Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!- Page 4
Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
#75Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 12:56pm
OlBlueEyes said: "Not saying that a book or play should not be adapted for musicals if it was not a hit. Should not be adapted for musicals if not any good.
GGTL tried out for a month in Boston in 1930, opened in New York and ran for 54 performances and was never heard of again. No, that's not true. But it would have never been heard from again if not for Oklahoma!
http://vconstage.com/the-roots-of-oklahoma-come-alive-in-green-grow-the-lilacs/
The playritestated that his intentions in writing the play were “solely to recapture in a kind of nostalgic glow the great range of mood which characterized the old folk songs and ballads I used to hear in my Oklahoma childhood.”
No deep dark motives there. Light and fluffy. And Jud, called Jeeter, was the same one-dimensional villain. He is treated marginally better in that Curly after killing him does not turn it into a joke, but apparently faces the possibility of being charged with the crime.
Nothing dark here. (Apparently the playwright in 1930 also did not know that Oklahoma at that time was just a state full of racists.) Where is all that substance people are reading into Oklahoma?
Immigration and the treatment of the indigenous populations the American Indians and the Mexicans. Obviously can't get into this, but if the other major world power all received grades of 'F' in this department, this country might receive a 'D'.
"
GGTL had already been heard from again in 1942, in a summer revival by the Theater Guild in Connecticut, with choreography by Gene Kelly, which proved more popular that the original run,. That's what lead Helburn to think of remaking it as a musical.
You're just wrong about the darkness. One of the things that's fascinating about GGTL is how every character suddenly erupts into violence, sometimes for no good reason reason. It's a really curious thing. Even Laurie does this. Oklahoma!, too, has its darkness in that Jud is clearly set up as, not just a rival, but a predator and potential rapist. The resolution to the murder is done as a joke--sort of The way Cairns treats Curly's testimony seriously and makes him testify with specific words and not just going off half-cocked so that the wrong impression isn't given--"don't let your tongue waggle around in your head like that!"-- shows they all know Curly is innocent and acted solely in self-defense, but could easily get himself hanged if he isn't careful in how he expresses himself. They want justice done--they are sort of forcing the outcome to insure justice occurs--but, that so early on, Curly and Laurie were faced with such a trying experience takes the show out of the realm of light slices of Americana like Bloomer Girl or Hello, Dolly!
#76Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 1:06pm
FWIW, I have a friend who saw the original Oklahoma! cast (yes, he's old). He said the original production wasn't all cheer and light at all. He called it a musical drama with some comic moments rather than a musical comedy like Guys and Dolls.
#77Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 2:44pm
I may not have expressed my opinion well. The original production and all of its progeny treated the Jud death as a joke, as you say, and I've made it clear that I did not like that. But Oscar does not want a heavy ending, and neither did GGTL.
The current production, on the other hand, certainly, even explosively, darkens everything. My question is whether there is a lesson here for the audience to take with it, or is the violence just there to inject some memorable action into the story.
I guess that I haven't decided. People are trying to find a lesson, as it lends this production more prestige. Some are calling it an anti-gun message. Not sure about that.
You are probably the only person who has seen or read GGTL. If what you say is true, then is Oscar guilty of taking out all the darkness? This intro doesn't sound very dark.
The playwright stated that his intentions in writing the play were “solely to recapture in a kind of nostalgic glow the great range of mood which characterized the old folk songs and ballads I used to hear in my Oklahoma childhood.
Maybe we are overanalyzing the question of whether Oklahoma is being overanalyzed.
Thanks, Ivy. Here is the original review by an obscure NYT reviewer. Well obscure to me. I haven't even read it yet. Got to go.
http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/624563
#78Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 3:38pm
Well, it was Rodgers, not Hammerstein who wrote "let's get the curtain down quick after this," so it's hard to know what Hammerstein wanted. After all, he was not in a position to argue at that point in his career. He'd had nothing but flops for almost a decade, and this was his big shot at a come back.
That quote from Lynn Riggs ignores the later part of the quote--which comes from the intro to the publshed script of Green Grow the Lilacs--where he compares the work the Chekov. And what's Chekov known for being? Dark. I wouldn't use the word "guilty" for Hammerstein lightening up the play, one because losing some darkness isn't inherently bad, two because the musical still has--has always had--a dark streak. Celeste Holm talked years ago about how wrong people are who think the show is all sweetness and light. You can read her comments in the book Oklahoma!: OK. And "Laurie Makes Up Her Mind" is very dark indeed.
I don't know what I think of this production because I haven't seen it. I'm not sure what some of the comments like "Curly and Laurie are covered with blood at the end" actually mean in terms of the staging. And the VERY end? Or are they splattered by Jud's blood when Curly is defending them from his attack (which would be merely realistic depending on how close they are standing to him at that point in the staging)? It is obviously darker than other productions, but that Shirley Jones praised it I think demonstrates it is not too dark or that the dark elements are not forced inappropriately on the material. The cast recording is marvelous. One of the best I've ever heard.
