Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival? - Page 3
Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
#50Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/16/17 at 5:19pm
gypsy101 said: "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.
"
Same. I love that production so much!!
Jarethan
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/10/11
#51Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/16/17 at 6:22pm
Kad said: "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.
Your first sentence is bologna!! Prince made it more relevant by eliminating / playing down stuff that became dated, hopelessly dated IMO.
Re the Bard production, if it is truly intimate, at least they wouldn't have to waste the Beaumont stage to produce it. Are you also saying that they did nothing to modernize the Ado Annie segments and it worked?
Re another poster, who cited Carrie, Ilona, etc., I do really think that it works worst in Oklahoma. I have always assumed that Ado / Will / Ali get more stage time (or focus) than some of the others, which probably added to my annoyance. If that is not true, then I suspect my frustration with them could be driven from my view that there is so little to Oklahoma to begin with, i.e., the story. As someone has said, the show can be summarized as 'will Curly take Laurie to the box lunch.' With something that trivial, maybe the secondary plot needed to be more substantive, rather than just silly. I never thought about it, but they function as comic relief from a pretty inconsequential story.
I am beginning to feel like the Grinch, but I know that I am not alone in hating Oklahoma.
An interesting side note: One of my favorite shows ever is She Loves Me. My wife put me on notice after the last revival that she will not attend it with me ever again. Her reason: she thinks the story is stupid and that the Ilona sub-plot is offensive. I on the other hand find the love story to be incredibly romantic / charming / engaging, etc., and I have always enjoyed the Ilona sub-plot, which I know is silly. I don't hate silly, just badly done silly, dated silly; also, I think silly is better when it is providing 'downtime' from a more challenging primary story (e.g., Billy and Julie) or is adding some comedy when there is probably not that much without it, e.g., SLM).
#52Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/16/17 at 7:23pm
henrikegerman, you bring up a MAJOR issue I have with a lot of young people in theatre. They think that only shows that deal with topical issues like race, immigration, gender equality/flexibility etc. are of any worth, and that anything else is "fluff" regardless of the merit of the craft! Granted in this case I do agree that elements of OKLAHOMA are a bit awkward, and certainly not as elegantly done as say SOUTH PACIFIC or CAROUSEL, but I'm not sure it's far from the level of awkwardness present in something like THE KING AND I (for the record I really don't think either is bad, not perfect but hardly any shows are).
And as you say there are infinite numbers of BAD topical pieces (film, theatre, TV and otherwise) that are lauded for taking on such issues when in fact they aren't really that good.
#53Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/16/17 at 11:27pm
Henrikegerman, I agree with you that a show does not have to take on weighty issues in order to be a good show or worthy of one's time. A well-crafted show that is basically a love story can and often is perfectly good theatre.
But having said that, I would even go so far as to say that Oklahoma does address (however mildly) gender equality. Young people in western societies today may not remember that as recently as the 1970's, there was a big civil rights movement to change society's views on the necessity of controlling women's sexuality. The idea that it was okay for men to be promiscuous but that women had to be faithful and submissive in order to be considered "good" is a vile idea that until fairly recently (a few decades ago), was the majority view in our society. Worse still, it remains the majority view in many societies worldwide, and there is a large cadre of theocrats working relentlessly to return that view to the US, if not in majority opinion, at least in force of law (see all the laws trying to require women to present permission from their impregnators (even if the latter are also their rapists) in order to decide whether or not to remain pregnant, etc.). Unfortunately, I fear that Oklahoma's commentary on women being equal to men in terms of sexual liberation (the Ado Annie/Will Parker story) will actually become more relevant as the theocrats keep encroaching, rather than less relevant, as i would hope would be the case.
#54Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 12:12am
An epic discussion now of two of Broadway's landmark productions by some of the best minds on BWW.
Here is a thoughtful Frank Rich review not of the Prince revival, but of the Kahn production that preceded it by twelve years. Something for everyone.
Although the story's actual events are a bit too thin and contrived to support the grandeur of the conception and the music, there's pleasure in watching Hammerstein's pursuit of an epic, adult vision. One sees the groundwork for the musicals he'd write with Richard Rodgers later on. One can even argue that a subtle ''Show Boat'' motif, the appropriation of black music by white singers, foreshadows ''Dreamgirls'' - and that the double-edged use of vaudeville numbers, to indicate historical and character developments, anticipates ''Gypsy'' and ''Follies.'' (Stephen Sondheim, in fact, seems to pay specific homage to ''Why Do I Love You?'' in ''Follies.''
