OKLAHOMA! Previews- Page 3

[Kitsune]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 1:34am

My first exposure to Oklahoma! was actually the last Broadway revival (my high school took a trip). Even back then I remember being bothered by the extent to which Curly came off as a bully.

For that reason, I think I might enjoy the current revival. I'm also less attached to Oklahoma! than other classic musicals, and am less defensive about it being picked apart.

[all_that_jazz]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 1:49am

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

YES! EXACTLY!

My initial reaction was this is the worst thing since the spring awakening revival.

Which I know others loved.  I have no preconceived notions of how Oklahoma should be.  Never seen a production.  I know songs and basics from musical theatre history class but....  Ya the spring awakening revival felt the same.

 

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 2:41am

Intrigued, but afraid too old to adapt. But, despite the fact that as a post-toddler I banged away enthusiastically on the tin bottom of a planter during the grand finale of the title song, Oklahoma has come to be last on my list of the R&H big 5. (It might even be behind Pipe Dream). Reason, the bizarre and shabby treatment given to Jud. Obviously a lonely man without hope, he is trifled with and then made the heavy and given no chance of redemption. After his death he is the object of jokes. So very un-Oscar.

[bear88]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:23am

WhizzerMarvin said: "Personally, I certainly don’t mind an exploration of the darker side of America’s past. There are dark elements built into the show, most definitely, but the show is at heart musical comedy. I think what suffers most in this production is the romance between Curly and Laurie.

I feel very conflicted over this. Like I said, if this were an original musical it would easily be brilliant in my book."

Whizzer, I find your reaction to this revival fascinating, in part because it reflects a debate between my wife and I. She likes the original Oklahoma!, loves the score, and has no interest in seeing an experimental remix that emphasizes the show's darker elements when we have other shows to choose from on our upcoming New York trip. I'm very intrigued by the whole thing, because the dark side of the musical has always been there, just covered with sugar. (I say this as someone who has never seen the show performed on stage, although multiple times on screen or video.)

Can someone see this show as an original musical if they have fond memories of more traditional versions? Does it work on its own terms?  When you say it would be brilliant if it was an original musical, that just makes me more interested in seeing it - and yet you only really liked the cornbread.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 5:23am

I had never seen or really heard a “traditional” Oklahoma! before I saw the production at St. Ann’s and I was absolutely blown away by it. But I think I would’ve felt the same even if I did already love the show previously.

I am amazed that for all the different productions of so many different shows some people on here have seen over the years that they aren’t willing to shake off their perceived “love” of a piece to enjoy it fresh. Makes me wonder if they actually love the work, or if they just have sunshiney memories of it from yesteryear. It’s a valid feeling to have, of course, but I can’t resist the urge to want to pull a Moonstruck.


This production is stunning and one of the rare instances where I’d say read as little about it as possible because a lot of folks here are being sticks in the mud about it. If you’re prone to being a stick in the mud about your revivals, this show isn’t for you, I guess is the takeaway.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 05:23 AM

[disneybroadwayfan22]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 7:54am

How were the actors?

[DuoSonic]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 8:28am

GetUp&LiveIt said: "If you are expecta beautifully sung spectacle of a Broadway musical you won't get it."

Just to mirror the previous question and pull this one quote... I get it not being a spectacle of a Broadway musical, but are the songs not beautifully sung? I guess I was expecting the music to still sound lovely, even with different arrangements. How were the actors and their singing performances?

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 08:28 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 8:31am

bear and ColorTheHours, I have a feeling this is going to be quite a rambling response!

When it comes to revivals I truly am only a stick in the mud about one thing, namely that we are given the full score, uncut. This Oklahoma provides us with that.

Two of my least favorite revivals of the past decade were the Promises, Promises and How to Succeed productions directed and choreographed by Rob Ashford. The were bland, lacking much spark or wit, but most of all they didn’t trust the material, almost as if Ashford was embarrassed by the “corniness” or old-fashioned nature of each show. I give Fish credit that he is anything but embarrassed by Oklahoma- in fact, I sensed he genuinely loves the piece. He trusts the material, which is the most important thing a direct can do with a revival. If you don’t trust it fully, then why are you reviving it?

