Broadway classics

[mamaleh]

If I remember correctly, tickets for Bette Midler in HELLO, DOLLY! went on sale at least 6-7 months before previews were slated to begin. Then again, that was considered a super-hot ticket. Somehow I don't see demand for this revival in the same category. But maybe producers are following suit with that successful model, hoping to stimulate interest beginning many months out. We'll see how that turns out for a show without a superstar whose name would draw tourists.

Ellen

[carouselkathy]

Rene Fleming is an opera superstar, so maybe that's one thing they're considering. Jesse Mueller won a Tony for playing Carol King. Maybe they're just giving me plenty of time to decide how many times i want to see it.

[mamaleh]

Ellen

[jo]

Too bad that the Jackman film remake project never took off for CAROUSEL. He already had a contemporized script and he did send the script to one director. He also shared that he had initial support from Fox 2000 ( Fox subsidiary for small-budget film projects). And didn't he also try to reach out to Anne Hathaway for the project?

Jo

[carouselkathy]

A lost opportunity. Too bad.

[mamaleh]

Kathy, if you haven't ordered CAROUSEL tickets yet, I came across a Theatermania discount code--though it doesn't seem much of a discount: Code is CATHM909. Orch is $125; select front mezz $119-125; and rear mezz is $59-79.

Seems like the rear mezz "discount" is more like regular price.

Ellen

[carouselkathy]

Thanks, Ellen!

I posted this on Facebook, but it's Broadway related and I have to brag. My cousin just won an Emmy in the hair and makeup category for the show HAIRSPRAY LIVE. I'm guessing that we might get a glimpse of her on the regular Emmy Broadcast. I'm so happy for her!

[mamaleh]

Yes, I saw that. How wonderful. Congratulations to your cousin. My daughter was once nominated for a Creative Arts Emmy as part of a writing team but they lost. .

Winning is much better.

Ellen

[carouselkathy]

Keeping an eye on the casting for MY FAIR LADY at Lincoln Center this spring. Bartlett Sher is going to be a busy director!

[jo]

Re WEST SIDE STORY

Interesting Twitter exchange --

Meshel Laurie
‏Verified account
@meshel_Laurie
7m

Just watched @realhughjackman in Prisoners. My. God. What a performance. I gotta stop taking him for granted!



Helena Sindelar™
‏@helena_Sindelar
5m

He's come a long way..I have find memories of .@realhughjackman as Tony in Randwick Musical Society's production of West Side Story in the late 1980's...That goes back a while..!


Helena Sindelar™‏
@helena_Sindelar
Follow
Follow @helena_Sindelar

Replying to @helena_Sindelar @meshel_Laurie @realhughjackman
Gawd, it was actually Eastern Suburbs Musical Society-Eons ago..

[jo]

And did anyone see Hugh and Jimmy Fallon performing the JETS SONG in the TONIGHT show?

ew.com/article/2016/09/23/hugh-jackman-jimmy-fallon-west-side-story/

[carouselkathy]

I've been reading about the new revival of OKLAHOMA! I believe it's playing in Brooklyn. The photos show a multi-racial cast. Looks like Ado Annie is in a wheelchair, and there are croc pots sitting on a picnic table at what I assume to be the box social. It looks interesting! Has anyone heard about it? Going to see it? Is it considered an out-of -town try-out? Will it be eligible for Broadway? Off Broadway?

Very Curious Kathy

[jo]

Here's a threaded discussion of the production. Both sides are represented.

www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat_new/d.php?id=2451460

There's one particular post which shared many spoilerish details - I'll see if I can find it.



Edit : I found the other set of posts on ATC. Here's the one with the most details/spoilers!

www.talkinbroadway.com/allthatchat_new/d.php?id=2451312

[mamaleh]

I read the OKLAHOMA! spoilers. Yikes! Talk about dark.

Ellen

[jo]

And how can the R&H Organization let them get away with this ( see photo gallery)


www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-at-OKLAHOMA-on-Broadway-20190404

[njr]

Apr 5, 2019 18:00:58 GMT -5 jo said:

And how can the R&H Organization let them get away with this ( see photo gallery)


www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-at-OKLAHOMA-on-Broadway-20190404

I assume you’re referring to the first photo? Aren’t you being a bit prudish? This is 2019, not 1952. The production is clearly a modern version, not 1906 as the original was.

