Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival? — Page 2

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.

Y'all, calm, CALM, the farmer and cowman should be friends!



I just hate the show because every character in it is a despicable person.

I'm kinda surprised by the dislike for this show. I wasn't very into it when I first got to know it, but now it's my second-favourite Rodgers and Hammerstein, after 'Carousel'. To me, Jud prevents the show from becoming a pure cornfest. Maybe Jud's throughline is sort of not 'meant' to fit in with the rest of the show? (Special pleading, moi?) Ado Annie, Will and Ali are in this farcical rom-com plot, and Laurey blithely thinks that that's what her story is as well, but then it isn't.
Back in the day I half-jokingly posted a half-baked idea here about a modernised production in which Curly was a douchebag entitled jock and Jud a bitter entitled nerd. Maybe that imaginary production would suck, but I think there's plenty that's (sadly) still recognisable about these characters to modern audiences. Also, the score is wonderful. But eh, to each their own.

I don't think that anyone has bashed the score of Oklahoma, except maybe the songs in the "Kansas City" subplot.

I appreciate Oklahoma as a transitional musical connecting what went before in most of the silly musicals of Cole Porter and George Gershwin to the second R&H musical, Carousel, which had a very serious story of white, lower-class Americans born into situations making their prospects in life very poor, but who struggled to make those lives work out OK. Without very much success.

(Whoops, I just called George Gershwin, who spent about a year of his life researching conditions on "Catfish Row" for his opera Porgy and Bess, a person who wrote silly musicals.)

I just know little about the Broadway musicals staged between Show Boat and Oklahoma. Show Boat was a landmark musical. It was also a commercial success. Did it have any influence on other musicals before Oklahoma?

The plot really doesn't hold up today, but the score is stunning- I personally have only seen the movie, but their vocals are amazing although again, the plot just drives you crazy, especially the ridiculous ending.



I've read an article stating that the whole show is completely about sex with Aunt Eller as a pimp like figure encouraging all the activity. Here's a link: http://jasoncochran.com/articles/oklahoma-is-one-of-the-dirtiest-movie-musicals-of-all-time/

GavestonPS said: "OKLAHOMA! is not by any measure cornier than the latest Gershwin or Porter jukebox concoction that opens every other season. Its theme is no less than the foundation of our nation on mutual tolerance and rule of law, something at least as deep as anything in SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL. And how could it possibly be any cornier than THE SOUND OF MUSIC?

And, yes, it WAS the game-changer it is reputed to be: running for five years in a period when even smash hits ran no more than eight or nine months is evidence enough without going into a detailed dramaturgical analysis that ya'll should already know.

I find this entire thread very disappointing. OKLAHOMA! doesn't have to be everybody's favorite musical, or anybody's, but its importance to American culture is undeniable.

Finally, to those who find in HELLO, DOLLY! a tale of strong, independent businesswomen, what the hell do you think Laurie and Aunt Eller do with their days? Yes, they have an employee (Jud), but so does Irene Malloy. I promise you churning butter is harder work physically than decorating hats!



Galveston, as always, your writing is very article and provides additional perspective. I really mean that.

My issue with Oklahoma in 2017 is not with its place in history, it is its current entertainment value. And as entertainment, I truly hate an awful lot of it. I actually would probably enjoy it if the simply took out every line and song associated with Will Parker / Ado Annie and Ali Hakim. I truly find them embarrassing in their badness...they have just not aged well (and I can't help wondering how much of the praise in 1943 was directed at that lengthy sub-plot...i'll bet not a lot). I know there are people who don't like the Jud sub-plot. I don't have a problem with it, but I also don't particularly enjoy it either. That means that an awful lot for me is either painful or filler. I do enjoy parts of it but not enough. People Will Say We're in Love is one of the most beautiful songs ever written (I also think that is true of Memory, in the musical that I hate the most ever); I usually get goosebumps when I hear a well done rendition of the title song; I enjoy Beautiful Morning and Surrey, but start to get restless when so little happens. I don't think I have an attention span issue in general, but this show does bring out the worst in me. It may be historic, but it still needs to entertain, and I have just never been entertained by this. (For the record, I have seen many productions of South Pacific and TKAI that I have loved; I have loved some productions of Carousel and not others, but never disliked a single one; I have not to date seen a live production of SOM that comes anywhere near the movie in entertainment value for me, but I have never truly disliked one (just been underwhelmed). I fairly enjoyed State Fair, which was corny; I fairly enjoyed the one production I saw of Flower Drum Song, which certainly had corny material. I just hate Oklahoma).

