R&H Oklahoma Revival Tour "Rejection" Article- Page 2

[babyjunegem]

Posted: 4/5/23 at 8:31pm

The Broadway cast was much stronger and sold the chemistry needed to execute Fish’s vision. We can go  back and forth all day about the politics of the reimagining, but at the end of the day the promo videos is what got me to but my ticket in NY. There’s also the fact that it was not conceived for large venues.

[UrNotAMachine]

Posted: 4/5/23 at 9:58pm

Saw this on Broadway and then on tour (while visiting a friend in Philadelphia) and loved it both times. I don't think I've ever had such a visceral, emotional reaction to a piece of theatre before. It ranks up there with my favorite productions I've ever seen.

But having said that, even in a blue northeast city like Philly, audiences were not having it. The crowd was mostly made up of elderly people who were probably just excited to see a safe re-staging of their favorite feel-good musical. Instead they ended up with a challenging, disturbing re-telling with gallons of blood and very little to feel good about. I've never seen so many people leave at intermission, and those that did decided stay were vocally unhappy with their decision during curtain calls. (Though my friends and I got to move up like 15 rows during the second act due to newly emptied seats, so it worked out in our favor).

In the end, I couldn't help but feel a little bit of schadenfreude about the unsuspecting audiences who came face to face with this particular production and had to deal with a politically charged, divisive retelling of the quintessential wholesome American musical. I, for one, think it's pretty cool that theatre can still do that.

 

[darquegk]

Posted: 4/5/23 at 10:51pm

It’s a peculiar fusion of a musical and aesthetic concept that would probably pull the masses in (a bluegrass, country and rock Oklahoma arguably has more mass appeal today than the slightly countrified operetta elements of the original), with a confrontational and avant-garde production.

I liked it, but I like weird. The smokehouse scene felt pure David Lynch.

[BentleyB]

Posted: 4/5/23 at 11:13pm

Saw it in New York.  Some parts I loved, other parts I thought were awful (one of which was the Dream Baby Dream dancer and the awful costume.). When it played in Alabama and Tennessee it was not sold as a revisionist version and the audience here went in thinking it was your grandmother’s Oklahoma. I have never heard so many complaints and apparently over half the audience left at intermission. I blame a lot on the marketing of the show.  It should have never been in the large theaters it played in and I think the marketers feared being up front about its drastic difference. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 12:38am

Alex Kulak2 said: "ColorTheHours048 said: "An interesting piece, and one I’ve been curious about since seeing the tour last March. I saw it in Providence, RI, the state I grew up in and one I’ve always considered mostly Liberal. This was my first production I was seeing in RI since the start of the pandemic, and it felt - immediately - like an eye-opening moment for me. I have never seen so many mid-show walkouts (brazen, loud walkouts) or such a mass exodus at intermission ever before. The audience around me felt actively angry at what they were watching. And ever since then, I’ve noticed the cracks in my little home state’s Liberal facade; the ways in which Lil Rhody actually fosters much of the same small town bigotry.

Now, I’m not saying by any means that Daniel Fish’s Oklahoma is a litmus test for Liberalism vs. Conservatism, but it is interesting to sit in an audience you think is primed for something different, and all they end up showing is that they’re unwilling or unable to change. It was palpable in the room, and it makes me sad to know those actors felt it too."

You're not alone. I'm in Chicago, about as liberal a liberal bubble as you can get, but if you could hear the conversations at the stage door during intermission (I got the worst of it, since I went on a matinee and saw it with an older crowd).

I loved the show, and I think there's some value in a show being this challenging and divisive. Of course it's fun when we all love a show and we all have a good time, but this is a musical that began it's life as an experimental, challenging piece of art that had never before been attempted on a stage. How many detractors did it have in 1943? I would bet the same percentage of detractors in 2022."

How many detractors did it have in 1943? Well, basically none. It was a huge critical and popular success, the score instantly becoming part of the national memory, the show breaking the record for longest run of any show on Broadway by a large margin. It was experimental and challenging aesthetically, but it was a patriotic show with a very traditional mindset. 

[Impeach2017]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 3:34am

I doubt that the descendants of people forced off of their land in the Trail of Tears would share your enthusiasm, nor your description of non-white opinion as "basically none".  

[Phillyguy]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 5:22am

UrNotAMachine said: "Saw this on Broadway and then on tour (while visiting a friend in Philadelphia) and loved it both times. I don't think I've ever had such a visceral, emotional reaction to a piece of theatre before. It ranks up there with my favorite productions I've ever seen.

