INTO THE WOODS (Rob Marshall, 2014)

**tabuno** · 12-25-2014, 10:48 PM

Like Chicago (2002), Into The Woods was directed by Rob Marshall, nominated for Golden Globe Best Comedy or Musical, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actress. Into The Woods also shares the same distinction as a musical with last year's Les Miserable (2012) in the Golden Globes Best Comedy or Musical and Best Supporting Actress but unlike Les Miserable with its use of actual actors' live singing as part of the production whereas Into The Woods uses the more traditional voice over for the actors' singing parts. The controversial use of voice overs in Into The Woods is much more pronounced and highlights the problem with its use in musicals. One of the potential strengths of Into The Woods is the Broadway Musical experience portrayed on the big screen with its powerful lyrics and melodies that are almost seamlessly interwoven throughout the film. It's not a far stretch to imagine this movie as being depicted on an amazing fantastical huge, continuous magical Broadway stage enhanced by special effects that offer a realism with its digital quality. Unfortunately, a major problem with this cinematic version is in the singing presentation where it become more apparent that this is not a live Broadway production but an artificial use of dubbing that only distances the audience from the thrill of an imaginary live experience. As I've argued before Les Miserable was inherently more powerful for its closer adherence to the Broadway experience of live audience performances making it more authentic and visceral and challenging.

**Johann** · 12-27-2014, 12:12 PM

I want to see this. I loved Chicago. I saw the posters while I was in Toronto. I saw this musical in Edmonton in the late 90's at the Citadel theatre. Loved it.

**tabuno** · 12-27-2014, 03:55 PM

The particular element that Into The Woods excelled at was how the dialogue flowed into the singing, it was seamless. I also recall that there also seemed to be more singing than talking. The movie really felt like a Broadway musical that took good advantage of the medium of film which taken together enhanced the overall effect.

**cinemabon** · 12-30-2014, 10:32 AM

Based on the 1987 Broadway musical by Steven Sondheim, "Into the Woods" directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago, film version) is the Disney version of the same material. While one would believe Disney destroyed the Broadway version to keep its family image untarnished, Marshall presented a reading to Disney executives in 2012 with the full cast leaving most of the original score intact. Disney gave their approval and green lighted the project. Behind the scenes, Marshall and Sondheim had already recruited Meryl Streep, who had expressed interest in the material as early as the late 90's. A big admirer of Sondheim, Streep felt humbled when asked to his New York apartment in 2011 to hear the 84 year old (now) sing a shaky version of a song he wanted to add to the movie. Streep offered her copy of the libretto to him and asked for his autograph. In addition to his name, Sondheim wrote a few words. Streep glanced down and read: "Don't fuck it up!"

"Into the Woods" is Sondheim's adaptation of several Grimm fairy tales - Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Rapunzel, and others. The stories intersect in the woods, where the actors express their fears, anxieties, aspirations, etc in song. The play won two Tonys for best book and score, adding to Sondheim's seven total wins (eight if you include his Lifetime Achievement). The opening assemble piece also introduces us to the principle players - Streep plays the witch next door (who's part is interwoven into all of the stories); Anna Kendrick as Cinderella - worried more about her ability to socialize than she is being a scullery maid; Daniel Huttlestone as Jack (Les Miserables) and Tracy Ullman as his mother; James Corden (film debut) and Emily Blunt (Looper, etc) as the baker and his wife - wanting a child to complete their marriage; and Lilla Crawford (14 and her film debut) as Red Riding Hood with Johnny Depp playing the lecherous wolf; Chris Pine (Star Trek) and Billy Magnussen play the two prince Charming's that woo Cinderella and Rapunzel respectively. The cast is perfect for their parts in just about every way, from their vocal range to their acting talent. The sets are sumptuous. The orchestrations subtle. The makeup is not overdone. The music seamlessly interacts with the material in a fashion consistent with the same way musicals have been filmed since the beginning of the genre. I have no problem with that and find its use totally acceptable and not controversial.

The only problem I found with the filmed version of the Broadway play was one of adaptation. Some of the sexuality is toned down to the point of non-existence. The scenes between the wolf and RR Hood are very tame. Likewise the infidelity between Prince Charming (Chris Pine) and the Baker's wife (Emily Blunt) is toned down to a kiss. Missing are the contrasts in morality that help to make the play a poignant one. The surprising performance comes from Meryl Streep. For years, she specifically turned down "witch" roles that she said were too demeaning to her as an actress. I couldn't agree with her more. But when it came to doing the Sondheim material, Streep practically begged for the part. She outshines her fellow performers by leaps and bounds. For being 64, she energetic, operatic, and full of rich characterizations - the same level of professionalism she's brought to every role she's ever performed.

