This production of Oklahoma was brilliant. The show itself wasn’t changed in any significant way, as the comments would leave you to believe. The actors were strong, their voices spectacular, the musical arrangements refreshing, the modern dance exhilarating, and the direction, staging, and lighting, original. Any 2019 realistic look at western expansion, the range wars, and even love should finally be more raw than the contrite, jolly, sanitized productions brought to us by censors throughout theatre and film history. I’m fascinated that so many people are tied to the “original” production, which they could not have seen unless they are now in their late 80s or older, so why the inability to break out of the moldy, cobwebbed mindset of recollections they couldn’t really have? It’s incredible how many people didn’t understand the modern dance and the phenomenal ability of Gabrielle Hamilton. I thought it was one of the most exhilarating solo dance performances I’ve ever seen in the theatre: her stature, athleticism, perfection of movement, and even her baldness. She evoked every person of color who built this country under the restraint of slavery, alienation, and inequality while being fluid, strong, and rock steady. There was nothing “jaunty” about the founding of the American west. I don’t know why people would expect to see that in a theatrical presentation about love during the range wars. Do yourself a favor and see this. The entire show was marvelous.
19
I'm a Broadway Musical originalist. I get very nervous when I read about any "re-imagined" classic. I remember reading about how Richard Rogers conceived a musical about Oklahoma and shared that idea with Oscar H. and asked him to partner with him. A couple of weeks went by. One day, there was a knock on Rogers' door. When he opened it, Oscar handed him a piece of paper upon which was written those precious words: "There's a bright golden haze on the meadow". Jackman was the best of the best...if he's still "in tune" we should set a movie with him...for posterity. And the new movie should not be re-imagined!
19
Is there something about "Oklahoma" and Circle in the Square? This was from 2010, about the 2010 D.C. version, also in the round - If you can bear with it until 1:35 in - Did chatters in 2010 guess that Circle in the Square was a possibility because of the configuration of the Arena Stage -
They've gone as modern as a show can go -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kIMKGkAaRM
or is the round just a logical fit for the work? Maybe the 2019 version takes it to a gut level not even thought in what was already seen as progressive in 2010. Taking steps, maybe even strides. Maybe this new era really has woken us up, though theater tends to move faster than movies. ("Tootsie" this past weekend seemed like Joe Biden's apologies were already considered, though maybe it was inherent in the material.) Hoping today's even newer new version makes the investors want to do more, and help Broadway keep up.
3
It seems that redoing classic shows and making them "modern" is a trend these days. I got suckered into buying tickets to what I thought was a performance of the original Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Raincoat. I loved that show and went to see it four times back in the day. Too late I read a review that informed me that the new show had been turned into a Las Vegas act with show girls, etc. I get it that I am officially old. I also get it that tastes change. What I resented was that the advertising of the show used the old Joseph logo and made no mention of the fact that the show had been "reconceived." I considered that false advertising. If you're going to mess with a classic, you should want to let everyone know that you have made "improvements" to the show. I admit to being uncomfortable is this dark and angry age. I wouldn't think of seeing this Oklahoma and agree with those who have pointed out that the need to redo old shows that brought people joy is an indication of how little true creativity there is today. To each his own. Just be sure to include a warning label: This is not your father's Oklahoma.
18
@Mary Lindblad
Was there ever an original version of Joseph and the Technicolor RAINCOAT ?? Where can I find the cast album ?
9
@Jim Mc Donald I might reimagine it as a murder mystery: Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Trenchcoat. Or how about a version with a Black Detective named Shaft: Joseph and the Amazing leather NYPD maxi coat. FYI -- this is simply the best version of Oklahoma I have ever seen. I thought it was deeply moving and incredibly brilliant. I think there are a few amazing, albeit not technicolor, fringed cowboy coats in it, too.
1
Saw this at St. Anne's Warehouse last fall and thought it was beautifully re-imagined. There's no Hugh Jackman but that was about the only great attribute of the last revival but the production on Broadway didn't quite measure up to the hype without Jackman, despite all the talk of a "darker" vision.There's a high school production that went back to the 1943 version that is available on YouTube that gives us as clear a picture of why OKLAHOMA caused such a sensation. The Daniel Fish production now on view, and brilliantly understood by Ben Brantley, shows a deep affection for the original work and merely places it in a more recognizable world. It's like visiting a barn social with real people. And, as for that new depiction of Agnes DeMille's haunting Laurey's Dream, it is electrifying. That's the new, and, as for the old, Mary Testa is the best Aunt Eller I've ever seen. She plants the show on real ground and creates the necessary mood. And when Curley enters, with that small country band, and sings Oh, What A Beautiful Morning as if he were just some folk singer with a guitar, we are home. It's new and fresh and dark and sometimes startlingly different but it is most definitely OKLAHOMA. Nostalgia may bring in the big bucks but sometimes it's just not enough. Maybe I should add that I'm 80 years old and have seen many productions of the show and have rarely seem one that dazzled so without a bit of show biz glitz.
