Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival? - Page 2

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 10:06am

Musicaldudepeter said: "

How can people have a problem with the simplicity and cringey nature of Oklahoma!, and yet adore - amongst others - the current Hello, Dolly! or last year's She Loves Me both of which are also cute and treacly…?

"

Well the books of Hello Dolly! and She Loves Me are a lot wittier than Oklahoma. Oklahoma's comic relief is Ado Annie/Will Parker/Ali. The other thing is that Hello Dolly! and She Loves Me have subtexts that are less dated than Oklahoma. For instance the entire dramatic arc of Oklahoma is whether Laurie will go the dance with Curley. Whereas I think a lot of women love Hello Dollly! because it has two strong female characters (Dolly and Irene) who run a business and are self-sufficient. And She Loves Me will never grow old -- look at all the people swiping on Tinder. 

The storyline of Jud also makes me uncomfortable. Yes he's a creep but the way the characters treat him makes me cringe. I never did like how Curley actually encourages Jud's suicidal ideations. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 11:26am

Musicaldudepeter said: "I didn't know there were so many differing opinions on Oklahoma!, I'd assumed it was beloved by everyone. But I'll agree that, against the other four main R&H titles which boast such big themes (well three of them, anyway), it comes off as quaint in parts.

But what about the Trevor Nunn production? I thought that version had a 'darker' (or at least more serious) take on the story which Ted Chapin and Mary Rodgers loved and which took Oklahoma! out of the 'fluff' category in which it'd been associated for so many years.

I'll agree that if Sher were to take the show on, I would trust him to conceive a handsome, sweeping production that honors the spirit of what made the show great in the first place (as he did with SP and K&I). 

How can people have a problem with the simplicity and cringey nature of Oklahoma!, and yet adore - amongst others - the current Hello, Dolly! or last year's She Loves Me both of which are also cute and treacly…?

 

The Trevor Nunn version didn't improve the Ado Annie stuff.  It is not simplicity that I have an issue with -- I don't actually have a problem with the Curly - Laurie story (it is what it is) -- but Ado Annie  Will Parker / Ali Hakim is embarrassing corniness and boring to boot.  I do agree that the show has some wonderful stuff -- the ratio of wonderful to atrocious is just not enough, though.  People Will Say We're In Love is gorgeous, the title song can bring on goose-bumps, and there are other things I enjoy, but I truly hate too much of it, particularly in the second act.  I don't even like the dream ballet; to this day, I can't figure why it gets so much credit for changing Broadway forever, when Show Boat opened 15 or so years before it (and does not make me cringe, even when a little corny).

Re the use of the word 'contempt' that another poster questioned, it is probably the wrong word to use to describe my view of Oklahoma.  I do have contempt for CATS, but it is probably more appropriate to say that I simply hate 60% of Oklahoma and am indifferent to another 20% (I am indifferent to Surrey and Poor Jud is Dead, for example).  Lots of times, when I have reached the point of really disliking a show, and something really good is finally introduced, it almost doesn't matter...its just too late to pull me in.  

 

Updated On: 7/15/17 at 11:26 AM

[TheSassySam]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 11:56am

Y'all, calm, CALM, the farmer and cowman should be friends! 

 

I just hate the show because every character in it is a despicable person. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 12:53pm

It's the musical theatre equivalent of a marshmallow.

Well, that can be said of loads of classics including Brigadoon, Annie Get Your Gun, Hello Dolly, Pajama Game, Bells are Ringing, The Music Man...not to mention the hundreds of flops and pre-golden age fluff musicals.  

Oklahoma is my favorite of the R&H canon and I also enjoy the film just as much (or more) as I enjoy the other big film musicals of the era.  I've always loved everything about it, but my enjoyment usually hinges on the direction.  I'm not a fan of generic paint-by-numbers approach to the material simply repeating the same broad melodramatic depictions of the characters.  When its played honestly, I find its charms irresistible and well-balanced against its darker moments, while its score, in context, never fails to shine.  If people only see it as hokey, I'm sure there are loads of musicals they admire that could be dismissed just as easily.

