I’ve been obsessed with Patrick Vaill’s portrayal of Jud since I saw Oklahoma on Broadway in the summer of 2019. It stuck in my head (and heart) so much that I ended up seeing the show again on its Broadway closing night in January 2020 (coming to NYC from Florida)! I am someone who grew up watching the Oklahoma movie religiously, and the way he changed my (very set) image of Jud was amazing.
I saw this at Circle in the Square on Broadway and was blown away. Obsessed. I thought it was so successful. People DID walk out in the middle! Or express shock or distaste on their way out. My whole family loved it, including my older parents. I have loved Rogers and Hammerstein since childhood so I am very nostalgic for it, but this staging and framing of the story totally nailed it in way I didn’t expect, bringing the smartest, deepest, and darkest themes that Rogers and Hammerstein right to the forefront (especially the exploration of men’s entitlement to women’s bodies compared to the “manifest destiny” attitude of westward expansion). I disagree that all these themes are not present or intended in the original text; Rogers and Hammerstein’s work I think was often very sharp and progressive for their time- questioning and confronting American history, ideals,and values with something that appears spectacular or wholesome on surface- and people have spent decades ignoring those themes and making very superficial productions. I was very excited and nervous to see what the hell it would be like on tour, stopping in very traditional houses. I didn’t know if it would work; the non-traditional house and interactive elements absolutely prime you for the more confrontational moments of the production, plus it’s just fun that they fed us the chili and cornbread at intermission. I don’t really love audience participation or anything, but having the long thrust stage (with the stage kind of level with the front row, patrons seated on picnic tables), it was really exciting. The views were incredible at the shorter distances. My local tour stop in Southern California is a massive house, by comparison. Sound isn’t great at the cheap seats. The patrons tend to be older and a little out of touch (even to the point of darker, uncomfortable moments getting a genuine laugh when actually clever jokes don’t). I was very curious to see it again and find out if my market could handle it, but after the pandemic, it didn’t come on tour to my area (yet). I wish there were more large flex or non-proscenium venues for broadway tours to stop at in the US, because maybe people would produce some more experimental stuff like this on a larger scale!
I saw this on Broadway. I came in knowing it wasn't the standard production of the show, yet still wasn't prepared for the ending. It was terrifying. I would love to see this again. Really thought-provoking.
OK, take from a non-press night: I loved this production at the Young Vic, and love the transfer too, but left a midweek matinee very deflated because of the amount of older theatre-goers who were clearly not expecting it to be what it was - some leaving at interval, more complaining, and one asking front of house staff to turn the “very bright” auditorium lights off while the show is going on (!). It’s really rough being the only person having a good time and I can’t say I entirely blame the people who were upset - the expectation management and advertising around the show hasn’t really done enough to shout ‘this is not the Oklahoma you think it is’ when it’s been plonked in a generally-quite-traditional venue. I think it worked better in the Young Vic because people very much leave their expectations at the door in that space. There are some West End venues that have a similar vibe, so it’s a shame that it’s in the space that it is in.
yeah, i have no idea why they shine the lights in the audience's eyes...it was horrid. the contemporary routine was obviously shoehorned in and made no sense, and it dragged on forever.
I absolutely loved the show at the young vic but I found the audience behaviour at the wyndhams to be appalling. Lots of talking and people on their phones. I put this down to the house lights being up but it put a damper such a brilliant show!
Yeah I went last night and audience behaviour was amazing. At first I found people laughing at dramatic moments to be a bit weird and off putting but I think that mixture of comedy and drama and the uncomfortable vibe which comes from that was actually brilliant.
Loved both of your reviews on this show! I saw this on broadway and agreed with the dream ballet.. I literally had no idea what was going on.. and the ending as well was very confusing.. I LOVE Oklahoma! And it was certainly a different take on the show.. and the cast was magnificent! They were supposed to bring this version to Australia but it was cancelled due to Covid.. I’ll keep you updated with Australian productions.. or lack of..😅
I just think it’s gross to label/recast Jud Fry as a suitor or love interest to Laurie when his entire pitch is ‘marry me or I will assault you and murder the guy you like’. Yes, Curley’s suicide baiting is bad, but that doesn’t suddenly make Jud NOT a sexual predator, and making Laurie seriously consider him as an option grosses me out. The picnic auction and sham trial and sui-baiting can all be (and ARE) bad without making Jud ‘good’. Why do we need to act like Jud did nothing wrong in order to understand that he’s human and doesn’t deserve to be killed? Because we’re uncomfortable with the fact that people who do horrible things are all still human. That scares us. Jud doesn’t deserve ostracization or murder but he IS still an attempted r*pist and murderer. Both of those things are true. Edit: Should clarify that I didn’t actually get to see this production, I was going off what I’ve heard about the choices they make, which was unfair of me. That’s my bad, I should have made that clear.
Thank you! That’s my sole issue with this new production. I love that they stripped back so much to show the darker elements, but trying to make Jud sympathetic when the text clearly shows that he’s a predator and attempts to assault Laurie doesn’t work.
@@kelseighingram TBH, I don't entirely agree that the production says that Jud is entirely sympathetic. I think it just gave him some more layers. All of his problematic elements are definitely still in the text and they didn't tone that down imo. The whole thing was an already bad situation that should have been handled differently. My interpretation of the revival is it's ultimately from Laurey's point of view and her experience being swept up in a frightening two way battle of toxic masculinity.
Thank you! I was very disturbed that this version downplayed/romanticised Jud assaulting Laurie! And why would he kiss her at the wedding and she just stands there! We've worked so hard to call out sexual misconduct, I don't want to go back to, "aww well, it's just so confusing..," Jud is a predator. He knows it. We know it. He wasn't entitled to Laurie and Laurie never wanted Jud, she was scared of him.
@@kelseighingram agreed! And by killing Jud in cold blood instead of Jud dying by accident like in the movie, it basically makes Jud the sympathetic character rather than having any reflection on his actions towards Laurie…not to mention he basically confessed to murdering a family…I don’t get how a whole team of creatives and actors could breeze by that…
I am in love with this production of Oklahoma! possibly my favourite piece of theatre I have ever seen. Never seeing or knowing much of the material before I connected so much with this portrayal of the story and went away in shock at how urgent and relatable it felt to todays society with the clear directorial vision of Daniel Fish. I’m hoping to go back and see it at the Wyndham’s I loved it so much and would love to see Patrick Vaille as Judd Fry again who I thought stole the show with his gripping portrayal of the character. Quite simply if you don’t want to see the beloved classic Oklahoma “ruined” or “changed” by this new vision for it - don’t go. I’m sure the theatre can fill up without the need for the custom of moaning, archaic audience members who have no appetite for anything remotely fresh or exciting. I wish it every success.
thanks so much for this review! i saw the show in its US tour, and while i struggled with it initially, i have really come to enjoy it. i found myself thinking all the time, and any show that can keep me thinking about its emotional and societal truths nearly a year later has to be a standout. one question though: you mentioned that the Dream Ballet had no one else on stage. did they cut the moment when all of the men come onto the stage to box her in? if so, that's a huge loss for the choreography and storytelling of that moment (not to mention that the lighting of that moment gives me chills just thinking about it), and i would really hope they bring it back. can't wait to see this show again!
I saw this production in Brooklyn. For sure it was not my mothers Oklahoma! (She saw the original in 1943) That said it brings new life and hopefully new audiences to the play
My mom said she ushered one too many summer stock performances of Oklahoma in the 60s in swelteringly hot tents to ever watch the show again. We weren’t even allowed to rent the movie as kids!
Once again MickeyJo gives perspective and insight that enhances my appreciation of something I've already seen. It isn't so much remembering but it is more that I'm able to react to MickeyJo's opinions, perspectives, and re-telling. I saw this on Broadway in it's first year. Being from the US, I saw it as a celebration of the cowboy mentality and how such seems to be gaining momentum, not just in the US, but in many parts of the world. As I saw it in 2019 at Circle in the Square Theatre (a U shape stage experience) I agree that it was often difficult to follow the visual cues. I felt the dream dance sequence was incredibly done and awesome artistry but did not move the story forward. At that time there were so many things I enjoyed more which I think adds to my disappointment in this production. Mainly I felt it was not tight storytelling, celebrated violence too much, and was too long (2 hours 45 minutes).
I love hearing your thoughts on this version of Oklahoma. I haven’t seen it.. to be honest, this show would definitely not be for me. I have too many happy memories of watching the movie version with my mom. I still love to watch the film and hear the music- like comfort food when I’m missing my late parents. I’m happy it’s out there for others to enjoy but I’m not surprised it’s been polarizing.
This has been the worst West End 'musical' I've seen in the last 12 years. Only the first and last songs were acceptable, the scarcely few others were more amateur dramatics standard like what would be seen in high school, college production. Dull, not change of setting, Boring cast sat around a long table for ages. I actually nodded off a number of times. The two blackouts lasting 5-10 minutes were totally irrelevant to the story line. Really a waste of time and money when I could be seeing other shows.
You are 100% right on it being polarising. From what I’ve heard there are definitely some people that are leaving before the end of the show every evening so far. Hope to see you at Bake Off press night!
