The choices regarding Rapunzel's death are very interesting to me. Whether she dies or not changes how "right" the witch is. In the original stageplay, it's arguable that the witch is actually right and she is never forced to come to terms with her own villainous self. "This is the world I meant, couldn't you listen?". She has a wrong belief about the world and shelters Rapunzel from it, but she is justified in her beliefs when Rapunzel dies. If she had listened to her, she would be alive, the witch knows best - and that's what informs "Last Midnight", it's her telling the others that she's right, that she knows what's best but that no one believes her because she's a witch. She defends her terrible decision to keep Rapunzel locked up. If Rapunzel lives, it means the witch is wrong. Rapunzel lives and Rapunzel is seemingly happy, and the witch is bitter about being wrong. She is forced to come to terms with her villainy and it makes "Last Midnight" more outright villainous, whereas in the stageplay "Last Midnight" is just the witch resigning to the role of a witch and giving the characters a villain because that's what they want. The audience knows she is the villain, but whether the witch knows is different from the stage production to the movie.
Yes. I haven't watched the movie yet and only recently discovered this beautiful musical. But from the musical I think it doesn't make any sense to have Punzel live. Her death is the reason the witch switches from a wickedly humorous character in her own way who pursues her wishes (beauty/garden protection) to someone utterly somber who has lost any ambition and only wants some sort of revenge. I love The Last Midnight. I'm curious how they have done that in the movie without Rapunzel's death.
I saw somewhere else on youtube that everything they have to collect (metaphorically) is ingredients for raising a child. Cow=milk Cape= blood/ life Hair/ corn= nutrients and food Slipper= money
@Matt Animates It would be more logical to me if the cow was a metaphor for a woman. You need to provide all those ingredients to a woman (they fed all the other ingredients to the cow) and than she provides a child (like the cow provided the milk that broke the curse)
I know this is kind of late, but changing "hazel tree" to "willow tree" at least (among the other lyrical changes from stage to screen) seemed like a clever and informed choice that was made. The tree used in the movie was a weeping willow, which is mythologically supposed to have a crying spirit held inside it. I thought this was clever, seeing how Cinderella's tears watered the tree; it tied in nicely with the plot. I'm also guessing this change was a result of the perks of working with a camera- the sweeping camera movements which greatly magnified the effect of the scene on the audience would not have been possible on stage.
I believe the reason is much simpler. Disney already made a Cinderella version - - the animated movie from the 50s-- where the mother is buried under a willow tree. They are famous for taking over fairytales and "owning" them and imposing theirs as the somewhat "definitive versions"
Hazel trees, in folklore, are connected with wisdom and learning. Since Cinderella is getting wisdom from her mother's spirit there, it's an appropriate choice...but I do get the "weeping willow" imagery.
Sad because they cut out these lines (which I will most definitely misquote): JACK'S MOTHER: You be careful with your children. (Or whatever the hell this line is). BAKER'S WIFE: Oh, I don't have any children. JACK'S MOTHER: . . . that's okay too.
Why I think Into The Woods works better on stage (be ready for me rambling): Into The Woods isn't just "twisted fairytales" for me like it is for basically the rest of the world. Into The Woods is about how the things we want, and the things we do to get what we want, have consequences (thus: "Wishes come true, not free"). It's about us remembering that the fairytales we love are about people doing things they shouldn't. Jack KILLED someone and stole from them. Little Red didn't listen to her mother, which almost cost her the lives of both herself and her grandmother. Into The Woods is supposed to show that we can't model our own lives after these whimsical fairytales, and to show that once you get what you want, that whole whimsical fairytale ends. However, if you're watching a Disney movie with special effects and crazy sets and the whole shebang, there is no ending to that fairytale. It's all one huge fairytale. However, the stage musical CLEARLY showed where the fairytale ends: once the narrator is killed. You are left with a group of confused, misguided people. You aren't left with the same bunch you had in the Prologue - you have developed characters. In a movie, that sense of reality can never truly be achieved. The things that made Into The Woods real for me wouldn't work onscreen. It's not to say that the movie didn't work for me. I will say, however, that after watching the stage musical for the first time, I was left with a twisted stomach and a newer, weirder outlook on morality, whereas I left the movie theater just thinking "that was a good movie". I hope this made sense. It probably didn't.
I agree with you almost completely, except for the very first line - I dare say that what you see in and get from the musical is actually very much what a lot of people (if not most) take from it, and are supposed to take from it! few grown up musical loving people who saw a stage adaptation would think of it at just "twisted fairytales". So I'm not trying to be mean here but do give Sondheim more credit than just one person (you) taking a life lesson from Into The Woods. ;)
In my mind, having the Baker narrate from the beginning enhances the ending. That realization that the story is circular, that, at the beginning, we are the audience that begins to listen at the end, is wonderful!
I agree, the removal of some of the deaths lead to a lose of motivation, specifically for the Witch when Rapunzel doesn't die. I'm so sad that they cut the Mysterious Man :( and they cut No More, which I have always found is one of the most impactful songs in the show. I really miss the midnight songs. One of the biggest problems I have with the movie is that the transition from act 1 to act 2 was sloppy. There was kinda miscommunication in a way. People who did not know the staged musical were confused. This also plays into cutting the narrator, becuase then we don't have the actors killing the narrator and then we miss the meaning of the line that the Baker's Wife sings "I'm in the wrong story." Without the narrator begin killed we miss the fact that everything is falling apart becuase he is no longer there to tell the story. Those are just some of my thoughts.
It suffered, didn't it, from not having the intermission we get in the stage version. Without that clean division into two definite "parts," the movie is prone to feeling like an extra 45 minutes is just tacked on after the stories are over. With a two act show, the spectator is prepared for a second half to look forward to.
Agree, 100%. "No More" is the whole crux of the show. By eliminating the Mysterious Man/Narrator you miss the point of the second act. Also, I love Meryl Streep, but she was absolutely wrong for the witch. Most of the casting was terrible. I will just watch the video of the OBC. Much, much better than the film in every way.
They chanced the POV for 'On The Steps Of The Palace' because in the musical Cinderella is singing in past tense - telling the audience what happened. In the film, she's literally in the moment. That's why they changed it. It's in a few interviews with Rob Marshall and Anna Kendrick and so on. So yeah you're right... you mentioned it as you were discussing it. But I thought I'd give you confirmation :)
I really missed the Agony reprise because it had exposed the princes, and instead, Rapunzel and her prince lived happily ever after. Other than that and a few things you touched on, I really loved that movie and would go watch it again!
But we never do see her again, and you could argue that because Rapunzel was so sheltered growing up in the tower, she may not have the skills to survive outside, if her prince doesn't know how to function outside of a priledged environment.
I'm afraid if they put Agony reprise they have to put Rapunzel's death too (or at least includes her) but it would also explain more on why Cinderella's prince cheats on her because it felt out of place.
Do you know what I miss?, "Do you think it was a picnic? Disposing your husband's remains?" and "A wolf is not the same/ Ask a wolf's mother". Great review though! I love your opinions. Ps. I also love your Sondheim DVD collection in the conner :P
But the reason for those two lines is because Red says "Well this is terrible. We just saw 3 people die!" And in that scene only Jack's mother dies. So those two beautiful arguing lines were. Sadly.
I absolutely adored the film, and I have to admit that I was nervous about this review because I know how much the show means to you. I was expecting you to rip the film to shreds. Color me pleasantly surprised (and grateful) and at how well-balanced your analysis was and how self-aware you were of being lumped with the elitists and haters out there. I can assure you you aren't one of them. You voiced your thoughts well and gave proper explanation as to why things worked or didn't, all the while stressing and admitting that these are your personal impressions that may not be reflective of everyone else's. The Rapunzel thing I knew was happening because I had read the leaked screenplay online, and even with that in mind, I still found the change to be a downgrade during my first viewing. Then when I saw the film a second time, it clicked with me. Rapunzel's fate is purposely left ambiguous. The last thing the Witch says to her is, "There's a giant!" as we see her and the Prince ride off into the fog. As this is happening, there's ominous score playing that leads into the gorgeous "Witch's Lament." That to me seemed to indicate Rapunzel and her Prince may not make it, and the fact that they disappear from the film altogether leaves plenty of room for doubt (and I, personally, like to believe they died off-screen). It also gave an interesting contrast between the two princes. In the show, both princes are self-obsessed jerks who only cared about the thrill of the chase rather than their actual maidens, quickly growing bored of them. The relationships between them and Rapunzel and Cinderella are identical and only differ in how the princesses respond to THEM (Rapunzel goes batty and gets herself killed while Cinderella puts her foot down and essentially gets a divorce). In the film, Rapunzel's prince is portrayed as more sincere and unlike his brother. They're an innocent couple whose fate is left uncomfortably ambiguous while the seemingly idealistic fairy tale couple of Cinderella and her Prince is broken apart even though they both survive. I do think, however, that Jack's mother's death was sloppily handled. The way it plays out in the film almost makes it seem like there's a deleted scene we haven't seen (which I know is not the case because it's handled just as vaguely in Lapine's screenplay). They should've just had her die right there on camera after her last line. Your thoughts about Anna Kendrick's singing being too perfect are absolutely true because she even admitted this herself. I can't remember who it was (the musical supervisor, maybe?), but someone in the production told her that no actress has ever been able to get every single note right to "On the Steps of the Palace" as Sondheim wrote it - not even the original Cinderella, Kim Crosby. So Kendrick said her competitive streak came out, and she was determined to get it perfectly right. Now whether she did that on or own or with a little autotuning help, I don't know, but it would explain why her singing is more pure and less colorful than the other cast members'. You raise a valid point about the inconsistency of the magic in this film, but a thought occurred to me. Does Rapunzel even know her mother is a witch? It's possible, in this film anyway, the Witch climbs up the hair because she doesn't want her daughter to know she has magic because it might make her fear her the way everyone else does. But, anyway, you're right that the internal logic of this universe doesn't hold up to scrutiny due to the very nature of the fairy tale source materials (why does Rapunzel's tear have healing powers? How often has Cinderella's mother granted her wishes and how can she even do that? etc). I actually thought making the Baker the narrator was brilliant because it brought the story full circle, ending it the way we began it. It didn't spoil anything for two reasons: 1) characters can narrate their stories from beyond the grave (I would cite two notable Hollywood films that do that, but I don't want to spoil them). 2) The audience doesn't know this story is being told to his child. They think it's being told to them. Once we see the Baker repeating the opening lines of the Prologue to his son, then the lightbulb clicks with the audience and they go, "Ohhh, this was being told to the baby!" It's funny you mention the idea of flashbacks being used to spice up Little Red and Jack's songs. James Lapine wanted to go further with those and with Cinderella's. In his original treatment, you actually saw Jack in the Giant kingdom during "Giants in the Sky," and we saw Cinderella at the ball during "On the Steps of the Palace." Jack's was minimized and Cinderella's cut all together due to budgetary reasons. I actually felt we should've seen a bit more of Jack's adventure in order to better match Little's Red's "I Know Things Now", even if it were something stylized like that number. Cinderella's, though, I felt satisfied with because unlike the other two, they changed her number from a recollection to an immediate response, so embedding flashbacks of the ball in her song would've taken away from the immediacy of the moment. And wow, I think my response is longer than your actual review. Either way, I'm glad you really enjoyed the film despite your misgivings, and I love that you expressed your thoughts in such a balanced and fair way. Cheers!
