Hey everybody! Thanks for watching this video that wound up basically being a way for me to say goodbye to a pretty toxic culture that I was raised in. Be sure to click that like button like it’s the last picnic basket at the auction and BE RESPECTFUL in the comments please! :)
Curly is absolutely the villain. Judd Fry is so obviously mentally disabled and has no idea how his actions are coming off to people. He mirrors the same toxic masculinity that everyone else around him exhibits but he doesn’t filter it in a way that is socially acceptable. As an autistic man myself I have been in similar situations as Judd where I tried to do what I thought was okay but didn’t understand the differences and all I can say is that I’m lucky to have learned and lucky to be alive. Judd never had a chance.
You were raised in a toxic culture? Where, in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba? You don't know toxic, until you were in a death camp like Auschwitz! My friend's mother was there and even lived to tell about it.
@@sweeney60 You are ignoring the fact that Jud tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly. In the movie version, Jud also set fire to the haystack that both Curly and Laurie were on top of. Jud attacked Curly with a knife and tried to kill Curly. He died by falling on his own knife during the fight. Curly was defending himself against Jud. Fish's distortion revival totally changed the R&H musical by introducing a gun at the wedding and having Curly shoot Jud. Fish took it upon himself to totally change Oklahoma, hence it should have been called Noklahoma. It was also Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
This is why lyrics are important in a musical. It wasn't until I payed attention to the lyrics that I realized "wait a minute, this guy is trying to talk another guy into committing suicide".
While it seemed that way, the intention of the song was to be taken lightly, in a joking kind of way. Jud, himself is also singing the song which makes it funny. If Jud was not singing along and asked Curly to stop singing or asked him to get out during the song, then it would be seen as serious. The lines about the fingernails and running out of ice were meant to be humorous at the time and there was audience laughter during and after the song. The play opened on 3/31/1943. The nation was in the middle of WWII and Oklahoma was a smash hit ,running 2,212 performances. It was considered a musical comedy and there was a lot of laughter, much needed laughter, during a time of war. People needed a break from the war, and Oklahoma did the job. Ever hear of Kamikaze suicide Japanese pilots? That was real horror like the war. Not psyched up, faux outrage that is directed at Oklahoma!
I feel your pain. I went to college in the small town of Due West which only had 1200 people year round (with the students). This town was so incredibly small that we were excited my graduation year that there would be a Subway coming to town of all things.
This is why I LOOOVE Oklahoma 2019, it really looks the audience in the eye and says “this show is beautiful but PROBLEMATIC” without changing any lines or music
They changed the lines. Also the music. They changed the story. Why don't you watch the UNCSA recreation of Oklahoma the way it opened on B'way on 3/31/1943. Did you see the revival on B'wy in 2002 with Patty Duke as Aunt Eller? What about the 1955 movie with Shirley Jones and Gordon MacCrae. So tell me where was the shooting of Judd at the wedding by Curly in every Oklahoma prior to Daniel Fish's 2019 distortion? Why did Fish eliminate the 28 piece orchestra that is essential to every R&H musical? What's with the corn bread, blood and gore? What's with the guitar strutting Curly? What's with making Curly a cold blooded killer by shooting Judd?
What the heck? Why is this video and so many commenters ignoring the fact that in the song and conversation between Jud and Curly Jud basically admits to setting another house on fire and killing a family because their daughter spurned him? Isn’t it heavily implied that the townspeople are bidding against him to protect Laurey because they know he’s dangerous and not because he’s a misunderstood outsider? And the fact that Jud attacks Curly and Laurey, leading to his death? Curly is definitely flawed and his Jud song is creepy as hell, but no way is he more of a villain than Jud.
Besides stating that the farmhouse fire "was no accident" Jud asks Ali Hakim if he has a "little wonder". Later, he buys the "little wonder" from Wil (who does not know it is a lethal weapon).He shows the little wonder to Curly and Aunt Eller stops Curly from looking into it (she was alerted to the danger by Hakim) Finally, Jud shows up after the wedding and while fighting with Curly, pulls a knife on him.( In the movie version he sets the haystacks on fire, as well as pulling the knife on Curly). Jud dies by falling on his own knife in every R&H production and revival except Daniel Fish' distortion. Btw, the Jud song was supposed to be comical. Jud himself is singing along which makes it funny. The lyrics are funny and the audience in 1943, who had a major war to worry, about thought the song was funny.
@@maryleone2023 Agree with everything else you said, but I remember watching the movie as a girl (on TV in the 70's), and the Poor Jud song left a very bad taste in my mouth about Curly as the leading man. I couldn't understand why anyone thought it was okay, much less funny. Even with all you said about Jud, having the romantic lead suggest that a troubled man hang himself is just...yikes.
@@appletree6898 When Oklahoma premiered on Broadway in 1943, the song lyrics about Jud were written by Oscar Hammerstein and were intended to be satirical and not literal. Jud actually sang along and the lyrics poked fun at wakes and the way the deceased are presented. The theatre goers at the time needed a respite from the trauma of WWll and no one took offense to Oklahoma which was a huge success and later made into a movie. The overall take away is that Oklahoma is an uplifting and funny play and movie as evidenced by Ado Annie, Will Parker and Ali Hakim.
Curly isn’t perfect (especially During Jud is dead) but calling him and not Jud the villain is just silly. He’s an arsonist, stalker, and tries to stab Curly.
They also illuminate what is almost always extremely dark source material, like Green Grow the Lilacs AND Liliom. They pull the light out of the dark primarily by creating communities where there are none in the plays. Their shows are dark because they're writing about human nature, and also because, in the case of Carousel and Oklahoma!, they were writing in the shadow of the war.
Both Curly and Jud are flawed human beings who are capable of good and bad as we all are. That is why Oklahoma was so revolutionary. The complexity of human life hadn't been addressed in musicals before due to them being seen as nothing but mindless entertainment. While Curly was definitely painted as the hero in the original production, you can't deny that Jud wasn't seen as simply a villain. While I wish Curly had more development in the original production, I'm so thankful that Oklahoma exists and gave musicals an opportunity to be serious and to discuss important topics.
While Curly has his faults, it’s intellectually dishonest to call him THE villain when Jud exists, a terrifying depiction of the entitled man who is a danger to any woman he pursues. Laurie is clearly terrified of Jud, and his showing up to the wedding is evidence of his capacity for harm. Also, Laurie is far more active than this video makes her out to be, as her marriage to Curly is not her only option other than Jud, but rather based on the fact that she does love him.
I actually think the Daniel fish production is great for this very reason, Jud isn't necessarily the worst person, he's the ostracised outsider. Jud is a character who's misunderstood by his community because he's this brooding farmhand he's a second class citizen. Daniel Fish's interpretation leaves you wondering if Jud really deserved to die and if letting Curly off for it was right. the world isn't black and white, and that's explored even in the original show. Jud's A bad guy, but you can't convince me he's THE bad guy when they're mostly all morally grey at least
Great video Brandon! Although one thing does bother me is the painting of Jud as completely innocent. Let's not forget that Laurie states the reason she agreed to go to the dance with Jud, was partially out of fear. It's clear that Jud has a one-sided crush on Laurie, and like many women/womxn, Laurie is afraid of rejecting Jud because she doesn't know if doing so will result in an assault or her murder. Jud is much stronger than Laurie, and could easily physically take whatever he wanted from her. He partially proves her right when he threatens her twice after confessing his love, and vowing to make her regret not choosing him-- he even assaults her on the day of her wedding by non-consensually kissing her! Like I know some people tend to downplay the seriousness of it by saying, "It was just a kiss! It wasn't *that* bad!" but it's obvious from her body language that she was under duress and did not want Jud to touch her at all. If you inappropriately touch someone, especially after they said "No" or are not interested, that's assault. (I had that happen to me at work Sunday night when a bum came into my store, began sexually harassing me verbally and then pressed himself against me after I said no.) Curly is not the only one that is effected by toxic masculinity. Jud is too.
