Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- From: Sweevil <stephenoles@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 7 May 2007 06:18:54 -0700
I remember as a child being bugged by the fact that the "dream" Laurie
and Curley looked different -- but after all it's a dream! And you
can't expect your two singing leads to be expert ballet dancers as
well.
Except in the recent Hugh Jackman production that was televised, where
the leads actually were good enough dancers to play themselves in the
dream sequence, which I thought was a marvelous touch and a great
tribute to the skills of the two performers. (Although the actress
playing Laurie was directed to play her character so "darkly", she
occasionally seemed to have wandered in from some heavy-breathing
Ingmar Bergman melodrama.)
On May 6, 8:25 pm, dresscircl...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Questions:
1) Is 3.5 hours typical?
No, if Oklahoma takes much more than two and a half hours, something's
dreadfully wrong.
2) Is it typical for Annie to steal the show and really be the female star?
Sometimes that happens. Broadway's original Laurey, Joan Roberts, did
hardly anything after Oklahoma! while the Ado Annie, Celeste Holm,
became a well-known star.
3)
Is Laurey supposed to be lifeless? With a plastered smile? I realize she
is suppose to be more serious then Annie but there is a difference
between serious and lifeless.
Not lifeless at all. She's supposed to be feisty, strong, full of
life.
4)
Or is the role of Jud supposed to feature a strong powerful singer?
Jud sometimes seems strong and powerful because the singing range
features low notes. Most productions, singing-wise, the Curly far
outshines the Jud; this was true of the original production, with the
ultimate Broadway baritone Alfred Drake as Curly and reliable
character-man not-so-known-for-his-singing Howard Da Silva as Jud.
5) The dream sequence. Is another actress supposed to be Laurey? It
looked bizarre. The actress who played Laurey in the dream sequence was
heavier and easily 10 years older.
Yes, there's supposed to be a dancing Laurey, a completely different
performer. Ideally, though, they look similar and it strikes no one
as bizarre.
Why did the creators (Rodgers and Hammerstein) chose to have so many
songs during one scene? Yet in the second act 4 scenes and just about 5
songs - 3 reprisals 2 originals.
The best way to answer this is to point out that Rodgers and
Hammerstein were consciously creating something completely different
than the musicals the world knew before. As writers, they were most
concerned with effective storytelling, and these concerns led them to
put several songs in one scene, not so many in the second act. Prior
to Oklahoma, creators were more concerned about having the "right"
number of songs in each act and scene.
It's a fascinating and revolutionary musical; I wish you'd seen a
stronger production.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- From: Steve Newport
- Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- References:
- Oklahoma - Q and comments
- From: aalucard
- Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- From: dresscircleuk
- Oklahoma - Q and comments
- Prev by Date: Re: Honoring JERRY HERMAN
- Next by Date: Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- Previous by thread: Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- Next by thread: Re: Oklahoma - Q and comments
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|