[jo]

Not the costume per se! Lol- I am not being literal ... I was talking of the production itself ( and as reflected in the costumes). Hey, the story happens at the time when Oklahoma! was not even part of the union, if I remember correctly. Certain historical facts cannot be overlooked if it is important to the storytelling. I think that was one of the reasons why Trevor Nunn did some history lessons for Hugh and the rest of the RNT cast ( I think only about 2 of the key cast were Americans) to give them an informed view of the story they were telling and the characters they will be portraying.

In the stage musical Oklahoma!, there was emphasis on the grit of the people who initially settled in the area, more or less, and how the relationship among those settlers was not always perfect. These days - are there conflicts between the farmers and the cowmen?!! That was one of the impressive musical numbers which opened Act 2! Did they change the lyrics to showcase modern age opponents ( like the businessmen and the social justice warriors)?? Putting a very modern slant to those portrayals makes it almost a different story.

Have you read the spoilers from that ATC thread? If you have, would you prefer to see that portrayal of the characters there? Sorry, not my cup of tea ( I know - using that phrase makes me sound old- fashioned - but sometimes those things makes the message very clear!).

I have had a previous experience with some level of theatre experimentation (to a large degree).

I had looked forward so much to a Broadway revival of JULIUS CAESAR! We studied the play in high school ( very impressed with the language of Antony and Brutus in their oratory). I even rewatched the movie adaptation with Marlon Brando ( Antony) and James Mason ( Brutus).

I was not prepared to have been confronted with a completely different look at the play when I saw the revival with Denzel Washington ( playing Brutus). Where were the hallowed Roman Senate Halls, with their toga-clad wise men of the Roman Empire? Instead I see a sleek corporate boardroom with dark-suited men from the Executive Suite, clashing with each other in "the age-old conflict among men seeking power" ( albeit that could have been the thematic slant that the creatives had been inspired with ). Not only that, Denzel ( whom I had looked so much forward to seeing on stage) proved to be a disappointing Brutus - he did not have the elegance and eloquence of the Shakespearean portrayal by James Mason - maybe that was why he did not get a TONY nod for this much-awaited Broadway role for him). To add to my dumbfoundedness - what they chose to show as armed conflict ( among the warriors of the time of the Roman Empire) were the khaki clad soldiers of Desert Storm and their Middle East warrior-opponents! Sorry, I could not get my head around the "modernized" version of such a great classic!

At intermission - it seems I was not the only one who had a disappointing experience. My seat neighbor, a regular playgoer ( not a fan of musicals) and her college-age kids expressed their disappointment at what we had seen in the first act ( she burst out with " Why oh why is Denzel talking like that - in a Shakespeare play ??!!).

Back to Oklahoma! - this version may be challenging for the modernist among playgoers, but I am not sold on it, sorry to say! Must be my traditionalist orientation when it comes to art ( although I must admit to becoming more accepting of some modern art - post-impressionism age - these days!)


Jo

[njr]

Well, you totally misunderstood me and gave an unnecessary long-winded answer. I was referring to the photo where the guy is sitting in the lap of the woman in the wheelchair. I thought that was what bothered you. Not anything to do with the costumes or the production itself.

[carouselkathy]

I have no problem with changes in staging. For example, I've heard of Oklahoma! being staged as a preface to the dustbowl migration of the 1930's. Having flirty "Ado Annie" in a wheelchair is an interesting idea. At the end of GREEN GROW THE LILACS, the play by Linn Riggs on which OKLAHOMA! is based, "Curly" goes to jail for killing Jud. Rodgers & Hammerstein decided to keep the dark side of the "Jud" death, but free "Curly" with a plea of self-defense. The dark side to the story was ground breaking in 1943. However, this new revival version, which I understand will be moving to Circle in the Square, seems to be straying a bit far from the original concept. It will be interesting to see if there are any changes between now and the final version of this revival.

[jo]

Apr 6, 2019 12:54:44 GMT -5 njr said:

Apr 5, 2019 18:00:58 GMT -5 jo said:

And how can the R&H Organization let them get away with this ( see photo gallery)


www.broadwayworld.com/article/Photo-Flash-First-Look-at-OKLAHOMA-on-Broadway-20190404

I assume you’re referring to the first photo? Aren’t you being a bit prudish? This is 2019, not 1952. The production is clearly a modern version, not 1906 as the original was.

