Threaded Order Chronological Order
| My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 12:52 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 12:50 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Oklahoma ending question -- Spoilers! Beware - aleck 09:46 pm EDT 06/19/19 | |
|
|
|
| This is frontier land with their own justice. The ambiguity of “falling on the knife” is completely eliminated. It is murder. But in frontier justice, it is served by a mock trial. The monotone discussion of curly’s guilt is going through the motions. What does mean for modern audience—this maybe a far fetched interpretation, but we are almost a frontier land with trump. Fake news is the truth—curly shot him in self defense—end of story and no proof is needed. The judge and lawman do what they want without having to follow the law. Welcome to the new state of Oklahoma and America. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: singleticket 09:49 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - dramedy 12:50 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| we are almost a frontier land with trump We, the U.S., have a history and foundation of frontier justice that existed and was operational long before Trump arrived. But yes, it resonates with Trump in office. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Last Edit: Ann 08:58 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| Posted by: Ann 08:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - dramedy 12:50 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I saw it (at St. Ann's) as Jud, feeling rejected from society and knowing he will never be accepted, pleading (wordlessly) with Curly to shoot him. It kind of felt like Fish tried to make the most anti-Rodgers and Hammerstein Oklahoma! he could without changing a word - then he had to change the knife reference. I don't know why R&H.org (maybe through the change in ownership?)/ Ted Chapin approved that change. But it seemed Fish really wanted a gun in there. The gun muddies the "trial" but I guess that's what he wanted. I admired a lot of what he did, I thought the music sounded beautiful, and the setting (lights up, in Brooklyn with the audience on bleachers I think, lack of traditional sets, etc.) was fine in a new way to look at it. I didn't like the black-outs. And the ending did not work for me, with the knife/gun change and Laurey still there with her blood-spattered wedding dress to the end. I would have admired it more as a creative experiment if he had succeeded in doing it without changing a word, 100%. It's obvious that it makes people think (maybe with a smote of the brow), and that's not a bad thing. I'm surprised at its box office success, but I think that's a good thing (the box office, not my surprise). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Last time I checked | |
| Posted by: dramedy 10:26 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 08:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| assisted suicide is not legal in most states and especially a hundred years ago. If someone hands me a loaded gun and says shoot me, I’m still guilty of murder. Maybe second degree and not first degree. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Last time I checked | |
| Posted by: Ann 10:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Last time I checked - dramedy 10:26 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Not cold-blooded, which was what I was saying. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Ok | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Last time I checked - Ann 10:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Luke warm blooded. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:19 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 08:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "It's obvious that it makes people think (maybe with a smote of the brow), and that's not a bad thing. " I have never bought this argument. If I were to direct a production of SHE LOVES ME set in a maximum security prison, or a production of CAROUSEL set in a colony on Mars, I'm pretty sure both of those productions would "make people think." But that doesn't necessarily mean I have any talent, or that I should be allowed to disrespect the work of great musical theater writers. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: BroadwayMarley 02:49 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Michael_Portantiere 10:19 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| It seems to me the issue is not whether Fish is brilliant or not. The issue is whether the reimagining as a whole is provocative and done well. I agree with those who think the show succeeds on both counts. It's fine to have a different opinion and not like the show. But it's another thing to say the reimagining is somehow disrespectful. If the original creators were still alive, rather than feel disrespected, they might well have been intrigued and even flattered to see such a different spin on their creation. So, go ahead and voice your opinions against this version but don't reimagine what the creators MIGHT have thought and felt. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Ann 10:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Michael_Portantiere 10:19 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I don't think things like this disrespect the work of great musical theater writers,(especially) if they do it without changing what those writers wrote. I might not enjoy them all, or think they all work as real interpretations (as opposed to just throwing stuff out there - the "colony on Mars" sounds like that) I don't know Daniel Fish, and if he's just doing this because he can, just as an exercise, then I guess we're all the fools. I felt he was making some points, or at least offering things that people could draw points from. