B
BrethrenBoy
Guest
Anyone else sen this movie? I love the musical, so dragged my family off to see it. We loved it, and I thought it was one of the best stage to screen adaptations I’ve seen.
- Status
K
KP3243
Guest
I have yet to see it but Dr. Taylor Marshall was critical of it.
taylormarshall.com/2014/12/into-the-woods-movie-a-dads-critical-review.html
taylormarshall.com/2014/12/into-the-woods-movie-a-dads-critical-review.html
A
anon98328916
Guest
havent seen it
P
PietroPaolo
Guest
B
bisco
Guest
my daughter loved it, but she’s 34.
B
BrethrenBoy
Guest
I read his review, and have to respectfully disagree with him. First of all it’s not Disney changing the traditional narratives because happy endings are popular anymore or what not. As I mentioned in the OP the movie is placed on a Tony Award wining Sondheim musical from 1987. Despite its fairytale plot, it is definitely not for children. You can figure this out with a three second Google search. Yes there is adultery in it, but it is not viewed or treated as a good thing. I disagree with his interpretation of the lyrics of “No One is Alone”. The song is sung to characters who have just lost their parents. It’s not that they are just making up for themselves what is right and wrong, but that they will no longer be able to rely on their parents to tell them what is and isn’t. They’re going to have to figure it out themselves. Life is complicated, just because someone is x doesn’t automatically make them wrong or evil. As the old adage says you can’t judge a book by its cover. The song ends with a reminder that no one is truly alone. Personally, I see that as a reference to how God is always with us, as well as how we carry our parents’ legacy in us. The song then surges into another which serves as a reminder to be careful what you tell your children because they will listen.
D
DiZent
Guest
Loved the play. Our former music director was very talented and we had several “dinner theaters” performed by our own St. J Players. They did Into the Woods in 2008 - ours was pretty tame - and some people did bring their kids. One of the many things I miss since our music department went in a different direction. So yes, I want to see the movie.
M
Midwest88
Guest
I have to disagree. I don’t believe Soundeim is anyway religious, so interpreting the"no one is truly alone" as the presence of God would be, well, wrong. I will have to back Marshall in that it does advocate moral relativism to a degree and “make it up as you go along.” That is only song that kinds was off putting to me as I watched the film.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I haven’t watched the movie but I have seen two stage versions of the original Broadway show, which dates back to 1987. In general, the show certainly was meant to be subversive, as it is set up so that as Act I comes to a close, it seems the fairy tale characters all got happy endings, but Act II shows that the questionable measures they took to get there wind up coming back to bite them.
Apparently, from the reviews I’ve read the movie tones down much of the show’s content regarding sex and violence. I did not see the original show, too young for that, but the stage versions I’ve seen weren’t much worse than PG-13. No, I wouldn’t take little kids to see this movie, but I think teenagers and even some sophisticated pre-teens should be able to handle it.
However, some of the fairy tales the show refers to, such as Rapunzel, really were never that kid-friendly to begin with, which is likely one reason that Disney didn’t touch it in its “golden age”, since one of the main plot points is Rapunzel giving birth to twins after the Witch catches her with the Prince and drives her into the wilderness, which certainly implies she and the Prince had premarital sex. Not saying it was impossible for them to have married, perhaps the Prince could have found some wandering friar who asks no questions to climb into the tower and marry them, but unlikely.
I’ve also read criticisms that the Big Bad Wolf has a “pedophile vibe” in the movie (although I’ve also heard the original Broadway show made that parallel much more obvious), but it always seemed pretty obvious to me that the original Red Riding Hood tale was meant to teach the moral that “you shouldn’t take candy from strangers”. I recall one French adaptation that actually ends by warning the young girls reading it to be wary of the flattery and blandishments some of their suitors might use to lure them into danger the way the Wolf did to Red.
Now, from what I’ve heard, the Princes are depicted as womanizers in both the film and stage versions, but certainly this behavior is more realistic for them considering the time period - and as far as I can recall, although Cinderella’s prince does physically cheat on her in the show, there’s no proof Rapunzel’s prince actually did, although he and his brother prince do sing a song expressing an attraction to other princesses, the song does end with “oh well, back to wife”.
Anyway, I think the point was not just “in real life, most princes were womanizers who had tons of mistresses and bastards”, but that for both princes, they were attracted to Cinderella and Rapunzel mostly because they were such challenges, Cindy ran away and Rapunzel was stuck in a tower, and such an attraction obviously couldn’t be sustained over a long term. In the end, the princes wind up with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, and one of them states “the harder to wake, the better to have”.