#79Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 5:34pm
Oh it’s dark all right. And I don’t just mean the pitch black scenes Jud repeatedly finds himself in when his most emotional scenes take place. And yes, Curly and Laurie endure the last 10 minutes of the show in their white wedding clothes splattered in a torrent of blood.
Nothing is subtle in this production. Subtext is all Uber-text here. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the stranger are all in your face. The ballet has been reorchestrated as an ear-shattering screed from a horror movie. Amateur hour reigns supreme in the staging at Circle in the Square. The director appears to be a demented child making sculptures with his own feces and looking for approval from the adults in the room.
The bluegrass band, on the other hand, was a complete delight.
#80Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 6:06pmI saw this revival last week and I loved everything about it. The best description I have for Fish's direction is "weird" in every sense of the word. It was riveting and interesting and amazing. I'm sick of seeing happy go lucky, everything's dandy, lets just be happy shows. Make me uncomfortable. Challenge my ideas. Make me feel. And this production did all of that. I will 100% be going back and I am counting down the days till I see it again!
#81Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 11:06pm
Someone in a Tree2 said: "Oh it’s dark all right. And I don’t just mean the pitch black scenes Jud repeatedly finds himself in when his most emotional scenes take place. And yes, Curly and Laurie endure the last 10 minutes of the show in their white wedding clothes splattered in a torrent of blood.
Nothing is subtle in this production. Subtext is all Uber-text here. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the stranger are all in your face. The ballet has been reorchestrated as an ear-shattering screed from a horror movie. Amateur hour reigns supreme in the staging at Circle in the Square. The director appears to be a demented child making sculptures with his own feces and looking for approval from the adults in the room.
The bluegrass band, on the other hand, was a complete delight."
Yikes, that's too bad.Interesting that the performances at the Tonys intentionally gave no indication of all that. Clearly won't be for me.
But yeah, the orchestrations and vocal performances are superb.
#82Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/14/19 at 11:37pm
Discount tickets are really easy to get to this production. It shows up on tdf/tkts often. Instead of fishing for spoilers about every detail, I really wish some people would just go in, see it, and then decide what they think of it.
#83Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 12:53am
Frank Rich. Don't like the man. I link his article anyway, without comment, because it is directly on point and contains factual information previously unknown to me. There are also short articles on Lynn Riggs and Ted Chapin, who approved the Fish production.
Also, much of Rich's social criticism in grounded in truth, even if wrapped up tightly in the usual self-righteousness.
This has become too much of a downer for me.
https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html
#84Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 1:07am
poisonivy2 said: "FWIW, I have a friend who saw the original Oklahoma! cast (yes, he's old). He said the original production wasn't all cheer and light at all. He called it a musical drama with some comic moments rather than a musical comedy like Guys and Dolls."
Absolutely! As I said some pages back, that's why they created a new genre for the R&H musicals. OKLAHOMA! is a "musical play", not a musical comedy or an operetta.
Thanks for the first hand--er, second hand, I guess--account.
#85Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 1:27am
JDonaghy4 said: "...Yes, exactly. I dont know what Hammerstein's intentions were, but this is a story about how one dude urges an outcast to kill himself, and then eventually that outcast is killed. The "hero" is then immediately acquitted in a show trial and the entire company then dances and sings joyously over his corpse. My question is not "How did Daniel Fish come up with this" but rather "how is it that the previous musical comedy versions of this disturbing show ever existed?"
That people saw this, loved it, deemed it a classic, is indicative of a societal cruelty that art should unmask. THEY DIDNT CHANGE A WORD and the play is just plain creepy. Thats the whole point."
I'm sorry but only the overly literal could take the "Poor Jud Is Dead" scene as an actual attempt to get Jud to commit suicide. I don't know about the current revival, but the scene is a comic one and the danger in it has always been, at best, that Curley may provoke Jud to a fist fight. Curley isn't so stupid as to really believe that Jud will kill himself because "it's summer and we're running out of ice".
If all you meant is that, given Jud's situation, Curley's humor is unkind, then I guess I'll grant you that much. But Curley is no higher on the social scale: his entire worth is his horse and gear, worth about $50. Jud and Curley are both working class men, living what we would call "paycheck to paycheck". It's not a 1980s teen romance, where the kid with a wealthy father abuses the kid who has to work at the amusement park over summer vacation.
Fan123
Broadway Star Joined: 8/30/08
#86Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 6:08am
For those who have seen the revival, might you be able to advise whether its reimagined dream ballet includes a depiction, even if highly symbolically, of the below moment from the libretto's ballet description? From what I've read about the revival ballet, probably not.