[Fan123]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 8:33pm

I'm kinda surprised by the dislike for this show. I wasn't very into it when I first got to know it, but now it's my second-favourite Rodgers and Hammerstein, after 'Carousel'. To me, Jud prevents the show from becoming a pure cornfest. Maybe Jud's throughline is sort of not 'meant' to fit in with the rest of the show? (Special pleading, moi?) Ado Annie, Will and Ali are in this farcical rom-com plot, and Laurey blithely thinks that that's what her story is as well, but then it isn't.
Back in the day I half-jokingly posted a half-baked idea here about a modernised production in which Curly was a douchebag entitled jock and Jud a bitter entitled nerd. Maybe that imaginary production would suck, but I think there's plenty that's (sadly) still recognisable about these characters to modern audiences. Also, the score is wonderful. But eh, to each their own.

[Mr. Nowack]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 9:45pm

I think it could be a lot more than a corny marshmallow, if given an interesting treatment.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 7/14/17 at 11:17pm

I don't think that anyone has bashed the score of Oklahoma, except maybe the songs in the "Kansas City" subplot.

I appreciate Oklahoma as a transitional musical connecting what went before in most of the silly musicals of Cole Porter and George Gershwin to the second R&H musical, Carousel, which had a very serious story of white, lower-class Americans born into situations making their prospects in life very poor, but who struggled to make those lives work out OK. Without very much success.

(Whoops, I just called George Gershwin, who spent about a year of his life researching conditions on "Catfish Row" for his opera Porgy and Bess, a person who wrote silly musicals.)

I just know little about the Broadway musicals staged between Show Boat and Oklahoma. Show Boat was a landmark musical. It was also a commercial success. Did it have any influence on other musicals before Oklahoma?

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 1:33am

OKLAHOMA! is not by any measure cornier than the latest Gershwin or Porter jukebox concoction that opens every other season. Its theme is no less than the foundation of our nation on mutual cooperation and rule of law, something at least as deep as anything in SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL. And how could it possibly be any cornier than THE SOUND OF MUSIC?

And, yes, it WAS the game-changer it is reputed to be: running for five years in a period when even smash hits ran no more than eight or nine months is evidence enough without going into a detailed dramaturgical analysis that ya'll should already know.

I find this entire thread very disappointing. OKLAHOMA! doesn't have to be everybody's favorite musical, or anybody's, but its importance to American culture is undeniable.

Finally, to those who find in HELLO, DOLLY! a tale of strong, independent businesswomen, what the hell do you think Laurie and Aunt Eller do with their days? Yes, they have an employee (Jud), but so does Irene Malloy. I promise you churning butter is harder work physically than decorating hats!

Updated On: 7/16/17 at 01:33 AM

[Soaring29]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 2:56am

The plot really doesn't hold up today, but the score is stunning-  I personally have only seen the movie, but their vocals are amazing although again, the plot just drives you crazy, especially the ridiculous ending. 

 

I've read an article stating that the whole show is completely about sex with Aunt Eller as a pimp like figure encouraging all the activity.  Here's a link: http://jasoncochran.com/articles/oklahoma-is-one-of-the-dirtiest-movie-musicals-of-all-time/

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 4:57am

I'd like to put in another recommendation for the Goodspeed version of Oklahoma! which runs until September 23rd. Haven't seen it yet, but Jenn Thompson, the director, is one of our best musical directors working today. If any version of the show within driving distance of the city will work, it will probably be hers.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 1:16pm

GavestonPS said: "OKLAHOMA! is not by any measure cornier than the latest Gershwin or Porter jukebox concoction that opens every other season. Its theme is no less than the foundation of our nation on mutual tolerance and rule of law, something at least as deep as anything in SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL. And how could it possibly be any cornier than THE SOUND OF MUSIC?

