#into the woods movie

[asentienthaze]

Into The Woods: Why the movie was shit

I'm not the first person to talk about this, nor will I be the last. It's pretty widely accepted among theatre fans that Disney bungled up this fantastic show. But it's important nevertheless to talk about how it went wrong, 'cause adaptations are delicate things, and the core of a good adaptation is an understanding of the themes and messages that constitute the story, and not just the story itself. Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine together wove a fairly meticulous fabric that is this musical, and it's fascinating to see how Disney's adaptation reduced it to rags.

For a summary of this show's plot, I recommend watching the first few minutes of Sideways' video on the themes in this show, mainly because it's a fairly complex plot and he explains it well. This is especially important, since the plot of the movie is……definitely not the same.(The whole video is definitely worth a watch too, and it brings up points that I might talk about here too.) Done that? Good, let's keep going.

"The narrator comes on stage, and he starts, 'Once upon a time.' Now once he says that, the audience starts to relax inside. Now what I wanted to do was to wake them up immediately, so before [the narrator] gets to the fifth word, I wanted a loud sound from the orchestra, or the piano"

That was Stephen Sondheim talking about the very beginning of the show. The choices he made in the songs were almost all deliberate, they were for a reason.

Now what does the movie do? They say the entire first line of the song before playing the musical sting. They knew that they had to have that there, since it was part of the prologue song, but they didn't understand at all why the song was structured the way it was.

Let this be an omen as to how the movie will adapt this musical.

Another important part of the first song is the constant quarter note motion the piano makes throughout. It's what keeps the energy of the first song going, and is the song's connective tissue. Guess what the movie didn't do? As a result, it makes the prologue feel like five different disconnected small songs.

The main problem that the adaptation suffered, was the removal of seemingly small things, but which ultimately led to the plot of the movie collapsing in on itself.

The first major one is the removal of the narrator and the baker's father. Yes, the movie technically had a narrating voice, and the father got….like one scene, both played much more prominent roles in the original musical. The baker's father, initially a mysterious old man, pulled many of the threads that made the various characters really interact, and he's an outside force helping move the story along. As for the narrator…well it's important to note that the narrator is a character. A major feature of the show is that it's a story with characters, and the show knows that. The narrator dictated how the story would go, and when the witch sacrifices him to the giant, the characters are left to fend for themselves, and that is how most of the destruction in the second act really happens.

The second one is Rapunzel's death. In the musical Rapunzel is crushed by the giant, and it leads to Witch's Lament:

"This is the world I meant. / Couldn't you listen? / Couldn't you stay content, safe behind walls / As I could not?"

An important thing to note is while yes her relationship with Rapunzel is definitely toxic, there's a complexity that arises out of her over sheltering Rapunzel to protect her, and then as a result she comes to despise that "shelter", and is then ultimately killed. The fact that she is grieving the loss of her daughter plays largely into her character in the second act, something that is entirely lacking in the movie. SO MANY OF HER LINES get undermined by this one detail, that Rapunzel never died, and that she was wrong the whole time.

Lastly, songs that were cut. There are four main ones that are important to talk about.

First, Maybe They're Magic. It's sung right after the Baker and his wife sell the beans to get the cow. It's the first time the question of whether or not they'll really have to lie and possibly steal to obtain the items, and what the ethics of it really are, arises. It also exemplifies the character of the Baker's Wife, and her more clever side, which we further see when she obtains her items mostly through either deceit or persuasion. This glimpse into her character helps set her up for 'Moments in the Woods', a song much later which also expresses her inner thoughts.

Two: Ever After/Prologue: So Happy. This is how the show ends its first act and begins the second. In the movie the events in the second act occur immediately after the wedding, while in the musical there is a time gap between the acts. The music is referenced in the instrumental track, but it's never actually sung. Although the songs are definitely very much suited for a theatrical performance, cutting both the songs means that the resulting events that occur within them have to be shuffled and rearranged. The way that the characters make their way into the woods changes, and the prince and Rapunzel run off together much later, which doesn't allow for their later scenes to ever happen in the movie. It's where the cracks in the movie start to show, and ultimately the way the decisions made for earlier parts snowballs into the later parts of the movie.

Three: Agony Reprise. Agony as a song is famous from both the movie and the show. However the reprise happens in the second act, when it turns out the two princes are not focused on the giant, but in fact on another maiden somewhere else, much like how they were in the first act. Except now they're married. Removing this song is basically like telling a joke without the punchline. Yes, Agony by itself is funny, but it's the perfect setup for its reprise. As the plot stood in the movie, it's clear why it couldn't be put in, but,,,like that's the problem. That's the whole problem

Finally: No More. This song is the one I'm most mad that they cut out. It's the final interaction the Baker has with his father, just after he runs away leaving his baby son with Cinderella. The movie,,,,badly paraphrases it, and then cuts to the Baker,,,,,crying? There's no actual emotional development, no actual introspection, and it removes one of the best written scenes in the show.

"Where are we to go?

Where are we ever to go?

Running away—we'll do it

Why sit around, resigned?

