I've seen lots of musicals and I don't understand why so many of them have long and needless scenes of dancing or dramatics.
Oklahoma is one of them. And the fact that the directors used different actors to do the scenes is terrible. Just to perform the dances. If the actors can't do it what's the point anyway?
I've Always thought the smae thing. i love Oklahoma, but the dream scene is weird and pointless.
It was essential in the 30s 40s and 50s to have a lot of dancing in the shows, and because Rodgers and Hammerstein plays are primarily drama and very basic songs, there is a ballet in each one (this is also to make it "a musical" - i.e. over 50% is music). I was in "Oklahoma!" last month, and one night while the dream was going on made the comment: "I bet the audience wish they had a fastforward button". You wouoldn't believe how seriously that was taken. Yes, these dancey bits are boring, but I guess it allows one to take time off and turn off one's mind (You don't want to be in the wings in the ballet bits, though...). I admit that I've never stuck a whole R&H ballet on VHS. It certainly made me feel guilty that my character sold Laurey the smelling salts! I want to go back to it... getting actor's depression... Never again will I say "Alright, alright, if the eggbeater don't work..."
daniel.
Well, I played Jud in the stage production we did at my school, and the ballet actually made sense in that one. The dance doubles for the characters Laurey and Curly were telling the story of their love through their part of the dance, but they were obviously being secretive. The townspeople see them and everyone is happily preparing for the wedding. It is supposed to be that all she can think about is the happiness she would feel if she went to the box social with Jud. But, when he shows up instead of Curly, she thinks of what kind of person she'll turn into and who Jud hangs around with. This is the reason for the dance hall girl sequence. And the fight ending in Curly's death is reinforcing to her that the only way for Curly to be safe is to go with Jud to the party. At least, this is my understanding of the dream. Laurey is just making up her mind. Hope that helps.
shareThanks for the excellent explanation. I did not find the dream ballet boring, either. Did you know that James Mitchell, who portrayed patriarch Palmer Courtland on "All My Children," was Curly in the dream ballet? He also appeared as a dance enthusiast with Fred Astaire in "The Band Wagon" and with Shirley MacLaine in "The Turning Point."
Sheila Beers
[deleted]
the dream scene was extremly boering. it was pointless. but the rest of the movie was great
shareThe dream represented her fears, and I think part of the reason it had different actors is that in dreams things aren't as clear as in real life, so the people resembled those that she was dreaming about, but didn't look exactly the same. Just a theory! :)
shareThey had different people because Gordon MaCrae(sp?) and Shirly Jones aren't trained dancers. I love this movie but try the one with Hugh Jackman. It really good! They use the same actors for the dancing.
"I am what I am and what I am is no excuses!" LA CAGE AUX FOLLES
I agree. I really disliked the dream scene, and never figured out why they used different actors.I usually just skip this part.
shareThat dream used to freak me out so badly when I was little and I still dislike it, I just fastforward it, and as above stated, if I was watching a live performane I would probably take a toilet break right about then! I just dislike it quite a lot, lol. The rest of the movie is great though. :)
shareSorry to do this - it was looking good with all different posters, but I like spoiling things. Having different Curleys and Laureys reflects the script. They were made different because:
a) Laurey is on stage at the time of the ballet.
b) They don't represent reality but imagination where nothing is quite the same
c) It would make Jud seem even more powerful and forceful (having him the same; he plays himself in the script).
The above comes from a newspaper article. I think that Rodgers and Hammerstein had something to do with the contents [of the article].
daniel.
WHAT!
My God, not one response in favour of the magnificent dream sequence!!!!!
I would drop any part of the film before cutting that! It's a perfect medley of nearly all the Act I music, and it goes together beautifully. It's like the Crapshooter's Dance of "Guys & Dolls". It's not meant to boost the plot, it's there for an interval and lets you know exactly how Laurey feels about the situation at that time.
IT's *beep* great!!!!
But then you wouldnt get to see the harlets!! ever since i was i was little something fascinated me about the the burlesque house part of the dream....something about the tall one in the middle LOL, i still love this movie..yes even the dream part. And perhaps it explains my fascination with corsets LMAO..
shareAnd then there's the orchestration making "I Cain't Say No" sound lustier (if that's actually possible)
He said the play itself was no masterpiece, but the Lunts, of course, were absolute angels.