Saw a couple days ago that Arthur Darvill was leaving so finally caught it today for what turned out to be his last show. I have never seen a traditional version of Oklahoma but that is because the idea always sounded dated, so I really appreciate what this revival has done to lean into the darkness of the text underneath. I did see this version on Broadway a few years ago so it was interesting to see it again - the dark moments had stayed with me but I'd forgotten about most of the comedy, really enjoyed the Will/Ali/Annie plotline this time. I did actually hear someone in the interval saying they were going to leave for the second act so it happens!
Of course I understand why someone might not like this version of Oklahoma if they are fans of the original framing but for me many of these contemporary changes just highlight issues I held with the original (i.e. lack of agency of the women in the auction). I still love the music and joviality of the original but I think it is important to provoke questions about old shows like this sometimes. And to those complaining that "everything" has this social spin now, I suppose you've either missed or are willfully ignoring most other musical revivals from the past few years e.g. Anything Goes and My Fair Lady. Anyway, excellent review! Hearing you articulate your views helped me realize things I both loved and took issue with.
I so wished I had seen your reviews BEFORE I saw the show last weekend (in the Wyndham). I was so shocked and didn't enjoy the show AT THE TIME. Subsequently, I love it and can't stop thinking about it. I felt bad for the Swedish family (including grandparents and children) who had time in London to see only one show and saw this. They were shocked and dismayed. As you say in your other review, "this is not a pleasant Saturday afternoon entertainment. This a piece of provocative art designed to challenge and make you feel uncomfortable things." BOY WAS THIS EVERY TRUE. You also said, "Who should see this show? If you are a fan of Oklahoma, and the movie and Roger & Hammerstein musicals, then this is not the show for you." SO TRUE. This show NEEDS spoilers and I believe that spoilers would have helped me enjoy it more. I have to go back and see it again so that I can enjoy it better.
I saw it last Saturday. It took me a while to work it all out and I didn’t know much about the show. But… since Saturday evening I haven’t stopped thinking about it and I need to go again. It really has stayed with me and in the darkest more tense moments it was actually frightening
Reminded me of a above average high school play... the best bit was the end, so I could go home and forget about it. This is not an attack on the performers they can only act with what they have been given...
The lights on made me feel so stressed at the start but now I understand that it was purposeful. The brightness was almost like in the horror film Midsommar.
I'm a volunteer usher at a theatre in the US that gets national tours, and we got this version of Oklahoma! last season. I, who admittedly had never seen a production of Oklahoma! nor knew much about the show, enjoyed it. I tend to like more contemporary musicals over older ones, so I liked how this production was different but I did have my own small problems with it, and also believed it may have been better in a smaller, more intimate venue (like the Circle in the Square theatre) as opposed to a standard proscenium stage. But a lot of those I talked to there, including older patrons who loved original versions of Oklahoma!, HATED it. We even had patrons come up to us during intermission and tell us how it was the worst show they had ever seen and how offensive it was, and we had many people walk out during intermission. I can understand not liking a certain production, but I'm also of the opinion that the show embodied what a revival is - a chance to look at a show maybe in another light, and to experiment with its production to better suit a more modern (and perhaps younger) audience. It's become a bit of a joke now among the usher staff, because of how polarizing it was and how the audience was lol. Definitely a show you either loved or hated.
Saw the US touring version which was a proscenium staging. I agree with many of your comments. The orchestration was great and suited the music. The darkness and video were surprising, but theatrical and innovative. The dream ballet was a nightmare, and didn't really connect to the rest of the show. Agnes deMille could tell a story, and adding other cast members would have brought some focus and connectedness. The biggest disappointment was the staging at the end which was very static and dispassionate. If the most important thing you have to do is read the director's rationale in the Playbill before you start the show, it could be a giveaway that the director's intent was not fully realized within the production.
I saw this at the Wyndham 2 nights ago with Sam Palladio as Curley and it has taken me this long to process it! I have had so much to think about with this production which i think in itself shows how intense and provoking it was. I didnt know anything about Oklahoma or this production before i saw this and i think that I would appreciated/ understood the changes more if i had seen the traditional version and grasped that plot first. I had no idea what the dance was and I thought it was about assult because i got the wrong end of the stick and then I was really confused. I was confused by the plot between Laurie and Curley because I couldn’t tell if Laurie liked him or not and I wish her initial interactions with him were a little lighter and more flirtatious rather than her seeming like she hates him in the start of act 1, and then she flips suddenly to being attracted to him. She was a great singer and actress but i agree that her direction in particular made her character somewhat flat and difficult to understand. I think so much of the plot relies on her feelings about Jud and Curley and without truly knowing that, we dont really know how sinister any of the scenes between them are which perhaps is an artistic decision. Still, I think her indifference makes it difficult to root for her in a way. I’m still confused by the portrayal of Jud. I saw this production with 3 others and we all had different ideas of what happened between him and Laurie in act 2 during the blackout. I took the whole scene as non consensual but she was too scared to leave. The others thought she was indifferent until he went further. I found Jud very sinister and terrifying from the start when Laurie said he watches her from trees and his language during his solo was very misogynistic. However, I’ve seen people saying how this version paints im in a misunderstood light. I can’t really get behind him being misunderstood as it seems to me he feels he has a right to claim Laurie just because he likes her which for me made him seem very dangerous and I was scared everytime he was alone with her. However, I really liked the portrayal of Curley as an imperfect character as there are moments that in present times just cant be justified without acknowledging. In my opinion, especially the unaliving song with Jud and him strangely kissing laurie straight after it seems she was assulted and wants protection. The biggest thing I would change is perhaps adding more of a scrap between curley and jud in the end like in the original. Maybe with jud holding a gun also. I think the ending could have been just as haunting with more of a fight as it didnt really seem realistic to me. Curley shooting him didnt seem to match what we knew about him as a character and i also have no idea why he let jud kiss laurie or why she kissed him back at their WEDDING. I would love to know what was behind that decision as it was really creepy. Overall, i would love to see this show again now i have read about the original so that i can relax and really watch the acting and try to understand the intentions of the actors better. Also I thought that the singing and acting in general was outstanding and is one of the most solid casts ive ever seen. Every solo i was amazed! So many thoughts and feelings lol
I saw Oklahoma 3 times in Los Angeles in Oct 2022. One thing I really loved about the tour was some of the social commentary they quietly made in casting, producing, etc. I had someone seated by me get upset that the stage walls were covered in rifles that only got referenced in the scene work once or twice, as they felt they were unnecessary. I said yes, but they mentioned how the show was gun neutral, each appearance of a gun in the show resulted in a donation to a nonprofit for weapon prevention and education about the safe use of firearms on stage. Also, the tour cast trans actors as both Ado Annie and Will Parker. Sis and Hennessy Winkler were incredible and truly stole the show--Hennessy as Will, especially. And it was never once made to seem odd that Will would love a fat, black, trans Ado Annie. I also saw a production where Ado Annie was played by an understudy, and she was played by a nonbinary actor, and they gave a very different but equally skilled performance to Sis. Additionally, this production had pronouns listed for each person featured in the playbill. I never expected that of all touring productions I would see in 2022, that Oklahoma would be the most progressive both on and off stage. I wish more shows would follow in it's footsteps.
Just seen it at The Wyndham Theatre. This review brilliantly summarises my experience. I loved it. I loved the tension and how it made us question ourselves too.
I saw the US tour when it came through TX. It seemed like the restaging from in the round to proscenium really did a lot of disservice to the production. At our performance, no one looked at each other in the first act, everything was delivered stilted and straight out to the audience. We were showered with corn pieces and water from bud lite cans as their means of making it "immersive". It gave the feeling that the director had visions for 3 or 4 key scenes in the show, but then the producers reminded him he had to direct the rest of it, so he winged it. The turn from the auction forward also felt unearned. I wonder if the end message would have more impact if Jud was played by a non-white actor to add to the outcast bias. More interesting if Laurie is also non-white because she’s accepted & he’s not. In Green Grow the Lilacs, the character is Jeeter Fry & is implied to be black - But it could also have been the performance that we attended, everyone has an off day. I will say, about 2/3 of the audience left at intermission. One of the ushers said it was the largest walkout she'd seen in 16 years of working there.
I 100% expected this reaction as it toured the heartland, and was honestly surprised it went on tour. I guess the name recognition sold the tix before people realized what they were getting into.
This show has Texans high-tailing it for the door?! There can be NO greater acclamation! These people did not leave because the show is bad. They fled because it is innovative and inspired. while they are insular and mundane. surer
To be honest, I've never really had particularly strong feelings about Oklahoma! as a show one way or the other but I just can't get into this revival... I think part of it is because it's kind of buying into this mentality that we somehow have to "fix" the show because omg the hero is a total dick to the villain in one scene (a scene which, in the script, happens to end with the villain actively threatening to kill the hero) and doesn't that just make the hero a much more awful person than poor little woobie Jud Fry who does absolutely nothing wrong?! Except of course outright stalking a young woman, quite literally refusing to take no for an answer, trying to kill the hero multiple times, and openly emulating another man who *burned down a house and killed an entire family* just because the daughter refused to go out with him (and that's just in productions where it's not heavily hinted that he's the one who did that)... I have no problem with trying to make the show more accessible to younger audiences (though I do think it's genuinely a little condescending the way modern producers and directors seem to think that younger audiences will automatically need contemporary orchestrations to get into something) but the minute a version of the show tries to play the "Jud Fry = misunderstood woobie; Curley/Laurie/community = potentially bigoted villains" card, I can't help noping out because it's like...I honestly can't help feeling concerned that the creative team presumably read the original stage directions for the scene where Jud and Laurie are alone together after the dance which involve him pinning her down and lying on top of her while she struggles to get him off and thought "how do we make *this* guy into the sympathetic one..?" Like, yeah, the show is problematic nowadays for *lots* of reasons but I just genuinely don't understand why we're always trying to fix Oklahoma! of all things when "a slap can feel like a kiss" Carousel (which actively changed the ending of its source material specifically to let the domestic abuser off the hook, no less) is literally right there and no one seems to have a problem with that or feel the need to try and change it whenever it's revived...
@@nicoletrudell2065 The thing is, by its very nature that kind of take really doesn't work with a show like this (at least when it comes to the A-plot). Oklahoma! really isn't a morally complicated show and its script, in my own opinion, just can't support directors trying to make it a morally complicated show without substantial changes to the material - like "change or cut the vast majority of Jud's lines" substantial. Yes, Curley singing a song imagining Jud's funeral were the latter to hang himself is a horrible thing for him to do...but the show itself makes it plain as day that Jud *is* the villain, even with the inclusion of Empty Room to give him a degree of sympathy, and thus Curley is, by default, the hero. The entire reason the community treats Jud the way they do during the box social (which again I've seen multiple productions use to try to make the audience feel sympathy for Jud) is because he's heavily implied to have isolated himself from them first and Aunt Eller, as leader of the community, is aware of both his attraction to Laurie and is heavily implied to know what his likely reaction will be when Laurie turns him down. And he ultimately proves her right. It's difficult to come from that as a basic starting point to "there are no heroes" without it feeling (at least to me) like the director, as I said, read the stage directions for the scene between Jud and Laurie and said to themselves "man, the attempted r*pist definitely deserves to be seen more sympathetically, doesn't he?". I dunno, I just cannot buy into this whole "we have to feel sorry for Jud and Curley's an awful person; there are no heroes in the show" kick that everyone seems to be on. To me, the B-plot with Will Parker/Ado Annie/Ali Hakim is a storyline that actually is in need of "fixing" in the "there are no heroes" manner, but as with Carousel, bizarrely that subplot seems to emerge mostly unscathed in a lot of productions I've seen (by which I mean Will is still dense as a brick, Annie still has absolutely no agency whatsoever and will just happily go with whichever man kisses her, and Ali is still a racist caricature) even though it actually would greatly benefit from an overhaul in perspective in how we're meant to see the characters, and since it's meant to serve as basically just a wackier and more comedic mirror to the A-plot, changing up that subplot might actually be all that's needed to make us look at the main triangle in a new light... It just seems weird and somewhat concerning to me that directors of new productions of this show tend to largely skip over the *actual* problematic content in the subplot and try to force something that's not really all that problematic to begin with to seem less problematic...which, paradoxically, often just makes the unproblematic thing far more problematic than it was to begin with. I once saw a regional production where Jud was very deliberately the only black man in the cast (I say "very deliberately" because he was objectively much more suited to Curley and there were a lot of looks and line readings where we were clearly meant to read racist intent behind them), presumably because the director wanted to use the race card to make the audience feel sorry for Jud and the way he's treated by everyone else...only then, you're stuck having the one black man stalking and attempting to assault a young white woman because of course the director didn't bother to change any of *that* , and it's suddenly a whole new level of yikes that just did not need to be there if only the director hadn't been so concerned with "how do we make Jud sympathetic" without actually thinking through the implications of what he'd chosen as the answer. I admit that maybe I'm just not in the right headspace to enjoy the revival as its own thing separate from all the other "there are no heroes" takes of the show that I've seen - and, full disclosure, I've not seen this most recent revival; only read/watched multiple reviews, seen clips of the pre-pandemic version, and listened to the cast recording in an attempt to determine whether it's worth me going to see it - but I'm honestly just so done with it as a take that I've reached the point where it will just make me nope out. Maybe that's on me for not giving it the fullest chance, but I think there's quite a lot of shows out there far more in need of "fixing" in this way and the A-plot in Oklahoma! just isn't and never has been one of them.
@@overlydramaticpanda I saw a local production which interpreted Judd Fry as being cognitively delayed, which made some aspects of the musical *very* uncomfortable. Especially since they still had him as the abject villain of the piece, I think the aim was to make him more sympathetic, but it really would've benefitted from a more morally ambiguous Curley.
I saw it last night, and I must say I was disappointed. No Patrick Valli, Anoushka Lucas standbye for Jud, Laura, and new Aubt Eller. I saw it at the Young Vic last year, and it blew me away but I was at the front of the Grand Circle so may have enjoyed it more if sitting lower down.
i saw it @ the Young Vic based on your review last year + loads of older audience members left at the interval. i didn’t care cos i got to upgrade my seat but it really does show the disparity between generations of theatre-goers. i found the dream ballet fascinating - it’s like a psychosexual fever dream, a revelation of your subconscious that you might not be ready to admit yet. i probably won’t see it again so it’s great to hear your thoughts on its transfer.
I remember seeing the Oklahoma revival at the Fox Theatre in Detroit. In 2022. This is the first time I’ve ever seen Oklahoma. And I gotta say I didn’t really like it. There were some things I enjoyed like the songs and the characters, but most of the show I was just confused. A part of me realizes because I wasn’t familiar with the plot before seeing it and maybe it was just difficult for me to understand the things they did in this show . I thought the tone l disorienting as it seems to want to have the charm of Oklahoma, but also wants to be dark and deep and I don’t think it blends well. The blackout scenes and the dream sequence are not bad on their own, but as in audience member, it was hard for me to understand what was going on, it also didn’t help that during the blackouts the sound the sound quality was really bad. She could barely understand what anyone was saying to each other. Who know whose fault that was , I did not care for the ending I was left feeling like I didn’t know if I was supposed to be happy upset. Seeing the characters drenched in blood and singing this uplifting song just didn’t work for me. It’s been two years and I do respect a lot of what this show did and I do think the people involved did a good job. But I do feel like some stuff in the show we’re not executed as effective as I think the play wright, of the show wanted it to be
I saw this show on Broadway in 2019 and enjoyed it very much though felt very uncomfortable at times… the blackouts…the sound of gun shots. Hey I’m a sensitive Brit! 😊 Didn’t notice anyone leaving or saying they didn’t like it in the interval. Perhaps we were all too busy eating the food provided. Is that part still a thing post covid?
It's New York, we loved the inherent toxicity of the script being laid bare. On the flip side, we HATED the Carousel revival that presented another problematic story pretty much with traditional, cringeworthy reverence.
@Nicole Trudell Yes I figured that, and I also enjoyed it for that. I was really surprised actually that the British audiences were quite so upset by it. Presenting these old musicals in a traditional way in say London or New York is kinda pointless now I think. If people still want to see that there are plenty of amateur operatic societies still performing that way here.
Going to see this tomorrow at Wyndham! Very excited, I’ve always liked Oklahoma (despite the slightly creepy storyline). Looking forward to a piece of musical theatre that challenges thought and shocks the audience, rather than being easily digestible, as someone who studied theatre at Uni. I’m also taking my partner, who enjoys theatre but hasn’t studied so will be interesting to see his response too!!
Went into this knowing nothing about Oklahoma other than knowing some of the songs (contextless just as songs) and that there’s a wedding in it. I went in flannel and dungarees to be on theme and with low expectations for a light and pastoral evening. I was rather surprised by the content to say the least. My friend and I had also laughed on the way in at the adverts calling it ‘raunchy’, like how could this folksy thing be raunchy. Boy, were we wrong. Yowzers.
Ado Annie was an incredible actress/singer and so charismatic. Her playing off Will saves the whole performance. The actor that plays Curly is an average singer, and the singer that plays Laurie is a below average actor.
It's pretty funny that the original musical came out just as the Dust Bowl was ruining the small time farmers, sort of like the characters cheerfully singing about living in a brand new state.
When I saw it at the Young Vic an old gentleman and his wife walked out during the last scene angrily. I think they probably have lots of memories of the traditional Oklahoma! being a classic heartwarming show, so weren't very happy with the ending being very clearly not morally good.
The ending felt like a pseudo-horror film to me (and I loved that about it). But the dream ballet went on way too long. (Note that I saw the touring production in San Francisco.)
Looking forward to seeing this in April. I’ve not seen the original but listening to the film soundtrack I can see there’s a different way of telling this story. Know two people who’ve seen it (a musical theatre actress and a music teacher) who both hated it but from this review and others I’ve read it seems like something thematically that I’ll like.
