Posted: 7/13/17 at 11:24am
Do you think we'll ever see a Bart Sher-helmed Oklahoma! revival at the Vivian Beaumont? Or is his Rodgers & Hammerstein 'series' completed there? If not at LC, will Oklahoma! make a reappearance elsewhere in the next few years?
Posted: 7/13/17 at 3:06pm
2018 is the 75th anniversary of the show, by the way.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 3:13pm
How well did the 2002 revival do, though? I would love to see a gorgeous revival of this show (especially with Lincoln Center at the helm), but from a producer's standpoint, I'm not sure how well this would fare in 2017/2018.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 5:16pm
Also, critically was the '02 revival ill-received, or did most people like it? Seems as if there was a backlash that the quintessential American musical was being re-examined by a very British team and company (originating at the National Theatre)… I too would love to see a new, big Lincoln Center production.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 5:59pm
Please, God, no!! I think Oklahoma should be allowed to perform in Summer Stock and high schools, if necessary, as long as it stays out of big cities like NYC; but, please, that show is agony to sit through for me and everyone I know. It is so dated. The Ado Annie / Will Parker / Ali Hakim part of the show is embarrassing, the script is so bad. Maybe it was something 74 years ago...not anymore!!!!!!!
I am not sure that I can think of another show that has aged so badly (although I am not convinced that I would not have hated it were I around in 1943, since I have always hated the movie -- which I first saw when I was 7 or 8 -- because I thought it was so corny / stupid).
Updated On: 7/13/17 at 05:59 PM
Posted: 7/13/17 at 6:02pm
I would leave this show to regional theatre.......
It has not aged well, at all. It has no relevance nor does it have a reason to come back to NYC.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 7:53pm
I wouldn't have put it as harshly as Jarethan, since I know many out there just love Oklahoma, but it's the weakest of the R&H big five to me. Almost completely because of the weak book. Awkward, self–conscious cowboy working up the nerve to ask the pretty rancher's daughter to the social. The wildcard thrown into the story, Jud, is just too dark and cruel to fit with the rest of the show.
But there's nothing wrong with the score. I probably heard this original cast more than any of the others, and never tired of it (except for the weird Jud songs, which didn't seem to belong). I would hit fever pitch at the great performance of the title song at the end.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 8:21pm
It's a glorious score, save for a couple songs, and it definitely deserves its place in Broadway history, but I have to agree with it being too problematic for Broadway now.
It's also the weakest of the big R&H Five for me, too, which I would incidentally rank - for me - as South Pacific, The King and I, Carousel, The Sound of Music and Oklahoma.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 8:25pm
GeorgeandDot said: "I would leave this show to regional theatre.......
It has not aged well, at all. It has no relevance nor does it have a reason to come back to NYC."
This show is solid as a rock and only needs to be helmed by someone who trusts the material, as Bart Sher did with South Pacific and The King and I. It can be corny if played that way but doesn't need to be. It's a great score and I'd love to see a Lincoln Center revival. I did not like the Trevor Nunn version from a few years back. They felt it needed updating, I guess, and as we learned with the two shows I mentioned in the first sentence, when you respect the material you find gold. My opinion, anyway.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 9:52pm
It really is a pity that Arena Stage's in the round production never transferred to B'way several years ago. It was one of the best productons of this show I've show I've seen.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 10:11pm
I've heard talk that the production that played at Bard SummerScape in 2015 will be transferring to NYC this season.
Posted: 7/13/17 at 10:27pm
It seems like they just did it. Time flies.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 1:01am
Perhaps it's the regional/high school theatre exile that has led you all to hate it so. Of course it's not going to hold up when your only exposure is your bad high school production!
Its my least favorite R&H too and certainly not the ground breaker it rose to be regarded as but it's not like it's unworthy of a new take.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 1:24am
Mr. Nowack said: "Perhaps it's the regional/high school theatre exile that has led you all to hate it so. Of course it's not going to hold up when your only exposure is your bad high school production!
Its my least favorite R&H too and certainly not the ground breaker it rose to be regarded as but it's not like it's unworthy of a new take.
I saw it first at the City Center in one of those limited engagement runs that they had all though the fifties and sixties. Didn't like it but didn't hate it either. The score was good, the cast was good, and I was too young to see how corny it was. My favorite TV show at the time was probably Green Acres or Petticoat Junction.
I have also seen it once at the Palace Theater a few months after it opened, somewhere in the early 70s. Spent the second act in the lobby, I hated its so much. Also saw it at the Gershwin in the last production; only went to see it because I wanted to see Patrick Wilson, who I thought was so good in The Full Monty.
