Discussion for article #231582
Itâs worth remembering that Reagan went out of his way to kill as many homosexuals as possible by providing no funding for research, then lying that he did.
Disney has been turning horror shows into pablum since the 1920s. Mary Poppins wasnât meant to be Julie Andrews either.
Thank you for this wonderful article. Itâs important that modern-day audiences remember the historical context of this brilliant musical. I discovered âInto the Woodâ months after being diagnosed with HIV and it certainly resonated with me at the time- more so than other texts that are explicitly about HIV or the AIDS crisis. Anyone that has suffered the loss of a loved one, or a personal setback, or suffered seemingly insurmountable consequences in this world will find tremendous value in this musical. Weâve all been lost in the woods at some point in our lives. Just remember, no one is alone.
I havenât yet seen the Disney movie version as Iâm too hesitant that it will dilute the raw power and personal significance of the original. I encourage everyone to seek out the original Broadway production, which is available on DVD as a wonderfully filmed live performance.
âSo we wait in the dark, until someone sets us free, and weâre brought into the light, and weâre back at the start. And I know things now, many valuable things, that I hadnât known before. Do not put your faith In a cape and a hood. They will not protect you the way that they should. And take extra care with strangers, even flowers have their dangers. And though scary is exciting, nice is different than good.â -âI know Things Now,â Into the Woods
âNo more giants waging war. Canât we just pursue out lives with our children and our wives? But 'til that happy day arrives, how do you ignore- all the witches, all the curses,all the wolves, all the lies,the false hopes, the goodbyes, the reverses, all the wondering if whatâs even worse is still in store? All the children. All the giants. Just no more.â -âNo More,â Into the Woods (cut from the movie)
The trouble with fables
First, thanks for the article.
Yes, America is in a much different place than it was in 1987 but taboos have simply been shuffled about on the game board to minimize the pastâs centuries-old, religion-induced prejudice and just as ancient fears of disease and death.
Though Disney recognized the economic potential of the gay market and moderated Waltâs lingering fascism fairly early and while this film might more reflect Disneyâs current inability to craft a good movie than any censorship of past sexual prejudice, todayâs corporate state across the board and large chunks of the population have a vested interest in keeping their dark involvements in an ugly past from the happy, peppy minds of their gung-ho, young gay employees and fellow citizens and gay offspring.
The rightâs relative silence since the marriage tide turned more reflects the hugeness of their own closet-inhabiting membership, a shared element not not present with these other groups and thus incapable of partially moderating their hatred of black people, foreigners and women.
Nothing personal, dontcha know. It would have been political suicide if Reagan had responded to HIV as Gerald Ford did to the outbreak of Legionnaireâs Disease in 1976.
Just a matter of NOKD. Not our kind, dear.
LD
The Brothers Grimm did not write their fairy tales to instruct; they wrote them to preserve such folklore before it disappeared. It was a fundamental project of European Romanticism in the early 19th century.
Instruction came later, in Victorian England. The brothers were German, and they recorded, although they edited, the stories they gathered. Some are instructional in grim (sorry!) ways, like âGodfather Death,â where the callow youth cheats death one too many times and pays the inevitable price for his hubris. But most are simply stories as they were told, with all the violence and gore attendant on all stories told in pre-literate cultures, like âExile of the Sons of Uisliuâ in Ireland, or âBeowulfâ in England. Such stories did not instruct for Victorian moral purpose, but simply to say: this is how life is, and sometimes, justice is done, rough justice though it may be.
Disney bowdlerized every fairy tale he could get his hands on. He added the idea of âproper instructionâ to them; not the brothers Grimm.
What was she meant to be? A family destroyer or secret agent of the Nazis?
Man, what a drag.
I saw the movie, and though itâs true that they softened the darkness of Act II, the way the film is promoted will still make the dark turn quite a shock to many people. Though the âadulteryâ is only a âmake out sessionâ on screen, it is also made very clear that the characters take it as if it had been more than that. Soâgiven that they knew younger children would be in the audienceâthe âless seriousâ to adults transgression is still one that children would understand as âa bad thingâ and I donât think it blunts the impact as much as the author perceives. If you donât have the play depiction beside it for comparison, the transgression is bad enough to make the point. So, while it might not stand as starkly as a parable for AIDS in the 80âs, I think that it more than successfully gets the message across in a broader sense, and in a way that can reach parts of the audience who would be a bit too young for that specific message. It does a very good job of showing dire consequences for those who got what they thought they wanted.
Sure, but the stories themselves certainly were intended to instruct - i.e., the people telling them to their children as oral tradition knew thatâs what they were doing, it wasnât just something rattled off at bedtime.
She is neither pretty or good natured in the books. She is sharp with the children and when they ask about the adventures afterward she pretends they never happened. She isnât unkind, but she is much more of a disciplinarian than would be considered proper today. The books are infinitely superior to the movie.
Just saw the Roundabout/Fiasco Theatre revival last night. Peak pathos. Excellent production.
Sondheim: âWe never meant this to be specific. The trouble with fables is everyone looks for symbolism.â
Actually, thatâs the beauty of fables. They are innately symbolic. Sondheim behaves like the scolding rabbi who canât resist condescension. Forum and SweeneyTodd avoid patronizing the audiences but the others are self-crippling.
I wonât accept âpoliticsâ as an excuse to murder. RR didnât lift a finger to help.
Why do you say the stories were meant to instruct. Some, perhaps were, but many of them existed to console, fascinate, distract and otherwise entertain. A didactic story teller wouldnât get a lot of repeat business.
I saw the play when it came out and was entertained, but found it rather cold. It was hard to engage with the characters. I had the same problem with Company. Sondheim and I are on different wavelengths.
The second act tried to be touching, but the first act never really established why I would be concerned with the characters, so it was just annoying. (Maybe I should say tantalizing as I kept getting the impression that it was just shy of something more.)
I did see the two Angels in America plays when they came out, and they were completely absorbing. I remember leaving the theater in a daze. I canât even imagine an effective movie version.
Having seen the stage production numerous times, i found the movie version exactly what i expected, and more than I hoped. It was true to the story and the intent but by necessity more palatable for the general public. I loved the movie, and did not find that the changes from the stage detracted from the message, although it was clearly not as somber. Which would have ruined the reviews and many fewer people would see this excellent picture. Oh and the casting was brilliant.
Iâm always fascinated by these thought pieces that seek to understand the âtrue meaningâ of INTO THE WOODS. Iâm also frequently troubled by those who reduce the show to one enticingly narrow agenda. Particularly, those writers that never mention James Lapine â who actually wrote the show and, yes, in close collaboration with Steven, decided what the music might be about and where it would be effective. You refer to âsome institutions (?)â and âsome criticsâ who have written what they thought was the showâs meaning and their dissatisfaction with Act 2. Personally, I have always thought the show is about lots of big things, but the show is also certainly open to various interpretations because, just like life, complexity is oddly accurate. I have also always loved Act 2. I loved it in our original production and I loved in the movie.
And, just in case your snark meter was not calibrated as you read my post, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Gays were, and still are in the hearts of many God-fearing, bigoted, ick-factor types, not worthy of consideration, only as expendable condemnants.
Reagan was not a man of courage. His success was due to his ability to rally folks around personal greed and racism. He didnât âmurderâ those who died of AIDS. But as you correctly state, he didnât lift a finger to help or even acknowledge their existence.
LD