Double Casting Wolf/Prince in Into the Woods?
Adric
and the Wolf to be doubled up? I know it was done that way for
the Broadway production, but is there any special reason for
this?
I know of a production in which the director toyed with the idea
of casting the Wolf as a separate actor, though he finally went
with doublecasting the role, though with Rapunzel's Prince
instead of the Wolf.
Any thoughts?
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Brian Hayes
subject. This double casting was the ONLY one I used in my show. I actually
did it because the Prince I had was a great wolf, and no other.
Traditionally the double casting of characters is because it deepends the
meaning of the story. The Wolf is, in a way, the dark side of Prince Charming.
It is his alter ego,,running around the owwds praying on small children and
the weak.
The Narrartor/Mysterious Man are the same actor becaue they represent a
complete character. Think about it, the narrator is telling the story, guiding
it along for the the audience and the characters. Think about the Giant scene
when he says "Without me, you won't know how the story ends, you'll be lost".
He is right, once is is killed, the characters are even more lost, and more
desructions happens. Also, mysterious man is the Baker';s father, think once
again about the end of the show. The Baker holds his son and begins to tell
the same story that his father(mysterious man/narrator) told in the begining.
He is continuining the tradition of his father as the song between the two
stats "like father, like son".
Into the Woods is a VERY deep and profound story. This is why I like it so
much, it can entertain children, adults, or anyone. No matter who goes to see
it, they will get something out of it. Not only is is a show for the audience,
but its a wonderful way for actors to learn how to develop characters. The
characters in this show are so much more then what is in plain sight. There is
A LOT of deep meaning about everything that goes on in this show. Weather it
be a single line like those in the First and Second Midnight, or a music note
like the ones represented by the beans, they are used in ever piece of music
that has something to do with the beans. VERY much studying can be done by
everone affiliated with this show.
If you have any more questions please feel free to write me, I have studied
this show extensivly.
Brian
Philip "Doogie" Gonzales
Hi,
I was in a production of "Woods" several months ago and the guy who played
the Steward played the Wolf also. That way, the guy got a song and time on
stage. I played Cinderella's Prince and had more than enough to do without
taking on the Wolf's part and make-up also.
Phil!
Steve & Rhonda
well, but I believe in the West Coast pre-Broadway version the Wolf and
the Narrator were both played by John Cunningham.
Stephen Farrow
> The Narrartor/Mysterious Man are the same actor becaue they represent a
> complete character. Think about it, the narrator is telling the story, guiding
> it along for the the audience and the characters. Think about the Giant scene
> when he says "Without me, you won't know how the story ends, you'll be lost".
> He is right, once is is killed, the characters are even more lost, and more
> desructions happens. Also, mysterious man is the Baker';s father, think once
> again about the end of the show. The Baker holds his son and begins to tell
> the same story that his father(mysterious man/narrator) told in the begining.
> He is continuining the tradition of his father as the song between the two
> stats "like father, like son".
True - and I agree with you - but in the original London production
these particular two roles weren't played by the same actor (somehow I
can't imagine Nicholas Parsons singing 'No More' - or rather I can, but
I'd prefer not to).
I think IN GENERAL the show is more effective if the two roles are
played by the same actor, but the London production (I'm talking about
the one at the Phoenix in 1990, not the more recent revival at the
Donmar) was *so* brilliantly done - some of the second act was utterly
terrifying - that it didn't really matter.
Sorry to say this, but judging by the video, the Broadway production
paled in comparison. The Broadway production, as seen in the video, was
cute and fairly literal (a real wood with branches etc); the London
version was strange, demented and rather frightening. And perfectly
cast.
The Wolf and Cinderella's prince were both played by Clive Carter, to
bring this back to the original question. You could concievably split
the roles - say, in a school/college/amateur production, to give two
deserving actors a featured role - and I don't think doing so would
completely ruin the show, but I *do* think that the show is deeper if
they're played by the same person.
Stephen
--
Will men ever get pregnant? And if they do, will they opt for
shoulder-tie dungarees, or play safe with Peter Pan collar-type loose
smocks? Whatever they decide, there's bound to be a documentary about
it. And possibly a tea towel.
- Victoria Wood
Brian Hayes
>the roles - say, in a school/college/amateur production, to give two
>deserving actors a featured role - and I don't think doing so would
>completely ruin the show, but I *do* think that the show is deeper if
>they're played by the same person
I agree. The ONLY role I double cast was that of the wolf/prince, just because
my actor deserved both roles. We did, however, run into the problem of costume
changes. It is very hard to get the wolf transformed into the prince with
enough time for his first entrance. We had to have the Steward comee out
istead. I don't know about the London production (wish there were a video),
but Bway used a scrim for Granny's. Im assuming this aided in his changing
since you couldnt fully see him. We, didn have a scrim, so we had timing
problems.