And, yes, it WAS the game-changer it is reputed to be: running for five years in a period when even smash hits ran no more than eight or nine months is evidence enough without going into a detailed dramaturgical analysis that ya'll should already know.

I find this entire thread very disappointing. OKLAHOMA! doesn't have to be everybody's favorite musical, or anybody's, but its importance to American culture is undeniable.

Finally, to those who find in HELLO, DOLLY! a tale of strong, independent businesswomen, what the hell do you think Laurie and Aunt Eller do with their days? Yes, they have an employee (Jud), but so does Irene Malloy. I promise you churning butter is harder work physically than decorating hats!

 

Galveston, as always, your writing is very article and provides additional perspective.  I really mean that.  

My issue with Oklahoma in 2017 is not with its place in history, it is its current entertainment value.  And as entertainment, I truly hate an awful lot of it.  I actually would probably enjoy it if the simply took out every line and song associated with Will Parker / Ado Annie and Ali Hakim.  I truly find them embarrassing in their badness...they have just not aged well (and I can't help wondering how much of the praise in 1943 was directed at that lengthy sub-plot...i'll bet not a lot).  I know there are people who don't like the Jud sub-plot.  I don't have a problem with it, but I also don't particularly enjoy it either.  That means that an awful lot for me is either painful or filler.  I do enjoy parts of it but not enough.  People Will Say We're in Love is one of the most beautiful songs ever written (I also think that is true of Memory, in the musical that I hate the most ever); I usually get goosebumps when I hear a well done rendition of the title song; I enjoy Beautiful Morning and Surrey, but start to get restless when so little happens.  I don't think I have an attention span issue in general, but this show does bring out the worst in me.  It may be historic, but it still needs to entertain, and I have just never been entertained by this.  (For the record, I have seen many productions of South Pacific and TKAI that I have loved; I have loved some productions of Carousel and not others, but never disliked a single one; I have not to date seen a live production of SOM that comes anywhere near the movie in entertainment value for me, but I have never truly disliked one (just been underwhelmed).  I fairly enjoyed State Fair, which was corny;  I fairly enjoyed the one production I saw of Flower Drum Song, which certainly had corny material.  I just hate Oklahoma).

 

Updated On: 7/15/17 at 01:16 PM

[Robbie2]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 5:01pm

Possibly but I would love to see The Sound of Music and Show Boat at LCT in the future by Bart Sher and his team after My Fair Lady

Updated On: 7/15/17 at 05:01 PM

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/15/17 at 6:50pm

Robbie2 said: "Possibly but I would love to see The Sound of Music and Show Boat at LCT in the future by Bart Sher and his team after My Fair Lady

 

I would love to see Show Boat directed by Sher at LCT, although I do think that Harold Prince and Susan Stroman set the bar so high there (for anyone who saw the Show Boat at the Gershwin (or Uris -- whatever the theatre was called)) that he may not be able to leave his stamp.  

Not so sure re SOM, because I just don't think it is a very good musical.  The score is terrific, and Robert Wise worked miracles with the movie, and to me absolutely deserved the Oscar that he won.  I have seen probably 6 - 7 live productions of SOM and have never thought even one was better than a time filler.  I am always reminded of the movie, which I loved.  Maybe Sher could pull it off, but I find that climbing through the ALPS on stage always looks silly after the movie.

I'd rather see him tackle some under appreciated flop, e.g., the Christopher Plummer version of Cyrano would be great on LCT stage, Hugh Jackman could get another Tony, and the show would gain respectability even if the critics still didn't like the book and score (which I think are terrific); or Hallelujah Baby, with a revised book.

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 1:17am

I can understand there may be references to Ali Hakim's ethnicity that make us uncomfortable nowadays, but I don't see the problem with Will and Ado Annie. The comic wordplay in their lyrics is pretty dazzling and their relationship has more depth than that of Rolf and Liesl, or even Cable and Liat.

As for Curly and Laurie, it's pretty much Boy gets girl, Boy loses girl, Boy gets girl after all. Just like almost every rom-com ever made!