(Implicit revival ending spoilers)
Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content
" 'Curly' enters, and the long-awaited conflict with 'Jud' is now unavoidable. 'Curly', his hand holding an imaginary pistol, fires at 'Jud' again and again, but 'Jud' keeps slowly advancing on him, immune to bullets."
BTW, for any who haven't seen the film version, if you like your Oklahoma! dark, the film's excellent ballet sequence gets pretty dark in its second half, including a depiction of this moment using a real (dream) gun.
(GavestonPS, for what it's worth, a spoilers box can be added to a post via the square icon with the plus symbol inside it, third from the right along the top of the text field.)
Zion24
Broadway Star Joined: 3/27/19
#87Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 9:10am
GavestonPS said: "JDonaghy4 said: "...Yes, exactly. I dont know what Hammerstein's intentions were, but this is a story about how one dude urges an outcast to kill himself, and then eventually that outcast is killed. The "hero" is then immediately acquitted in a show trial and the entire company then dances and sings joyously over his corpse. My question is not "How did Daniel Fish come up with this" but rather "how is it that the previous musical comedy versions of this disturbing show ever existed?"
That people saw this, loved it, deemed it a classic, is indicative of a societal cruelty that art should unmask. THEY DIDNT CHANGE A WORD and the play is just plain creepy. Thats the whole point."
I'm sorry but only the overly literal could take the "Poor Jud Is Dead" scene as an actual attempt to get Jud to commit suicide. I don't know about the current revival, but the scene is a comic one and the danger in it has always been, at best, that Curley may provoke Judto a fist fight. Curley isn't so stupid as to really believe that Jud will kill himself because "it's summer and we're running out of ice".
If all you meant is that, given Jud's situation, Curley's humor is unkind, then I guess I'll grant you that much. But Curley is no higher on the social scale: his entire worth is his horse and gear, worth about $50. Jud and Curley are both working class men, living what we would call "paycheck to paycheck". It's not a 1980s teen romance, where the kid with awealthy father abuses the kid who has to work at the amusement park over summer vacation."
never saw the original traditional productions so i defer to you all on how that played out but
the idea that the "you should commit suicide" song is not to be taken seriously is probably accurate- until the singer of that ditty kills the person he was singing it to. the violent result by definition makes the whole show a dark, disturbing affair. the Broadway traditionalists on these boards seem unwilling to let go of their beloved musical being anything other than a disturbing work of art-- either bc it was intended to be (my hunch) or bc it wasn't even though it truly is.
#88Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 10:36am
The smokehouse scene is one long instance of Curly's machismo posturing and barely-veiled threats against Jud (who, yes, is a dangerous creep... but at that point of the show, we barely know anything about him, and neither does Curly, who knows only that Laurey is going with him to the social).
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#89Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 10:42am
Someone in a Tree2 said: "Nothing is subtle in this production. Subtext is all Uber-text here. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the stranger are all in your face. The ballet has been reorchestrated as an ear-shattering screed from a horror movie. Amateur hour reigns supreme in the staging at Circle in the Square. The director appears to be a demented child making sculptures with his own feces and looking for approval from the adults in the room."
That's hyperbolic nonsense.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#90Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 12:41pm
Yeah, but Kad, you pulled my hyperbole completely out of context. I did state all the factual things first with which you can’t argue (scenes in total darkness, the blood drenching in the finale). Also you omitted my complimentary nod to the Bluegrass Band.
I still maintain this was easily the worst production I’ve seen at a Broadway theater in 20 years, which I thought the poster above me should know. You are of course totally free to disagree.
#91Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 12:51pm
I agree with some of the posters above in that if you're even remotely curious about the show and you have the opportunity, you should check it out for yourself. They have discount codes, they have a lottery (which I've won), they are on TKTS.
I absolutely loved it (saw it twice, and I hope to get back for a third time before it closes), and it's given me a new appreciation for a show I otherwise wasn't interested in at all. We even rented the 1955 movie over the weekend to compare and contrast. I can certainly see room for discussion and disagreement about whether it's effective for you personally as a viewer, but I hope that the negative comments here don't completely discourage folks from giving it a chance.
#92Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 12:54pm
Someone in a Tree2 said: "this was easily the worst production I’ve seen at a Broadway theater in 20 years"
You're living a pretty charmed life, then...
#93Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 1:03pm
Someone in a Tree2 said: "Yeah, but Kad, you pulled my hyperbole completely out of context. I did state all the factual things first with which you can’t argue (scenes in total darkness, the blood drenching in the finale). Also you omitted my complimentary nod to the Bluegrass Band.
I still maintain this was easily the worst production I’ve seen at a Broadway theater in 20 years, which I thought the poster above me should know. You are of course totally free to disagree."