@@WaitintheWings Curly is an asshole (i don't think the text implies that he's persuading Jud to kill himself...he's bullying Jud because he knows he's being provocative but Jud is too unaware to meet him with violence like anyone else would; an asshole move but not an villainous one), that isn't the same thing as a villain (who is the person who works against the morality of the text). Curly doesn't, you just don't like what the text is saying. Fair, but there's no reason to muddle the connotation of villain to do so.
@@ashmeadowphoenix Curly is a different kind of villain the Jud. When you argue about _"technicalities"_ , you're basically using the bigot's excuse to defend themselves. "I'm not racist because I'm not a klansman!", "That person's not a Nazi because _technically_ they have actually killed a Jewish person!", "I can't hate women since I have a mother/wife/sister/daughter/etc!", "I'm not homophobic or transphobic, because I'm not scared of them because _technically_ the definition of a phobia means to be afraid of it!" It's a lazy way of reconciling your prejudice because _you_ don't like what someone is saying, so you try to redefine it to fit _your_ narrative. Maybe you know someone who behaves like Curly, or perhaps you identify with Curly in some way, and hearing someone calling him villainous and not a good person has got your dander up because it implies that _you_ or that acquaintance/friend of yours is by extension, a villain.
@@cannibalisticrequiem Well, I see why you're confused about my response. I'm not arguing technicalities, and no one who is well-versed in literary criticism would think so. Curly is not a villain, technically or otherwise. Villain has a specific literary meaning in literary interpretation. "Villain" is a term specifically meant to both make the audience aware of the ethical milieu of the media and suggest that a character is in opposition to it. Curly is very much the hero within the ethical milieu of Oklahoma, because the ethical milieu of Oklahoma is pretty unethical; it suggests in _more_ interactions than in the Curly and Jud interaction (including the interaction between Ado Annie's father and Ali Hakim), that bullying is fine if it's "deserved", where who is deserving is much less expansive than progressive voices in 21st century might like it to be. Some advice: It's probably a good idea to ask questions _before_ you respond in a way that suggests you didn't read what I wrote very closely or thoughtfully and certainly didn't understand the lens of what was said. Willing to bet you could not quote a single part of my comment that a) indicated I think something is only a "technicality" and b) that I have indicated any actual personal liking or defense of the text's ethical perspective. And yet, your whole comment is full of useless extracted strawmen based on those very things.
Are just going to over look the fact that Jud burnt down three farmer's houses due to being rejected by their daughters? and creeping and hanging around Lauries bedroom window, thats not what a normal putogether farm hanfd should be doing to and with his bosses daughter. there is no way of making judgement out to be the poor victim sorry, and the fact that he tries and tries again to be around laurie and touch her and kiss her against her will, thats ok but curly is a bad man due to him being a cowboy and protecting the women and her aunt that he loves and the town that he has grown to love? sorry curly aint the villain, Jus is hands down.
It is not actually ever outright stated that it WAS Jud that burnt down the other farms. It's text left open to assumption and interpretation on the part of the production itself to run with or not. I have seen it both ways where it's implied it was him but also where it's implied it was not only a sort of cautionary tale. And that's the thing, making the director or the character choice that is was NOT him hits again with his video says about. The outsider vs insider mentality of the local culture. The socially accepted jock cowboy vs the socially shunned loser laborer. Is Jud the one that did it? Possibly. But it's also very possible that the locals are just using the story against Jud because if ONE farmhand did that, then ALL farm hands are creepers and capable of doing the same, It makes farm hands the local boogey man of sorts. To them, even if Jud didn't do it, they treated him lesser than because of it.
@@AmbeeLee Let's see now, Judd tried to kill Curly with the " Little Wonder" viewer w/built in knife. Then he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight that he(Judd) started .Judd ended up falling on his own knife. The death was accidental and Curly was deemed innocent due to defending himself from being stabbed to death by Judd. So that was the story in Oklahoma from 3/31/1943 through every revival except 2019, and as shown in the 1955 movie. Judd was not, nor ever was intended to be a poor, lonely misunderstood outsider. Curly was never portrayed as a cold blooded killer by (gun at point blank range) until 2019. The fact that the newlyweds both wore white for heightened effect, when covered in blood in 2019, is evidence of something more. They sang the title song covered in blood, to smear America, period. It was Carrie Meets Oklahoma!
I agree that Judd is absolutely the villain. However, as a person who WEPT for him during his solo, I have to also admit that he is a human being with feelings, and I feel for him. Loneliness has driven him to his villainhood. And Curly tried to get him to kill himself. That is problematic. Curly is NOT perfect. But I won't call him the villain, either, because, as you say, he was trying to protect Laurie from a man who wanted to take her against her will. They both wanted to possess her. The difference is that Laurie WANTED Curly. So, it's a happy ending FOR HER. Well, and a happy ending for Ado-Annie and Will, who are neither one exactly faithful sorts, but they are HONEST with each other about it. I think they'll manage well together, if they maintain that honesty.
Funny, I remember watching Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman as a kid and thinking it was a horror film-all the characters were so flawed and dysfunctional and I thought that was the point. Watching the 1960s version was jarring because it was so sunny and I remember thinking “Wait, this is supposed to be a comedy?“
I think you left out something kind of important. It depends on the production and interpretation, but I've seen productions where Judd is clearly portrayed as someone who is experiencing intellectual challenges. Seeing Curly and to a lesser extent, Laurie effectively bully someone with different needs always makes me VERY uncomfortable.
You are forgetting that the original story from the day it opened on Broadway, through every Broadway and West End revival, including the Movie, except the 2019 distorted version) show that Judd tried to kill Curly TWICE!. Once at the box social, with the Little Wonder and after the wedding, when Judd attacked Curly with a knife and ended up falling on his own knife! Judd was not some poor, misunderstood outsider with different needs!
Our "Hero" talks his romantic rival into committing suicide, simply because they both love the same girl, and we're supposed to think that this is charming, because it's a musical, and not messed up at all?!
@@GabrielaDay Precisely, everyone just seems to ignore the problematic implications, and instead focus on the songs, which are admittedly catchy, and to me, are more memorable than the actual plot! 🎶
@@trinaq Judd never committed suicide! Therefor Curly did not talk him into it..! Curly alluded to it, just as Judd alluded to setting the fire that killed 3 people! Judd also tried to stab Curly TWICE, once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding during the fight he started. He ended up falling on his own knife as per every B'wy and WE revival and Movie version until 2019!
No...he’s arrogant and kinda dopey, but not a villain...it’s still one of the better “classic” Rogers and Hammerstein shows (most of which HAVE NOT AGED WELL AT ALL...Just TRY watching The King and I and not stare at it, slack jawed, and wonder just WHY THE HELL WAS IT WELL LOVED??)
Yul Brynner’s charisma. I saw him in his last London production of it in the early 1980s, and I was riveted. Can I say the whole thing is terribly problematic? Oh, yes, but with Brynner it was compelling.
