Any chance we'll see Daniel Fish's Oklahoma! again?- Page 2

[verywellthensigh]

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

No.  Time marches forward.

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 12:06pm

They already murdered the show the first time around. What would be the point in doing it again?

[Rainah]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 1:18pm

I dont' think producers care much what broadwayworld thinks of the show. (Personally, I didn't care for it, but love that such dramatic takes are happening).

Practically, we won't see it again because it wasn't particularly financially successful and there's no reason to bring it back. Audiences weren't showing up for it the first time, why would they show up the second time?

However, I think we'll see a rise of Fish-influenced local productions, that put their own spin on that general approach.

[broadwayboy223]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 3:14pm

Some of you are so precious with your tastes lol. I loved this revival and would've killed for a great proshot. For the first time Oklahoma worked for me! I actually don't want to see the original again ever. Also thought that Rebecca Naomi Jones was robbed of a Tony nomination. I'll never forget her especially in the last scene. 

[binau]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 3:24pm

Seeing the dream ballet in London surrounded by a bunch of old people was WILD. I knew what to expect because I did see it in New York but these London audiences seemed old and had no idea what they were walking into. Besides a group of core fans the show never seemed to appeal to a young demographic there. It was almost sad. As I understand it word of mouth wasn’t always the best. But I just loved everything about the show. It was as if some down town New York college students were high and came up with the wackiest idea for an Oklahoma revival but then actually mounted it in real life. Then they got praised for it so it ended up in the oddest mainstream settings on Broadway, in London, on tour. I completely bought the interpretation though. It didn’t feel at odds with the text or what was written on the page. I can’t say the same thing about the Jamie Lloyd Sunset (which I also loved) where we have to suspend disbelief at points because what we are seeing is not always congruent with what is written on the page. 

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 4:02pm

If nothing else I’d love to hear the alt-country orchestrations again, and hope they wind up licensed.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 2/16/24 at 4:35pm

joevitus said: "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."

BUT the show opened in 1943, in the middle of war.   I doubt anyone would have produced a dark musical at that time.  Times have changed...who knows what they would have thought 75 - 80 years later.  Audiences are a lot more sophisticated than they were in the 40s.

Personally, I have seen Oklahoma a handful of times before the Fish production and disliked it every time.  The first time I saw it, I assumed that it was just a bad production (it was at the City Center and, despite a really good cast, the production was really cheesy).  The second time I saw it, it got great reviews at the Palace in the 70s.  A decade had gone by, so I thought that I would give it a chance.  Spent a good chunk of the second act in the lobby, because it was so damn corny AND I hated Agnes DeMille's choreography, which may be a sacrilege to some.  I saw the version with Patrick Wilson solely because I really liked Patrick Wilson.  Same reaction as other times... all the corn was boring and I didn't like the choreography.  

In all cases, I loved most of the score; so when I read the reviews for the Fish production, I concluded that I would give it one last shot, and I absolutely loved everything about it.  To me, it demonstrated how much more a director can impact one's perception of a work than I had realized.  The corn was minimized and the darkness was real.  I thought the staging of Poor Jud is dead, one of the songs I never liked, was brilliant and made me appreciate the song so much more.  The approach to the Ado Annie character was so much better than all the other versions I saw (including the movie), and it was the first time I enjoyed the Ado Annie / Will Parker / Ali Akim sub-plot.  I loved it so much that I hope future versions will consider a darker approach to the material than historically taken.  I know this: the only way I will ever see another production of Oklahoma is if the director takes a darker approach to the material and eliminates the corn.

Updated On: 2/16/24 at 04:35 PM

[Ke3]

Posted: 2/17/24 at 11:36am

For all the antagonism this got on the road, it did make me a bit emotional to read reports often that the only thing middle America responded to in the touring production was Sis.

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/17/24 at 12:56pm

When Sis, in her unchanged bass baritone, sang “I’m just a girl,” she put extra emphasis on it as almost a confrontational statement, as if she were daring anyone in the audience to object. Her number got the most applause of the night. 

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/17/24 at 1:45pm

Didn’t get to see it but I love the album. I don’t understand why anyone would complain about Oklahoma being made dark in this production. Oklahoma has always been dark. Look up the history of western expansion. The show ends with a makeshift murder trial of the supposed protagonist. Just because the music is happy doesn’t negate the events prior.

[nocek]

Posted: 2/17/24 at 4:41pm

I would love to see him again one day !

 Tutuapp

Updated On: 2/22/24 at 04:41 PM

[Wayman_Wong]

Posted: 2/17/24 at 4:42pm

''It was not particularly well-received on the road.''