That's interesting about Rapunzel because we don't know if after 10 minutes of riding the giant comes along and crushes them or they go off to a castle and live happily ever after. For the Witch, it's a different type of tragedy then in the stage version.
I think maybe the biggest reason Rapunzel wasn't killed off is in 2010, being the protagonist of TANGLED, she entered the echelon of Disney princess. They couldn't very well kill her off four years later.
I think on making The Baker the narrator it's perfect, as you said, it became full circle and that's just briliant. I think with the original killing the narartor, it symbolizes that there might be a chance they don't get a "Happily Ever After" because the person telling their story is now dead. So with The Baker, he knows what happend and the rest of the chara too. But with The Narrator, he knows what's going to happen, but the rest of the chara doesn't.
You can't cut "No More." It's the heart of The Baker's character and in many ways the climax of the musical's emotional journey. And the scene is there, the underscore is there...why doesn't he sing the damn song??
One of my favorite funny lines similar to "the witch next door" is "you can talk to birds?" Because up until that point you kind of just assume that Communicating with animals is a normal part of this world because it's a fairy tale, Why not? So it's a pretty comedic reveal to just see this one aspect crash land into reality. This also raises questions that are hilariously never answered, like, "why/how can Cinderella talk to birds", "why has nobody noticed?"
Thank you for your thoughts, most informative. I will come to the defense of the two youngest actors, Lilla Crawford (Red)and Daniel Huttlestone (Jack). Neither was auto tuned. Both are experienced stage singers. Lilla was Annie in the 2012 Broadway revival and Daniel was in Oliver in London from 2009-2011 and in Les Miserables (Gavroche) on stage in London for a year and in the film. Both kids are remarkable singers and their apparent perfection is due largely to their experience in live musical theater. They are most definitely not of the standard Disney auto-tune kid singers.
I don't think he was saying that they couldn't sing well, he was saying NO ONE has a tone that pure. He was saying that the editors stripped their voices of emotion in hope of perfect pitch. I love both young actors....they are both so talented!
@Brian Bock hit upon the big weakness of the film - it changes the story from a two-act play to a one-act. Sondheim writes at length about the history of theater changing mid-century form three-acts to two-act plays. (2 intermissions meant more concession sales!), and talk about how Into the Woods, more than almost any other show, really DEMANDS a two-act structure. Characters have wants - they get their desires, and then Act2 comes along and... they have new wants! Throwing the giant in as a shift, instead of letting the change in circumstance come from the normal passage of time, is what sort of guts the parable the play is supposed to tell.
Simon Strange I wouldn't say it really changes the message, but it's what bothers me the most about the film because, when watching it having never seen the play, you're waiting for the ending throughout the whole second "act"
OMG the first time i saw Into The Woods (on PBS with Bernadette) i thought the line, "It's the Witch from next door" was HILARIOUS!! You are not alone in that! That line almost makes you think that perhaps there are other Witches or Warlocks or Sorcerers who are the Baker's neighbour. I would love to sit in on the neighbourhood watch meeting for that community! LOL
I love how the moment they see the Witch they immediately assume she is there for something bad. I mean, seriously, has the witch never just craved sandwiches and taken a leisurely walk over to her NEIGHBORS HOUSE to buy some friggin' bread? Honestly, unless she survives solely on sunlight and magic beans, I'm pretty sure she would have gone to the bakery atleast once. If it bothered the baker that much, he should have moved. I mean, my neighbors are annoying, but I don't try and hide the moment they happen to just walk by my window. But, seriously, could you imagine what would happen if the witch had only been there to buy bread? Baker: It's the witch from next door! Baker's Wife: We have no bread. Witch: Darn, I really wanted a sandwich! Baker: Oh, well...we just put bread in the oven like ten minutes ago. Baker's Wife: I'll go get the bread then. Witch: Thanks. Btw I cursed your entire family and if you want to have a child you need to go into the woods find a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn and a slipper as pure as gold and have them back to me in three days before the blue moon. Baker: WTF... Baker's Wife: That's nice, here's your change. Witch: Thanks. *Leaves*
I think the reason "willow" doesn't sound right in place of "hazel" is probably that "grave at the hazel tree" has assonance while "grave at the willow tree" doesn't. Also, the "ay" vowel is better for the melodic jump in the phrase both because of its openness on the high note and its closeness to the previous vowel.
Another great response by the witch is when the narrator tries to talk everyone out of sacrificing him, and he say how he's needed to tell the story, and the witch responds; "Maybe some of us don't like the way you're telling it".
The thing that bothers me most is the complete removal of the song 'No More'; that song is my favorite one of the whole show in my opinion (with 'No one is alone' being my second best), and that song could have easily been placed there along with the inclusion of the Mysterious Man in the film to have the song to make sense. What I'm saying is they missed a great opportunity to keep a great song in the film.
The magic in the show is also somewhat illusory. She CAN do magic, just not teleportation. Sh blinds people with light and runs away before they recover.
i don't know if you've heard about this, but i follow a tumblr called "low budget milky whites", and it's one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen
About the tree lyric: It was probably about the costume. They wanted Cinderella's dress to look like the tree and willow trees are easier to incorporate into dress designs I guess.
14:48 ok I have my own opinion on this as someone who has had experience playing the Witch, I believe that in the musical, the cow, cape, hair, and slipper don't make sense. a lot of people say "well, why did she wait until today to tell them about this?" well, I think that no matter what day she told them about the quest, they would've had a three-day time limit. whatever day they are notified, that's when the timer starts. in the movie, by trying to explaining the magic more, it actually makes less sense. because they have this blue moon time limit, that begs the question; why didn't the Witch tell them about the quest earlier if they have had this time limit since before Rapunzel was born (which I have no clue how long this was after the Baker was born)? why now, three days before they never get this opportunity for another hundred years? in the musical, it made sense. there was no time limit, really. in the musical, the Witch really could've waited however long she wanted to tell the Baker and his wife about this (which begs the question "why did she choose today of all days when she had all of their lives to tell them about this and set off this timer?" *but that's another story, never mind*). but in the movie, it just makes no sense. and that was my way-too-long thought on a plot point. ... what am I doing with my life?
Thank you so much for making videos about musical theatre. It's hard for me to find other people who understand musical theatre. My friends hate when I talk about it so sometimes I feel a little alone. Watching your videos lets me know that others understand me and they have opinions about things I have opinions about. Thank you for making me feel like I am completely and utterly alone with my love for musical theatre.
Brilliant review! My greatest disappointment in the movie was that they skipped the narrators death. In the stage performance it's what tell the audience that from this point forward all bets are off, and it's going to be a bumpy night. Without the narrator being sacrificed, the audience is left with a sudden dark turn, without explanation. Though I can't think of a way to make the narrator work on screen without being too similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show, I'm sure Disney could have figured it out.
i watched the interview with Anna and she said that sodheim was personally changing the lyrics and mking adjustments multiple time while shes recording. so i completely undertand the changes and i actually love it a little better then the original. tbh
I dislike how Red and Jack were cast so young in this film. I feel that the "children" characters need to be in their middle teens (15-17) in order to appreciate the underlying awakenings into adulthood that they experience in this story.
I think it's the present tense vs past tense you mentioned. On stage, we see her escape and she's telling the audience like "oh sh*t you won't believe what just happened!" In the movie, time freezes for us to see her think about everything as it happens. That's why I think the lyrics changed. They took advantage of film as a medium.
Great video! I personally enjoyed the movie, however my biggest issue was with the second part of the finale being sung over the credits. I know there were time restraints, and all, but they could have added more than just the audio. I was glad, however, that there weren't any new songs. I feel like they take away from the original, and are extraneous to the plot. Anyway, keep up the good work on these videos!!!
I really like this. I often watch/read reviews that don't take into consideration that different mediums require different approaches. I'm happy to see you take that into consideration.
I watched the original Into The Woods recently after watching the film before hand (and liking it but being a little confused by the ending) and I agree with everything you just said. I love the film and the casting and the filmography but I felt that the stage version portrayed the overarching theme and message way better and that it works better on stage where you can kill everyone off, including the narrator, making the finale hit much harder. Loved the vid :)
8:00 I think that the change was necessary to take the song from the retelling and reviewing of her choices into the realm of her live decision making process. Like you said, movie audiences are different, and it comes across more real/in the moment with those, like you mentioned, minor changes. Fantastic review. Loving the channel!
I think one of the reasons this story lends itself better to stage than screen is because at it's heart, the characters are learning about themselves rather than going on an adventure. The journey is internal rather than external, if that makes sense. There is an adventure there, but I think the focus is more on the characters' internal struggles rather than the story itself. Since theatre is theatre and cinema is cinema, I think it's much easier on the stage to stop and appreciate what the character is thinking using soliloquies, asides, and songs like 'Giants in the Sky' or On the Steps of the Palace (whatever you call that type of song), while in a movie, you really have to keep the narrative going (which I think is why, at least to me, Giants in the Sky and I Know Things Now felt a little bit awkward). I also think that theatre tends to feel more personal than cinema; the characters are right there in front of you, sometimes talking directly to you; while a movie has a distinct barrier between your world and the world of the characters. Since Into the Woods is about personal struggles and lessons, I think that translates much better. That's my two cents anyway. (oops, more like 5, sorry about that.)
I am primarily a classical singer and college voice teacher, but do love MT. Getting ready to (vocal) coach a high school production of this, and enjoyed hearing your review. Thank you!
(I just now saw the movie yikes) I agree with you that it was a lot better as a stage musical. I love the atmosphere and the world the movie created, but honestly the musical's themes were better conveyed through the form of two acts. The two prologues leading into the different acts made a really good parallel between the very different but "mirrored" stories told.