Overall - despite its length - I found "Into the Woods" a brilliant adaptation of a great Broadway musical. The rich supporting cast bring a wealth of performances to their parts. As a proponent of musicals to this website for over the last decade, I highly recommend "Into the Woods" as a delightful evening at the movies and look forward to its many nominations come award season.

**tabuno** · 12-30-2014, 12:47 PM

It is amazing how Cinemabon can capture the historical, the summary, and the critique in his complete movie review. It would take me a month to capture his review in words. I wonder how long it took Cinemabon. It's one reason I didn't even try, it would have been a waste of time.

**cinemabon** · 12-31-2014, 02:19 AM

Ever since I saw my first film in the 1950's, the medium has intrigued me. I've been to many film festivals. One of my best friend's in high school - his father owned a movie theater. I studied film in college. I went to Hollywood and worked in the industry for several years. I learned the entire process from the writing of screenplays, to the pitch, to the production, to the set, to editing, to the final cut, to distribution, and even how to critique the finished product. I came to this website - at Peter's behest - and joined a great group of cinemaphiles (which isn't a word but more a club, I guess). We who love the movies, love the people who make the movies, and befriend others who have the same vibe - come to this forum, mostly to express our admiration for those films we find superior in some ways and perhaps other films that surpass our expectations. All of the information I found about "Into the Woods" I discovered within ten minutes. I formulated my review based on articles I read about the movie from sources like Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The New Yorker, The New York Times, The Village Voice, and other sources.

As to musicals... I love music. I majored in music (along with film) and started out a music major (along with drama). I had a supporting role on stage and sang at the age of 3. I starred in my first full stage production at 12 and performed in Off Broadway shows as a teenager. I started out doing tech in summerstock and later auditioned for a reoccurring role in two summerstock runs. As a music major, I learn to play the piano, further developed my voice with lessons, choir, and a madrigal group. I performed in college musicals. I was lead singer of a rock band. I am currently singing with a local "boy" group. We do A cappella. The other night at a party, a friend challenged me to sing at least one song from every musical he could name. I sang four from every musical he named. For being someone from the Middle East (although educated at Cambridge), he's very astute.

The conditions for singing live in front of a camera are not ideal. For one (as discovered when movies were first made), it's difficult to mic someone properly. Two, you must use playback music that is piped into the set. This can be problem if there is feedback. Three, pitch. It's very hard to hear if you're singing in the right key. Four, acoustics. Soundstages are not ideal conditions for capturing voices and worse for sung voices. That is why many scenes - even those for Les Mis!!! - are later dubbed over because of poor sound during the take. And six (but I could go on), the strain on the actor's voice is not worth it. You're taking a chance with a property that can be costing you millions of dollars. What if they strain their voice and come down with laryngitis. You have to close your shoot and that costs money. "Les Mis" was an experiment and not the "wave of the future." In many ways, it fails, miserably, as a musical. Screeching at the camera for effect is not singing.

Let me go further, if you believe I haven't gone far enough. My esteemed colleagues - Chris and Oscar - tend to focus on independent and foreign films. Johann loves science fiction. In all of the years reviewing here, I am the only proponent of the musical genre and have written many reviews on the subject. I admire pioneers, innovators, and those who wish to push the technical boundaries of film making. We have discussed - in open forums - the work of many auteurs. However, during that time I have entreated my fellow film enthusiasts to discuss the musical genre but to no success. It fell out of favor in the late 1970's and only a handful of musical films have made a successful in road - Chicago being the most prominent of the recent batch (Moulin Rouge made a big splash and then quickly faded from memory - also an innovative style; same with Mama Mia! - fun interesting to watch but soon forgotten). Disney did more for the musical than Broadway or Hollywood by presenting a series of films that culminated in the only animated feature ever nominated for Best Picture of the year - Beauty and the Beast. Little Mermaid, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, and Beauty and the Beast were all musicals in the Broadway sense with memorable tunes. I'd say because of them you could have a "Phantom" or "Les Mis" succeed in the 1990's where Broadway may have gone the way of print journalism.

