I wish this was on when I visit in November looks fantastic.
lida rose said: "from the NYT:"There are limits to artistic freedom, though, and Mr. Fish exceeded them toward the end of his Bard production, when his treatment of a scene of fatal violence took Mr. Chapin by surprise. For St. Ann’s, he has instructed Mr. Fish to find a different way."
"I saw the show in previews at Bard. As I recall, this is how it was staged:
Jud brings Curly a gun. It may have been in a box, as if it were a wedding gift. Curly takes the gun and shoots Jud in the chest. There may have been more to it, but I distinctly remember the actor playing the deceased Jud, shirt still covered in blood, standing up for the final reprise of the title song.
NoName3 said: "So is this the production with guitars in a barn or the one where everybody is gay?"It's the guitars in a barn.Curious if there's food like in the Bard production?
I had a friend there last night and he said chili was served at intermission.
I was there last night. This will certainly be a very divisive production. My boyfriend was visibly upset with the show at the end and continued to talk about how he thought they ruined the show long after we got home.I have some negatives which I will get to at first.1. The sound is bad. The space at St. Anne’s sucks most of the sound up into the massive ceiling. This is an understated and soft production and while (apparently they were wearing michs) it sounded most of the time like they were singing without amplification which caused multiple hearing issues.2. Seating wise I’d aim for the middle of the space. I was at one end and it was often difficult to see the action happening at the other end of the room. If those partial view seats were indeed behind a pillar I would AVOID. One of them looked to be almost entirely blocked by the pillar.As for the show I feel like Oklahoma is one that everyone has either seen or been it. It really is the classic school theater production perfect for large cast so everyone can be in it. I found this a daring approach to take a well known classic and turn it on its head. If you are a purist then this show is your nightmare.I found that the immersive staging really involved me in the drama and brought an immediacy to the show. I thought Mary Testa was fantastic and also loved Rebecca Naomi Jones and Damon Daunno. I found Patrick Vaill’’s Judd to be the only weak link who wasn’t threatening enough for me and looked more like a Brooklyn Hipster than hired hand.Not all of the staging worked for me (still processing that dream ballet) but I found it a fascinating take on a classic. And yes there was tasty chili at intermission with some delicious cornbread!
I thought the casting over all was bizarre and since nobody is really a conventional choice for the role they are playing, it’s hard for me to say anyone is overtly “miscast”. Oddly, the exception to this was Ali Stroker, who despite her disability actually makes a pretty traditionall Ado Annie.I was disappointed that Rebecca Naomi Jones seemed to really be struggling with the score.
I was at the first preview last night. I rather enjoyed myself. I much prefer a monumental overhaul of a classic than sitting through what we already know just for kicks. The direction is simple and it peels back the show to be something else I haven't really thought Oklahoma as. It's sexy and slow, though sometimes I felt the energy dipped because of it. Rebecca Naomi Jones is a weak link. Ali Stroker is giving a solid performance. Mary Testa is a gift. May we continue to see excentric restagings of classics in these times of shellack and lifeless Dolly wannabees.
Has anyone sat in the partial view seats who can speak to what the view is like due to the pillar(s)?
VotePeron said: "At a complete loss for words. One of the best things I’ve ever seen on stage. A must-see for anyone who loves theater."I saw the show tonight and I completely agree.
For anyone who's been, what's the choreography like? I'm thinking specifically of The Farmer and The Cowman.I'm usually all for revitalizing classics, but it just seems to me that Oklahoma! is so hopelessly old-timey that a reinterpretation wouldn't work very well.
I saw it last night. Loved some of it, liked most of it, hated the dream ballet. It didn't illuminate Laurey's inner life at all and went on forever. The change at the end is growing on me.The sound was bad. The cast needs to be mic'd or mic'd a lot higher. I couldn't hear some actors when they were facing away from me. It's probably better in seats in the center and away from the band. And if you sit at a table, you might have an actor sitting directly in front of you blocking an entire scene. Trigger warning for survivors of sexual violence and people who are feeling particularly raw about that sort of thing right now:
I don't remember how the scene where Jud confronts Laurey about his feelings usually is done. In this production, it's done in complete darkness, onstage and off. Jud is quite menacing. There are wet sounds (kissing?). And if it is too much, there is no way to leave the theater in the blackness. You could aim for the exit signs, but you can't see the seats around you or the stairs.