In a way, I envy people here when I read that they’re experiencing a show for the first time at a revival. They don’t carry the baggage the rest of us do.

Just my own personal baggage: the 1979 revival recording was one of the first cast recordings my parents ever bought me- on cassette tape no less. By the time I was five, I had every note and syllable memorized;’my mother tells me that I would perform the entire album for her while I rode around the car with her running errands. I would mention when to flip over the cassette for side 2 and make us take a five minute break for the dream ballet!

I now own many recordings of my gateway drug to musical theater and still listen to my beloved ‘79 revival recording often. Some seem convinced that the reason people are bucking at this revival is because it is darker than previous incarnations, but for me that isn’t it at all. It’s just such a departure, not only visually, but with the orchestrations and style of singing. These actors are getting to define the roles for some of you, but you truly can’t understand the shock it feels it hear the score sung this way. Imagine after decades of hearing Rose sung by Ethel Merman and Patti LuPone types, you show up and get Carol Channing’s Rose’s Turn. It’s a lot!

If Carol Channing ever attempted to take on Gypsy, and that was your first exposure to the show, maybe you like it, but for the rest of us, it might take a minute to process, ha.

That said, I should have given more credit to the actors, because despite giving unexpected performances, I did enjoy their work. Damon Daunno is a very charismatic Curly and I will not at all be surprised if he nabs a fair share of Tony votes. Rebecca Naomi Jones is playing Laurey as if directed by Bresson in Au Hasard Balthazar (with Jud as the donkey!) Will Brill’s Ali Hakim is hilarious; Ali Stroker has excellent chemistry with both Brill and James Davis and she came close to bringing down the house with Cain’t Say No. Testa acts as the glue that holds all the actors together. They’ve all bought into Fish’s vision and are on the same page.

For those who know Oklahoma well, this revival is like having a bucket of ice water dumped on your head. For those who don’t know the show, I know you can intellectually understand that and know this is not a typical production, but with all due respect, you aren’t experiencing that visceral reality of having ice water being poured on your skin all evening long. Maybe I can learn to channel Isabelle Huppert in some kinky S&M flick and come to a place where I’m turned on by this ice bath, but I’m not quite there yet.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 08:31 AM

[Wick3]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 8:33am

St. Ann's had a longer stage and I sat near the end of it (near the wall with the guns) and though St. Ann's was small from my seat it was hard t hear the actors. I'm guessing the acoustics at Circle in the Square is better so am glad there were no sound issues.

I have a quick question for those who saw the first preview on the dream ballet (might have spoilers so I put in the spoiler content below):

 

Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content

Did they have the falling boots? I'll admit when I watched it at St. Ann's I was completely confused yet fascinated by the whole dream ballet. 

 

[DuoSonic]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 8:38am

Thank you for that long response, Whizzer. I think that answered my question too, though we posted at about the same time. Oklahoma! is a lifelong family favorite of mine and I have a ticket to see it in May. I’m hoping I can enjoy it through the “ice water being dumped on my head.” This certainly sounds more interesting than the same-old same-old revival, but I hope it works for me.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 08:38 AM

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 8:59am

I think you will find it interesting, in at least an academic way even if you don’t get emotionally involved in the piece.

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.

[MyLife]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 9:09am

In my party of 6:

2 Loved it

2 Despised it

2 left confused

I was on the love train and thought it was beautifully done. I loved the stripped down nature that really focused on the character development and words rather than action. The two who left confused had never seen Oklahoma! before, and I can only imagine they left confused because of the same stripped down nature.It's definitely harder to follow when most of the actors are sitting on stage the whole time and start talking when it's their turn. There are few entrances and exits and only one set - so it helps when you are familiar with one version of the show.

