#sb and l listens to itw

[smallblueandloud]

i just realized that, in the same three-week span of 2019, i:

listened to "when you were young" for the first time (which is what jumpstarted my interest in the killers)

watched, like, three full seasons of leverage for the first time, and

experienced the Into The Woods Time Vortex where i did basically nothing except listen to itw and do math

fun times!!

[smallblueandloud]

into the woods got eliminated from the sondheim sectional and i didn't even see the poll before it closed T_T

[smallblueandloud]

the narrator is telling us, the audience, a story. that's the meta aspect of the show summed up -- he is narrating the plot of Several Fairy Tales to an audience that paid for it, but he is also part of the story of Into The Woods the show. and even though he dies before he can finish telling the story, it sure does seem like he was going towards the same point that the musical ends on, or at least a sub-point: you are not alone. there are consequences for your actions. see how these people experience the consequences of their actions.

and yet there is a larger theme of the show that encompasses his sub-point: that of parents and children. there are consequences for your actions, especially when your action is about your child, ESPECIALLY when your action is accidentally teaching your child that actions don't have consequences by telling them the same stories the narrator is telling YOU. once again, we have sub- and super-stories -- the narrator is outside of the fairy tales, but within the musical. he is outside of the moral about consequences, but within the moral about how these problems with consequences only develop BECAUSE of these SAME STORIES he is telling us in an attempt to teach us about consequences!

and to me, at least, that's the core reason why his being doublecast with the mysterious man makes sense. he knows that consequences are important, but he abandoned his son before he could teach him that (or maybe before he learned it) -- so now he's teaching it to us. of course, of COURSE that's why the cycle breaks with his son telling the story to his son, rather than starting to tell it to us again. we're not important anymore -- after all, the audience is very much conceived of as adults, to the point where they are told to be "careful the spell you cast (not just on children)", so telling us the story is just telling us things we kinda... already knew. in order to make things better, to REALLY break the cycle, you have to start with the kids. you have to teach the kids, you have to pay attention to the kids, you have to STAY with the kids just as the baker chooses to do!

this is a long and convolutedly-worded post all for me to say that this is why i think that, when the baker finally starts to tell the story to his son, he very clearly TURNS HIS BACK TO THE AUDIENCE. because it isn't a performance anymore! it isn't a work of fiction! it's his life, and more importantly his SON'S life, and he's going to teach this lesson to his son now instead of telling it to a bunch of strangers who paid money to watch him sing.

[smallblueandloud]

THE AMOUNT OF FEELINGS I HAVE ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THIS PRODUCTION ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTAIN

[smallblueandloud]

[incoherent sounds of hyperfixating on into the woods]

[smallblueandloud]

concept:

NARRATOR: but the witch refused to tell the baker any more about his sister, even that her name... was rapunzel.

WITCH: quiet, fool, he'll hear you.

[smallblueandloud]

Just wanted to say that your post about Cinderella opened my eyes. I am, as of today, a new woman. YOU ARE SO RIGHT THANK YOU SO MUCH

AAAH THANK YOU. i’m gonna take this as an opportunity to talk a bit about cinderella as a revolutionary figure because it’s been a shitty few months and i DESERVE this.

the whole idea of “class mobility” in fairy tales comes from stories like hers where if someone is good and kind and strong enough, they can marry royalty and end up with their happily ever after. it’s to the point where this entire genre of stories - both in fairy tales and in more modern stuff - is called cinderella stories.

in into the woods, cinderella is the one who’s allowed class mobility. jack and his mother are rich in act 2 but that doesn’t change their station - they’re still in the same house and their clothes haven’t changed much from act 1. in fact, cinderella’s unique mobility is repeatedly emphasized through the contrasts between cinderella and the baker’s wife, who wants the prince more than anything but suffers negative consequences both times she indulges herself in that dream. cinderella, on the other hand, is literally chased through the woods by her destiny. the play is literally putting up glowing neon signs that read THIS GUY IS A GOOD OPTION! GO GET HIM!

like, class mobility is the endgame for women of her station in this play, which is emphasized by her stepmother and stepsisters. and cinderella is the only one who gets the option! of COURSE being royalty is gonna be better than her current situation! what, is she supposed to say no?

and the genius part is that cinderella has this choice that no one else really has. or, maybe not choice, but OPTIONS. all of the others kind of pursue their wishes blindly without thinking about the consequences or alternatives but cinderella spends the ENTIRETY of act 1 angsting over whether this is the best option for her. she sees that she’s not going to be happy in the palace, that it’s just another way of being trapped, and she’s TERRIFIED of making that choice because she’s going to be stuck in the same situation except it would be her fault.

which! leads! to! on the steps of the palace!! where we see her come to a decision by REMOVING HERSELF FROM THE EQUATION. she gives up her agency (literally: "you know what your decision is / which is not to decide / you'll just give him a clue / for example, a shoe / and then see what he'll do / now it's he and not you / who's stuck with a shoe / in a stew / in the goo") and puts it entirely into the prince’s hands because then if he catches her, at least it isn’t her decision? AND it means he wants her! that’s good, right? she’s honestly not sure but it sure seems like it would be?

(i would just like to remind everyone that cinderella’s initial wish is to go to the festival. she says nothing about the prince. she’s never wanted anything that flashy. she just wants to have the freedom to go out for a night and not have to deal with her stepfamily or her responsibilities. the prince only starts factoring in when he falls in love with her.)

and idk, y’all, i’m just REALLY EMOTIONAL about how it’s cinderella’s class mobility and her ascension to royalty that... it doesn’t change anyone else’s situation, but it DOES give her the agency in act 2 that she desires, and eventually gives her the ability to go live with the other characters at the end of the musical. she’s the first one to recognize that she’s unhappy in this dream life she’s living, and the one who comforts the others when they have the same revelation. she’s even the one who gets to have CLOSURE, more than anyone else, when she confronts the prince! she’s the one who’s still wishing at the end, because it’s HER wish that it’s the most iconic and it’s HER who recognizes the lesson that Nothing Is Perfect Forever After before anyone else!!

she’s not perfect! she has to stop herself from strangling her stepsisters in the prologue and she lies, excessively, and she ignores the baker’s wife because she thinks she’s rude and YET she is the kind person in the story she is the compassionate person in the story she’s the one who wants to hold a festival for the kingdom at the beginning of act 1 because they’re FUN.

and i’m just?? in other pieces of media, she’s EVEN MORE of a revolutionary figure? in the lunar chronicles she’s a greasy cyborg mechanic from new beijing who, through her initial connection with the prince, is elevated to this position of Leader Of The Rebellion Against The Evil Magic Empress Of The Moon largely against her will?? i’m obsessed with leaders who never wanted to lead and this is SUCH a good way of adapting the idea that cinderella might not have wanted to be queen.

and then you get to the killers’ dustland fairytale and i start CRYING. the chorus came for me personally:

"Saw Cinderella in a party dress but She was looking for a night gown I saw the devil wrapping up his hands He's getting ready for the show down I saw the minute that I turn away I got my money on a pond tonight"

she’s looking for normal clothes?? she’s looking for a normal life??? she SEES that something’s about to go down and she’s TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE WAY but she’s stuck in this endless cycle of being swept up in the ~romance~ of this guy she’s never met following her, and being stuck in a royal marriage she never asked for, and it’s her success that opens the door for all the OTHER cinderellas out there, be they hillary duff’s version or the real life grace kelly.

"Now Cinderella don't you go to sleep It's such a bitter form of refuge Now don't you know the kingdoms under siege And everybody needs you Is there still magic in the midnight sun Or did you leave it back in sixty-one In the of the cadence in the young mans eyes And were the dreams roll high"

F U C K

anyway i’m obsessed with cinderella and how she knows she SHOULD want this world-ending romance and yet she isn’t sure she DOES and her happy ending is, ultimately, living with her friends and her birds and baking bread in the mornings. i love seeing her as a real person and into the woods really scratches that itch for me.

and also she’s aroace.