Apr 7, 2019 12:57:10 GMT -5 njr said:

Well, you totally misunderstood me and gave an unnecessary long-winded answer. I was referring to the photo where the guy is sitting in the lap of the woman in the wheelchair. I thought that was what bothered you. Not anything to do with the costumes or the production itself.

To each his own...one may want to contradict a post for not agreeing with the opinion...but I would not criticize how someone personally reacts to an artistic endeavor.

PS: Please ignore all my posts if they bother you.


Jo

[jo]

Apr 7, 2019 14:59:41 GMT -5 carouselkathy said:

I have no problem with changes in staging. For example, I've heard of Oklahoma! being staged as a preface to the dustbowl migration of the 1930's. Having flirty "Ado Annie" in a wheelchair is an interesting idea. At the end of GREEN GROW THE LILACS, the play by Linn Riggs on which OKLAHOMA! is based, "Curly" goes to jail for killing Jud. Rodgers & Hammerstein decided to keep the dark side of the "Jud" death, but free "Curly" with a plea of self-defense. The dark side to the story was ground breaking in 1943. However, this new revival version, which I understand will be moving to Circle in the Square, seems to be straying a bit far from the original concept. It will be interesting to see if there are any changes between now and the final version of this revival.

Yes, it is interesting how emphasis can change in any staging. In the Rodgers and Hammerstein version ( maybe because the play was one of the first ones which drew national interest as it was presented only a few years after the difficult days of World War 2), they presented the story to emphasize that it was self-defense ( Jud brought a weapon to the wedding, with a likely murderous intention...and even provoked the reaction of Curly when he tried to kiss Laurey, which in the revised staging showed her with a completely different and pleasurable reaction to the kiss). What was not right, strictly speaking, was how they railroaded the trial process in the R&H version ( even if the trial might produce the same appreciation of facts and result in the same verdict). Probably what R&H wanted to do was to emphasize more that, in the end, what was important was the feeling of patriotism as Oklahoma prepared to join the United States of America? How do you segue from what may seem to be an unfair guilty verdict... with the need to end the show in a very positive light?

Dark sides can be explored, in some cases more pointedly than in other attempts. I think what Trevor Nunn did was to explore more deeply the character of Jud ( compared to the movie version with Rod Steiger) and to give the audience a deeper look at why he did what he did. Was the intention of director Daniel Fish to show simply a different interpretation? In the light of modern day times, especially as they affect social justice issues? Perhaps? But is that what I would like to view this story? To be honest -- what I liked was how Rodgers and Hammerstein viewed it and how they wrote their musical score around that kind of interpretation. Will their songs completely fit the Fish version? Such as singing about the conflict between the farmers and the cowmen in Fish's more modern-day version. To me, that is key -- including whether the songs did fit the characters and the storytelling background. Maybe Fish should have hired different songwriters to depict the Lynn Riggs version more?


Thanks, Kathy for sharing your views. As you would have seen in the ATC discussions, the views are very divided. Maybe art is meant to be like that, for many?


Jo

[jo]

Or R&H could have extended the show and shown the trial process, with the same NOT GUILTY verdict...then segue to the finale with the rousing Oklahoma! song reprise! But since the original R&H production was already very long ( the Trevor Nunn staging was 3 hours long, if I am not mistaken) - the audience might get a little tired to sit through all that. Just a thought that came across me - even if I am second-guessing the musical geniuses

Jo

[jo]

Kathy,

Here's a very detailed review from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER. Yes, their coverage now fully cover theatrical work as it seems the various performing platforms ( movies, stage, tv, movies on streaming services) are now being looked at with the same view towards judging artistic merits. And THR gets to do their job with the same level of attention as they do with movies.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/oklahoma-theater-review-1200020


Very strong negative reaction from The Observer ( Rex Reed) --

observer.com/2019/04/oklahoma-broadway-2019-review-rex-reed/




While BWW summarizes the key points in some of the reviews already published --

www.broadwayworld.com/article/Review-Roundup-OKLAHOMA-on-Broadway-Did-the-Critics-Have-a-Beautiful-Day-at-the-Circle-in-the-Square-20190407

Jo

[jo]

LOL - Rex Reed can be cantankerous in some of his critiques -- but his writeup here is almost hilarious in tone, albeit there are true moments where one ponders on what the value of this production can be.

Review

Broadway’s Latest ‘Oklahoma!’ Revival Is a Gimmicky Travesty with Corn Bread
By Rex Reed • 04/07/19 9:01pm



Damon Daunno and Rebecca Naomi Jones in Oklahoma!. Little Fang Photo

It had to happen. The miserable fools who are hell-bent on changing the theater world by destroying timeless classics in a misguided effort to make them relevant, trendy and politically correct (whatever that means) finally got around to screwing up Oklahoma!.

For reasons that make no sense whatsoever, the landmark 1943 Rodgers and Hammerstein production that marked the beginning of a new era in American musicals has now been cheapened and vulgarized at New York’s Circle in the Square Theatre in a “modernized” version designed to appeal to kids who have never heard of Oklahoma! and ignorant ticket buyers who hate musicals in general and avoid anything categorized as “old-fashioned” in particular.

And so the lights go up on the farm owned by Laurey Williams and her beloved, no-nonsense Aunt Eller (both immortalized by golden-voiced Shirley Jones and legendary Charlotte Greenwood in the magnificent 1955 film directed by Fred Zinnemann) to reveal a set consisting of eight tables replete with Fiestaware you can buy at Bloomingdale’s and 16 crock pots you can order online. For the next 2 hours and 45 minutes, everything that can go wrong in a lunkheaded misguided musical actually manages to do so.

Laurey is now black, which is perfectly acceptable, if only Rebecca Naomi Jones were a better singer. There can only be one Charlotte Greenwood, but the ubiquitous Mary Testa, who has screamed her way through scores of shows to my astonishment, is the most charmless Aunt Eller it has ever been my displeasure to see (even worse to hear).

I’ve seen dozens of Curlys in my day, including Gordon MacRae, but the greatest was Hugh Jackman. Damon Daunno’s Curly is not for the history books—half rock ‘n’ roll, half hillbilly country-western—but he does grow on you when he’s given half a chance to sing a ballad slowly and melodically without yodeling, which he does on the sweet second chorus of “The Surrey With the Fringe on Top.”

Oversexed audience pleaser Ado Annie (physically handicapped Ali Stroker) now belts out “I’m Jes’ a Girl Who Cain’t Say No” in a wheelchair as a nod to disabled performers everywhere, but the comic relief that made Celeste Holm famous in the original production and provided Gloria Grahame with show-stopping dazzle in the movie is sadly missing.

Will Parker, who returns from Kansas City with enough money from a bull-roping contest to marry Ado Annie, stole the show dancing all over the train depot when Gene Nelson played him to perfection onscreen. The best thing that can be said about Jimmy Davis’ Will is that he’s no Gene Nelson. The scruffy, obnoxious farmhand Jud Fry, who competes for Laurey’s hand to everyone’s horror, is now Patrick Vaill, who looks like a long-haired member of a motorcycle gang.

Why is his most dramatic scene, when Curly encounters him in the smokehouse, staged in a complete blackout? There is evidence that the cast can sing, but everything has been done by director Daniel Fish to disguise the fact. The trend to deprive songs of their deserved appreciation is evident throughout. This is a heinous affectation initiated by the uneven director John Doyle, famous for killing off a performer’s best numbers with a fast, annoying insertion of dialogue at the end of a song before the audience can applaud. His was the only production of Sondheim’s Company I have ever seen where the rousing “Ladies who Lunch” ended with total silence.

Instead of the historic Agnes de Mille dream ballet that distinguished the original 1943 Oklahoma! and remains an integral part of every revival, we now get a half-naked girl with a shaved head prancing from one end of the stage to the other, imitating a horse while cowboy boots drop from the ceiling with noisy, clumsy thuds. Maybe that was really the sound of Oscar Hammerstein and Richard Rodgers thrashing around in shock from their graves.


During intermission, the audience is served chili and corn bread. The Rodgers and Hammerstein Organization should be ashamed for giving permission to produce this gimmicky travesty. Its namesakes were catapulted to eternal prominence by Oklahoma! and they didn’t need corn bread.

