I’ve spent a good portion of the summer reading quite a bit
of negative press regarding the current revival of Into The Woods. Ben Brantley
of the NY Times wrote a very critical review of the production and Michael Reidel
of the NY Post has spent (what seems like) the entire summer bashing the show at every turn. This Saturday I finally
got to see the show and I have to say I really enjoyed it!
It was quite a moment at intermission as it seemed that
everyone around me was saying a variation of the same thing – “I don’t
understand why the review was so bad”.
Now don’t get me wrong– this isn’t your parents’ production
of Into The Woods and apparently
that’s the problem. After seeing the
show, I went and read the NY Times article to try to see what the problem
was. Without giving anything away for
anyone who hasn’t seen it yet and still wants to (It runs until September 1st)
it seems that his biggest issue with the show is that it’s not the
original. I know there are many Woods purists out there, and even more Sondheim
purists but wasn’t anything learned from the last revival in 2002. That one tried to be the original and was
panned for being a copy. The show
has not been grossly re-orchestrated.
The costumes have a more contemporary edge to them (I personally loved
Little Red’s red bike helmet and red jacket with matching cowgirl boots) but
you never get lost as to what show you’re watching.
The Public Theater has been brought to task for mounting a
show with obvious Broadway aspirations.
Another complaint was that it did originate the production but instead moved it from England (which isn't entirely true - it's more of a recreation with an American cast). Ummm, excuse me? This is being
labeled bad thing? Welcome to producing on Broadway in the 21st Century. In this day and age, with 3 non for profit
theater companies controlling 5 Broadway stages, a company staging a revival of
a TONY AWARD WINNING SHOW is being vilified for wanting to transfer it to
Broadway? Seriously? That's because no other theater company in the city has EVER transferred a show from across the pond and presented it on Broadway.
Let’s all try to place ourselves in the shoes of Oskar Eustis (Artistic Director of The Public Theater). Imagine that you hear about a new
production of Into The Woods in
England that is being staged in an open air theater in a park. “Hmmm, I have an open air theater in a park”,
says Oskar, “Maybe I should take a look at it". I know I'm over-simplifying it but I'm sure that I'm not that far from the truth.
Theater people are catty. We like to dish. And most of us are snobs. We all know we're so much better than our friends in Hollywood (but we'd change paychecks with them in a heartbeat!). For some reason we feel entitled to deconstruct every inch of every production we see. Analyze it to its deepest core -- because we feel as theater people we're suppose to be smarter than everyone else in the audience and we're expected to identify every nuance of the show.
Hate to burst your bubble - but that's so not the case. There's a reason it's called the entertainment business. It's ok to enjoy a show on its own merits. It doesn't have to live up to expectations set by previous productions. It just has to entertain. What I saw last Saturday night entertained 1,872 people. That's pretty impressive!
Next time you go see a play or musical, ask yourself one simple question - Did you like it? It's a yes or no question. Either you engage and respond positively or you're disengage and don't respond to it. No dissertation required or expected.
Since this blog was a bit longer than planned, here's the cliff notes summary:
- l don't know if Ben Brantley actually dislikes kids or not
- Giving more people a chance to see a production shouldn't be frowned upon
- Theater people are all secretly jealous of people who work in TV and Film
- It's ok to just like a show
I'm off on vacation -- see you next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment