OKLAHOMA! Previews- Page 10

[Kitsune]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 4:28pm

dramamama611 said: "^You know we have no idea to whom you are responding, yes? (And I'd like to know!)



2. I was blown away by that performance - this puts Oklahoma at the top of my "next trip" list."

Count me as another who was blown away by the performance. (I've always thought that if Ado Annie were born today, she would be sex-positive and polyamorous).

For those who have seen the current revival, is this song indicative of the show as a whole?

[Kad]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 4:48pm

Yes, it is. 

[jbp1232]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 5:15pm

Kitsune said: "For those who have seen the current revival, is this song indicative of the show as a whole?"

I'm definitely in the group of people who didn't like the revival, but I loved Ali and this number. In my opinion, the rest of the show lacked the energy that she had here. No other number got anywhere near the kind of applause that Cain't Say No got when I attended. 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 5:19pm

“I Cain’t Say No” is easily the most crowd-pleasing number, but I would say equally as thrilling in their own ways as “Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin’,” “Surrey with a Fringe on Top,” and “People Will Say We’re in Love.” The title number is also equal parts thrill and chill late in the evening.

Loved Ali’s performance in that clip. I can’t wait for this recording.

[acardbway]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 8:05pm

I saw the matinee today and thought it was stunning. Put me in the camp that found this to be so fresh and innovative. I liked that it strayed from the original, though I understand if you’re a fan of the classic this version can certainly be a lot to digest. It is VERY different. But I loved it for that.

I found myself crying at “Poor Jud” and I have no idea what came over me...but it was such a rush of emotions and I am not a crier. I’m still processing this one...

The dream ballet was the only miss for me. She is a lovely, talented dancer, but I personally didn’t connect with it.

Last bit! I chatted with Damon at the stage door and the cast recording is happening!!! He said they are going to the studio next week!

I’m new around here and asked what shows to see for my trip and this came in with lots of votes. Just wanted to extend my thanks again for all the reviews and replies.

[Lindsay is a goddess]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 8:50pm

For those who have seen the show, I’ve heard a lot about the supporting men in the show: Will Brill is popular on a lot of message boards, James Davis has been brought up a few times, and Patrick Vail is playing a very well-known musical theatre role.

Which of these men stood out most/was most deserving of a Tony nod?

[getupngo]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 10:56pm

Lindsay is a goddess said: "For those who have seen the show, I’ve heard a lot about the supporting men in the show: Will Brill is popular on a lot of message boards, James Davis has been brought up a few times, and Patrick Vail is playing a very well-known musical theatre role.

Which of these men stood out most/was most deserving of a Tony nod?"

Patrick Vail hands down. He plays Jud with this dark sexy bad boy vibe that kinda makes you understand why Laurey might be attracted to him 

[bettyco]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 11:18pm

Lindsay is a goddess said: "For those who have seen the show, I’ve heard a lot about the supporting men in the show: Will Brill is popular on a lot of message boards, James Davis has been brought up a few times, and Patrick Vail is playing a very well-known musical theatre role.

Which of these men stood out most/was most deserving of a Tony nod?"

I'm still thinking about Patrick Vail. He makes Jud more terrifying and more sympathetic than usual.

 

Updated On: 4/3/19 at 11:18 PM

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 11:23pm

Just came from this, and count me in the camp who thought it was genius! Just... wow wow wow. FWIW, I barely know the original, so it was almost like seeing a new show for me. I can understand why Oklahoma purists would feel differently. I also understand why the dream ballet isn’t for everyone, but I love modern dance and was totally mesmerized.

It’s funny, because I skimmed this thread this afternoon, and was interested to see how Laurey was attracted at all to Jud, and when Patrick Vaill walked in with everyone at the beginning (had no idea what he looked like, so didn’t know that was Jud) I did an immediate teenage girl ‘ooo who is THAT’ and then I totally got it, haha. I mean, the character is creepy as hell, but there’s still something very sexy about him. And in real life I have never in any way been attracted to the “bad boy.” Interesting.

