The Original OKLAHOMA! (1942) - Were There Major Differences?

[BustopherPhantom]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 6:28pm

I was just skimming through a copy of the 1959 book 'Six Plays by Richard Rodgers' when I noticed that there seemed to be major differences in even the first scene of OKLAHOMA!

For instance, Jud doesn't show up in the first scene, and Will Parker and the gang that accompanies KANSAS CITY aren't located at the train station - they just appear at the farm when Curly leaves.

Is this the way the original production was, and, in changing the libretto for the film, the show itself was changed for all time?

Updated On: 7/23/07 at 06:28 PM

[americanboy99]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 7:21pm

In the original, Jud does not show up until I think maybe scene 3, very briefly. I may be wrong.

However, does not appear until the train station scene, which isn't always a train station.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 8:16pm

If you're comparing it to either the film or the recent revival, then yes, there were HUGE differences. The original production was stylized as more of a cartoon than a serious musical -- at one point, the costumer actually put large dots on the cowboys' chaps until the director decided that maybe that was a bit *too* much. Still, look at photos of the production: everything is in bright, high contrast colours.

Nevertheless, the anthology (I have a battered old copy that I keep because it's the only place I've found the script for ME AND JULIET) is indeed the scripts as they were originally produced.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 9:09pm

I have always felt that Oklahoma was such an intersection in the history of musical comedy turning into musical theatre. It may be that the set designer.s and costume designer were still a little bit behind the curve or didn't quite get what Mamoulian had in mind.

Just a thought....

Posted: 7/23/07 at 9:54pm

I actually think Lemuel A's sets are GORGEOUS--stylize din a very 1940s way I admit but... What do you mean by dots on the chaps?

Anyway when we did it in high school I'm nearly certain we did the original script--so I think that's the version that is still available for most performances. I have a copy of that anthology too and love it though I wish it went up to Pipe Dream as I've never been able to read that libretto and am a big fan fo the score and Steinbeck).

The main attraction for the movie for me is that Agnes DeMille got to recreate her original gorgeous choreography--something that she didn't get a chance to do with her other big important musicals adapted to movies like Brigadoon (and of course the Carousel controversy)

E

[Dollypop]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 10:04pm

The only person on these boards who is old enough to have seen the original OKLAHOMA! is Mr Roxy.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 7/23/07 at 10:34pm

I saw it... in my past life. You had to be there.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 2:14am

The original production was designed so Act One, Scene One (The front of Aunt Eller's fram) took in all the songs from Oh What a Beautiful Mornin' thru People WIll Say We're in Love. There was no train station scene.

Susan (Let's copy the movie!) Stroman added that scenic transition for the recent revival (and modern stage mechanics allow it) The script as published in SIX PLAYS is the original and this is how it should be done.

This business of re-writing the stage shows to conform to the film versions is troubling and mostly needless. Stroman did it with MUSIC MAN too which was even less effective.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 2:36am

Lem's costumes were much more gaucho western ala Girl Crazy with zootsuitesque versions of ten gallon hats and tights for pants and the whole effect was more Broadway chorus of the 30s than R&H reality of the 40s.

Look at the period pictures of Alfred Drake. He looks like he's in Kiss Me Curley than in authentic garb.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 6:36am

>. What do you mean by dots on the chaps?

True story, Eric. During the initial costume parade, the cowboys all had these giant polka dots on their chaps in bright, primary colours. The director wisely insisted right then and there that they be removed... but I've often wondered what those must have looked like.

[Jon]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 10:23am

I'm suddenly reminded of the "Dream Curly" costumes from Howard Crabtree's WHEN PIGS FLY - sequined cowboy shirts and marabou-trimmed chaps...

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/24/07 at 10:56am

My dad saw the original Oklahoma! on opening night. But he was also 10 years old at the time. I could ask him about some of these things, but I seriously doubt he'll remember.

Posted: 7/25/07 at 6:43pm

"Susan (Let's copy the movie!) Stroman added that scenic transition for the recent revival (and modern stage mechanics allow it) The script as published in SIX PLAYS is the original and this is how it should be done. "

Usually I'd agree with you 100%... But... I dunno. If you're doing a big West End revival (and I think for this decision Trevor Nunn deserves more of the blame than Stroman), and youw ant it to be a success you have to play by some modern rules. If that means that now you can afford to show several settings that the original authors probably woulda shown--than why not do so? I do admit it can be a fuzzy matter as to how much the authors woulda intended... But I mean look at Show Boat--certainly the best production of that I've seen, Hal Prince's, used elements from the movie (Room Above Her) that could anever been staged originally, etc etc.

I saw Oklahoma with Hugh in London--the production I find hard to watch on DVD (largely cuz of how it's performed on a soundstage) but it was largely a great production live I thought. The train depot certainly didn't bug me.


Sean thanks for the reply--the idea of shiny big polka dots is just wonderfully lame :)

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 7:11pm

>> If that means that now you can afford to show several settings that the original authors probably woulda shown--than why not do so?

Agreed. Remember that the original production's scene structure was dictated by the mechanicals available at the time, which meant the dreaded "in-one" scene to cover a set change. I actually liked the Nunn approach to the material; it was never so self-conscious that it pulled attention from the work.

And yeah, the DVD is almost unwatchable. Still, it's Hugh. :: sigh ::

[allofmylife]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 9:26pm

And also remember they had absolutely no money. Some of the scenery was, I understand, replaced with sturdier (ie not cardboard) after the opening night. The Theater Guild was bankrupt the day the show opened.

And wealthy one month later....

[americanboy99]

Posted: 7/25/07 at 9:41pm

"...which meant the dreaded "in-one" scene to cover a set change.."

Huh, Sean. Do elaborate.

[frontrowcentre2]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 12:24am

I liked some of the changes made for the revival (I saw on B'way around 4th of July 2002...a memorable performance.) Some of the extra dialogue added from the original play was effective but I thought the added scene change for Kansas City unnecessary (though the little train zooming along the apron of the stage was cute) but had major issues with the kitschy choreography for Farmer and the Cowman. Still thee were minor complaints with what was - when I saw it - a really well done revival.

[jv92]

Posted: 7/26/07 at 12:44am

Shuler Hensley was chilling and brilliant as Jud in that revival.

Posted: 7/26/07 at 2:06am

American--In - one scenes were a theatre staple of their era--a drop curtain with a simply depicted background would fall and the front of the stage would be used to tell a quick song, reprise or bit of dialogue while the stagehands would change the scenery, as quietly as possible, behind.

Often when these peices are revived the in-one scenes are dropped though sometimes they hold crucial information. King And I's most famous in one scene is Western People Funny (I think). When I did Pajama Game in a simple theatre we kept the in one scenes--one was done to "Her Is" and one was a simple, choreographed "going to the picnic" before Once a Year Day

E