Into the Woods

Released:  December 25^th, 2014

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Walt Disney Studios

Starring:  Meryl Streep, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Tracey Ullman, Christine Baranski, Johnny Depp

Directed by:  Rob Marshall

Written by:  James Lapine

Personal Bias Alert:  not familiar with the play, have seen twisted fairy tales many times

4.5 of 10

            Between the singing, the never-ending story, and the kid with the cockney accent I felt like I was having a flashback to last year’s Les Misérables.  The kid is in fact the same actor, Daniel Huttlestone, here playing Jack from Jack and the Beanstalk.  If you don’t already know, Into the Woods features a mashup of various Brothers Grimm fairy tale characters, something that was perhaps more inventive when the musical came out in 1986 but is now nothing to write home about.  Still, the movie does feature an impressive cast, most of whom we already know can sing.  Sondheim also has a certain clout, so I went in hoping this would be an enjoyable family film.

            Let’s get the obvious out of the way first:  all the actors pull off their parts.  There’s some variation as to how well they pull them off, but no one grinds things to a halt.  Emily Blunt and James Corden as the only original characters (a baker and his wife) are great together, a one-two punch of comedy, musical chops, and general affability that provides a solid anchor.  If the film had focused on this pair’s search for the four ingredients the witch needs to grant them a child, I would’ve been a happy camper.

            But alas, the film has some larger statements in mind, so we get meandering offshoots about Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), and Jack.  Did I miss anyone?  I may have missed someone.  Anyway, there’s a lot of side characters, most of whose storylines are pretty basic but feature big musical numbers that many in my theater reacted to like they were showstoppers (The princes’ Agony earned particularly big applause).  I was less impressed than my fellow Christmas morning moviegoers, finding Into the Wood’s brand of fairy tale skewering quaintly old hat and being more than a little thrown off by Sondheim’s wordy lyrics.

            Now, admittedly, these are all inherited problems from the musical, but what I was particularly unimpressed by was the translation into film.  I feel like there was a great opportunity to open this thing up, to really explore the titular woods and have some fun with the more fantastical elements, but it’s all left fairly monochromatic.  The big set pieces seem to always be just off-frame, an element that’s necessary in a play but frustrating in a movie.  However, the most troubling symptom of this is the woods itself.  It lacks any sense of personality or menace.  It’s just a jumble of trees that everyone seems to be walking through or talking about all the time.  Why everyone’s so concerned about it I don’t know because nothing very bad seems to happen there, at least nothing that the woods should be get credit for.

            By the time the bad things do start happening to people, it’s pretty clear that most of it is the character’s own fault.  It’s generally attributable to some underlying fault in the fairy tale, a twisted take on something you’re supposed to find Charming (Prince Charming, get it?  Hooray puns.).  The problem is that most of the things Into the Woods points out is incredibly basic, lacking any real bite for an adult audience.  It’s my understanding that the film is a watered-down version of the musical, which leaves me wondering why they would tone it down so much.  Wouldn’t a PG-13 interpretation allow them to keep more of the material that made the musical a hit while still reaching a wide audience?

            Luckily, many of the one-liners still worked and had me belly-laughing from time to time.  I wasn’t blind to the sarcasm underlying all this, it just wasn’t very well sustained.  I had to sit through long, boring periods before it shone through in a wittily sardonic line or at least a pleasant scene between Blunt and Corden.  These bright spots just didn’t add up to a complete product and only served to make the whole thing seem even more dull and drawn-out than it really was.

            Other Notes:

Ø  There was about 20 minutes in the middle where I was totally into it.  For the rest of the time it barely held my attention.

Ø  See, prerecording the songs works just fine.

Ø  Was the Rapunzel/prince storyline really necessary?  I feel like that’s an easy thing to cut out.

Ø  Why can’t you just have a wolf?  Why do you need Johnny Depp dressed up as a wolf?  And of course it’s Johnny Depp dressed up as the wolf.