Anyway, bravo all. I’ll be thinking about this one for a while.

[JayElle]

Posted: 4/3/19 at 11:40pm

Saw it today, 4/3 /19 matinee.  I've never seen any theatrical presentation of this show, only the movie so I have nothing to compare it with.   I did notice older folks left at half time, perhaps preferring the traditional or movie version.

I didn't like the house lights being on thru most of it, even if the NY Times said it is supposed to be "sun light." For me, it was  visual distraction annoyance. 

I was stunned when Jud was delivering his line to Curly or the peddler in the first half.   Between his lines, Jud interjected 'TURN OFF YOUR PHONE."  He was looking up toward me and angrily. I learned at intermission that the cel phone belonging to the girl in front of me started ringing.  I didn't hear it b/c I had the headset. I use the headset not b/c I can't hear, but b/c it drowns out all the peripheral noise in the theater.  I was amazed at how he meshed it into his lines.

Then during the 2nd half, several phones started making text noises or rings.  Testa broke her dialogue with a disgusted sigh and a shake of the head.  I guess the show was alright, but I felt like I was watching it in a school gym. The plywood floors in the seating area just amplified the peripheral noise.

It's just disturbing that no one gives a damn about the rude phone problems. I had wished they would've stopped the show entirely until the offenders got their act together.  Or maybe they should do what they apparently do in Japanese theaters.  Use a laser red pointer and focus it on the rude patron until they shut off the damn phone.

[JaglinSays]

Posted: 4/4/19 at 10:48am

Good grief.

 

Jones can’t sing or act.  And if you’re going to have the actress belt and screech the role, for chrissakes, transpose it.  She’s also so unrelentingly unappealing that you can’t imagine why Curly or anyone else would be interested in her.

 

The Curly is vocally challenged as well, with absurd yelping and yodeling—and also lacks appeal.


Why was Will Parker slapping his ass constantly? This is what passed for musical staging.  Not sexy, not funny, not good.

And the dream ballet, starring Woman in the Keith Haring drag?  Holy Christ on the Cross!

The costume design is appalling.  K-mart ironed cheap jeans which made everyone look sooooooo unsexy.

Most of the show plays with the house lights on, so you are treated to the audience across from you looking back at you with either a stupid grin or abject boredom (I saw both).  Of course, other book scenes are played in complete darkness, which felt like an April Fool’s joke.

Many fled at the interval, but I stayed to the bitter end which, owing to the glacial, MFA degree-style directorial pacing, came at 10:58 p.m.

 

Updated On: 4/4/19 at 10:48 AM

[bettyco]

Posted: 4/5/19 at 2:36pm

Has anyone done standing room? When should you get to the box office to buy them?

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 4/6/19 at 6:09pm

From what JaglinSays has written, it sounds as though this production has neither changed nor improved since its Brooklyn run. Yes, we all know that OKLAHOMA! is a dark piece, but laying it on so thick takes any joy out of it, and reducing the dances to that one nightmare of a dream ballet is just wrong. The great director Fred Zinnemann understood the darkness when he made the film, but he also understood the love and the humor, both sadly missing from this production. As far as I'm concerned, Daniel Fish is right up there (or down there) with Ivo van Hove; forget the material, and notice MY WORK.

But the critics creamed their jeans over it at St Ann's, and there's no reason to assume it will be any different on Broadway. 

[Zion24]

Posted: 4/6/19 at 11:35pm

jayinchelsea said: "Yes, we all know that OKLAHOMA! is a dark piece, but laying it on so thick takes any joy out of it."

Havent seen this production of it, and I can see myself detesting an attempt to be "different" just for the sake of it, but a dark piece? I have limited exposure to it but I dont think of it as dark at all. And if (without changing a word), that darkness is brought out, thats impressive in and of itself, I'd think. 