Updated On: 7/15/17 at 01:16 PM

Robbie2 said: "Possibly but I would love to see The Sound of Music and Show Boat at LCT in the future by Bart Sher and his team after My Fair Lady



I would love to see Show Boat directed by Sher at LCT, although I do think that Harold Prince and Susan Stroman set the bar so high there (for anyone who saw the Show Boat at the Gershwin (or Uris -- whatever the theatre was called)) that he may not be able to leave his stamp.

Not so sure re SOM, because I just don't think it is a very good musical. The score is terrific, and Robert Wise worked miracles with the movie, and to me absolutely deserved the Oscar that he won. I have seen probably 6 - 7 live productions of SOM and have never thought even one was better than a time filler. I am always reminded of the movie, which I loved. Maybe Sher could pull it off, but I find that climbing through the ALPS on stage always looks silly after the movie.

I'd rather see him tackle some under appreciated flop, e.g., the Christopher Plummer version of Cyrano would be great on LCT stage, Hugh Jackman could get another Tony, and the show would gain respectability even if the critics still didn't like the book and score (which I think are terrific); or Hallelujah Baby, with a revised book.

I find the suggestion that Hello Dolly is in any way feminist to be completely baffling. Perhaps anyone thinking along those lines missed "It Takes a Woman", a misogynistic turd of a song sung by the entire male ensemble as well as all of the male principals (so not just a character-revealing moment for 1 sexist character, as with Higgins' songs in My Fair Lady, but more of a statement of the 'show's' opinion).

On the other hand, Oklahoma has more to say in favour of equality than most shows of its time - "All or Nothing" in particular comes right out and rejects the double standard that the man should be free to philander while the woman should faithfully wait for him to come home, and "Many A New Day" rejects the idea that the love of a man (or at least, one particular man) is all a woman has to look forward to. Considering some of the film offerings that i've seen from those years, i'd say those ideas were fairly progressive for the time that they were in, although absolutely obvious in today's times.

Anyhow, I have always loved the score of Oklahoma and will gladly go see a Broadway revival of it, especially if Sher is directing it.

GavestonPS said: "OKLAHOMA! is not by any measure cornier than the latest Gershwin or Porter jukebox concoction that opens every other season. Its theme is no less than the foundation of our nation on mutual cooperation and rule of law, something at least as deep as anything in SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL."

Gaveston, that might well be true, but the latest Gershwin and Porter revisal or jukebox concoction is usually a blatant bonbon of a romp based on a blatant bon bon of a romp (and at their best on quite deliriously madcap, charming and witty ones). Whereas indeed, as you propose, OKLAHOMA tonally provides a far more serious sociopolitical foundation.

While that foundation may be as compelling as those in SOUTH PACIFIC and CAROUSEL (or at least approach those depths), isn't there a major difference?

If OKLAHOMA shares with SOUTH PACIFIC AND CAROUSEL compelling sociopolitical and or psychosocial undercurrents and crosscurrents (of different specific natures in each show), the fact remains that the principle characters in SOUTH PACIFIC and CAROUSEL in addition to generally being far more complex, interesting and individuated than the characters in OKLAHOMA, face central personal challenges and questions in lockstep with those thematic currents.

There is only arguably one character in Oklahoma whose personal conflicts, choices, and plot arc are clearly parallel to the underlying question of cooperation between communities for the sake of American progress v. personal isolation, narcissism and nihilism. (themes which, of course, couldn't be more topical today - which might, if the libretto were more satisfying, suggest the show is worth reviving now - but nonetheless...).

That character is unfortunately not Laurie or Curly - or even Eller or Ado Annie - but rather Judd, who is far from the audience's principle focus.

Unlike with the romantic conflicts of Julie and Billy, Enoch and Carrie, Cable and Liat, and certainly with Emile and Nellie, it is very challenging to portray Laurie and Curly's courtship in a way which thematically resonates with their show's bedrock themes.