Now, it seems that Dr. Marshall thinks the movie winds up promoting moral relativism (though he doesn’t actually use that term), but I never really took it that way, I think it was more about having the viewers question their assumptions about who is good and evil. I know some people find it somehow blasphemous to question the assumptions about good and evil in fairy tales, but though such tales DO teach an important lesion that “monsters can be defeated”, in RL, who really needs to defeat 100% evil monsters? Most of us have more human adversaries, most of whom are not so obviously evil that we’re justified in using any means necessary to take them out.
I also find it interesting that many high school productions stage only Act I, and that this is considered the more “family-friendly” part of the show, but even in Act I, one of the characters sings a song about just going out and taking what she wants and using whatever means possible to do so – and at the end of Act I, it seems this selfish approach to life “worked”. It’s only when we get to Act II that we find out it didn’t. Now, granted, we could argue that the adultery aspects weren’t essential, but from what I understand, the movie version tones down the adultery to just a kiss. (Which obviously would still be considered adultery for most Christians, but likely more forgiveable than actual sex.)
Apparently, from the reviews I’ve read the movie tones down much of the show’s content regarding sex and violence. I did not see the original show, too young for that, but the stage versions I’ve seen weren’t much worse than PG-13. No, I wouldn’t take little kids to see this movie, but I think teenagers and even some sophisticated pre-teens should be able to handle it.
However, some of the fairy tales the show refers to, such as Rapunzel, really were never that kid-friendly to begin with, which is likely one reason that Disney didn’t touch it in its “golden age”, since one of the main plot points is Rapunzel giving birth to twins after the Witch catches her with the Prince and drives her into the wilderness, which certainly implies she and the Prince had premarital sex. Not saying it was impossible for them to have married, perhaps the Prince could have found some wandering friar who asks no questions to climb into the tower and marry them, but unlikely.
I’ve also read criticisms that the Big Bad Wolf has a “pedophile vibe” in the movie (although I’ve also heard the original Broadway show made that parallel much more obvious), but it always seemed pretty obvious to me that the original Red Riding Hood tale was meant to teach the moral that “you shouldn’t take candy from strangers”. I recall one French adaptation that actually ends by warning the young girls reading it to be wary of the flattery and blandishments some of their suitors might use to lure them into danger the way the Wolf did to Red.
Now, from what I’ve heard, the Princes are depicted as womanizers in both the film and stage versions, but certainly this behavior is more realistic for them considering the time period - and as far as I can recall, although Cinderella’s prince does physically cheat on her in the show, there’s no proof Rapunzel’s prince actually did, although he and his brother prince do sing a song expressing an attraction to other princesses, the song does end with “oh well, back to wife”.
Anyway, I think the point was not just “in real life, most princes were womanizers who had tons of mistresses and bastards”, but that for both princes, they were attracted to Cinderella and Rapunzel mostly because they were such challenges, Cindy ran away and Rapunzel was stuck in a tower, and such an attraction obviously couldn’t be sustained over a long term. In the end, the princes wind up with Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, and one of them states “the harder to wake, the better to have”.
Now, it seems that Dr. Marshall thinks the movie winds up promoting moral relativism (though he doesn’t actually use that term), but I never really took it that way, I think it was more about having the viewers question their assumptions about who is good and evil. I know some people find it somehow blasphemous to question the assumptions about good and evil in fairy tales, but though such tales DO teach an important lesion that “monsters can be defeated”, in RL, who really needs to defeat 100% evil monsters? Most of us have more human adversaries, most of whom are not so obviously evil that we’re justified in using any means necessary to take them out.
I also find it interesting that many high school productions stage only Act I, and that this is considered the more “family-friendly” part of the show, but even in Act I, one of the characters sings a song about just going out and taking what she wants and using whatever means possible to do so – and at the end of Act I, it seems this selfish approach to life “worked”. It’s only when we get to Act II that we find out it didn’t. Now, granted, we could argue that the adultery aspects weren’t essential, but from what I understand, the movie version tones down the adultery to just a kiss. (Which obviously would still be considered adultery for most Christians, but likely more forgiveable than actual sex.)
J
jmcrae
Guest
I saw that review, and I think he’s starting with the wrong assumptions.
- It’s not a kids’ movie; the story was never meant for kids; the stage production was never marketed to children. Just because it says, “Disney” doesn’t mean it’s for kids.
- Yes, it’s a dark story, and it proposes post-modern morality. It was created in the 1980s when that sort of thing was fashionable, and was considered high culture. It’s also intended to be a reminder that life is not a fairy tale - not even for those who live in fairy tales.