 

[Pippin]

Posted: 4/7/19 at 11:09am

“From what JaglinSays has written, it sounds as though this production has neither changed nor improved since its Brooklyn run. Yes, we all know that OKLAHOMA! is a dark piece, but laying it on so thick takes any joy out of it, and reducing the dances to that one nightmare of a dream ballet is just wrong. The great director Fred Zinnemann understood the darkness when he made the film, but he also understood the love and the humor, both sadly missing from this production.”

Not really true. Maybe when you saw it there were no laughs, given the ultra serious and sometimes pretentious downtown crowd, but on broadway the laughs are there. It’s still pretty funny, given the darker take. This production needs the laughs to balance out the seriousness, and IMO it hit just the right tone.

 

that being said, Oklahoma is not kiss me Kate. It’s musical THEATER, not musical comedy. 

Updated On: 4/7/19 at 11:09 AM

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 4/7/19 at 3:31pm

Except for the Ado/Ali/Will Parker storyline Oklahoma has never been funny. Curley, Laurie, and Jud are all pretty dour people.

Updated On: 4/7/19 at 03:31 PM

[dollyfan]

Posted: 4/7/19 at 10:11pm

is there a message board about reviews?

[Vicachka]

Posted: 4/8/19 at 11:59am

I saw OKLAHOMA! Saturday evening and I mostly fall into the love category. I thought the acting and signing were superb and just beautiful. I found the scenes in the dark, particularly in the first act very effective. Although, the lady behind me clearly lost it when it went dark, she starting jangling her keys and then opened her cell phone shining light around the seats and left when the first gunshot went off. The only part I didn't like was the dance solo - it really did not add to the story and I didn't find it effective at all. It should either be cut fully or significantly shortened. The buzz coming out of the theater was pretty mixed, as expected.

[Kad]

Posted: 4/8/19 at 1:00pm

Has there been any word about the possibility of a cast recording?

[acardbway]

Posted: 4/8/19 at 1:09pm

Yes!  I saw the show on 4/3 and chatted with Damon at the stage door and he said they were recording this week so it certainly seems like it is happening!

 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/8/19 at 1:47pm

Oh, that's fantastic. I've been wanting to hear Kluger's beautiful new arrangements and the vocals of this cast again. 

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 4/10/19 at 7:34am

"I mean, how can you reconcile Laurie playing the reprise of the title song as Lucia’s mad scene with what you know that scene to normally be?"

"One person dances the entire dream ballet! 

This revival is like Oklahoma trapped in a production of Spring Awakening."

"Beautifully sung? It’s differently, perhaps even unusually sung. For example, the People Will Say We’re In Love reprise, which is normally an ecstatic moment of operatic rapture is here almost purred like two cats finally retracting their claws and cuddling. Like I mentioned, there’s no ensemble, so Many a New Day, Out of My Dreams, Scandal Outrage- these are all going to sound very different to what you and I are used to."

"I thought Rebecca Naomi Jones fell completely flat as Laurie. I didn't care for her voice or acting choices (maybe because there weren't any). I also didn't care for her random outbursts of American Idiot stomping around."

"It was like an orgy of classic R&H, 80s MTV music videos, and “American Psycho”."

"Damon Daunno really needs to pick a key and stick with it. He was between traditional country, country pop, and a cracking pubescent falsetto - and melding this all together really took the “oomph” out of “Oh What A Beautiful Morning”."

"It is shocking that everyone’s singing sounds so untrained - it causes the glorious music to really fall flat. 
Curly has absolutely nothing impressive about his voice, not a beautiful baritone at all. He croons and riffs his songs with an all too often screech or stylistic crack, reminiscent of a Brooklyn bar performer. 
Rebecca Naomi Jones, apart from making NO acting choice other than simple anger, doesn’t have the vocal chops for Laurie/ the songs are in the wrong key for her and she is not a soprano. She has zero likeability onstage. "

"The most interesting scenes in the play are done in complete blackout, so you can’t see ANYTHING - when the lights come up the actors are emotional and crying, clearly having a wonderful cathartic moment, while leaving the audience “in the dark” - it quite frankly ruins the momentum of the show and interferes with the payoff in the end. 