PS The video you use which is the London production from the National Theatre represents a mile stone in productions of this show. Richard Rogers' daughter was at one of the first previews and thought they'd rewritten most of the book so she came back the next night with a libretto in her hand and followed the show from that. They hadn't changed a word, it was just so freshly thought out and played that although she'd seen it hundreds of times, she didn't recognise it.
I think they're both dangerous.They both represent men who feel they are entitled to women, but the two characters live under very different circumstances. Toxic masculinity and misogyny unite all men in some way regardless of their social standing.
Thanks for this double perspective take! Ever since I first saw this musical as a preteen, Curly's actions towards Jud always freaked me out. Our "Hero" talks Jud into suicide, for seemingly no other reason other than to free up Laurey to be with Curly. And this is BEFORE Jud has even done anything remotely immoral, with his only "crime" being that he wants the same girl.
Curly figures out that he was the farmhand that had burned down several farms after the owners refused to let him date their daughter due to howe creepy he had been acting toward them. id say if i had know that and yet Judith was still able to work and live without getting caught, i would do everything in my power to get him to get out and away from the people and women he loved.
Curly did not talk Judd into suicide since Judd did not commit suicide! Judd tried to kill Curly TWICE! Once with the Little Wonder viewer w/knife and after the wedding when he attacked Curly with a KNIFE!. Judd died accidentally when he fell on his own knife, after he pulled it on Curly during the fight that he (Judd) initiated. You are basing your comments on the 2019 distorted version shwing Curly shoot and kill Judd for no reason. Since the opening of Oklahoma on 3/31/ 1943, through every B'wy and WE revival and Movie, Judd tried to kill Curly. It was never Curly shooting Judd.
He has ALREADY killed his previous employers at that point, AND he has made Laurie feel HIGHLY uncomfortable, as she picks up his vibes. And yet, even knowing that, I FEEL for the guy, who is so darned lonely. My local theater production, without changing the lines and music, made him feel SO VERY HUMAN. Maybe it was because I'm good friends with the actor who portrayed him, but I wept for that man, in his shed. I suppose you could call Oklahoma a villain origin story, combined with a "superhero saves the damsel in distress" story. There are just SO MANY layers to Oklahoma. NOBODY, except perhaps Aunt Eller, is really a fully good human being. And many would say Aunt Eller is bad, because she's a spinster, in an age where being a spinster was looked upon as a sin, even though there were more adult women than men. But I digress. Don't get me started on "Ape leaders," and the like. UGH. Anyway, everyone in that show is flawed, in one way or another. But I do think Aunt Eller ROCKS!
I occasionally watch the 1950 movie of Oklahoma for the music (I don't have much interest in the story now), but this whole time, from watching it as a kid to now, I'd interpreted 'Poor Jud Is Daid' as Curly just trying to get a sense of Jud's ego. Also, in the auction scene it's quite clear that everyone can see that Laurie is uncomfortable, & Curly becomes protective over her after seeing her scared reaction to Jud's continuous bidding. I don't think I ever saw Curly as a 'hero', but I never disliked anything about him specificially. Jud, however, always made me uncomfortable. He's a peeping Tom, he was physically aggressive with Laurie and often possessive over her, and is forever reminiscing over the time Laurie was moderately kind to him years ago when he was ill (which strikes me as a bit creepy)... so I'd still consider Jud the no.1 villain, for the movie version at least! Is the movie much different from the stage version shown here? Perhaps I would have a different opinion of Curly if I watched that.
I remember Jud being physically aggressive and creepy, I felt bad for him but his actions were very much of someone who was ready to assault Laurie or Curly. Curly is not a clean cut hero at all, he's very clearly too into himself, but leaving that out about Jud feels disingenuous
@@BubblegumSocialClub Yes, I agree haha. I believe that often when someone decides they dislike the 'hero' of the story, they hold them to a much higher moral standard than the 'villain'. Curly wasn't perfect, but him being cocky and so on doesn't make him worse than an aggressive guy who creeps on women and burns down houses lol
The stage version shown here 2019, is a distortion of the original 1943 R&H opening night, 2,212 shows that followed, every B'wy and WE version and movie. They show Judd as the villain since he tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulls a knife on Curly during the fight he started. The 2019 Daniel Fish distortion changes Oklahoma into Carrie Meets Oklahoma. It has Judd go to the wedding and give Curly a gun which Curly picks up and shoots Judd with at point blank range for no reason. Then a mock trial acquits Curly. This is not Oklahoma. It is Daniel Fish's own retelling of the story. In the original and every revival, Curly never shoots Judd. Judd falls on his own knife during a fight with Curly. Curly is found not guilty because it was self defense and also since Judd fell on his own knife, it was an accident.
Oklahoma 2019 was so chilling, and so heartbreaking at the same time. My jaw hit the floor in Act Two; the audience was so shook. One of the most memorable nights I've ever had on Broadway.
I CLICKED THIS SO FAST! Oklahoma is something that just HAUNTS my mind since I saw the revival. Gosh, I could rant for awhile here so will attempt to restrain myself as much as I possibly can. I HATED Oklahoma for most of my life. I started coming around seeing the Jackman version. Making Laurie a tomboy felt more 'real' and the performances overall added depth. Then the revival happened and it HIT ME LIKE A TON OF BRICKS! Dear god it's AMAZING how they did not change a single word of dialogue but entirely through direction and character choices it was a whole different show. And. That. ENDING! The lights were on in the theatre for 90% of the show allowed you to see the faces of those across from you at that ending and... oh GOD the looks on the older patrons faces was CHEF'S KISS. It's more than just "bringing a knife to a gun fight" but I don't wanna put it to many spoilers since the tour is going to go back out on the road again soon and EVERYONE SHOULD GO SEE IT. But you see Jud understand his place in this society that has shot him down and Curley at the same moment understand his place in it as well. What is expected of him. I saw the understudy for Curley so I cannot say if the main actor did this as well, but in that moment before the trigger is pulled you can see the look on his face that he does NOT want to pull it, but he does anyway because it's what everyone expects him to do. It's SO GOOD. And then LAURIE in that scene. NO I CAN'T SAY IT! IT'S SO GOOD! I do have to say that I am on the side of "product of his upbringing" and it's not JUST him. Laurie uses Jud against Curley. She KNOWS that she does not care for Jud but she also KNOWS that going to the social with Jud will mess with Curly.
Quick unrelated question, did you see Ali Stroker? I saw the show a few times actually but I could only end up seeing matinees so I never saw Ali Stroker as Ado Annie since she was taking off matinees at that time.
That revival is one of the most incredible things I've seen on a stage. I certainly saw Ali Stroker as Ado Annie. She was great and it was nice to see her getting a spotlight role on Broadway after Spring Awakening!
Oklahoma, from 3/31/1943 through every B'wy and W.E. revival and Movie, NEVER had Curly shoot Judd at point blank range at the wedding and kill him. That was an invention of Daniel Fish. It was not Oklahoma that was put on stage but Carrie Meets Oklahoma! Having the two newly weds wearing white( for heightened effect) covered in blood while singing the main title song was a distortion and a travesty. It was Daniel Fish going to Rodgers and Hammerstein's graves and spitting on them. He took their smash hit first collaboration and turned it into NOKLAHOMA! Don't say lines were not changed, since Judd never went to the wedding with a gun as a wedding present for Curly. Curly never shot Judd - that was never in any other Oklahoma, ever, until 2019!