I just got out of this show, and came here to make sure Patrick Vaill is getting all the praise he deserves. He absolutely stole the show for me, I couldn't take my eyes off him when he was on the stage and I felt gut wrenchingly sorry for him. If anything, his performance was so good it ruined Curly and Laurie getting together! The use of lighting was great for me, especially the black outs, my fitness watch actually buzzed to tell me my stress was high. I also prefer more traditional staging to rounds etc, I hate when I'm watching the back of an actor's head when they're singing their heart out. My main criticism is I think it could have been funnier. In making Annie sassy and empowered (a good creative choice for sure) I think it lost some of the light heartedness, which was even more needed in this production. I wish they'd hammed up the Oklahoma hello etc a bit more. I also was just not a fan of the dream ballet, I felt like I was watching dance moms and didn't know what message they were trying to convey. But I really really enjoyed it overall, I would definitely recommend it, and I loved the original versions!
I would definitely like to see what they do with this production as I love the classic but would be up for this I think! Also going to guys and dolls at the bridge at the end of April!
I watched this yesterday and spent the whole show just very confused- and this was shared by the rest of the audience some of whom did end up leaving at the interval. I would 100% be classed as the target audience for this show from what I knew about how they were re-inventing up but to me and my friend it really fell short. We spent the whole thing either bored, confused or giggling at the unprovoked tech decisions that made it into the show, found the lighting unbearable and laughable even, and just generally didn’t enjoy the lack of energy from the characters or vocals- the exceptions being Jud’s acting and Ado Annie. Having not known the story before, I still can’t say I do now, and that was frustrating. We both do technical theatre (and I like to perform myself too) so have spent quite a bit of time keeping a keen eye on the technical aspects and we were not impressed by the simple lighting choices (especially the house lights, the entire audience were visibly stressed by them), simple set and constantly changing sound quality. We reckoned they spent all their money on replica weaponry to use some of them for about 10 seconds of the show, without explanation. Anyways, my point is I t’s interesting to hear such opposite views when my friend and I both firmly agreed a production as bad as this should not have made it to west end 😅
It's unfathomable to me how anyone enjoys this show. I saw the touring production in Phoenix and - I am not exaggerating - half the audience either left during the first act or at intermission. The girl next to me *literally* cried that they had ruined her favorite musical. I know art is subjective, but this show has actual technical issues with lighting and sound that just made it physically almost impossible to follow in a proscenium stage.
When the touring revival came to my city, literally everyone hated it and walked out… I didn’t go, but apparently several people have told me it was the worst show they’ve ever seen.
I saw this production as a Tony voter on Broadway. The whole thing was truly bizarre, but the dream ballet was one of the most confusing and frankly terrible stagings I have ever seen that you're right: if they had kept it as the closing scene of Act I I would have left with not an ounce of regret. The way this "Dream Laurie" scooted herself around the stage on her butt as if she were a dog cleaning its ass after pooping was some of the most baffling and incoherent choreography seen, anywhere. And they kept saying it was a whole new interpretation of the show, but that none of the words were changed... that's not true. In the original script Judd is accidentally killed when, as Aunt Eller says "he fell on his knife." Being shot point blank by Curly is NOT the same as Judd falling on his knife. This production was a travesty. Shame on Daniel Fish.
I don't understand why it is acceptable to jettison original choreography from revivals. You wouldn't consider doing a revival of Oklahoma setting Oscar Hammerstein's lyrics to the music of someone other than Richard Rodgers. You wouldn't consider allowing a new lyricist to replace Oscar Hammerstein's words while retaining Richard Rodger's score. Why on earth does everyone just shrug when Agnes DeMille's dark, fascinating and masterful choreography is tossed aside?
The cast are so talented and theatre is so subjective. But for me, this was one of the worst things I've seen. I found it odd, tedious and difficult to follow. As always, I've enjoyed hearing your take
At least half of the audience left during intermission or during the dream dance when I saw it in the U.S. I was sadly one of them. I wanted to love it but missed the optimism from the original version.
Yes I agree with your cons of the show. I saw the U.S. touring production of this revival last year and I hated it lol. R&H shows were what got me interested in musical theater. I definitely say the most disturbing part of the show was judds death. Curly and Laurie’s lack of emotion afterwards was so weird. Them covered in blood was unnecessary. Also something I want to point out was the fact that the “trial” afterwards using all the original dialogue was also done with no emotion. It was like they were just reading words off of a page and didn’t mean what they were saying. I’m sure the actors in any production of this revival could maybe do a better job if they took the show in a different direction and maybe different blocking. It was nice hearing what it was like in the UK
The worst re-imagining of any musical production I’ve seen. Many people left halfway through at the interval. I was forced to stay as my friend wanted to stay otherwise I would have walked out. I know one other person who also thought it was a beautiful musical butchered by this interpretation. I agreed with them. Don’t waste your money.
Re Laurey, a gazillion years ago, much of the action & all of the ballet expressed the inner conflict & expression of her youthful sexual ignorance, anxiety, & stupidity - which hurts & enrages Jud before she finds a mature balance. Maybe some of the blank stares in this production are intended to convey a not quite fully-developed person caught in chrysalis stage. Or not.
Does everything now have to carry some sort of 'message' or deliver a 'comment' on times past? I think those going to Okalhoma would mainly be anticipating a production in the traditional style rather than something that tries to force a political/social message on the audience. Still, I presume The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization were happy to license this production.
I really disliked this production, as unfortunate as that is, and I will preface this with two things. Firstly, I left this show during the interval - as unfortunate as it was, I genuinely felt like it would not have been productive for me to stay. I also can say that during the first act, I had two separate groups of people leave prior to the interval - so for my experience, it was absolutely a common thing to see people leave and I imagine a fair amount of the audience had left and didn't return. But also due to this, all my assumptions are about the first half and I'm not going to judge the entire show as I don't feel like that'd be very fair. And secondly; I saw this prior to the press night so there may be some small changes. But all of this is just my personal opinion and I wish it all the success despite my lack of enjoyment. I think the staging was really bad - as much as I think it has potential. The tense atmosphere was well-crafted, but I think having everyone on the stage for Act 1 was a horrendous choice and made the Act feel very long lasting. Certain audience members legitimately had nothing to do for the hour act and made it feel like the act was lasting a while. I also think the show was aggressively bright in an unsettling, negative way. Literally the wood was so bright that it just became painful to look at. I understand the idea but to just become hard to look at was a really weird choice by the production team. It's a cool concept, but I absolutely disagree it's good lighting. Memorable? Sure. But good? I don't see it. If half the audience are complaining, I don't think it lands. I also think everyone being on stage makes it hard for people to stand out because we never get a chance for anyone to stand out. I assume this gets better in Act 2 but I just can't resonate with anybody because it's all completely weird. Like yeah Arthur Darvill and Anoushka Lucas were strong but I don't really remember anything from them? The only stand out was really Georgina Onourah - as she was the only person who I saw get a smile from a lot of audience members. This staging lacked people who really made audiences smile, and I think Georgina was a necessary role that saves the production essentially.
there is nothing they have ruined more than shakespeare. after seeing plays at the RSC and the globe, oklahoma was a 3/5 for me. RSC was a .5/5 and globe was .5/5
This is a little confusing as I thought the Young Vic isn't West End, but isn't that where Oklahoma is getting its nominations for? I tried Google and it says Olivier nominees can only be from productions in a SOLT theatre, but doesn't list the Young Vic as one. But then maybe because it's under the umbrella of the Old Vic, which IS a SOLT theatre? Anyway I gave myself a headache so I'm going to bed. 😂
@@nicoletrudell2065 I believe that certain size Off West End theatres can choose to put their productions forward for Olivier noms (similarly with Almeida). Achievement in Affiliate Theatre will be for the smaller ones. Old Vic & Young Vic aren’t connected, other than being on the same road.
The original Oklahoma was prim and proper. This revival is so debased and subversive. Seeing characters kiss and brushing against each other is rather repulsive. I’m unlikely to see this version.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี : คู่มวยแห่งยุค (11 ตุลาคม 2567)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/aTc7-tPYuJM/mqdefault.jpg)
![ILLSLICK - WINTER IS COMING [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dwTMeM1zIhQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve been obsessed with Patrick Vaill’s portrayal of Jud since I saw Oklahoma on Broadway in the summer of 2019. It stuck in my head (and heart) so much that I ended up seeing the show again on its Broadway closing night in January 2020 (coming to NYC from Florida)! I am someone who grew up watching the Oklahoma movie religiously, and the way he changed my (very set) image of Jud was amazing.
He is phenomenal!
I saw this at Circle in the Square on Broadway and was blown away. Obsessed. I thought it was so successful. People DID walk out in the middle! Or express shock or distaste on their way out. My whole family loved it, including my older parents. I have loved Rogers and Hammerstein since childhood so I am very nostalgic for it, but this staging and framing of the story totally nailed it in way I didn’t expect, bringing the smartest, deepest, and darkest themes that Rogers and Hammerstein right to the forefront (especially the exploration of men’s entitlement to women’s bodies compared to the “manifest destiny” attitude of westward expansion). I disagree that all these themes are not present or intended in the original text; Rogers and Hammerstein’s work I think was often very sharp and progressive for their time- questioning and confronting American history, ideals,and values with something that appears spectacular or wholesome on surface- and people have spent decades ignoring those themes and making very superficial productions.
