The Creativity Post: Whether or not we agree with him, Sigmund Freud was a genius. His cosmology is so compelling that it continues to pervade Western culture; nearly a century after he first developed it, his symbolic imagery still adds layers of meaning to literature, drama, and the visual arts.
It also enriches musicals, like Into the Woods.
4 comments:
This article presents a very cool idea- that the fundamental lessons of Into the Woods reflect the process and theories behind most cognitive therapy. There are some interesting examples and cited lyrics that certainly support the claims of the author, presenting the opportunity to think of the musical as a kind of instruction guide or "roadmap" to happiness. One thing I wish the author had followed through on was this connection to Sigmund Freud. One interesting element was the use of the woods to signify what Freud called the "Id," which is the part of our minds which contains the gritty wants and needs that are often suppressed by our ego and superego. However, he draws upon Freud's belief that there are two states of being, dreadful misery and plain old common unhappiness, quoting him, and then denies the theory by saying Into the Woods inspires something more than common unhappiness. If you were going to completely discard the quote, why include it at all? I appreciate the concept of this article, but I really wish that there had been some more follow-through on the comparisons instead of drawing out a list of "Hey this could be like therapy!" examples.
Through the philosophies of Sigmund Freud, I am frazzled by the comparison made between Freud views on dreams and wish fulfillment on life with Sondheim's lyrics for Into the Woods. I've always loved how much meaning Sondheim's songs have. Every single word has a purpose in his music and this article really grasps that concept. I think it also pushes the thought of how deep Freud's views on wishes and how both Sondheim and Freud have unruly ids with sirens that call for risky and selfish impulses. And yes, this is a common misconception on how nothing is perfect and people have their own responsibilities and what keeps them from moving forward is choosing to blame their problems others. Humans are their own enemy and people seem to look past this and blame others. And it's just an on going problem that never seems to get resolved. This article has opened my eyes even more on this argument and I'm glad I had the pleasure to reading it.
This just reiterates the brilliance of Sondheim. Despite having a fairly straight forward conceit of fairy tale characters meeting in the woods, Into the Woods is a show that captures human nature like no other show I have ever experienced. I was particularly intrigued by the concept of the id as the source of risky impulsive decisions. The fallibility of human nature lies in the differences between our ideals and our decisions. The idealistic version of life, ie fairytales, is not an achievable goal, because in the end, we are controlled by the base and primal parts of ourselves that spur us into making bad decisions. Almost every character commits an unfortunate transgression that goes against the ideals normally presented in fairy tales, but are far too common in human life-- adultery, theft, greed, oppressing, indecision, malice, and murder. Sondheim is a master at illustrating the foibles of human existence, and the hope that keeps us striving towards the fairy tale ideals of love, family, goodness, and loyalty.
This article presents a very interesting diagnosis of the musical Into the Woods. As a child, my family owned the DVD of the stage production and I must have watched it hundreds of times. However, I never loved Act II: where the characters, having left the woods with what they were searching for in the first place, are forced to return to face the consequences of their actions. As Dr. Schlesinger describes, the woods are a place where anything is possible; it is where witches, princesses, wolves, and giants dwell. Only after the search is completed, and having left the woods, can the characters see the full picture and apply it to themselves. Though the article seems optimistic about their journey through the woods, Act II seems to present the idea that not everyone can return from them. Characters are lost, relationships betrayed, and the search continues, this time without the perfect happy ending. If the woods are a “sacred, scary place” where characters confront their fears and desires—what does it imply, then, if some never return?
Post a Comment