But having said that, even in a blue northeast city like Philly, audiences werenothaving it. The crowd was mostly made up of elderly people who were probably just excited to see a safe re-staging of their favorite feel-good musical. Instead they ended up with a challenging, disturbing re-telling with gallons of blood and very little to feel good about. I've never seen so many people leave at intermission, and those that did decided stay were vocally unhappy with their decision during curtain calls. (Though my friends and I got to move up like 15 rows during the second act due to newly emptied seats, so it worked out in our favor).

In the end, I couldn't help but feel a little bit of schadenfreude about the unsuspecting audiences who came face to face with this particular production and had to deal with a politically charged, divisive retelling of the quintessential wholesome American musical. I, for one, think it's pretty cool that theatre can still do that.

"

I also saw this in Philly and didn’t like it. I don’t think it’s just the elderly who hated it.

As someone mentioned, it’s a major marketing failure. It’s a failed expectation that caused the disappointment and walk out. I wouldn’t generalize it to young vs old or liberal vs conservative. Subscribers usually buy tix 12-16 months in advance and were expecting the classic Oklahoma. If the marketing had be clearer, then it may not sell as well, but you also wouldn’t get such negative audience reaction.

We should also accept that it’s valid for some people who want classics to remain classic and see daring interpretations in new works and not touch the classics.

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 5:37am

I think the marketing / advertising was great for this show. 

[Phillyguy]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 6:24am

RippedMan said: "I think the marketing / advertising was great for this show."

It got people to buy the tix, then they walk out. Not sure if I would consider that great overall. 

[BJR]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 7:33am

Sure the Bway production had people from the tristate area that didn't like it: it was a daring new version of a classic. Some won't like it.

And of course, there was less adventurous theatre goers on the road. That has always been true and doesn't need to be controversial.

Conservatism is more than one political party, more than politics, and especially in arts, is often a spectrum. I'm sure a deep red place had more artistically conservative theatregoers, but I'm sure deep blue had its share, too. And they would want to see Oklahoma to revisit it, to celebrate it and their memory of it, not re-investigate it and the myth of our country, essentially challenging their memory of Oklahoma. Their not accustomed to that as much and less likely to want to spend money to do that.

None of this is surprising and the very reason many shows don't tour.

Glad he shared this us. The anecdote of the young people finding them, surprising them they had loved it, was especially touching.

[MrsSallyAdams]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 8:17am

I’m amused by the self righteous attitudes in the Howl Round comment section.

I’m old enough to remember the Hugh Jackman production that already did a lot of this. And have spent enough time in the theater world to know that some artists will always hold “old stodgy white audiences” in contempt while charging prices only they can afford. Not a good or bad thing. Just less fresh than the newcomers realize.

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 8:20am

It’s completely laughable when people try to pin this as a ‘marketing failure’ and make it a production problem rather than a lazy audience problem.

The trailer, full song clips, photos, promotional materials, etc of this tour (that were shared with every tour city, no ‘gotcha’ trick stops) CLEARLY show this to not be a traditional telling of show. Like, drastically. There’s absolutely no arguing that this video is completely different than the 1955 film currently on Disney+. 

You Google the terms “Oklahoma revival tour” and you’re met with phrases on page 1 such as: “reimagining”, “trans actors”, “decidedly dark”, “tour de force of revisionist direction”, “not your grandparents’ Oklahoma”, “radically reimagined”. Nominated for six Tony awards and won Best Revival,  including a performance on the awards broadcast. Ran on Broadway for almost a year and was extensively covered by critics prior to its national tour and now West End revival. 

Audiences have the entire world of information at their fingertips to know exactly what they’re getting into, but sure, this production really threw them curveball, absolutely no way for everyone and their mother to know exactly what this production is about. What a shame on the marketing team. How deceitful of them! /sarcasm

I’m not even a fan of the show (or any production of it, quite frankly) but this argument is just silly. Lazy consumers who go off of name appeal alone are to blame for their own ignorance.

Oh, and to be clear - I have high doubts that people were walking out midshow or at intermission because the talent onstage weren’t up to snuff for them. I’ve attended over a dozen touring performances of “Wicked” and “The Lion King” in flyover states. You can barely get these people to #AskIfItsEquity let alone care about reliable or consistent talent on stage. 
 

It simply comes down to ignorance and unwillingness to evolve and see things, specifically “patriotic” things, differently than they know them to be. They’re not able to handle being uncomfortable. It’s sh*tty to pin the blame solely on the production rather than admit that audiences can either choose to be informed or choose to be ignorant and angry about it. 