What's so dated about that? Laurie is lot feistier than many of the female ingenues who came before and who would follow in the 1950s.

I find it odd that people are so offended by Curley's joke that folks would be happier if Judd committed suicide, but not bothered by the fact that Judd tries to kill Curley TWICE!

***

I may have seen every WWII documentary ever filmed and yet the war scenes in SOUTH PACIFIC wear me out. They don't stop me from seeing productions, however, or recognizing the merit of the show.

***

I do agree that OKLAHOMA! may straddle the line between musical comedy and musical play more than most of the R&H hits that followed. But the genre-bending isn't a bad thing; it was a step in the invention of the form.

[adam.peterson44]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 1:32am

I find the suggestion that Hello Dolly is in any way feminist to be completely baffling.  Perhaps anyone thinking along those lines missed "It Takes a Woman", a misogynistic turd of a song sung by the entire male ensemble as well as all of the male principals (so not just a character-revealing moment for 1 sexist character, as with Higgins' songs in My Fair Lady, but more of a statement of the 'show's' opinion).  

On the other hand, Oklahoma has more to say in favour of equality than most shows of its time - "All or Nothing" in particular comes right out and rejects the double standard that the man should be free to philander while the woman should faithfully wait for him to come home, and "Many A New Day" rejects the idea that the love of a man (or at least, one particular man) is all a woman has to look forward to.  Considering some of the film offerings that i've seen from those years, i'd say those ideas were fairly progressive for the time that they were in, although absolutely obvious in today's times. 

Anyhow, I have always loved the score of Oklahoma and will gladly go see a Broadway revival of it, especially if Sher is directing it.  

[Sally Durant Plummer]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 6:35am

"And in the winter she'll shovel the ice

And lovingly set out the traps for the mice

She's a joy and pleasure, for practically speaking,

To whom can you turn when the plumbing is leaking?"

Honey, have you heard the lyrics? It's a joke. They spell "femininity" wrong, for christ's sake. And if Dolly's about anything, it's about a woman who controls everyone she meets. Feminist? I'm sure arguments exist on both sides and I don't particularly care to start that fight. But a portrait of a strong-willed woman who goes after what she wants head-first in all her womanly glory? Absolutely.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 8:05am

GavestonPS said: "OKLAHOMA! is not by any measure cornier than the latest Gershwin or Porter jukebox concoction that opens every other season. Its theme is no less than the foundation of our nation on mutual cooperation and rule of law, something at least as deep as anything in SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL."

Gaveston, that might well be true, but the latest Gershwin and Porter revisal or jukebox concoction is usually a blatant bonbon of a romp based on a blatant  bon bon of a romp (and at their best on quite deliriously madcap, charming and witty ones).  Whereas indeed, as you propose, OKLAHOMA tonally provides a far more serious sociopolitical foundation.

While that foundation may be as compelling as those in SOUTH PACIFIC and CAROUSEL (or at least approach those depths), isn't there a major difference?

If OKLAHOMA shares with SOUTH PACIFIC AND CAROUSEL compelling sociopolitical and or psychosocial undercurrents and crosscurrents (of different specific natures in each show), the fact remains that the principle characters in SOUTH PACIFIC and CAROUSEL in addition to generally being far more complex, interesting and individuated than the characters in OKLAHOMA, face central personal challenges and questions in lockstep with those thematic currents.

There is only arguably one character in Oklahoma whose personal conflicts, choices, and plot arc are clearly parallel to the underlying question of cooperation between communities for the sake of American progress v. personal isolation, narcissism and nihilism.  (themes which, of course, couldn't be more topical today - which might, if the libretto were more satisfying, suggest the show is worth reviving now -  but nonetheless...).  

That character is unfortunately not Laurie or Curly - or even Eller or Ado Annie - but rather Judd, who is far from the audience's principle focus.

Unlike with the romantic conflicts of Julie and Billy, Enoch and Carrie, Cable and Liat, and certainly with Emile and Nellie,  it is very challenging to portray Laurie and Curly's courtship in a way which thematically resonates with their show's bedrock themes.   

