife.
These lines clearly show the characters' motivations, and because of happily ever after, each realizes his dream. The second half, as I mentioned, takes away the silver lining. The movie differs from the play with Rapunzel somewhat, but it stays true with Cinderella and her prince. The problem is the motivation for the prince's ultimate behavior comes completely out of the blue, and that's because the movie eliminates a reprise of "Agony." In the play, the princes encounter each other as each searches for a princess rumored to be sleeping in the woods (Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). They sing:
This song provides a pretty clear picture on the character of the princes. Had it been included, it would have made the eventual behavior of Cinderella's prince understandable. His line to Cinderella, "I was raised to be charming, not sincere," comes too late to help. Plus, the song is awesome and deserved its second rendition.
Despite this nitpicking, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed hearing the songs again and was very pleased that the assembled cast did them justice. I admit I was hesitant about Meryl Streep as the Witch. Not that I'm knocking her, she's a great actress and I know she can sing. However, the role was originated by the incomparable Bernadette Peters. Happily, Meryl did an outstanding job. She has a serious set of pipes to go with her acting chops. Chris Pine, best known as Captain Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, seemed to channel a bit of the camp versions of the captain as Cinderella's prince. I enjoyed his overly dramatic, shirt-ripping performance of "Agony." Anna Kendrick was a great choice for Cinderella. I'm a fan of hers thanks to Pitch Perfect, so it was great to hear more of her vocal range. So for me, it was a very enjoyable evening.
Now . . . if only they could do a movie version of Sunday in the Park with George.
Last night proved my theory. I enjoyed the movie. Steve, who admitted that the songs were good, wasn't as impressed. He felt it dragged. The thing is, I could easily see why. I felt the second half of the movie seemed to drag on forever. If I took away my enthusiasm for the play, I would have been pretty fidgety. The thing is, the second act is the main thrust of the story. This is where we see what happens after the happily ever after. It should have been exciting not boring. It should have been eye opening not sleep inducing. What went wrong?
The story arc in the play is presented in two acts. In the first act, you have the retelling, of sorts, of familiar fairy tales woven into the story of three unique characters, a Baker, his Wife, and the Witch. The Witch sends the Baker and his Wife on a quest in the woods to collect four items she needs to lift a curse set upon her decades earlier. They need to collect all the items before the Blue Moon rises in three nights. If they succeed, the Witch will lift a curse she placed on the Baker. As the couple rushes about the woods, they cross paths with a variety of familiar characters - including Cinderella, Rapunzel, Red Riding Hood, and Jack of beanstalk fame - each of whom is in pursuit of his own desires. This act concludes with the usual happily ever after. The second act presents the soul of the play. It explores what happens after happily ever after and discovers the future isn't quite so bright and shiny as the fairy tales would lead you to believe. Sometimes getting what you want isn't so great.
I think the main problem with the movie is it tried to stay as close to the play as possible. It's a noble pursuit, and as a fan I appreciate the movie respecting its predecessor, but what works on the stage doesn't necessarily translate well to the screen. For instance, as I said the play is presented in two acts. Between the acts is an intermission. Even on the recording of the play there is a break. The audience can sense the gear change. In the movie, there is no Act One nor Act Two. It moves seamlessly from one story arc to the next, using Cinderella's wedding to her prince as a means to pull all the characters back together and into the woods. This could be jarring to those unfamiliar with the play. It was like the movie ended, but it didn't. It created a sloppy stitching together of two story arcs into an uncomfortable whole.
Another example is a matter of size. There isn't as much singing in the later portion (and a song was even cut - but more about that later) and a lot more dialogue, so the tempo slows. Since the movie's world is so much more expansive than the confines of the stage, the story cannot rely upon the frenetic energy of the players to keep the energy up when the singing ebbs and exposition increases. On the stage, the woods may be massive, but everyone performs within that singular finite space. As actors enter and exit the stage, they keep up the energy level. In the movie, the woods really are massive (or at least seem to be) and the camera moves to the action as one scene jumps to the next. The audience does not get that same injection of energy. The movie script should have taken this into consideration and beefed up the latter scenes rather than rely so heavily on the original script.
Finally, I think the second-half plot gets a bit muddled thanks to an omission of a song and significant character point. In both versions, there is a song in the first portion called "Agony" that is sung by the two princes. They are brothers and they are one-upping each other in their agony over their respective loves. The first prince laments that his princess (Cinderella) keeps running from him. The other prince bemoans the fact that his love, Rapunzel, is locked within a high tower with no way out. The final lines of the song go:
C's Prince: Always ten steps behind.
R's Prince: Always ten feet below
Both: And she's just out of reach.
Agony!
That can cut like a knife.
I must have her to wife.
These lines clearly show the characters' motivations, and because of happily ever after, each realizes his dream. The second half, as I mentioned, takes away the silver lining. The movie differs from the play with Rapunzel somewhat, but it stays true with Cinderella and her prince. The problem is the motivation for the prince's ultimate behavior comes completely out of the blue, and that's because the movie eliminates a reprise of "Agony." In the play, the princes encounter each other as each searches for a princess rumored to be sleeping in the woods (Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). They sing:
Both: Agony!
Not to know what you miss.
C's prince: As they lie there for years.
R's prince: And you cry on their biers.
Both: What unbearable bliss.
Agony!
That can cut like a knife.
Ah well . . . back to my wife.
This song provides a pretty clear picture on the character of the princes. Had it been included, it would have made the eventual behavior of Cinderella's prince understandable. His line to Cinderella, "I was raised to be charming, not sincere," comes too late to help. Plus, the song is awesome and deserved its second rendition.
Despite this nitpicking, I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed hearing the songs again and was very pleased that the assembled cast did them justice. I admit I was hesitant about Meryl Streep as the Witch. Not that I'm knocking her, she's a great actress and I know she can sing. However, the role was originated by the incomparable Bernadette Peters. Happily, Meryl did an outstanding job. She has a serious set of pipes to go with her acting chops. Chris Pine, best known as Captain Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, seemed to channel a bit of the camp versions of the captain as Cinderella's prince. I enjoyed his overly dramatic, shirt-ripping performance of "Agony." Anna Kendrick was a great choice for Cinderella. I'm a fan of hers thanks to Pitch Perfect, so it was great to hear more of her vocal range. So for me, it was a very enjoyable evening.
Now . . . if only they could do a movie version of Sunday in the Park with George.
Comments
Post a Comment