Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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: 0.067453 seconds.