[Tigger]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 9:26am

The show is/was an abomination.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 10:02am

I loved the tour cast. I actually preferred Barbara Walsh to Mary Testa. She was sublime. I thought all of the voices were fantastic. As hard as I try, I will never get the Dream Ballet and it does give me headache. It is a polarizing show, but I guess I never expected jeers, boos, thumbs down and noticeable disgust from audience members as the actor describes. That seems really immature on the part of an audience. However, I still see people posting on my local touring houses social media about how much they hated that show and how it shattered their trust in said touring house. The anger is still there. 

 

Leave if you want, but don't antagonize. I've seen plenty of things I don't care for, but I'm there and I paid for it and there might be moments of beauty. I just sit back. At the end, I always give the cast their due. They work hard. 

As sad as it is and as much as I don't agree with it, I think touring houses have to think of their core demographic. I think they are torn between the crew that would see Wicked and Mamma Mia every season and the diehard theatre fans who get frustrated whenever there is a repeat show. Some subscribers want to have a feel good escape and others want to see the newest and most cutting edge. It's a hard line to balance. I feel for them. 

 

[MemorableUserName]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 10:07am

GiantsInTheSky2 said: "It’s completely laughable when people try to pin this as a ‘marketing failure’ and make it a production problem rather than a lazy audience problem.

The trailer, full song clips, photos, promotional materials, etc of this tour (that were shared with every tour city, no ‘gotcha’ trick stops) CLEARLY show this to not be a traditional telling of show. Like, drastically. There’s absolutely noarguing that this video is completely different than the 1955 film currently on Disney+.

You Google the terms “Oklahoma revival tour” and you’re met with phrases on page 1 such as: “reimagining”, “trans actors”, “decidedly dark”, “tour de force of revisionist direction”, “not your grandparents’ Oklahoma”, “radically reimagined”. Nominated for six Tony awards and won Best Revival, including a performance on the awards broadcast. Ran on Broadway for almost a year and was extensively covered by critics prior to its national tour and now West End revival.

Audiences have the entire world of information at their fingertips to know exactly what they’re getting into, but sure, this production really threw them curveball, absolutely no way for everyone and their mother to know exactly what this production is about. What a shame on the marketing team. How deceitful of them! /sarcasm"

This is inane. The show was being sold on its name value. Expecting audiences to Google information on a 75 year old musical to see if this is the production that ****s all over it isn't remotely reasonable--especially for something that was presented to plenty of people as part of a season package. Though those audiences will likely have learned their lesson and certainly know they have to Google all available information on any touring show presented to them as part of a subscription package now.

"Is this the production of Wicked that portrays Elphaba as the crazy ass bitch she REALLY is and elevates Galinda, Madame Morrible, and the Wizard to the true heroes of the piece?"

"Is this the production that reveals that cross-dressing Mrs. Doubtfire is really a no good groooooomer?"

"Is this the production of Jesus Christ Superstar where Jesus is exposed as a fake and Judas lives happily ever after, his betrayal perfectly justified? They don't change any of the text. The actors just hold up signs the whole time saying 'This is the opposite of what really happened. Don't believe everything you read!' It's, like, soooooo edgy, man!"

[binau]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 10:09am

Seems really hard to please everyone with this revival - you’ve got people who seem to like the concept but not the way it’s executed on tour, you’ve got people who don’t like the changes to this traditional musical, you’ve got people who won’t like the show (ironically) because R&H even in revised form might not appeal. You can see on that west end board this production (which just won Olivier for revival) is similarly polarising. 
 

Personally, I absolutely loved this at the square and it’s one of my fav revivals ever. I will probably catch this in the west end and I’m curious how they stage it on a traditional stage. The only sympathy I have towards ‘the haters’ is I could imagine me not being on board with this type of concept if it’s a property I care about (eg Sondheim). 

[Kad]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 10:20am

I’ve always thought the claims to this being experiment or avant garde were a little overblown- it’s nothing we haven’t seen before in, say, a John Doyle revival. But unlike Doyle, Fish comes in with a very distinct and potent point of view. Without changing the text, he turned the show into a mirror- and American audiences do not usually love having to self-reflect, especially if they weren’t expecting to. 

[taragel2]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 10:24am

I also saw it in Providence and yes, the reaction was not good at all. (Though...I've never seen the state as a bastion of liberalism and progressiveness, despite it--very narrowly of late?--remaining a blue one. There's a lot of small-town/small-state mentality here and always has been.) But then, the reaction was clearly not good in MOST MARKETS, and probably progressively worse in the South. A lot of people walked out early in Providence, but no one was yelling abuse at the cast that I saw, and it did get a standing O from those who stayed. (Not a surprise. Literally every show does.)

