Have you seen the current Broadway revival?
No, I have not. I would, however, welcome such an opportunity.
I remain open to new interpretations of classic works. I maintain that the greater the play, the more open to interpretation it is. One need not "like" every interpretation, and one will certainly find favorites among the several he/she experiences. And it remains just as wrong to attempt radically "different" interpretations of a work as it is to simply duplicate something that has already been produced. The producer/director/designer should approach the script with a serious sense of attempting to render a "true" manifestation of the
meaning of the play, whatever that itself means. Even when the directorial approach is to allow the audience to derive personal meaning from the visual rendering of the script, that approach must still rely upon grasping the interpretive clues (metaphors, symbols, characterizations, design suggestions) inherent in the script. I tend to prefer playscripts in which the playwright has not encumbered the script with too much setting verbiage. Shakespeare's scripts are fine examples, where the director/producer/designer has free reign to use imagination. The idea still remains to stay "true" to the individual script. One can produce an adventurous
Hamlet that is simply wrong, or an adventurous
Hamlet that clicks on all cylinders.
Classics such as
Oklahoma! often prove problematical for audiences who (erroneously, I argue) expect to see the film version rendered on the stage. Sometimes the slightest variation from the familiar strikes in them a sour chord and leading to an overall disfavor with the work. A skillfully rendered interpretation should set aside most of these consternations to allow the viewers to "get" the work. Still, some productions are more successful than others.
I had opportunity to direct
Oklahoma! twice, some decades apart. Both of my interpretations respected the traditions of the play, with an obvious western setting and traditional costuming. Still, much differed from production one to production two. I recall that one of my favorite features in my second production was the use of a come-to-life scarecrow which interacted with the characters in various scenes and song numbers, from Curly's entrance through the corn field through to playing a banjo at the wedding fest. Was this a fantastical
Oklahoma! from the universe of the
Wizard of Oz? Perhaps. But it was still
Oklahoma!
One likely never gets the full sense of any play (except maybe the shallowest of the shallowest) from any single viewing, which is why it is important to experience a variety of interpretations. The same with great musical works. The various interpretations allow for an expansion of consciousness in one's appreciation of a work. Which is good.
I've read
Macbeth hundreds of times, seen dozens of productions, directed it once, and I am still learning about the universe of that play. It's vastness of consciousness continues to confound and amaze, but it also lures me onward to keep exploring. And only the greatest of art can do such.it
Oklahoma! may not be on a par with
Hamlet or
Macbeth, but it is still a good work of art and has much to offer those who seek to know it. Hopefully directors will continue offering new visions of this piece. It certainly deserves the time and effort.