[jo]

This is how The Hollywood Reporter sees it -- David Rooney is a theatre and film critic for THR. Does he write also from the dark-side-of-movies perspective here?

CULTURE
'Oklahoma!': Theater Review
6:00 PM PDT 4/7/2019 by David Rooney



Cain't Say No. TWITTER
9/1/2019

The landmark 1943 Rodgers & Hammerstein show that redefined American musical theater gets a radical makeover that brings out disturbing undercurrents.

There's no denying the abundant pleasures to be had from a sumptuous large-scale revival of a classic American musical with a top-flight cast. But a bold reimagining of a familiar work from the canon can deliver an altogether different and far more startling thrill, bringing out unexpected textures and exposing previously subterranean thematic seams. The virtues of a revisionist production don't negate those of the traditional presentation, or vice versa. As the song says, "the farmer and the cowman should be friends." Purists will sniff anyway, but for audiences open to experiencing Rodgers & Hammerstein's Oklahoma! from a fresh perspective, director Daniel Fish's probing revamp will be a revelation.

Without altering the existing text, Fish and his excellent 12-member ensemble shine a new light on this corn-fed tale of two romantic triangles, one played for drama, the other for laughs. What's significantly different is that a show normally interpreted as a celebration of the American spirit here unearths the darkness beneath the sunny surface — the blood in the soil of the heartland and the fear-based hostility toward outsiders that continues to fester today.

If you didn't know the material's pedigree you might almost mistake this for a new work, so organically does it tap into contemporary issues from sexual politics to gun violence and class discrimination. By traveling back to the prairies of what was then known as Indian Territory in 1906, on the eve of Oklahoma obtaining statehood, this audacious revival has a lot to say about where we are now as a nation. That it does so without any need to hammer its topical relevance is miracle enough. Even more impressive though is the fact that it remains such bracing entertainment, compromising neither the drama nor the comedy. And what orchestrator Daniel Kluger has done with the score is simply gorgeous.

Set designer Laura Jellinek has encased the entire theater in the same raw plywood that provides the stage flooring, with rifle racks all over the walls and festive streamers that suggest the kind of community hall where the story's box social is held. That early-1900s tradition is a fund-raising dance at which men bid on hampers of food prepared by the community's women — supposedly unidentified, though frequently with a hint between sweethearts as to who assembled them.

In Fish's version, it's plain as day that the men are bidding directly on the women, like a cattle auction, the carnal undertone fed by innuendo about the luscious contents of their hampers and the succulence of their pies.

The terrific seven-piece band, led by music director Nathan Koci, sits in a shallow pit area near one end of the stage, with the audience on three sides and the cast frequently interacting with the musicians. Kluger has ingeniously reworked Richard Rodgers' lush melodies for the kind of instruments that might have been played in turn-of-the-century Oklahoma — mandolin, banjo, double bass, fiddle, accordion — and added pedal steel guitar to enhance the flavors of country, folk and bluegrass that transform the familiar songs. The vocal arrangements are equally evocative, feeding directly into the actors' fine-grained character work.


That starts with the cocky bronco buster Curly McLain. While affable masculine self-assurance has been imprinted onto the role by actors from Alfred Drake and Gordon MacRae through Hugh Jackman and Patrick Wilson, Damon Daunno seems dangerous from the outset. He's sexy as hell, with his sauntering gait and laconic manner, but there's menace beneath his seductive words, though that doesn't negate Curly's potent charm.


When he pipes up on "Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin'," a cappella at first and then strumming his guitar, he's claiming ownership of the day, even before he gets to the suddenly ominous-sounding lyric: "I've got a beautiful feelin' / Everythin's goin' my way." He wears his badge of aggressive male entitlement with pride, making even a playful line like "Chicks and ducks and geese better scurry" sound like a warning of fowl carnage. Kluger strips all the jaunty quaintness out of "The Surrey With the Fringe on Top," so Curly sings it like a mesmerist lulling the object of his desire, Laurey Williams (Rebecca Naomi Jones), into a trance. And Scott Zielinski's lighting conspires by going from stark houselights-up to a stage blanketed in dreamy nighttime.

