“Into The Woods” and “Seussical”:


From the Storybook to the Stage
In writing a musical, the key component to begin is having a story. The most iconic musicals are the ones with simple but powerful stories. For example: a boy and a girl from two rival New York street gangs begin a forbidden romance that ends in tragedy. Simple stories often bring out the most intense emotions. With that in mind, some of the best source material comes in the form of classic children’s literature. These are simple fables that often contain powerful messages for people of all ages.
There are two famous examples of musicals like this. One is Into the Woods, with book by James Lapine and music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. For this musical, Sondheim and Lapine take several classic fairytales written by the Brothers Grimm and interweave them into one cohesive narrative using an original story to connect everything together. The other musical is Seussical, with book and lyrics by Lynn Ahrens and music by Stephen Flaherty. This musical takes its story from the works of Dr. Seuss and much like Into the Woods, fits all of the classic characters and stories into one show. Both of these shows received epic original productions on Broadway and have also had a tremendous life in regional theaters as well as school productions. However, the popular consensus among the theater community is that Into the Woods is far superior to Seussical in terms of the written material. Ahrens and Flaherty had several major hits prior to Seussical, such as Ragtime and Once on This Island, but this show gave them some of the worst reviews of their careers (Pogrebin). My personal feeling is that a closer look at both of these musicals can not only illustrate where Seussical went astray, but also the many similarities between the two, both blatant and subtle.
The most significant difference difference between Into the Woods and Seussical is in their separate tones. Both source materials are well-known for having a dark, satirical edge, despite being aimed at young children. It is extremely clear at first viewing that Seussical was written as family-friendly piece, whereas Into the Woods took a much more subversive approach. The original Grimms’ fairytales were far more graphic than the versions we heard growing up, and Sondheim and Lapine used these lesser-known elements to their greatest advantage. For example, in the original telling of Cinderella, the Stepmother slices off one Stepsister’s big toe and a piece of the other Stepsister’s heel in order for their feet to fit the golden slipper, only to have her plans thwarted when the prince discovers blood dripping from the slipper. Onstage, the audience roars at the sheer absurdity of the situation.
Dr. Seuss wrote many of his stories as allegories of events going on in the world, such as racism, war, and single- parenthood. This is one of the main reasons his books are as iconic as they are. Ahrens and Flaherty, unlike Sondheim and Lapine, underplayed this element of the books in order to create a more colorful, yet saturated production aimed for children.
The one element of Seussical that took a more adult approach was the costuming for the animal characters. The only effort made to make the actors look like their animal counterparts was in the color of their clothing. One of the more interesting visual moments of the original Broadway production is Horton the Elephant’s entrance proper in the story. The audience first sees the silhouette of what looks like an elephant. Then, a spotlight reveals that it is really the actor, Kevin Chamberlin, dressed in all grey and holding up two large leaves that are made to look like an elephant’s ears. Moments like this work, while other attempts to make actors look like animals were quite muddled. Sharon Wilkins, the actress playing the Sour Kangaroo, was put in a gaudy red housecoat and was given an extremely large wig that it seems was supposed to look like kangaroo ears, but really made her look like a disciple of Satan. The ironic thing is that Into the Wood’s sole animal character, the Wolf (Robert Westenberg) who meets Little Red Riding Hood, was given a much more animalistic design with human elements thrown in like a leather jacket and extremely odd human genitalia. Finding a way to make the animal characters in Seussical look more like animals would have added more consistency to the production as a whole, as well as more clarity to the audience, particularly the young children.
Another aspect of these two musicals that separates their distinct tones is the score. The score of Into the Woods is exactly what one would expect from a Fairytale musical written by Stephen Sondheim. There is a perfect balance of whimsy and fun and also Sondheim’s trademark sardonic wit and powerful language. One of the best examples of this is Cinderella’s song near the end of Act One, “On the Steps of the Palace”. The melody is quite tuneful, but with the usual musical complexity expected from Sondheim. The lyrics take the audience through Cinderella’s emotional journey, and where she must go from here. The song gives new insight into a character that most people have been familiar with since childhood.
Into the Woods also features two standout ballads that perfectly encapsulate what Sondheim and Lapine were going for in creating this piece. The show’s 11 o’clock number comes in the form of a song called “No One is Alone”. The song is sung by Cinderella (Kim Crosby) and the Baker (Chip Zien), one of the two original characters created for the show, to Jack (Ben Wright) and Little Red Riding Hood (Danielle Ferland), the two “innocents” in the story. The song is meant as a beacon of hope in the show’s darkest moments. This is perfectly summed up in the following lyrics: Witches can be right, Giants can be good. You decide what’s right, You decide what’s good. Just remember: Someone is on your side. As the narrative of the show comes to a close, the Witch (frequent Sondheim interpreter Bernadette Peters), who has become the moral center of the piece, reappears to sing a haunting song called “Children Will Listen”. Both of these songs sum up the ultimate theme of the show: the relationships between parents and children, but more on that later.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, Seussical’s score seems to match its visuals in their light, colorful tone. What Ahrens and Flaherty seem to be most successful at writing are group numbers, specifically opening numbers. This particular opening number, “Oh, The Thinks You Can Think”, perfectly sets up both the world of the musical and the world of Dr. Seuss. The melody is thrilling, and the lyrics are peppered with many Seuss-isms that are synonymous with his books. In my opinion, the one lyric that specifically sums up the world of the play is this: Take a tip from the Cat, and hold on to your hat! ‘Cuz this ain’t Mother Goose! It is a shame that the rest of the show could not match this particular song’s whimsy. However, there are several other group numbers in the show that almost rise to the occasion, such as “Biggest Blame Fool”, “It’s Possible”, and “Havin’ a Hunch”. These songs are able to support the story along with showcasing some strong vocals from the multi-talented ensemble.
