Into the Woods
I haven't seen the musical, and I've never professed myself a fan of Sondheim, but the cast and premise alone was enough to entice me. Meryl Streep is amazing in everything, and Anna Kendrick is a major player in the pop resurgence of musicals, with two more still coming (Pitch Perfect 2 and The Last 5 Years). Chris Pine being able to sing is a dream come true, and I absolutely adore James Corden, who was so good in Begin Again. Among the biggest surprises for me was Emily Blunt's vocal prowess, her charm, and her ability to completely inhabit the world of Into the Woods.
For those who don't know, Into the Woods tells the story of the Baker (Corden) and his Wife (Blunt) as they search for the four items needed to break a curse: a curse placed by a Witch (Streep), which has left them barren. In their search, the Baker and his Wife cross paths with Cinderella (Kendrick) and her Prince (Pine), Red Riding Hood (Broadway vet Lilla Crawford), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy) and her Prince (Billy Magnussen), and of course, a young man named Jack (Daniel Huttlestone).
Act I tells the fairy tales (mostly) as you know them; Act II undertakes to explore what is supposed to be "happily ever after." With the exception of Johnny Depp's Wolf (whose hunger for 12 year old Red Riding Hood comes off as pedophilia), I really enjoyed Act I. Act II, not so much. Which may be because of the adaptation of a Sondheim musical for Disney backers. You'll find strong opinions amongst long-time fans of the musical, especially regarding second act song cuts, character rewrites, lyric changes, and plot omissions. Looking at the list of complaints, I don't blame them. It makes me wonder if the changes are the reason the second act drags, and eventually, disappoints.
Unbroken
Every piece of Unbroken screams Oscar bait - except the finished product. It would be too easy to place the blame on sophomore director Angelina Jolie... but everybody else has cred. I wonder how close to the script the film ended up, or possibly if what works on paper did not work on film. Still, with the Coen brothers receiving top billing for the script, I don't know what went wrong. The director of photography, cinematographer, and editor all have brilliant films under their belts. So what's the issue?
Jack O'Connell plays Louis Zamperini, juvenile delinquent turned Olympic runner turned World War II bombardier. When a rescue mission goes down in the Pacific Ocean, he and two of his fellow crewmen are left adrift; it's over a month and a half before they're found, and even then, it's by a Japanese ship. He's sent to detainment camp as a prisoner of war, he's singled out for abuse, relying on his Olympian patience and endurance to see it through to war's end.
O'Connell is good in the leading role, it's true, but he's so pretty, and sometimes I wondered if he was just taking direction. His positive attitude come so easily to him that the physical struggle doesn't even seem so bad. I know I'm biased, but it's not hard to argue that Domhnall Gleeson gives the far better performance - he's the one I worry about, ribs protruding his skeletal frame. In an interview for Huffington Post, Gleeson said he was so dehydrated that his contact lenses wouldn't fit. As Lt. Russell "Phil" Phillips, Gleeson provides wit, and does it with a very good American accent. I'm looking forward to his leading turn in Ex Machina this spring. As for the rest of the principal cast, I also have to say that I disagree with the critics on the greatness being lauded on Takamasa Ishihara for his portrayal of Japanese captor "the Bird." Violent, yes, but not terribly intimidating. Or perhaps it was the overall "bland" of the film that detracted from his actual performance.
As CliffsNotes or a preview for the book, I'm sure the film is just fine. As a war film, I'm not sure it stands out as much as hyped. I remember when Lauren Hillenbrand's book was THE gift for Christmas and Father's Day. My guess is: stick with the original.
Two thoughts on "Into the Woods":
ReplyDelete-The wolf is SUPPOSED to be a creeper pedophile. The woods is a metaphor for growing up, and Red Riding Hood's story reflects the sexual aspect of that. This is actually a throwback to the earliest versions of the original fairy tale.
-Yes, there were some fantastic songs that were cut in the second half, but I can understand that they needed to make choices in order to bring the story to the big screen. As far as I could tell, the (minor) lyric changes were strictly to make the most of the film medium (with things like flashbacks, slow motion, etc.) and I may be wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Sondheim himself had a hand in the rewrites. I also noticed that almost every single song that they cut was included in the score underlying the action--they needed to make choices, but they still paid homage to the original. I appreciated that tiny detail.
-My major objection was the simplifying of Rapunzel's story and the cutting of the "Agony" reprise, because both of those do a lot to develop the prince characters and the relationships between them and their princesses. It also provides a starker contrast between Rapunzel and Cinderella--when one "enters the woods", one can either step up to the challenge (Cinderella) or crumble under the pressure (Rapunzel, in the the stage version).
-My absolute favorite part of the movie was "Last Midnight". CHILLS. I thought that this number was particularly suited to film, and the actors/director/producer didn't disappoint. As far as I'm concerned, Meryl finally redeemed herself from the travesty that was "Mama Mia".
Okay, so maybe I wound up with more than two points...
ReplyDelete