Brian
Brian Hayes
>the Narrator were both played by John Cunningham.
Are you sure about this? It would be EXTREMLY hard to have these roles played
by the same person. The narrator speaks during Granny's house scene. I guess
if you are to do it like the original workshop did, using only baseball hats
with the character names, you could do it, but other than that, It seems
impossible.
Brian
Logan Culwell
Theatre. John Cunningham played The Narrator, The Wolf, and the Steward.
-Logan
"I'm gonna tell ya the same thing I told Joey Simono and his pyramid of dawgs:
take every job ya can get and don't make on the floor."
Kafritz1
>Sorry to say this, but judging by the
video, the Broadway production paled in comparison. The Broadway production, as
seen in the video, was cute and fairly literal (a real wood with branches etc);
the London
version was strange, demented and rather frightening. And perfectly cast.
>
The London production does indeed
look interesting from the photos in the
cast recording and Richard Jones is a
very good director. I'm sure it worked beautifully in the theatre. But, oh,
those voices! It sure makes for a grotesque
listen. With the notable exception of
Julia McKenzie, and the major addition
of "Our Little World," I find the rest of it very difficult to sit through.
The Broadway CD has problems all its own...it has a strange muted sound, but it
is definitely a better performance of the score, especially with some of the
cut passages of "A Very Nice Prince" and "Any Moment" restored for the
recording.
I think the Broadway show, and the second act in particular, plays as camp in
the videotape. The audience was filled with fans verging on near hysteria over
every line and gesture. With a regular audience, the
show had humor, but played very darkly.
I would have been interested to see the London version, but Tony Straiges' work
for Broadway should not be discounted, or the way the show played, based upon
the videotape. Broadway had a look like those fine 19th Century pen and ink
storybook illustrations come to life. Also, isn't there something more
sophisticated in the approach of letting the woods turn frightening and
threatening on their own
and in the actors' performances, then by giving the show an intentionally
strange and demented look?
As to the Mysterious Man/Narrator double casting mentioned here earlier -- I've
mentioned this once previously...Before the authors changed the second act and
had the narrator killed off, the narrator was revealed to be...the grown up
version of the Baker's child. Thereby, the same actor played Grandfather(to the
Baker's baby)/
Father (to the Baker)/Son (of the Baker)/
Grandson (of the Mysterious Man). So...the father/son relationship had one more
twist on it, which I suppose was too complicated for some audiences to figure
out. Still, I would be interested to see that material restored someday.
Steve & Rhonda
Cavett replaced Tom Aldredge on Broadway, he played only the Narrator.
Edmund Lyndeck then played the Mysterious Man as well as his usual role
of Cinderella's Father. Cavett also did not wear the period suit that
Aldredge did, but contemporary slacks, jacket, turtleneck! The story
goes that Lapine liked this completely-out-of-the-story idea so much
that when Aldredge returned to his roles he played the Narrator in
modern dress too.
Matthew Murray
Just out of curiosity, why didn't Cavett also play the Mysterious
Man? Was he not the great singer that Aldredge is?
===============================================================================
Matthew A. Murray - mmu...@cc.wwu.edu - http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A critical history of computer gaming: | "I'm up among the stars, on earthly
Over 195 computer game reviews, covering | things I frown, I'm throwing off the
games from 1977 to the present! | bars that held me down... Who could
| ask for anything more?"
http://www.wwu.edu/~mmurray/Reviews.html | --The Gershwins, from Crazy for You
===============================================================================
Stephen Farrow
>
> Slightly OT, and I'm sure some (but not all) of you know this- when Dick
> Cavett replaced Tom Aldredge on Broadway, he played only the Narrator.
> Edmund Lyndeck then played the Mysterious Man as well as his usual role
> of Cinderella's Father. Cavett also did not wear the period suit that
> Aldredge did, but contemporary slacks, jacket, turtleneck! The story
> goes that Lapine liked this completely-out-of-the-story idea so much
> that when Aldredge returned to his roles he played the Narrator in
> modern dress too.
In the original London production, Nicholas Parsons (the Narrator) was
also in 'modern dress' - grey suit, white shirt and tie.