I think I'm that rare viewer that didn't really love the original Into the Woods as much as everyone else does. The musical was just characters coming in and out and in and out. It's why I liked the second act much more than the first. The film helped me appreciate the musical more. The film made me take the lessons seriously while the musical was fun and I did know there were lessons, but I didn't feel they were as powerful. But that also comes from different acting styles in theatre and on film. I do love theatre, but in film, especially with such talented actors, I was able to truly see every second and moment the characters were going through emotionally. What I feel from fans (not you though, you're awesome possum) is that they focus on "different=bad". That's honestly a major thing with theatre lovers. It's like books made into movies. People don't understand the necessary changes that need to be made to change mediums performances.
Into the Woods fans are kinda like harry potter fans--they pounce over any change because it's not like the book, but they completely forget that what may work in a book or theater may not work on film. When I watch the Harry Potter movies, I usually don't mind the changes unless they are very glaring and affect the story.
harrietamidala1691 Exactly, but it's more like theatre fans in general. "They better not ruin the musical for me." The musical will always be there. It's like how The Last Airbender Movie didn't ruin the Avatar series for me at all. I just appreciated it more. And I love the Harry Potter films! A lot of fans complain about the later films being the worse cuz they didnt have this or that. When honestly, they are long books, and I think the later films were the best due to directing, acting, editing, etc. The style and direction in terms of film really matured with it overtime. Of course I would love to see everything from the books but they are movies. If it doesn't help the overall plot, then it drags the film.
aeris44 Sometimes I wonder if Harry Potter should have been made into a television series, which each season representing a book (ala Game of Thrones or Outlander). Of course, the first three books are too thin to support a season.
I think with not killing rapunzel its still effective because the witch is abandoned by rapunzel she has know one but her beauty and she is hated by mostly everyone and now her daughter hates her and left her.
Great review! Personally I hate the film. I hate Anna Kendrick in it most of all (Mainly for sounding so stiff on emotionally monotoned and nasal in her music.) and I can't stand the fact the The Mysterious Man/Bakers Father was basically cut along with No More. Rapunzels character felt very pointless in it. The music felt to modern and felt more like background music and the phrasing choices were terrible. It's not even good as a stand alone film!! BUT...... I like Streep and love the boy who played Jack, Little Red was ok, Baker was good, Emily Blunt was ok. I have done this show 3 times, playing Rapunzel, Little Red and The Witch. So....... yeah I'm gonna be picky.
lol! of all the things you hated I loved/liked everything except I didnt like Little Red - because she reminded me too much of the girl i saw in the Revival in 2002/3--- OH and im totally with you on the cutting of No More! Beautiful Song -- but hard to put in a movie where youve cut one of the characters who sings it.
Hello there! First of all, let me tell you this was the first video I watched from your channel (back when the movie came out) and that I instantly subscribed! It instantly became one of my favourite channels, and I immediately watched every single video you had uploaded. BEST DECISION EVER. Ok, now, I told Jimi I had all these ideas and opinions about this video, so now I kinda HAVE to write them down. I want to disclaim that these are opinions from someone who went from the movie to the musical. That meaning that I saw the movie before the musical, and all the opinions that follow are more about the movie as a story on it's own and not as some kind of appendix of the musical. I think a movie adaptation of anything (book, musical) needs to stand on it's own and be able to tell the story and make sense to any person who is new to it. About the witch climbing the tower: There is NO moment in the movie in which anyone calls the Witch "the Witch" in front of Rapunzel, or any moment when she calls her so. So, in my opinion, Rapunzel doesn't know that she has any kind of magic. Every single thing she does that affects Rapunzel could have been done in a very muggle way (push the prince down the tower, etc) For Rapunzel, the witch is her mother, and that's it. Maybe the Witch doesn't want her to know she is magic, because Rapunzel is the one person she can care for in a more "human" way. So that's why she appears everywhere but never in the presence of Rapunzel. About the corn: And I know this is a stretch, but many times the most obvious thing is in front of you and it takes an idiot (sorry Jack) to point it out. Then you say, "oh, alright, yeah, I guess we could try that" plus you facepalm bc you didn't think of that before. About the spell: I just think movies work like that, I just think it does not need to make sense, why dragon scales and troll tears in other stories?. About the timing: (blue moon stuff) She might have been waiting for the Baker and Wife to be in the right moment (the realization that they do WISH for a child, they might not have had that conversation before) to "run those errands for her" or waited patiently and planted the need for a child in them when she saw she was actually running out of time. About the Baker being the narrator: and this might be me because I went into the movie not knowing any of the story. But, I feel if you expect the movie to stand on it's own you have to count on the fact that people will walk into the theatre knowing very little about it. That includes that people will die. Or that certain people survive. In my opinion, a person new to the story, does not realise the importance of the Baker narrating the beginning of the movie, as a person familiar with the musical would. And by the time people start dying, you are so into the story that you forget who narrated the first lines of the story a 2 hours ago. Ok, I think that's all I can think about now, and all I can remember thinking about ages ago when I first saw your review. I arrived SO LATE to this comment party, but oh well, better late than never. I am sorry for the massive rant. And I thank you for the jewel that is The Pirate Movie, I have tortured my whole Musical Theatre Society and forced almost everyone to watch it. These Scots can't get over the blingy cock-piece. Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes but English is not my first language. Thank you for what you do! Keep bringing the MTM greatness to our lives! PS: OMG this is so long it could be the sequel to El Quijote, I apologise again. :D
So I'm coming from a very similar background of the guy who did this video and I actually was looking through these comments to see if someone was coming from your perspective to see how they would feel about the points mentioned here. Very interesting!
This is probably the first of a bunch of comments I'll make on this video as I listen. Like you, I'm so familiar with the movie that I caught each change. One thing to remember is that Sondheim also changes lyrics between stage productions, sometimes for the worse. In fact, he restored "You're not good, you're not bad / You're just nice" which had been rewritten in later stage versions for no good reason to something worse. As for the the willow tree, perhaps this was because the tree they built was so beautiful, and the way that the hanging leaves of a willow look made for a better image, hence the inconsequential change.
The pronoun switch in On the Steps of the Palace used to bother me so so much. Mostly because it's such a fun fast song and the tiny changes made it so hard for me to follow along. But I guess because it's been so many years I don't mind it now because I've memorized both versions. And I see how the difference in form would motivate the pronoun switches. In the musical Cinderella is retelling a story to the Baker's Wife and kinda also the audience, asking us to step into her shoes. But in the movie it's in real time, and she's not "talking" to the audience the way she would on stage. So I understand why she says "I." I also love what you've said about precision vs. emotion. The part where Cinderella jerks her step-sister's head around while doing her hair for the ball is one of my favorite parts. That scene looses its magic without the emotion.
This is the first video of yours that I have watched, and I thoroghly enjoy and appreciate what you have to say regarding this story. You have such an understanding of the significance of the detail work and the effect that is has on the storytelling of this piece. And the respect you have for the craft is evident and inspiring. I would love to see your work as a director. Thank you for sharing. :)
Totally let out a huge guffaw when the waltz from Night Music came on. No one else thought it was amusing. I would also like to admit that I keep looking at your bookshelf and am beyond jealous of the content I see...
I did indeed notice the underscoring from Night Music! They play the Night Waltz at the Ball, and the harp Jack steals plays "You Must Meet My Wife"! Which is an absolutely brilliant and hilarious bit of foreshadowing comedy.
I really wish it was presented more like the stage musical, showing the narrator and setting it up more as a fairy tale than as a real retelling of events. I think your review was very informed and very fair.
I agree with most of the points you made, I had the same reaction through most of it. What bugged me was I resigned to the fact that the old man wasn't going to be in the film, then when the baker left his son and the others ready to run away and you see the old man and the music starts, I was so excited for the song No More but it never came.
Great review... I think I read somewhere that Sondheim himself wrote the alterations to the lyrics... I know they talk about the changes of On the Steps of the Palace... and they said that Sondheim himself made that change
Luis Antonio Casanova Peraza Which makes it even STRANGER! I assumed he at least had a hand in all of the revisions (it'd be rude to exclude him.) So then WHY? What about these changes makes the story clearer or more interesting?
@@MusicalMash I posted about this. I think it's the medium that caused the change. Third person aside is fine in the theatre (with more suspension of disbelief). Cinema is a more "realistic" format, and the aside to the "audience" here would have been a little weird. Also, it makes all three monologues ("Know Things Now" and "Giants") all in the first person.
I just couldn't get over the changes. The second act just had the most interesting things taken away with the narrator. Saw it once in the theater, and I'm in no rush to ever watch it again. I'll stick with the original Broadway one, the one I taped off PBS as a little girl. The tape I wore out for watching too often.
Delightful video, as usual :) I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have listened to its soudtrack and I love the stage show, and I think you captured the message of the show and some of my concerns and hopes for the movie nicely. It's always tough anticipating and watching adaptations because as a fan, you just want everything to ring true to the original, even though you know a movie format tends to be more accessable to the general public, and some aspects get lost in translation to cinema or in a new director 's vision. I was disappointed to hear about some of the changes, specifically Rapunzel's death, but I hope (rather, I wish) the movie would inspire people to check out the original and more shows, rather than blindly writing off musical theatre and missing out on some spectacular content. Also, I'm excited to see the scale of the movie, and this beloved story presented in a new way. Thanks for making videos, they rock!
Watch it! :) It's been my favorite musical for a long time, and I think it was as good of a movie adaptation as you can get. And Meryl Streep as the witch is like dream casting come true.
Yes!! Me too haha. Laughed so much when I heard it, and was looking around all excited and then baffled everyone else wasn't as similarly and thoroughly entertained. So glad to find the other people out there who noticed it too :D
James Algar I have! I can see why they cut it - it continues the emphasis that the witch was "wrong" so-to-say. And that of course is misplaced in the full story's moral: - "Witches can be right, giants can be good, etc." It's a damn shame that it was cut, it's a beautiful song and, of course Meryl sings it SOOO well.
@@MusicalMash Especially since Steve wrote it for her, and told her not to fuck it up. This ain't "The Frogs", Meryl. (Her first Sondheim show at Yale).
I think you are absolutely right that Into the Woods works better in a musical theatre, because different other musicals like Phantom, Les Mis and Mamma Mia, which the whole story happens in itself, Into the Woods constantly breaks the fourth wall and utilise it to tell the story (the narrator). Also, I personally think that the midnight song/morals is an important part of the play as it fit the concept of fairytale as moral lesson, help the characters to reflect themselves and importantly help the audience to understand what's happens. One of the way I could think of to adopt Into the Woods is to use the book setting in classical Disney story like Winnie the Pooh and Fun and Fancy Free, this way we can keep the narrator in the story, although I could not figure out how to proceed the story.
Finally! You made a reaction video~ :) And good timing because I just saw the movie last night. You made some very good points. Glad you shared with your viewers!!