31
@Harvey Perr I tjhi nk the high school version you mention was actually done by the UNC School of the Arts. It really works, on the original's own terms.
4
I question the sanity of anyone who thought serving chili to an audience during intermission was a good idea. It seems the show has influences of Artaud but that could truly become Theater of Cruelty.
27
I'm no nostalgia buff. I love updates and rethinks when they augment the text and score. This production did the opposite. It brought everything down to the most unwatchable, unlikeable, most pretentious level; weirdness for its own sake. I know my friends and I aren't alone. As we were leaving the theater, people were shaking their heads and looked as if they'd just seen a massive train wreck. Which they had.
53
I'm glad your reviewer liked this production, but based on the descriptions offered, it strikes me as a musical travesty of one of the great works of the American musical theater. Unfortunately, similar to what is happening in opera, productions like these strike me as an outlet for directorial ego. I'm sure Richard Rodgers would be appalled.
31
@Philip Kraus And I'm sure you're quite wrong. I just saw it and I think Rogers & Hammerstein would be thrilled by it. It was brilliant, unadorned, deeply moving, wonderfully staged and performed, and strikes more of an authentic nerve for the America we recognize and understand than the hokey, homogenized, white bread, fantasy balletic version of America we were fed for nearly 300 years.
15
One word: Wokelahoma.
46
Sounds as if I am in the minority, but this is the best show that I've seen all season (seems that people, critics and regular folk alike, either love or hate it). I loved the intimacy of the production, which allows for a deeper depth and subtlety of characterization of Curly, Laurey and especially Jud, than usually seen. Because of this, I thought that the ending (which some found upsetting) was perfectly understandable and justifiable. And don't be misled into thinking that this is a depressing, bleak show...there is still plenty of humor and fun throughout. Excellent cast with no weak links, gorgeous orchestration, clever set design...am still thinking about it all days later. I'd urge anyone with an open mind to go see this and decide for yourself.
34
Many readers here are nostalgia buffs who prefer a museum experience in the theatre to being challenged by creative re-imagining. The original Oklahoma! had great bones but like so many classics could benefit from re-interpretation for a new generation. This Oklahoma! sounds like an old house updated and renovated with it's best features preserved and restored, and it's dysfunctional creakiness and outdated decor banished. I wish I were in NYC so that I could enjoy it!
17
Well, it sure sounds terrible to me.
24
You folks that are so offended by re-imagining should chill. It’s not like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. If you’re offended don’t buy a ticket.
11
I saw this production at St. Ann's Warehouse and, contrary to most everyone's appraisals, I did not like it. No, that's not quite right: I loathed it.
Having said that, it seems that for the Broadway production, they've filed down (or maybe sawed off) its roughest edges: the mortifying dance-dream sequence and the crude and unseemly murder at the end.
23
Thanks for the spoiler.
8
@M The dance-dream and murder are still there. Unfortunately.
9
I agree that this production is amazing.
This is also the first OK I have seen that makes the case for Laurie actually being torn between Curley and Jud. The later is typically a beast, which leads you to wonder what she could ever see in him. Not here.
15
More than a few current and past ticket holders are/will be upset for paying Broadway prices for a show that is no longer the show they expect to see. By all accounts, this is a stripped down version and the ticket prices should also be stripped down. No chance of that happening.......
20
Perfect things like Oklahoma really do not need "re-imagining" by those who cannot manage to come up with something original of their very own.
34
@Mary Melcher, the non-Dan-Fish version seems very much available to be done, just as it was before the Bard production ever appeared. (This is different from the "To Kill a Mockingbird" situation, where Harper Lee had signed that the Aaron Sorkin version would be the only version allowed in the specified locations.).
And as I noticed somewhere earlier, this is not taking the place of an "Oklahoma!" someone else would have otherwise done, since it's only had two Broadway revivals, each a year or shorter, since the 1950s. (I wonder if it's that to many of us, the film is so well-cast and satisfying?)