This is why Hammerstein's libretto, unlike so many others in vintage musicals, need not be swept under the rug; it's worthy of inventive thinking by a contemporary director.
https://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/25/theater/the-stage-show-boat-a-theatrical-treasure.html?pagewanted=all
#55Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 12:41am
While we're discussing problematic R&H musicals I love it but TKAI has some aspects that really make me cringe, particularly the tone of Western exceptionalism and the idea that only Western ideals could fix outdated Asian culture. Fortunately the story and music are rich enough to overcome these obstacles but honestly when I see TKAI I think of the 58,000 Americans who never came back from Vietnam (and the thousands and thousands more who came back completely broken as well as all the Vietnamese people who lost their lives and their homes and their families) and think that it's the attitude of a bunch of Anna Leonowens' that caused that tragedy.
#56Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 12:51am
henrikegerman said: "
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.
"
Yes, henrik, but the contention in this thread was that OKLAHOMA is boring because it isn't "about" anything, unlike later R&H offerings. I was contradicting the premise that OKLAHOMA is devoid of serious thought AND the conclusion that it is therefore boring.
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is happening only because posters have seen great revivals of SOUTH PACIFIC and THE KING AND I in the past decade while the last great OKLAHOMA! revival hit Broadway back in the 1980s.
#57Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 1:07am
Please, no mention of Trevor Nunn. The grasping hands coming out of the corn creeped me out enough. It looked like a dinner theatre Birnam Wood.
#58Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 1:17am
I thought I skipped Trevor Nunn quite nicely. His was not the 1980s revival.
poisonivy, the Vietnam War was, on the American side, about the U.S. fighting to maintain the colonial order. The same colonialism that Mrs. Anna wants to keep away from Siam.
Blaming her for the Vietnam War seem unfair.
Jarethan
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/10/11
#59Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 1:40am
GavestonPS said: "henrikegerman said: "
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.
"
Yes, henrik, but the contention in this thread was that OKLAHOMA is boring because it isn't "about" anything, unlike later R&H offerings. I was contradicting the premise that OKLAHOMA is devoid of serious thought AND the conclusion that it is therefore boring.
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is happening only because posters have seen great revivals of SOUTH PACIFIC and THE KING AND I in the past decade while the last great OKLAHOMA! revival hit Broadway back in the 1980s.
I am really not trying to one-up -- you write much better than I do, so there's no point -- but that revival was the one where I sat in the lobby for most of Act 2, because I couldn't take it anymore. My wife, a friend and I were able to purchase 3 singles for a Sunday matinee in Christmas week, and were sitting about as far from each other as possible. I figured I had to stay around, since we had arranged where in the theatre to meet after the performance, but I had just had it. All my good-will was gone and another Ado Annie routine came up (I don't remember which one -- it could have been something centering on Jud). Without thinking about it, I just got up and sat in the lobby of the mezzanine waiting for it to end. I swear to G*d that after the performance, I discovered that my wife was doing the same thing on the orchestra level. Ironically, our friend loved it, but would to this date acknowledge that no one in those days would ever have based a decision to purchase tickets on her recommendation, since she loved everything.
I have never had this reaction to any other acclaimed musical, unless you consider CATS to be acclaimed. Saw it in London before it opened in NYC and hated it so much that I spent Act 2 walking around the out of the way neighborhood in which the show was performing, while my wife and the people we were traveling with watched Act 2.
#60Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 1:50am
You write quite well, Jarethan. You are certainly not at a loss in that department.
As you say, "three singles on a Sunday around Christmas" -- obviously, some people still think the show works. That production inspired a quite lengthy national tour after it closed in NYC.
I actually didn't see that production. But a friend took over the role of Ado Annie on the road and she speaks very highly of it. (Which is NOT a reason why you had to like it, of course.)
#61Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 2:50am
Criticizing King and I for supporting the view that Western culture was superior to that of Thailand always seems to ignore the song that kicks off the post-intermission: "Western People Funny." It's true that it is unfortunately missing from many productions, but nevertheless Hammerstein wrote it and it was included in the LCT production. The arrogance of British imperialism is well known.
In that one number Oscar protects himself from being accused of buying into the theme of British cultural supremacy and paternalism. Nevertheless, his depiction of the British in the play is historically accurate.
