Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!- Page 2

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:41am

I haven't seen the show yet and now want to more than ever.

Gaveston, I also read Poison's "spoiler" link.  I'm not perplexeed at all.  From the very first time I saw Oklahoma (it began with the movie) as a child, it seemed to me that there was more than just an undercurrent of oppressive corny Americana be-a-one-of-us-cookie-cutter or suffer, a kind of cultural domination.  To me Oklahoma! is the quintessential, even primal, show to make this production's point, especially in this day and age when "those states" (God help us, another loathsome form of cultural domination by some narrow-minded coastals who delight in falsely - stupidly! - reducing "flyover" to a monolith) represent something very similar to so many.

As far as this treatment not being at all the author's intention in the 1940s, to me that is not a pivotal concern.  What is is that the show now works.  If it does.

To me, the show does not wstork as originally envisioned.  It never has (in my lifetime, and I'm... well, you know how old I am).

As far as Oscar's grandson goes, nothing wrong with him weighing in.  My only problem is that the article seems more interested in &*()-stirring by showing his dissent than in actually relating more precisely what in the show he finds so objectionable.

 

[After Eight]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:55am

“My only problem is that the article seems more interested in &*()-stirring by showing his dissent than in actually relating more precisely what in the show he finds so objectionable.”

 

I have no problem with either him or the article. He called the production “a travesty.” He need not utter even one more word to convey his feelings on the matter. Nor does he have the slightest obligation to provide specifics to appease his detractors, who, incidentally, will never be appeased.

I'm glad he said what he did.

I commend him, I applaud him, and I admire him.

[BJR]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 8:25am

GavestonPS said: "^^^ And, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop companies from doing a traditional OKLAHOMA! in polka dots and gingham."

100%.

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 10:13am

You know something After Eight? All your posts make me think of a quote from Henry Ford. "Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right." 

In other words, it feels like you go into every show, knowing that there's no possible way on God's green earth that you'd enjoy it. But, if you can go in with an open mind, things regarding your viewpoints of contemporary theatre may change. Who knows? May happen. 

As for the changing of the material for this production, I think it works great. I feel that there's a lot of plot points in R&H's shows that are dark. One example other than Oklahoma that comes to mind is Carousel. To me, it feels like they glossed over the severity of Billy being physically abusive to Julie. Now, while Oklahoma was a groundbreaking work of American theatre, I felt that the original did the same.

One of the reasons why I enjoy this amazing revival is because it does the complete opposite of that by highlighting the darker moments with Judd. I mean, classic works will always get revivals that shine a light on a show in a different way. I mean, how many times have we seen a Sondheim show reworked to have a different tone, A la the recent London revival of Company or the Fiasco productions of both Into the Woods and Merily we Roll Along at roundabout. If those classic American musicals can be updated why can't a production of Oklahoma be viewed under a different lens too? 

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 10:34am

Islander_fan, what makes you feel like Billy's behaviour is glossed over in Carousel?

Not only does Carrie immediately urge Julie to leave him the first time she finds out about it, but she also tells Julie that she is better off with Billy dead, and Julie *agrees* with her.  Having the character's wife and her best friend agree that she is better off with him dead is quite the opposite of glossing over his behaviour!

[Kad]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 10:45am

GavestonPS said: "
This is a running theme in Hammerstein's work, so I'm left to wonder when I read descriptions of this new interpretation. It just doesn't sound all that new, except that it seems to resist attempts to perform OK! as a traditional musical comedy."

You're absolutely correct.

After all the opinions and wailing and gnashing about this production, I was most surprised by how straightforward it generally was in its presentation of the material. John Doyle productions are often far more opaque and, frankly, disconnected to their material than Daniel Fish's take on this show. 

 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 11:11am

Hopefully, Andy Hammerstein never attends an opera, ballet or production of a Shakespeare play.  He'll be in for a very rude awakening.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 12:49pm

Here's my problem, the title song mentions lots of different food relating to the farms of Oklahoma. But nowhere in the script or lyrics does it mention chili! Now there's the travesty. 

[Islander_fan]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 1:44pm

adam.peterson44 said: "Islander_fan, what makes you feel like Billy's behaviour is glossed over in Carousel?

Not only does Carrie immediately urge Julie to leave him the first time she finds out about it, but she also tells Julie that she is better off with Billy dead, and Julie *agrees* with her. Having the character's wife and her best friend agree that she is better off with him dead is quite the opposite of glossing over his behaviour!"

In that situation you're right. However, to me, the whole plot line of Billy's redemption is what comes to mind when I meant glossed over. Not only did he beat Julie, he died while in the process of trying to commit an act of theft. The whole thing reads (to me at least) that his actions couldn't have been too bad if he was able to, in the end, get into heaven. 

