"Into The Woods" A Fine Film and Flawed Adaptation

I can say with confidence that my favorite musical is Stephen Sondheim's Into The Woods. Now I admit I haven't seen a ton of Broadway shows, in fact most of the ones I've seen have been adapted from Disney films. So there's some irony in that I was introduced to my favorite musical...through its film adaptation by Disney!

Long ago I placed Into The Woods sixth in my Top 10 Films of 2014, which I don't know if I would do again. Frankly I'm a little appalled at my past self for not including How To Train Your Dragon 2, and embarrassed for not seeing John Wick or Whiplash at the time (still haven't seen the latter). The point is, the more I've learned about Into The Woods the musical, the less I've enjoyed Into The Woods the film.

Before we go any further I'm just going to let everyone know I'm not here to trash James Corden...but I get it. Also this will contain spoilers so...don't go any further if you care about those.

For those that don't know, Into The Woods is what I describe as an "ensemble adaptation" that takes multiple fairy tales like Cinderella, Jack and The Beanstalk, and Red Riding Hood, and intertwines them into one narrative. At the center are the original characters of The Baker and his wife, who are cursed by their witch neighbor due to past misdeeds of The Baker's father, and preventing them from having a child. The witch tells them she can create a potion to lift the curse if they collect four specific ingredients in three day's time: the cow as white as milk, the cape as red as blood, the hair as yellow as corn, and the slipper as pure as gold. These ingredients are where the other fairy tale characters come in. 

The Baker sets out into the titular woods to retrieve the items, while at the same time Cinderella, Jack, and Red also set out into the woods (Ahaha!) to achieve their specific goals (go to the ball, sell the cow, etc.) There's also Rapunzel, a couple of Prince Charming's, and an omniscient narrator. Now "Happily Ever After" does come for these fairy tale characters, but that is not where Into The Woods ends. That's just the first act.

Some time has passed, and as the narrator tells the audience, despite some minor inconveniences, the cast is still happy. Cinderella is bored with the princess life, meanwhile her Prince Charming (and his brother) are becoming unhappy with married life. Jack longs for more adventures atop the beanstalk. The Baker and his wife, now with their infant son, need more space in their home. But these characters keep singing they're "so happy" as if to convince the audience (and themselves) that they are living happily ever after.

The majority of the second act has the characters dealing with an attack from a second giant, who is the wife of the giant Jack killed. To make a long story short, this conflict leads to the deaths of Jack's mother, Little Red Riding Hood's grandmother, Rapunzel, and The Baker's wife (who falls to her death after having a brief fling with Cinderella's Prince. Interesting chain of events there, Sondheim...). Eventually this lady giant is defeated, and the story ends with Cinderella, Jack, and Little Red moving in with The Baker and his son. I'm really not doing the second act much justice with this summary but I'm trying not to waste too much time on the recap.

So, this sounds like a pretty bleak ending right? A bit bittersweet isn't it? Yes, but...that's kind of the point. Sondheim is making the point that "Happily Ever After" is a false construct. "The End" is not the end. There will always be more more giants, wolves, and witches. There will always be more obstacles, more consequences, and more hardships. That's life. People have to continue to grow, to learn, to go "into the woods". Pinning the blame on a fairy tale villain like a giant or an evil witch is not going to make your problems go away, nor is a magic slipper or bean going to make your life perfect. 

Through Into The Woods, Sondheim masterfully uses fairy tales to tell his audience, not to believe fairy tales. It's genius. But...is it cinema?

Translating a story from one medium to another is always going to present challenges. Creatives have to be willing to make changes to the source material in order for their adaptation to work. Into The Woods fits perfectly into a two-act play structure. The first act is the regular fairy tale, and the second is what happens after. Disney's 2014 film adaptation really stumbles here. Not counting the credits, it's an hour and fifty-seven minute film, but we don't get to the second act until an hour and fifteen minutes in. 