If Curly seems to apply the land-rush mentality to everything he wants, Jones makes it instantly clear that her Laurey is no blushing ingénue. She's brittle and standoffish, a flinty woman of the land not unlike her hard-bitten Aunt Eller (Mary Testa, fierce and funny as ever), with whom she lives. Finding Curly altogether too full of himself, she agrees to go to the social with farmhand Jud Fry (Patrick Vaill) just to spite him. Then, with her typical mix of impulsiveness and indecision, she regrets it immediately, afraid to be alone with the creepily intense Jud.



The farmhand generally gets tagged as the bad guy, but Jud in truth is a much more complicated figure. Usually played by brawnier, thuggish types, here he's gaunt and lost-looking. There's a febrile Brad Dourif quality to Vaill's characterization, a desperation bred out of the loneliness and resentment of the socially ostracized. Sure, there are notes of malice in him, and he gives off a stalker vibe when not skulking around the grimy smokehouse where he spends most of his time, its walls plastered with "artistic" French postcards — what we now call porn. None of this needs to be shown in Fish's spare staging; it's clearly visualized in the way people talk about Jud, and in his combustible mix of awkwardness and anger.

Jud's worst crime is being hopelessly in love with Laurey, which is what makes him such a threat to Curly. In one of the production's most unnerving scenes, staged by Fish in pitch-black darkness, Curly goes to see Jud in the smokehouse. With the smooth skill of a cold-hearted manipulator, Curly admires the sturdy rope hanging from the rafters and observes how easy it would be for Jud to end his life. Making it even more sinister, he spins this suggested suicide as the prelude to a funeral where folks would weep and sing sad songs for Jud. "You never know how many people like you till you're daid," Curly tells him.

You can feel the audience holding its collective breath during that chilling exchange. Fish then deepens our involvement by splashing grainy, live-feed black-and-white night-vision video of Jud's face in massive close-up across the stage's rear-wall prairie panorama. Vaill's expression morphs from dismay to a tentative smile as Curly sings the mock lament "Pore Jud is Daid." As the subject eventually joins in, he seems to feel an oddly soothing release at the thought of people mourning him while he lies in a box, "peaceful and serene." The scene is shocking in its cruelty, even more so when the camera pulls back to frame the faces of both men, still shrouded in darkness but looking eye to eye with homoerotic intimacy.

Jud's doom is preordained from that moment. His tragedy is hastened by Laurey's confused feelings for him, which here register as a tenderness she can barely acknowledge to herself, colored by shameful lust. "I ain't good enough, am I?" says Jud, confronting her. "I'm a h'ard hand, got dirt on my hands, pig-slop. Ain't fitten to tetch you. You're better, so much better." More than any veiled threat from Jud, it's the harshness of Laurey's reaction, played with blistering scorn by Jones, that gives the scene such a powerful sense of dread.

All this might give the misleading impression that Fish has drained every ounce of rambunctious fun from Oklahoma! But what he's really doing is expertly following Oscar Hammerstein's lead in coaxing forth exactly the kind of rich, fully integrated and continually evolving drama that made this such a groundbreaking musical for its time, while giving it a contemporary edge. And his interweaving of the show's lighter strands demonstrates expert modulation of tone.
Leading the charge on the comedy front is the incandescent Ali Stroker as an outrageously horny Ado Annie, in a triumphant performance packed with infectious joy. Promised in marriage to the utterly besotted dim-bulb cowboy Will Parker (James Davis), she also has a hankering for crafty Persian traveling peddler Ali Hakim (Will Brill). If Laurey is ashamed of her desire, making her hard and circumspect, Ado Annie is gloriously exultant in hers, but both women have ways of resisting men's attempts to stake a proprietary claim on them.



Stroker's take on the character's paean to romantic passion, "I Cain't Say No," is a rip-roaring delight, punctuated by wild little yips of irrepressible pleasure. The casting in this role of an actress who uses a wheelchair is genius, adding immeasurably to the full-force gusto with which Ado Annie revels in her sexuality. This might be my favorite performance on Broadway all season. Stroker literally lights up the stage, maneuvering her wheelchair like an extension of her body, particularly during the rousing dance at the social to "The Farmer and the Cowman." (While costumer Terese Wadden outfits the cast in period-nonspecific denim, flannel and Western-wear, she delivers a riot of gaudy color and '50s-style square-dance kitsch for the social.)