[greensgreens]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 2:54pm

It's not that difficult to get the attention of Page Six as long as you can link a celebrity or high-profile subject to the press release - oops, I meant "story." You just need a good clickbait headline. It should not be a shock that the recent publication of this "story" quickly flips on a dime and devolves into PR for an event/appearance/etc. I am perplexed about one thing though - I can't believe that Hammerstein Estate money couldn't buy a less transparent PR strategy.

[BenjaminNicholas2]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 3:31pm

Agreed.  

 

I'd have less problem with this production if it were actually well-sung.

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 4:06pm

I think that's exactly it though -- Carousel is a story of redemption. We're not supposed to admire Billy's actions towards Julie during their marriage. The whole tone of the musical has always been dark and difficult. Oklahoma! is "supposed" to be a cheery tribute to the American spirit, but I've always found Curly to be a bully, the storyline of Ado Annie's dad offering her up to the first guy who has $50 sleazy (shouldn't Ado have a say in who she wants to marry?), and the suicide baiting of Jud deeply uncomfortable. So I feel like directors of Oklahoma! have to either embrace the darkness, or put a lid on it. I think Fish does both -- the Curly/Jud treatment is very dark but he leaves the lighthearted Ado Annie storyline intact.

[joevitus]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:15pm

poisonivy2 said: "I think that's exactly it though -- Carousel is a story of redemption. We're not supposed to admire Billy's actions towards Julie during their marriage. The whole tone of the musical has always been dark and difficult. Oklahoma! is "supposed" to be a cheery tribute to the American spirit, but I've always found Curly to be a bully, the storyline of Ado Annie's dad offering her up to the first guy who has $50 sleazy (shouldn't Ado have a say in who she wants to marry?), and the suicide baiting of Jud deeply uncomfortable. So I feel like directors of Oklahoma! have to either embrace the darkness, or put a lid on it. I think Fish does both -- the Curly/Jud treatment is very dark but he leaves the lighthearted Ado Annie storyline intact."

Ado Annie's dad doesn't offer her up to the first guy who has $50. He has tried to keep Will from marrying her by insisting he must have $50 cash--knowing Will is too poor/too reckless to save that much. When Will sells all the stuff he bought for Annie at the fair to the Peddler (who doesn't have to have any money to earn Annie's pa's approval), and gets the $50 cash, he holds Mr. Cairns to his word.

I can't see in what way, shape or form Curly is a bully. Especially in comparison with Jud. I love how he and Laurie spar, and how she always gets the better of him And ultimately, he has to put his cards on the table first and earnestly propose. They are an equal, and perfect, match.

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:15 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:41pm

henrik, I've been saying all along that it sounds like this production merely makes literal what was always in the subtext.

What I don't understand, based on poison ivy's summary...

***WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EMBED IT***

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...is why does Jud just hand a gun to his arch-rival and why does Curley do what he does with that gun? Both actions seem entirely random to me and certainly not supported by the text.

ETA to correct spell check's not-so-helpful changes.

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 07:41 PM

[7thbighero]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:45pm

 

GavestonPS said: "henrik, I've been saying all along that it sounds like this production merely makes literal what was always in the subtext.

What I don't understand, based on poison ivy's summary...

***WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EMBED IT**


...is why does Jud just hand a gun to his archival and why does Curley do what he does with that gun? Both actions seem entirely random to me and certainly not supposed by the text."

 

 

SPOILERISH....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“For example, part of Daniel Fish’s idea is the fact that Jud knows he’s done in. Because he’s gone after Laurey, Laurey has fired him, he’s lost — and that’s clear. So in Daniel’s idea, when Jud comes to the wedding, he comes in as he does in the play, but Daniel has him dressed very well, with the gift, which is a gun, which I guess we assume is the gun that Curly had to sell in order to get the hamper.

What happened in Daniel’s production at Bard, previously, was Curly picked the gun up out of the box and shot him in cold blood. And it was followed by a scene in which Curly gets off, claiming self-defense. And leaning partly on the fact that they wanted further rights, so that I still had an opportunity to have the conversation, I said you can’t do that. That is too far removed from what’s in the script. Every bone in my body says you can’t show cold-blooded murder that is clear to everyone witnessing it in the audience, then he gets away with it. There’s enough of that going on in the world, but don’t put it in Oklahoma!

I said, “Figure out a way to do it so that people don’t take that away from it.” And he has. It’s chilling, what he does.”

-Ted Chapin, custodian of the Rogers and Hammerstein catalogue https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html

 
 

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:45 PM

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:47pm

He is entitled to his opinion on his grandfather’s work, whilst sitting in his house in the Hamptons, or maybe a New York Penthouse, or could be somewhere in the Beverley Hills or just maybe some bolt hole in Florida.

All of course paid for, not because he gets paid for a professional opinion, but because of his grandfather’s glorious work.