I was very excited and nervous to see what the hell it would be like on tour, stopping in very traditional houses. I didn’t know if it would work; the non-traditional house and interactive elements absolutely prime you for the more confrontational moments of the production, plus it’s just fun that they fed us the chili and cornbread at intermission. I don’t really love audience participation or anything, but having the long thrust stage (with the stage kind of level with the front row, patrons seated on picnic tables), it was really exciting. The views were incredible at the shorter distances. My local tour stop in Southern California is a massive house, by comparison. Sound isn’t great at the cheap seats. The patrons tend to be older and a little out of touch (even to the point of darker, uncomfortable moments getting a genuine laugh when actually clever jokes don’t). I was very curious to see it again and find out if my market could handle it, but after the pandemic, it didn’t come on tour to my area (yet). I wish there were more large flex or non-proscenium venues for broadway tours to stop at in the US, because maybe people would produce some more experimental stuff like this on a larger scale!
Watching after a show viewing day of my own, went to see frozen on tour at asu gammage here in arizona!! Nice video!!
I now want a whole vid of you and Aeron singing oh my god hey to Oklahoma
I saw this on Broadway.
I came in knowing it wasn't the standard production of the show, yet still wasn't prepared for the ending. It was terrifying. I would love to see this again. Really thought-provoking.
OK, take from a non-press night:
I loved this production at the Young Vic, and love the transfer too, but left a midweek matinee very deflated because of the amount of older theatre-goers who were clearly not expecting it to be what it was - some leaving at interval, more complaining, and one asking front of house staff to turn the “very bright” auditorium lights off while the show is going on (!).
It’s really rough being the only person having a good time and I can’t say I entirely blame the people who were upset - the expectation management and advertising around the show hasn’t really done enough to shout ‘this is not the Oklahoma you think it is’ when it’s been plonked in a generally-quite-traditional venue. I think it worked better in the Young Vic because people very much leave their expectations at the door in that space. There are some West End venues that have a similar vibe, so it’s a shame that it’s in the space that it is in.
I felt the exact same way! I counted at least five people who just got up and left mid-show, even before the interval
lik
yeah, i have no idea why they shine the lights in the audience's eyes...it was horrid. the contemporary routine was obviously shoehorned in and made no sense, and it dragged on forever.
I absolutely loved the show at the young vic but I found the audience behaviour at the wyndhams to be appalling. Lots of talking and people on their phones. I put this down to the house lights being up but it put a damper such a brilliant show!
I went on a Monday night (tonight!) and the audience was very well behaved. But there's always a risk and big west end theatres of bad behavior.
Yeah I went last night and audience behaviour was amazing. At first I found people laughing at dramatic moments to be a bit weird and off putting but I think that mixture of comedy and drama and the uncomfortable vibe which comes from that was actually brilliant.
People were laughing during the r**e scene :(
Loved both of your reviews on this show! I saw this on broadway and agreed with the dream ballet.. I literally had no idea what was going on.. and the ending as well was very confusing.. I LOVE Oklahoma! And it was certainly a different take on the show.. and the cast was magnificent! They were supposed to bring this version to Australia but it was cancelled due to Covid.. I’ll keep you updated with Australian productions.. or lack of..😅
The whirring sound in the background was Agnes spinning in her grave
I just think it’s gross to label/recast Jud Fry as a suitor or love interest to Laurie when his entire pitch is ‘marry me or I will assault you and murder the guy you like’. Yes, Curley’s suicide baiting is bad, but that doesn’t suddenly make Jud NOT a sexual predator, and making Laurie seriously consider him as an option grosses me out. The picnic auction and sham trial and sui-baiting can all be (and ARE) bad without making Jud ‘good’. Why do we need to act like Jud did nothing wrong in order to understand that he’s human and doesn’t deserve to be killed? Because we’re uncomfortable with the fact that people who do horrible things are all still human. That scares us. Jud doesn’t deserve ostracization or murder but he IS still an attempted r*pist and murderer. Both of those things are true.
Edit: Should clarify that I didn’t actually get to see this production, I was going off what I’ve heard about the choices they make, which was unfair of me. That’s my bad, I should have made that clear.
Thank you! That’s my sole issue with this new production. I love that they stripped back so much to show the darker elements, but trying to make Jud sympathetic when the text clearly shows that he’s a predator and attempts to assault Laurie doesn’t work.
@@kelseighingram TBH, I don't entirely agree that the production says that Jud is entirely sympathetic. I think it just gave him some more layers. All of his problematic elements are definitely still in the text and they didn't tone that down imo. The whole thing was an already bad situation that should have been handled differently. My interpretation of the revival is it's ultimately from Laurey's point of view and her experience being swept up in a frightening two way battle of toxic masculinity.
Thank you! I was very disturbed that this version downplayed/romanticised Jud assaulting Laurie! And why would he kiss her at the wedding and she just stands there! We've worked so hard to call out sexual misconduct, I don't want to go back to, "aww well, it's just so confusing..," Jud is a predator. He knows it. We know it. He wasn't entitled to Laurie and Laurie never wanted Jud, she was scared of him.
@@lindseyblumell8194 This! You can rightfully point out that Curly sucks as a person without coddling Jud.
@@kelseighingram agreed! And by killing Jud in cold blood instead of Jud dying by accident like in the movie, it basically makes Jud the sympathetic character rather than having any reflection on his actions towards Laurie…not to mention he basically confessed to murdering a family…I don’t get how a whole team of creatives and actors could breeze by that…
Patrick Vail was also overlooked for the Tony nomination (he was Jud in the revival over here too).
I will forever be upset about these snubs.
I am in love with this production of Oklahoma! possibly my favourite piece of theatre I have ever seen. Never seeing or knowing much of the material before I connected so much with this portrayal of the story and went away in shock at how urgent and relatable it felt to todays society with the clear directorial vision of Daniel Fish. I’m hoping to go back and see it at the Wyndham’s I loved it so much and would love to see Patrick Vaille as Judd Fry again who I thought stole the show with his gripping portrayal of the character. Quite simply if you don’t want to see the beloved classic Oklahoma “ruined” or “changed” by this new vision for it - don’t go. I’m sure the theatre can fill up without the need for the custom of moaning, archaic audience members who have no appetite for anything remotely fresh or exciting. I wish it every success.
thanks so much for this review! i saw the show in its US tour, and while i struggled with it initially, i have really come to enjoy it. i found myself thinking all the time, and any show that can keep me thinking about its emotional and societal truths nearly a year later has to be a standout. one question though: you mentioned that the Dream Ballet had no one else on stage. did they cut the moment when all of the men come onto the stage to box her in? if so, that's a huge loss for the choreography and storytelling of that moment (not to mention that the lighting of that moment gives me chills just thinking about it), and i would really hope they bring it back. can't wait to see this show again!
I saw this production in Brooklyn. For sure it was not my mothers Oklahoma! (She saw the original in 1943) That said it brings new life and hopefully new audiences to the play
My mom said she ushered one too many summer stock performances of Oklahoma in the 60s in swelteringly hot tents to ever watch the show again. We weren’t even allowed to rent the movie as kids!
Once again MickeyJo gives perspective and insight that enhances my appreciation of something I've already seen. It isn't so much remembering but it is more that I'm able to react to MickeyJo's opinions, perspectives, and re-telling. I saw this on Broadway in it's first year. Being from the US, I saw it as a celebration of the cowboy mentality and how such seems to be gaining momentum, not just in the US, but in many parts of the world. As I saw it in 2019 at Circle in the Square Theatre (a U shape stage experience) I agree that it was often difficult to follow the visual cues. I felt the dream dance sequence was incredibly done and awesome artistry but did not move the story forward. At that time there were so many things I enjoyed more which I think adds to my disappointment in this production. Mainly I felt it was not tight storytelling, celebrated violence too much, and was too long (2 hours 45 minutes).
I love hearing your thoughts on this version of Oklahoma. I haven’t seen it.. to be honest, this show would definitely not be for me. I have too many happy memories of watching the movie version with my mom. I still love to watch the film and hear the music- like comfort food when I’m missing my late parents. I’m happy it’s out there for others to enjoy but I’m not surprised it’s been polarizing.
This has been the worst West End 'musical' I've seen in the last 12 years. Only the first and last songs were acceptable, the scarcely few others were more amateur dramatics standard like what would be seen in high school, college production. Dull, not change of setting, Boring cast sat around a long table for ages. I actually nodded off a number of times. The two blackouts lasting 5-10 minutes were totally irrelevant to the story line. Really a waste of time and money when I could be seeing other shows.
You are 100% right on it being polarising. From what I’ve heard there are definitely some people that are leaving before the end of the show every evening so far. Hope to see you at Bake Off press night!
Saw a couple days ago that Arthur Darvill was leaving so finally caught it today for what turned out to be his last show. I have never seen a traditional version of Oklahoma but that is because the idea always sounded dated, so I really appreciate what this revival has done to lean into the darkness of the text underneath. I did see this version on Broadway a few years ago so it was interesting to see it again - the dark moments had stayed with me but I'd forgotten about most of the comedy, really enjoyed the Will/Ali/Annie plotline this time. I did actually hear someone in the interval saying they were going to leave for the second act so it happens!