I have no obligation to quote the parts of your post I am not taking issue with. Your hyperbolic nonsense doesn't need context to be understood. And I'm sorry to omit your "nod" to the band, which totally lessens the fact you called Daniel Fish a child playing with feces.
Why would I even argue that there are two brief scenes in darkness (and that is a fact- there are only two, and they are brief) and the blood on Laurey and Curly? They're both well-documented parts of the production and components I have no objection to, nor do I find them representative of any larger issue with the production.
Say it's the worst thing you've ever seen. Whatever. But then you go on and on, as if Daniel Fish personally broke into your home and beat you up.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 7/15/19 at 01:03 PM
#94Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 1:54pm
I guess no one is going to read and comment on the Rich article. The man was the Times theater critic for over a decade and he has access to primary and secondary sources hat we have not.
Oklahoma! was greeted as jingoistic entertainment in 1943, perhaps in part because a wartime audience didn’t want to see that the musical’s celebration of the platonic ideal of Great America was qualified by a brutal acknowledgment of how cruelly America can fall short.
I gave the opinion earlier that while the nation was at war the cast would perform the show in a patriotic and optimistic way and the audiences would receive it in that manner. Few would dare write an article saying that Oklahoma sent a message about the evil of bullying and baiting a poor lonely figure at the bottom of the social ladder. When war breaks out, patriotism and jingoism immediately quadruple in all countries.. No one would ever write about the show, as Rich does, that Oklahoma is guilty of "whitewashing American history. "
Doesn't answer the question of why Oklahoma many decades after the war would still leave me scratching my head trying to find a reason that Laurie would ever even consider Jud over Curly given the way the two are introduced to the audience.
Riggs, quoted from an article written for a Texas literary journal,
And will it sound like an affectation (it most surely is not) if I say that I wanted to give voice and a dignified existence to people who found themselves, most pitiably, without a voice, when there was so much to be cried out against?
I have not read or seen GGTL. Did Riggs truly came down on the side of Jud, and made sure that the audience got the message that Jud was being mistreated? If so, then if Oklahoma shows Jud as just a villian whose death will leave Oklahoma a better place, then Hammerstein changed the tone of the play or the cast and the audience refused to play and see Oklahoma as dark.
The character of Jud was a concern of Oscar. He never wanted to eliminate Jud because [t]he drama he provided was the element that prevented this light lyric idyll from being so lyric and so idyllic that a modern theater audience might have been made sleepy, if not nauseous, by it.
Further, Hammerstein wanted to make Jud “acceptable” rather than “a deep-dyed villain, a scenery chewer, an unmotivated purveyor of arbitrary evil.”
So Oscar wanted to keep Jud, not to show him off as a victim of the cruelty of others, but just to make him an "acceptable" villain because he needed some conflict in the production. Jud was not some ordinary criminal, but rather an "arbitrary evil" who just happened to be at the ranch at the wrong time when Curly came and swept away Laurie. Use him to put some action into the story, then toss him out.
Anyway, for those truly interested in this new production of Oklahoma compared to the older productions, I think you will get a lot to think about through this article. It speaks far more than I can.
https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html
#95Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 1:58pm
I adored the show but agree the direction is heavy-handed. However, the alternative seems to be with other productions is that there is just no substance or honesty to the characters, their motivations, their actions or their consequences. And a score that was originally orchestrated in a way that until now sounds nothing like the period (acknowledge the Dream Ballet is nothing like the period now, either haha). The show, as transformed in this production, makes a whole lot more sense to me (Dream Ballet excluded, which doesn't really make any sense at all to me).
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
#96Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 2:56pm
JDonaghy4 said: "
never saw the original traditional productions so i defer to you all on how that played out but
the idea that the "you should commit suicide" song is not to be taken seriously is probably accurate- until the singer of that ditty kills the person he was singing it to. the violent result by definition makes the whole show a dark, disturbing affair. the Broadway traditionalists on these boards seem unwilling to let go of their beloved musical being anything other than a disturbing work of art-- either bc it was intended to be (my hunch) or bc it wasn't even though it truly is.
"
No, we "traditionalists" (though BTW I love the new cast recording) are saying the darkness was always in OKLAHOMA! It didn't require splashing blood on a wedding dress to understand that. It isn't the material's fault if many a community or summer stock production has treated the piece as if it were KISS ME, KATE.
#97Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 2:59pm
Sorry. Duplicate post.
Updated On: 7/15/19 at 02:59 PM#98Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 3:04pm
Confidential to Fan123:
Click Here To Toggle Spoiler Content
#99Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma!
Posted: 7/15/19 at 3:31pm
Kad said: "The smokehouse scene is one long instance of Curly's machismo posturing and barely-veiled threats against Jud (who, yes, is a dangerous creep... but at that point of the show, we barely know anything about him, and neither does Curly, who knows only that Laurey is going with him to the social)."
This. So this.