@@maryleone2023 Mary, it’s ok. You don’t have to like it. It’s true that not a line of dialogue was changed. The stage direction was obviously different. Performance art can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn’t have to be an exact carbon copy. R&H weren’t infallible. The original “from 3/31/1943” isn’t perfect. It can be enjoyed in many forms. You don’t have to convince everyone that Fish destroyed Oklahoma. There’s no right answer here. Are you also mad at Lin Manuel Miranda because the founding fathers weren’t black? It’s a different way of telling a familiar story so that society can examine itself and maybe change for the better. I like the original. I also like this new interpretation. I’m glad we have both.
@@bcdenton It is not true "that not a line of dialogue was changed" To wit: adding scenes that never were in the original like Jud going to the wedding reception and giving Curly a gun and having Curly pick it up and shoot Jud at point blank range, murdering Jud in cold blood and changing the story at the trial. In the original, Curly explains that Jud had a knife and came at him and they fought and Jud fell on his knife. It was self defense and an accident! So how does society change for the better by turning Curly into a cold blooded killer and having the newlyweds ignore the murder and sing the title song with both wearing white clothes spattered in blood? Answer: It doesn't!
😬 saying curly isnt to blame because of society is so problematic. Let's not forget that their were always people that saw through the bs of every time period. Look at abolishionist and woman's sufferange. Curly's actions were WRONG, they may have been normalized but they were wrong.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding with a knife, he pulled on Curly . Judd ended up falling on his own knife and dying. ( Every version of Oklahoma since 3/31/1943, except for the 2019 " Reimagined" Daniel Fish travesty. ) Fish changed Oklahoma into Noklahoma! or Carrie Meets Oklahoma! He spit on the graves of Rodgers &Hammerstein.
I think you all kinda nailed it. At the time of its original writing, I think Curly would have been seen as the hero, but time has changed him into a villain. He’s always felt like the “cool high school jock” from any teen movie: he can literally get away with murder because people think he’s handsome, and he has a sweet-ass buggy. The whole ending of “Oklahoma” has always struck me as more dark and messed-up than happy. I’m glad the 2019 revival leaned into that.
@@burnttoastburt1467 Thank you. The original ( 3/31/1943) and every Broadway and West End revival, including the 1955 Movie, except for (2019) show that Judd died by falling on his own knife, while he tried to stab Curly. Judd also tried to stab Curly with the "Little Wonder " viewer he bought from Will and had with him at the box social. Aunt Eller called out "Curly" to stop him from viewing the Little Wonder after Ali Hakim told her about it. Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Judd=Villain.
@@maryleone2023 what I see you failing to realise time and time again in this comment section is that while Jud is A villain, he's not THE ONLY villain. R&H were very much aware that life isn't black and white and people aren't necessarily just "good" or "evil", they make it very clear that the community aren't entirely blameless in this situation. Daniel Fish's interpretation isn't something R&H never could've possibly considered, it's one they didn't go for. if you're going to get all high and mighty about it, why don't you look to the fact that R&H adapted oklahoma from green grow the lilacs, in which the shivaree isn't a fun happy celebration of the newlyweds, it doesn't happen during the day, the play doesn't end with a happy "hell yeah we get to be a state", that's not what it's about, it is quite dark, R&H gave a sanitised pro-America take that wasn't originally intended. Daniel Fish's production, while being interpreted for a modern audience and the issues we currently face, isn't a "wrong" interpretation, in fact it could be argued that it's message is closer to that of the source material.
@@maryleone2023 he hasn't though, he changed none of the dialogue or even the order things happen. he's challenged you to view the show more critically and in a way the original playwright would've wanted. just because it's a different interpretation doesn't mean it's not R&H's oklahoma, if it wasn't that wouldn't be how it was marketed and that would be the criticism from actual critics
All the more reason for him to do so! I love when actors play against type, and the best portrayals of villains are often by actors we love and trust (for obvious reasons)
Curly was never the villain. Only in Daniel Fish' distorted and made up 2019 Bwy version. Every Oklahoma from 3/31/1943 shows Judd trying to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started.
No you can not survive Oklahoma! It is a horrific musical! I decided to watch this out of morbid curiosity for Oklahoma has always been one of my least favorite musicals of all time! I’ve never liked it and I never will, but I very much enjoyed your video! You do need to appreciate Rogers and Hammerstein,For making their musicals complex and deeper than most even today. They had people singing about systemic racism way back in the day in South Pacific, and the terror of Natzis in Sound of Music. Don’t forget that Hammerstein before collaborating with Rogers gave the world Showboat; dealing with racism, gambling addiction, and a host of other stuff. I may not like Oklahoma but I do recognize its place in musical theater history.
A lot depends on the production, but I have never understood Jud as anything other than a violent, dangerous, sexual predator. No one would phrase it that way in the context of a feel-good musical, and probably no one in 1943 or 1955 would even think to use those words. But Jud is not some poor misunderstood outsider. The community's reaction to him is based on legitimate fear. And complaining that Laurie has no say in her own life is like complaining that she never wears pants. If you want a story about the year 1906 to be a story about the year 2022, then why bother writing a story about 1906?
It's an interesting title, but it's quite an assumption to think we're not watching it in the same way as you. Why would you think we see it as a romp?
It's also quite an assumption to think that no one at the time it came out and for the years following ever detected and contemplated the nuances of the show. It's always been a musical with shades of darkness.
I think your case might be more surely made if it were phrased as, "This is how we see this piece of mid-twentieth-century commercial entertainment in the twenty-first century." Ungainly, but more accurate. It's really disingenuous to present the tones and themes in works of art from the past, as we see them today, as if they were deep, dark secrets craftily hidden /unwittingly blundered by the creators now finally being brought to light! .
What about the fact that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started! This is the story from 3/31/1943 until the Daniel Fish distortion of 2019 where Fish has Curly shoot Judd at point blank range.
My middle-school choir class watched the 1999 recording of the London production of Oklahoma, and we LOVED IT. The music, the dancing, the Hugh Jackman of it all 😍 (this show actually started my semi-unhealthy Hugh Jackman obsession). However, when we got to 'Poor Jud is Dead', we were like, "Is Curly kind of a dick? What he's saying is HORRIBLE. Poor Jud indeed!" I'm so glad I saw the new revival on Broadway, it's the first time any of the characters on this show are taken to task for how horrible they are.
You are forgetting that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started! Until the Daniel Fish distortion of 2019, every Oklahoma B'wy production, WE production and 1955 Movie show Judd as the true villain.
Major credit to the 2019 revival crew for a more downbeat ending & letting Laurie react. If they ever want to readapt the film, it would be great to use the 2019 revival. Although it likely won’t be redone given some of its subject matter is controversial and some would voice disgust with the idea, but who knows
As soon as I saw the title my answer was “YES 100%”. Like Jud is as well but god so is Curly. He tries to convince someone to kill himself over a girl and at this time he had no idea about Juds past, as far as he knows he’s just a weird loner! My favorite description I’ve heard of Oklahoma is “two assholes fight over a girl in the old west”.
Remember that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly, then pulled a knife on him. Judd fell on his own knife and died. Judd=Villain!
Brandon! I have been saying this for years! When I was in HS we did the obligatory production of Oklahoma and I gave my chorus part a backstory that she was in love with Jed. Jed's only crime was social awkwardness and unconventional looks. He is not the villain and Curly is trash.
