I was at the first preview last night. I suspect we will read a lot about how this is OKLAHOMA as given the Ivo Van Hove treatment, though I must confess, as someone who often loves Van Hove's work, I was a little remiss to understand what director Daniel Fish's overriding vision is here. It's a heavily stripped down production, that has some fun and clever ideas, but it also falls into the trappings of not very good deconstructionist theatre -- most of the dialogue is flat and slow, stripped of any robust humour and delivered in a stable monotone; the singing isn't very good; the dream ballet is from outer space; scenes delivered in either extreme light or complete blackout begin to feel gimmicky after a while.
Still, the production is also completely unforgettable and I'm thrilled that the Rodgers and Hammerstein estate is allowing such a risky take on the show. It definitely won't be a production for everyone (there were a lot of walkouts at intermission last night) but I'd recommend it for someone who is open to an adventurous (and somewhat baffling) reinterpretation of a classic. If anyone has a link to Daniel Fish explaining his vision, I'd love to read it.
The ending, by the way, is exactly as described in the spoilers above. If Ted Chapin recommended something different, the director didn't listen.
And yes, they serve chili and cornbread to everyone at intermission.
Oh, and yes, there are some trims to the text.
Updated On: 9/28/18 at 10:09 AM