Stephen Farrow
>
> >Sorry to say this, but judging by the
> video, the Broadway production paled in comparison. The Broadway production, as
> seen in the video, was cute and fairly literal (a real wood with branches etc);
> the London
> version was strange, demented and rather frightening. And perfectly cast.
> >
>
> The London production does indeed
> look interesting from the photos in the
> cast recording and Richard Jones is a
> very good director. I'm sure it worked beautifully in the theatre. But, oh,
> those voices! It sure makes for a grotesque
> listen. With the notable exception of
> Julia McKenzie, and the major addition
> of "Our Little World," I find the rest of it very difficult to sit through.
Different strokes! I love it. They mostly cast a *very* different kind
of performer in London. The Broadway cast, IIRC, was mostly made up of
people with a fair amount of musical theatre experience. The London
production mostly cast 'actors who sing' (with, as you say, the notable
exception of Julia McKenzie - and actually it's an odd thing, but she's
*far* better known in the UK for her work in various TV sitcoms than she
is for her performances in musicals). No question, the Broadway cast are
slicker, and Joanna Gleason is arguably a better *singer* than Imelda
Staunton - but take it from someone who was there, the London cast gave
one of the two or three best ensemble performances I've ever seen (and
Ian Bartholomew's 'No More' was heartbreaking - the look on his face as
he sang "Like father, like son" was absolutely devastating).
Every time this comes up - and it seems to crop up every few months -
the result's the same! People seem, for some reason, to have strong
preferences between these particular two recordings. I really don't like
the Broadway CD, and I don't especially like the Broadway production as
shown in the video (though you're right, the video isn't necessarily
absolutely representative of what the production was in the theatre).
It's not that I think the Broadway version is *bad* - I don't, at all.
It's just that the other interpretation works better for me.
> The Broadway CD has problems all its own...it has a strange muted sound, but it
> is definitely a better performance of the score, especially with some of the
> cut passages of "A Very Nice Prince" and "Any Moment" restored for the
> recording.
Yes, I'd agree that they're more polished singers - but I still prefer
the London recording! Maybe if I hadn't seen that cast three times...
>
> I think the Broadway show, and the second act in particular, plays as camp in
> the videotape. The audience was filled with fans verging on near hysteria over
> every line and gesture. With a regular audience, the
> show had humor, but played very darkly.
This might also be true. The video seemed to me (a Brit) to be, in
places, just a couple of steps from Panto.
> I would have been interested to see the London version, but Tony Straiges' work
> for Broadway should not be discounted, or the way the show played, based upon
> the videotape. Broadway had a look like those fine 19th Century pen and ink
> storybook illustrations come to life. Also, isn't there something more
> sophisticated in the approach of letting the woods turn frightening and
> threatening on their own
> and in the actors' performances, then by giving the show an intentionally
> strange and demented look?
This could be the crux of the issue. I think - and I can feel the flames
already here, so please be gentle and bear with me - that in North
America (certainly in Canada, where I live at the moment), the general
perception of fairly tales, being somewhat informed by Disney etc, is
somewhat lighter and prettier than it is in Europe (including Britain),
where fairy stories, even as told to quite young children, *are*
strange, demented and rather frightening. It seems to me - from having
seen the London production three times, and the video of the Broadway
production more than once (and also having seen the anthologies of fairy
tales sold on both sides of the Atlantic, and noted their diffferences)
that each production was very much rooted in the way its potential
audience would perceive fairy tales. Accordingly, the Broadway
production starts pretty and turns dark and somewhat scary, but ends on
essentially an upbeat note, whereas the London (1990) production starts
strange and intimidating, and turns grotesque and horrifying (I doubt
that anyone who saw it will forget the sight of the horribly plausible
dummy of the Narrator dropping from the flies and going *SPLAT* on the
apron after the Giantess spat him out).
It's not at all that I think the one approach is more sophisticated than
the other - if I hadn't seen either production in any form, I'd agree
with you - but this is one of those things where I think you have to
take the two very different productions in the context of where they
were staged.
What's also interesting is that, in commercial terms, the show was *far*
more successful on Broadway than it's ever been in London (despite all
the guff that turns up in the press on both sides of the Atlantic about
once a year about Sondheim having a more appreciative audience in
London). The 1990 production ran 5 months or so; the Donmar revival last
year ran its scheduled run (3 months or so, I believe) and didn't
transfer anywhere else. I'm sure that a factor in the 1990 production's
relatively brief run is that it was emphatically *not* a family show
(also that, over Christmas, it was competing with pantomimes). Very
small children, in my experience, seem to have a good time watching at
least the first half of the Broadway video (my cousin Kate, who's now
12, saw the first half of 'Into the Woods' when it was first shown on
British television - she'd have been about 4 then - and she loved it) -
but the London production really wasn't suitable for small children.
