IBJOpinion

LOU'S VIEWS: Civic's 'Into the Woods' explores what's after ‘happily ever after’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Lou Harry

Once upon a time, before “Shrek” left his swamp, before “Rise of the Guardians” arose, and before “Grimm” battled “Once Upon a Time” to determine who would rule the revisionist fairy-tale kingdom on TV, there was “Into the Woods.”
 

ae-woods-main-15col.jpg Julie Bonnett’s Cinderella upgrades Civic’s production of “Into the Woods.” (Photo courtesy of Zach Rosing)

Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine’s 1987 musical creatively mashed together the familiar stories of Cinderella, Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Little Red Riding Hood, baking in a new tale about a baker and his wife longing for a child. The first act resolved into a “Happy Ever After” that led some to believe the show was over.

A second, grimmer act dealt with the ramifications of fulfilled wishes. Do you really want to marry a prince you barely know? What are the psychological effects of you and your granny being eaten by a wolf? And what about the giantess whose husband was killed by the thieving Jack?

Heady stuff, indeed, especially when disguised as a children’s show. Part of the pleasure of seeing Booth Tarkington Civic Theatre’s production of “Into the Woods” (April 26-May 11) was sensing the audience’s reactions when things started to go wrong—particularly when death enters the picture.

What was surprising about this avocational theater production wasn’t boldness in casting or design (although the lighting by Ryan Koharchik is first class). Civic isn’t known for unconventional stagings, and “Into the Woods” was played pretty much by the book. Rather, what was surprising was the palpable, not-watered-down sense of doom that hung over that second act.


ae-woods-secondary-1col.jpg Nathalie Cruz as the haggard witch. (Photo courtesy of Zach Rosing)

Having seen multiple productions of “Into the Woods,” including the Broadway original, you’d think I’d be immune to its tensions. But the Civic folks managed to make that second act appropriately troubling rather than troublesome. When the baker sang of “wondering what even worse is still in store,” I felt that fear in the audience.

Most cast members—including a too-old Riding Hood and an uninspired Jack—offered variations on the readily available recording of the Broadway production. Standing out, though, were Nathalie Cruz—particularly in the first half when her haggard witch carried a desperation scarier than her spells—and Julie Bonnett, giving a rich truthfulness to Cinderella that I haven’t seen in any previous production.

__________

In a talk-back discussion after a performance of his play “Our Experiences During the First Days of Alligators” in Garfield Park, David Hoppe noted that the play came to him in a dream in the 1980s. He promptly turned it into a novella before ultimately adapting it for stage.

Both those early forms—dream and prose—temper the effectiveness of the resulting play, given a gutsy world premiere by NoExit Performance through May 18. Creating original, site-specific theater, as evidenced here, is no walk in the park.

Still, it’s a play worth experiencing. With a central metaphor so obvious that even the characters in the play comment on it, “Alligators” is set in a world where a plague of the titular beasts has descended.

We never hear of them actually mauling anyone. They are unsettling because of what they could potentially do, not because of what they actually do. As such, they represent our fears—fears that our main characters are attracted and repelled by, ultimately coming to terms with the beasts as yet another element in a crazy world they have to learn to live with. Adaptation, Hoppe seems to say, is humanity’s strongest trait.

If only he had adapted his story with greater theatricality. “Alligators,” as it stands (or slithers) still feels too tied to the page. A lengthy slow-motion opening—a silent overture of sorts—succeeds in separating us from the real world. But the opening, followed by story-theater-style monologues, resulted in too long of a wait before there was any engagement with the characters.

Once that happens, many of the moments work as storytelling but not often enough as drama. Compelling visual ideas, an artfully staged sex scene and some smartly written stretches are a plus, as is Andy Fry’s original sound design and solid acting (particularly by Lauren Briggeman, who can generate distracted intensity without saying a word).•

__________

This column appears weekly. Send information on upcoming arts and entertainment events to lharry@ibj.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT