OKLAHOMA! Previews — Page 3

"This revival is like Oklahoma trapped in a production of Spring Awakening. "

YES! EXACTLY!

My initial reaction was this is the worst thing since the spring awakening revival.

Which I know others loved. I have no preconceived notions of how Oklahoma should be. Never seen a production. I know songs and basics from musical theatre history class but.... Ya the spring awakening revival felt the same.

WhizzerMarvin said: "Personally, I certainly don’t mind an exploration of the darker side of America’s past. There are dark elements built into the show, most definitely, but the show is at heart musical comedy. I think what suffers most in this production is the romance between Curly and Laurie.

I feel very conflicted over this. Like I said, if this were an original musical it would easily be brilliant in my book."

Whizzer, I find your reaction to this revival fascinating, in part because it reflects a debate between my wife and I. She likes the original Oklahoma!, loves the score, and has no interest in seeing an experimental remix that emphasizes the show's darker elements when we have other shows to choose from on our upcoming New York trip. I'm very intrigued by the whole thing, because the dark side of the musical has always been there, just covered with sugar. (I say this as someone who has never seen the show performed on stage, although multiple times on screen or video.)

Can someone see this show as an original musical if they have fond memories of more traditional versions? Does it work on its own terms? When you say it would be brilliant if it was an original musical, that just makes me more interested in seeing it - and yet you only really liked the cornbread.

bear and ColorTheHours, I have a feeling this is going to be quite a rambling response!

When it comes to revivals I truly am only a stick in the mud about one thing, namely that we are given the full score, uncut. This Oklahoma provides us with that.

Two of my least favorite revivals of the past decade were the Promises, Promises and How to Succeed productions directed and choreographed by Rob Ashford. The were bland, lacking much spark or wit, but most of all they didn’t trust the material, almost as if Ashford was embarrassed by the “corniness” or old-fashioned nature of each show. I give Fish credit that he is anything but embarrassed by Oklahoma- in fact, I sensed he genuinely loves the piece. He trusts the material, which is the most important thing a direct can do with a revival. If you don’t trust it fully, then why are you reviving it?

In a way, I envy people here when I read that they’re experiencing a show for the first time at a revival. They don’t carry the baggage the rest of us do.

Just my own personal baggage: the 1979 revival recording was one of the first cast recordings my parents ever bought me- on cassette tape no less. By the time I was five, I had every note and syllable memorized;’my mother tells me that I would perform the entire album for her while I rode around the car with her running errands. I would mention when to flip over the cassette for side 2 and make us take a five minute break for the dream ballet!

I now own many recordings of my gateway drug to musical theater and still listen to my beloved ‘79 revival recording often. Some seem convinced that the reason people are bucking at this revival is because it is darker than previous incarnations, but for me that isn’t it at all. It’s just such a departure, not only visually, but with the orchestrations and style of singing. These actors are getting to define the roles for some of you, but you truly can’t understand the shock it feels it hear the score sung this way. Imagine after decades of hearing Rose sung by Ethel Merman and Patti LuPone types, you show up and get Carol Channing’s Rose’s Turn. It’s a lot!

If Carol Channing ever attempted to take on Gypsy, and that was your first exposure to the show, maybe you like it, but for the rest of us, it might take a minute to process, ha.

That said, I should have given more credit to the actors, because despite giving unexpected performances, I did enjoy their work. Damon Daunno is a very charismatic Curly and I will not at all be surprised if he nabs a fair share of Tony votes. Rebecca Naomi Jones is playing Laurey as if directed by Bresson in Au Hasard Balthazar (with Jud as the donkey!) Will Brill’s Ali Hakim is hilarious; Ali Stroker has excellent chemistry with both Brill and James Davis and she came close to bringing down the house with Cain’t Say No. Testa acts as the glue that holds all the actors together. They’ve all bought into Fish’s vision and are on the same page.

For those who know Oklahoma well, this revival is like having a bucket of ice water dumped on your head. For those who don’t know the show, I know you can intellectually understand that and know this is not a typical production, but with all due respect, you aren’t experiencing that visceral reality of having ice water being poured on your skin all evening long. Maybe I can learn to channel Isabelle Huppert in some kinky S&M flick and come to a place where I’m turned on by this ice bath, but I’m not quite there yet.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 08:31 AM

Thank you for that long response, Whizzer. I think that answered my question too, though we posted at about the same time. Oklahoma! is a lifelong family favorite of mine and I have a ticket to see it in May. I’m hoping I can enjoy it through the “ice water being dumped on my head.” This certainly sounds more interesting than the same-old same-old revival, but I hope it works for me.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 08:38 AM

In my party of 6:

2 Loved it

2 Despised it

2 left confused

I was on the love train and thought it was beautifully done. I loved the stripped down nature that really focused on the character development and words rather than action. The two who left confused had never seen Oklahoma! before, and I can only imagine they left confused because of the same stripped down nature.It's definitely harder to follow when most of the actors are sitting on stage the whole time and start talking when it's their turn. There are few entrances and exits and only one set - so it helps when you are familiar with one version of the show.

As for the performances. Damon Daunno (Curly), Ali Stoker (Ado Annie), James Parker (Will), and Mary Testa (Aunt Eller) were standouts. I thought Rebecca Naomi Jones fell completely flat as Laurie. I didn't care for her voice or acting choices (maybe because there weren't any). I also didn't care for her random outbursts of American Idiot stomping around.

Saw the first preview and loved it! I found this Oklahoma to be a great way to tell this story for audiences today. I wish more musical revivals would take chances like this production did and create a new interpretation from the classics. I found this refreshingly original and loved that the explored the darker elements to the story.

I'm encouraged by the reports. Sounds like it's transferred pretty much intact from St. Ann's. I worried that the bigger space (though possibly smaller playing area?) would swallow it up.



For perspective, I didn't know Oklahoma going in. A few of the songs, sure, but not the plot of the show. And what I found was, to me, a chilling, extraordinary look at the early American West with all of its misogyny, violence, and desperation at the core of this viscerally thrilling show. In fact, I find it hard to imagine it as a musical comedy. I'll have to check out one of the recorded versions to see how it views as a more traditional piece. But to anyone who can go in with a totally open mind, I heartily recommend this. And to be clear, I know very well how attached a person can get to a show and how difficult that can make the prospect of watching what amount to massive changes. As such, this might be an Oklahoma best seen by folks who don't know and love the show all that much, as strange as that sounds.

Do we question Shakespeare's intentions? Would he be shocked to see the reverential treatment his work gets, when he was probably used to raucous groundling audiences just out for a good time? Would he be shocked by the presence of women onstage? Would Aeschylus be shocked by the fact the actors aren't wearing masks? That the text isn't chanted? That we aren't honoring the gods?

I think being an "originalist" for art is pretty limiting.

Updated On: 3/20/19 at 03:22 PM