Threaded Order Chronological Order
| re: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 07:01 am EDT 04/05/23 | |
| In reply to: “Oklahoma!”: Audience Rejection On the Road. - kieran 08:12 pm EDT 04/04/23 | |
|
|
|
| This is a great article, I enjoyed reading it. When I first saw Daniel Fish's OKLAHOMA (which, yes, I call Fishlahoma), at St Annes, at intermission I was very intrigued. While I was perhaps less than in sync with Laurei being played as a sullen, unhappy tomboy, I love the musical arrangements, and the simplicity and honesty in the performances. When Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote OKLAHOMA, as a feel good musical (it still is by the way in any production other than Mr Fish's), Act 1 built to the real novelty, the Agnes de Mille ballet, 'Out of My Dreams'. This was revolutionary storytelling for a musical. And one that started with no chorus, but a solitary voice singing offstage. So I was fascinated that Act 1 of Mr Fish's production ended without the ballet. Then we figure out why. Act 2 opens with nightmare dance, some of the most incomprehensible and uninteresting minutes (hours) music I have every seen/heard in a musical. And I've seen SHOGUN THE MUSICAL and PIRATE QUEEN. Those 5-7 minutes of Jimi Hendrix style guitar wailing and stomping about the set turned me against the production. And they never got me back. Certainly not when Lairei performs oral sex on Jud (Yes, this happens - or did at St Annes and on Broadway. You dont see it. You hear it. ANd you see the aftermath); and not when self defense turns to murder. The production is like a set up - Act 1 allows you to go - this is different, but its good, how refreshing. Then Act 2 slams the door in the face with 'I hate America, we're horrible people, all the principal characters are horrible, Jud Fry is the hero!' Well - maybe not. Oklahoma is 80 years old - not quite as old as Shakespeare, but its of value that we see revisionist/new takes on famous plays and musicals. Sometimes we love them, sometimes not. There is no Shakespeare production so misguided that it does any damage t the greatness of what Shakespeare wrote. The last Broadway revival of GUYS AND DOLLS was a dismal failure in almost every way - but GUYS AND DOLLS remains one of the best of the best musicals of all time. And we will see productions of OKLAHOMA that represent more of what the authors intended than Mr Fish's did. The anger at American history, and at R&H's version of it, that Mr Fish had explode on stage struck a chord with many people. It is a rare talent to do that. ANd the anger that Mr Fish engendered in a lot of audiences is also a rare thing to be able to accomplish - and its an important thing. Taking a new, even controversial look at a play or musical is always important. So that even though A t 2 of this OKLAHOMA undid all of the promise I saw in Act One, I still found the experience exciting and exhilarating - because I could leave the theatre and talk about the show, not about what the chili tasted like. The production won awards, and had a nice Broadway run. But touring this production always seems a quixotic venture to me. Selling this show in Middle America was always going to a bait and switch affair. To sell enough tickets you have to sell Rodgers' and Hammerstein's OKLAHOMA! - but what that means to audiences as a dear memory is not what they are confronted with on stage. We knew that OKLAHOMA at St Annes was not going to be our grandparents Oklahoma. By the time it hit Broadway almost everyone knew that (though in the audience I saw it with on Broadway there were a lot of tourists who obviously thought the were coming to see the OKLAHOMA! they knew. On the road, the experience this gentleman so eloquently writes of has to be what the producers expected. I would be very surprised if they hadn't carefully prepared the company for the controversy and hostility that this production might encounter in some nights. Eva Price is way too smart not to have thought of that. |
|
| reply to this message |
Time to render: 0.024458 seconds.