There are, though, musical numbers in Seussical that do not even come near to the level of emotion shown in Into the Woods. Kevin Chamberlin, as Horton the Elephant, has the two major ballads of the show. The first is “Alone in The Universe”, where Horton, an outcast himself in the Jungle of Nool, meets Jojo (Anthony Blair Hall), the lone imaginative mind on the tiny planet of Who which Horton finds at the beginning of the show. Horton’s other ballad, “Solla Sollew”, is a lullaby that he sings to a bird egg that he was unwillingly become a surrogate parent to. The song later becomes a letter that Jojo writes to his parents while he is in the trenches of a frivolous war. These songs try to pack an emotional punch, but ultimately these songs do not have as much emotional resonance as they would need to truly move an audience.
Of all the emotional character numbers in Seussical there is only one song that truly makes an audience laugh and get slightly emotional at the same time. One of the sub-plots in the show involves Gertrude McFuzz (Janine LaManna), a quirky bird who is in love with Horton, who does not seem to reciprocate. She feels that this is because of her one-feathered tail, so she goes to a doctor who gives her some pills which make her tail grow abnormally long. She then finds Horton in a moment of crisis and tries to woo him in the form of a song called “Notice Me, Horton”. This song compactly conveys Gertrude’s emotions as well as Horton’s determination to find the planet of Who which he has lost. It makes such a touching moment when these two characters sing of the same hopes and dreams. They are very similar, though one does not realize it yet.
The other significant difference between Into the Woods and Seussical lies in their respective structures. Both of these shows had an extremely difficult task: to combine a collection of classic stories into one cohesive narrative. Into the Woods had two major elements that connected it together. One was the characters of the Baker and the Baker’s Wife (Joanna Gleason, who won a Tony award for her performance in the show). Amidst all of these classic characters like Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk”, and Rapunzel, are these two relatively normal characters with one desire: to have a child. It is their journey to have a child that sets the plot into motion. Though this is definitely an ensemble piece, the Baker and his Wife are the glue that hold the show together.
The most important element that holds Into the Woods together is the theme of “wishes”. The show begins with a lengthy opening number in which almost all of the principle characters define themselves by their most treasured wish. Cinderella wishes to go to a festival, Little Red Riding Hood wishes to get some baked goods to bring to her sick grandmother, Jack wishes his beloved cow would produce some milk so his mother will not make him sell her, and the Baker and the Baker’s Wife wish to finally have a child. By the end of the number, the characters have decided to set out into the woods in order to get their wishes. The words “I wish” are the first and last lines sung in the whole show, and there are many lyrics throughout the score that reference wishes, such as this lyric from “Children Will Listen”: Wishes come true, Not free. Into the Woods is essentially about wishes and the prices you have to pay to get them. It is a clear theme that is easy for an audience to understand but is also extremely though-provoking.
Whereas Seussical tells all of the famous Seuss stories from beginning to end in the format of Musical Comedy, Into the Woods goes a step beyond in its structure. The original tales of these iconic characters, as well as the Baker and the Baker’s Wife’s are all wrapped up by the end of Act One. I can imagine that many audience members over the years have been perplexed during intermission as to what the second act could possibly be about. Act Two of Into the Woods basically shows the aftermath of “Happily Ever After”. The wishes these characters got at the end of Act One begin to take a toll on their lives that leads to literal death and destruction at the hands of a vengeful Giant.
Seussical, unfortunately, does not have as strong a thread as Into the Woods does. There are many stories in Seussical. In fact, there are stories-within-stories. Horton, for example, is the main character in essentially three different plots in the show: His story with the planet of Who, his story with the egg, and his story with Gertrude. The only major idea that connects these stories together is that they are all creations of Dr. Seuss. Aside from that, it can be somewhat unclear why all of these stories need to be told together. Only with a closer look can one find a theme that connects these stories together, but that will be discussed later.