Of course I understand why someone might not like this version of Oklahoma if they are fans of the original framing but for me many of these contemporary changes just highlight issues I held with the original (i.e. lack of agency of the women in the auction). I still love the music and joviality of the original but I think it is important to provoke questions about old shows like this sometimes. And to those complaining that "everything" has this social spin now, I suppose you've either missed or are willfully ignoring most other musical revivals from the past few years e.g. Anything Goes and My Fair Lady.
Anyway, excellent review! Hearing you articulate your views helped me realize things I both loved and took issue with.
I so wished I had seen your reviews BEFORE I saw the show last weekend (in the Wyndham). I was so shocked and didn't enjoy the show AT THE TIME. Subsequently, I love it and can't stop thinking about it. I felt bad for the Swedish family (including grandparents and children) who had time in London to see only one show and saw this. They were shocked and dismayed. As you say in your other review, "this is not a pleasant Saturday afternoon entertainment. This a piece of provocative art designed to challenge and make you feel uncomfortable things." BOY WAS THIS EVERY TRUE. You also said, "Who should see this show? If you are a fan of Oklahoma, and the movie and Roger & Hammerstein musicals, then this is not the show for you." SO TRUE. This show NEEDS spoilers and I believe that spoilers would have helped me enjoy it more. I have to go back and see it again so that I can enjoy it better.
I saw it last Saturday. It took me a while to work it all out and I didn’t know much about the show. But… since Saturday evening I haven’t stopped thinking about it and I need to go again. It really has stayed with me and in the darkest more tense moments it was actually frightening
Reminded me of a above average high school play... the best bit was the end, so I could go home and forget about it.
This is not an attack on the performers they can only act with what they have been given...
The lights on made me feel so stressed at the start but now I understand that it was purposeful. The brightness was almost like in the horror film Midsommar.
I'm a volunteer usher at a theatre in the US that gets national tours, and we got this version of Oklahoma! last season. I, who admittedly had never seen a production of Oklahoma! nor knew much about the show, enjoyed it. I tend to like more contemporary musicals over older ones, so I liked how this production was different but I did have my own small problems with it, and also believed it may have been better in a smaller, more intimate venue (like the Circle in the Square theatre) as opposed to a standard proscenium stage. But a lot of those I talked to there, including older patrons who loved original versions of Oklahoma!, HATED it. We even had patrons come up to us during intermission and tell us how it was the worst show they had ever seen and how offensive it was, and we had many people walk out during intermission. I can understand not liking a certain production, but I'm also of the opinion that the show embodied what a revival is - a chance to look at a show maybe in another light, and to experiment with its production to better suit a more modern (and perhaps younger) audience. It's become a bit of a joke now among the usher staff, because of how polarizing it was and how the audience was lol. Definitely a show you either loved or hated.
Shouldn’t have to voulenteer :(
I saw it on broadway and I ADORED it
This revival I mean
@@StephenHopkinsRum Understood!
I saw it three times in New York in 2019. It was a stunning and unforgettable experience.
Saw the US touring version which was a proscenium staging. I agree with many of your comments. The orchestration was great and suited the music. The darkness and video were surprising, but theatrical and innovative. The dream ballet was a nightmare, and didn't really connect to the rest of the show. Agnes deMille could tell a story, and adding other cast members would have brought some focus and connectedness. The biggest disappointment was the staging at the end which was very static and dispassionate. If the most important thing you have to do is read the director's rationale in the Playbill before you start the show, it could be a giveaway that the director's intent was not fully realized within the production.
I saw this at the Wyndham 2 nights ago with Sam Palladio as Curley and it has taken me this long to process it! I have had so much to think about with this production which i think in itself shows how intense and provoking it was.
I didnt know anything about Oklahoma or this production before i saw this and i think that I would appreciated/ understood the changes more if i had seen the traditional version and grasped that plot first. I had no idea what the dance was and I thought it was about assult because i got the wrong end of the stick and then I was really confused. I was confused by the plot between Laurie and Curley because I couldn’t tell if Laurie liked him or not and I wish her initial interactions with him were a little lighter and more flirtatious rather than her seeming like she hates him in the start of act 1, and then she flips suddenly to being attracted to him. She was a great singer and actress but i agree that her direction in particular made her character somewhat flat and difficult to understand. I think so much of the plot relies on her feelings about Jud and Curley and without truly knowing that, we dont really know how sinister any of the scenes between them are which perhaps is an artistic decision. Still, I think her indifference makes it difficult to root for her in a way.
I’m still confused by the portrayal of Jud. I saw this production with 3 others and we all had different ideas of what happened between him and Laurie in act 2 during the blackout. I took the whole scene as non consensual but she was too scared to leave. The others thought she was indifferent until he went further. I found Jud very sinister and terrifying from the start when Laurie said he watches her from trees and his language during his solo was very misogynistic. However, I’ve seen people saying how this version paints im in a misunderstood light. I can’t really get behind him being misunderstood as it seems to me he feels he has a right to claim Laurie just because he likes her which for me made him seem very dangerous and I was scared everytime he was alone with her.
However, I really liked the portrayal of Curley as an imperfect character as there are moments that in present times just cant be justified without acknowledging. In my opinion, especially the unaliving song with Jud and him strangely kissing laurie straight after it seems she was assulted and wants protection. The biggest thing I would change is perhaps adding more of a scrap between curley and jud in the end like in the original. Maybe with jud holding a gun also. I think the ending could have been just as haunting with more of a fight as it didnt really seem realistic to me. Curley shooting him didnt seem to match what we knew about him as a character and i also have no idea why he let jud kiss laurie or why she kissed him back at their WEDDING. I would love to know what was behind that decision as it was really creepy.
Overall, i would love to see this show again now i have read about the original so that i can relax and really watch the acting and try to understand the intentions of the actors better. Also I thought that the singing and acting in general was outstanding and is one of the most solid casts ive ever seen. Every solo i was amazed! So many thoughts and feelings lol
I saw Oklahoma 3 times in Los Angeles in Oct 2022. One thing I really loved about the tour was some of the social commentary they quietly made in casting, producing, etc.
I had someone seated by me get upset that the stage walls were covered in rifles that only got referenced in the scene work once or twice, as they felt they were unnecessary. I said yes, but they mentioned how the show was gun neutral, each appearance of a gun in the show resulted in a donation to a nonprofit for weapon prevention and education about the safe use of firearms on stage.
Also, the tour cast trans actors as both Ado Annie and Will Parker. Sis and Hennessy Winkler were incredible and truly stole the show--Hennessy as Will, especially. And it was never once made to seem odd that Will would love a fat, black, trans Ado Annie. I also saw a production where Ado Annie was played by an understudy, and she was played by a nonbinary actor, and they gave a very different but equally skilled performance to Sis.
Additionally, this production had pronouns listed for each person featured in the playbill.
I never expected that of all touring productions I would see in 2022, that Oklahoma would be the most progressive both on and off stage. I wish more shows would follow in it's footsteps.
Just seen it at The Wyndham Theatre. This review brilliantly summarises my experience. I loved it. I loved the tension and how it made us question ourselves too.
I hope this comes back to New York, missed it the last time when Ali Stroker was Ado Annie.
I saw the US tour when it came through TX. It seemed like the restaging from in the round to proscenium really did a lot of disservice to the production. At our performance, no one looked at each other in the first act, everything was delivered stilted and straight out to the audience. We were showered with corn pieces and water from bud lite cans as their means of making it "immersive". It gave the feeling that the director had visions for 3 or 4 key scenes in the show, but then the producers reminded him he had to direct the rest of it, so he winged it.
The turn from the auction forward also felt unearned. I wonder if the end message would have more impact if Jud was played by a non-white actor to add to the outcast bias. More interesting if Laurie is also non-white because she’s accepted & he’s not. In Green Grow the Lilacs, the character is Jeeter Fry & is implied to be black - But it could also have been the performance that we attended, everyone has an off day.
I will say, about 2/3 of the audience left at intermission. One of the ushers said it was the largest walkout she'd seen in 16 years of working there.
I 100% expected this reaction as it toured the heartland, and was honestly surprised it went on tour. I guess the name recognition sold the tix before people realized what they were getting into.
This show has Texans high-tailing it for the door?!
There can be NO greater acclamation!
These people did not leave because the show is bad. They fled because it is innovative and inspired. while they are insular and mundane.
surer
To be honest, I've never really had particularly strong feelings about Oklahoma! as a show one way or the other but I just can't get into this revival... I think part of it is because it's kind of buying into this mentality that we somehow have to "fix" the show because omg the hero is a total dick to the villain in one scene (a scene which, in the script, happens to end with the villain actively threatening to kill the hero) and doesn't that just make the hero a much more awful person than poor little woobie Jud Fry who does absolutely nothing wrong?! Except of course outright stalking a young woman, quite literally refusing to take no for an answer, trying to kill the hero multiple times, and openly emulating another man who *burned down a house and killed an entire family* just because the daughter refused to go out with him (and that's just in productions where it's not heavily hinted that he's the one who did that)... I have no problem with trying to make the show more accessible to younger audiences (though I do think it's genuinely a little condescending the way modern producers and directors seem to think that younger audiences will automatically need contemporary orchestrations to get into something) but the minute a version of the show tries to play the "Jud Fry = misunderstood woobie; Curley/Laurie/community = potentially bigoted villains" card, I can't help noping out because it's like...I honestly can't help feeling concerned that the creative team presumably read the original stage directions for the scene where Jud and Laurie are alone together after the dance which involve him pinning her down and lying on top of her while she struggles to get him off and thought "how do we make *this* guy into the sympathetic one..?"