Within the past fifteen years, not only has Broadway come back from the edge, but the film musical has seen a slight comeback as well. Where "Into the Woods" probably would have closed after one week, Box Office Mojo reports that "Into the Woods" has already made its money back - so its successful in that regard (50 million budget/has made 52 million so far in one week). For a film musical in 2014, that's a remarkable statistic and one that bears noting of skeptics. With box office returns like that (better than "The Imitation Game" or even "Exodus"), the genre is alive and well and thriving in its current form, irregardless of innovation.

**Chris Knipp** · 01-02-2015, 12:58 PM

cinemabon: Thank you for your informed and positive assessment of Rob Marshall's generally well-reviewed Into the Woods. I would suggest to you that Meryl Streep has been playing witch-like wicked, evil, bitchy characters for for a while now; she has moved on from her earlier cuddly lovablity. Her Anna Wintour-surrogate character (Miranda Priestly) in The Devil Wears Prada is a juicy one; so is the borderline harridan Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady, and the unbearable, drugged-up doyenne of the Oklahoma family in August, Osage County. Most recently, this year, the Chief Elder in The Giver definitely is essentially a sci-fi nightmare witch. These roles should be noted before saying she has been "wisely" holding off from "'witch' roles up to the fairy-tale witch of Into the Woods. Yes, she has not played a character flat-out called "Witch" till now.

I'm curious. Like the Wikipedia article on Sondheim's musical (and you said you gathered your information in 15 minutes), you list as the Grimm fairy tales it's a mashup of Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack in the Beanstalk and Rapunzel, "and others." I'd like to know what those "others" are, and where they come in. Does anybody know?

**cinemabon** · 01-02-2015, 08:06 PM

The witch doesn't appear in any of those stories. I'm uncertain as to the story of the baking couple. I'm not sure if Sondheim borrowed from Rumpelstiltskin or Hansel and Gretel. In Jack and Beanstalk, the harp puts the giant to sleep, but Jack never uses the harp for that purpose. The giant that harasses them is the giant's sister, which also doesn't appear in the story. Other oddities... The witch turns into a tar pit after casting one too many magic beans. Cinderella's prince is unfaithful. Cinderella becomes the baker's housekeeper - "I like to clean." So many parts of the story didn't add up but did create a tale of morality outside the fables. I'm certain there must exist an in-depth analysis made of Sondheim's play. I concentrated on the film and its production.

If you like, I can retrace my steps and find the articles I read before I wrote my review. One was a link from a tablet that I transferred to my laptop. One came from The Hollywood Reporter. I think another came from the LA Times.

**tabuno** · 01-02-2015, 11:22 PM

Cinemabon offers up a very technical and somewhat convincing arguments against the use of live singing in musical film productions. Nevertheless, almost all of his arguments are based on the technical and economic problems not the aesthetic quality of the outcome of the use of live singing that syncs the mouth, the aliveness, with the vibratory energy that comes from Broadway productions. The future of film apparently has been to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on set designs, specials effects, 3-D, and visual improvements to make the movie going experience an immersive, vicarious authentic experience for the mass audience.

Instead of spending $100 or $150 for a stage production with live music and actors, Americans have the film industry with vibrating seats and 3-D glasses. With home theaters and surround sound in competition, the movie industry surely has the resources to develop the technical capacity and the economic incentive if it is to continue to bring in movie audiences by adding the additionally quality of live voice to musicals. Unlike champion figure skaters who are condemned to use outdated skates, the sacrifice of live singing by dubbing in musicals shouldn't be allowed to suffer while the rest of the industry continues to move ahead with its special effects, visual innovation while the exquisite acting performances from whispers, to screams, to dramatic monologues continues. Why should the most delicious and most varied, most vibrant part of the human voice be relegated into the back room with its artificial dubbing like those of a foreign language film? It's not real and not as believable.

As for the "screeching" at the camera in Les Miz, it is just that rough voice of Russell Crowe that made for the authenticity of the role and performance. Musical film productions are not necessarily operatic productions where the singing voice must always reign supreme. It is the aliveness and alacrity, the acting performance and the nature of the character in the film themselves that dictate the level of singing idealism needed for a film to be a success and effective.

