is anyone noticing how BRITISH the Hugh Jackman OKLAHOMA is?- Page 2

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/23/03 at 10:25am

bestofbroadway, the 1979 Broadway revival (right around the Iranian hostage crisis) was truly wonderful, Of course, that was back in the days when the Broadway community wasn't so quick (and pretentious) to "revise" musicals and replace the original work with their own decidedly inferior ideas. Stroman's decision to redo the choreography is plain hubris. And not only is she unable to replace DeMille's brilliantly eccentric and moving choreopraphy in MANY A NEW DAY with a comparable idea of her own (Stroman only knows gimmicks, not ideas), she and Nunn cut the original! Fools. I'm glad this production bombed on Broadway.

[leeinlondon]

Posted: 11/23/03 at 10:54am

"MY FAIR LADY was dreary with unattractive performers and terrible choreography."

Bulldog of course like everyone you are entitled to your opinion but as usual it is VERY much the minority view. I have come to the conclusion that you would much rather randomly trash things than provoke considered debate.

[bestofbroadway]

Posted: 11/23/03 at 11:03am

I am sure that nothing will ever compare to DeMille's original choreography for Oklahoma, or Jerome Robbins for West Side Story for that matter. However, I don't feel that choreographers should be bound to reproduce another choreographers work. Maybe Stroman didn't succeed, but if I wanted to see the original choreography I will watch the movie. I agree that Stroman nowadays only knows gimmicks, but some of her early choreography was priceless. As for her dream ballet in this, it's complete trash (with or without DeMille's choreography to compare it to.)

As for the production. After watching it I find it very stale. At times there are real moments and there is a depth to some of the characters that I have never seen before, but there is a reason for Ado Annie and Will Parker, and that is not to just be another romantic couple. They are comic characters. And the girl playing Ado Annie is so far off the mark. They're playing it like a Shakespeare and I'm sorry but it's not. Updated On: 11/23/03 at 11:03 AM

Posted: 11/23/03 at 11:24am

Dear Lee, you don't know me at all. What you "know" is that if I disagree with what you consider to be the majority preferred opinion I am "ramdomly trashing." I saw MFL in London with the original cast and frankly I thought it was a terrible production. You have a different view to which you are entitled. I have no interest in SPRINGER, which you seem to regard highly. So be it. I'm not in the business of changing opinions. I am expressing my own. There is nothing to debate because it is all subjective. You like it your way, I prefer it mine.

For the record what I will say is that I am against the vocal majority drowning out those who differ in their views, and the use of intimidation and public displays of a defensive nature to try to maintain a position of superiority. Everyone has a right to be heard. All can agree to disagree.

Dear MusicMan. I happen to agree with you completely about Susan Stroman. Terribly overrated with no original dance thought in her head. Maybe she should remove the baseball cap to let some fresh air in.

Cheers! Bulldog.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/23/03 at 12:50pm

I don't know if I agree, bestofbroadway. Shows are put together collaboratively at the same time with everyone working towards one goal, supervised by the director, with the writers having final approval on everything that appears on the stage. If they sanctioned choreography that realized their intention and the show is successful, who's to say that someone else's choreography down the line does the same thing? I have no doubt Rodgers and Hammerstein would have junked Stroman's coarse and unimaginative choreography. It's different to take a show that didn't work or whose elements were at cross-purposes and rethink it. But West Side Story or Fiddler? Where the very concept of the show and the dance are interdependent and fulfill each other? Not only is it sheer hubris to think one can outdo Jerome Robbins on HIS OWN IDEA but it shows that these directors or choreographers don't understand the first thing about conceptualization. Stroman is one of the worst offenders: gimmick, gimmick, gimmick and not an idea in sight. But why stop at dance? Why not rewrite lyrics or music? I mean, where do you stop?

[Songsstresss]

Posted: 11/23/03 at 1:10pm

Did no one else notice that the girl playing Laurey SUCKED at singing?! She obviously got the part because she was a dancer who could sing. I think she's a fabulous example of why there should be a Laurey and then a Dream Ballet Laurey. I would much rather watch a Laurey with a beautiful and well-trained voice (along with great acting ability of course) do the role and then see a different Laurey dance the ballet. Why suffer the majority of the show for a Laurey who can dance just so she can dance for 15 minutes out of the three hours of show? Bad decision I think. Is she the same girl who did it in the revival on Broadway?

Posted: 11/23/03 at 1:15pm

She was flat and off-key and could not sing.

Interesting too how there was not distinction between her look and that of the actress playinge Ado Annie. Both brunette.

Someone wasn't thinking smart.