I never understood why rights for writing can last 70 years and is claimed by distant family, but medicine that takes millions of bucks to develop only last 20 years.

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:51pm

You know for sure he doesn't pay for the place he lives in? And you are sure it is very luxurious? How do you know?

But truth be told, if my lucrative life was dependent of the good will of the public continuing to see my grandfather's show, I sure wouldn't want this production of Oklahoma! to be running, and I would publicly voice my opposition to it, as well. 

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:51 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:54pm

Alex Kulak2 said: "As the show commented back, not one word of the script or song lyrics have been changed.

If the text is exactly as Hammerstein wrote it, I can't see what his issue with it is. There's a big difference between "It betrays the script" and "I didn't like the production""

Well, I'll tell you: there was a legal case back in the 1980s (IIRC) concerning a production of MAN OF LA MANCHA that somehow set the play in modern day Central America in Nicaragua, the latter being in the midst of a revolution in which the US heavily intervened.

The author(s) sued successfully. The court ruled that the production so violated the spirit of the written text that it could not proceed unless it restored the context of the original libretto. IIRC, the theater accepted the court's verdict and reverted to a traditional setting of the story.

I'm not saying one can never change the original intention, but as someone who has both written and directed, I think there is a moral obligation in the use of someone else's work to be mindful of original intention.

(Example: I adapted and directed a production of THE BEGGAR'S OPERA long ago. In the original text, MacHeath (yes, "Mack the Knife" in Brecht's adaptation) is saved at the end "because operas always have happy endings". (In the early 18th century, operas were usually performed for royal occasions like weddings and nobody wanted a bummer ending.)

Well, that may have been true in the 1720s, when BEGGAR'S was written, but our convention today is that the opera isn't over until somebody dies. So in my production, we hanged MacHeath at the end, even letting him sing his final aria while hanging from the gallows. This was--IMHO--far more faithful to author John Gay's original ending, which would have only confused a 20th century audience.)

As a wise professor once said in a lecture I attended: "If you are going to alter a classic work, your adaptation should say something important about the original period and something about the period in which it is performed."

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 7:59pm

poisonivy2 said: "I think that's exactly it though -- Carousel is a story of redemption. We're not supposed to admire Billy's actions towards Julie during their marriage. The whole tone of the musical has always been dark and difficult. Oklahoma! is "supposed" to be a cheery tribute to the American spirit, but I've always found Curly to be a bully, the storyline of Ado Annie's dad offering her up to the first guy who has $50 sleazy (shouldn't Ado have a say in who she wants to marry?), and the suicide baiting of Jud deeply uncomfortable. So I feel like directors of Oklahoma! have to either embrace the darkness, or put a lid on it. I think Fish does both -- the Curly/Jud treatment is very dark but he leaves the lighthearted Ado Annie storyline intact."

The $50 business isn't so dark in the context of the periods (1943 and turn of the century Oklahoma). It was a father's responsibility to make sure his daughter married a man who could support her. That's where the $50 comes in. (We're obviously not talking the Vanderbilts or Astors here.)

Annie's father is merely doing his job as a father. He isn't selling her, he's trying to make sure she will be provided for.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 8:11pm

*** SPOILERS IN THIS POST; SORRY I CAN'T EMBED***

 

7thbighero said: "...What happened in Daniel’s production at Bard, previously, was Curly picked the gun up out of the box and shot him in cold blood. And it was followed by a scene in which Curly gets off, claiming self-defense. And leaning partly on the fact that they wanted further rights, so that I still had an opportunity to have the conversation, I said you can’t do that. That is too far removed from what’s in the script. Every bone in my body says you can’t show cold-blooded murder that is clear to everyone witnessing it in the audience, then he gets away with it. There’s enough of that going on in the world, but don’t put it in Oklahoma!

I said, “Figure out a way to do it so that people don’t take that away from it.” And he has. It’s chilling, what he does.”

-Ted Chapin, custodian of the Rogers and Hammerstein cataloguehttps://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html


"

I agree with Mr. Chapin. My problem is that the ending Chapin wanted changed sounds--in synopsis--EXACTLY the same as the ending in the eventual production.

I guess I can understand Jud returning Curley's gun to him as a weird sort of wedding present, but once Curley is armed and Jud is not, why does the rest of the business play out as reported?

 

[haterobics]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 8:36pm

Phantom of London said: "I never understood why rights for writing can last 70 years and is claimed by distant family, but medicine that takes millions of bucks to develop only last 20 years."

Because a medicine can be taken simultaneously around the globe from the moment it is launched, where creative work needs more time to have a similar impact?

