Into the Woods

After this film was released, the internet was favorable towards the movie and friends of mine also voiced their enjoyment. I knew “Into the Woods” was a musical but the preview gave me a false impression due to its lack of song clips. I therefore was expecting the kind of musical that Disney has done for decades with songs inserted into the story instead of them being the dominate form of communication. I do enjoy the kind of musicals where the singing is constant but the problem was that I was not ready for that kind of a musical with this show. It is hard to focus only on the cinematic adaptation of "Into the Woods" because of how much I disliked the story and songs in this movie. I will say that whenever I imagined watching a live performance of this movie on a stage, the story and songs became more enjoyable. Probably, this is one musical that should have stayed on the stage. I am not surprized at all that “The Phantom of the Opera” overshadowed this musical back in 1987. “Into the Woods” had great actors but poor characters; it had great singers but bad songs. Also, the conversion of the story to a family friendly version under the Disney banner did not help but rather hurt the experience.

I always start watching a movie with a few questions in mind such as “Who is the central character or characters?” and “What is the focus or central feature of the movie?” None of these questions were answered. I also require the other cinematic elements to serve the story and this was non-existent. Each character seemed to rob the others of screen time. For example, Cinderella’s plot did not aid the Baker plot as much as it got in the way of it. The argument could be made that the movie doesn’t need just one protagonist because it is an ensemble cast of characters but even ensemble casts have one central character. “The Avengers” has Tony Stark, “Toy Story 3” has Woody and “X-men” has Logan. In the case of Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast”, you sort of have two protagonists but their plotline is central in the whole story. For “Into the Woods”, the Bakers have the central plotline but not only is it deprived of attention by other plotlines and characters but Meryl Streep’s character is the advertised as the central character. If the Witch has that status though then why do the Bakers (and their plotline) have more screen time? The focus of the movie could have been on the songs but then director Rob Marshall’s desire for visual splendor robbed attention from the music. The tasks and heart-felt desires of all the characters established or begun at the start of the movie were all resolved at one point in the movie. Suddenly, a new crisis ruins everything and leads to plot points that make no sense. The narrative structure is also suddenly changed to a Shakespearean tragedy and it is unsettling. I know that the message of the movie is that you don’t always get exactly what you wished for but then my question is why the writers of the play allowed the characters to get what they wished for and then have it suddenly taken away. That worked for Shakespeare because the protagonist had a central character flaw that remained unresolved by the middle of his tragedies. The unresolved issues in this story such as the baker wondering if he can be a good father and the baker’s wife’s infatuation with the Prince were depicted as inconsequential in the first part of the movie so they didn’t need to be resolved in the film version. The reason for all of this is because the original play has two acts with an intermission. “Phantom of the Opera” also has two acts but there is much still to be resolved by the end of Act 1. The same can be said for “Les Miserables”. For “Into the Woods”, you could have left at the end of Act 1 and been satisfied. As mentioned, this narrative structure probably works better on the stage. The filmmakers appear to have shorten the story and adapted it without taking the time to make it work properly on screen. There were plot holes such as the fact that the second Prince is still able to visit Rapunzel despite the fact that part of her hair was cut. One part of the movie that did not fit was the Baker’s dad suddenly appearing for a brief moment in the climax? It was longer in the play and his shorted visit in the film version lacks the impact it was originally designed to have on the Baker. The biggest problem that occurred story-wise in the final half of the movie was the characters who suddenly died or left the story. The death of the Baker’s wife is so fast and was reacted in an equally fast-paced manner that is doesn’t make any sense and is unrealistic. The departure of the Witch seems just as illogical. The reason for these problems is that the studio and filmmakers tried to make the original play family friendly. This led to an extreme lack of resolution such as with Rapunzel and her Prince. If she had died, like she did in the play, it would have made more sense. Because of this change, the only reason for the inclusion of Rapunzel in this story is so that golden hair can be obtained for the spell. All the other characters have a role in act two so they should have eliminated Rapunzel and the need for her hair altogether. When you think about it, her hair didn't even work in the first place. The affair between the Prince and the Baker’s wife was also minimalized and that scene in the movie didn’t work either. One might ask why a conservative moviegoer like myself would not want a family friendly version. I answer that it must be done right. All of the important plot points that needed to be changed so as to make the story family friendly were important to the overall story so trying to change them meant tarnishing the story structure and logic. The adaption of the relationship between Red Riding Hood and the Wolf did not work either because a song was part of this scene and could not be deleted. I will say that the one song/scene that worked in the whole movie was the blame game.

I am starting to dislike Rob Marshall. I did not care for his take on “Pirates of the Caribbean” either. The cast of “Into the Woods” is impressive but the fact that they were in the movie which had problems affected their contribution. I would have liked it if Bernadette Peters had reprised her role and I also wanted Patrick Wilson in this movie as was originally planned. Johnny Depp’s role was so short and his character seemed to be the most entertaining in the whole movie. I thought that the reason why he was somewhat absent in the preview was that the filmmakers were saving something special for the audience. I was let down because of Depp’s lack of screen time. I was happy to see Daniel Huttlestone from “Les Miserables” in this musical. Frances de la Tour has been a giant before so that was good casting. The Oscar nominations that this movie received prove many of my points. Marshall's attention on the look of the film translated into nominations for production and costume design. Meryl Streep was nominated for her role but considering that this was her 19th nomination, the annoucement came at no surprise.

The wrong studio produced this movie. This was one musical it seems that could not be adapted for a younger audience. Some audience members say that they liked the crossover of fairy tales. What’s wrong with the “Shrek” franchise? Whenever a classic musical is adapted for the big screen, the trailer usually includes snippets of the songs. There were no snippets in any preview I saw. This my friends is false advertising. Overall, the film had a lot of problems with story structure, characters and focus. Those, in my opinion, are the most important elements of any movie.

3 Stars