Oklahoma! or What The Constitution Means To Me - Page 2

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 3:25pm

dramamama611 said: "I haven't seen it yet (tomorrow) but I truly can't imagine that your assessment is complete to have the vast majority here (and at the Tony nom committee) sing its praises. Might I actrually agree with you after I see it? Sure - and I'll say as much."

Let us know what you think of both shows! What else do you plan to see (or have seen) on your trip? 

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 3:53pm

Just those two this time...Im only from Boston, so easy to do a one nighter.

[Mike Barrett]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 4:08pm

Ah, I am as well so I understand. Plus, it can be much cheaper. Enjoy your shows!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 8:29pm

Oklahoma. hands down.

Both have a political them but...

Constitution lectures politics ad nauseam and becomes tedious

Oklahoma gives the same message without lecturing and its entertaining.

No contest. 

I resented paying Broadway money to be lectured at. Oklahoma does it better, more cleverly without lecturing or hitting you over the head. I am a liberal but I did not appreciate " What the Constitution Means to me" as a theatre  piece. It's a political lecture that goes on and on.

Updated On: 6/25/19 at 08:29 PM

[brdway411]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 8:34pm

Didn't see the Constitution one, but LOVED OKLAHOMA.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 11:16pm

dramamama611 said: "I haven't seen it yet (tomorrow) but I truly can't imagine that your assessment is complete to have the vast majority here (and at the Tony nom committee) sing its praises. Might I actrually agree with you after I see it? Sure - and I'll say as much."

Well, first of all, I *did* like Constitution (and am sending a professional group I work with to see it next week), but i found it got tedious and somewhat preachy towards the end. Schreck is so charming/witty and uses that charm and wit to make such valid points, but theres a section towards the end where she makes those points again, directly, after they've already landed. (Granted, she also completely botches some of the case law she pillories, so that also bugged me but I try to separate my own closeness to the material). 

You seem to think that my assessment is somehow flawed and that I "missed it"? And you think this because...everyone else here liked it (not even accurate) or because the Tony nominators liked it, so I must have missed something? And you haven't even seen it yet! 

I like reading your takes on here but this was a pretty ridiculous one.

[George in DC]

Posted: 6/25/19 at 11:17pm

OKLAHOMA!

[bigjoec2]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 7:55am

Zion24 said: "You seem to think that my assessment is somehow flawed and thatI "missed it"? And you think this because...everyone else here liked it (not even accurate) or because the Tony nominators liked it, so I must have missed something? And you haven't even seen it yet!

I like reading your takes on here but this was a pretty ridiculous one."

To be fair, dramamama's take was correct. You did miss a big chunk of what's motivated the praise.

You said "one is a play/lecture about constitutional law... a smart, funny attempt at a con law class." That ignores the emotionally engaging aspects, particularly Schreck sharing her family's history of domestic abuse and the recurring theme of relationships between mothers and daughters. These are critical elements.

That said, my favorite part was the stuff about constitutional law, if the debate section at the end falls under that umbrella; Rosdely Ciprian is my favorite thing on Broadway all year.

Updated On: 6/26/19 at 07:55 AM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 8:52am

Thought the debate at the end was cute, I am referring to the lecture section immediately preceding it. 

I still find it funny that your disagreeing with me that there is a 10-ish minute section that drags (which seems like a pretty reasonable and relatively light criticism) means I missed something, or didn't get something. I can assure you that is not the case, I would wager I "get" these issues and this production more than most for a couple of reasons,and its ridiculous to suggest that someone didnt understand something because they didnt like it as much as the Tony nominators did. I don't believe Dramamama even believes that for a second, which is why I found that response so extreme. (I enjoyed Mockingbird more than anything nominated this year- I must be totally lost.)

As for Constitution, I'm not sure that just because I was calling it a lecture I was denying how emotional it was at points. The idea that i  "missed" some "critical elements" is absurd and implies my stupidity- and again, SOLELY based on the fact that I dare find flaw in something that you didn't. 

I am unabashed in my praise for Schreck and what she's doing, and when she kept it non-lecturey, I liked it. When she beat a dead horse towards the end, I felt myself (and many people around me) start to roll my eyes. I missed nothing.

 

 

[bigjoec2]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 9:15am

Let's take a step back here. I think this may be a bit of a miscommunication -- I actually agree with you that it dragged at the end, that the points were better made earlier in the course of the discussion.

The issue is that you described the entire experience thusly:

"But really you know all you need to know: one is a play/lecture about constitutional law, and one is a modern take on a R&H classic. ... Just a question of whether you prefer a well sung musical or a smart, funny attempt at a con law class."

To me, and I'm sure to DM, that reads as if you've provided a complete summation of the experience as a "smart, funny attempt at a con law class". I agree that that's part of it, and that it is only partially successful.

So I don't disagree with that characterization, what I disagree with is that being a _complete_ characterization of the experience. It ignores the emotional core of the play, which I already mentioned is her family's personal experience with abuse and also with the exploration of relationships between mothers and daughters. None of those facets fall under "smart, funny attempt at a con law class".