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 08:33 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 10:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, as a science fiction/fantasy writer, I can see CAROUSEL in a Martian colony with no problems at all. I mean, even R&H changed the setting of the original LILIOM to 1890s New England. The point is, it's an insular community of some sort where status matters, Billy and Julie don't quite fit, and options for advancement are few. You can do that on Mars. Ooop--well, there is one problem: unless terraforming has gone a long way, Mr. Snow is gonna have a hard time with that fleet.... Laura, feeling sassy |
|
| Link | Team PhoebeSteps fights Juvenile Arthritis! |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:35 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - showtunetrivia 08:33 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "Actually, as a science fiction/fantasy writer, I can see CAROUSEL in a Martian colony with no problems at all. I mean, even R&H changed the setting of the original LILIOM to 1890s New England. The point is, it's an insular community of some sort where status matters, Billy and Julie don't quite fit, and options for advancement are few. You can do that on Mars. Ooop--well, there is one problem: unless terraforming has gone a long way, Mr. Snow is gonna have a hard time with that fleet...." Thanks, Laura. But I think there might be one or two other "problems" with setting the show on Mars -- for example, that big song and dance about the weather in June....... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And the clams are really Martians!! | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 04:55 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Michael_Portantiere 02:35 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| So we still have a few kinks to iron out in this adaptation... Laura, still intrigued |
|
| Link | Team PhoebeSteps--Walk to Cure Arthritis! |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| Maybe Martian sheep actually mate in June... | |
| Posted by: garyd 05:53 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
| In reply to: And the clams are really Martians!! - showtunetrivia 04:55 pm EDT 06/21/19 | |
|
|
|
| that, at least, would solve one classic problem. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:58 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 10:32 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I don't think things like this disrespect the work of great musical theater writers,(especially) if they do it without changing what those writers wrote. " As has been discussed here at length, including within this thread, Daniel Fish DID change what the creators of OKLAHOMA! wrote. Although many have insisted that not a word of the dialogue has been changed, this is simply not true -- cutting the reference to Jud going after Curly with a knife, and substituting a gun (even if no one actually says the word "gun"), is rewriting, and so is the addition of the line "You know what you have to do." But even if there had been zero cuts or changes to the actual dialogue, the current production has still changed what the writers wrote to a large extent, with the the incorporation of stage business that contradicts what's in the original script (such as the sex scene between Laurey and Jud, and Curly killing Jud with a gun). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: JAllenC3 04:18 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Michael_Portantiere 10:58 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| You keep talking about this "sex scene" between Laurey and Jud. I didn't see it (or hear it) that way when I saw the show and neither did many other people who saw the production as they've stated here. Is it possible that YOU read into something that Daniel Fish didn't intend? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 04:30 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - JAllenC3 04:18 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "You keep talking about this 'sex scene' between Laurey and Jud. I didn't see it (or hear it) that way when I saw the show and neither did many other people who saw the production as they've stated here. Is it possible that YOU read into something that Daniel Fish didn't intend?" I honestly don't know what you're talking about. As has been noted every time the scene in question has been mentioned, the scene in question takes place in total darkness. Jud and Laurey enter, then the lights black out, then we hear sounds of some kind of sexual interaction -- it could be just very deep kissing, it could be fellatio. Then the lights come up, and we see Jud doing up his pants. So, what did you hear that was different from what I heard? And what do you think the audience is supposed to think is happening in the blackout? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: schlepper 04:52 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Michael_Portantiere 04:30 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "I honestly don't know what you're talking about. As has been noted every time the scene in question has been mentioned, the scene in question takes place in total darkness. Jud and Laurey enter, then the lights black out, then we hear sounds of some kind of sexual interaction -- it could be just very deep kissing, it could be fellatio. Then the lights come up, and we see Jud doing up his pants. So, what did you hear that was different from what I heard? And what do you think the audience is supposed to think is happening in the blackout?" And it could just as easily be the sound of Jud exposing himself and jerking off in front of her. There's nothing at all in the scene to suggest that she was a participant -- willing or otherwise. But I'm sure you'll come back with a 12 paragraph response detailing why that's not the case and why you still hate the show! LOL |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:32 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - schlepper 04:52 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "And it could just as easily be the sound of Jud exposing himself and jerking off in front of her. There's nothing at all in the scene to suggest that she was a participant -- willing or otherwise. But I'm sure you'll come back with a 12 paragraph response detailing why that's not the case and why you still hate the show! " Twelve paragraphs not necessary. At the performance I attended, I definitely heard sounds of Laurey participating in some sort of sexual contact or at least DEEP kissing with Jud -- there were lip smacking sounds from Rebecca Naomi Jones and some soft moaning, in addition to the sounds that were coming from Patrick Vail. Did you honestly think the sounds you heard in the blackout sounded like Jud masturbating, with no reaction or participation from Laurey? I can't imagine what's the point in you or anyone else mischaracterizing the sounds heard in the blackout. It is what it is, and I didn't direct it, I'm only reacting to it. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me | |
| Posted by: aleck 09:20 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 08:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| That was my inditial reaction. I could see Jud's face from where I was sitting, but his back was to about 70% of the rest of the audience. The gun seemed to be presented as an invitation. And Jud's face was like an imploring invitation.(like a They Shoot Horses, Don't They moment.) However, I don't think the dialog that follows supports that interpretation and the blood-splattered white wedding garments didn't bring up any joyful support for those closing songs. By the way, when dealing with possible spoilers on this board I think you should avoid announcing the actual spoiler in your message title. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I agree. When I saw it in Circle in the Square, my first thought was that Judd engineered his death. | |
| Last Edit: tmdonahue 09:15 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 09:11 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Not exactly cold-blooded murder, to me - Ann 08:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Judd not only put the gun in Curly's hand but he cocked the trigger after saying "You know what to do." Curly was passive in this exchange of the wedding gift. Curly shot without raising his arm as one might expect in a killing. But I also believe Daniel Fish was going for ambiguity rather than psychology, a collision of images and styles that would lead the audience to consider the musical differently than they might have in a conventional staging. Hence, everyone goes right on to sing a happy song, including Judd who rises from the stage floor. Fish leaves many moments unresolved. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| And... | |
| Posted by: sirpupnyc 10:53 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: I agree. When I saw it in Circle in the Square, my first thought was that Judd engineered his death. - tmdonahue 09:11 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| The shot comes in a blackout, so no one except maybe Curly knows how it happens. Everyone's going to fill in those few sound-only seconds with their own assumptions. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:04 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - dramedy 12:50 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| The problem with interpreting this production as being about America in the time of Trump is that Fish first directed a production of the show back in 2007 at Bard. I don't know how close that was to the current production, but this production basically goes back to 2015 at Bard. I know that changes have been made, but my understanding is that, if anything those changes softened the murder of Jud (as it would seem one would have to describe it in this production). IIRC, it was reported in 2015 that Curly shot Jud as Jud was walking away from him (and Jud's back to Curly). Personally, I don't think that Rodgers and Hammerstein intended there to be any ambiguity about Jud falling on his own knife, nor do I think that Lynn Riggs intended there to be any ambiguity about it |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: ryhog 08:35 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - AlanScott 01:04 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Regarding your last paragraph, just to make sure there is no confusion, I don't think there is any ambiguity about Fish charting a course that's not beholden to anyone else's previous intentions. One can love or hate any or all of the updates, but they are not unintentional or accidentally effected. I agree the production is not a reaction to Tangerine Man, but I think it does reflect a state of mind that's quite evolved from that of a century earlier, when it is set, or WWII, when it was written. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - AlanScott 01:04 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| ... nor did R&H or Riggs intend for there to be a homo-erotic scene between Jud and Curley, nor did they intend for Jud to have a scene where Laurey performs oral sex on him - the latter being the moment that many are in denial of (though some on this site understood it as clearly as I did. Its, like, pretty hard to miss). I have seen a lot of Mr Fish's work over the years, and the one theme that runs thru all of it is that we are intended to spend every moment in the theatre thinking of Mr Fish. Why does Laurey scowl from the opening of the show? Why she is unhappy and unpleasant? Why does she scream out all of her music. What is that god awful stomping dance routine that starts act 2 (the original dream ballet - not nightmare - ended Act 1. It was a highlight.) There are some engaging performances in this revival of OKLAHOMA to be sure. But much of it is a mess, lost in the mess of Mr Fish's mind. IMHO. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Your mind is in the gutter | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 11:47 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:46 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - NewtonUK 07:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| And I usually like that. At most it is a hand job and uncompleted. There is no indication she was on her knees. One lady in the audience complained that judd wasn’t menacing in stature like previous productions, but I actually liked that jud is more threatening in what he says than his looks which is actually more deceiving as an potential rapist. And I could see Laurie kind of wanting the cute bad boy instead of the usual unattractive lug. Also, i did not feel the smoke house scene as homoerotic but more menacing threats behind the words spoken. I never once thought curly and jud were going to get it on. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Your mind is in the gutter | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:13 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: Your mind is in the gutter - dramedy 11:46 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| "There is no indication she was on her knees. " True, but for what it's worth, there's also no indication that she wasn't on her knees :-) As you know, that scene takes place in complete darkness, and when the lights come up, we see Jud doing up his pants. Laurey is standing at that point, but that doesn't mean she was standing during the sex act. As I remember it, the sounds we here in the darkness are inconclusive, sounding like heavy making out or.....something else. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Your mind is in the gutter | |
| Last Edit: dramedy 02:23 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| Posted by: dramedy 02:23 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Your mind is in the gutter - Michael_Portantiere 02:13 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think it’s kissing and jerking. Laurie is as pure as the driven sandstorm during the dust bowl—oops, different era. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: showtunesoprano 11:09 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - NewtonUK 07:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| When on earth does Laurey perform oral sex on Jud? Are you talking about their scene in the dark? They were kissing, and then you hear his belt getting unbuckled, but then she immediately breaks it off and the lights come back on. We see him buckling his belt back up, yes, but it had only been open for a second. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:24 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - showtunesoprano 11:09 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think what we hear, and what we see when the lights come back up, is inconclusive. But I also think what exactly happens in the dark doesn't really matter, because even it it's just deep kissing, there is no way that the character of Laurey as written by the creators of the show would ever have willingly participated in any kind of making love with Jud Fry. And for her to do so doesn't even make sense for the character as reconceived, let alone for the character as originally conceived. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:28 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - NewtonUK 07:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| NewtonUK, I agree with every word you wrote -- so much so that I literally had to re-read the ID twice to make sure it wasn't me who had written the post :-) I, too, think it's extremely weird how so many people are in denial about the sex scene between Laurey and Jud. And I am also amazed that so many people either somehow failed to notice, or weren't at all bothered by, the fact that Laurey is SO mean, nasty, and unpleasant towards Curley throughout the long first scene of the show that it seems clear she REALLY hates him, does not want him around, and DOES NOT want to go to the box social with him. Oh, and Aunt Eller is scarcely any warmer towards Curley, so why he doesn't just call it a day and exit after the reception he gets for "Oh, What a Beautiful Mornin'" is beyond me. As for your comment I have seen a lot of Mr Fish's work over the years, and the one theme that runs thru all of it is that we are intended to spend every moment in the theatre thinking of Mr Fish" -- this OKLAHOMA! is my first experience of his work, but I certainly agree on the basis of what he has done to this show. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: garyd 01:18 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - AlanScott 01:04 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Correct. This was all hatched pre-Trump. The 2015 ending is similar to the current ending but the current is softened slightly, in that one can, with a WHOLE lot of mental gymnastics, consider this to be a suicide by Jud in that Jud walks, not away, but menacingly toward Curly and Laurie. And so, we move forward into a "beautiful day" but with the permanent stain of trampling on "the other" amongst us. The blocking of the reprise of the title number underscores this with Jud singing but totally separated from the rest of the cast. Agree this is not an R&H intention, but not so sure about Riggs. (though the Riggs ending is certainly not ambiguous in terms of Jud falling on his own knife). So much for the ending. Now someone, please, please, explain the ballet. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: singleticket 09:57 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - garyd 01:18 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| So much for the ending. Now someone, please, please, explain the ballet. It was a dream ballet but with different choreography than Agnes de Mille's. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 01:31 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - garyd 01:18 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for the reply and the confirmation, garyd. I'm a little confused by this: "Agree this is not an R&H intention, but not so sure about Riggs. (though the Riggs ending is certainly not ambiguous in terms of Jud falling on his own knife)." I think you're agreeing with me that Jud falls on his own knife in Riggs (although the stage directions are less explicit about this than in Oklahoma!) so I'm not sure what you're saying about there perhaps being uncertainty about Riggs's intention. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware | |
| Posted by: garyd 01:42 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - AlanScott 01:31 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, Jud falls on his own knife in Riggs. No doubt. However, I get the impression, from doing a bit of research on Riggs over the years, that Riggs did consider Jud, well the character most of us know as Jud, to be a sympathetic "other". Spent some time with several Bard folk a few weeks ago over a Memorial day gathering and they feel Fish spent quite a bit of time with the "Green Grow...." script and that it had a significant influence on his interpretation. (the "folk songs" especially seem to influence the "country western" feel of the song delivery and orchestrations of the current production as well as the smoke house scene in this production....which I think is exquisite). Now, once again, that ballet. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Sorry it's taken me several days to reply, garyd | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 09:54 pm EDT 06/25/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - garyd 01:42 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I wrote a reply to you a few days ago, but I wanted to re-read all the Jeeter stuff in the play before posting it. And now that I have, I have revised what I almost posted a few days ago. I don't find the Jeeter of the play to be more sympathetic than Jud. If anything, I think he’s less sympathetic than Jud. He’s really a scary creep. He’s troubled, but he seems even scarier and more dangerous than Jud. Even more than in the musical, it seems like he would rape Laurey and then possibly kill her if given the chance. I've always found Jud in the musical a partly sympathetic character, but he is also a dangerous sociopath. I think the trick is to make him understandable, almost certainly the victim of some kind of severe child abuse, and not just scary and creepy, and yet to make him also scary and creepy and someone you'd never want to know and whom you would probably reject if you did know him. If we can trust what Hammerstein wrote about the song in his Notes on Lyrics, Riggs approved the song because “It will scare hell out of the audience.” So that doesn’t necessarily suggest that he viewed Jeter very sympathetically. I realize, of course, that both can be possible, and I would think that both Riggs and Hammerstein wanted us to feel some degree of sympathy for him but not too much. And, really, I think any sympathy we feel for Jeeter in the play comes only in his final lines after Laurey fires him. I think a useful comparison might be made between "Lonely Room" and the Judge's "Johanna," but I'll leave that for another day. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sorry it's taken me several days to reply, garyd | |
| Posted by: garyd 08:10 pm EDT 06/26/19 | |
| In reply to: Sorry it's taken me several days to reply, garyd - AlanScott 09:54 pm EDT 06/25/19 | |
|
|
|
| No problem. Always good hearing from you . I think your thoughts concerning Jeeter are valid. He is creepier than Jud and Fish's Jud is a whole lot creepier than R&H Jud. The Fish Jud could definitely be capable of rape and murder. This comes not just from the interpretation of the actor but mainly from the manner in which Fish directs two important scenes involving Jud and Curly and then Jud and Laurey. And, as in most top notch productions of OKLAHOMA!, the majority of audience sympathy for Jud comes from the actor/director interpretation of "Lonely Room". This is the case, in my view, of the Fish production as well. And the Fish final scene certainly invokes sympathy along with a very large dose of shock bordering a bit too close to a true WTF moment. Upon reflection, I think my view of Jeeter as sympathetic comes not so much from a close reading of the play as it does from perhaps projecting more than appropriate on several interviews I have read with Riggs. A contrast/compare discussion of "Lonely Room" and the Judge's "Johanna" would be a lot of fun. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sorry it's taken me several days to reply, garyd | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 04:20 am EDT 06/27/19 | |
