Hammerstein grandson on Oklahoma! — Page 4

OlBlueEyes said: "Not saying that a book or play should not be adapted for musicals if it was not a hit. Should not be adapted for musicals if not any good.

GGTL tried out for a month in Boston in 1930, opened in New York and ran for 54 performances and was never heard of again. No, that's not true. But it would have never been heard from again if not for Oklahoma!

http://vconstage.com/the-roots-of-oklahoma-come-alive-in-green-grow-the-lilacs/

The playritestated that his intentions in writing the play were “solely to recapture in a kind of nostalgic glow the great range of mood which characterized the old folk songs and ballads I used to hear in my Oklahoma childhood.”

No deep dark motives there. Light and fluffy. And Jud, called Jeeter, was the same one-dimensional villain. He is treated marginally better in that Curly after killing him does not turn it into a joke, but apparently faces the possibility of being charged with the crime.

Nothing dark here. (Apparently the playwright in 1930 also did not know that Oklahoma at that time was just a state full of racists.) Where is all that substance people are reading into Oklahoma?

Immigration and the treatment of the indigenous populations the American Indians and the Mexicans. Obviously can't get into this, but if the other major world power all received grades of 'F' in this department, this country might receive a 'D'.

"

GGTL had already been heard from again in 1942, in a summer revival by the Theater Guild in Connecticut, with choreography by Gene Kelly, which proved more popular that the original run,. That's what lead Helburn to think of remaking it as a musical.

You're just wrong about the darkness. One of the things that's fascinating about GGTL is how every character suddenly erupts into violence, sometimes for no good reason reason. It's a really curious thing. Even Laurie does this. Oklahoma!, too, has its darkness in that Jud is clearly set up as, not just a rival, but a predator and potential rapist. The resolution to the murder is done as a joke--sort of The way Cairns treats Curly's testimony seriously and makes him testify with specific words and not just going off half-cocked so that the wrong impression isn't given--"don't let your tongue waggle around in your head like that!"-- shows they all know Curly is innocent and acted solely in self-defense, but could easily get himself hanged if he isn't careful in how he expresses himself. They want justice done--they are sort of forcing the outcome to insure justice occurs--but, that so early on, Curly and Laurie were faced with such a trying experience takes the show out of the realm of light slices of Americana like Bloomer Girl or Hello, Dolly!

Updated On: 7/14/19 at 12:56 PM

I may not have expressed my opinion well. The original production and all of its progeny treated the Jud death as a joke, as you say, and I've made it clear that I did not like that. But Oscar does not want a heavy ending, and neither did GGTL.

The current production, on the other hand, certainly, even explosively, darkens everything. My question is whether there is a lesson here for the audience to take with it, or is the violence just there to inject some memorable action into the story.

I guess that I haven't decided. People are trying to find a lesson, as it lends this production more prestige. Some are calling it an anti-gun message. Not sure about that.

You are probably the only person who has seen or read GGTL. If what you say is true, then is Oscar guilty of taking out all the darkness? This intro doesn't sound very dark.

The playwright stated that his intentions in writing the play were “solely to recapture in a kind of nostalgic glow the great range of mood which characterized the old folk songs and ballads I used to hear in my Oklahoma childhood.

Maybe we are overanalyzing the question of whether Oklahoma is being overanalyzed.

Thanks, Ivy. Here is the original review by an obscure NYT reviewer. Well obscure to me. I haven't even read it yet. Got to go.

http://www.rarenewspapers.com/view/624563

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Oh it’s dark all right. And I don’t just mean the pitch black scenes Jud repeatedly finds himself in when his most emotional scenes take place. And yes, Curly and Laurie endure the last 10 minutes of the show in their white wedding clothes splattered in a torrent of blood.

Nothing is subtle in this production. Subtext is all Uber-text here. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the stranger are all in your face. The ballet has been reorchestrated as an ear-shattering screed from a horror movie. Amateur hour reigns supreme in the staging at Circle in the Square. The director appears to be a demented child making sculptures with his own feces and looking for approval from the adults in the room.

The bluegrass band, on the other hand, was a complete delight."

Yikes, that's too bad.Interesting that the performances at the Tonys intentionally gave no indication of all that. Clearly won't be for me.

But yeah, the orchestrations and vocal performances are superb.

Frank Rich. Don't like the man. I link his article anyway, without comment, because it is directly on point and contains factual information previously unknown to me. There are also short articles on Lynn Riggs and Ted Chapin, who approved the Fish production.

Also, much of Rich's social criticism in grounded in truth, even if wrapped up tightly in the usual self-righteousness.

This has become too much of a downer for me.

https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/frank-rich-oklahoma.html

JDonaghy4 said: "...Yes, exactly. I dont know what Hammerstein's intentions were, but this is a story about how one dude urges an outcast to kill himself, and then eventually that outcast is killed. The "hero" is then immediately acquitted in a show trial and the entire company then dances and sings joyously over his corpse. My question is not "How did Daniel Fish come up with this" but rather "how is it that the previous musical comedy versions of this disturbing show ever existed?"

That people saw this, loved it, deemed it a classic, is indicative of a societal cruelty that art should unmask. THEY DIDNT CHANGE A WORD and the play is just plain creepy. Thats the whole point."

