Oklahoma! and revisionist history

It's very silly, but I get why he's saying it. 

What he's saying is that when Oklahoma! premiered it was considered edgy and revolutionary and was intended to be so. Awkward phrasing but I get what he;s trying to say.

FranklinDickson2018 said: "My issue is that he said they are doing what R & H wrote."

They are "doing what R & H wrote," though, are they not? They haven't changed any of the lyrics or the score, and he didn't say they're using Robert Russell Bennett's original orchestrations, which they're not. His comment reflects that they're employing the original material (unchanged) in a production that captures the revolutionary sensibility of the original production in a way that feels equally revolutionary today. Nothing "revisionist" about that.

 

As mentioned in Steven Suskin's "The Sound of Broadway Music", when Richard Rodgers as producer was reviving some of his (and others' older shows he was not opposed to having the orchestrations re-done to bring them in line with contemporary tastes - make of that as you will.

That is the fatuous comment of an actor and, no, I'm not going to take my musical theater 101 history lesson from a young actor in thrall with his own first blush of fame.  R&H were cutting edge in that they were intrinsically taking the traditions of musical theater and expanding upon them where few had done so.  They weren't exploding them from within and reinventing them because they both had much respect for the idiom.

To say that the current revival of Oklahoma! (which I saw and thoroughly enjoyed) is doing what R&H wrote is stupid...... of COURSE it is.  It is not, however, doing it AS INTENDED, and that's a big difference.  R&H were meticulous in not only what they wrote, but also writing for a specifically intended presentation.  All of this scraping for relevancy with a potential younger audience is annoying.  Just do what you're doing and see how it works; don't attach meaning where there is none.

HogansHero said: "Let's see what we can conclude from all of this.

First, it seems to be the consensus that the production is performing what R&H wrote. (Not much of a leg to stand on to deny that.)

Second, who cares whether it is consistent with what they intended well over a half century ago? So long as the production has the blessing of R&H'sdelegatee, that's the end of that inquiry.

Third, who cares what a performer has to say? We pay far too much attention to what people say about the work they are doing; the ultimate (and only) test is whether what they have presented to us resonates for us. And here, objectively, it resonates in the aggregate.

This show has been much appreciated by many, including, surprisingly, a lot of folks who had pretty much eschewed R&H. Everyone else is entitled to their opinion."

Well said.  I am one of the people who had given up on it; as I watched the show, I was surprised to realize that the words were there, but — at least in my viewing lifetime — the directors of the productions I have seen emphasized the corn and not the darkness.  I have always intensely disliked the corn version.  This production made me understand what R&H had in mind.  

PianoMann said: "FranklinDickson2018 said: "My issue is that he said they are doing what R & H wrote."

They are "doing what R & H wrote," though, are they not? They haven't changed any of thelyrics or the score, and he didn't say they're using Robert Russell Bennett's original orchestrations, which they're not. His comment reflects that they're employing the original material (unchanged) in a production that captures the revolutionary sensibility of the original production in a way that feels equally revolutionary today. Nothing "revisionist" about that.

"

Stage directions are also part of "the original work". Courts have ruled so on this issue.

Caveat: in this context, "stage directions" do not mean the stage manager's notes that are later added to Samuel French editions. I.e., "John crosses to DSL, sits on couch and lights a cigarette."

But such directions as Hammerstein wrote in his final version of the libretto ARE indeed part of the "original". Hammerstein's agent--Ted Chapin--seems to have approved of any changes made to those directions, so there is no legal liability. But the actor's statement isn't exactly accurate, because...

Updated On: 10/21/19 at 11:38 PM