Daniel Fish "Oklahoma!"

[jo]

I read the full article --

howlround.com/surviving-states-audience-rejection-road-oklahoma?utm_campaign=later-linkinbio-howlround&utm_content=later-34181586&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkin.bio


When there is universal rejection of a reinterpretation of a classic, maybe these people should write their own musical and not borrow/steal from work that is universally loved to project their own views or interpretation of past culture & mores.

I was actually not in favor when the avant-garde Tony voters voted this as Best Revival... when master director of classics and musical theatre Trevor Nunn did not get the same regard when his revival of Oklahoma! transferred to Broadway. And it was as if they wanted to completely change the orientation of one of America's most beloved musicals.

There is room for new thinking -- but they should create their OWN work of art!

I was tempted to reply to the tweet - but I let it go. The audiences that rejected them universally in that tour did it for me

PS: I just found the original play on which Oklahoma! was based -- it's Lynn Riggs's play "Green Grow The Lilacs". Like Oklahoma!, the death of Jud was accidental and of his own making ( he fell on his knife). He had the same murderous intentions as it was portrayed in the Rodgers & Hammerstein musical.

Again, if Fish wanted to infuse his own thoughts on the past sense of "cowboy justice" - he should have composed his own musical!


Jo

[jo]

re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road.
Posted by: theatreguy40 05:15 pm EDT 04/06/23
In reply to: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. - kieran 08:12 pm EDT 04/04/23
I saw the production when it played at St. Ann's Warehouse. Appalling - to say the least. While the director and cast constantly decried that "not a word has been changed" -- well that may be -- but the stage directions (written by the playwright Oscar Hammerstein) certainly have. Jud's death is completely the invention of director Daniel Fish and goes totally against what Oscar Hammerstein had written. So in a sense while a "word" may not have been changed, the intentions of the playwright certainly have!

The whole current revival has twisted the show completely out of shape to make it what Daniel Fish wants and not what the writers intended. Whatever "themes" or "ideas" that Fish wanted to explore should have been explored with a NEW piece and not try to shoe-horn it or force it into an existing play. I believe that's why most audiences rebell against the current revival.

And the ballet --- totally incomprehensible in meaning to most audiences --- again, trying to say something that was never intended by the original writers...

Just my 2 cents (and many many many others as well)

My reply on ATC to the above post --

re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road.
Posted by: jo 09:27 pm EDT 04/06/23
In reply to: re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. - theatreguy40 05:15 pm EDT 04/06/23

You've probably captured the sentiment of audiences which did not agree with the revisal by Daniel Fish.

OKLAHOMA! is not just America's landmark musical but it has also become a cultural treasure of America, not just for the glorious music and original staging from Rodgers & Hammerstein ( based on Lynn Riggs play "Green Grow The Lilacs") but because it touched a certain slice of history & culture in the settling of the West.

I was lucky to have seen the RNT Oklahoma! in London after it had transferred from the South Bank. I was in London on a business trip and when I learned that there was a revival of one of my favorite composers' famous musicals, I got tickets for the show. I did not even know who the cast was - I was just thankful to see a live staging of the film version which I saw in the past. To be honest, it was my least favorite of their 5 famous musicals ( most of which I saw only in film adaptations) because it was not well-acted by some members of the cast .

The RNT Oklahoma had explored some dark nuances not obvious in the original show/film adaptation, without necessarily changing the artistic intention of the famous composers. The characters showed some of these dark nuances which Nunn said he had gleaned from the R&H musical play.

Thankfully it was filmed on a sound stage ( scenes from a staging were spliced in) at the initiative of Trevor Nunn...and the home video included a long Behind-the-scenes feature, which added appreciation of the Nunn revival. Take the time to watch that Special Feature and appreciate more of how a classic can be revived with new nuances but still being essentially true to the original artistic intentions.

If Mr. Fish wanted to project a different look at the culture and mores then, he should have written his OWN musical theatre composition and not appropriate a well-loved classic to project his artistic intentions. There is room for modern or avant garde thinking, even about what happened in the past, but this was not the right way to do it, as far as I am concerned.

[jo]

Jeff Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere quotes someone summarizing the current thinking among the movie press in Hollywood --

Friendo explains: “As we’ve been learning over the last five years or so, there is much less value in the Oscar race today…contaminated by woke critics and their myopic, anti-populist priorities, the Oscar brand is so bad that smart producers aren’t necessarily aiming for an Oscar association…it used to be that Oscar-buzz movies made money or at least enjoyed a certain elevated status…now it’s almost the opposite.”

Oscar movies have become about eating your woke vegetables and applauding the raising of our shared social consciousness…[and] fewer people are interested in them, because of the woke thing or whatever. Or because Millennials and Zoomers have become totally alienated from the brand. Or because Best Picture property values have gone underwater in the wake of Everything Everywhere All At Once winning all those trophies few weeks ago. The brand has been totally poisoned, or at least miniaturized.

Is it also happening on Broadway?

*Daniel Fish's OKLAHOMA! won Best Revival.
*Strange Loop ( about a gay musical theatre author) won Best Musical.
*Ado Annie performed by a person-with-disability actress ( on a wheel chair) won for Best Supporting Actress.
*Gender-reversal staging of COMPANY won for Best Revival ( beating The Music Man).

Jo

[jo]

A reply to my post --

re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road.
Posted by: AlanScott 10:24 pm EDT 04/06/23
In reply to: re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. - jo 09:27 pm EDT 04/06/23

The film version of Oklahoma! is my favorite Rodgers and Hammerstein film, followed closely by Flower Drum Song. I think it's the best directed film version of a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical and is extremely well cast. In fact, it's probably my favorite film of any Broadway musical.

I was not wild about the Nunn production, at least not in its New York incarnation and the filming of the London production.

The scene where Eller gives Laurey a dress was an addition that I would guess was written by Nunn. It's not in the show and it's not in Green Grow the Lilacs.

And my counter-reply :

re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road.
Posted by: jo 10:49 pm EDT 04/06/23
In reply to: re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. - AlanScott 10:24 pm EDT 04/06/23

To each his own!

I liked SOUTH PACIFIC the best of all the film adaptations as it had the most dramatic storyline compared to the others. It is a movie that can do well with a remake now because the geopolitical conflict that existed then now also exists but with slightly different players...plus the theme of racism and cultural conflicts were well-explored then. The music is dramatic, romantic, playful and with some soul-searching themes.

I did not want to say it publicly -- but how can he say that the film version of Oklahoma! is well-cast? Gordon McRae is a beautiful singer but his acting is hammy and made his character a bit cartoonish. There is no negative vibes to his Curly interpretation -- which, if you watch the Jackman interpretation, included some dark nuances to Curly's character. His self-centered view of himself and his treatment of Jud (in Poor Jud is Daid) does not speak of his being a totally admirable hero. Shirley Jones looked too virginal and not that interesting to me. I guess, to each his own.

Jo

[jo]

In the 1950's ?

[jo]

In the late 1990's --

[jo]

Curly (Damon Duonno) in the Daniel Fish revival of OKLAHOMA! -- in the 2020's.