Trouble is, son

The farther you run

The more you feel undefined.

For what you left undone,

And more, what you left behind"

I implore you, watch this scene, if nothing else. It's a work of art, and the fact that it's completely cut out is a crime.

Pretty much every character in the movie became a duller and flatter version of their original, but the most egregious examples are Jack and his mother. Jack is older in the show, significantly so. He's basically in his late teens, and is sweet and naive, but not particularly bright. In the movie, however, he's,,,,a child. Like just straight up a child, and now his personality is no longer "too ungrounded for his age" but instead it's exactly how a child his age might act. Conversely, Jack's mother is overbearing, but ultimately 'stern but sweet', and is much more gentle with Jack than in the movie. In the movie though, she's mean and almost callous towards Jack, in a way that doesn't make her an enjoyable character.

I won't blame the actors for most of this. Yes, a point can be made that some of the acting itself may have been bad, but most of the fault in what I've talked about goes to the directors and script writers.

In every adaptation, choices need to be made. Since this was no longer a theatrical performance, liberties had to be taken to fit it into a film format. But each choice has a consequence, and their choices to change parts of the story snowballed into the climax of the movie, making it almost entirely different from the musical.

We talk about Into The Woods as a Sondheim show, but it is just as much a show by Lapine as it is by Sondheim. Lapine's ability to craft a story with strong and clear themes, no matter how complex or abstract the plot is, is one of the show's greatest assets. The movie was a disservice to original stage musical, but most of all it was a disservice to Lapine, taking his carefully crafted story and muddling and twisting it, until the end product had killed the central spirit of the original.

[its-your-girl-geekerella]

Happy 10-year anniversary to some movie musicals!

Can we talk about how many good movie musicals came out in 2014?

Like, I know everyone hates on Into the Woods, and it's true that it will NEVER be as good as the Broadway/stage production. It's my favorite show ad I was kind of disappointed in the movie. However, even with a ton of missing songs, and with the writers seemingly missing the point of the musical, it is a FUN movie. The acting is good, the costumes are amazing, the singing was good(for the most part; I still wince whenever I hear a bit that was clearly autotuned), the cast was ALL-STAR. If you're looking for a deep hot-take on morality, I suggest you don't watch the movie. But if you're looking for something fun/musical, take 2 hours and watch it!

Annie 2014: you either love it or you hate it. I... love it. It's a great modern take on a classic story! I think this was probably one of the first "let's make 'em Black... y'know, for representation" adaptations we saw, and they did it REALLY well. (*COUGH* then people/Disney stared taking it too far *COUGH*) The songs are catchy, I LOVE "The City's Yours", and the acting is great! +Jamie Foxx, which makes it 10x better. This is one of my top 10 comfort movies, for sure.

The Last Five Years actually just had it's anniversary last week! Okay, I can't have too much of an opinion on this one because I actually haven't seen it. The Last Five Years stars Jeremy "Freakin'" Jordan and Anna "Freakin'" Kendrick (man, now that I think of it, this was a pretty big year for her). The only song I know from it is "See I'm Smiling", but I know that Jason Robert Brown is a FANTASTIC composer, so I'm sold. The only I hear it's a pretty good movie, and it got 60% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. People on the internet like it, so it must be good! (joke)

If you think my opinions on these movies are wrong, you're wrong.

[caramelapplesauce]

chris pine’s cinderella’s prince in the into the woods movie is so dramatic and delusional. he’s just like me fr

[veggieguy23-me]

You know what, since I’ve got movie musicals on my mind recently, I am pissed at the ‘Into The Woods’ movie.

The blew it, wasted the one movie it’ll get. It’ll never be done again.

The part I’m pissed about (which I’m sure I’m not alone in I just haven’t like, checked) is the removal of the narrator as a character.

Like me reading tidbits and learning he gets killed in act 2, leaving the characters lost without direction, is what made me interested in the play in the first place. Like that’s fascinating. And the movie just. Cut it.

Disney bastards.

[violetrains]

Instead of telling men to repress their emotions to appear stronger we should encourage them to sing incredibly dramatic ballads to process their emotions like in fictional movies. Maybe the world would heal faster. And also it would be very funny.

These are my personal favorites.

[closetofcuriosities]

Videodrome - 1983 - Dir. David Cronenberg

First it controlled her mind, then it destroyed her body... LONG LIVE THE NEW FLESH!

[goryhorroor]

horror movies + my favorite posters

[paintedcrows]

Assorted Gravity Falls doodles!

[vintage-every-day]

Natalie Wood in 𝑾𝒆𝒔𝒕 𝑺𝒊𝒅𝒆 𝑺𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒚 (1961).

[texaschainsawmascara]

The First Omen gender reveal promo

[ultrakillblast]

ED WOOD (1994)

[classichorrorblog]

10 Movies From The 2010s To Consider For October/Halloween

[caramelapplesauce]

i am so obsessed with the found family trope🫶

[freshmoviequotes]

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

[hannamarins]

Legally Blonde (2001) + IMDB Trivia