It’s interesting you comment on the “reflected” moments specifically as some of these were pickups after the completion of principle photography - so seemingly added in for emphasis or clarity for the audience (or studio execs) less familiar with the musical. Specifically Red Riding hood sliding down the wolf’s oesophagus (discovering granny/being cut out of his stomach) and Jack’s father stealing the beans and being discovered in the act.
I was SO excited to hear your opinions! I had very very very similar opinions to yours when I saw the movie. Being a fellow Into the Woods-knower (that's not a word!), I was baffled by a lot of the small changes! Thanks SO much for posting this!!! I ALSO THINK "It's the witch from next door!" WAS HILARIOUS!
Will you discuss love never dies? And have some longer podcasts? That would be AMAZING. PLEASE. You are such a great musical fan, without ever getting preachy (unless that's the point, of course). I want to discuss MY love of musicals with you!
Thank you, you have helped me decide to see the movie. I have been talking myself out of it since the 25th. I know it's a different medium and I can accept that, it's just that the stage production is extremely special to me for personal reasons which need not be related here. Suffice it to say I was in the audience opening night in 1987 and I was completely enthralled and I still am (yes I have the DVD). My issues are with the points you covered and you have helped me to feel more comfortable with them. I was however not worried about spoilers but I do wish you hadn't mentioned the inclusion of the 'Night Waltz' if you hadn't I would have had about the same reaction as you did. Oh well.. So tomorrow I go to see it and enjoy my 'moment in the woods'. Thank you.
I feel like you are absolutely right. I hadn't watched the play before seeing the movie and I was really confused as to why the Witch pretty much raged quit. And I felt lost and kind of empty after it was done. So while I was looking up the score for it, I found the original play here on YT and was thrilled because it made so much more sense. It was humorous and light and Bernadette Peters is amazing. And the morals of the story that were kind of lost in the movie, were plain as day in the play. I do enjoy both as what they are, movie and play, but... The play.
I like to think the reason the witch is telling them at that point is because I think that the witches mother, maybe a powerful witch, could see into the future and she told the witch that if she lost the beans, she could only get her beauty back is on those three days and those days only. Think about it, Cinderella, jack, and little red go into the woods at the same day and get there wish at the same time, it's a very coincidental thing.
My school is doing this as a play. I think things like that will help bridge the gap between movie watchers and people who've seen the play, especially since we're kind of combining the two. We're using a lot of the lines from the movie, but the mysterious man and the narrator are both in it, for example. I'm playing the wolf.
You said everything i felt about this film in a much kinder manner then i ever could. My family thought they would have to have me committed christmas morning after i saw it. I cried so hard i was so disappointed. This is my favorite show ever and also was casted as the baker (sadly my production was canceled). They just destroyed the script and its such a shame because it was casted perfectly (even though i would have loved and lived for Anna Kendrick as little red rather than Cinderella if they had done little red and jack properly) they all could sing it and it was grand. It was like watching a school that had an amazing budget to perform Into the Woods and ended up doing the junior edition of the script. It killed my soul this movie, the filmed version of it on stage is all i would ever need in this life time.
I generally agree about the cut songs, except for "No More". Feels like that song is the entire emotional resolution for your primary character (baker). I can't imagine thinking that should be cut.
btw I haven't even seen much of this video yet and already wholeheartedly gree. and for the record, the most raumatic thing for me was that "No More" was cut. They could've gotten rid of "Agony" and I wouldn't have cared. Then again, the way they put that song across explains why perfectly.
Love love loved this video! (I watched the entire thing) I honestly wish you had talked for even longer. I agreed with every single one of your comments and I also enjoyed the movie very much, and I hadn't realized it until now but what you said at the end about how you wish people who just saw the movie could see the whole show is my belief as well. Thats also how I feel about the Jr. version of Into the Woods. I just adore the story in its complete form and I think every single moment of the show is perfectly placed and it makes me sad that not everyone will get a chance to experience those moments. Great review, love it. I always feel like you're talking right to me when you do your videos, I wish we could be friends in real life! Keep up the good work! :D
The "you" and "i" change highlights the fact that she's kind of on the spot in that moment trying to sort her thoughts. So switching back and forth highlights the confusion
Explanation, as far as understand it: 1) They changed it to a Willow Tree for VISUAL reasons, so that the scene where her dress changes with all the little willow leaves swirling around her would work! 2) Apparently, in the stage production, she sings about the experience she HAD on the steps of the palace, whereas in the film, time "stops" and she IS HAVING the experience at that moment! She can still refer to herself sometimes in second person voice, but also refer to "I" and "me" in first person PRESENT! It works.
i personally found that, for the most part, those that i talked to who had seen the musical, in some form or other, enjoyed the film immensely while those who had neglected to see the stage version found they didn't enjoy it as much, one friend of mine suggested that it should have ended at the wedding, in the same way as the JR version
Oh, and I don't know if you watch Once Upon a Time, but how Streep's witch was popping up and just how she chose to play her really reminded me of Rumplestiltskin from that show.
I definitely think you supported your thesis as to why certain things work better on stage. I also love the line of the witch next door for its absurdity. Of course one must distribute finish between the witch down the street or on the next block. Lastly, I think the switch from hazel to willow tree was a smart one for purely phonetic reasons. Why use a word at all if you don’t want it heard... and willow stands a better chance.
"I Wish.........." I guess the moral of Into The Woods is Be Careful What You Wish For and how you fulfill it as well as Getting your way doesn't always end Happily Ever After. Also I was glad that Disney did not shy away from the darker roots of Fairytales to make this movie. I mean that we all should not scare children, but I think that "Fairytales" were almost sometimes "Cautionary Tales" To teach a moral. A.)Little Red Riding Hood=Do not talk to or give out personal information to strangers. B.)Jack and The Beanstalk=Eh? (Insert Moral Here.) C.)Rapunzel=Do Not Steal, or Lie to your parents. D.)Cinderella=(Step Family.) Do Not treat Family Members Shamefully. Thats All I Can Think about. For Into The Woods's Tales That is.
for little shop, they did film the whole don't feed the plants ending, and it tested very poorly, so they changed it to the one with the dream house. i've seen the original ending on youtube, and i think they let it go on too long anyway. as far as a play's curtain call letting you know the actors are all ok, i do know that in the film "the bad seed". they had the girl struck by lightning, but had the actors come out for a bow at the end as their names were announced, then the bad seed girl got spanked by the mother.
Thanks for your thoughts! As I was fortunate to perform as the Prince's Steward, which they almost diminished in the movie, the nuances in the musical are definitely lost in the movie form.Keep your reviews coming!!!
bout your thoughts on the Baker telling the story at the end, and being the narrator from the beginning, I agree that the same feeling isn't felt as the stage version. But I think a different feeling is felt. I think, when you get to the end and the Baker is telling the story to the child, you think, "Oh, wait. We've been watching the story all along as the Baker is telling it to his child." That's what I got from it.
One thing I noticed was when the movie decided to switch Jack carrying around the golden egg instead of the hen. That’s okay but then during Your Fault in the movie, they still say “did you have to go get that hen”. Maybe a small mistake they didn’t catch? I just think it’s sorta funny!
(First of all, sorry for my English, but I'm Spanish) I agree in all it's said, but, I don't know if you'll agree with me, I think the hugest error in the movie (which I liked, anyway) is that the second act, when it's supposed to tell all of the philosophical and psychological issues (the bad one being the apparently fair one, the suffering of the people we hurt, the marital doubts of the princes and all of those not-so-fairy-happiness stuff), is cut to half hour. I think that not only makes the plot as a simple fairy-magical story with a weak dosis of reality at the end, but also makes people who has not seen the show (I know I'm talking like this I´ve-seen-the-show-and-you-haven't people, but fuck it...) think that this final half hour could be cut. And I think it's a great pity don't let people enjoy the complexity of this master piece and let them see a good Disney movie with great score but with a weak dark ending.
First, I am subscribing mainly because you are a RUclips man-crush. Secondly, love your videos. Thirdly, don't know if it has been mentioned before (I haven't read very far in the comments), but I think the main reason Rapunzel wasn't killed in the movie is because in 2010, Rapunzel became a Disney princess in TANGLED. They couldn't very well kill off one of their princesses four years later. Little girls the world over would be crying!
The choices regarding Rapunzel's death are very interesting to me. Whether she dies or not changes how "right" the witch is. In the original stageplay, it's arguable that the witch is actually right and she is never forced to come to terms with her own villainous self.
"This is the world I meant, couldn't you listen?". She has a wrong belief about the world and shelters Rapunzel from it, but she is justified in her beliefs when Rapunzel dies. If she had listened to her, she would be alive, the witch knows best - and that's what informs "Last Midnight", it's her telling the others that she's right, that she knows what's best but that no one believes her because she's a witch. She defends her terrible decision to keep Rapunzel locked up.
If Rapunzel lives, it means the witch is wrong. Rapunzel lives and Rapunzel is seemingly happy, and the witch is bitter about being wrong. She is forced to come to terms with her villainy and it makes "Last Midnight" more outright villainous, whereas in the stageplay "Last Midnight" is just the witch resigning to the role of a witch and giving the characters a villain because that's what they want. The audience knows she is the villain, but whether the witch knows is different from the stage production to the movie.
Yes. I haven't watched the movie yet and only recently discovered this beautiful musical. But from the musical I think it doesn't make any sense to have Punzel live. Her death is the reason the witch switches from a wickedly humorous character in her own way who pursues her wishes (beauty/garden protection) to someone utterly somber who has lost any ambition and only wants some sort of revenge. I love The Last Midnight. I'm curious how they have done that in the movie without Rapunzel's death.
I wish they would have had the Narrator/Mysterious Old Man and had him be played by Sondheim :).
THAT SO SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED
OH MY GOD THAT WOULD BE THE BEST CAMEO EVER
YES!
sondheim would have never done this lmao. cool idea tho!
animagusurreal wasn't the father in the flashback played by Sondheim?
I saw somewhere else on youtube that everything they have to collect (metaphorically) is ingredients for raising a child.
Cow=milk
Cape= blood/ life
Hair/ corn= nutrients and food
Slipper= money
@Matt Animates It would be more logical to me if the cow was a metaphor for a woman. You need to provide all those ingredients to a woman (they fed all the other ingredients to the cow) and than she provides a child (like the cow provided the milk that broke the curse)
that seems like a very incomplete list
i think cape is more like warmth and protection for the child
I know this is kind of late, but changing "hazel tree" to "willow tree" at least (among the other lyrical changes from stage to screen) seemed like a clever and informed choice that was made. The tree used in the movie was a weeping willow, which is mythologically supposed to have a crying spirit held inside it. I thought this was clever, seeing how Cinderella's tears watered the tree; it tied in nicely with the plot. I'm also guessing this change was a result of the perks of working with a camera- the sweeping camera movements which greatly magnified the effect of the scene on the audience would not have been possible on stage.