I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done.  The approach-avoidance in Laurie's and Curly's courtship might in the right hands at least begin to satisfyingly evoke the questions of rugged if alienated American individualism and self-reliance v. communal collectivity and harmony.

But whom Laurie might (or might not) end up with (the sweet if bland cowboy hovering around her yard or the brooding sociopath who lives in her barn - or either)  is no where near as convincingly or compellingly redolent of the deeper American conflicts underlying OKLAHOMA as the choices the central characters in CAROUSEL and SOUTH PACIFIC confront are of the (at the very least equally) profound themes underlying  those shows.  

 

Updated On: 7/17/17 at 08:05 AM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 9:16am

adam.peterson44 said: "I find the suggestion that Hello Dolly is in any way feminist to be completely baffling.  Perhaps anyone thinking along those lines missed "It Takes a Woman", a misogynistic turd of a song sung by the entire male ensemble as well as all of the male principals (so not just a character-revealing moment for 1  sexist character, as with Higgins' songs in My Fair Lady, but more of a statement of the 'show's' opinion). " 

I don't see anything pressingly feminist or anti-feminist in either OKLAHOMA or DOLLY.

But Adam, do you really think for a minute that Horace's (and male ensemble's) views of womanhood on display in IT TAKES A WOMAN are in any sense the show's creator's views?

To the contrary, wouldn't you agree that the song is crammed not only with ironic winks to Horace's chauvinism but with unstintingly fierce reminders of how important women's economic and household contributions - including manual labor - were to turn of the century America?

***
There seems to be an underlying notion at play in this thread, and in frequent threads on this board, that aspiration, complexity and thematic sophistication are somehow synonymous with the value of a theatrical work.

I couldn't disagree more with that premise.  

There are brilliant theatrical works which have profound thematic aspirations and preposterous pablum that sports equally profound thematic aspirations.  Just as there are great "light" or even "thin" plays and bad ones.

To confuse "significance" of authorial intention with the value of a work or, for that matter, lightness of authorial intention with a judgment of a work's value, is, ironically, to engage in a very shallow understanding of the power of theatre.

There is nothing greatly at stake in The Importance of Being Earnest.  Anything Goes doesn't have any aspirations more ambitious than pure entertainment.  But each is a superb work which has greatly satisfied the most discriminating audiences' heads and hearts and, hopefully, will continue to do so forever.

In contrast, there are countless plays and musicals which for all their aspirations to "seriousness" remain pure junk.


 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 9:16am

There seems to be an underlying notion at play in this thread, and in frequent threads on this board, that aspiration, complexity and thematic sophistication are somehow synonymous with the value of a theatrical work.

I couldn't disagree more with that premise.  

There are brilliant theatrical works which have profound thematic aspirations and preposterous pablum that sports equally profound thematic aspirations.  Just as there are great "light" or even "thin" plays and bad ones.

To confuse "significance" of authorial intention with the value of a work or, for that matter, lightness of authorial intention with a judgment of a work's value, is, ironically, to engage in a very shallow understanding of the power of theatre.

There is nothing greatly at stake in The Importance of Being Earnest.  Anything Goes doesn't have any aspirations more ambitious than pure entertainment.  But each is a superb work which has greatly satisfied the most discriminating audiences' heads and hearts and, hopefully, will continue to do so forever.

In contrast, there are countless plays and musicals which for all their aspirations to "seriousness" remain pure junk.


 

Updated On: 7/16/17 at 09:16 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 11:00am

It's kind of wild to me that Show Boat is being offered up as more suitable for revival than Oklahoma. Despite a glorious score, Show Boat is a lengthy, awkward, and lumbering show whose historical relevance outweighs its entertainment value. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 11:20am

Kad said: "It's kind of wild to me that Show Boat is being offered up as more suitable for revival than Oklahoma. Despite a glorious score, Show Boat is a lengthy, awkward, and lumbering show whose historical relevance outweighs its entertainment value. 