| In reply to: re: Sorry it's taken me several days to reply, garyd - garyd 08:10 pm EDT 06/26/19 | |
|
|
|
| I'm glad you were able to follow my post. When I re-read it, I realized it really needed at least one more go-through before I posted it. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| There's nothing to be said about the ballet. | |
| Posted by: tmdonahue (tmdonahue@yahoo.com) 09:13 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: My opinion—- Spoilers! Beware - garyd 01:42 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Except it was well-danced and energetic. Oh, one might say one thing: how could you do the Agnes de Mille ballet in this production, even if you could afford the dancers? By itself, that doesn't justify the ballet. Boring after a few moments. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 01:05 am EDT 06/21/19 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 01:03 am EDT 06/21/19 | |
| In reply to: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. - tmdonahue 09:13 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think maybe the young bald creature in the “ballet” might be supposed to represent Laury. They’re both female, and the “ballet” creature in her underwear had dark tones to her skin which, in the play, told me that we the audience were supposed to have been reading Laury within the context of the African-American female in the Old West. Before that, I hadn’t realized that Laury was supposed to reflect something about “race in America” in some kinda essay-ish way. Also, I didn’t think Laury gave Jud a bl*w-job in the black-out. I thought, from the sounds, that he had kissed her very mushily and then he had unbuckled his pants and she’d pushed him away and then the lights came up. For those of you who think Laury went down on Jud...well, if she wanted to go down on him so much, then shouldn’t she have tried to save him from being murdered at the end? Or is she just sort of serial man-hater and can we expect her to go down on Curly in the sequel, post-wedding, and then engineer his death later on too...? And, though there was an intense homosocial energy between Curly and Jud in the earlier black-out-scene, I think it was definitely homosocial rather than homosexual. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 11:35 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. - tmdonahue 09:13 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| Well - they weren't going to use the De Mille in this production, thats for darn tootin sure. But the dream ballet is a famous element, adding pure dance to the storytelling world of a musical. To be honest, if I had been directing this production, I would have the perfect opportunity to deal with the ballet - take intermission before it, come back to the scene after it. We wouldn't have missed it. If the 'ballet' is there, and takes up its full 14 minutes stage time, then it needs to have a purpose other than to show us an angry, frustrated black woman. Laurey is played as an angry frustrated black woman for 95% of the production. We don't need 14 minutes of acrobatic dancing to remind us of that. In great musicals - musicals written by people who write great musicals - everything in the show explains, plot, character, inner life. The dance in FISHLAHOMA does none of these things. It just exists, in a musical world totally out of context with anything that has come before or after. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. | |
| Posted by: aleck 09:31 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. - tmdonahue 09:13 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I was baffled and bored by that ballet myself. But I was sitting in the middle of a group of high school students and the dance was the part of the production they liked the most. Otherwise, they were mostly bored, although some were engaged and others not. This was a mixture of both boys and girls. The girls seemed more bored than the boys, which I thought was interesting. Later, thinking back on the production (and actually the material itself), this is more of a play about the hopes and fears of men and how they interact with one another to get what they want. The women might be the target of these interactions, but the hopes and dreams of the women are limited and not very deep. So, you have Curly vs. Jud over Laury and Will and Ali over Ado, plus the farmers and the cowboys (men) fighting for prominence. There is almost no conflict among the women, except for Aunt Eller who serves as the arbiter of frontier social behavior and justice. The boys in that high school group seemed to be engaged in sorting out all the behavior clues of the men. The girls were mostly thrilled by that "dream" dance, which, other than Aunt Eller, provided the only expression of female strength. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. | |
| Posted by: ryhog 12:18 pm EDT 06/20/19 | |
| In reply to: re: There's nothing to be said about the ballet. - aleck 09:31 am EDT 06/20/19 | |
|
|
|
| I think you've hit on an important observation about resonance. I think the "anti" sentiment here reveals a lot of anger that someone has had the temerity to stage a show for a demographic with which they cannot identify. Kinda like my great grandmother thought Gershwin was garbage. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.170182 seconds.