As for the performances. Damon Daunno (Curly), Ali Stoker (Ado Annie), James Parker (Will),  and Mary Testa (Aunt Eller) were standouts. 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. 

[istoleatv]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 12:35pm

I went in with no expectations and didn't know much about the St. Ann's production other than there was an actress in a wheelchair.  I also had zero interest in seeing Oklahoma! because I was in it in High School and studied it a lot in college.  It's just not my favorite of the R&H catalogue.  So having said all of that here are my thoughts.  

It's brilliant.  It's so outside the box and fresh for Broadway.  It's not perfect, but that's why I like it because the characters aren't perfect.  At times I had a hard time hearing, I was in Row H.  I don't understand why the prop's aren't more period - the microphone and mic stand really bothered me.  If Curly is going for a Will Rogers vibe, then the mic should reflect that like his guitar does. The orchestrations are gorgeous!  And I've always hated the dream ballet, until last night.  So groundbreaking and makes a lot of sense. I think the people around me thought I was insane because I was sobbing.  I didn't like that the entire cast comes out in the beginning.  Oklahoma! was ground breaking for its time because Curly came out alone, and before that shows always had big group numbers and splashy opening numbers.  I think it would be more affective if he came on alone with his guitar.  But that's just me.  Damon Daunno is brilliant and this show will win all the technical awards. Go see this show with an open mind!  

Posted: 3/20/19 at 12:44pm

I saw it at St Ann’s and I’m still trying to decide about the ballet...it is so different from the original that I found it jarring...but it certainly hits on both the sexual and nightmare aspects of the story vs the original.

Overall I found the production very fresh...the characters...particularly Laurey are much grittier and complex than in a traditional production. All are fabulous, but my shoutout goes to Jud...I saw the character in an entirely different light - amazing performance.

[Alex Kulak2]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 1:06pm

Does it still have the Overture?

[BroadwayLuv2]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 1:26pm

Saw the first preview and loved it! I found this Oklahoma to be a great way to tell this story for audiences today.  I wish more musical revivals would take chances like this production did and create a new interpretation from the classics.  I found this refreshingly original and loved that the explored the darker elements to the story. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 2:18pm

I have always hated Oklahoma, although there are clearly a number of great songs.  The reason I hated it was because I felt it was too corny, that the Ado Annie/Will Parker/Ali Hakim storyline was almost embarrassing in its cuteness, and I have never liked the big ballet.  Reading these write-ups, I actually now want to see it...it doesn't sound like corny and cuteness are part of this.  Did they change the text or is nit all about more sexual innuendo or body language?

[Sauja]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 2:24pm

I'm encouraged by the reports. Sounds like it's transferred pretty much intact from St. Ann's. I worried that the bigger space (though possibly smaller playing area?) would swallow it up. 

 

For perspective, I didn't know Oklahoma going in. A few of the songs, sure, but not the plot of the show. And what I found was, to me, a chilling, extraordinary look at the early American West with all of its misogyny, violence, and desperation at the core of this viscerally thrilling show. In fact, I find it hard to imagine it as a musical comedy. I'll have to check out one of the recorded versions to see how it views as a more traditional piece. But to anyone who can go in with a totally open mind, I heartily recommend this. And to be clear, I know very well how attached a person can get to a show and how difficult that can make the prospect of watching what amount to massive changes. As such, this might be an Oklahoma best seen by folks who don't know and love the show all that much, as strange as that sounds.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:17pm

I love reading everyone’s thoughts on this thread.

Interesting, Sauja, that you can’t imagine this as a musical comedy when I’m sure many who purchase tickets will be expecting nothing less!

Green Grow the Lilacs itself is a comedy, but Hammerstein added even more comedy Oklahoma (originally titled Away We Go!) when he adapted the play. For example, Will Parker does not even appear in Green Grow the Lilacs (it’s only Ali and Ado Annie), so all the comic love triangle stuff was added for laughs.