I am liberal and progressive and keep in the loop on Broadway, and was excited to see a production that had been hailed as so revolutionary and wonderful there... but the appeals didn't translate for me on tour. The cast was good and talented, but ... it was just a weird take. The in-the-dark whispery/zoomed-up-someone's nostrils video confrontation, the very modern dance dream ballet, the blood-spattered ending as people sing about the dream of Oklahoma. Just all of it felt extremely discordant and like a big mess. So I think there are reasons not to like it for creative reasons, beyond any political ones. (I definitely heard praise for Ado Annie's Sis among the exit chatter too.) 

Most patrons on tour are seasonal subscribers -- they are not researching shows they think they already know about in March of the previous year when they get their subscription packets. They see 1-2 pictures/short copy in a brochure to look at. You hear "Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma" and you expect something fairly traditional. And even later, I don't know that watching the commercials would've given you much of a clue exactly HOW DIFFERENT this one was. I don't even remember seeing one with those two-second snippets of the zoom video or the dance ballet that was linked above.. The primary image/footage was of the picnic/BBQ, so most people probably just thought it would be a more diverse cast that made it new/revolutionary. If the promo campaign had been more Sweeney Todd than Oklahoma, yeah, that could've tipped most (some) people off. But it wasn't. 

It was really interesting to read the cast member's take on it. I'm so glad they had that encounter with those kids who loved it, and hope that went a long way to making it a good experience for them overall. But this show was probably always a long shot to be a mainstream crowd pleaser. 

 

 

[Phillyguy]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 11:32am

I saw it as part of the subscription. Agreed that it's not reasonable to expect everyone to research each show ahead of time, especially for a classic that is marketed as Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma

However, I've definitely learned my lesson, after this, and especially 1776, to research ahead of time. For next season, I plan to get the minimum number of shows, and add on more later close to the performance. 

[Pashacar]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 5:41pm

Yeah, I really think this is only a bit about politics and location, and mostly about venue. As others have said, tour subscribers are complacent and buy packages without knowing about the particular productions — partially because they’re conditioned by decades of safe revivals.

If this production had played Manhattan Theatre Club, it would have been a similar disaster. I mean Playwrights nearly had a mutiny over The Flick! If instead of following Annie on tour it had done a few targeted engagements at the Wilma, Woolly Mammoth, Guthrie, etc., it would have been a different story.

[Dolly80]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 7:26pm

I find all this talk of ‘the conversation’ so unbelievably pretentious. Like this production. An absolute turd of a show. Maybe that is why it failed on tour.

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 8:04pm

Impeach2017 said: "I doubt that the descendants of people forced off of their land in the Trail of Tears would share your enthusiasm, nor your description of non-white opinion as "basically none"."

Lynn Riggs was himself Native American, and he supported the show. I was talking about audiences in general and whether the show was controversial and met with opposition when it premiered. It didn't. Yes, I can imagine there were First Nations people who did not embrace the show. But that is far afield of both my comment and the one I was responding to. 

Updated On: 4/6/23 at 08:04 PM

[fbueller]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 8:26pm

The tour was pretty much doomed from the start when the decision was made to no longer serve chili and cornbread at intermission like they did on Broadway.  At a very minimum, producers should have offered audiences a little taste of corn puddin’!!!

Updated On: 4/6/23 at 08:26 PM

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 8:38pm

OKLAHOMA! is my favorite musical and Daniel Fish's production was one of my top three favorites.

What I think is so beautiful about the material is that it truly does speak, every single day, to the idealization, the joys, and the fallacies of the American Dream. It is quintessentially American and always and forever will reflect the American attitude of the time. 

Daniel Fish gave us the literal America we live in right now. I can understand how many would walk out due to feeling disturbed and not comforted. This essay is super cool in that it seems that although the work was difficult, hopefully the company felt it worthwhile to present this vision of the show.

I would love to see what Daniel Fish would do with THE WIZARD OF OZ.

Updated On: 4/6/23 at 08:38 PM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 4/6/23 at 9:12pm

Phillyguy said: "RippedMan said: "I think the marketing / advertising was great for this show."

It got people to buy the tix, then they walk out. Not sure if I would consider that great overall."

Made its money back. I’d assume investors are happy. 
 

Curious about the ending in a traditional staging: so they kill the creepy dude and then that’s it? There’s no remorse they just sing the title song again?