 | |
List Price: $19.98 | | Label: Nonesuch
Salesrank: 70640
Released: June 25, 2002 |
| Our Price: $13.13 |
| Used Price: $5.00 |
|
| Media: Audio CD |
|
Into the Woods (2002 Broadway Revival Cast) Track Listing:
1. Prologue: Into the Woods
2. Cinderella at the Grave
3. Hello, Little Girl
4. I Guess This Is Goodbye / Maybe They're Magic
5. Our Little World
6. I Know Things Now
7. A Very Nice Prince / First Midnight / Giants in the Sky
8. Agony
9. It Takes Two
10. Stay with Me
11. On the Steps of the Palace
12. Ever After
13. Prologue: So Happy
14. Agony (Reprise)
15. Lament
16. Any Moment / Moments in the Woods
17. Your Fault / Last Midnight
18. No More
19. No One Is Alone
20. Finale: Children Will Listen
Editorial Review:
Into the Woods, a trip to the dark side of fairy tales, usually doesn't show up on lists of Stephen Sondheim's finest offerings, but its broad appeal has turned it into the composer's most licensed project since its 1987 opening. It's no surprise, then, that it's become the object of a revival. The new production (which won the 2002 Tony for Best Revival of a Musical) was directed by James Lapine, the other half of the original creative team. Vanessa Williams, stepping into Bernadette Peters's shoes as the Witch, offers a powerful performance in what is, as written, no more than an ensemble part. The rest of the cast is wonderful, with special mentions to Laura Benanti as Cinderella and Stephen DeRosa and Kerry O'Malley as the Baker and his wife (all three will be familiar to New York musical buffs for their excellent performances in the Encores! series). All right, so the show's second act is still a lot less winning than the first one on stage, but the recording emphasizes the fact that it does boast some prime Sondheim numbers: "Last Midnight," "No One Is Alone," and "Children Will Listen." And we even get "Our Little World," a song that had been added to the 1990 London production. All in all, it's nice to have Into the Woods back, as it can both appeal to adults and provide an introduction to musicals for some kids. --Elisabeth Vincentelli
Into the Woods (2002 Broadway Revival Cast) Reviews:
Nothing over the original 
2008-05-03 - My flatmate and I listened to this recording, both being fans of the OBC. And we were constantly looking at each other in disbelief. We both couldn't get over Vanessa Williams lack of expression and the number of times the recording sounded a little off.
revival casts are meant to improve on the first, this one matched at times and came lower other times.
only buy if you're a fan. the packaging is equally disappointing. For a show so rich in texture, i would assume a more mature sense of design.
i definitely would only listen to this one more than twice if i were to stage the piece.
I wish! I wish! This wasn't so pathetic.... 
2007-12-28 - This was just appalling. The singing was substandard and all performances were flatter than the scenery in a high school production. I don't know why Stephen Sondheim authorised this recording as it is heinously inferior to the OCR in every cconcievable way. I have burnt copies for all of my most loathed acquaintances.
This revival is a concern for me...
2007-07-16 - Into the Woods is definitely one of my favorite musicals of all time. I first saw the OBC on video a very long time ago. Not only was the music outstanding, but it was hysterical and also heartbreaking! Even though all the cast members should be considered equal in comedy and dramatic...the witch is the best character in the show. It allows the most laugh out loud moments and also the most teary-eyed. Bernadette Peters in the original was perfect, nobody would ever be able to play the role like she did ever again.
Now I do give Vanessa Williams credit for attempting to make the role her own, and I take into consideration that she wanted to be more serious...I mean she has to do something different, because you had Bernadette create this role. So I decided to give it a chance. But sadly, it didn't even come close! Not only were the acting skills not there but her songs were transposed! I know many people transpose to make songs suitable for their voice, but my personal opinion is if you can't sing it, the song/role isn't the song/role for you. It's kind of sad when having everyone around you singing in the written keys, and your the only one who can't.
Maybe it's a little harsh but looking at the script and lyrics, and even the story, it's meant to be satire towards fairytales (in other words funny, then serious comes in the second act). Also, Williams isn't the only mediocre performance. With the exception of Cinderella, every cast member made mediocre performances. But thank goodness I still have my original broadway cast, because it will still always be one of my favorite shows.