I believe the reason is much simpler. Disney already made a Cinderella version - - the animated movie from the 50s-- where the mother is buried under a willow tree.
They are famous for taking over fairytales and "owning" them and imposing theirs as the somewhat "definitive versions"
I checked and it's a hazel in the Grimm version
Hazel trees, in folklore, are connected with wisdom and learning. Since Cinderella is getting wisdom from her mother's spirit there, it's an appropriate choice...but I do get the "weeping willow" imagery.
i actually assumed the change was a disney reference to grandmother willow in pocahontas, effectively disney-fying the into the woods world a bit more
Sad because they cut out these lines (which I will most definitely misquote):
JACK'S MOTHER: You be careful with your children. (Or whatever the hell this line is).
BAKER'S WIFE: Oh, I don't have any children.
JACK'S MOTHER: . . . that's okay too.
Nat S Okay I know it's annoying to say this but I love your profile pic so much!
I wish they kept the line "A Giant's just like us. Only bigger. Much, muuuuuch bigger. So big..."
I think they cut it bc the witch is much more serious
"And we're just an expendable bug underneath their feet. BOOM! - Cruuuuush."
Why I think Into The Woods works better on stage (be ready for me rambling):
Into The Woods isn't just "twisted fairytales" for me like it is for basically the rest of the world. Into The Woods is about how the things we want, and the things we do to get what we want, have consequences (thus: "Wishes come true, not free"). It's about us remembering that the fairytales we love are about people doing things they shouldn't. Jack KILLED someone and stole from them. Little Red didn't listen to her mother, which almost cost her the lives of both herself and her grandmother. Into The Woods is supposed to show that we can't model our own lives after these whimsical fairytales, and to show that once you get what you want, that whole whimsical fairytale ends. However, if you're watching a Disney movie with special effects and crazy sets and the whole shebang, there is no ending to that fairytale. It's all one huge fairytale. However, the stage musical CLEARLY showed where the fairytale ends: once the narrator is killed. You are left with a group of confused, misguided people. You aren't left with the same bunch you had in the Prologue - you have developed characters. In a movie, that sense of reality can never truly be achieved. The things that made Into The Woods real for me wouldn't work onscreen. It's not to say that the movie didn't work for me. I will say, however, that after watching the stage musical for the first time, I was left with a twisted stomach and a newer, weirder outlook on morality, whereas I left the movie theater just thinking "that was a good movie". I hope this made sense. It probably didn't.
Natalia Soto Well said! 👏
Oh and the prince and wolf were played by the same actor, and that was really nice.
Bravo!
Don't be pessimistic. Of course it made sense. You are absolutely right
I agree with you almost completely, except for the very first line - I dare say that what you see in and get from the musical is actually very much what a lot of people (if not most) take from it, and are supposed to take from it! few grown up musical loving people who saw a stage adaptation would think of it at just "twisted fairytales". So I'm not trying to be mean here but do give Sondheim more credit than just one person (you) taking a life lesson from Into The Woods. ;)
In my mind, having the Baker narrate from the beginning enhances the ending. That realization that the story is circular, that, at the beginning, we are the audience that begins to listen at the end, is wonderful!
I agree, the removal of some of the deaths lead to a lose of motivation, specifically for the Witch when Rapunzel doesn't die. I'm so sad that they cut the Mysterious Man :( and they cut No More, which I have always found is one of the most impactful songs in the show. I really miss the midnight songs.
One of the biggest problems I have with the movie is that the transition from act 1 to act 2 was sloppy. There was kinda miscommunication in a way. People who did not know the staged musical were confused. This also plays into cutting the narrator, becuase then we don't have the actors killing the narrator and then we miss the meaning of the line that the Baker's Wife sings "I'm in the wrong story." Without the narrator begin killed we miss the fact that everything is falling apart becuase he is no longer there to tell the story.
Those are just some of my thoughts.
It suffered, didn't it, from not having the intermission we get in the stage version. Without that clean division into two definite "parts," the movie is prone to feeling like an extra 45 minutes is just tacked on after the stories are over. With a two act show, the spectator is prepared for a second half to look forward to.
Agree, 100%. "No More" is the whole crux of the show. By eliminating the Mysterious Man/Narrator you miss the point of the second act. Also, I love Meryl Streep, but she was absolutely wrong for the witch. Most of the casting was terrible. I will just watch the video of the OBC. Much, much better than the film in every way.
They chanced the POV for 'On The Steps Of The Palace' because in the musical Cinderella is singing in past tense - telling the audience what happened. In the film, she's literally in the moment. That's why they changed it. It's in a few interviews with Rob Marshall and Anna Kendrick and so on. So yeah you're right... you mentioned it as you were discussing it. But I thought I'd give you confirmation :)
I really missed the Agony reprise because it had exposed the princes, and instead, Rapunzel and her prince lived happily ever after. Other than that and a few things you touched on, I really loved that movie and would go watch it again!
But we never do see her again, and you could argue that because Rapunzel was so sheltered growing up in the tower, she may not have the skills to survive outside, if her prince doesn't know how to function outside of a priledged environment.
I thought they nailed Agony...I was okay without the reprise in the film because I don't know how they would have topped that.
I'm afraid if they put Agony reprise they have to put Rapunzel's death too (or at least includes her) but it would also explain more on why Cinderella's prince cheats on her because it felt out of place.
Do you know what I miss?, "Do you think it was a picnic? Disposing your husband's remains?" and "A wolf is not the same/ Ask a wolf's mother". Great review though! I love your opinions. Ps. I also love your Sondheim DVD collection in the conner :P
But the reason for those two lines is because Red says "Well this is terrible. We just saw 3 people die!" And in that scene only Jack's mother dies. So those two beautiful arguing lines were. Sadly.
I absolutely adored the film, and I have to admit that I was nervous about this review because I know how much the show means to you. I was expecting you to rip the film to shreds. Color me pleasantly surprised (and grateful) and at how well-balanced your analysis was and how self-aware you were of being lumped with the elitists and haters out there. I can assure you you aren't one of them. You voiced your thoughts well and gave proper explanation as to why things worked or didn't, all the while stressing and admitting that these are your personal impressions that may not be reflective of everyone else's.
The Rapunzel thing I knew was happening because I had read the leaked screenplay online, and even with that in mind, I still found the change to be a downgrade during my first viewing. Then when I saw the film a second time, it clicked with me. Rapunzel's fate is purposely left ambiguous. The last thing the Witch says to her is, "There's a giant!" as we see her and the Prince ride off into the fog. As this is happening, there's ominous score playing that leads into the gorgeous "Witch's Lament." That to me seemed to indicate Rapunzel and her Prince may not make it, and the fact that they disappear from the film altogether leaves plenty of room for doubt (and I, personally, like to believe they died off-screen).
It also gave an interesting contrast between the two princes. In the show, both princes are self-obsessed jerks who only cared about the thrill of the chase rather than their actual maidens, quickly growing bored of them. The relationships between them and Rapunzel and Cinderella are identical and only differ in how the princesses respond to THEM (Rapunzel goes batty and gets herself killed while Cinderella puts her foot down and essentially gets a divorce). In the film, Rapunzel's prince is portrayed as more sincere and unlike his brother. They're an innocent couple whose fate is left uncomfortably ambiguous while the seemingly idealistic fairy tale couple of Cinderella and her Prince is broken apart even though they both survive.
I do think, however, that Jack's mother's death was sloppily handled. The way it plays out in the film almost makes it seem like there's a deleted scene we haven't seen (which I know is not the case because it's handled just as vaguely in Lapine's screenplay). They should've just had her die right there on camera after her last line.
Your thoughts about Anna Kendrick's singing being too perfect are absolutely true because she even admitted this herself. I can't remember who it was (the musical supervisor, maybe?), but someone in the production told her that no actress has ever been able to get every single note right to "On the Steps of the Palace" as Sondheim wrote it - not even the original Cinderella, Kim Crosby. So Kendrick said her competitive streak came out, and she was determined to get it perfectly right. Now whether she did that on or own or with a little autotuning help, I don't know, but it would explain why her singing is more pure and less colorful than the other cast members'.
You raise a valid point about the inconsistency of the magic in this film, but a thought occurred to me. Does Rapunzel even know her mother is a witch? It's possible, in this film anyway, the Witch climbs up the hair because she doesn't want her daughter to know she has magic because it might make her fear her the way everyone else does. But, anyway, you're right that the internal logic of this universe doesn't hold up to scrutiny due to the very nature of the fairy tale source materials (why does Rapunzel's tear have healing powers? How often has Cinderella's mother granted her wishes and how can she even do that? etc).
I actually thought making the Baker the narrator was brilliant because it brought the story full circle, ending it the way we began it. It didn't spoil anything for two reasons: 1) characters can narrate their stories from beyond the grave (I would cite two notable Hollywood films that do that, but I don't want to spoil them). 2) The audience doesn't know this story is being told to his child. They think it's being told to them. Once we see the Baker repeating the opening lines of the Prologue to his son, then the lightbulb clicks with the audience and they go, "Ohhh, this was being told to the baby!"
It's funny you mention the idea of flashbacks being used to spice up Little Red and Jack's songs. James Lapine wanted to go further with those and with Cinderella's. In his original treatment, you actually saw Jack in the Giant kingdom during "Giants in the Sky," and we saw Cinderella at the ball during "On the Steps of the Palace." Jack's was minimized and Cinderella's cut all together due to budgetary reasons. I actually felt we should've seen a bit more of Jack's adventure in order to better match Little's Red's "I Know Things Now", even if it were something stylized like that number. Cinderella's, though, I felt satisfied with because unlike the other two, they changed her number from a recollection to an immediate response, so embedding flashbacks of the ball in her song would've taken away from the immediacy of the moment.
And wow, I think my response is longer than your actual review. Either way, I'm glad you really enjoyed the film despite your misgivings, and I love that you expressed your thoughts in such a balanced and fair way. Cheers!
That's interesting about Rapunzel because we don't know if after 10 minutes of riding the giant comes along and crushes them or they go off to a castle and live happily ever after. For the Witch, it's a different type of tragedy then in the stage version.
I think maybe the biggest reason Rapunzel wasn't killed off is in 2010, being the protagonist of TANGLED, she entered the echelon of Disney princess. They couldn't very well kill her off four years later.
I think on making The Baker the narrator it's perfect, as you said, it became full circle and that's just briliant. I think with the original killing the narartor, it symbolizes that there might be a chance they don't get a "Happily Ever After" because the person telling their story is now dead.