Kramer vs. Kramer

Released:  December 19^th, 1979

Rated:  PG

Studio:  Columbia Pictures

Starring:  Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, Jane Alexander, Justin Henry

Directed by:  Robert Benton              

Written by:  Robert Benton

Personal Bias Alert:  raised by a stay-at-home dad, finds emotional honesty riveting

8.5 of 10

            I’ve discussed before how difficult it is for ‘issue’ films to age well.  They often seem stuck in their time, commenting on aspects of society that no longer exist.  Watching it, you can appreciate the message its sending, but the shock and outrage is missing.  If the film isn’t about more than its central issue then it becomes doomed to fade away after society comes to its senses.  But if, like Kramer vs. Kramer, it takes a larger, honest look at the story at hand, then it can retain its emotional resonance throughout time.

            Starring Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep, Kramer vs. Kramer is about the ever-changing way we define family.  Specifically, this story takes on the traditional gender roles of parents after Streep’s Joanna divorces Hoffman’s Ted and leaves him with their young son.  Ted had been a workaholic, comfortable with leaving Joanna to take care of the household and the emotional needs of their child.  After her abrupt exit, Ted has to learn how to be more than just a breadwinner, or as Ted tells his son “I’ve got to bring home the bacon and cook it, too.”

            Now I grew up with a stay-at-home dad, so I’m used to seeing a man cook, clean, and shuttle the kids to their various activities.  This was still unusual at the time.  My dad has told me that there were no changing stations in men’s rooms when my brother and I were younger, so he had to ‘improvise.’  I never asked what exactly that meant, because I recognize that it’s probably one of those things best left unknown.  Anyway, what this means is that I’ve always known that fathers can be emotionally supportive and interested in their kids, and conversely that mothers can be intelligent and career-driven.  This is the essential message of Kramer vs. Kramer, and even if it’s outdated, it’s still a decent reminder as we battle more general gender stereotypes.

            Streep’s good in this, earning her first Oscar for the role, but she’s gone for long periods of time, leaving the audience predominately with Hoffman and Justin Henry, who played the couple’s son.  These two are extraordinary, nailing the many scenes between them and giving this film an honest core.  Hoffman, obviously, had been working for quite some time, but Henry was a first-timer, and a dreaded child actor at that.  To leave so much of the movie up to them, to leave each of their skills so bare to the camera, was a gutsy move by writer/director Robert Benton.  Luckily for him and all of us, both men stepped up to the plate.

            Because of these excellent performances and the excellent writing by Benton, Kramer vs. Kramer tackles not only the then-relevant issue of divorce, but also examines the way families and individuals respond to change.  Ted must learn how to balance work and life, and each must adjust their daily routines to their new post-Joanna world.  As with everything, this comes with some good and some bad, but what shines through is the father and son’s growing attachment to each other.  Being that they’re both men, they bond in some untraditional ways, and I love that the film uses little moments like how they share the bathroom in the morning to establish their bond.  It’s these more universal and timeless touches that allow the film to survive the years and will keep it relevant for generations to come.

            The other big thing that Kramer vs. Kramer has going for it is its brutal honesty.  Characters get hot under the collar and yell things they don’t mean, or things they do mean but are difficult to say.  A lot of time passes in this film, so you get to see the different emotional stages of the three family members and how they act in each one.  Sometimes they rise gloriously to the occasion, while other times they trip up and fall flat on their face.  Such is life, and these moments feel honest for each character.

            This truly is a wonderful movie, but it will lose steam for modern audiences when the divorce issue becomes more prevalent in its later portions.  Some of the statements that were grand and envelope-pushing at the time immediately dates it, placing it firmly in a world that some younger folks (including myself) weren’t alive for.  But there’s plenty of timeless stuff to overshadow these moments, and I walked away thinking about my own family, imperfect but loving, just like the Kramers.

            Other Notes:

Ø  That is a great scene between Ted and his neighbor in the park.

Ø  Joanna strikes some dramatic poses when she stalks people.

Ø  Is that a Tab sponsorship I see?

Ø  Ted’s pants were terrible.