Almost great, but not quite. 
2007-06-23 - First off, revivals tend to be bad. Think about that. Why does it seem like whenever there is a revival, it tends to be bad? Is it because the acting is just worse? Maybe, but for EVERY show?
The reason, is because fans of the show like the original. It is very hard to go from listening to a show and getting used to all the little details of the singing and music and then go and hear something totally different. Something WRONG.
But it isn't wrong. It's just different.
Baker: He has a GREAT voice, but character-wise, doesn't show the "nervous" baker we all know and love. But for the second act, his voice seems naturally suited for "sad songs".
Baker's Wife: She as well has a great voice. She does, however, lack the comedic acting of the original wife, as well as that she tends to sing with "fake energy" as I put it. Maybe it's just the recording's fault...
Jack: WAY too young. I think Jack should sound young...but that guy sounds like he's ten. AND THE VIBRATO!!! Giants in the sky is just a never ending stream of vibrato. He DOES bring a fresh way of singing Jack's parts into the mix, however.
Little Red: Too Annie. I prefered the Original big time, although this recording has some good moments. She is also too innocent, whereas the original was anything but.
Cinderelle: PERFECT casting. She is absolutly amazing.
Rapunzel: Great Voice...I haven't seen her act, so...
Witch: Leave the real criticsm at the end, eh? Anyhow, Bernadette made the witch one of my favorite characters, so I was in for an unforutunate suprise with our good friend Vanessa Williams. She has no where near the chops to sing the witches parts, and the parts where she sings at the original key and octave are few. She has a somewhat "prettier" voice, but even then, she takes the premise of being a witch, and does it the WHOLE TIME. Her "gentle" moments with Rapunzel still give the feeling that she is more or less cackling at her, despite Peter's ability to actually change dynamics and become a softer, NICER witch.
Overall, this recording is very nice and polished, BUT sondheim does not do nice and polished. The entire point of this show (in my opinion anyway) is the fact that sterotypical characters (the witch being the evil cackling old woman" in reality are everything but (little red and her rather "large" body type for example. If I saw this show, I'd no doubtly hate it.
But as a recording, go ahead and buy it, as the pros definately outweigh the cons.
Much better than the original! 
2007-06-12 - I gave away my original Broadway and London cast albums of this recording after I bought the revival, because I believe it to be much better. Now, I am a classically trained vocalist with a speciality in music theater, so I tend to focus more on a singer's quality of tone. I never understood why everyone loves Joanna Gleason, because I have never liked her. She has too harsh a voice for my taste. The woman who plays the baker's wife in the revival has a much better singing voice, as does the baker. I felt that Chip Zien tended to do a lot of overacting. Come to think of it, I find it hard that Into The Woods is supposed to be a dark musical, when the main characters are those in fairy tales, so I can see how this show was interpreted 2 different ways. I saw a college production of the show and loved it, although I feel it's a bit overdramatized. I do love Kim Crosby and Laura Banati equally, and though I liked Bernadette Peters as the witch, I feel Vanessa Williams plays the role more seductively than Peters ever did. I will say that Peters did a better job of going between the emotions of tenderness for Rapunzel, and her own conniving, sinister desire to reclaim her beauty, while making it look like she was trying to help everyone else attain their own dreams. In the London version, I found Julia McKenzie to be far too operatic for the role. I never liked the narrator in the original cast because he wasn't a good singer. Although I do not particularly enjoy the narrator-s speaking voice in the revival, I do think he is a better singer than the one who originated the part. The other main difference between all 3 cast albums is Little Red Riding Hood. In the original production, I felt she sounded, as one reviewer put it, "Annie-ish". In the London version, as another viewer put it, she sounded like a "bratty, snot-nosed little girl.) I hardly think this is the interpretation to go with. I find the little girl in the revival cast to give the best interpretation. Sweet and innocent, as a child of that age should be. And this child can actually sing! If you want to see the varieties of interpretive choices, look at how many different ways Mary Lenox was played in the "Secret Garden." Anyway, The common link between all 3 cast albums is Jack's mother, who, as the story says, is supposedly an old woman, and this was achieved with great success. So I hope this was helpful, and though all 3 recordings have strengths and weaknesses, it is my personal oppinion that the revival is the best overall.