**cinemabon** · 01-03-2015, 08:26 PM

"LIVE" is a delusion

Anyone who has ever worked a soundstage knows how difficult it is to mic the actors and avoid superfluous sound - footsteps, rustling clothes, sneezing, coughing, techs making noise, a passing airplane, etc. The first sound film ever made happened to be a musical. Filmmakers discovered quickly how difficult it was to properly mic (mike) actors and record live sound at the time of filming. A spoof move was made of this process. It's called "Singing in the Rain." Soundstages are not recording studios. They have to be lit. One of the biggest hurdles to make "Citizen Kane" had to do with lighting the set and miking the actors as booms cast shadows on the painted scrim ceilings that Welles insisted be in some shots. If you're going to have ceilings, you can't have boom mikes and you have to avoid superfluous sound, which means take after take. Even with the digital process, this takes time and in film, time is money.

Director Tom Hopper is not the first director to ask actors to sing their roles during their shots. Many actors sing along with their playback to add realism. In some cases, such as Streisand in "Funny Girl" its difficult to tell as she does it so well. Willie wanted realism and usually got it. However, even the great William Wyler knew that you couldn't properly mic an actor on a soundstage. And if you believe "Les Mis" is so pure, you're suffering a delusion. While actors did sing their roles during their takes, many were also post-dubbed to correct any errors on the soundtrack. Oh, yes, even "Les Mis" had dubbed singing. Just as Fred Astair didn't actually tap all of those taps (a foley artist created the "tap" sound) because his feet could not be miked, some great actors sounded so terrible in the recording studio their entire voice was replaced, Audrey Hepburn included. She was no Julie Andrews. Andrews sung all of her work on "Victor, Victoria" on the set as her husband felt it would add to the realism of her performance. In her close up shots, it's difficult to tell when Julie is singing and when she's mouthing. Using during dance/singing scenes, actors have trouble with breath control when they're jumping around the stage.

Lip-syncing to playback is very difficult and actors often do both. Judy Garland sang on the set for "Meet Me in St. Louis." How do you tell? Look at their vocal chords. If they're moving during a close-up, they're singing along with the playback. Shani Lewis did in "Oliver" when she belted out her torch song, "As long as he needs me" perhaps one of the greatest ever filmed. Carol Reed - a perfectionist as much as any director - insisted on it for added realism. Little Oliver, played by Mark Lester, mouthed his part as he could not match the playback well. You can see it in his performance that he had to come back and re-dub several singing scenes.

Rex Harrison didn't sing well and spoke his part. When Academy Award winning director George Cukor shot Harrison's scenes, he had to mic (mike) him the entire time. Each time Harrison did a take, he did it differently, making the editing of his scenes a nightmare. Cukor solved the problem by making Harrison do long takes so he could string them together seamlessly.

Sound has come a long way and portable microphones have improved tremendously. But actors must still sing to playback music. You can't have an orchestra on a soundstage playing at the same time an actor sings. The cost would be prohibitive. When they write a Broadway musical using a guitar and a flute (example), you could have them just off camera. Otherwise, the tried and proven method is accepted by most movie goers, except for those who desire outcomes that are unrealistic, cost prohibitive, and frankly, unreasonable. Considering the filmmaking process - building a set, decorating it, setting up lights and a camera, staging actor's movements and then shooting a "take" - there is nothing spontaneous about any aspect of this process, nothing. Edited together to create a seamless scene, filming a musical is a monumental undertaking in today's movie market. To force actors, musicians, sound professionals, and the entire technical team into convoluted contrivances for effect is dangerous at best and an unwarranted gamble. Besides, we don't need it. No one is clamoring for singers to record their on-set mistakes for posterity. I would hazard to say Hopper would find it difficult to make "Into the Woods" the way he made "Les Mes" as Streep and others would have iron-clad contracts prohibiting such a risky technique. I love "Into the Woods" along with every other musical that Hollywood has produced, even "Les Miz" because I love musicals and look forward to seeing each one when it is released.

So clamor away, Tab. Perhaps another filmmaker will be as daring. But he'll have to convince many many people, including backers, to carry off such a feat again. And if I go, I will submit my objective critique if the actors are forced to scream their parts in order to be heard.

**tabuno** · 01-04-2015, 06:00 AM

Cinemabon continues with experienced and technically correct observations. Yet, it appears his arguments are moving towards the premise that live singing in movies is the ideal, but very difficult to achieve. His observations in my opinion don't support an argument not to make an effort as much as feasible to obtain the live singing quality in filmed musicals.