I'm sorry but only the overly literal could take the "Poor Jud Is Dead" scene as an actual attempt to get Jud to commit suicide. I don't know about the current revival, but the scene is a comic one and the danger in it has always been, at best, that Curley may provoke Jud to a fist fight. Curley isn't so stupid as to really believe that Jud will kill himself because "it's summer and we're running out of ice".

If all you meant is that, given Jud's situation, Curley's humor is unkind, then I guess I'll grant you that much. But Curley is no higher on the social scale: his entire worth is his horse and gear, worth about $50. Jud and Curley are both working class men, living what we would call "paycheck to paycheck". It's not a 1980s teen romance, where the kid with a wealthy father abuses the kid who has to work at the amusement park over summer vacation.

Updated On: 7/15/19 at 01:27 AM

GavestonPS said: "JDonaghy4 said: "...Yes, exactly. I dont know what Hammerstein's intentions were, but this is a story about how one dude urges an outcast to kill himself, and then eventually that outcast is killed. The "hero" is then immediately acquitted in a show trial and the entire company then dances and sings joyously over his corpse. My question is not "How did Daniel Fish come up with this" but rather "how is it that the previous musical comedy versions of this disturbing show ever existed?"

That people saw this, loved it, deemed it a classic, is indicative of a societal cruelty that art should unmask. THEY DIDNT CHANGE A WORD and the play is just plain creepy. Thats the whole point."

I'm sorry but only the overly literal could take the "Poor Jud Is Dead" scene as an actual attempt to get Jud to commit suicide. I don't know about the current revival, but the scene is a comic one and the danger in it has always been, at best, that Curley may provoke Judto a fist fight. Curley isn't so stupid as to really believe that Jud will kill himself because "it's summer and we're running out of ice".

If all you meant is that, given Jud's situation, Curley's humor is unkind, then I guess I'll grant you that much. But Curley is no higher on the social scale: his entire worth is his horse and gear, worth about $50. Jud and Curley are both working class men, living what we would call "paycheck to paycheck". It's not a 1980s teen romance, where the kid with awealthy father abuses the kid who has to work at the amusement park over summer vacation."

never saw the original traditional productions so i defer to you all on how that played out but

the idea that the "you should commit suicide" song is not to be taken seriously is probably accurate- until the singer of that ditty kills the person he was singing it to. the violent result by definition makes the whole show a dark, disturbing affair. the Broadway traditionalists on these boards seem unwilling to let go of their beloved musical being anything other than a disturbing work of art-- either bc it was intended to be (my hunch) or bc it wasn't even though it truly is.

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Nothing is subtle in this production. Subtext is all Uber-text here. Bigotry, xenophobia, fear of the stranger are all in your face. The ballet has been reorchestrated as an ear-shattering screed from a horror movie. Amateur hour reigns supreme in the staging at Circle in the Square. The director appears to be a demented child making sculptures with his own feces and looking for approval from the adults in the room."

That's hyperbolic nonsense.

I agree with some of the posters above in that if you're even remotely curious about the show and you have the opportunity, you should check it out for yourself. They have discount codes, they have a lottery (which I've won), they are on TKTS.

I absolutely loved it (saw it twice, and I hope to get back for a third time before it closes), and it's given me a new appreciation for a show I otherwise wasn't interested in at all. We even rented the 1955 movie over the weekend to compare and contrast. I can certainly see room for discussion and disagreement about whether it's effective for you personally as a viewer, but I hope that the negative comments here don't completely discourage folks from giving it a chance.

Someone in a Tree2 said: "Yeah, but Kad, you pulled my hyperbole completely out of context. I did state all the factual things first with which you can’t argue (scenes in total darkness, the blood drenching in the finale). Also you omitted my complimentary nod to the Bluegrass Band.

I still maintain this was easily the worst production I’ve seen at a Broadway theater in 20 years, which I thought the poster above me should know. You are of course totally free to disagree."

I have no obligation to quote the parts of your post I am not taking issue with. Your hyperbolic nonsense doesn't need context to be understood. And I'm sorry to omit your "nod" to the band, which totally lessens the fact you called Daniel Fish a child playing with feces.

Why would I even argue that there are two brief scenes in darkness (and that is a fact- there are only two, and they are brief) and the blood on Laurey and Curly? They're both well-documented parts of the production and components I have no objection to, nor do I find them representative of any larger issue with the production.

Say it's the worst thing you've ever seen. Whatever. But then you go on and on, as if Daniel Fish personally broke into your home and beat you up.

Updated On: 7/15/19 at 01:03 PM

I adored the show but agree the direction is heavy-handed. However, the alternative seems to be with other productions is that there is just no substance or honesty to the characters, their motivations, their actions or their consequences. And a score that was originally orchestrated in a way that until now sounds nothing like the period (acknowledge the Dream Ballet is nothing like the period now, either haha). The show, as transformed in this production, makes a whole lot more sense to me (Dream Ballet excluded, which doesn't really make any sense at all to me).

Sorry. Duplicate post.

Updated On: 7/15/19 at 02:59 PM

Kad said: "The smokehouse scene is one long instance of Curly's machismo posturing and barely-veiled threats against Jud (who, yes, is a dangerous creep... but at that point of the show, we barely know anything about him, and neither does Curly, who knows only that Laurey is going with him to the social)."

This. So this.