Any chance we'll see Daniel Fish's Oklahoma! again?

[tacotheatrelover]

Posted: 2/15/24 at 7:57pm

I ask because I just got reminded of it on my snapchat memories. The 2021-2022 was my first experience with the show, and was my first theatrical experience all around (probably explains a lot.) And would like it to see it somewhere in it's original form and not in the huge 2000 or 1200 seat touring houses that the show came too in Alabama, even though 13 year old me saw all the performances in Alabama as I convinced my family for tickets during the holidays. Now nearing 3 and 2 years since since I saw it, I ask if we'll ever see it again in any North America theatre.

Updated On: 2/17/24 at 07:57 PM

[binau]

Posted: 2/15/24 at 9:25pm

I personally don’t think so. Feels exhausted by now. Was very happy to catch it 6 times in London last year - some people just didn’t seem to like it but I was on the edge of my seat every time. Daniel Fish was at the final performance walking around a little like a kooky Tim Burton. God I love theatre hehe.

Updated On: 2/15/24 at 09:25 PM

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 2/15/24 at 9:43pm

If only. One of my favorite theatre going experiences of the last 20 years.

I believe he is currently developing a production of THE MOST HAPPY FELLA, which i would LOVE to see.

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 2/15/24 at 10:31pm

I hope not it was dreadful.  Oklahoma is not supposed to be a tragedy.  It’s better when you stick to the script and happy. 

[BroadwayBen]

Posted: 2/15/24 at 11:50pm

I don't think it's been done in Australia yet, although I have no idea of the likelihood.    I was not a fan, but to each their own. 

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 12:45am

Broadway Flash said: "I hope not it was dreadful. Oklahoma is not supposed to be a tragedy. It’s better when you stick to the script and happy."

On the contrary, Fish was able to truly show the dark piece it is.

I'm glad that critics, reviewers and audiences were intelligent enough to appreciate this staging. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 1:15am

blaxx said: "Broadway Flash said: "I hope not it was dreadful. Oklahoma is not supposed to be a tragedy. It’s better when you stick to the script and happy."

On the contrary, Fish was able to truly show the dark piece it is."

There is no way on earth Rodgers and Hammerstein would agree had they seen it.

I think there is room for interpretations like this because Oklahoma! is a classic that can survive any interpretation, but it is absolutely not true to what the work was intended to convey. 

Updated On: 2/16/24 at 01:15 AM

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 1:26am

To piggy-back on what joevitus said, it was a “deconstructionist” take. These definitely-not-what-the-author-intended productions can be fun experiences for theatre fans, but this Oklahoma was specifically a response to a cultural moment in time. I don’t think it would have the same effect in 2024. Similarity, if the recent 1776 had premiered a few years earlier, it probably would have been better received.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 2:10am

The Distinctive Baritone said: "To piggy-back on what joevitus said, it was a “deconstructionist” take. These definitely-not-what-the-author-intended productions can be fun experiences for theatre fans, but this Oklahoma was specifically a response to a cultural moment in time. I don’t think it would have the same effect in 2024. Similarity, if the recent 1776 had premiered a few years earlier, it probably would have been better received."

It recently closed in the West End, the same effect was there.

While the tone in Fish's production may have differed in intention, the original dark plot was onstage. Fish just put emphasis on it. In reality, this approach just brings out deeper interpretation of the classics.

If anything, Fish's take highlights the original author's intention when adapting Green Grow the Lilacs, the piece is more profound than the fluff we usually get with it. 

I'm just glad it was so well received. Not only the Renaissance works allow for diverse approaches and I'm glad to live in times where directors can take a risk with other classics, and ignore the purists.

[bear88]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 4:18am

I doubt we will see that particular incarnation unless a small theater wants to give it a try. But the show made its mark, in part because I thought the show was pretty dark when you remove it from its World War II-era patriotic context. Fish emphasized the darkness without changing a word, even if I thought the show’s most impressive achievement was in its minor tweaks. ‘Surrey With the Fringe on Top’ was a very theatrical experience. Some of the comedic numbers really snapped. I ended up appreciating Oklahoma! more in revival form because it is a classic that can be twisted around and still work, plus I still enjoy the cast recording.