Like, yeah, the show is problematic nowadays for *lots* of reasons but I just genuinely don't understand why we're always trying to fix Oklahoma! of all things when "a slap can feel like a kiss" Carousel (which actively changed the ending of its source material specifically to let the domestic abuser off the hook, no less) is literally right there and no one seems to have a problem with that or feel the need to try and change it whenever it's revived...
Well said.
I didn't have this take at all. I thought the point is that there ARE no heroes in this, and this production makes that clear.
@@nicoletrudell2065 The thing is, by its very nature that kind of take really doesn't work with a show like this (at least when it comes to the A-plot). Oklahoma! really isn't a morally complicated show and its script, in my own opinion, just can't support directors trying to make it a morally complicated show without substantial changes to the material - like "change or cut the vast majority of Jud's lines" substantial. Yes, Curley singing a song imagining Jud's funeral were the latter to hang himself is a horrible thing for him to do...but the show itself makes it plain as day that Jud *is* the villain, even with the inclusion of Empty Room to give him a degree of sympathy, and thus Curley is, by default, the hero. The entire reason the community treats Jud the way they do during the box social (which again I've seen multiple productions use to try to make the audience feel sympathy for Jud) is because he's heavily implied to have isolated himself from them first and Aunt Eller, as leader of the community, is aware of both his attraction to Laurie and is heavily implied to know what his likely reaction will be when Laurie turns him down. And he ultimately proves her right. It's difficult to come from that as a basic starting point to "there are no heroes" without it feeling (at least to me) like the director, as I said, read the stage directions for the scene between Jud and Laurie and said to themselves "man, the attempted r*pist definitely deserves to be seen more sympathetically, doesn't he?".
I dunno, I just cannot buy into this whole "we have to feel sorry for Jud and Curley's an awful person; there are no heroes in the show" kick that everyone seems to be on. To me, the B-plot with Will Parker/Ado Annie/Ali Hakim is a storyline that actually is in need of "fixing" in the "there are no heroes" manner, but as with Carousel, bizarrely that subplot seems to emerge mostly unscathed in a lot of productions I've seen (by which I mean Will is still dense as a brick, Annie still has absolutely no agency whatsoever and will just happily go with whichever man kisses her, and Ali is still a racist caricature) even though it actually would greatly benefit from an overhaul in perspective in how we're meant to see the characters, and since it's meant to serve as basically just a wackier and more comedic mirror to the A-plot, changing up that subplot might actually be all that's needed to make us look at the main triangle in a new light... It just seems weird and somewhat concerning to me that directors of new productions of this show tend to largely skip over the *actual* problematic content in the subplot and try to force something that's not really all that problematic to begin with to seem less problematic...which, paradoxically, often just makes the unproblematic thing far more problematic than it was to begin with. I once saw a regional production where Jud was very deliberately the only black man in the cast (I say "very deliberately" because he was objectively much more suited to Curley and there were a lot of looks and line readings where we were clearly meant to read racist intent behind them), presumably because the director wanted to use the race card to make the audience feel sorry for Jud and the way he's treated by everyone else...only then, you're stuck having the one black man stalking and attempting to assault a young white woman because of course the director didn't bother to change any of *that* , and it's suddenly a whole new level of yikes that just did not need to be there if only the director hadn't been so concerned with "how do we make Jud sympathetic" without actually thinking through the implications of what he'd chosen as the answer.
I admit that maybe I'm just not in the right headspace to enjoy the revival as its own thing separate from all the other "there are no heroes" takes of the show that I've seen - and, full disclosure, I've not seen this most recent revival; only read/watched multiple reviews, seen clips of the pre-pandemic version, and listened to the cast recording in an attempt to determine whether it's worth me going to see it - but I'm honestly just so done with it as a take that I've reached the point where it will just make me nope out. Maybe that's on me for not giving it the fullest chance, but I think there's quite a lot of shows out there far more in need of "fixing" in this way and the A-plot in Oklahoma! just isn't and never has been one of them.
@@overlydramaticpanda I saw a local production which interpreted Judd Fry as being cognitively delayed, which made some aspects of the musical *very* uncomfortable. Especially since they still had him as the abject villain of the piece, I think the aim was to make him more sympathetic, but it really would've benefitted from a more morally ambiguous Curley.
I saw it last night, and I must say I was disappointed. No Patrick Valli, Anoushka Lucas standbye for Jud, Laura, and new Aubt Eller. I saw it at the Young Vic last year, and it blew me away but I was at the front of the Grand Circle so may have enjoyed it more if sitting lower down.
I didn’t like it but I’m old school. I bought the Broadway cast CD, listened to it once, then gave it away.
i saw it @ the Young Vic based on your review last year + loads of older audience members left at the interval. i didn’t care cos i got to upgrade my seat but it really does show the disparity between generations of theatre-goers. i found the dream ballet fascinating - it’s like a psychosexual fever dream, a revelation of your subconscious that you might not be ready to admit yet. i probably won’t see it again so it’s great to hear your thoughts on its transfer.
I remember seeing the Oklahoma revival at the Fox Theatre in Detroit. In 2022. This is the first time I’ve ever seen Oklahoma. And I gotta say I didn’t really like it.
There were some things I enjoyed like the songs and the characters, but most of the show I was just confused.
A part of me realizes because I wasn’t familiar with the plot before seeing it and maybe it was just difficult for me to understand the things they did in this show .
I thought the tone l disorienting as it seems to want to have the charm of Oklahoma, but also wants to be dark and deep and I don’t think it blends well.
The blackout scenes and the dream sequence are not bad on their own, but as in audience member, it was hard for me to understand what was going on, it also didn’t help that during the blackouts the sound the sound quality was really bad. She could barely understand what anyone was saying to each other. Who know whose fault that was
, I did not care for the ending I was left feeling like I didn’t know if I was supposed to be happy upset. Seeing the characters drenched in blood and singing this uplifting song just didn’t work for me.
It’s been two years and I do respect a lot of what this show did and I do think the people involved did a good job.
But I do feel like some stuff in the show we’re not executed as effective as I think the play wright, of the show wanted it to be
I saw this show on Broadway in 2019 and enjoyed it very much though felt very uncomfortable at times… the blackouts…the sound of gun shots. Hey I’m a sensitive Brit! 😊 Didn’t notice anyone leaving or saying they didn’t like it in the interval. Perhaps we were all too busy eating the food provided. Is that part still a thing post covid?
No, the food definitely isn’t a thing anymore.
It's New York, we loved the inherent toxicity of the script being laid bare. On the flip side, we HATED the Carousel revival that presented another problematic story pretty much with traditional, cringeworthy reverence.
@Nicole Trudell Yes I figured that, and I also enjoyed it for that. I was really surprised actually that the British audiences were quite so upset by it. Presenting these old musicals in a traditional way in say London or New York is kinda pointless now I think. If people still want to see that there are plenty of amateur operatic societies still performing that way here.
Oklahoma for 2023, Outstanding ! The US touring production came to San Francisco.
Going to see this tomorrow at Wyndham! Very excited, I’ve always liked Oklahoma (despite the slightly creepy storyline). Looking forward to a piece of musical theatre that challenges thought and shocks the audience, rather than being easily digestible, as someone who studied theatre at Uni. I’m also taking my partner, who enjoys theatre but hasn’t studied so will be interesting to see his response too!!
Went into this knowing nothing about Oklahoma other than knowing some of the songs (contextless just as songs) and that there’s a wedding in it. I went in flannel and dungarees to be on theme and with low expectations for a light and pastoral evening. I was rather surprised by the content to say the least. My friend and I had also laughed on the way in at the adverts calling it ‘raunchy’, like how could this folksy thing be raunchy. Boy, were we wrong. Yowzers.
I doubt Australian producers have the guts to bring it here, so I really do appreciate your descriptive review
Ado Annie was an incredible actress/singer and so charismatic. Her playing off Will saves the whole performance. The actor that plays Curly is an average singer, and the singer that plays Laurie is a below average actor.
It's pretty funny that the original musical came out just as the Dust Bowl was ruining the small time farmers, sort of like the characters cheerfully singing about living in a brand new state.
When I saw it at the Young Vic an old gentleman and his wife walked out during the last scene angrily.
I think they probably have lots of memories of the traditional Oklahoma! being a classic heartwarming show, so weren't very happy with the ending being very clearly not morally good.
The ending felt like a pseudo-horror film to me (and I loved that about it). But the dream ballet went on way too long. (Note that I saw the touring production in San Francisco.)
It was no easy-to-watch-show. But I enjoyed it so much! A great new view on that "golden age" musical.
Looking forward to seeing this in April. I’ve not seen the original but listening to the film soundtrack I can see there’s a different way of telling this story.
Know two people who’ve seen it (a musical theatre actress and a music teacher) who both hated it but from this review and others I’ve read it seems like something thematically that I’ll like.