PS That would be fascinating to ever have two in town at once, like when the Baz Luhrmann Broadway "La Boheme" and the Lincoln Center "La Boheme" and "Rent" [might not count to some, but it did to me] could be seen in the same few days in New York. Not that I did that; Ok, I did, but ticket prices were normal then. (And I didn't see all 3 Broadway casts, which so many people did.)
9
@Mary Melcher Apparently you're not very much of a theatre goer and didn't see this production. Every production done should be different, otherwise why re-stage it? Oklahoma was never perfect: if it was there would have been Native Americans, and ex-slaves, liberated women, people dying at young ages, range wars, and more than one Jewish peddler. And I seriously doubt anyone who settled the American west ever saw a ballet before, let alone danced in one.
8
Sirs,
Just to mention that the part of Curly is a baritone, not a tenor as Mr. Brantley suggests in his review, and has always been sung as such.
Sincerely,
Peter Shire
29
I really don't mind watching a pared down version of a classic, or a re-imaging of it either. So of them work incredibly well. But if I am to watched a no frills version, might I too pay a price to match it?
I feel as if I am watching a rehearsal. This happens way too often.
32
I saw this last Friday and can't recommend seeing it strongly enough. A fantastic and relevant take on a classic.
18
loved loved loved it!!! all of it brilliant.
14
The orchestration of the original Oklahoma! is magnificent. Nothing in the show needs to be changed or "updated." May I suggest if someone like Daniel Fish wants to make a name for himself that he write an entirely new musical rather than appropriate this Rodgers and Hammerstein masterpiece.
66
Couldn't agree more. Thank you.
15
I found it to be rather pretentious nonsense, but worse than that, I found it to be enormously disrespectful of the creative rights of Rodgers & Hammerstein, significantly altering their writing, which, to me, is the act of a rank amateur. However, all happiness is wished to those who enjoy it.
47
@PW You may think, somehow, that this production is disrespectful to R&H for some other reasons, but it is certainly not because they "significantly alter"ed the writing. As even this review points out: "Such a metamorphosis has been realized with scarcely a changed word of Oscar Hammerstein II’s original book and lyrics."
11
@munoz04, the Times is not infallible. There are significant changes to both the score (re-arranged and re-harmonized with notes not written by Rodgers), and the book. But you get to choose whom you believe.
20
@PW Exactly.
5
Is it appropriate for all ages?
@Linda I would say it's appropriate for teenagers, but not kids under 13.
4
@Linda No it is not! Oklahoma is layered with sexual tension and violence. It is an adult show.
4
@Linda
Probably not.
1
Nosey-pokes will peek through the shutters....
1
Aunt Eller's line about 'bending' the law a little evokes so much of the darker parts of Oklahoma's history. The Tulsa riots, the theft of oil royalties owed to the tribes, the environmental degradation that caused the dustbowl were all the result of 'bending' laws, treaties and the laws of nature.
15
@Ed Weissman, regarding " The Tulsa riots" - where words take our minds at times!
When Tony Yazbeck started miming his intro to "All I Need is the Girl" with the young Gypsy Rose Lee, he seemed like this nice-looking yet charactery actor starting the famous big song - but even with that name cast, the house was snapping to, feeling as the number went on that we were seeing the start for an actor creatives were going to be building or adjusting roles around. It really seemed he was startled by an ovation that seemed like it didn't want to end.
1
“this lad of the prairies is wiry and wired, so full of unchanneled sexual energy you expect him to implode. “
This really needs the big guns and those amazing "Grim Hotel" players! Gerard Alessandrini will one day build a classic on this, but here's a try until he's back from putting in the South of France tour of "Spamilton":
Alternate encore for “People Will Say We’re in Love”
Do smolder frantic’lly
Do tease pore Jud a lot.
Do thirst for Jud’s blood a lot.
People will say you’ll implode.
Don’t croon romantic’lly
Don’t hide your hate so much.
Don’t smile like John Raitt so much.
People will say you’ll implode.
Do court the Tony vote
That’ll build buzz for the road.
Take note, it’s in what they wrote -
People will say you’ll implode.
16
So many examples in these comments of the continuing closing of the American mind wherein if you don't like it you belittle and condemn it. There's certainly nothing wrong with a piece of art "entertaining" you and making you feel cozy and comfortable - but there's also nothing wrong with a piece of art confronting you and making you squirm. Geez, people, have some tolerance and please develop some imagination. You can dislike something - but have some respect for people who may - gasp - think differently from you and see things through a different lens. (Except for the person who was offended by the wheelchair - you're just wrong and small-minded.)
