Play of the Week: Into the Woods

Stephen Sondheim wrote a ringer in this one. Into the Woods interweaves the classic fairy tales Cinderella, Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel, and Little Red Riding Hood woven together with the tale of the Baker and his wife. The play is an adult fairy tale that not only juxtaposes the stories with our own lives, it explores beyond "happily ever after" in the second act once all the characters have received their wish and now have to live with it.

The story is wonderfully self aware. Characters are often able to notice things that don't make sense and would normally be taken for granted in a fairy tale. There is also an omnipotent narrator who is able to interact with the characters to some extent. The characters eventually decide that they don't like the story he is telling, take matters into their own hands, and sacrifice him to a giant.

The overall result is a story that is very intelligent and very meaningful. The journey is a loss of innocence and growing into the responsibilities we all face as adults. Wishes come with a price, part of which is understanding. Is it better to fully know the dark secrets of the woods or to live in bliss and ignorance on its boundaries?

And you think of all of the things you've seen
And you wish that you could live in between
And you're back again only different than before
Not 'till the sky.
There are Giants in the Sky.

Theatre & Movies

Every time Disney releases a new stage musical everyone groans a little. Some have been successful, some haven't: Beauty and the Beast, Lion King, The Little Mermaid, and Mary Poppins. The fad has caught on. Now there is Spamalot, The Young Frankenstein, The Producers, Legally Blonde the Musical, and Shrek as well. While we don't necessarily need these stage adaptations of classic movies. The movies have all been very successful in their own right so why do we need a live theatre version?

Well theatre and the movies have always had a close relationship ever since film began filterin into our culture during the early half of the Twentieth Century. Many plays have been made in to movies: Inherit the Wind, A Streetcar Named Desire, Doubt, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, The Sound of Music, West Side Story, and countless adaptations of Shakespare just to name a few. The cross over has pro's and con's of course. With the film, you are able to expose a large number of people to the script that otherwise would not get to see it. Few of use are able to travel to Broadway to see the new and important plays with excellent actors. The cinema allows us to see great actors in great roles in our home towns.

However, we loose two very important things. The first is the live performance aspect of theatre. No matter how good a film performance is, it cannot match the magic of being in the same room with the actors. On top of that this allows for grown and variability. Unlike film, no two performances are ever exactly the same. There is room for growth, change, exploration, and failure. A theatrical performance is a living organism where as a film is a archival copy.

So why are we so obsessed now with bringing movies to the stage? Well there is of course the box office draw - money after all makes the world go 'round. The living performance aspect isn't so much an asset in this circumstance as everyone going to the show is comparing the live production to the movie. And if you will note, most of these movies brought to the stage are being brought as musicals.

In the end, the audience must ask themselves why they want to go to the theatre. If it is simply to feel entertained and go home feeling good about themselves, does it really matter how that is accomplished? If you want to take part in an experience - then there are a few more choices you have to make. And especially if we're talking about Broadway with its very expensive tickets, I'm sure anyone would rather sped over one hundred dollars on something you are sure that you will enjoy.

I'm Afraid of Virginia Woolf

My text analysis professor taught that in order to fully understand a play you have to understand the first line, last line, and title. What play then is a better candidate for this exercise than Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? The title doesn't really have a whole lot to do with the dramatic arc of the play other than the fact that it shows up a couple of times and with some dramatic irony at the end. (GEORGE: [sung] Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. MARTHA: I am George.)

Well, the parody song is not only vastly important, it's the key to the play.

Martha and George have build their marriage on a sand foundation. There were all the expectations for George in the supposed succession in the college. The welcome parties that they are expected to host and all the games they have to put their guests through. And most of all, their son and all the deception and baggage associated with that. Through out the course of the play, the two characters proceed to slash through all the lies and deception until there is nothing left. Nothing left, that is, except to be afraid of Virginia Woolf.

That fear of being fully exposed, standing naked in front of the other person is where we end the play. They are left with nothing but each other. In the end, isn't that what we are faced with? There are always defense mechanisms and evasions that keep us insulated from each other, from being hurt, and from fully opening up. George and Martha trod a violent and destructive path to catharsis, but there is some hope in the ending that they've finally broken through and their lives can change. Whether this fixes their relationship or not, we are never told. But something has to change and their relationship will never be the same again.