GeorgeandDot
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/13/16
#62Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 4:31am
I adore the TKAI and I also agree that "Western People Funny" keeps the show from being patronizing. The show really is about two very different cultures meeting and learning from one another. I guess there are some questionable things about it, but it's just far too beautifully crafted to sweep under the rug.
As for Oklahoma, I must say that I saw a lovely production of it in the round with Mary Testa and Amber Gray a year or two ago and they really were able to breathe some life into that show by giving it a bit of a modern twist. The show itself was still kind of stale, but the inventive staging and bluegrass arrangements made for an enjoyable night at the theatre. I actually think that production would work extremely well Off-Broadway. It would probably kill at the box office.
Jarethan
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/10/11
#64Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 10:41am
poisonivy2 said: "While we're discussing problematic R&H musicals I love it but TKAI has some aspects that really make me cringe, particularly the tone of Western exceptionalism and the idea that only Western ideals could fix outdated Asian culture. Fortunately the story and music are rich enough to overcome these obstacles but honestly when I see TKAI I think of the 58,000 Americans who never came back from Vietnam (and the thousands and thousands more who came back completely broken as well as all the Vietnamese people who lost their lives and their homes and their families) and think that it's the attitude of a bunch of Anna Leonowens' that caused that tragedy.
I do not have any problem with TKAI. I think it is as close to perfect as a show can be...just missing an R&H Tier 1 song for the king (and I have to admit that, given the number of times I have seen it, I would like to be able to cancel the performance of The Small House of Uncle Thomas at selected performances if I was not in the mood for it. I think that the book conveys that the attempt at Westernization was going too far, although the Western Exceptionalism was a very real thing and they saw this as a way to combat that; also, I always felt that the scene of the Siamese women looking silly in their hoop skirts was actually a commentary on how silly those hoop skirts were, not the Siamese women, who wore much more practical outfits.
#65Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 11:32am
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.
Unfortunately, I completely disagree. The London revival last year was not the huge spectacle of the Prince production, so the story was front and center. The score alone is enough to stir up emotion in me, but watching this production, it never felt lengthy, awkward or lumbering for even a moment. The historical relevance of race and gender roles of the period were immediate and clear. Even in the lighter scenes of Can't Help Lovin' That Man, Life Upon the Wicked Stage and I Still Suits Me, there was a constant underlying melancholy reminding us of the difficulties to be overcome by the characters representing racial and/or gender minorities. And Rebecca Trehearn's gorgeous performance of Julie was memorable enough to win the Olivier. I've always loved Show Boat in pretty much every production I've seen (though the 1951 film is the glaring exception), but this one truly balanced everything and reminded us how the show managed to earn its place as a classic that has never lost it relevancy.
#66Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 11:37am
Even the Prince/Stroman revival, as beautifully staged as it was, couldn't help but expose the creakiness of Show Boat.
And I hate Oklahoma. I hate Oklahoma like I hate Helen Hunt. Irrationally and without feeling the need to defend my position.
#67Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 11:40am
That's okay. I hate Follies, which is certainly considered more unforgivable around these here parts.
#68Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 4:34pm
Taste is odd, isn't it? I couldn't disagree with Matt more re FOLLIES, yet I have precisely his reaction when it comes to SHOW BOAT. OKLAHOMA! is better constructed, whether you think it's "corny" or not, but SHOW BOAT is often more moving. All three are great shows, IMO, in performance AND as historical landmarks.
I predict OKLAHOMA! is just waiting for a director who understands what life was like on the frontier and how getting the right girl to go to the box social was a pretty big deal in small communities with few potential mates and no divorce if you made the wrong decision.
GeorgeandDot
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/13/16
#69Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 4:38pm
#70Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 6:00pm
OKLAHOMA! is better constructed, whether you think it's "corny" or not, but SHOW BOAT is often more moving.
THIS^
The right production of Show Boat can turn me into a sobbing mess, as the latest West End revival proved. When the show was over, as we're leaving the theatre, I said to my husband, "That was...so...wuh-huh-huh-hunderful!" Not realizing that I could barely catch my breath to speak. Even when I just try to talk about it, I get all verklempt. It's RARE that I see a show that has such a crazy profound emotional effect on me (most recently, it was Parade, the world's most depressing musical). I won't pretend that it's normal, but it is what it is.