Sorry it is jud not Jed...they even have song with his name it. Also wanted to say sure Curly is a problem but at least he wasn't ban abuser like Billy in Carousel.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he tried to stab Curly. Judd ended up falling on his own knife. Judd most certainly is the villain and Daniel Fish is trash for spitting on the graves of Rodgers and Hammerstein with his totally made up 2019 version. It is Noklahoma or Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
Great video! There is a lot of gray area with both characters. Curly is manipulative and narcissistic. He is also absolutely a product of his upbringing. Oklahoma wants to have a clear protagonist/antagonist and does well with convincing the audience to either end. Laurie was also never really a favorite of mine, because she is pulled in every direction with no true meaning/motivation. Judd is the odd man out and takes Curly’s so-called kindness as communication without realizing it’s actually manipulation because he wants to fit in so badly. By today’s standards, Curly is the antagonist trying to be the protagonist, when in the end, both male characters are on the same equal playing field. Empathy is significantly lacking in the musical, which may have also been a reflection of the time it was written in.
I’m glad the new production doesn’t try and hide the darkness of the show, but I still can’t watch it. Even the original film is hard for me. I’m glad that it brings joy to others, it’s just not for me.
I think the real answer is that no one is 100% a villain or a hero; human beings are complex and nothing is black and white. In real life we all do things that we're ashamed of and are influenced by our culture and environment. Taking a new approach to this classic show by standing back and looking at it to see the gray and the complexities is brilliant and I would LOVE it if we did this with more classics. As human beings we feel more settled when we know there is a "hero" and a "villain" and it feels messy and yucky when the lines are blurry. I love it when the audience is forced to think and understand there's no "right" answer. Let's keep doing this with the classics!
I agree with so much of what you said. Not that Jud was a pleasant person in any way, but it did seem pretty blatant that the investigation into his death was never going to get a fair hearing. Another thing that always seemed a bit dissonant was how they're all singing about how the cowboys and farmers are working to make the territory into such a great place, with not a single thought to all the native people they must have had to drive away from their lands.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he tried to stab Curly during the fight he started. Ever since 3/31/1943. every revival of Oklahoma + movie shows Judd as the villain. Curly never shot Judd as the Daniel Fish distortion shows. Curly was tried and found not guilty because he was defending himself from being stabbed by Judd. Judd died accidentally by falling on his own knife.
Haven't watched yet but I've been saying for a year and a half since i first saw Oklahoma!, all you have to do is make Judd not an arsonist and Black guy and you've got a poignant story about lynching in America.
@@maryleone2023 hi Hun, I just reread your comment and thought you should know it comes off as racist. What with dismissing a black person's point of view and the history of lynchings in America. You probably don't care, (why would you?) But just because you love Oklahoma doesn't mean it can't rub others the wrong way.
Who are you calling "Hun" ? That comes across as sexist! You should not want to make Judd a black guy since from the very beginning of the Oklahoma Judd was a villain. By making Judd black you are equating black and villain. As a person of both black and Italian decent, I take offense to your insensitive remark about blacks and lynchings since both black and Italian people were lynched. By saying Judd was the villain, I am referring to the story and plot of the original Oklahoma since its premiere on 3/31/1943 and all revivals except for the Daniel Fish distortion in 2019.
@@maryleone2023 I'm calling you Hun because I'm friendly. And you keep missing the point both I and the video are making. If you change the story just a tiny bit so Judd is just a guy they don't like instead of the villain it stops being a fairly pointless musical to an extremely meaningful one about how white Americans treat anyone different. Since you love the Original so much there's nothing to worry about since the movie and apparently all other theater productions follow the same plot, but not everyone wants to watch the same story over and over. And a person of color you should want Americans to acknowledge their history of lynching.
@@jordang7479 No, you said make Judd black! I am part black and part white and find it offensive to make Judd black and an object of hatred. Am I supposed to hate myself? You are not friendly and definitely come off as a person who is not friendly! I am not missing any points in Oklahoma. Judd is a white guy who tried to kill another white guy twice. Once with the little wonder and again with a knife. Daniel Fish changes the story and has Curly shoot Judd for no reason. While he and Laurey are splattered in blood Fish has them singing the title song which was meant to be a celebration of America. Fish distorted the show and demonstrates his hatred for America. BTW, you come across as an America hater. I am a part black, part white America lover who is also a US Army Veteran!
A few years back, my local theater performed Oklahoma. When my friend performed as Judd, and sang Judd's solo song (cut out of the movie version), both my mother and I WEPT for Judd. Sure, Judd turned out to be an evil man who did evil things, at the end, but he was still a HUMAN BEING with FEELINGS, and we empathized with him, because of that. But maybe that's because it was my friend on the stage. Nevertheless, although I sympathized fully with his loneliness, he had ALREADY burned down his previous employers' home and killed people, and was trying to kill Curly, JUST to get to Laurie, and was making Laurie EXTREMELY uncomfortable, as she picked up the bad vibes from her. Also, he wants to POSSESS her, and views her as an object, instead of a human being who can and should choose for herself, and would probably abuse her, if he did marry her. And yet, at the same time, I still feel for that LONELY soul. He's human. He's not a caricature villain. He's a HUMAN villain. And that just makes the whole thing sad. And, no, Curly was by no means perfect and pure and innocent. He was really trying to troll Judd into ending himself. That is... I don't really have a word for that. Even though he was doing it to protect Laurie, there's also the jealousy aspect, and he wanted to possess her, as his own, and viewed Judd as competition, as well as a danger. It's problematic, at best. And yet, we smile at the ending, when the handsome cowboy gets the girl, but mostly, now, I smile because she wanted HIM, all along, and she got who she wanted, warts and all. They won't live happily ever after, but I hope they live reasonably well. I think Annie and Will will have a better marriage, actually. They are more open and honest with each other, and other people around him. Even though Will is a bit of a doofus, and so is Annie, I think that they'll manage together well enough.
I definitely want to see what happened with the 2019 Oklahoma revival with other musicals. Most notably Bye bye Birdie. A teenage girl is almost sexually assaulted by a famous musician and the musician gets away with it. I mean..they don’t need to look too far for inspirations to draw on. These classic musicals are iconic but they aren’t museum pieces or pieces of art in a gallery to be preserved. They exist on order for actors to bring their truth to characters and situation on stage. That won’t happen by sticking to the same ideas and interpretations. They’re to be constantly reimagined, re-examined and reviewed under different perspectives and as we as a society evolve and change.
Coming back to this video, I have to say I feel that this musical or at least some interpretations fail because the need of having a clear cut “good” and “bad” guy. Of course, there can be protagonist, but I feel even if you said Curly was the show’s protagonist he still was quite morally grey. Same with Jud. I don’t believe there are any direct “good” guys in the show, just people. Some more flawed or problematic than others. This and the Netflix movie “I’m thinking of ending things” was my introduction to Oklahoma! So I didn’t go in with the typical rose coloured glasses as I had an idea of the underlying story. But nevertheless, I hope this musical and others can help people learn how to watch them. Because not every story has a clear cut villain or hero. Often, I felt the actions of both Jud and Curly were gross. Even if for there own ways or reasons, I don’t think either person is better.
But can we talk about how Jud is real scary? Curly wasn’t just concerned that Jud posed a threat to his relationship. Jud posed a threat to Laurie herself. She didn’t WANT to go with Jud, but she was afraid to refuse and then didn’t know how to get out of it. Curly was coming to her rescue (we can talk about how men always rescuing women is it’s own antiquated trope, but the fact is, Laurie’s character was written that way and that isn’t Curly’s fault. Maybe Laurie is the villain for agreeing to something she didn’t want to do in the first place thus sparking the whole confrontation between Curly and Jud). Jud was a dangerous person-which may have led to his being an outsider in the first place. Maybe no one wanted to be around him because he was scary and dangerous. Was Curly’s approach flawless? Of course not. But I think calling him a villain is going a bit too far.