So with The Baker, he knows what happend and the rest of the chara too. But with The Narrator, he knows what's going to happen, but the rest of the chara doesn't.
You should write my essay 😭😭😂 I have an essay about the show and u is clearly all about writing
Paused the video to concentrate on your comment. Thanks for sharing.
Actually I loved that line. It's a hilarious sudden information drop.
"Oh and by the way there's just a witch who lives next door."
You can't cut "No More." It's the heart of The Baker's character and in many ways the climax of the musical's emotional journey. And the scene is there, the underscore is there...why doesn't he sing the damn song??
One of my favorite funny lines similar to "the witch next door" is "you can talk to birds?" Because up until that point you kind of just assume that Communicating with animals is a normal part of this world because it's a fairy tale, Why not? So it's a pretty comedic reveal to just see this one aspect crash land into reality. This also raises questions that are hilariously never answered, like, "why/how can Cinderella talk to birds", "why has nobody noticed?"
Thank you for your thoughts, most informative. I will come to the defense of the two youngest actors, Lilla Crawford (Red)and Daniel Huttlestone (Jack). Neither was auto tuned. Both are experienced stage singers. Lilla was Annie in the 2012 Broadway revival and Daniel was in Oliver in London from 2009-2011 and in Les Miserables (Gavroche) on stage in London for a year and in the film. Both kids are remarkable singers and their apparent perfection is due largely to their experience in live musical theater. They are most definitely not of the standard Disney auto-tune kid singers.
I don't think he was saying that they couldn't sing well, he was saying NO ONE has a tone that pure. He was saying that the editors stripped their voices of emotion in hope of perfect pitch. I love both young actors....they are both so talented!
2Greenhill AGREED! I loved them
@Brian Bock hit upon the big weakness of the film - it changes the story from a two-act play to a one-act. Sondheim writes at length about the history of theater changing mid-century form three-acts to two-act plays. (2 intermissions meant more concession sales!), and talk about how Into the Woods, more than almost any other show, really DEMANDS a two-act structure. Characters have wants - they get their desires, and then Act2 comes along and... they have new wants!
Throwing the giant in as a shift, instead of letting the change in circumstance come from the normal passage of time, is what sort of guts the parable the play is supposed to tell.
Simon Strange I wouldn't say it really changes the message, but it's what bothers me the most about the film because, when watching it having never seen the play, you're waiting for the ending throughout the whole second "act"
OMG the first time i saw Into The Woods (on PBS with Bernadette) i thought the line, "It's the Witch from next door" was HILARIOUS!! You are not alone in that! That line almost makes you think that perhaps there are other Witches or Warlocks or Sorcerers who are the Baker's neighbour. I would love to sit in on the neighbourhood watch meeting for that community! LOL
I love how the moment they see the Witch they immediately assume she is there for something bad. I mean, seriously, has the witch never just craved sandwiches and taken a leisurely walk over to her NEIGHBORS HOUSE to buy some friggin' bread? Honestly, unless she survives solely on sunlight and magic beans, I'm pretty sure she would have gone to the bakery atleast once.
If it bothered the baker that much, he should have moved. I mean, my neighbors are annoying, but I don't try and hide the moment they happen to just walk by my window. But, seriously, could you imagine what would happen if the witch had only been there to buy bread?
Baker: It's the witch from next door!
Baker's Wife: We have no bread.
Witch: Darn, I really wanted a sandwich!
Baker: Oh, well...we just put bread in the oven like ten minutes ago.
Baker's Wife: I'll go get the bread then.
Witch: Thanks. Btw I cursed your entire family and if you want to have a child you need to go into the woods find a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn and a slipper as pure as gold and have them back to me in three days before the blue moon.
Baker: WTF...
Baker's Wife: That's nice, here's your change.
Witch: Thanks. *Leaves*
"We will not move, this was my father's house!"
I don't think disney would kill one of their most successful princesses...understandable...I wish they had kept the full witch's lament
I think the reason "willow" doesn't sound right in place of "hazel" is probably that "grave at the hazel tree" has assonance while "grave at the willow tree" doesn't. Also, the "ay" vowel is better for the melodic jump in the phrase both because of its openness on the high note and its closeness to the previous vowel.
Another great response by the witch is when the narrator tries to talk everyone out of sacrificing him, and he say how he's needed to tell the story, and the witch responds; "Maybe some of us don't like the way you're telling it".
I think thats my favorite line of hers its so good
The thing that bothers me most is the complete removal of the song 'No More'; that song is my favorite one of the whole show in my opinion (with 'No one is alone' being my second best), and that song could have easily been placed there along with the inclusion of the Mysterious Man in the film to have the song to make sense. What I'm saying is they missed a great opportunity to keep a great song in the film.
The magic in the show is also somewhat illusory. She CAN do magic, just not teleportation. Sh blinds people with light and runs away before they recover.
i don't know if you've heard about this, but i follow a tumblr called "low budget milky whites", and it's one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen
is that still on Tumblr?
About the tree lyric: It was probably about the costume. They wanted Cinderella's dress to look like the tree and willow trees are easier to incorporate into dress designs I guess.
I just subscribed to your channel because I'm pretty sure you took every thought I had about the film and said it out loud. Love your channel.
14:48 ok I have my own opinion on this
as someone who has had experience playing the Witch, I believe that in the musical, the cow, cape, hair, and slipper don't make sense. a lot of people say "well, why did she wait until today to tell them about this?" well, I think that no matter what day she told them about the quest, they would've had a three-day time limit. whatever day they are notified, that's when the timer starts. in the movie, by trying to explaining the magic more, it actually makes less sense. because they have this blue moon time limit, that begs the question; why didn't the Witch tell them about the quest earlier if they have had this time limit since before Rapunzel was born (which I have no clue how long this was after the Baker was born)? why now, three days before they never get this opportunity for another hundred years? in the musical, it made sense. there was no time limit, really. in the musical, the Witch really could've waited however long she wanted to tell the Baker and his wife about this (which begs the question "why did she choose today of all days when she had all of their lives to tell them about this and set off this timer?" *but that's another story, never mind*). but in the movie, it just makes no sense.
and that was my way-too-long thought on a plot point.
...
what am I doing with my life?
I think that cinderella use both you and I because during on the steps of the palace she is having a conversation with herself.
They cut the best numbers and scenes ex. No more, Agony reprise, Rapunzel going mad and dying, Mysterious Man I could go on
Thank you so much for making videos about musical theatre. It's hard for me to find other people who understand musical theatre. My friends hate when I talk about it so sometimes I feel a little alone. Watching your videos lets me know that others understand me and they have opinions about things I have opinions about. Thank you for making me feel like I am completely and utterly alone with my love for musical theatre.
Brilliant review! My greatest disappointment in the movie was that they skipped the narrators death. In the stage performance it's what tell the audience that from this point forward all bets are off, and it's going to be a bumpy night. Without the narrator being sacrificed, the audience is left with a sudden dark turn, without explanation. Though I can't think of a way to make the narrator work on screen without being too similar to Rocky Horror Picture Show, I'm sure Disney could have figured it out.
i watched the interview with Anna and she said that sodheim was personally changing the lyrics and mking adjustments multiple time while shes recording. so i completely undertand the changes and i actually love it a little better then the original. tbh
i agree with everything in this video but i also thought that the film missed out on all the irony and sarcasm displayed in the stage show
I dislike how Red and Jack were cast so young in this film. I feel that the "children" characters need to be in their middle teens (15-17) in order to appreciate the underlying awakenings into adulthood that they experience in this story.
Also in the stage play Sondheim has stated that they're supposed to be overgrown children
I think it's the present tense vs past tense you mentioned. On stage, we see her escape and she's telling the audience like "oh sh*t you won't believe what just happened!" In the movie, time freezes for us to see her think about everything as it happens. That's why I think the lyrics changed. They took advantage of film as a medium.
Great video! I personally enjoyed the movie, however my biggest issue was with the second part of the finale being sung over the credits. I know there were time restraints, and all, but they could have added more than just the audio. I was glad, however, that there weren't any new songs. I feel like they take away from the original, and are extraneous to the plot. Anyway, keep up the good work on these videos!!!
I had a problem with that too. I just got back from seeing it.
I really like this. I often watch/read reviews that don't take into consideration that different mediums require different approaches. I'm happy to see you take that into consideration.
I watched the original Into The Woods recently after watching the film before hand (and liking it but being a little confused by the ending) and I agree with everything you just said. I love the film and the casting and the filmography but I felt that the stage version portrayed the overarching theme and message way better and that it works better on stage where you can kill everyone off, including the narrator, making the finale hit much harder. Loved the vid :)
8:00 I think that the change was necessary to take the song from the retelling and reviewing of her choices into the realm of her live decision making process. Like you said, movie audiences are different, and it comes across more real/in the moment with those, like you mentioned, minor changes. Fantastic review. Loving the channel!
Was really sad that they cut Rapunzel's death, because it abandons the message that the witch is no longer "right" about Rapunzel.
I think one of the reasons this story lends itself better to stage than screen is because at it's heart, the characters are learning about themselves rather than going on an adventure. The journey is internal rather than external, if that makes sense. There is an adventure there, but I think the focus is more on the characters' internal struggles rather than the story itself. Since theatre is theatre and cinema is cinema, I think it's much easier on the stage to stop and appreciate what the character is thinking using soliloquies, asides, and songs like 'Giants in the Sky' or On the Steps of the Palace (whatever you call that type of song), while in a movie, you really have to keep the narrative going (which I think is why, at least to me, Giants in the Sky and I Know Things Now felt a little bit awkward). I also think that theatre tends to feel more personal than cinema; the characters are right there in front of you, sometimes talking directly to you; while a movie has a distinct barrier between your world and the world of the characters. Since Into the Woods is about personal struggles and lessons, I think that translates much better. That's my two cents anyway. (oops, more like 5, sorry about that.)
I am primarily a classical singer and college voice teacher, but do love MT. Getting ready to (vocal) coach a high school production of this, and enjoyed hearing your review. Thank you!
(I just now saw the movie yikes) I agree with you that it was a lot better as a stage musical. I love the atmosphere and the world the movie created, but honestly the musical's themes were better conveyed through the form of two acts. The two prologues leading into the different acts made a really good parallel between the very different but "mirrored" stories told.
I think I'm that rare viewer that didn't really love the original Into the Woods as much as everyone else does. The musical was just characters coming in and out and in and out. It's why I liked the second act much more than the first.
The film helped me appreciate the musical more. The film made me take the lessons seriously while the musical was fun and I did know there were lessons, but I didn't feel they were as powerful. But that also comes from different acting styles in theatre and on film. I do love theatre, but in film, especially with such talented actors, I was able to truly see every second and moment the characters were going through emotionally.