[7thbighero]

Posted: 7/11/19 at 9:12pm

GavestonPS said: "*** SPOILERS IN THIS POST; SORRY I CAN'T EMBED***



7thbighero said: "...What happened in Daniel’s production at Bard, previously, was Curly picked the gun up out of the box and shot him in cold blood. And it was followed by a scene in which Curly gets off, claiming self-defense. And leaning partly on the fact that they wanted further rights, so that I still had an opportunity to have the conversation, I said you can’t do that. That is too far removed from what’s in the script. Every bone in my body says you can’t show cold-blooded murder that is clear to everyone witnessing it in the audience, then he gets away with it. There’s enough of that going on in the world, but don’t put it inOklahoma!

I said, “Figure out a way to do it so that people don’t take that away from it.” And he has. It’s chilling, what he does.”

-Ted Chapin, custodian of the Rogers and Hammerstein cataloguehttps://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html


"

I agree with Mr. Chapin.My problem is that the ending Chapin wanted changed sounds--in synopsis--EXACTLY the same as the ending in the eventual production.

I guess I can understand Jud returning Curley's gun to him as a weird sort of wedding present, but once Curley is armed and Jud is not, why does the rest of the business play out as reported?

"

I THINK, (it’s been a few weeks since I saw the show) Jud takes a step towards Curly when he makes the shot, making “Curly’s self defense” argument more ambiguous 

[bear88]

Posted: 7/12/19 at 3:04am

Some specifics behind the spoiler tag and thoughts below:

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

I feel like we're crime witnesses, seeing the climactic scene from different angles (actually true because it's in Circle in the Square) or not noticing them at all. When I saw the show, it moves in a sort of slow motion once Jud arrives. This felt like the actual dream sequence of the show. Jud moves deliberately, giving the gun to Curley, walking over to kiss Laurey tenderly, then standing and facing Curley - whose face is blank. I didn't notice Jud move, and if he did, it wasn't much. At a different angle, seeing his face, I might have seen it differently if I was sitting elsewhere. It felt, to me, like Jud was inviting Curley to kill him. It is less clear, from Damon Daunno and Patrick Vaill's portrayal of the scene, why Curley feels the need to bother. It does seem like cold-blooded murder, and that is certainly Laurey's reaction for the remainder of the show. It's a coup d'theatre that I don't think is really supported by the musical we've seen up until that point.

I think there are two big hurdles for the revival. Both are justifiable choices (the reworked Dream Ballet and the climactic scene with Curley and Jud). I liked the latter as a reflection of the country's violent origins and attitudes anywhere toward those who are deemed outsiders. I cannot say the execution worked as well as I would have liked. The Dream Ballet is more fun to listen to on the cast recording than to watch, which is very different than the rest of the show (which is better in person). The climax is undermined a bit by Damon Daunno's geniality as Curley. He's full of himself, like all Curleys, but he doesn't seem coldblooded. I know what Fish was going for here. He's the cool,, white dude who can get away with anything. 

I agree with most of poisonivy2's assessment of the revival, except for her dislike of Rebecca Naomi Jones, who I thought captured Laurie's frustrations and yearning in a way that was consistent with the text but highlighted in a way I'd never seen before. I was surprised, as Kad was, at how straightforward most of the show played. And overall, I thought the revival did a terrific job of emphasizing the strengths of the source material and improving on what I used to think of as weaknesses. (Who knew I'd think the Ado Annie plotline was such fun?)    

I understand why purists, like Andy Hammerstein, are going to object. As with the My Fair Lady revival, but in more dramatic fashion, "stage directions" can make all the difference. He's not saying different than many others here who have disliked the show. But I liked both revivals quite a bit.  

[joevitus]

Posted: 7/12/19 at 9:29am

I don't think it's just a question of "purists," though I'm sure I am one. This revival only works as a reaction against the original work. It can't hold its own as a valid take on the material, indeed seems almost a complete repudiation of the original. To me that's just a faulty choice, no matter how interesting to people who don't really like the show or have simply become bored with it. 

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/12/19 at 12:49pm

To the above discussion about Billy Bigelow being an abuser who redeems himself in death, I would like to RESOUNDINGLY challenge that. Billy is given the CHANCE to redeem himself.

Billy hits his daughter and the Heavenly Friend tells him that he is a failure.

The original source material, Lilliom, sees the character EXPLICITLY condemned to hell. It was decided that such an ending, in the time and place in which Carousel came to the stage, would not be appropriate and palatable to the audiences. It is a correct choice, to my mind. That said, NOWHERE does it say that Billy is going to Heaven. People assume that because he leaves with the Heavenly Friend (who JUST told him he failed), and because the SOUND of the final chords of You'll Never Walk Alone is glorious, but the ending is intentionally ambiguous to be palatable to a 1940s Broadway audience who was already unsettled by the material they saw, but still true enough to Lilliom. There is more evidence that Billy is condemned and has not found his salvation.

(and yes, that god awful movie version which dumbed it down and brightened up does a good job of making people think that Billy is gloriously saved.)