Bulldog. Updated On: 11/23/03 at 01:15 PM

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 12:26pm

I was totally disappointed in this production after looking forward to seeing it. This seemed like such a dark interpretation of the original. I never saw a produciton of this show before where Laurey cried so much. It looked like the performers were lip synching (sp?) and there were times that I literally fell asleep watching it. I have the CD of this show and I like that better. The choreography didn't bother me so much, but I do agree with the take on Susan Stroman (gimmicks).

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 12:43pm

Compared to what I had to sit through at the Gershwin last year, this production was a revelation. Jackman's curly was not only well sung, but marvelously acted. He was a thoroughly masculine braggart whose pride could be deeply wounded. The very talented Patrick Wilson was unable to bring to life much of that.

Gabrielle Josefine does not have a terrific voice, but her acting was quite affective and her dancing was lovely (although she's no Bambi Lynn).

The Will Parker (would that I knew his name) was far more likable and believable than the chours boy version portrayed by Justin Bohon. And even though the Ado Annie was brunette, I would never have confused her voluptuous, womanly body with Lori's tomboy look. Plus, she could sing and act, which was a refreshing change from Jessica Boever's terrible performance.

Yes, there are drawbacks to this production. But it's a tonic for me who had to sit through that crashingly boring version at the Gershwin. I understood some of what the excitement was about.

[TEACHEROFTHEATER]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 1:31pm

this is certainly a good production of Oklahoma. I saw the previous Broadway revival with Christine Andreas and Mary Wickes. I enjoyed them both.

Hugh Jackman was stunning and sang beautifully.

I hope some day to see a GREAT production of Oklahoma:)

[kec]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 5:07pm

"The Will Parker (would that I knew his name) was far more likable and believable than the chours boy version portrayed by Justin Bohon."

Jimmy Johnston is the name of the actor who played Will.

[BillyLawlor]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 5:16pm

I didn't like Jimmy Johnston's portrayal of Will. There needs to be a cute, boyish, young, and somewhat immature feel to him, in my opinion, and that didn't come across in this version. He played it so mature and so manly, in my opinion. It didn't play well. As far as Josephina Gabrielle, I think she's incredibly talented. She was just directed the wrong way, I think. This version of Laurey did not play well AT all. Gabrielle has a nice voice, incredible dancing abilities, and great acting abilities as well. If the role was played more feminine and ladylike, she would have been fine. She was fine anyway, I think.

[robbiej]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 5:21pm

Billy,

And what I appreciated was his 'manly' characterization. He was entirely different from Jackman's version of 'manly', but was still believeable as a cowboy.

Yee haw.

[kec]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 6:15pm

I agree with you Robbie -- I like Johnston's Will. He was a fine cowboy. I never saw the Broadway version, so I can't compare the two performers.

I also liked Josefina Gabrielle. I thought her Laurey was just fine. I had no problem with the character being in overalls (some people on another Broadway board were bothered by this). The only thing that bothered me about her performance was when she sang People Will Say We're in Love. At one point she goes from chest voice into head voice and the change was so abrupt as to be jarring to me.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 11/24/03 at 7:15pm

These "revivalists" completely miss the point about older musicals. They are ROMANCES, not just in the sense of love stories, but in the sense of the IDEAL and the extraordinary. They are not about depth psychology. To put Laurey in overalls is an absurd attempt to sacrifice the imaginative fantasy of the piece on the altar of "realism." Laurey's character in the story serves as the spiritual-feminine counterpart for our hero--why costume her like she's been shoveling pig**** in the backyard? It is precisely this overpsychologizing of the musical, courtesy Sondheim and his adherents, that has brought the musical to a dead end, robbing it of fantasy, humor and ROMANCE. It's just another example of how our culture values the literal and materialistic over the metaphorical and poetic.
Updated On: 11/24/03 at 07:15 PM

Posted: 11/24/03 at 9:31pm

Good points MusicMan.

Trevor Nunn appears to easily be swayed that deep psychoanalysis is need of the character(s) to direct an American musical, for the most part. Thank you, Hal Prince. It's the basis of his disasterous work on MY FAIR LADY, in my opinion. But surprisingly there was no trace of that in ANYTHING GOES. Perhaps because there may appear to be no reason to be reverentail to GOES as to LADY or OKLA.

One prominent tendency I also have observed is the tendency to cast revivals today so that the characters appear as versions of the movie casting. He did this in OKLA and LADY. But so have other directors (ahem, Ms. Stroman).

Nunn even recreated a scene in his stage version that was a direct lift from Cukor's film and a scene written only for the film. Then filled the stage with unattractive chorus people grimmacing at the audience in order to establish the disenchantment of the lower classes with Edwardian society.

Really now. It's a Cinderella stroy for gosh sakes!

Yours for a Broadway filled with creative romancers!!