Discussion: Before <i>Into The Woods</i> Was A Disney Movie, It Was An AIDS Parable

Discussion for article #231582

It’s 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.

5 Likes

Disney has been turning horror shows into pablum since the 1920s. Mary Poppins wasn’t meant to be Julie Andrews either.

5 Likes

Thank you for this wonderful article. It’s important that modern-day audiences remember the historical context of this brilliant musical. I discovered ‘Into the Wood’ 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. We’ve all been lost in the woods at some point in our lives. Just remember, no one is alone.

I haven’t yet seen the Disney movie version as I’m 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.

“So we wait in the dark, until someone sets us free, and we’re brought into the light, and we’re back at the start. And I know things now, many valuable things, that I hadn’t 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.” -“I know Things Now,” Into the Woods

“No more giants waging war. Can’t 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 what’s even worse is still in store? All the children. All the giants. Just no more.” -“No More,” Into the Woods (cut from the movie)

8 Likes

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 past’s 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 Walt’s lingering fascism fairly early and while this film might more reflect Disney’s current inability to craft a good movie than any censorship of past sexual prejudice, today’s 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 right’s 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.

3 Likes

Nothing personal, dontcha know. It would have been political suicide if Reagan had responded to HIV as Gerald Ford did to the outbreak of Legionnaire’s 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 ‘Godfather Death,’ 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 “Exile of the Sons of Uisliu” in Ireland, or “Beowulf” 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 “proper instruction” to them; not the brothers Grimm.

2 Likes

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 it’s 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 “adultery” is only a “make out session” on screen, it is also made very clear that the characters take it as if it had been more than that. So–given that they knew younger children would be in the audience–the “less serious” to adults transgression is still one that children would understand as “a bad thing” and I don’t think it blunts the impact as much as the author perceives. If you don’t 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 80’s, 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.

2 Likes

Sure, but the stories themselves certainly were intended to instruct - i.e., the people telling them to their children as oral tradition knew that’s what they were doing, it wasn’t 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 isn’t 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: “We never meant this to be specific. The trouble with fables is everyone looks for symbolism.”


Actually, that’s the beauty of fables. They are innately symbolic. Sondheim behaves like the scolding rabbi who can’t resist condescension. Forum and SweeneyTodd avoid patronizing the audiences but the others are self-crippling.

1 Like

I won’t accept “politics” as an excuse to murder. RR didn’t lift a finger to help.

1 Like

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 wouldn’t 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 can’t 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.

1 Like

I’m always fascinated by these thought pieces that seek to understand the “true meaning” of INTO THE WOODS. I’m also frequently troubled by those who reduce the show to one enticingly narrow agenda. Particularly, those writers that never mention James Lapine – 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 “some institutions (?)” and “some critics” who have written what they thought was the show’s 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.

2 Likes

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 didn’t “murder” those who died of AIDS. But as you correctly state, he didn’t lift a finger to help or even acknowledge their existence.

LD