Yes plus Jud was obsessed with when he says he ain’t going to dream about her hair, he ain’t going to leave her alone that’s creepy. Plus it doesn’t have to be Curly, he would go after anyone that stood in his way. He viewed her more as property like Gaston did Belle and saw her as a prize but wouldn’t be surprised if he cheated on her with a saloon girl
Yeah, when I say this people always say, "No, Jud is the villain." To which I try to point out that a story can have more than one villain, and this story has many.
This I'll agree with. To portray Judd as innocent when he physically and emotionally threatens Laurie seems ... off. Someone can be an outsider without burning down houses in retribution for not being awarded a female he thinks he's owed.
I'd love to see a version of Oaklahoma where it's the townsfolk that are the villains. Have Curly kill Judd in self defence, AND feel bad about it, and yet have the rest of his peers absolve him.
Question, i have only seen the 1950 film. While i was a little sympathetic to judd and his situation. I still got a feeling of being creeped out by judd. I felt like a outsider for a good reason that was unspoken. That he wasnt a good person. I would like to hear others thoughts on this. Thanks
Here’s my personal breakdown (as someone who loves art criticism and has watched both versions). 1. Both versions are products of their time. The original is simple. Curly is a good guy who has a weird moment and Judd is a bad guy. The new is apparently about toxic masculinity and makes Judd a victim rather than an actively violent man. Both have very obviously stylistic choices. 2. Laurie is honestly the bigger issue in this story. Because Curly from the original doesn’t clearly seem to be a cocky a-hole. If anything they’re simply playing a game of cat and mouse against each other. But instead of being honest, she chooses to play with the feelings of a man who obviously terrifies her and who she is aware might hurt her. Even more so, examining the original, Judd assaults her on the way to the party and Laurie ditches him. Instead of mentioning that Judd tried to hurt her to someone, she lets Judd and Curly duke it out. In the new version, Laurie plays with Judd’s feelings by kissing him. 3. This whole point about revisionist history isn’t fair because this isn’t an actually defined town so to make a claim as to what it must or must not be like outside of the realms of what the writers wrote is to be disingenuous. This isn’t a story about masculinity or oppressed minorities. The theme of Oklahoma if anything is about getting over one’s pride. The pride of Curly and Laurie inability to admit they love each other. The pride of the townsfolk to divide on the lines of farmer and cowboy. The pride of Judd for thinking that he is owed Laurie’s affection because he works hard for her and her family. Even Curly is supposed to realize his own pride in assuming things would go well for him and Laurie by virtue of having “beaten Judd” and married Laurie. This theme is also prevalent in the side plot about Annie and Will. Will doesn’t want to let go of the pride he has in his own single life and neither does Annie want to let go of her pride in being an attractive sought after female. Again, I’d say pride is the main theme of Oklahoma - one that does intentionally poke fun at the pride of a people who wanted the freedom of a territory and the rights of a state. 4. You can’t read something old through the lens of modern morals because morals are always shifting. Whether or not you agree with it, Curly isn’t the villain. Sure, depending on the acting he’s a braggart and a puffed up jerk, but that doesn’t make one a villain. That merely makes them flawed. The revival fairly does not let the characters have a happy ending which I’d say is the more realistic and nuanced ending as the pride of the town who rallied behind their young couple was shattered by ignoring what was coming in Judd’s revenge. So yea, realistic ending but it’s not because Curly is a villain, but because the characters are realizing how blind they were to the dangers of a situation they never considered - again because of pride. Anyone can nitpick this issue but I think it’s frankly the most clear and simple reading. Saying all western heroes “are dripping with toxic masculinity” basically shows a disinterest in the genre, a lack of a nuanced reading, and a highly biased view of what it means to be heroic. Very 21st century to say that a “man takes the woman as his prize” and then play down a character saving a town. How he goes about it and his character do matter and examining each film and character are more important than blanket statements that do nothing to further considerate art criticism.
I saw a revival on B'wy with Patty Duke playing Aunt Eller, in 2003. I saw the 1955 move 23 times and the UNCSA recreation of the original opening night version of Oklahoma which is the way those in attendance at the very first B'wy opening saw it. I saw the UNCSA recreation 15 times. Judd was always the villain and it was the intent of R&H that he be the villain. He tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder at the box social, and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started. Judd fell on his own knife and died. It was adjudicated as self defense for Curly and rightfully so. Not in the distorted Daniel Fish version that was deemed Noklahoma, or as I call it : Carrie Meets Noklahoma. Please see the UNCSA recreation of Oklahoma on You Tube. There are two acts so you can see it at different times. Also can be seen on John Mauceri's web site.
WELP I'm never going to be able to enjoy this musical QUITE the same way again. I still have a soft spot for it, but some really good points were brought up in this video. I grew up primarily in the south and later the upper northwest, so I know exactly what you mean when you talk about the men that walk around like modern cowboy movie stars. There's a profound tragedy there because a lot of good is present, but it's tarnished by the sexist, racist, classist, ableist views that color them. It's sad because many of them grew up poor or abused and you'd think empathy would have a chance to take root but the socialization of these boys and later men stamps it out pretty early. This shining example of "masculinity" from cowboy movies, I think, was a beacon of safety and confidence for them. For my own father, I know he holds men like John Wayne and Roy Rogers in high regard because they were just and noble and provided a good role model for him outside his alcoholic, abusive, cheating dad. There's a trauma there that I don't think makes it easy to confront how harmful these movies were to the real history they painted over. I believe for me the best I can do is gently continue to encourage him to go to therapy, and do the work on myself instead to pull away the layers of ignorance I built up as a child living under these social conditions.
I once heard of a production of "Oklahoma!" that cast Jud as the only black person in a white community and I haven't been able to look at the show the same way since. Also, "Lonely Room" is my favourite song in the entire show because it gives Jud humanity, allowing him to express his ache for love and acceptance with a vulnerability and eloquence that he can never muster when talking to the other characters.
"If curly were modern he would be good!" "She realizes her situation through a modern-day lens" i'm to lazy to articulate why i hate this but i hate it. This double take should have been a single take, tbh.
I saw this a few weeks ago in London, the transfer of the 2019 revival, and i haven't stopped thinking about it! One thing that really came across for me during the trial scene was that, well, Aunt Eller was the antagonist. Curly is a charismatic manipulator, Judd is intellectually challenged but equally morally flawed and selfish, whereas Aunt Eller is the one who is motivating Curly's defence of Laurey at the Box Social. She is the one who encourages him to stop Judd's bidding, and drums up the community to find Curly not guilty. Which is such a fascinating take, i honestly can't praise it enough!
