Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma! — Page 2

I haven't seen the show yet and now want to more than ever.

Gaveston, I also read Poison's "spoiler" link. I'm not perplexeed at all. From the very first time I saw Oklahoma (it began with the movie) as a child, it seemed to me that there was more than just an undercurrent of oppressive corny Americana be-a-one-of-us-cookie-cutter or suffer, a kind of cultural domination. To me Oklahoma! is the quintessential, even primal, show to make this production's point, especially in this day and age when "those states" (God help us, another loathsome form of cultural domination by some narrow-minded coastals who delight in falsely - stupidly! - reducing "flyover" to a monolith) represent something very similar to so many.

As far as this treatment not being at all the author's intention in the 1940s, to me that is not a pivotal concern. What is is that the show now works. If it does.

To me, the show does not wstork as originally envisioned. It never has (in my lifetime, and I'm... well, you know how old I am).

As far as Oscar's grandson goes, nothing wrong with him weighing in. My only problem is that the article seems more interested in &*()-stirring by showing his dissent than in actually relating more precisely what in the show he finds so objectionable.

GavestonPS said: "^^^ And, meanwhile, there is nothing to stop companies from doing a traditional OKLAHOMA! in polka dots and gingham."

100%.

Islander_fan, what makes you feel like Billy's behaviour is glossed over in Carousel?

Not only does Carrie immediately urge Julie to leave him the first time she finds out about it, but she also tells Julie that she is better off with Billy dead, and Julie *agrees* with her. Having the character's wife and her best friend agree that she is better off with him dead is quite the opposite of glossing over his behaviour!

Hopefully, Andy Hammerstein never attends an opera, ballet or production of a Shakespeare play. He'll be in for a very rude awakening.

adam.peterson44 said: "Islander_fan, what makes you feel like Billy's behaviour is glossed over in Carousel?

Not only does Carrie immediately urge Julie to leave him the first time she finds out about it, but she also tells Julie that she is better off with Billy dead, and Julie *agrees* with her. Having the character's wife and her best friend agree that she is better off with him dead is quite the opposite of glossing over his behaviour!"

In that situation you're right. However, to me, the whole plot line of Billy's redemption is what comes to mind when I meant glossed over. Not only did he beat Julie, he died while in the process of trying to commit an act of theft. The whole thing reads (to me at least) that his actions couldn't have been too bad if he was able to, in the end, get into heaven.

Agreed.



I'd have less problem with this production if it were actually well-sung.

poisonivy2 said: "I think that's exactly it though -- Carousel is a story of redemption. We're not supposed to admire Billy's actions towards Julie during their marriage. The whole tone of the musical has always been dark and difficult. Oklahoma! is "supposed" to be a cheery tribute to the American spirit, but I've always found Curly to be a bully, the storyline of Ado Annie's dad offering her up to the first guy who has $50 sleazy (shouldn't Ado have a say in who she wants to marry?), and the suicide baiting of Jud deeply uncomfortable. So I feel like directors of Oklahoma! have to either embrace the darkness, or put a lid on it. I think Fish does both -- the Curly/Jud treatment is very dark but he leaves the lighthearted Ado Annie storyline intact."

Ado Annie's dad doesn't offer her up to the first guy who has $50. He has tried to keep Will from marrying her by insisting he must have $50 cash--knowing Will is too poor/too reckless to save that much. When Will sells all the stuff he bought for Annie at the fair to the Peddler (who doesn't have to have any money to earn Annie's pa's approval), and gets the $50 cash, he holds Mr. Cairns to his word.

I can't see in what way, shape or form Curly is a bully. Especially in comparison with Jud. I love how he and Laurie spar, and how she always gets the better of him And ultimately, he has to put his cards on the table first and earnestly propose. They are an equal, and perfect, match.

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:15 PM

GavestonPS said: "henrik, I've been saying all along that it sounds like this production merely makes literal what was always in the subtext.

What I don't understand, based on poison ivy's summary...

***WARNING: SPOILER AHEAD AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EMBED IT**


...is why does Jud just hand a gun to his archival and why does Curley do what he does with that gun? Both actions seem entirely random to me and certainly not supposed by the text."





SPOILERISH....

















“For example, part of Daniel Fish’s idea is the fact that Jud knows he’s done in. Because he’s gone after Laurey, Laurey has fired him, he’s lost — and that’s clear. So in Daniel’s idea, when Jud comes to the wedding, he comes in as he does in the play, but Daniel has him dressed very well, with the gift, which is a gun, which I guess we assume is the gun that Curly had to sell in order to get the hamper.