[smallblueandloud]

successfully jumpstarted an itw phase by starting on act 2 instead of the act 1 prologue (god knows how long it’ll last but hopefully a few days because i am dying over here waiting for rule of wolves) and just. it’s probably a good thing no one’s given me a million dollars to direct The Ideal Version of this musical because it would be EXTREMELY weird.

[smallblueandloud]

and YES i am very very very invested in the idea of aroace cinderella and i honestly consider it an injustice i haven’t seen more about it. her asking the baker’s wife “but how can you know what you want till you get what you want and you see if you like it?” feels intensely like questioning your romantic/sexual attraction and no i am NOT projecting idek why you would SUGGEST that

[smallblueandloud]

i'm gonna try to get Meta Thoughts out in small bites while i get things done but like. listen. the woods are a metaphor for both fairy tales and social change, i think? and maybe a comment on how fairy tales and stories more generally help us experience the social change that are functionally unavailable to us in real life. "that's what woods are for, for those moments in the woods."

[smallblueandloud]

one day soon i'm gonna go into full into the woods mode again (i can feel it coming like a train) and that day will be deeply fun. i'm thinking about trying to articulate the different vibes of having an adult vs child narrator

[smallblueandloud]

Ok so... listening to stay with me last night and i have one (1) new theory that i can recall

What if the Witch is telling Rapunzel to stay not only because of the whole "trying to be a good mother thing" but what if... she experienced the same things. A prince wandering into the forest, falling in love and eventually falling out? Or maybe, the Witch's mother (who started the whole curse thing) fell in love with the king (i guess) and when she was shunned she put a curse upon their house to keep the Witch in and others out?? idk this was inspired by her "princes wait there in the world its true" line I don't know how outlandish this is

I AM SO ABSOLUTELY ON BOARD WITH THIS THEORY, YOU HAVE NO IDEA

i've actually had a similar theory -- that the witch's mother was just as strict or even stricter than the witch herself -- for awhile, but i'd never connected it to her compassion for rapunzel in stay with me. you're so right, though! she says that line like she knows how it feels!

my theory always stemmed from lament's "couldn't you stay content / safe behind walls / as i could not". the show NEVER elaborates on this but i feel like it's still confirmation! and it's just such a neat theory because it fits so well, thematically. both the witch and the baker are carrying out the same vicious cycle their parents did until the witch throws her beans away (casting away her mother's mandate, accepting the image her mother forced her to bear as a punishment) and the baker comes back (learning from his father's mistakes). it's really good! it's a really good musical! and i love this theory a lot!!

[smallblueandloud]

HOLY FUCK EVERYONE LOOK WHAT I FOUND

[smallblueandloud]

more and more i am having to come to terms with the fact that it's not that this musical is NICHE per say, it's just that what interests me about it is NOT what most people care about which is. an interesting experience. makes me ever more grateful when other people also get excited about the !! meta implications !! of various lines lmao

[smallblueandloud]

and since y’all put up with the trainwreck that was that last post, here’s something on the house:

the cinderella story is about agency it is about social mobility it is about wanting desperately to escape but being terrified, down to your bones, of making the choice to leave, because if you choose wrong it’ll be the same situation but YOUR FAULT and you don’t think you can handle that. cinderella is inherently a revolutionary figure, cinderella is inherently about being trapped in a bad situation and trapped in a “good” one too, cinderella is about wanting to just pursue your life with your children and your wife but never, ever getting the freedom you crave, even with your fairy tale ending. and i’m obsessed with it.

[smallblueandloud]

THEY'RE DOING A SPOKEN WORD RENDITION OF MAYBE THEY'RE REALLY MAGIC?? GOD I HATE IT HERE