Growing up I thought curly was the good guy that operated as a ‘simple’ cowboy. It was almost like he was supposed to not be the brightest on purpose but a good guy. Yes it was wrong to intimate to Jud to die in order to get affection. There was a love triangle that seemed more like Competition than love for the first half of the story. But the story was endearing and improved the movie as a child. “Out of my dreams” was a frightening aspect but still one of my favorite songs of all time. The aspect of slavery is a whole other post
Great post! The character of Jud is like The end result of a child left behind growing up without affection. Now that I’m older I can see the trigger of suicidal ideation that would bother people
One of the reasons I like Oklahoma is that it is so problematic. The following comments refer to the 1998 London production directed by Trevor Nunn. The scene that made me the most uncomfortable was Curly and Jud bidding over Laurey, who was being auctioned off like a meat pie in her hamper. I was surprised she had the fortitude to stay there as both of her increasingly deranged suitors gave up every penny they owned to possess her. It was a humiliating and excruciating scene. Love in Oklahoma is often portrayed as a business transaction. Example: Will Parker having to pay Ado Annie's father 50 bucks in order to marry her. Don't dowries usually work the other way around? But let's focus on Laurey and her complicated love triangle. While Jud is an outcast in the community, Laurey is the only one who shows him kindness and recognizes his humanity when she visits him while he is sick. But she also recognizes that he is a voyeur and therefore dangerous. We don't know why Jud is the way he is. We don't know his backstory and whether we should empathize with him or villainize him. Laurey's big mistake was accepting his invitation to the "box social of the century!" She led him on. She did put on airs, both with him and with Curly. She bares some of the responsibility. Jud's tragic death could have been avoided had Curly and Laurey been more honest about their feelings from the beginning; had Laurey been less stubborn and Curly less full of himself. Then again, Jud's sexual and emotional obsession with Laurey was so great that there was no way he could let Curly McLain exist. Jud came back to the reception with the intent to kill Curly. Similarly, the "Poor Jud Is Daid" song does imply that Curly thinks the only way Jud can be fully out of the picture, the only way he can cease to be a threat, is if he dies. This is a messy situation full of messy characters with lots of flaws. But let's remember that this is a story about the Wild West trying to civilize its way into the Union with schoolhouses, play parties, and farmers getting along with cowmen. I think the real victim here was Ali Hakim who gets stuck marrying Gertie. That might be the biggest tragedy of them all.
I...think you don't really realize what the show is trying to say. This show isn't a romanticized America that never existed. This show is a primer on how to beat the fucking Nazis. The Farmer and the Cowman Should Be Friends. Jud is the outside element that has to be removed either by suggestion or by force. It's not a show about toxic masculinity (that's Carousel) or gun culture (looking at you, Yeehaw Revival). read the source material and realize how great R&H were at illuminating very dark source material by presenting a sense of community.
What absolute nonsense, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is entertainment, a musical and nothing more. Everything is down to the scriptwriters. I suppose you wanted a platform to do your preaching from. Well, your preaching went right over my head, and I hope, everyone else's.
I watched the original musical for the first time a few months ago (I am on a musical kick) and while I did not view Curly as the bad guy per say, I did not feel comfortable with the way he and everyone else in the play treated Jud. Yes Jud did horrible things because of his obsession with Laurey, but at the same time Laurey did kind of lead him on when she intially said yes to his offer of being her date to the dance. The reason she did this was because she not want to go with Curly, denying her feelings towards him. When she changed mind later, Jud being upset is understandable but I do not excuse the violence that he exhibited in the midst of that anger. If either Laurey and/or Curly had been honest about their feelings towards each other from the beginning, Jud could have been alive at the end. The dead Jud song Curly sings in front of Jud is just uncomfortable and foreshadows Jud's death that happens later. My mom who hadn't seen the musical in awhile did recall that scene and remarked that when her high school did it she wondered why they kept number considering the theme of suicide. The trial scene where Curly gets off scott free, just seals the deal that Jud was a victim throughout all of this. While he was not perfect, Jud could have been treated better by Laurey (who used him because she was uncertain of her feelings for Curly), Curly (who threatened him for even looking to "his woman" Laurey) and the rest of the town (who subverted the course of justice so that Curly does not have to face any consequences for the death of Jud).
Judd tried to kill Curly twice, once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly and pulled a knife on him. Judd fell on his own knife. He died accidentally. Curly was just defending himself and at the trial it was deemed self defense. Why should Curly face any consequences? Judd tried to kill him twice. The smokehouse scene also shows Judd alluding to the fact that a fire that killed 3 people was no accident. While Curly alluded to Judd hanging himself, Judd alluded to being an arsonist and murderer!
So I saw in college I saw a production of Oklahoma and I honestly couldn’t EXACTLY understand what made the show tick. This explains A LOT! Speaking of Nostalgia and how it warps our sense of America, how bout them Follies.
I really disliked this musical when I watched it for the first time. I don't agree with most of your points, but I believe that Curly is definitely a villain. He does the exact same things as Judd, but while he is forgiven and gets the girl, Judd is portrayed as an evil villain. The only real difference is that Curly is charismatic and handsome, while Judd is more awkward, reclusive, and ugly. The whole musical, and the twisted morality of its characters, left a bad taste in my mouth.
I think you’re projecting your own biases and hatred for certain groups onto this while ignoring context within the text that goes against your interpretation of it.
One of the ONLY hopeful things I look forward to in the future is the great reawakening of originality, new ideas and new art that will come after the deep disaster of the social collapse that the past two years have forced on us for political power grabbing.
I always felt strange about Oklahoma. I didn't like Curly, while I imagine he's supposed to be a lady's dream man. There are parts of the story I like, but overall it's not a musical I go back to much.
Well, some may say, you're reading too much into this show, but as an actor or director, you brought up some good points. it's bothered me as well that Laurie doesn't seem to have much of a say in the matter although there's a whole ballet devoted to her choosing. i think future productions will have to look at who really is the bad guy in this.
You have entirely misunderstood the character of Stanley in "Streetcar" if you think that he wants things to go back to the way they were. He represents forwardness, change, industrialisation and - in every action he performs and line he utters - the anti-nostaglic stripping away of illusions of the past
That is true but he also represents the inherently ironic position of such a representative. Think of his constant focus on the Napoleonic Code, a completely out-dated (even for the time) form of law. He represents the ways in which 'progression', 'change' and 'industrialisation' are not in the slightest synonymous terms. He is certainly anti-nostalgic in that he contrasts directly with the nostalgia of Blanche for 'The Old South', but equally represents the repression at the heart of 'progress'.
Anyone know if there is an accessible video of the revival online? I've heard that it reads much differently and is a "darker" version of the original show. I'm super curious how some of the themes and ideas from the video present themselves, but I can't find a recording anywhere.
I think the true villain in this play (I just re-watched it last night) is pornography. His addiction is what has driven Jud to those social extremes, and what leads him to assault Laurey. All of the men view porn at one time or another during the play, and every time, the women are obviously uncomfortable and disapproving. Without the sick pictures papering his walls and his mind, Jud would have had a much better chance at a real (not twisted and lustful) relationship.
What about the fact that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly and pulled a knife on him. I say that makes Judd the villain in every B'wy and WE revival + Movie since Oklahoma opened on B'wy 3/31/1943. Not to go by 2019 distortion aka Noklahoma or Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
Daniel Fish's distortion is just that ! It is called Noklahoma or as I call it Carrie Meets Oklahoma. It is established history of the show since 3/31/1943 that Judd was the villain and tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding, when Judd pulls a KNIFE on Curly during the fight he started.
Thank you for exploring the context & themes in this musical so thoroughly! I appreciate how you try educate those of us more on-the-outside-looking-in in regards to theatre & theatre history. It's very interesting! As uncomfortable as watching how problematic quite a few theatre classics are thru a 21st century lens...you can't deny that it's both necessary and cool to watch revival & derivative productions explore the problematic themes/characters for 21st century audiences. I do also understand & can love a tragedy story too, tho. I'm working on being more open to "non-happy endings". The frustration on behalf of a character is part of the story experience in the middle; it can be for their ending too. Art is a spectrum. Not all stories end happy, even if originally intended to present as such...I like how the 2019 revival decided to encourage the audience to view Laurie's ending as more of a tragedy than one of bliss. The beauty of theatre is that there is always room for a production crew & actors to interpret the story & their characters in another way. Just because Curly is portrayed as a pure macho hero in most classic Oklahoma productions, doesn't mean he always has to be. Also, 18:18 . This is also my frustration with Christine's situation in the Phantom of the Opera lol. I love that musical but dang I wish she was able to have an ending without being "saved" by Raoul....the guy who was tryna convince her she was worried over nothing thru act 1 and then made her "bait" without her consent in act 2. And the Phantom actually IS a serial killer, so lol nope. I'm glad the agency of female love interests are gradually no longer being silenced in romance stories.