The final scenes of the play, meant to be riveting and emotional, fall completely flat because there is almost zero staging- the actors just flatly say their lines from chairs for the most part sucking all life and intention out of every possible moment. "

"This production feels like a Quentin Tarantino version in a lot of ways, kinda experimental, edgy."

"This revival attempts to drain the show of romance, but there’s no denying it’s there in the text and music."

"Not sure what the microphone situation is.  Most times it felt like they were just projecting without mics which worked, but there were moments where they were very soft or the music was drowning them out."

"Jones can’t sing or act.  And if you’re going to have the actress belt and screech the role, for chrissakes, transpose it.  She’s also so unrelentingly unappealing that you can’t imagine why Curly or anyone else would be interested in her.

The Curly is vocally challenged as well, with absurd yelping and yodeling—and also lacks appeal."

I'm open to thoughtfully reinterpreted revivals and I certainly have no problem with critically rethinking idealistic narratives about America. But some of these descriptions sound torturous. (Out of all the shows name checked, Spring Awakening, American Idiot, American Psycho... the only one I have a favorable opinion of is Lucia di Lammermoor.) I've been burned by many an off-Broadway show. I find so-called edgy and provocative material can sometimes be even more offensive to my progressive values than traditional musical comedy; for example, when it's exploitative of the pain of women.

Is this edgy for the sake of being edgy or is all the darkness actually in service of something? I've never bought that angst and pain and misfortune are necessarily more narratively compelling than joy or happiness or romance. In fact, I think it can be courageous for a story to try to present solutions to problems or truly imagine a radically different future rather than either just representing misery or tacking on an unearned happy ending.

Also, I think I've heard most of the main cast sing in other shows so I know they can sing but with the new arrangements is it at least... pleasant? I don't know. Some of these reports are scaring me off. 

But Kad, your interpretation of the show is drawing me in. 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/10/19 at 10:28am

I found all the pearl clutching about this production to be extremely hyperbolic (two scenes are done in the dark- and one is largely captured on camera in tight close up, and the other is extremely short). All of these actors can sing, and they can sing well. They are not singing in the grand style expected of Rogers and Hammerstein, but that does not mean they cannot sing. Getting twisted up because they aren't giving you Alfred Drake  and Joan Roberts in a production that clearly does not intend to give you that sound is silly. All of these actors are acting and making very specific choices. And, frankly, despite the stripped-down approach, a most of this staging is straightforward. 

And yes, everything here is in service of something- mainly, examining how a work that has earned its place in the canon, its place in the culture, its place in history, and is also held up, for better or worse, as the ur-example of textbook musical theatre in the public imagination can contain so many troublesome and ambiguous themes and be built on an equally troublesome not-so-distant history of the country. 

It just removes tropes and trappings of a lavish musical romance. Sometimes you need to strip things away to look at the foundation, and sometimes you need to question why a classic is a classic instead of just accepting that it's so. This is a production that actually makes you listen to what the text is saying, and question its implications.  

 

[bear88]

Posted: 4/10/19 at 1:55pm

VintageSnarker, I appreciate your collection of the sharp critiques. And Kad, your defense of the show is thoughtful.

There is already a running debate in our household over whether to see it on our upcoming trip. One question: the sounds of gunfire. How jarring or potentially upsetting is it?

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 4/10/19 at 2:00pm

bear88 said: "One question: the sounds of gunfire. How jarring or potentially upsetting is it?"

It's not. With the exception of any audience members dealing with PTSD... then I might think twice. But if you don't typically have an issue with gunshots, it's nothing. 

See it. Incredible production. 

(Edit: I mean yes, it’s jarring, but in an artistically provocative way, not in a “you should avoid this because it’s scary” way.)

Updated On: 4/10/19 at 02:00 PM