R&H Oklahoma Revival Tour "Rejection" Article — Page 3

Peppa222 said: "It's even more toothless than that. Judd (bad guy) shows up to the wedding, he and Curly get into a fight, Judd falls on his own knife, and then a rousing version of the title song. I remember seeing Oklahoma for the first time, a traditional production, and being absolutely dumbfounded THAT was the ending."

Is this true - the accidental falling on Jud's own knife segues immediately to the title song being sung? Have they truncated the trial that follows ( including the uncertainty that follows after the death of Jud)?

Do watch the Trevor Nunn filmed version of his Royal National Theatre revival of OKLAHOMA!. And try to get the version of the home video with the lengthy ( as long as the show itself - some 3 hours) special feature of Behind the Scenes of the production. It gives some details on how Nunn also explored the dark nuances he found from reading the original musical play by Rodgers & Hammerstein which he incorporated in his version of the Oklahoma! revival. This revival though had not necessarily changed the original artistic intentions of Rodgers&Hammerstein's musical and the Lynn Riggs play "Green Grow The Lilacs" ( which was the basis of the R&H composition). It is well-worth viewing as it adds layers of information not only on the production but also some background information on the storyline.

Updated On: 4/6/23 at 10:15 PM

jo said: "Peppa222 said: "It's even more toothless than that. Judd (bad guy) shows up to the wedding, he and Curly get into a fight, Judd falls on his own knife, and then a rousing version of the title song. I remember seeing Oklahoma for the first time, a traditional production, and being absolutely dumbfounded THAT was the ending."

Is this true - the accidental falling on Jud's own knife segues immediately to the title song being sung? Have they truncated the trial that follows ( including the uncertainty that follows after the death of Jud)?"

No. The text was not changed-- it's just clear that the trial is a sham.

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



Do you mean in New York or on tour? If you mean New York (where I saw it and loved it), I completely agree. But on tour (where I saw it again and loved it again), very little was done to help audiences know how dramatically different was the production's fresh look at the material.

Touring houses don’t just bring shows to their theatres sight unseen. Many will send representatives up to New York to see the production on Broadway before deciding if it will be a part of their season. So I’d reckon that most of these presenters knew exactly what they were bringing to their patrons. If there was failure to provide audiences with warnings beforehand, it was the fault of the presenters, not the production itself. Most theatres did do everything they could in order to prepare their audiences by sending “Know Before You Go” emails and such. But I’m guessing most patrons just ignored those emails like they do other emails.

Full disclosure, I was a part of this production. I was proud of what our cast and crew accomplished. Chris’s article is spot-on. Yet I can also acknowledge that the show really shouldn’t have toured to some of the larger houses we toured to. Whenever we played a smaller house, there were generally less walkouts, and audience reaction was much more positive. It really was disheartening to come out after intermission and see SO many empty seats. It started to feel like, “If people aren’t enjoying this, what’s the point?” But the people who did enjoy it always made sure to let us know, and that was a good feeling. It was a tough tour for many, many reasons, audience reaction only being one of them. I’m grateful to have been a part of such a different show, but also grateful to now be in a “crowd-pleaser.” Much less walkouts these days.

I’m saving that tea for my memoir.