Now you're probably saying "Chris that's not that egregious." Well it is, and it isn't. On the stage, we get an intermission, and act two starts with a rearrangement of the opening song. Some time has passed for the characters, and they're not super content with their current situations. There is no intermission in a film, and the filmmakers decided to cut the time jump. Just as Cinderella and Rapunzel have married their princes, Mrs. Giant attacks and we're right back into the fray (or...woods).

Omitting songs from film adaptations is not a new practice, however, eliminating the time jump and the second-act prologue changes the message of Into The Woods for the film. The characters do not get the chance to lament their happily ever afters, much less enjoy them. Instead they find themselves having to continue to fight for them, and as I mentioned earlier, that comes at the cost of some lives. Suddenly the message isn't so much "There is no such thing as a happily ever after" as much as "Be careful what you wish for" which while that is still an important message, it is a very tired and cliche one.

Another song omission from act two really messes up the flow of the film, and that's the reprise of "Agony" (You know that upsets me...). The reprise has the two princes getting tired of their wives (Cinderella and Rapunzel) and becoming smitten with two other princesses (Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). Eliminating this song totally makes the Prince's fling with The Baker's Wife seem completely out of left field, and sort of makes it seems like the film is punishing her for cheating...because she dies immediately after? Yeah I'm still not sure what purpose her death serves if anyone wants to help me out here, please. Sure, earlier in the film (played by Chris Pine and Emily Blunt) they share a few moments but it's not enough for us to "ship it" as the kids say.

Side-note, the characterization of The Baker's Wife in the film misses the mark, too. In the musical she clearly wears the pants in the marriage and has to push The Baker to do more. In the film she's a much more gentle character and far more his biggest cheerleader. The musical makes it more believable for her to cheat. 

There is one more detail from the film I want to touch on, and that's how they handled The Narrator and The Baker's Father. They're played by the same actor on stage, but they're not the same character...at least that's how I interpreted it. Anyway, on stage The Narrator is an actual character that interacts with the audience, and in the second act, the other characters. When Mrs. Giant is hunting for Jack, the characters turn on him and offer him up as a sacrifice. The Narrator pleads with them to spare his life, because they'll be lost without him telling the story. It's very clever because once the Narrator is gone, that's when the characters have to start taking responsibility for their own actions, hence Princes and Wives having flings, the four main characters screaming at each other in a song called "Your Fault" etc.

The film has no narrator character. Instead The Baker (Corden) acts as narrator. Now that's kind of a nice change. It brings the film full circle when he tells the story to the baby at the end. But again, the message of the musical is lost. 

Now his father. His father is a supporting player in the first act, acting as an unnamed mysterious stranger helping the characters through the woods. When the curse is finally lifted, he passes away having paid for his misdeeds. In the second act, after his wife has died and the witch has abandoned the group, The Baker retreats and leaves his son with the others. It is then when a vision of his late father comes to him, and through the song "No More" (Mad the film cut this one), he realizes he hasn't learned anything, he is jus repeating the cycle, and it's time to take responsibility for his own life. The father doesn't appear in the first half of the film, save for a brief flashback in the prologue, but does show up in the second act. He appears as a vision to his son, but only through a brief pep talk does he tell his son to be "better than me". This just feels tacked on because the character was cut out of the rest of the film.

That's kind of the whole problem with how this film handles act two of the musical. It just tacks it on at the end and breezes through it (Was I trying to make that point with my quick recap of it earlier? I'll never tell!). Eliminating too much from this portion of the musical undercut the whole message and point of Into The Woods and thus the film fails at being a proper adaptation.

Now, I've bashed the film quite a lot here, and I could go on...but I really do enjoy it. The performances are great. The production design is top-notch, and the arrangements of the songs are really wonderful. I just came to this epiphany...in many ways this is the Disney live-action remake of Into The Woods. It takes a lot out of the source material, doesn't add much, but still enjoyable at the surface level because it's well casted and the new arrangements of the songs are good. 

Really how much you like the musical of Into The Woods will determine how much you like the film Into The Woods. As I've grown to love the musical more over time, I've lost interest in the film. Does that mean I hate it? No. I still enjoying watching the 2017 remake of Beauty & The Beast, but I'll never take it over the original 1991 classic. That's sort of how I look at Into The Woods the film. It's not perfect, but at times, it can satisfy.

Could another film adaptation of Into The Woods work? Perhaps, but it's not clear we'll ever see it in this lifetime, and maybe that's a good thing. As the film said, and not the musical, be careful what you wish for.

Film Review - "Don't Worry Darling"

This is going to be quick, and harsh, but frankly deserved.

Don't Worry Darling

Directed by Olivia Wilde,

Starring Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, and Chris Pine

Don't Worry Darling is the second directorial feature from Olivia Wilde (I have not seen Booksmart). The film focuses on happily married couple Alice (Pugh) and Jack (Styles) Chambers, living in a company town of Victory, overseen by its founder Frank (Pine. I don't remember if the character had a last name. It doesn't matter anyway). Victory is a perfect suburban utopia, where the husbands go to work, and the wives stay home and do domestic duties. But one day, Alice notices things aren't as perfect as they seem in Victory, and begins to search for answers, despite warnings from her husband and peers.

So yes, this sounds like a lot of other films that have come before, such as The Stepford Wives, Pleasantville, The Truman Show, and Get Out to name a few. Nothing new here, right? Well as I've learned in all my years of studying and watching films, it's not the tool it's how use it and-no, no Don't Worry Darling brings nothing new to the table...

It's very easy for viewers to get a grasp on the "big twist" of where the film is going. Instead of trying to craft a compelling narrative, Wilde and Screenwriter Katie Silberman seem determined to push the big reveal off for as long as possible in its 123 minute runtime (The film feels more like four hours long than two and change). There are lot of surreal and bizarre moments throughout, that in the end mean nothing to the plot, and are just all sizzle and no steak. At one point Florence Pugh's character is making breakfast. She cracks an egg open and finds nothing inside. Just a hollow shell. A perfect metaphor for this film.

Speaking of Florence Pugh, she deserves an Honorary Academy Award and chiropractor for carrying this film on her back. The passion and effort she puts into her performance is meant for a much better film. Chris Pine also deserves credit for his portrayal as Frank. Pine perfectly capture the charming yet sinister nature needed for this role. There's a confrontation scene between Pugh and Pine in the film, and it's frankly (Heh. Frank) the best part of the film because you've got your two strongest players showing the rest how it's done.

Alright, I'll talk about Harry Styles...I have nothing against this guy trying to have a side-gig as an actor. But...he needs more practice. For the majority of the film I truly think his performance is fine. It's when he has to raise his voice, or get angry, is when the cracks start to show. You've all seen the face from that one scene. It's a meme at this point. I will admit I had to stifle laughter when I saw it.

Let's see. What else...Olivia Wilde's performance is fine. Gemma Chan and Nick Kroll have some fleeting shining moments in their supporting roles. The cinematography and set-design is very pretty. Um...yeah that's it.

It's sad when the behind-the-scenes drama of a film is more entertaining than the film itself, but Don't Worry Darling is an incredibly frustrating narrative that raises more questions than answers, as it tries to avoid the cliche' story foundation its built upon. I describe it as jingling shiny keys in front of a baby to entertain or distract them, and we are not babies, and it's insulting (Wait, you're an actual infant watching Don't Worry Darling? My God where are your parents?!?). I think "sophomore slump" is the best way to describe this second film from Olivia Wilde. I cannot even say it's like The Room, where you need to see for yourself how bad it is, or "its so bad its good". No, don't worry darling (Ha...) there's nothing to see here...

Film Review - "Wonder Woman"

Wonder Woman

Directed by Patty Jenkins

Starring Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, and Connie Nielsen

Upon the release of Batman VS Superman: Dawn of Justice, many…pretty much everyone agreed that Wonder Woman was a major highlight in an otherwise average film. As time went on (and Suicide Squad came out), it became abundantly clear that Wonder Woman was just the best part of the DC Extended Universe.