It doesn't hurt that both Davis and Brill are so hilarious. Will comes on all manly, pumped up from a recent Kansas City trip and a big win on the rodeo circuit, but struggling to stay aboard the hedonistic rollercoaster that is Ado Annie. His goofy dance moves are bliss. Ali, by contrast, is a wily opportunist, and Brill delivers his sardonic dialogue in a deadpan style that owes a debt to Bill Murray. The character's womanizing more than once leaves him looking down the barrel of an angry father's shotgun. There's inspired comedy also from Mallory Portnoy as Gertie Cummings, a man-hungry party girl from across the river, with the laugh of a hyena on meth.

The majority of the exemplary cast has been with the show since its sold-out Brooklyn run at St. Ann's Warehouse last fall, some going back to its 2015 Bard SummerScape premiere. The depth of their characterizations is notable, but so too is the expressiveness of their vocals.

Jones sings with tremendous feeling, going from raspy lows to giddy highs, while Daunno injects a gentle, lilting twang into his voice, at times rising into a sweet falsetto that teeters on the edge of a yodel. Their version of one of the great Rodgers & Hammerstein conditional love songs, "People Will Say We're in Love," starts with Jones in stubbornly antagonistic mode, before Daunno takes over and turns it into a swinging challenge to Laurey to maintain her detachment. As Zielinski dims the lights again, she responds with a twitchy dance of romantic rapture. But the real stunner comes later when they reprise the song as a duet performed together at a mic stand, with a swoony arrangement reminiscent of k.d. lang's early country recordings. Just beautiful.



Fish's most daring element, and the one likely to be the deal-breaker for anyone on the fence about the director's approach, is the dream ballet introduced into the original production by choreographer Agnes de Mille. Moved from its traditional spot as the Act I closer to the top of Act II, it's more tightly focused on Laurey herself, with the vigorously athletic dancer Gabrielle Hamilton representing her subconscious — wearing a too-literal "Dream Baby Dream" sequined T-shirt.

The interlude has a striking opening, with Hamilton galloping around the full oval of the stage like a wild horse bolting out of the pen. But the sequence goes on way too long and feels more like a legacy Fish felt compelled to honor than an integral part of this vision. Still, as choreographed by John Heginbotham with a nod to de Mille, and accompanied by wailing electric guitars, it's raw and sexual, conveying the danger coiled in Laurey's pent-up feelings. While the production is essentially colorblind, the fact that both Jones and Hamilton are black is significant in that it heightens introspective Laurey's struggle to figure out where she fits into the community.

The brutality of the dance erupts of course in the shattering final scenes, when wedding festivities are halted by violence. As the community, led with forbidding authority and zero conscience by Aunt Eller, conspires to bend justice and overlook a crime, the newly married couple seem to represent the new American century, their white wedding garb, like their faces, spattered in blood as they begin their new life.

And as the band strikes up a reprise of the proud title song, a jubilant anthem for a brand new state, the various characters' voices are tinged with anxious optimism, grim stoicism or even defiant fury. "You're doin' fine, Oklahoma! Oklahoma, O.K!" You wonder if any of them really will be fine, and it sends you out of this scorching revival with a shiver.

This is the review David Rooney wrote of THE GREATEST SHOWMAN --

www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/greatest-showman-film-1067827

Excerpts --

He starts his review with this assessment --

The sawdust and sequins are laid on thick, the period flashbulbs pop and the champagne flows in The Greatest Showman, yet this ersatz portrait of American big-top tent impresario P.T. Barnum is all smoke and mirrors, no substance. It hammers pedestrian themes of family, friendship and inclusivity while neglecting the fundaments of character and story. First-time director Michael Gracey exposes his roots in commercials and music videos by shaping a movie musical whose references go no further back than Baz Luhrmann. And despite a cast of proven vocalists led with his customary gusto by Hugh Jackman, the interchangeably generic pop songs are so numbingly overproduced they all sound like they're being performed off-camera...

And he concludes with this summary --

This is a movie that works way too hard at its magic, continually prompting us with insistent music cues to feel excitement that just isn't there. If P.T. Barnum had delivered entertainment this flat to his public, the name would have long been forgotten.