My guess is that most of the "don't like the dream ballet" contributors are in their teens or twenties.
Opinions are just that, but having some context can't help but make an opinion a more "informed" one.
In the late 30s and into the 40s, Broadway was energized (some would say "revolutionized") by the importing of the innovations of the modern dance world. It was indeed a big step for R&H to have hired the very "legit" choreographer Agnes DeMille.
These extended ballets were seen, a decade or two later, as a kind of fashion that had run its course. (You might re-visit the 1954 "White Christmas" film and see how Irving Berlin slyly pokes fun at modern dance in the "Choreography" number.)
That said, OK's dream ballet is not a "real time" dance sequence (like the Kansas City number), but an abstraction. I wonder if contributors who complained "but it's not the same Laurie and Curley" have no problem with suspension of disbelief in contemporary cinema----and 21st century films have as many implausabilities as anything from past decades.
R&H waited 12 years to bring OK to the screen, and took a very strong role in production (which they chose never to do again). They gave the show a full re-thinking, but I'm surprised at all they *didn't* change. From our 20/20 hindsight vantage point, I think it perfectly right that they a) didn't discard the ballet, b) didn't try to make it more "realistic", c) continued to use "Dream Laurey" and "Dream Curley", and d) shot it indoors, on a sound stage. That makes it all the more "different" from (most of) the rest of the picture.
For me, the film holds up pretty well. I wonder how the films of today (or the Broadway musicals) will fare in 2055?
Thanks to all for your interesting thoughts!
[deleted]
[deleted]
It was a good one!
share[deleted]
That dream used to freak me out so badly when I was little
your not the only one, my chorus teacher played this movie in the classroom and the first time i saw the dream scene i thought it was kind of scary, the part when Laurie was in Jud's creepy house. :/
That dream used to freak me out so badly
that part with Jud in the dream freaked me out when i was a kid, so your not the only one. :)
For me personally, I really don't mind watching the dream sequence but it is a little too long for me to handle. I think they wanted to show other actors who could dance but Rod Steiger (Jud) had to it because they couldn't find an actor closely resembling him so he had to do the dancing. This is 1 great film w/ an equally great soundtrack.
shareI liked the dream sequence. It brings the previous parts together to show Laurey's fears. I agree that it is disorienting to have Curley and Laurey
(sp?) played by different people for the dance sequence. I just watched the 1999 stage version (dvd) with Hugh Jackman, and in it the actors dance their parts. That espescially helps bring continuity to the piece onscreen. There is a bonus disc with this version with the director and choreographer and other people talking about this, it is interesting because they said that in many versions this ballet has been cut. They also said that this (Hugh Jackman version, for lack of a better name) is the only version they know of where Curley and Laurey dance their parts.
I can't really speak for the movie, as I'm not extremely familiar with it, but IMO, the dream is one of the best parts of the show. I'm actually involved in a production of Oklahoma right now and it's one of the most fun parts to watch. Our dancers are fabulous, and the dream really tells a story. It essentially tells the story of the show, but without any speaking or singing.
*SPOILERS* Dream Laurey sees Dream Curly and dances with him. Then they seems as though they are going to get married, but then Laurey gets distracted by other guys (which is somewhat of what she is saying in Many a New Day), and then she dances with Curly again and does get married, but turns around to see Jud there instead of Curly. Jud forces her to dance with him, and then HE is distracted by the "saloon girls", the girls in the pictures on his walls. They start dancing and get Laurey to dance with them. She gets caught up in the moment and is having fun, but then she realizes Jud is still there and gets really scared. Curly comes in to protect her and fights Jud. He ends up getting killed. Laurey then wakes up by the real Jud to go to the Box Social.
The dream Ballet also foreshadows the ending of the show, in that Curly and Jud hate each other and fight over Laurey. Personally, I love it and I would cry were it ever left out of the show.
Raoul: To the cemetery, Snowflake! Away!share
That sequence was also in the play, and in the version I saw, there was a dream Curley and a Dream Laurey, but the actor who played Jud did his own dancing
shareNot only "yes", but "HELL, yes!" I know the dream sequence is important, but it does tend to drag out.
share