74
@BeenThere - the renouncing of a modern, revised, reworked piece of art does not always indicate a "closed mind". a masterpiece is a masterpiece, with all it's cracks and mistakes, no one can contradict a masterpiece. The public knows. For that matter, let's change the smile on the Mona Lisa, and charge money to see it, because it's "creative"! Why not! When so-called creative people lack the creativeness to create a new masterpiece, it's much easier to use someone else's creative genius .....and piggy-back on their "genius".
33
@BeenThere I'm a regular theatergoer who LOVES new avant-garde works, the more out there the better, and rethinks of the classics. Just because I absolutely loathed this production doesn't automatically make me a philistine.
39
I just read a review of this in the Post. Point by point it was diametrically opposed to this review.
So what's a theatergoer to do?
Save a bundle of money, stay home make a nice pot of chili and rent the movie.
Prices are too high for the average person to see a Broadway show.
To gamble on this production seems foolhardy , "free" bowls of chili
notwithstanding. But I guess you gotta have a gimmick...........
28
Reviews should never dictate your exploration of a show. You should go see for yourself.
7
@A.A. I thnk that last line is from Gypsy though...
@alocksley But very true! Just think of all the gimmicks that have made people who they are!
" . . . an “Oklahoma!” for our own age of anxiety . . . "
Because everything was peaches and cream in 1943.
57
@Steve Paradis Actually, 1907 is when OK became a state. The story takes place then. I think the point the reviewer was trying to make (I saw the show last week) is that even though we're 100+ years beyond the story, some things haven't changed. And perhaps Daniel Fish was trying to show that people maybe weren't the sanitized, black and white version of what you saw in the original show. Sexism and violence play a pretty big role in this version, and so does socio-economic discrimination. It's our history, and it's playing out very differently right now because of the many social movements.
2
It took guts to light out for the Oklahoma territory and this production's darkening stance took daring, too. Its pared-down staging makes the audience wonder what erotic, sometimes violent impulses these pioneers struggled to tamp down in order to keep up the hard, sweaty work of taming the prairie.
That's a fair question, and I found the answer here both trim and compelling, with merry yet edgy performances from a fine cast. My only quibble is with the "Dream Baby Dream" silver-sequined short-skirt ballet. Give these hardy pioneers credit. Of many races and hues, Oklahoma trailblazers could dream all right, but they weren't sybaritic disco fantasists.
Also: a September 1 closing date? Don't you believe it. The show may need to find another house, but, bank on it, this baby's going to run and run.
4
I was very much looking forward to this "updated" take on Oklahoma. I was very much disappointed. I did not see what the reviewer calls Curly's "unchanneled sexual energy," except maybe in the weirdly staged "Pore Jud." Definitely not in any scenes with Laurey. I found most of the performances to be flat (in affect, not musically).
The dream dance sequence was bizarre, and the change to the climax of the show was confusing. I am an avid theatergoer, saw the show with someone who has a degree in theatre, and discussed it with a friend who has a PhD. None of us understood either of those scenes.
The only bright point of the show was Ado Annie. She was fantastic.
24
@KR24 perhaps you should view it with less scholastic qualifications
4
@TishTash - Why?
10
I haven't seen this version of Oklahoma! but have seen a couple of other productions, including the Hugh Jackman revival and of course the movie. The reviews I've read suggest that the new production finds a dark subtext in the material that is somehow brand-new.
If that's the case, you haven't been paying attention. Oklahoma! has always had disturbing elements, and it doesn't take a "revisionist" approach to see and hear them. From the opening notes of the first song -- where Rodgers shifts unexpectedly from a major to a minor tone on "morning" -- through the ballet and the character of Jud, it's hardly a work of endless sunshine.
60
@Cheeseman Forever
Thank you for this. I felt the same way reading this review as if all of this darkness has been recently discovered. As a kid I remember being haunted by the movie. This show has never hidden its darkness. As current consumers of the theater we like to be told that we're discovering subtexts where our predecessors could only see the bright golden haze on the meadow. I'd like to give them a little more credit. And also Rogers and Hammerstein. These were great artists and this is great art. And it's been complex from the beginning.
31
@SJG Having seen the show, I don't want to give anything away, but I guarantee you there are new elements of darkness that the older more "black and white" version didn't include.
3
I'NY ve been to Oklahoma. I grew up with and have always loved the original musical Oklahoma, which somehow "felt" like the actual Oklahoma, even though it was a NY musical. From what I read here, this version has lost touch with the real Oklahoma.