That's an understatement. When I saw this ''Oklahoma!'' on tour, the audience response was tepid and polite at best. And there were a number of walkouts. Christopher Barrow, who played Jud Fry, wrote an essay about it for Howlround.com: ''Surviving in the States: Audience Rejection on the Road With 'Oklahoma!' '' (Just for the record, the best ''Oklahoma!'' I've ever seen was Arena Stage's 2010 multi-ethnic, theater-in-the-round revival, directed by Molly Smith and led by  Nicholas Rodriguez, who won a Helen Hayes Award for his Curly. THIS is the great ''Oklahoma!'' that should've played Circle in the Square.)

https://howlround.com/surviving-states-audience-rejection-road-oklahoma

 

Updated On: 2/17/24 at 04:42 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

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

broadwayboy223 said: "Some of you are so precious with your tastes lol. I loved this revival and would've killed for a great proshot. For the first time Oklahoma worked for me! I actually don't want to see the original again ever. Also thought that Rebecca Naomi Jones was robbed of a Tony nomination. I'll never forget her especially in the last scene."

Could not agree more re Jones being robbed of a Tony nom, and just in general the lack of appreciation for what Fish and that cast in particular did. It was magic and thats never an accident.

And whoever thinks that Fish "made" this production dark/different is (unsurprisingly) missing the point entirely. Sure, maybe you didnt enjoy it, opinions are opinions, but he didnt do anything beyond strip the thing down to its bones. The text wasnt changed. The characters are who they are. If you want a fun foot-stomping dance show that culminates in a lynching... well thats on you no?

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 2/18/24 at 8:58am

joevitus said: "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."

There is no way Lynn Riggs would agree with Rodgers and Hammerstein's treatment of his story.

[Dancingthrulife2]

Posted: 2/18/24 at 9:01am

Wayman_Wong said: "''It was not particularly well-received on the road.''

That's an understatement. When I saw this ''Oklahoma!'' on tour, the audience response was tepid and polite at best. And there were a number of walkouts. Christopher Barrow, who played Jud Fry, wrote an essay about it for Howlround.com: ''Surviving in the States: Audience Rejection on the Road With 'Oklahoma!' '' (Just for the record, the best ''Oklahoma!'' I've ever seen was Arena Stage's 2010 multi-ethnic, theater-in-the-round revival, directed by Molly Smith and led by Nicholas Rodriguez, who won a Helen Hayes Award for his Curly.THIS is the great ''Oklahoma!'' that should've played Circle in the Square.)

https://howlround.com/surviving-states-audience-rejection-road-oklahoma

"

Hmm no. Are you implying the taste of the regional theater circle, which has been proven drastically different from that of New York, should determine which production should play in a New York theater?

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 2/18/24 at 10:14am

Dancingthrulife2 said: "There is no wayLynn Riggs would agree with Rodgers and Hammerstein's treatment of his story."

Lynn Riggs was still alive when Rodgers and Hammerstein's treatment of his story came out, attended rehearsals and the opening, and lived another eleven years after the show's debut. Do you have any citations that he disagreed with the treatment of his original story? I would genuinely be interested to read them.

 

[hearthemsing22]

Posted: 2/19/24 at 2:12pm

Wayman_Wong said: "''It was not particularly well-received on the road.''

That's an understatement. When I saw this ''Oklahoma!'' on tour, the audience response was tepid and polite at best. And there were a number of walkouts. Christopher Barrow, who played Jud Fry, wrote an essay about it for Howlround.com: ''Surviving in the States: Audience Rejection on the Road With 'Oklahoma!' '' (Just for the record, the best ''Oklahoma!'' I've ever seen was Arena Stage's 2010 multi-ethnic, theater-in-the-round revival, directed by Molly Smith and led by Nicholas Rodriguez, who won a Helen Hayes Award for his Curly.THIS is the great ''Oklahoma!'' that should've played Circle in the Square.)

https://howlround.com/surviving-states-audience-rejection-road-oklahoma

"

I'm pretty sure people were walking out and asking for their money back they disliked it so much 

[sinister teashop]

Posted: 2/19/24 at 4:12pm

Audiences from 1943 were different. In some ways, many ways, much more sophisticated than the present solely for the simple reason that they saw a lot more theater and had a longer theatrical memory that hadn't been completely supplanted by movies and radio. But they certainly weren't up on the culture of 2023. 

I thought the Fish "Oklahoma" was a mixed bag. Partly very effective and exciting. I particularly liked the alt-country orchestrations as someone said early and also the costume and set design. I liked many of the directorial touches/disruptions including the bloody ending. On the other hand, many of those disruptions felt sophomoric and arbitrary. I had some problems with the distancing of the audience through periodic full up house lights and then full darkness. That often felt more like effect separated from cause. But all in all, I was glad I saw it and I would probably see another Fish production. 

What I don't like are conversations where this production (and others) are reduced to some kind of binary pro vs. con of directorial inventiveness. A production can be a lot of things and you don't have to like or hate everything about it. 

Updated On: 2/19/24 at 04:12 PM