#71Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 6:14pm
OlBlueEyes said: "Criticizing King and I for supporting the view that Western culture was superior to that of Thailand always seems to ignore the song that kicks off the post-intermission: "Western People Funny." It's true that it is unfortunately missing from many productions, but nevertheless Hammerstein wrote it and it was included in the LCT production. The arrogance of British imperialism is well known.
In that one number Oscar protects himself from being accused of buying into the theme of British cultural supremacy and paternalism. Nevertheless, his depiction of the British in the play is historically accurate.
"
I'm not saying Anna Leonowens = Robert McNamara but TKAI has this post-WW2 zeitgeist that the Allies beat Germany and Japan, and could "win" everywhere. That Asian cultures were quaint and needed Western knowledge and modernization. I love the show and think that with the right actors it can be a very moving night in the theater, but don't know how you can watch it and not think:
#72Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 8:25pm
I'm afraid that I just have no clue as to what the connection between The King and I and the Vietnam War is supposed to be. It's true that Vietnam was part of French Indo-China and the U.S. furnished aid to the French in the battle of Dien Bien Phu, but the U.S. never intervened in that French disaster that ended French presence in the area. President Eisenhower has been quoted that "Nobody is more opposed to intervention than I am." This was way back in 1954.
The United States involvement in the Vietnam War in the 60s and 70s was part of the effort of the Western nations to stop the spread of international Communism. This goes back to the end game of World War II. Roosevelt and Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta in 1944 and Stalin promised that all the Eastern European nations occupied by Soviet troops would be allowed to chose their own form of government and the Soviets would honor that. Of course they didn't and set up puppet Communist regimes in all of those countries.
Things got very serious. The Soviets demanded that the US, England, and France give up their portion of Berlin that all had agreed could occupy it and the U.S. had to implement the famous Berlin airlift. Churchill gave his famous speech about "an iron curtain has descended across Europe." The huge nation of China embraced Communism. The Korean War was fought to keep North Korea from reuniting with South Korea as a Communist nation. Castro took over Cuba and turned it into a Communist state right off the coast of Florida, and the Soviet Union provided them with aid and more: nuclear missiles. This ignited the famed Cuban Missile Crisis where, I have come to believe, there really was a brush with a nuclear holocaust (Khrushchev was the real hero of that encounter. He blinked, with the loss of honor that cost him his job).
So, as improbable as it may seem, faced with Communism seemingly on ascension everywhere, we went into Southeast Asia to stop the Communist North from reuniting with the "so called" democratic South. Our leaders were certain that the fall of South Vietnam would be followed by Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and the other nations in that area forming another solidly Communist block.
But the idea that Oscar Hammerstein was responsible for the war by writing the book for The King and I would make a much more entertaining story.
#73Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 8:41pm
TKAI of course is not responsible for the Vietnam War.
The Western assumption that we could march into any country, especially in the East, and just fix things, without any self-awareness that the U.S. actually had no clue about the geography, the motivations, the politics of the region was what turned the Vietnam War into such a quagmire. And those attitudes are very much present in TKAI.
If there was a musical about a Western woman going to Iraq and teaching the Iraqi people about freedom and democracy it would have the same cringe factor because again, same s__, different country. The U.S. made the same mistakes.
#74Will we ever see a Lincoln Center Oklahoma! revival?
Posted: 7/17/17 at 10:40pm
I can see some examples of what you mean, PoisonIvy.
Certainly democracy. Whenever the U.S. has gained influence over another country through war, or annexation, or at the request of another country that thought it needed protection, it always hauls democracy with it. No argument. Government chosen by the people in free elections was the only way that a country could choose to govern itself.
Religion? Since we have no state religion, I don't think that the government has often tried to influence the religion of other countries, but missionaries usually follow.
The U.S. occupied Japan for seven years after the end of World War II. Besides bringing them democracy, of course, and baseball, in what other ways did we try to change them? We allowed them to keep their emperor, who they thought was a god, and worship him.
Most of the other changes were liberal and most here would approve of them, I think. We brought trade unions and a Labor Standards Act, which improved the life of laborers with better living conditions, pay, medical care. The new constitution that we helped write had massive increases in the rights of women, who previously had pretty much no rights and "were treated as chattel."
Maybe you have other things in mind. Since my capsule history of the Vietnam War seems to have driven everyone away, I'll be quiet now.
Videos