11
@me In fairness, it's not just that using someone else's magnificent creation to push a PC agenda is offensive, but it's also very difficult to make a tiny stage feel like the middle of the prairies. Agnes DeMille's original choreography might have helped with that somewhat....
19
@me
There is almost nothing more tiresome and meaningless than complaints about things being "pc" I have no doubt that if you were around for the original productions of almost all the R&H musicals you would have complained about them being too "pc". There are two phrases that instantly mark the user as having nothing to say one is "pc" the other is "first world problem". The only person pushing an agenda here is you.
6
Does anyone agree that Jud's "Lonely Room" echoes Pagliacci's aria?
5
I agree with many of the comments below. For me, the music wasn’t big enough for the space, except for a couple of numbers which were sung with a mike on stage- and they were too big. The contrast was painful.
The glare of the lighting made the space seem bigger and Curly and Laurie and their voices smaller, starting with the opening song.
I loved Stoker as Ado Annie- her agility, charisma and huge wonderful voice gave life to her scenes that for me was missing in others.
The ballet was interesting for a while, but way too long-seemed forever before it was finally over.
The end was certainly shocking. I don’t understand Curly’s justification- a fit of pique? A whim? In this version, in this scene, I couldn’t see any provocation.
30
@Pam I couldn't figure out what was going on half the time -- and I'm very familiar with the book.
10
Well, I must disagree. I found this to be an oddly conceived production, to say the least. First off, as fine an actress as Stroker is, casting someone in a wheelchair for this pivotal role was not a wise decision. Viewers are distracted by the wheelchair, and more than one scene is rendered awkward by its presence.
The dream-dance sequence was simply bizarre and overly long. Moreover, it seemed to bear absolutely no relationship with what came before or after. The music and dance were jarring and interfered with the momentum of the show.
The play's climactic scene was no doubt perceived differently depending on where you were seated in this theater-in-the-round. I don't want to give specifics away, but suffice it to say that from where I was seated, looking at Jud's back, Curly's action did not appear justified.
All in all, I found this version very disappointing. The familiar music was fun to hear, but it only made me miss the movie soundtrack.
32
@Steve If more actors in wheelchairs were cast in lead roles, viewers would not be "distracted." It is on you as an audience member to embrace what you may have never seen on a Broadway stage before.
21
@Steve The wheelchair was distracting? My dear, your privilege is showing.
22
@TishTash Not at all. I'm simply making an observation. If the actor had had purple and green hair or been 8 feet tall, I would have said the same thing. Being in a wheelchair had nothing to do with either the character or the play and so was simply a distraction.
12
I'm watching the magnificent film version this afternoon to take the dreary ideas of this new production out of my mind.
31
And tell us, was Gordon McRae believable as a frontier cowboy?
1
@GC Within the context and style of the film, entirely so. It's not a documentary.
9
Yes
3
I found this Oklahoma to be funny, fresh and joyous. Yes, it has dark and menacing undercurrents, which were especially creepy in the scene in the smokehouse with Jud and Curly. Overall I felt like I was seeing the play with new eyes — and for me this is good — all the while enjoying the splendid music I’ve known for many years. The audience on the day I went appeared to be thrilled, grinning ear to ear and cheering at the end. And yes, trying unsuccessfully not to sing along with the final rousing version of Oklahoma.
26
The best Curlys are probably lyric baritones, rather than "strapping tenors." The part sits lower (with some high notes), and really shows off a John Raitt-type voice.
18
That this Oklahoma works at all is a testament to the integrity of the original work, that it could survive this attempt to bend and distort it to a questionable end.
I adore Oklahoma and managed to enjoy this as well (the chili was vegetarian and surprisingly delicious). However, I found it needlessly jolting, and this will be unwelcome by most theatergoers who will attend expecting to see, well, Oklahoma. And that’s not OK. Tickets are expensive, after all.
I liked least sitting in a brightly lit arena. I have been to this theater many times and felt the overly-bright lighting an almost aggressive attempt to disquiet the audience – and for what? So that it would contrast oh-so-meaningfully with the pitch black Jud sequences?
Let it be said that Ali Stroker’s Ado Annie easily steals this show. A strong voice and performance when I found others uneven. And yes, forgive me, but I prefer my Curly strapping. Call me a girl who can’t say no.
I’d say this show exceeds despite, not because of, the self-conscious attempts to make a statement we’re all pretty much aware of before we enter the theater. These are indeed dark times. A happier Oklahoma would have been much more welcome.