What happened in Daniel’s production at Bard, previously, was Curly picked the gun up out of the box and shot him in cold blood. And it was followed by a scene in which Curly gets off, claiming self-defense. And leaning partly on the fact that they wanted further rights, so that I still had an opportunity to have the conversation, I said you can’t do that. That is too far removed from what’s in the script. Every bone in my body says you can’t show cold-blooded murder that is clear to everyone witnessing it in the audience, then he gets away with it. There’s enough of that going on in the world, but don’t put it in Oklahoma!

I said, “Figure out a way to do it so that people don’t take that away from it.” And he has. It’s chilling, what he does.”

-Ted Chapin, custodian of the Rogers and Hammerstein catalogue https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:45 PM

You know for sure he doesn't pay for the place he lives in? And you are sure it is very luxurious? How do you know?

But truth be told, if my lucrative life was dependent of the good will of the public continuing to see my grandfather's show, I sure wouldn't want this production of Oklahoma! to be running, and I would publicly voice my opposition to it, as well.

Updated On: 7/11/19 at 07:51 PM

poisonivy2 said: "I think that's exactly it though -- Carousel is a story of redemption. We're not supposed to admire Billy's actions towards Julie during their marriage. The whole tone of the musical has always been dark and difficult. Oklahoma! is "supposed" to be a cheery tribute to the American spirit, but I've always found Curly to be a bully, the storyline of Ado Annie's dad offering her up to the first guy who has $50 sleazy (shouldn't Ado have a say in who she wants to marry?), and the suicide baiting of Jud deeply uncomfortable. So I feel like directors of Oklahoma! have to either embrace the darkness, or put a lid on it. I think Fish does both -- the Curly/Jud treatment is very dark but he leaves the lighthearted Ado Annie storyline intact."

The $50 business isn't so dark in the context of the periods (1943 and turn of the century Oklahoma). It was a father's responsibility to make sure his daughter married a man who could support her. That's where the $50 comes in. (We're obviously not talking the Vanderbilts or Astors here.)

Annie's father is merely doing his job as a father. He isn't selling her, he's trying to make sure she will be provided for.

Phantom of London said: "I never understood why rights for writing can last 70 years and is claimed by distant family, but medicine that takes millions of bucks to develop only last 20 years."

Because a medicine can be taken simultaneously around the globe from the moment it is launched, where creative work needs more time to have a similar impact?

Some specifics behind the spoiler tag and thoughts below:

I think there are two big hurdles for the revival. Both are justifiable choices (the reworked Dream Ballet and the climactic scene with Curley and Jud). I liked the latter as a reflection of the country's violent origins and attitudes anywhere toward those who are deemed outsiders. I cannot say the execution worked as well as I would have liked. The Dream Ballet is more fun to listen to on the cast recording than to watch, which is very different than the rest of the show (which is better in person). The climax is undermined a bit by Damon Daunno's geniality as Curley. He's full of himself, like all Curleys, but he doesn't seem coldblooded. I know what Fish was going for here. He's the cool,, white dude who can get away with anything.

I agree with most of poisonivy2's assessment of the revival, except for her dislike of Rebecca Naomi Jones, who I thought captured Laurie's frustrations and yearning in a way that was consistent with the text but highlighted in a way I'd never seen before. I was surprised, as Kad was, at how straightforward most of the show played. And overall, I thought the revival did a terrific job of emphasizing the strengths of the source material and improving on what I used to think of as weaknesses. (Who knew I'd think the Ado Annie plotline was such fun?)

I understand why purists, like Andy Hammerstein, are going to object. As with the My Fair Lady revival, but in more dramatic fashion, "stage directions" can make all the difference. He's not saying different than many others here who have disliked the show. But I liked both revivals quite a bit.

To the above discussion about Billy Bigelow being an abuser who redeems himself in death, I would like to RESOUNDINGLY challenge that. Billy is given the CHANCE to redeem himself.

Billy hits his daughter and the Heavenly Friend tells him that he is a failure.

The original source material, Lilliom, sees the character EXPLICITLY condemned to hell. It was decided that such an ending, in the time and place in which Carousel came to the stage, would not be appropriate and palatable to the audiences. It is a correct choice, to my mind. That said, NOWHERE does it say that Billy is going to Heaven. People assume that because he leaves with the Heavenly Friend (who JUST told him he failed), and because the SOUND of the final chords of You'll Never Walk Alone is glorious, but the ending is intentionally ambiguous to be palatable to a 1940s Broadway audience who was already unsettled by the material they saw, but still true enough to Lilliom. There is more evidence that Billy is condemned and has not found his salvation.

(and yes, that god awful movie version which dumbed it down and brightened up does a good job of making people think that Billy is gloriously saved.)