GlindatheGood22 said: "For anyone who's been, what's the choreography like? I'm thinking specifically of The Farmer and The Cowman.I'm usually all for revitalizing classics, but it just seems to me that Oklahoma! is so hopelessly old-timey that a reinterpretation wouldn't work very well."Not to be dramatic - but anyone who sees this expecting it to be anything like any production of Oklahoma you've seen, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. It is essentially a wholly new interpretation.To answer your question, there is "dancing," but it's more like a casual hoedown then anything severely choreographed. There is only one moment of true dancing, which is a dream ballet at the top of Act 2. I hope no one on this board will write anything about it - it must be seen to be believed. All I'll say is with a year of extremely dated revivals with bad stances on women (OOTI, Carousel, MFL), to do what they did in Oklahoma! is f***ing genius.Regarding the sound, I'm mixed in my thoughts. On one hand, I think the actors not being mic'd is extremely authentic and added a lot to the experience. And then the moments they do use microphones were very impactful. I do wonder if they'll mic them as previews go on. I sat by the band, which was a perfect vantage point, but it does definitely get loud. Overall, I'd say my experience was not negatively impacted by the sound.I felt the cast was perfect, not a weak link. RNJ is definitely getting accustomed to the score and having to project, but I feel her voice will grow the more she does it. How she's doing it now isn't bad, it's just not how you would traditionally hear it (again - don't go in expecting anything like you've seen before.) I thought the staging was excellent. Of course there will be people with their backs to you, but that's what's bound to happen in this seating arrangement. That being said, I would not recommend sitting at the tables, as actors will be the most in front of you. I was extremely pleased to find there was no direct audience interaction, and felt safe in the space.Also, to respond to mariel9's comment, the moments of complete darkness are advertised (along with further triggers) in an email sent by St. Ann's the day before show. In the moments of darkness, they are incorrect, as the aisles are indeed lit softly by overhead light (New York State law). I was sitting on an aisle if you noticed this. There are also 4 ushers sitting in the house at all times for the very purpose of assisting you if you needed to leave during a blackout - you would be safe.I beg you to go in with fresh eyes, expecting to see a new musical. If you want to see a classic production of Oklahoma!, you are only doing a disservice to yourself.
What size are the programs? Are they Playbill size, or are they magazine size, like the one I got when St. Ann's housed A Streetcar Named Desire?
VotePeron said: "I hope no one on this board will write anything about it - it must be seen to be believed.All I'll say is with a year of extremely dated revivals with bad stances on women (OOTI, Carousel, MFL),"I strongly disagree with your inclusion of My Fair Lady in the list of "dated revivals" from last season.
bwayphreak234 said: "VotePeron said: "I hope no one on this board will write anything about it - it must be seen to be believed.All I'll say is with a year of extremely dated revivals with bad stances on women (OOTI, Carousel, MFL),"I strongly disagree with your inclusion of My Fair Lady in the list of "dated revivals" from last season."Whether anyone really enjoyed Sher's interpretation of the show or not, and believed in the changes that were made to the ending, My Fair Lady before the Lincoln Center production was extremely dated (and the supposed "adaptation" for 2018 audiences "payed off" in the way that this new Oklahoma production is currently doing.)
the My Fair Lady revival is extremely dated and, dare I say, pointless.it's a really good production of My Fair Lady, don't get me wrong...but it doesn't say anything that hasn't been said, doesn't push boundaries, and isn't exactly thrilling/new/exciting.
Man I really don’t know what to think. I’m going in 2 weeks with my mom who is traveling down here to see it.... I’m all for experimental theater but I’m worried she’s going to hate it. can you elaborate on why you thought it was so bad?
BroadwayConcierge said: "Leaving tonight's show now. One of the worst productions of theatre I have ever seen. Could not stomach another minute."yikes... Was Ali stroker at least good?
greenifyme2 said: "can you elaborate on why you thought it was so bad?"Should I start with the completely inaudible sound, the contrived angst of the cast, or the gratuitous, self-indulgent production design which does absolutely nothing to serve or elevate the text of the show?
© 2019 Wisdom Digital Media