Have never seen it in Stock or high school, but I do think it is unworkable as anything other than a museum piece, unless the R&H estate (or whoever) would allow the entire script to be re-written, with some new storyline around Ado Annie and the bumpkins. That is the most painful part.
Rediscover one of their Tier 2 musicals instead; and if it belongs at the Ritz or the Booth, instead of the Beaumont, go for it. Or do it in the Newhouse and pretend its the Beaumont (he said snarkily -- I just hate that show so much. The only show for which I have more contempt is CATS.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 2:29am
I saw the 1979 revival and also the most recent revival (whatever year that was) and loathed it both times (not the productions or the performances, just the show). The show is among R&H's weakest. I understand it's place in history and I can appreciate it in that sense, but it's literally nothing but sugar and air. It's the musical theatre equivalent of a marshmallow.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 2:34am
Contempt is a bit strong, no? You might have contempt for Trump, or for Hillary, but for Oklahoma? R&H had to start somewhere, and R&H I led to R&H II and R&H III and soon we had the modern book musical with original score.
Oklahoma had some special things going for it. A war was on, and the many soldiers who took it in before shipping out were supposed to have been deeply affected by the show and recognize it as the America they were fighting to preserve. True? Also the choreography of Agnes De Mille and the dream ballet was also thought to be an impressive accomplishment for a musical. (Alas, I never really liked ballets stuck into musicals, but that is just me. Many were very impressed.)
Disliked would probably work better.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 2:42am
The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is doing Oklahoma! in their 2018 season. With the permission of the R&H folks, Curly and Laurey will be played by two women, their will be Ado Andy and Will Parker and Aunt Eller will be transgender.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 2:42am
^Like I said, I appreciate it's place in history, but it's kind of a terrible musical by today's standards.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 4:00am
y'all calling Oklahoma a terrible musical is complete rubbish; sure it's a bit quaint but i think it's still relevant and the score is terrific. The Hugh Jackman production on dvd is one of my favorite filmed productions.
Posted: 7/14/17 at 5:10am
I have never seen it but I'm looking forward to the choreography. It actually opens tonight at Goodspeed. I'll be heading up in August for one of my summer theater road trips to see it. I'm looking forward to it. I just love the Goodspeed window card:
Posted: 7/14/17 at 5:50am
I didn't know there were so many differing opinions on Oklahoma!, I'd assumed it was beloved by everyone. But I'll agree that, against the other four main R&H titles which boast such big themes (well three of them, anyway), it comes off as quaint in parts.
But what about the Trevor Nunn production? I thought that version had a 'darker' (or at least more serious) take on the story which Ted Chapin and Mary Rodgers loved and which took Oklahoma! out of the 'fluff' category in which it'd been associated for so many years.
I'll agree that if Sher were to take the show on, I would trust him to conceive a handsome, sweeping production that honors the spirit of what made the show great in the first place (as he did with SP and K&I).
How can people have a problem with the simplicity and cringey nature of Oklahoma!, and yet adore - amongst others - the current Hello, Dolly! or last year's She Loves Me both of which are also cute and treacly…?
Posted: 7/14/17 at 6:13am
For me there's a big difference between good sentimental and sappy/ hokey. The first typically brings a tear to my eye whereas the latter induces an eye roll.
Updated On: 7/14/17 at 06:13 AM
Posted: 7/14/17 at 9:25am
I'm perfectly happy with this show's place in history, but if I never see its hokey, four-square ass again, I'll be just fine. I do like the ballet, if choreographed for meaning instead of mere movement, and "Lonely Room" always surprises me, but I find that the rest rarely rises above cartoon hokum.
Updated On: 7/14/17 at 09:25 AM
Posted: 7/14/17 at 10:06am
Musicaldudepeter said: "
How can people have a problem with the simplicity and cringey nature of Oklahoma!, and yet adore - amongst others - the current Hello, Dolly! or last year's She Loves Me both of which are also cute and treacly…?
"
Well the books of Hello Dolly! and She Loves Me are a lot wittier than Oklahoma. Oklahoma's comic relief is Ado Annie/Will Parker/Ali. The other thing is that Hello Dolly! and She Loves Me have subtexts that are less dated than Oklahoma. For instance the entire dramatic arc of Oklahoma is whether Laurie will go the dance with Curley. Whereas I think a lot of women love Hello Dollly! because it has two strong female characters (Dolly and Irene) who run a business and are self-sufficient. And She Loves Me will never grow old -- look at all the people swiping on Tinder.
The storyline of Jud also makes me uncomfortable. Yes he's a creep but the way the characters treat him makes me cringe. I never did like how Curley actually encourages Jud's suicidal ideations.