Remembering the London production, I don't think there's any question
that they'd have had a longer run if they'd toned it down (a lot), or
transferred the Broadway production (and it's interesting that 'Into the
Woods' wasn't done in a subsidised house in London, unlike 'Sunday in
the Park with George'). It actually might have done better being
presented via the National (though, again, that opens up the debate
about what the RNT is for) - it was a *very* uncompromising production
to mount directly in the West End.
Gosh, that went on for a long time, didn't it?! It's all very much JMHO,
of course.
Timbuktu
: Is it pretty much the norm for the role of Cinderella's Prince
: and the Wolf to be doubled up? I know it was done that way for
: the Broadway production, but is there any special reason for
: this?
: I know of a production in which the director toyed with the idea
: of casting the Wolf as a separate actor, though he finally went
: with doublecasting the role, though with Rapunzel's Prince
: instead of the Wolf.
That wouldn't be a certain production that just started rehearsals, now
would it? :) I know of one, too! I did find it odd that Rapunzel's, not
Cinderella's, Prince was the Wolf.
Timbuktu
Janice Pareyt
the cut portions of A Very Nice Prince....
Thankyouthankyouthankyou!!!!!! I am a big fan of ITW, but each time I
see this show performed, I mention the fact that they cut my favorite
Cinderella line, "How do you know what you want til you get what you
want and you see if you like it" and whoever is in the show insists that
nothing was cut. This explains so much and I can't tell you how happy
this makes me. I also realize how pathetic this sounds, but I don't
care!!!!!!
Thanks again,
Janice <----- going back to lurk mode, but with a smile.......
fluffer
>Kafritz1 wrote:
>> The London production does indeed
>> look interesting from the photos in the
>> cast recording and Richard Jones is a
>> very good director. I'm sure it worked beautifully in the theatre. But,
oh,
>> those voices! It sure makes for a grotesque
>> listen. With the notable exception of
>> Julia McKenzie, and the major addition
>> of "Our Little World," I find the rest of it very difficult to sit
through.
>
>Different strokes! I love it.
I've only been following/contributing to this group for a couple of months,
so apologies if (as it sounds) this is retreading old ground. But I have to
agree with Stephen. I find the Broadway CD very hard to listen to - with the
exception of Bernardette Peters, the performances are all razzle-dazzle,
belted out with not enough warmth or humanity. By contrast, Ian
Bartholomew's and Imelda Staunton's voices are full of tenderness, subtlety
and just sheer *acting*. My only reservations are with Julia McKenzie, who
becomes rather too faux operatic at times for my taste. (But "The Last
Midnight" never fails to reduce me to jelly!). I attended what turned out to
be the very last performance of the original London production, and what an
emotional night it was.
By contrast, what a disappointment was the revival at Leicester Haymarket.
Paul Kerryson can normally do no wrong with Sondheim, and audiences in the
British midlands owe him an immense debt for giving us the chance over
recent years to see full-scale professional productions of Pacific
Overtures, Merrily We Roll Along, Follies, Sunday In The Park With George
and Sweeney Todd. But I couldn't believe what he did with Into The Woods -
casting an actor who *couldn't* sing as the Baker, and setting it in a
forest that looked like it was made out of black refuse sacks.
--
Remove "spamaway." if replying by mail
Phil Reynolds http://users.computerweekly.net/fluffer/
Carolyn Marie
> No, this was a full costumes/setted version of the show at the Old Globe
> Theatre. John Cunningham played The Narrator, The Wolf, and the Steward.
> -Logan
Wow. Quick change artist.
I wouldn't have been able to wrap my mind around Cunningham, our remarkable
Captain Smith, as the Wolf if I hadn't heard him in the Maltby and Shire CYRANO.
He has a wider range than I had thought and does a wonderful job of sarcastic
taunting in 'Had You But Wit'. If you can, grab this CD; it's a Yale student
production from the 50's that is a little dated but has some truly beautiful
songs. 'Stargazer' and 'Autumn' are particularly good. And Dick Cavett is in it!
OT, is he (Cunningham) being considered for THE VISIT? I know he was in the
workshop.
One last thing; I know he's on the Tony committee so whenever I decry a
particularly boneheaded decision I delude myself that he probably voted the other
way.
Carolyn