Now her own film has hit theaters and that's still true. Wonder Woman, both character and film, are the very best part of this superhero franchise. Now looking at the three films that came before it I know that's not saying much, but Wonder Woman is still by all accounts…wonderful!

The film chronicles the origins of the titular heroine (played again by Gadot), from her early days of training on the Amazonian island Themyscira, to her journey into the outside world, specfically during World War I. 

When Ally spy Steve Trevor (Pine) crash lands on the shores of the island, he tells Diana and her and people of "The war to end all wars" tearing the world apart at its seams. Diana believes this to be the work and second coming of Ares, The God of War. Against her mother (Nielsen)'s wishes, she leaves the island with Trevor, who agrees to take her to the front lines. Once she arrives at the battle, Diana plans to find and kill Ares, and therefore end the fighting. 

First up, the story itself is fairly basic, and you might be able to predict how Diana's mission will go (or *will* you?!?!?!). But the film has a beautiful message about belief, hope, and love. Good and evil aren't always black and white, it comes down to nature and choice. The film would fail if it didn't have a main character that audiences could connect and root for, and my God do we get one. 

Gal Gadot is Wonder Woman, and gives an iconic, career-defining performance. She plays every part of Diana's character so well, from her "fish out of water" moments, to her simply being a compassionate human being, who sees injustice (see what I did there?) in the world and wants to make it right how ever she can. I think that's why so many people fell in love with her and this film. She's not someone avenging the death of a loved one like Batman, or taking responsibility for her gifts like Spider-Man, she's someone who has the ability to make a difference, and will seek out to do just that.

Not for any reason other than it's right thing to do. It reminds me of…of…of CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!

Alright, alright I'll calm down, but you can see the similarities, in both character and origin films (The First Avenger takes place in WWII, Wonder Woman takes place in WWI…) Anyway, the scene where she fearlessly marches onto No Man's Land. Chills. Pure chills and feels.

Chris Pine gives a charming and humorous performance as Steve Trevor, and the chemistry he has with Gadot is remarkable. Nielsen and Robin Wright as Diana's mother and aunt give small but powerful performances nonetheless. Said Taghmaoui, Ewen Bremmer, and Eugene Brave Rock play the three men who accompany Diana and Steve on their mission, Sameer, Charlie, and The Chief. They all have nice moments throughout the film but when I saw the film a second time I barely remembered them from the first viewing.

The biggest flaw of the film in my opinion is the villains. Danny Huston and Elena Anaya play General Ludendorf and Dr. Posion, and I'm not saying their performances are bad (Well, Huston's German accent is pretty cringe…honestly I still see Stryker from X-Men Origins), but they're mostly just pawns and plot devices. All this talk of Ares I don't think it's a spoiler to say he is in the film. It's hard to talk about him without going into spoilers, so I'll just say his part in the film is, underwhelming.

Two more notes. The music from Rupert Gregson Williams is phenomenal, and yes he does use and build on the theme from Batman VS Superman, and the film looks great. From the shores of Themyscira to the battlefield. My God I didn't know so much color was allowed in a DC film!

So to wrap up, Wonder Woman is a really good, really enjoyable film, that gives us more of a character we already were in awe of after only being with her for fifteen minutes of screen time. Is it perfect? No. Is it a game changer? Not in every case. But it doesn't need to be. Sometimes we just need a superhero film with an incredible main character and a heartfelt message, and that's what we got. It's not just a big step forward for the DC Extended Universe, it's a huge step forward. I'm glad we were finally able to get a Wonder Woman film, a female led-superhero film, directed by a woman that's having enormous success. I think this film is something the world really needed right now.

…..and I'm not just saying that because I met Gal Gadot last year and she touched my arm and I am forever cast under her spell….*sigh*…

Did you know that Danny Huston's General Ludendorf was a real General in WWI?? Seriously look it up. I mean he didn't have those crazy pills but still….that's nuts….