I'm not saying that it can't possibly be done. The approach-avoidance in Laurie's and Curly's courtship might in the right hands at least begin to satisfyingly evoke the questions of rugged if alienated American individualism and self-reliance v. communal collectivity and harmony.

But whom Laurie might (or might not) end up with (the sweet if bland cowboy hovering around her yard or the brooding sociopath who lives in her barn - or either) is no where near as convincingly or compellingly redolent of the deeper American conflicts underlying OKLAHOMA as the choices the central characters in CAROUSEL and SOUTH PACIFIC confront are of the (at the very least equally) profound themes underlying those shows.

Updated On: 7/17/17 at 08:05 AM

There seems to be an underlying notion at play in this thread, and in frequent threads on this board, that aspiration, complexity and thematic sophistication are somehow synonymous with the value of a theatrical work.

I couldn't disagree more with that premise.

There are brilliant theatrical works which have profound thematic aspirations and preposterous pablum that sports equally profound thematic aspirations. Just as there are great "light" or even "thin" plays and bad ones.

To confuse "significance" of authorial intention with the value of a work or, for that matter, lightness of authorial intention with a judgment of a work's value, is, ironically, to engage in a very shallow understanding of the power of theatre.

There is nothing greatly at stake in The Importance of Being Earnest. Anything Goes doesn't have any aspirations more ambitious than pure entertainment. But each is a superb work which has greatly satisfied the most discriminating audiences' heads and hearts and, hopefully, will continue to do so forever.

In contrast, there are countless plays and musicals which for all their aspirations to "seriousness" remain pure junk.

Updated On: 7/16/17 at 09:16 AM

Kad said: "It's kind of wild to me that Show Boat is being offered up as more suitable for revival than Oklahoma. Despite a glorious score, Show Boat is a lengthy, awkward, and lumbering show whose historical relevance outweighs its entertainment value.



I am guessing that you didn't see the Harold Prince version, as slick and smooth a production as I have ever seen. What he and Stroman did was a miracle. They took a war horse used to tired revivals (hell, there was one at that very theatre a few years earlier) and made it as fluid as anything that was open at the time. The musical transitions were breathtaking, changing the characters assigned to a few songs actually eliminated a little corniness, e.g., Elaine Stritch singing Why Do I Love You to an infant grandchild was brilliant, and the script must have been tightened a little (I say this because it was just not the same Show Boat I had seen a number of times before).

There is an awful lot of depth to Show Boat, whether some of it is dated or not. I don't see that depth in Oklahoma. Sorry. Maybe Sher can accomplish something like what Prince / Stroman did, but he will not succeed unless he does something MAJOR with that book. I think the Jud portion could be successful and tweaking it could add more depth to the show. I just don't see how they can do anything with Ado and friends. They are such stereotypes and the dialogue they are given is to me painful to sit through. It is so trivial and stupid and insulting to an intelligent audience. Maybe Sher, if it is him, can eliminate the corn and focus the sub-plot on how does Ado figure out what she wants the rest of her life to do. She was comic relief; the comic relief is painfully dated; audiences today don't need comic relief; get rid of it...that does not mean to eliminate all laughs, just don't make them so artificial, let them come out of real situations. Then I might be able to sit through it.

poisonivy2 said: "I, trying to understand why you hate the Ado Annie storyline so much that you want it cut entirely. The comic romance that's a foil for the more serious romance has been used in many musicals. Carousel, Hello Dolly, Show Boat, Fiddler on the Roof, Waitress, etc. Is it dated? Yes but I thought Gloria Grahame in the musical was very funny in the movie and don't see why it can't be funny anymore.

I thought it was almost as bad in the movie. Gloria Grahame always brought along sex, which none of the other Ado Annies I have seen has ever done (or was good enough that I realized that's what they were doing). Re the foil issue, I have no issues with comic sub-plots at all, I just thought this one was BAD, maybe the worst one EVER). Even the songs lost.

I am familiar with the Prince revival of Show Boat. But a show that requires such substantial retooling for it to be successful as a modern production doesn't make a great case for itself.

I don't think Oklahoma requires that level of retooling. And the recent intimate production at Bard, which was widely acclaimed, suggests there's a lot more there to be mined than you give it credit for.