is anyone noticing how BRITISH the Hugh Jackman OKLAHOMA is? — Page 2

bestofbroadway, the 1979 Broadway revival (right around the Iranian hostage crisis) was truly wonderful, Of course, that was back in the days when the Broadway community wasn't so quick (and pretentious) to "revise" musicals and replace the original work with their own decidedly inferior ideas. Stroman's decision to redo the choreography is plain hubris. And not only is she unable to replace DeMille's brilliantly eccentric and moving choreopraphy in MANY A NEW DAY with a comparable idea of her own (Stroman only knows gimmicks, not ideas), she and Nunn cut the original! Fools. I'm glad this production bombed on Broadway.

I am sure that nothing will ever compare to DeMille's original choreography for Oklahoma, or Jerome Robbins for West Side Story for that matter. However, I don't feel that choreographers should be bound to reproduce another choreographers work. Maybe Stroman didn't succeed, but if I wanted to see the original choreography I will watch the movie. I agree that Stroman nowadays only knows gimmicks, but some of her early choreography was priceless. As for her dream ballet in this, it's complete trash (with or without DeMille's choreography to compare it to.)

As for the production. After watching it I find it very stale. At times there are real moments and there is a depth to some of the characters that I have never seen before, but there is a reason for Ado Annie and Will Parker, and that is not to just be another romantic couple. They are comic characters. And the girl playing Ado Annie is so far off the mark. They're playing it like a Shakespeare and I'm sorry but it's not.

Updated On: 11/23/03 at 11:03 AM

I don't know if I agree, bestofbroadway. Shows are put together collaboratively at the same time with everyone working towards one goal, supervised by the director, with the writers having final approval on everything that appears on the stage. If they sanctioned choreography that realized their intention and the show is successful, who's to say that someone else's choreography down the line does the same thing? I have no doubt Rodgers and Hammerstein would have junked Stroman's coarse and unimaginative choreography. It's different to take a show that didn't work or whose elements were at cross-purposes and rethink it. But West Side Story or Fiddler? Where the very concept of the show and the dance are interdependent and fulfill each other? Not only is it sheer hubris to think one can outdo Jerome Robbins on HIS OWN IDEA but it shows that these directors or choreographers don't understand the first thing about conceptualization. Stroman is one of the worst offenders: gimmick, gimmick, gimmick and not an idea in sight. But why stop at dance? Why not rewrite lyrics or music? I mean, where do you stop?

She was flat and off-key and could not sing.

Interesting too how there was not distinction between her look and that of the actress playinge Ado Annie. Both brunette.

Someone wasn't thinking smart.

Bulldog.

Updated On: 11/23/03 at 01:15 PM

Compared to what I had to sit through at the Gershwin last year, this production was a revelation. Jackman's curly was not only well sung, but marvelously acted. He was a thoroughly masculine braggart whose pride could be deeply wounded. The very talented Patrick Wilson was unable to bring to life much of that.

Gabrielle Josefine does not have a terrific voice, but her acting was quite affective and her dancing was lovely (although she's no Bambi Lynn).

The Will Parker (would that I knew his name) was far more likable and believable than the chours boy version portrayed by Justin Bohon. And even though the Ado Annie was brunette, I would never have confused her voluptuous, womanly body with Lori's tomboy look. Plus, she could sing and act, which was a refreshing change from Jessica Boever's terrible performance.

Yes, there are drawbacks to this production. But it's a tonic for me who had to sit through that crashingly boring version at the Gershwin. I understood some of what the excitement was about.

---

"The Will Parker (would that I knew his name) was far more likable and believable than the chours boy version portrayed by Justin Bohon."

Jimmy Johnston is the name of the actor who played Will.

Billy,

And what I appreciated was his 'manly' characterization. He was entirely different from Jackman's version of 'manly', but was still believeable as a cowboy.

Yee haw.

---

These "revivalists" completely miss the point about older musicals. They are ROMANCES, not just in the sense of love stories, but in the sense of the IDEAL and the extraordinary. They are not about depth psychology. To put Laurey in overalls is an absurd attempt to sacrifice the imaginative fantasy of the piece on the altar of "realism." Laurey's character in the story serves as the spiritual-feminine counterpart for our hero--why costume her like she's been shoveling pig**** in the backyard? It is precisely this overpsychologizing of the musical, courtesy Sondheim and his adherents, that has brought the musical to a dead end, robbing it of fantasy, humor and ROMANCE. It's just another example of how our culture values the literal and materialistic over the metaphorical and poetic.

Updated On: 11/24/03 at 07:15 PM