One other reason that Seussical has a loose, unclear structure is possibly because it has an unreliable narrator. Seussical’s narrator is arguably Dr. Seuss’ most iconic character, The Cat in the Hat. This incarnation of The Cat in the Hat (David Shiner) stays very true to how Dr. Seuss created him; he is a wily, chaos-creating trickster. This character is always welcome in a fun piece like this, but he does not seem to work as a storyteller. An audience may not be able to trust such a mischievous character to orchestrate the narrative of the show. The Cat in the Hat is constantly tricking the audience as well as the other characters in order to create a little fun for himself. This can cause an imbalance in the structure of the piece if the audience does not know if the story they are hearing is true or not. It also does not help that David Shiner gives a very bland, uninspired performance. I could not find anything remotely special about his performance. He is struggling so hard to get a laugh but just falls completely flat.
Into the Woods’ narrator (Tom Aldredge) is the complete opposite of the Cat in the Hat. This narrator is an older, professorial man who simply tells the straightforward story of the musical. Only once does he offer his own commentary on the situation. When the extremely gluttonous Little Red Riding Hood is devoured by the Wolf, the narrator turns sharply to the audience and says, “Well, it was a full day of eating for both.” Every time I see any production of this show, I laugh hysterically at this line, because it is so unexpected, and Aldrege’s deadpan delivery makes the line soar. Aside from this, though, the audience knows that this narrator is going to give them only the true events of the story. This is one of the many reasons why Into the Woods has a much tighter and stronger structure than Seussical.
Despite all of these differences, I have discovered that there are some strong similarities between Into the Woods and Seussical, the main one being the theme of parents and children. Sondheim and Lapine make this theme very clear in Into the Woods, as I stated before. Most of the main characters are defined by their familial relationship. Jack has an extremely codependent relationship with his mother. It is never stated how old Jack is, but it is clear that his mother will not let him grow up. Cinderella, a slave to her new Step-family and drunk father, believes her only ally to be the spirit of her late mother who resides in the tree Cinderella planted as a grave. The Witch has taken Rapunzel as her own daughter and keeps her locked away in a tower, which makes Rapunzel extremely eager to rebel. Little Red Riding Hood tries to obey her mother’s wishes to stay on the path in the woods, but is shortly led astray by the lascivious Wolf. Of course, the Baker and his Wife just want to have a child, and when they finally do, the Baker questions whether or not he is truly fit to be a father. This element, mixed with the theme of “Wishes” make Into the Woods as timeless and as poignant as it is.
Ahrens and Flaherty, though, implanted a more subtle message of parents and children. Jojo has a strained relationship with his parents because he is a “thinker”, which, on Who, is a radical concept. Mayzie La Bird (Michelle Pawk), an extremely beautiful and social bird, lays an egg at the end of Act One and quickly grows bored sitting around waiting for it to hatch. She then cons Horton, who is still trying to find the lost planet of Who, into sitting on her egg while she takes a quick “break”. Months go by, and Horton, along with the egg, nest and tree he is sitting on, is eventually captured and put in a circus. Mayzie happens to pass by the circus one day and recognizes Horton and her egg. She soon realizes that she is not fit to be a mother and Horton, though he insists otherwise, would be a more suitable parent. At the end of the show, the egg hatches and it turns out that the baby is half-elephant and half-bird. Gertrude volunteers to be a co-parent with Horton, and he finally realizes how truly wonderful the one-feathered bird is. Though the message is not as blatant as Into the Woods, the Parent-child element of Seussical gives it most of the heart it has.
The other similarity that struck me about these two shows was that despite the Fairytale elements, both musicals try to create incredibly human characters, whose situations can relate to a multitude of people. In Into the Woods, Cinderella is the product of an abusive household. The Witch’s relationship with Rapunzel resembles that of an overprotective single-parent and a rebellious child. Little Red Riding Hood represents the maturing teenager and her encounter with the wolf represents her sexual awakening. Jack could basically qualify as child with special needs, which would explain his mother’s excessive coddling. In Seussical, Jojo and Horton represent the outcast that most children think they are at some point in their life. Gertrude represents the quirky-but-loveable “girl next door” who can never seem to get the guy. Mayzie is the promiscuous social butterfly who is more self-aware than others may think. Both Sondheim and Lapine AND Ahrens and Flaherty developed these fictional beings with enough human qualities to create compelling characters that an audience is willing to follow for two and a half hours.
I have always been acutely aware that writing a musical is insanely difficult. There are so many elements that have to gel as one. Stephen Sondheim, James Lapine, Lynn Ahrens and Stephen Flaherty are all masters of their respective crafts, and they all took on a gargantuan challenge in the making of these two musicals. In the end, all four should be praised for the work they did. Even though Seussical is a tad more sloppy than Into the Woods, both musicals ultimately succeed in taking classic characters of children’s literature and turning them into three-dimensional musical theater characters. Both of these shows took a huge risk and I hope that future musical theater writers create risky shows like these.
Works Cited
Into the Woods. By Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine. Perf. Bernadette Peters and Joanna
Gleason. 1991. DVD.
Pogrebin, Robin. “The Places It Didn’t Go; How a Small Success Was Puffed Into a Big Flop.”
Editorial. New York Times 18 July 2001: n. pag. Print.
Seussical. By Lynn Ahrens. Dir. Rob Marshall. Chor. Kathleen Marshall. Richard Rodgers
Theatre, New York City. Performance.