I just got out of this show, and came here to make sure Patrick Vaill is getting all the praise he deserves. He absolutely stole the show for me, I couldn't take my eyes off him when he was on the stage and I felt gut wrenchingly sorry for him. If anything, his performance was so good it ruined Curly and Laurie getting together! The use of lighting was great for me, especially the black outs, my fitness watch actually buzzed to tell me my stress was high. I also prefer more traditional staging to rounds etc, I hate when I'm watching the back of an actor's head when they're singing their heart out. My main criticism is I think it could have been funnier. In making Annie sassy and empowered (a good creative choice for sure) I think it lost some of the light heartedness, which was even more needed in this production. I wish they'd hammed up the Oklahoma hello etc a bit more. I also was just not a fan of the dream ballet, I felt like I was watching dance moms and didn't know what message they were trying to convey. But I really really enjoyed it overall, I would definitely recommend it, and I loved the original versions!
Saw it twice loved it ❤
I would definitely like to see what they do with this production as I love the classic but would be up for this I think! Also going to guys and dolls at the bridge at the end of April!
Thumbs up for the intro alone.
I watched this yesterday and spent the whole show just very confused- and this was shared by the rest of the audience some of whom did end up leaving at the interval. I would 100% be classed as the target audience for this show from what I knew about how they were re-inventing up but to me and my friend it really fell short. We spent the whole thing either bored, confused or giggling at the unprovoked tech decisions that made it into the show, found the lighting unbearable and laughable even, and just generally didn’t enjoy the lack of energy from the characters or vocals- the exceptions being Jud’s acting and Ado Annie. Having not known the story before, I still can’t say I do now, and that was frustrating. We both do technical theatre (and I like to perform myself too) so have spent quite a bit of time keeping a keen eye on the technical aspects and we were not impressed by the simple lighting choices (especially the house lights, the entire audience were visibly stressed by them), simple set and constantly changing sound quality. We reckoned they spent all their money on replica weaponry to use some of them for about 10 seconds of the show, without explanation.
Anyways, my point is I t’s interesting to hear such opposite views when my friend and I both firmly agreed a production as bad as this should not have made it to west end 😅
It's unfathomable to me how anyone enjoys this show. I saw the touring production in Phoenix and - I am not exaggerating - half the audience either left during the first act or at intermission. The girl next to me *literally* cried that they had ruined her favorite musical.
I know art is subjective, but this show has actual technical issues with lighting and sound that just made it physically almost impossible to follow in a proscenium stage.
Lol she needs to grow up try being a CATS fan 😅
It sounds a lot darker than expected 😬
However dark you think it sounds - it's darker 😂
When the touring revival came to my city, literally everyone hated it and walked out… I didn’t go, but apparently several people have told me it was the worst show they’ve ever seen.
In what city do you live, dare I ask?
@@christianabernathy9750 Phoenix lol not a political reason (altho maybe a little bit), everyone just hated it 😭
I saw it at the wyndham and I love it!
I saw this production as a Tony voter on Broadway. The whole thing was truly bizarre, but the dream ballet was one of the most confusing and frankly terrible stagings I have ever seen that you're right: if they had kept it as the closing scene of Act I I would have left with not an ounce of regret. The way this "Dream Laurie" scooted herself around the stage on her butt as if she were a dog cleaning its ass after pooping was some of the most baffling and incoherent choreography seen, anywhere. And they kept saying it was a whole new interpretation of the show, but that none of the words were changed... that's not true. In the original script Judd is accidentally killed when, as Aunt Eller says "he fell on his knife." Being shot point blank by Curly is NOT the same as Judd falling on his knife. This production was a travesty. Shame on Daniel Fish.
Thanks!
I don't understand why it is acceptable to jettison original choreography from revivals. You wouldn't consider doing a revival of Oklahoma setting Oscar Hammerstein's lyrics to the music of someone other than Richard Rodgers. You wouldn't consider allowing a new lyricist to replace Oscar Hammerstein's words while retaining Richard Rodger's score. Why on earth does everyone just shrug when Agnes DeMille's dark, fascinating and masterful choreography is tossed aside?
Seems real self important. Like “look at how different this is! Isn’t it cool and unique?!”
OMG hey
New review with new cast coming?
Nice open tie in to the show
The cast are so talented and theatre is so subjective. But for me, this was one of the worst things I've seen. I found it odd, tedious and difficult to follow. As always, I've enjoyed hearing your take
I have to agree, I did not like it
At least half of the audience left during intermission or during the dream dance when I saw it in the U.S.
I was sadly one of them. I wanted to love it but missed the optimism from the original version.
i almost left during the dream dance. if it had gone on any longer, i would have.
Yes I agree with your cons of the show. I saw the U.S. touring production of this revival last year and I hated it lol. R&H shows were what got me interested in musical theater. I definitely say the most disturbing part of the show was judds death. Curly and Laurie’s lack of emotion afterwards was so weird. Them covered in blood was unnecessary. Also something I want to point out was the fact that the “trial” afterwards using all the original dialogue was also done with no emotion. It was like they were just reading words off of a page and didn’t mean what they were saying. I’m sure the actors in any production of this revival could maybe do a better job if they took the show in a different direction and maybe different blocking. It was nice hearing what it was like in the UK
The worst re-imagining of any musical production I’ve seen. Many people left halfway through at the interval. I was forced to stay as my friend wanted to stay otherwise I would have walked out. I know one other person who also thought it was a beautiful musical butchered by this interpretation. I agreed with them. Don’t waste your money.
Re Laurey, a gazillion years ago, much of the action & all of the ballet expressed the inner conflict & expression of her youthful sexual ignorance, anxiety, & stupidity - which hurts & enrages Jud before she finds a mature balance. Maybe some of the blank stares in this production are intended to convey a not quite fully-developed person caught in chrysalis stage. Or not.
Just saw it. Not in dozens and dozens of musicals ive seen have i ever disliked so many characters in a musical...
Can someonr explain the smelling salts thing? Is that something women did?
Does everything now have to carry some sort of 'message' or deliver a 'comment' on times past? I think those going to Okalhoma would mainly be anticipating a production in the traditional style rather than something that tries to force a political/social message on the audience. Still, I presume The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization were happy to license this production.
No and many recent revivals haven't (e.g Anything Goes, My Fair Lady).
I really disliked this production, as unfortunate as that is, and I will preface this with two things. Firstly, I left this show during the interval - as unfortunate as it was, I genuinely felt like it would not have been productive for me to stay. I also can say that during the first act, I had two separate groups of people leave prior to the interval - so for my experience, it was absolutely a common thing to see people leave and I imagine a fair amount of the audience had left and didn't return.
But also due to this, all my assumptions are about the first half and I'm not going to judge the entire show as I don't feel like that'd be very fair. And secondly; I saw this prior to the press night so there may be some small changes. But all of this is just my personal opinion and I wish it all the success despite my lack of enjoyment.
I think the staging was really bad - as much as I think it has potential. The tense atmosphere was well-crafted, but I think having everyone on the stage for Act 1 was a horrendous choice and made the Act feel very long lasting. Certain audience members legitimately had nothing to do for the hour act and made it feel like the act was lasting a while. I also think the show was aggressively bright in an unsettling, negative way. Literally the wood was so bright that it just became painful to look at. I understand the idea but to just become hard to look at was a really weird choice by the production team. It's a cool concept, but I absolutely disagree it's good lighting. Memorable? Sure. But good? I don't see it. If half the audience are complaining, I don't think it lands.
I also think everyone being on stage makes it hard for people to stand out because we never get a chance for anyone to stand out. I assume this gets better in Act 2 but I just can't resonate with anybody because it's all completely weird. Like yeah Arthur Darvill and Anoushka Lucas were strong but I don't really remember anything from them? The only stand out was really Georgina Onourah - as she was the only person who I saw get a smile from a lot of audience members. This staging lacked people who really made audiences smile, and I think Georgina was a necessary role that saves the production essentially.
I watched them do Oklahoma on This Morning and I found it so cringey! I think I’m quite a traditionalist, so will probably give this a miss.
there is nothing they have ruined more than shakespeare. after seeing plays at the RSC and the globe, oklahoma was a 3/5 for me. RSC was a .5/5 and globe was .5/5
what happened to the musical....ALLEGIENCE?.......NO NOMINATIONS
It was only eligible in one category - achievement in affiliate theatre, as it wasn't in a West End venue.
This is a little confusing as I thought the Young Vic isn't West End, but isn't that where Oklahoma is getting its nominations for? I tried Google and it says Olivier nominees can only be from productions in a SOLT theatre, but doesn't list the Young Vic as one. But then maybe because it's under the umbrella of the Old Vic, which IS a SOLT theatre?
Anyway I gave myself a headache so I'm going to bed. 😂
@@nicoletrudell2065 I believe that certain size Off West End theatres can choose to put their productions forward for Olivier noms (similarly with Almeida). Achievement in Affiliate Theatre will be for the smaller ones. Old Vic & Young Vic aren’t connected, other than being on the same road.
The original Oklahoma was prim and proper. This revival is so debased and subversive. Seeing characters kiss and brushing against each other is rather repulsive. I’m unlikely to see this version.
This revival in UK sounds awful.
Don’t waste your money . It’s truly dull and I left half way through and only lasted that long with fortitude .