Which is why DM's take is right -- that reductive description of the play misses key elements.

So I think there's just miscommunication here -- perhaps you didn't intend for what you say to be a complete characterization of the elements of the play and the experience, but bear in mind you did lead in with "... all you need to know: one is a play/lecture about constitutional law". There is in fact a lot more to know about it than that.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 9:35am

I appreciate that clarification, though I don't think my description is off (we are just disagreeing as to what a lecture/class would include- i didnt mean to exclude emotions, or imply that you actually sit there with a textbook and get called on to break down cases- but surely you knew that) even if it is reductive (i didnt intend to write a full blown review, i was comparing it to Oklahoma!- and i think that comparison holds).

 

 

[bigjoec2]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 12:39pm

There's no way that your description holds as a characterization of "everything you need to know". No con law class includes an emotional telling of the prof's personal experience with domestic abuse, and no reasonable reader could be expected to infer that from your description.

That part is the emotional heart of the play, the linchpin that likely resonated most with the audience giving it rave reviews. As DM hypothesized, your description missed it.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/26/19 at 11:40pm

If your point has morphed away from the original one (you missed Constitution because you gave it a B+ and the cool crowd right now is telling me it deserves an A) into that my two-sentence description in respnse to a question asking for a comparison between two shows, was insufficiently detailed and suggested that the play is an actual Con law class, I'm not sure what I can say to such a twisted revision. 

Ive taught more than one law school class, in those classes personal stuff has come up many times, and its pretty obvious that you (clearly intelligent) know full well that my glib reduction of the show to a law school lecture was not to be taken as literally as you are now pretending DM to have taken it. 

[bigjoec2]

Posted: 6/27/19 at 12:20am

Good gracious pal, have you forgotten the first law of holes? You're seriously going to accuse me of "twisted revisionism"?

Go re-read the thread, I'll wait.

Done? Okay, what do we see? You gave your admittedly "glib reduction" of the show, under the heading "all you need to know" about it.

To this, DM responded: "Methinks you missed quite a bit." To which you responded: "Such as?".


So let's pause and take stock. At this point of the discussion, DM is pointing out that there are important aspects of the show that your glib reduction left unmentioned. You seemed to comment his/her statement, as you responded with a request for examples.

But now with me you're trying to spin it that DM was taking issue with you simply for "giving the show a B+ not an A". Cripes, talk about twisted revisionism.

But lets keep going though the thread history. DM then reiterated his/her issue with your discussion: "I truly can't imagine that your assessment is complete..." And again, he/she was correct; your assessment was not complete, because it failed to so much as allude to the emotional core of the play -- the part that really resonated with the people praising it.

Just stop digging this hole. Get over your little persecution complex; no one here is disputing your opinions, we're disputing your facts. Your opinions are yours, and can be whatever you want (and coincidentally, I tend to agree with them). But your facts were wrong when you said all you need to know is it's a smart/funny con law class. It's also touching, moving and enlightening in her personal experiences with abuse, and methinks you missed quite a bit in not mentioning that emotional core.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/27/19 at 12:23am

No, I certainly didnt think you meant that to be literal, but it did seem reductive. Im also sorry that my comment seemed to rub you the wrong way.

1. I had problems with OK, but found parts of it incredibly, and surprisingly, moving. I need a debriefing, frankly. And more time to absorb - so, overall, I'll call it a success- be cause I do love theater that makes me think.

2. WE LOVED "CONSTITUTION". (My teenage son and) I found it to be interesting, funny, human, emotional AND informative. I never felt like I was in a lecture hall. I was actually surprised it wasnt more preachy.

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 6/27/19 at 12:48am

dramamama611 said: "No, I certainly didnt think you meant that to be literal, but it did seem reductive. Im also sorry that my comment seemed to rub you the wrong way.

1. I had problems with OK, but found parts of it incredibly, and surprisingly, moving. I need a debriefing, frankly. And more time to absorb - so, overall, I'll call it a success- be cause I do love theater that makes me think.

2. WE LOVED "CONSTITUTION". (My teenage son and) I found it to be interesting, funny, human, emotional AND informative. I never felt like I was in a lecture hall. I was actually surprised it wasnt more preachy."

I needed time with Oklahoma, too, though i enjoyed every minute. Glad you liked Constitution- fwiw, the lecture i was referring to (to the extent i meant it as a criticism) is the 10 minutes or so prior to bringing the girl out, where it felt like the points that had already been subtly and powerfully made were now being made explicitly and repeatedly.

as for the hole bigjoe thinks i am in, if I thought there was any validity to the idea that I should have explained the "emotional core" of Constitution in my 30 second drive by recommendation, i'd say so. what DM originally said is very different than what you have turned this into (you made it seem like its an actual con law class!), and if you think your harping on "all you need to know" to mean "the entire 2 hour play will now be summed up by me in its entirety with the following sentence" you're either being disingenuous or hyper literal to the point of ridiculous. either way, its tiresome and bizarrely harsh. i never felt persecuted, i was confused, and your further digging in did little to clear it up. 

Updated On: 6/27/19 at 12:48 AM