[BoringBoredBoard40]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 4:28am

unlikely unless some major regional theater in a place that didn't get the tour wants to recreate his staging ect 

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 4:44am

It was not particularly well-received on the road.

[bear88]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 5:07am

I doubt anyone really expected it to be a favorite on the road, where I’m sure many people - and especially older subscribers - were expecting a more traditional production.

But even the most traditional of revivals run their course, in New York City and on the road.  

Updated On: 2/16/24 at 05:07 AM

[Broadway Flash]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 8:39am

I actually loved that revival of 1776.  I thought it was pretty straightforward except in the casting to make its point.  Oklahoma was a director trying to push a narrative that wasn’t in the material.  Although I enjoyed what they did with Jud. So much softer and you feel for him.  

[inception]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:01am

tacotheatrelover said: "I ask because I just got reminded of it on my snapchat memories. The 2021-2022 was my first experience with the show, and was my first theatrical experience all around (probably explains a lot.)

I predict that somewhere between 2045-2050 some hot shot director will revive Oklahoma in a production that,  while not an exact replica of Fish's production, will be strongly informed by their memories of seeing Fish's production when they were 13 or 14 years old.

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:08am

God I hope not. I gave it a chance and seeing it once was quite enough for me. 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:17am

I saw it in London just to make sure I hated it as much as I had told everyone I did and turns out I hated it even more and we didn’t even get cold chili there. 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:29am

Jordan Catalano said: "I saw it in London just to make sure I hated it as much as I had told everyone I did and turns out I hated it even more and we didn’t even get cold chili there."

I respect artistic choices, but I just - this did not work for me. I felt like I was dozing off during some parts! 

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:44am

Same. I always say with older shows i love to see new takes on them. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t and for me, this one was just ridiculous. 

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 10:45am

blaxx said: "While the tone in Fish's production may have differed in intention, the original dark plot was onstage. Fish just put emphasis on it. In reality, this approachjust brings out deeper interpretation of the classics."

It's one thing to bring out the darker elements. It's another to relentlessly scream it in everyone's face for 3 hours. There are plenty of ways to bring out those darker elements through things like, you know, subtext (I know, what a novel concept!).  But bringing everything to the surface just reeks of laziness and a complete mistrust in yourself and your audience that they'll be able to figure out what you're going for without playing it so far over the top. I felt like I was watching an MFA directing student desperately screaming at their professor "Look at me! I get it! I understand the dark elements! See how much I get them!"

Obviously a lot of folks disagree with me on this, and that's great, I'm glad you enjoyed the show. But God I hope we don't get another staging of this....

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 11:02am

I enjoyed it on Broadway. But it made me want to see a very traditional version to just compare stories. 
 

that said, I’d be curious what he does next? Seems like Jamie Lloyd is churning them out but Fish is taking his time. 

[ColorTheHours048]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 11:26am

I thought it was thrilling and saw it several times - once at St. Ann’s, maybe five times on Broadway, and once on tour. But I will say, the shift in audience energy as it transferred and then toured was palpable. By the time I saw it in Rhode Island, the audience felt borderline antagonistic toward it (more mid-show and intermission walkouts than I’d ever seen in my life) and the cast looked like they knew it.

In short, no, we will likely never see this particular production again, but I would love if they licensed the orchestrations as an alternative to the traditional ones in the way they license different versions of The Fantasticks.

Updated On: 2/16/24 at 11:26 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 11:29am

I thought it was revelatory. And hey, if nothing else, it succeeded in stirring passionate responses about the oldest chestnut in the canon, a show so ingrained in culture it’s basically part of the furniture. 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 11:33am

I loved this production. I saw it twice on Broadway and once on tour. I thought it was just fantastic and so different.

[verywellthensigh]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 11:55am

No.  Time marches forward.