L
louisak
Guest
A couple of observations here. First, the movie and the stage show are two different things. Just because the stage production wasn’t marketed to children, that proves nothing about whether the movie is intended for children, or is being marketed to children.
The MPAA rating is PG. I think most people will conclude that it is therefore suitable for children. There aren’t many G-rated movies any more; PG has become the standard rating for a kids’ movie. You could argue that was not the intention of the filmmakers; but people who make movies in Hollywood understand how these things work. If they are making a movie that might seem like it could be a kids’ movie, but they don’t really want it to be a kids’ movie, they usually manage to include content that will drive the rating up at least to PG-13, just to make sure they get the attention of the adults who are their true intended audience. I therefore find it difficult to believe that the folks behind this picture aren’t aiming it at kids. The fact that it is released by Disney reinforces that conclusion. Which brings me to this point…
I think that statement is debatable. How many Disney movies can you think of that were NOT aimed at children? I would like to be proved wrong, but I’m having a hard time thinking of any.
M
Midwest88
Guest
Come to think of it, many of the Disney films that are considered classics are more dark than people give it credit. Many beloved characters deal with abandonment, sibling bullying, mockery and isolation. Those are serious personal issues. I think the singing and hopeful nature the protagonists that comes across kind of make people think Disney animated films are automatically “light.” Far from it. Disney animated films are much more deeper and ‘mature’ than the ever popular “Disneyfication” many jab the studio with.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I don’t think Disney has made an actual kids’ film in a really long time, actually. Anything I’ve seen recently is aimed at teens and young adults, rather than children.
The last one I saw that was suitable for five year olds was Herby the Love Bug.
K
KP3243
Guest
RL, who really needs to defeat 100% evil monsters? Most of us have more human adversaries, most of whom are not so obviously evil that we’re justified in using any means necessary to take them out.
To be fair in real life man is both body and soul and some agents of evil do need to be defeated 100% or they will destroy you.BTW I think Prince Charming is a womanizer, pretty sure he is married to Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.
L
louisak
Guest
I think you’re right about the general trend, although we might disagree about specific films. However, I just want to point out that “aimed at children” and “suitable for children” are two different things. There are a lot of people in our society who want to corrupt our young, and that includes some people who make movies. Many of the movies which are marketed to children nowadays include elements that you and I would consider unsuitable for the young (or possibly for anybody).
I still think that Into the Woods looks as if it is being marketed to children. The Disney brand and the PG rating make that a nearly inescapable conclusion for me. Whether it is actually suitable for children, as I have said, is a different question.
K
Kit15
Guest
I had the pleasure of going to see the movie without any previous knowledge of the original play. And I found the intertwining of the various fairy tales so engrossing I was actually emotionally ready to accept the end of Act 1 as the end of the movie.
Oops…
Anyway I thought Meryl Streep was amazing. I know she has a reputation for being a great actress but the movies I usually watch and the movies she’s in don’t normally cross paths.
Oops…
Anyway I thought Meryl Streep was amazing. I know she has a reputation for being a great actress but the movies I usually watch and the movies she’s in don’t normally cross paths.
G
Godly_Girl
Guest
I haven’t seen the play, but I’ve seen the movie and loved it! 
S
SunnyMistyCat
Guest
I love Diseny Movies!! There are some many wonderful life lessons to be learned from them! They are terrific and classic! I haven’t seen Into The Woods yet, I’ve been focusing on the classics this week with #VOD - yay! Disney for keeping their classics readily accessible via DisneyFamilyMovies.com #disneyclssics
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
My daughter-in-law took my grandson. She remarked if she would have known there would be that much singing she wouldn’t have gone.
I didn’t think it was a musical either.
I didn’t think it was a musical either.
C
CaptFun
Guest
Your first paragraph summed up how I viewed Into the Woods when I first saw it as a play on (I think) PBS years ago. Wonderful, happy, little fantasy with a happy ending.
THEN I was surprised at the second act … where happily ever afters met with real life problems in the aftermath.
Some people probably were appalled at suddenly having things like adultery (or a day of reckoning for the previously justified thefts, etc.) sully their happy endings … but there were moments of profundity. I particularly was fascinated with the American Opera style adopted in the song “Your Fault” (which I previously posted a link to).
If you’ve ever been a part of a disaster - and had to deal with folks whose first priority was fixing the blame (rather than quickly remedying the mess) this song and situation will have a ring of truth to it.
On the science fiction front … one wonders whether a high speed pregnancy (as depicted in the play) will be the next wonder of the future to be accomplished in our time.
- Status