What I feel from fans (not you though, you're awesome possum) is that they focus on "different=bad". That's honestly a major thing with theatre lovers. It's like books made into movies. People don't understand the necessary changes that need to be made to change mediums performances.
Into the Woods fans are kinda like harry potter fans--they pounce over any change because it's not like the book, but they completely forget that what may work in a book or theater may not work on film. When I watch the Harry Potter movies, I usually don't mind the changes unless they are very glaring and affect the story.
harrietamidala1691 Exactly, but it's more like theatre fans in general. "They better not ruin the musical for me." The musical will always be there. It's like how The Last Airbender Movie didn't ruin the Avatar series for me at all. I just appreciated it more.
And I love the Harry Potter films! A lot of fans complain about the later films being the worse cuz they didnt have this or that. When honestly, they are long books, and I think the later films were the best due to directing, acting, editing, etc. The style and direction in terms of film really matured with it overtime. Of course I would love to see everything from the books but they are movies. If it doesn't help the overall plot, then it drags the film.
aeris44
Sometimes I wonder if Harry Potter should have been made into a television series, which each season representing a book (ala Game of Thrones or Outlander). Of course, the first three books are too thin to support a season.
I think with not killing rapunzel its still effective because the witch is abandoned by rapunzel she has know one but her beauty and she is hated by mostly everyone and now her daughter hates her and left her.
Ouch, mother's worst fear, having your own child hate you. Kinda like with Nemo and Marlin.
Great review! Personally I hate the film. I hate Anna Kendrick in it most of all (Mainly for sounding so stiff on emotionally monotoned and nasal in her music.) and I can't stand the fact the The Mysterious Man/Bakers Father was basically cut along with No More. Rapunzels character felt very pointless in it. The music felt to modern and felt more like background music and the phrasing choices were terrible. It's not even good as a stand alone film!! BUT...... I like Streep and love the boy who played Jack, Little Red was ok, Baker was good, Emily Blunt was ok. I have done this show 3 times, playing Rapunzel, Little Red and The Witch. So....... yeah I'm gonna be picky.
lol! of all the things you hated I loved/liked everything except I didnt like Little Red - because she reminded me too much of the girl i saw in the Revival in 2002/3--- OH and im totally with you on the cutting of No More! Beautiful Song -- but hard to put in a movie where youve cut one of the characters who sings it.
Hello there!
First of all, let me tell you this was the first video I watched from your channel (back when the movie came out) and that I instantly subscribed! It instantly became one of my favourite channels, and I immediately watched every single video you had uploaded. BEST DECISION EVER.
Ok, now, I told Jimi I had all these ideas and opinions about this video, so now I kinda HAVE to write them down.
I want to disclaim that these are opinions from someone who went from the movie to the musical. That meaning that I saw the movie before the musical, and all the opinions that follow are more about the movie as a story on it's own and not as some kind of appendix of the musical. I think a movie adaptation of anything (book, musical) needs to stand on it's own and be able to tell the story and make sense to any person who is new to it.
About the witch climbing the tower: There is NO moment in the movie in which anyone calls the Witch "the Witch" in front of Rapunzel, or any moment when she calls her so. So, in my opinion, Rapunzel doesn't know that she has any kind of magic. Every single thing she does that affects Rapunzel could have been done in a very muggle way (push the prince down the tower, etc) For Rapunzel, the witch is her mother, and that's it. Maybe the Witch doesn't want her to know she is magic, because Rapunzel is the one person she can care for in a more "human" way. So that's why she appears everywhere but never in the presence of Rapunzel.
About the corn: And I know this is a stretch, but many times the most obvious thing is in front of you and it takes an idiot (sorry Jack) to point it out. Then you say, "oh, alright, yeah, I guess we could try that" plus you facepalm bc you didn't think of that before.
About the spell: I just think movies work like that, I just think it does not need to make sense, why dragon scales and troll tears in other stories?.
About the timing: (blue moon stuff) She might have been waiting for the Baker and Wife to be in the right moment (the realization that they do WISH for a child, they might not have had that conversation before) to "run those errands for her" or waited patiently and planted the need for a child in them when she saw she was actually running out of time.
About the Baker being the narrator: and this might be me because I went into the movie not knowing any of the story. But, I feel if you expect the movie to stand on it's own you have to count on the fact that people will walk into the theatre knowing very little about it. That includes that people will die. Or that certain people survive. In my opinion, a person new to the story, does not realise the importance of the Baker narrating the beginning of the movie, as a person familiar with the musical would. And by the time people start dying, you are so into the story that you forget who narrated the first lines of the story a 2 hours ago.
Ok, I think that's all I can think about now, and all I can remember thinking about ages ago when I first saw your review.
I arrived SO LATE to this comment party, but oh well, better late than never.
I am sorry for the massive rant. And I thank you for the jewel that is The Pirate Movie, I have tortured my whole Musical Theatre Society and forced almost everyone to watch it. These Scots can't get over the blingy cock-piece.
Sorry for any grammar/spelling mistakes but English is not my first language.
Thank you for what you do! Keep bringing the MTM greatness to our lives!
PS: OMG this is so long it could be the sequel to El Quijote, I apologise again. :D
So I'm coming from a very similar background of the guy who did this video and I actually was looking through these comments to see if someone was coming from your perspective to see how they would feel about the points mentioned here. Very interesting!
I am so glad that you talked about the POV change in "The Steps of the Palace"!! It drove me nuts when I watched it lol
This is probably the first of a bunch of comments I'll make on this video as I listen. Like you, I'm so familiar with the movie that I caught each change. One thing to remember is that Sondheim also changes lyrics between stage productions, sometimes for the worse. In fact, he restored "You're not good, you're not bad / You're just nice" which had been rewritten in later stage versions for no good reason to something worse. As for the the willow tree, perhaps this was because the tree they built was so beautiful, and the way that the hanging leaves of a willow look made for a better image, hence the inconsequential change.
The pronoun switch in On the Steps of the Palace used to bother me so so much. Mostly because it's such a fun fast song and the tiny changes made it so hard for me to follow along. But I guess because it's been so many years I don't mind it now because I've memorized both versions.
And I see how the difference in form would motivate the pronoun switches. In the musical Cinderella is retelling a story to the Baker's Wife and kinda also the audience, asking us to step into her shoes. But in the movie it's in real time, and she's not "talking" to the audience the way she would on stage. So I understand why she says "I."
I also love what you've said about precision vs. emotion. The part where Cinderella jerks her step-sister's head around while doing her hair for the ball is one of my favorite parts. That scene looses its magic without the emotion.
Re: Pronoun change. You hit the nail on the head.
@@jaycee330 I'm glad, thanks! Fun to be in a comment section with people who love Into the Woods as much as I do :)
This is the first video of yours that I have watched, and I thoroghly enjoy and appreciate what you have to say regarding this story. You have such an understanding of the significance of the detail work and the effect that is has on the storytelling of this piece. And the respect you have for the craft is evident and inspiring. I would love to see your work as a director. Thank you for sharing. :)
Totally let out a huge guffaw when the waltz from Night Music came on. No one else thought it was amusing. I would also like to admit that I keep looking at your bookshelf and am beyond jealous of the content I see...
I did indeed notice the underscoring from Night Music! They play the Night Waltz at the Ball, and the harp Jack steals plays "You Must Meet My Wife"! Which is an absolutely brilliant and hilarious bit of foreshadowing comedy.
I really wish it was presented more like the stage musical, showing the narrator and setting it up more as a fairy tale than as a real retelling of events. I think your review was very informed and very fair.
+SketchyGrl yeah but you can't have an in-between space for the narrator to be, unless we get holograms along with our 3d glasses
They could have dragged Walt Disney from somewhere and killed him.
Or Sondheim.
I agree with most of the points you made, I had the same reaction through most of it.
What bugged me was I resigned to the fact that the old man wasn't going to be in the film, then when the baker left his son and the others ready to run away and you see the old man and the music starts, I was so excited for the song No More but it never came.
Great review... I think I read somewhere that Sondheim himself wrote the alterations to the lyrics... I know they talk about the changes of On the Steps of the Palace... and they said that Sondheim himself made that change
Luis Antonio Casanova Peraza Which makes it even STRANGER! I assumed he at least had a hand in all of the revisions (it'd be rude to exclude him.) So then WHY? What about these changes makes the story clearer or more interesting?
That's my same question... I don't understand why they did it hehe
+Musical Theatre Mash I bet they didn't want smaller kids to get confused. It's odd though they didn't change they entire thing to first person.
@@MusicalMash I posted about this. I think it's the medium that caused the change. Third person aside is fine in the theatre (with more suspension of disbelief). Cinema is a more "realistic" format, and the aside to the "audience" here would have been a little weird. Also, it makes all three monologues ("Know Things Now" and "Giants") all in the first person.
I just couldn't get over the changes. The second act just had the most interesting things taken away with the narrator. Saw it once in the theater, and I'm in no rush to ever watch it again. I'll stick with the original Broadway one, the one I taped off PBS as a little girl. The tape I wore out for watching too often.
Delightful video, as usual :) I haven't seen the movie yet, but I have listened to its soudtrack and I love the stage show, and I think you captured the message of the show and some of my concerns and hopes for the movie nicely. It's always tough anticipating and watching adaptations because as a fan, you just want everything to ring true to the original, even though you know a movie format tends to be more accessable to the general public, and some aspects get lost in translation to cinema or in a new director 's vision. I was disappointed to hear about some of the changes, specifically Rapunzel's death, but I hope (rather, I wish) the movie would inspire people to check out the original and more shows, rather than blindly writing off musical theatre and missing out on some spectacular content. Also, I'm excited to see the scale of the movie, and this beloved story presented in a new way. Thanks for making videos, they rock!
Watch it! :) It's been my favorite musical for a long time, and I think it was as good of a movie adaptation as you can get. And Meryl Streep as the witch is like dream casting come true.
Oh my gosh...I wasn't crazy for hearing A Little Night Music
Yes!! Me too haha. Laughed so much when I heard it, and was looking around all excited and then baffled everyone else wasn't as similarly and thoroughly entertained. So glad to find the other people out there who noticed it too :D
I love the line "It's the witch from next door" too!!
You're not alone! (no pun intended)
I feel into the woods the movie is uncomfortable with what into the woods about.
Musical Theatre Mash have you seen the song that was cut from just after the lament? It's called "she'll be back" ( it's on youtube)
James Algar I have! I can see why they cut it - it continues the emphasis that the witch was "wrong" so-to-say. And that of course is misplaced in the full story's moral: - "Witches can be right, giants can be good, etc."
It's a damn shame that it was cut, it's a beautiful song and, of course Meryl sings it SOOO well.
@@MusicalMash Especially since Steve wrote it for her, and told her not to fuck it up. This ain't "The Frogs", Meryl. (Her first Sondheim show at Yale).
I think you are absolutely right that Into the Woods works better in a musical theatre, because different other musicals like Phantom, Les Mis and Mamma Mia, which the whole story happens in itself, Into the Woods constantly breaks the fourth wall and utilise it to tell the story (the narrator). Also, I personally think that the midnight song/morals is an important part of the play as it fit the concept of fairytale as moral lesson, help the characters to reflect themselves and importantly help the audience to understand what's happens.
One of the way I could think of to adopt Into the Woods is to use the book setting in classical Disney story like Winnie the Pooh and Fun and Fancy Free, this way we can keep the narrator in the story, although I could not figure out how to proceed the story.
Finally! You made a reaction video~ :)
And good timing because I just saw the movie last night. You made some very good points. Glad you shared with your viewers!!
It’s interesting you comment on the “reflected” moments specifically as some of these were pickups after the completion of principle photography - so seemingly added in for emphasis or clarity for the audience (or studio execs) less familiar with the musical. Specifically Red Riding hood sliding down the wolf’s oesophagus (discovering granny/being cut out of his stomach) and Jack’s father stealing the beans and being discovered in the act.
I was SO excited to hear your opinions! I had very very very similar opinions to yours when I saw the movie. Being a fellow Into the Woods-knower (that's not a word!), I was baffled by a lot of the small changes! Thanks SO much for posting this!!!
I ALSO THINK "It's the witch from next door!" WAS HILARIOUS!
Thank you for such a thoughtful commentary. I have so much love for the stage production that I almost didn't see the film.
Will you discuss love never dies? And have some longer podcasts? That would be AMAZING. PLEASE. You are such a great musical fan, without ever getting preachy (unless that's the point, of course). I want to discuss MY love of musicals with you!
Thank you, you have helped me decide to see the movie. I have been talking myself out of it since the 25th. I know it's a different medium and I can accept that, it's just that the stage production is extremely special to me for personal reasons which need not be related here. Suffice it to say I was in the audience opening night in 1987 and I was completely enthralled and I still am (yes I have the DVD). My issues are with the points you covered and you have helped me to feel more comfortable with them. I was however not worried about spoilers but I do wish you hadn't mentioned the inclusion of the 'Night Waltz' if you hadn't I would have had about the same reaction as you did. Oh well.. So tomorrow I go to see it and enjoy my 'moment in the woods'. Thank you.
did you like the movie?
I feel like you are absolutely right. I hadn't watched the play before seeing the movie and I was really confused as to why the Witch pretty much raged quit. And I felt lost and kind of empty after it was done. So while I was looking up the score for it, I found the original play here on YT and was thrilled because it made so much more sense. It was humorous and light and Bernadette Peters is amazing. And the morals of the story that were kind of lost in the movie, were plain as day in the play. I do enjoy both as what they are, movie and play, but... The play.
I like to think the reason the witch is telling them at that point is because I think that the witches mother, maybe a powerful witch, could see into the future and she told the witch that if she lost the beans, she could only get her beauty back is on those three days and those days only. Think about it, Cinderella, jack, and little red go into the woods at the same day and get there wish at the same time, it's a very coincidental thing.
My school is doing this as a play. I think things like that will help bridge the gap between movie watchers and people who've seen the play, especially since we're kind of combining the two. We're using a lot of the lines from the movie, but the mysterious man and the narrator are both in it, for example. I'm playing the wolf.
You said everything i felt about this film in a much kinder manner then i ever could. My family thought they would have to have me committed christmas morning after i saw it. I cried so hard i was so disappointed. This is my favorite show ever and also was casted as the baker (sadly my production was canceled). They just destroyed the script and its such a shame because it was casted perfectly (even though i would have loved and lived for Anna Kendrick as little red rather than Cinderella if they had done little red and jack properly) they all could sing it and it was grand. It was like watching a school that had an amazing budget to perform Into the Woods and ended up doing the junior edition of the script. It killed my soul this movie, the filmed version of it on stage is all i would ever need in this life time.
I generally agree about the cut songs, except for "No More".
Feels like that song is the entire emotional resolution for your primary character (baker). I can't imagine thinking that should be cut.
btw I haven't even seen much of this video yet and already wholeheartedly gree.
and for the record, the most raumatic thing for me was that "No More" was cut. They could've gotten rid of "Agony" and I wouldn't have cared. Then again, the way they put that song across explains why perfectly.
No no no not Agony!!! It's a great, funny song 😂 but I agree, to cut 'No more' is unforgivable
OMG I totally had the same thought about the change of Rapunzel's fate. The Witch needed more loss happening to her in order to get really desperate.
Love love loved this video! (I watched the entire thing) I honestly wish you had talked for even longer. I agreed with every single one of your comments and I also enjoyed the movie very much, and I hadn't realized it until now but what you said at the end about how you wish people who just saw the movie could see the whole show is my belief as well. Thats also how I feel about the Jr. version of Into the Woods. I just adore the story in its complete form and I think every single moment of the show is perfectly placed and it makes me sad that not everyone will get a chance to experience those moments. Great review, love it. I always feel like you're talking right to me when you do your videos, I wish we could be friends in real life! Keep up the good work! :D
The "you" and "i" change highlights the fact that she's kind of on the spot in that moment trying to sort her thoughts. So switching back and forth highlights the confusion
Explanation, as far as understand it: 1) They changed it to a Willow Tree for VISUAL reasons, so that the scene where her dress changes with all the little willow leaves swirling around her would work! 2) Apparently, in the stage production, she sings about the experience she HAD on the steps of the palace, whereas in the film, time "stops" and she IS HAVING the experience at that moment! She can still refer to herself sometimes in second person voice, but also refer to "I" and "me" in first person PRESENT! It works.
That's a good point...on stage, this is her third trip to the ball, and she's recalling her total learned experience.
I’ve never seen the musicals, and I don’t watch many musicals, but this review was very fascinating and insightful!
i personally found that, for the most part, those that i talked to who had seen the musical, in some form or other, enjoyed the film immensely while those who had neglected to see the stage version found they didn't enjoy it as much, one friend of mine suggested that it should have ended at the wedding, in the same way as the JR version
On your disclaimers, being critical does not equal being negative. Being critical equals being exact, and you do a good job of that in your review.
Oh, and I don't know if you watch Once Upon a Time, but how Streep's witch was popping up and just how she chose to play her really reminded me of Rumplestiltskin from that show.
I definitely think you supported your thesis as to why certain things work better on stage.
I also love the line of the witch next door for its absurdity. Of course one must distribute finish between the witch down the street or on the next block.
Lastly, I think the switch from hazel to willow tree was a smart one for purely phonetic reasons. Why use a word at all if you don’t want it heard... and willow stands a better chance.
"I Wish.........." I guess the moral of Into The Woods is Be Careful What You Wish For and how you fulfill it as well as Getting your way doesn't always end Happily Ever After. Also I was glad that Disney did not shy away from the darker roots of Fairytales to make this movie. I mean that we all should not scare children, but I think that "Fairytales" were almost sometimes "Cautionary Tales" To teach a moral.
A.)Little Red Riding Hood=Do not talk to or give out personal information to strangers.
B.)Jack and The Beanstalk=Eh? (Insert Moral Here.)
C.)Rapunzel=Do Not Steal, or Lie to your parents.
D.)Cinderella=(Step Family.) Do Not treat Family Members Shamefully.
Thats All I Can Think about. For Into The Woods's Tales That is.
for little shop, they did film the whole don't feed the plants ending, and it tested very poorly, so they changed it to the one with the dream house. i've seen the original ending on youtube, and i think they let it go on too long anyway. as far as a play's curtain call letting you know the actors are all ok, i do know that in the film "the bad seed". they had the girl struck by lightning, but had the actors come out for a bow at the end as their names were announced, then the bad seed girl got spanked by the mother.
Thanks for your thoughts! As I was fortunate to perform as the Prince's Steward, which they almost diminished in the movie, the nuances in the musical are definitely lost in the movie form.Keep your reviews coming!!!
bout your thoughts on the Baker telling the story at the end, and being the narrator from the beginning, I agree that the same feeling isn't felt as the stage version. But I think a different feeling is felt. I think, when you get to the end and the Baker is telling the story to the child, you think, "Oh, wait. We've been watching the story all along as the Baker is telling it to his child." That's what I got from it.
It's so nice to see a review from someone who knows the stage show , agree wholeheartedly with your opinion.
I really liked your opinions,and I enjoy watching you videos with your comentary, it is just amazing
One thing I noticed was when the movie decided to switch Jack carrying around the golden egg instead of the hen. That’s okay but then during Your Fault in the movie, they still say “did you have to go get that hen”. Maybe a small mistake they didn’t catch? I just think it’s sorta funny!
I'm guessing they changed hazel tree to willow tree because willow trees look cool on film and they could get a real dope ass willow tree
(First of all, sorry for my English, but I'm Spanish)
I agree in all it's said, but, I don't know if you'll agree with me, I think the hugest error in the movie (which I liked, anyway) is that the second act, when it's supposed to tell all of the philosophical and psychological issues (the bad one being the apparently fair one, the suffering of the people we hurt, the marital doubts of the princes and all of those not-so-fairy-happiness stuff), is cut to half hour. I think that not only makes the plot as a simple fairy-magical story with a weak dosis of reality at the end, but also makes people who has not seen the show (I know I'm talking like this I´ve-seen-the-show-and-you-haven't people, but fuck it...) think that this final half hour could be cut. And I think it's a great pity don't let people enjoy the complexity of this master piece and let them see a good Disney movie with great score but with a weak dark ending.
Manuel Pico no puedo creer que inglés no sea tu idioma primera. mi español no es como tu inglés
Fantastic video! I was inspired by your channel to finally start making RUclips videos about Musical Theatre! Keep up the good work 😊
Using the "you" in Steps of the Palace is better imo. It just represents how detached Cinderella is from the whole thing.
I've first watched Into The Woods in cinema, and a hated. After years i gived a shot to the 1981 Broadway musical, and i fallen in love.
First, I am subscribing mainly because you are a RUclips man-crush. Secondly, love your videos. Thirdly, don't know if it has been mentioned before (I haven't read very far in the comments), but I think the main reason Rapunzel wasn't killed in the movie is because in 2010, Rapunzel became a Disney princess in TANGLED. They couldn't very well kill off one of their princesses four years later. Little girls the world over would be crying!