 

I am guessing that you didn't see the Harold Prince version, as slick and smooth a production as I have ever seen.  What he and Stroman did was a miracle.  They took a war horse used to tired revivals (hell, there was one at that very theatre a few years earlier) and made it as fluid as anything that was open at the time.  The musical transitions were breathtaking, changing the characters assigned to a few songs actually eliminated a little corniness, e.g., Elaine Stritch singing Why Do I Love You to an infant grandchild was brilliant, and the script must have been tightened a little (I say this because it was just not the same Show Boat I had seen a number of times before).

There is an awful lot of depth to Show Boat, whether some of it is dated or not.  I don't see that depth in Oklahoma.  Sorry.  Maybe Sher can accomplish something like what Prince / Stroman did, but he will not succeed unless he does something MAJOR with that book.  I think the Jud portion could be successful and tweaking it could add more depth to the show.  I just don't see how they can do anything with Ado and friends.  They are such stereotypes and the dialogue they are given is to me painful to sit through.  It is so trivial and stupid and insulting to an intelligent audience.  Maybe Sher, if it is him, can eliminate the corn and focus the sub-plot on how does Ado figure out what she wants the rest of her life to do.  She was comic relief;  the comic relief is painfully dated; audiences today don't need comic relief; get rid of it...that does not mean to eliminate all laughs, just don't make them so artificial, let them come out of real situations.  Then I might be able to sit through it.

 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 11:50am

I, trying to understand why you hate the Ado Annie storyline so much that you want it cut entirely. The comic romance that's a foil for the more serious romance has been used in many musicals. Carousel, Hello Dolly, Show Boat, Fiddler on the Roof, Waitress, etc. Is it dated? Yes but I thought Gloria Grahame in the musical was very funny in the movie and don't see why it can't be funny anymore. 

[Jarethan]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 12:09pm

poisonivy2 said: "I, trying to understand why you hate the Ado Annie storyline so much that you want it cut entirely. The comic romance that's a foil for the more serious romance has been used in many musicals. Carousel, Hello Dolly, Show Boat, Fiddler on the Roof, Waitress, etc. Is it dated? Yes but I thought Gloria Grahame in the musical was very funny in the movie and don't see why it can't be funny anymore. 

I thought it was almost as bad in the movie.  Gloria Grahame always brought along sex, which none of the other Ado Annies I have seen has ever done (or was good enough that I realized that's what they were doing).  Re the foil issue, I have no issues with comic sub-plots at all, I just thought this one was BAD, maybe the worst one EVER).  Even the songs lost.

 

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 2:24pm

How is the Ado Annie subplot any more trivial than any other comic foil character subplot in any musical from the Golden Age or after… Adelaide in Guys and Dolls, Carrie in Carousel, Ilona in She Loves Me, Lois Lane in Kiss Me Kate, Hedy in How to Succeed… I don't understand how, all of a sudden, Oklahoma! is not worth reviving. Have most of the contributors reacting negatively to a revival of this piece not seen Trevor Nunn's 1998 revival at least on film? I thought the general consensus was that that production breathed new life into this iconic show and made a case for how strong a book it was even without songs, but obviously not... I still struggle to see how there appears to be a singular issue with this show and not with any of the other aforementioned titles which also appear to have the same apparent glaring 'problems.' Why can't a new Oklahoma! be appreciated with the same vigor as this season's Hello, Dolly! in the old-fashioned entertainment-fueled manner? It seems like musical comedy (slash theater - Oklahoma! straddles both genres) may be obsolete nowadays judging by some of these reactions.

Updated On: 7/16/17 at 02:24 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/16/17 at 3:00pm

I am familiar with the Prince revival of Show Boat. But a show that requires such substantial retooling for it to  be successful as a modern production doesn't make a great case for itself. 

I don't think Oklahoma requires that level of retooling. And the recent intimate production at Bard, which was widely acclaimed, suggests there's a lot more there to be mined than you give it credit for.