Spoiler (?) the ending of Green Grow the Lilacs also does not see Curly get off so easily for his role in Jud’s (Jeeter in the play) fate. Hammerstein was sure to give us a big happy ending that the play did not allow.

For all this talk of this revival of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s Oklahoma finally exposing the grit and grime underneath, you have to wonder if these intentions go against what the creators were trying to achieve. Do their intentions still even matter to people? As I was discussing this with a friend this morning he said, what’s next? A dark Hello, Dolly where we finally examine Horace’s corrupt business practices in Yonkers and how he essentially uses slave labor to run his shop? This gave me a chuckle, but it’s true. At what point should one simply create their own new work rather than impose a narrative for an existing work?

Exploring the misogyny and violence of the early settlers in the American West could be fodder for many new plays/musicals. Is that really what Rodgers and Hammerstein set out to tell when they sat down to write this musical comedy? Just some things I will be thinking about.

[Kad]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:22pm

Do we question Shakespeare's intentions? Would he be shocked to see the reverential treatment his work gets, when he was probably used to raucous groundling audiences just out for a good time? Would he be shocked by the presence of women onstage? Would Aeschylus be shocked by the fact the actors aren't wearing masks? That the text isn't chanted? That we aren't honoring the gods?

I think being an "originalist" for art is pretty limiting. 

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 03:22 PM

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:28pm

Whizzer, 

I think that's exactly what R&H were trying to do with this musical. As Brantley smartly pointed out in his review with Greene, Fish didn't change any lines or lyrics and as you have stated, the score is presented in its entirety. 

"The Farmer & the Cowman" is a fine example of this. It's sometimes performed with a bit of pomp and silliness, but the song itself tells a story of struggle between these two groups of people and that extends into the many areas of the story. 

Also look at the character of Jud Fry. Most community and high school productions cut his solo because it's too dark.

This show has always had a dark underbelly about the way this country was forged - with love and sometimes violence. I believe that has always existed within "Oklahoma!".

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:39pm

I don’t think we can only present a piece one certain way, but I do think there should be some balance between honoring the intentions of playwrights/creators and reimagining their works. I think there’s a difference between finding a new way to illuminate the ideas the creators put forth and just using a popular title to insert your own ideas.

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:51pm

Frankly, I don’t think any playwright ever imagines their work will survive and be revered long enough to be examined in such a way. Not any playwright with an ego you couldn’t smell from a block away, at least. So I always find it odd to insist an artist - dead artists, at that - whose work is a few decades removed from today should be “honored” in a faithful, if not duplicated, reproduction of the original. This is theatre we’re talking about, not a tangible, unchanging thing. If you want the original or some approximation thereof, watch the movie or go to your local community production next year. For me, I have little to no time for that on a major New York stage if I’m not seeing a concert presentation.

[jonartdesigns]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:52pm

I’m not going to prejudge a show I have t seen, but from the set photos I’m disappointed by the design. I like the idea of the picnic tables, but I feel like they should look old and weathered, not like something that came from ikea. The floor also seems too “new” I’m kind of reminded of rehearsal space and set elements, sterile and to be given character later.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/20/19 at 3:55pm

Theatregoer, I completely agree that there are some dark elements to Oklahoma, especially involving Jud and Lonely Room. To suggest though that their intent was to not write a musical comedy, but rather a musical drama is not correct. That’s not what they set out to do- at least according to Rodgers.

The score is presented in its entirety, which I appreciated, but you can’t tell me Rodger and Hammerstein were going for angry when the inserted the title song (added at the last minute to give uplift to the end).

I’m just saying, one has to be careful when they start fiddling with the intent of the creators because it can really distort rather than illuminate, which should ideally be the goal of a revival, IMO. The title song is joyous, happy and hopeful song. It was intended as such and it is intrinsically those things, I believe. So to see an optimistic closing number sung (and shouted) with anger makes me ask if that illuminates or distorts the theme and message R&H wanted to take with us.