38
@Brian You make it sound like happy versions of OK! are sparse. There's usually nothing but. Let's not be selfish and let others versions exist.
1
@TishTash
Sadly very little can prevent their existence.
2
I have tickets to see the show next week and while I am looking forward to it as I usually do when I see a Broadway show in the city, I tend to be a traditionalist when it comes to theater.
Change for change sake has never appealed to me, and I am always wary of a director's need to "bring a show into the 21st century." We don't support that when we look at works of art in a museum.
Rather than revamping a classic piece of American theater in an attempt to make it "new and exciting" wouldn't it be more refreshing to write a musical from scratch that would reflect the longstanding American legacies as noted in this review?
50
@Len
Me too. Sincerely wondering why you bought tickets.
3
@Len Pay no attention to the naysayers here. They simply haven't a clue. The show is not reimagined in any strange way at all. It's the same show and just gorgeous -- same moving subject matter, excellent cast, just different musical arrangements, modern dance instead of ballet (which never had much of a realistic place on the western Oklahoma range anyway), and no longer a lily white, 1940s cast. You will love it.
4
The new musical arrangements and the performers were superb. The production as a whole was just too drab. I don’t know why they had to use ugly new plastic food hampers or carry around tin cans. So anachronistic and ugly and environmentally unfriendly. A few woven hampers with ribbons and even some tablecloths on those white Formica tables would have been better. Why not bottles instead of cans? It all seemed pointless though no doubt they were trying to make a statement. As for the “ballet” it was interesting until I hoped it would end. It just went on and on and on.
26
The 1943 cast turning over in their graves. As is Agnes.
49
@Chuck ah, but they're in graves for a reason: It's 2019!
11
@Chuck YUP!!!
2
@Chuck...
So would the great Modern Dancer Erick Hawkins who brilliant role was simply cut from this version.
1
While this is not your grandfather’s Oklahoma, I cannot adopt it as mine either. Devoid of any joy, excitement, spectacle, or even entertainment, it seems like a psychological exercise in how to make something out of nonsense. This production is simply a childish attempt to show how far away from an enjoyable Broadway musical we can get and still have the audacity to call it Oklahoma. Don’t waste your time and money.
67
@Theater Junkie
You felt about this Oklahoma the way I felt seeing King Lear being trampled on in the Production now on Broadway.
This raises a very interesting debate.
I found this rethinking of OK ! very entertaining. All those
old R&H standards sound young and fresh when orchestrated for a pit band . Surrey With a Fringe...
hasn't sounded this sexy since Lena Horne did her take on it.
My point is : This is NOT your grandfather's Oklahoma.
But with an open mind one can look at this Classic from a whole new prospective.
5
@Theater Junkie If you found it "devoid of joy, excitement, or entertainment," the problem is with the audience member, not the show. There was absolutely nothing "childish" about this show, which is filled with sex, innuendo, and the constant threat of violence, except your notion that la-la-la-la-la everything was happy, happy, happy in 1907 Indian territory. Good God -- what could you be thinking?
3
They're showing a closing date of September 1? Does that just mean this cast is only signed until then? Some friends are (Is it now were?) planning their trip to see this and "Moulin Rouge." Is there really any chance this won't still be around in October?
4
@Freddie It is probably a limited run at this point. It could always extend though, depending how well it does.
@Colleen It's an open run from what I gather, so the Sep 1 date may just be a placeholder.
@Colleen, it used to be we'd stand on a line (especially on a day where the weather is good) on the morning after notices like this, cast in hand, and feel a part of excitement with others. The box office people tended to be exhausted but happy their house had a hit. I guess that's all on the computer that only the producers and theater owners see these days.
I know I've seen "Oklahoma!" so many times, but looking at ibdb, https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-show/oklahoma-6697 it's only been on Broadway twice before in my lifetime, and neither of those ran more than a year! Is there really any way New Yorkers are tired of the show? It doesn't make sense if we are.
2
I saw the show during previews in March and have never seen the usual “hometown and high school” Oklahoma!. I could feel this version was much darker by the staging and lighting.
That said, I would highly recommend seeing this show. Having seen many shows this year, I felt this show left me the most pensive and reflective. I’m still interpreting the meaning of the dance scene and the bloody shooting on Curly’s and Laurey’s wedding day.
16
I saw it this weekend and thought that it was good but not great. Many fine things about it make it worth seeing. I found the ballet to be a distracting bore, but then again there is no accounting for taste. The cast and musicians are fine. The video projections are pointless and distracting. Go see for yourself.
9