So I had to watch Oklahoma for a musical theater class I took in high school and I absolutely hated it for a lot of the reasons you mention, namely the fact that the town decides to just ignore that he is, at the least, partly responsible for a man's death. I was so pissed off (still am, lol) and I couldn't figure out why so many of the other people in the class loved it. Cut to senior year and that was our fall musical. I auditioned for Judd cause I've always been a large brick of a woman and have a deeper voice and none of the other guys who did the musicals would've been able to do the role justice imo (they were romantic leading guy types). I didn't end up getting it and decided to be stage manager (the role went to a Chilean exchange student who was as sweet as can be but worked well in the role because he was even taller than me, and only as an adult can I see the subtext of this Chilean student playing the outsider among all these very very white New England students). I'm glad that I'm not the only one who's reaction to Oklahoma is "ugh", since I seemed to be the only one who felt that way back then. I do appreciate the take of Curly and his behavior mainly being a product of the culture he lives in, but I don't think I can forgive his character, it just makes me hate the town even more. ^^()
Saw a live production of this musical for the first time last week and left feeling shocked. No way this is the famous musical that's been performing for over 70 years! What a mess of a story, I couldn't root for a single character! As other people point out, Jud is obviously dangerous. That being said, take away 1-2 character flaws and he becomes a far more sympathetic victim rather than a horrible monster the movie paints him to be. Granted, those character flaws are pretty major, but I personally feel like these characteristics were more likely born of the dated stereotypes of the time rather than the behaviors of actual lonely, introverted men. This isn't always the case, there are far too many "nice guys" out there who in actuality probably do act a lot like Jud. But I don't think this is the hard-fast rule that the musical seems to depict. On the flip side, Curly is painted as the popular, good-looking guy who gets the support of the townsfolk simply by being well liked and cool. These are the types of men in real life who all too often take advantage of their popularity/privilege to get away with doing some pretty heinous things. We even see this in the musical with Curly being subjected to a sham trial, or when he seemingly encourages Jud to off himself in an attempt to remove what he supposes is his competition. And yet despite these flaws, Curly is lauded as the hero while Jud is dismissed as a villain. I wish the script contained a bit more nuance where both leading men were seen as dangerous options. As it stands the ending feels more akin to a tragedy to me than a victory.
Jud Fry is a murderer. He's murdered before. This is something he admits to in his thinly veiled story about the Bartlett farm. It doesn't take a genius to realize that he's talking about himself as the one who burnt the family alive. Jud has no qualms about murdering again. He makes no bones about his plan to murder Curly with "The Little Wonder", and he attacks Curly during the shivaree with the intention to kill. His response to Laurey's rejection is to threaten her with violence. That is not the reaction of sane person. Curly, on the other hand, does and says some dark and cringy things, but it's pretty clear that he isn't a cold-blooded murderer nor is violence his go-to when Laurey spurns him. Curly is definitely not the villain of the piece. That is clearly Jud Fry. Curly is a flawed protagonist. While Oklahoma! does have a basically happy ending, it's clear that the shadow of Jud Fry's death will hang over Curly and Laurey and the rest of the community for a long time.
Hey everybody! Thanks for watching this video that wound up basically being a way for me to say goodbye to a pretty toxic culture that I was raised in. Be sure to click that like button like it’s the last picnic basket at the auction and BE RESPECTFUL in the comments please! :)
Curly is absolutely the villain. Judd Fry is so obviously mentally disabled and has no idea how his actions are coming off to people. He mirrors the same toxic masculinity that everyone else around him exhibits but he doesn’t filter it in a way that is socially acceptable. As an autistic man myself I have been in similar situations as Judd where I tried to do what I thought was okay but didn’t understand the differences and all I can say is that I’m lucky to have learned and lucky to be alive. Judd never had a chance.
You were raised in a toxic culture? Where, in Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba? You don't know toxic, until you were in a death camp like Auschwitz! My friend's mother was there and even lived to tell about it.
@@sweeney60 You are ignoring the fact that Jud tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly. In the movie version, Jud also set fire to the haystack that both Curly and Laurie were on top of. Jud attacked Curly with a knife and tried to kill Curly. He died by falling on his own knife during the fight. Curly was defending himself against Jud. Fish's distortion revival totally changed the R&H musical by introducing a gun at the wedding and having Curly shoot Jud. Fish took it upon himself to totally change Oklahoma, hence it should have been called Noklahoma. It was also Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
@@maryleone2023 Totally agree!
This is why lyrics are important in a musical. It wasn't until I payed attention to the lyrics that I realized "wait a minute, this guy is trying to talk another guy into committing suicide".
While it seemed that way, the intention of the song was to be taken lightly, in a joking kind of way. Jud, himself is also singing the song which makes it funny.
If Jud was not singing along and asked Curly to stop singing or asked him to get out during the song, then it would be seen as serious. The lines about the fingernails and running out of ice were meant to be humorous at the time and there was audience laughter during and after the song. The play opened on 3/31/1943. The nation was in the middle of WWII and Oklahoma was a smash hit ,running 2,212 performances. It was considered a musical comedy and there was a lot of laughter, much needed laughter, during a time of war. People needed a break from the war, and Oklahoma did the job. Ever hear of Kamikaze suicide Japanese pilots? That was real horror like the war. Not psyched up, faux outrage that is directed at Oklahoma!
It's funny, but very darkly funny. It's still one of my favourite songs in Oklahoma.
So the villain was toxic masculinity the whole time! Have I uncovered the secret to Musical Theatre?
🎶 It was Toxic Masculinity all along 🎶
It was Barzini all along! ( The Godfather)
Toxic masculinity isn't the villain. It is in Carousel, but Hitler is the villain in Oklahoma!
WITW: "The town was small, no more than 5000 people"
Me, having grown up in a town of 2500: hoookay, we got a city boy here
😂😂😂
I feel your pain. I went to college in the small town of Due West which only had 1200 people year round (with the students). This town was so incredibly small that we were excited my graduation year that there would be a Subway coming to town of all things.
and I thought my small town of 45K was tiny
This is why I LOOOVE Oklahoma 2019, it really looks the audience in the eye and says “this show is beautiful but PROBLEMATIC” without changing any lines or music
It does bring up dark themes that do require reflection, but it's not the show that's problematic.
Sorry, but I will prefer the classic original.
They changed the lines. Also the music. They changed the story. Why don't you watch the UNCSA recreation of Oklahoma the way it opened on B'way on 3/31/1943. Did you see the revival on B'wy in 2002 with Patty Duke as Aunt Eller? What about the 1955 movie with Shirley Jones and Gordon MacCrae. So tell me where was the shooting of Judd at the wedding by Curly in every Oklahoma prior to Daniel Fish's 2019 distortion? Why did Fish eliminate the 28 piece orchestra that is essential to every R&H musical? What's with the corn bread, blood and gore? What's with the guitar strutting Curly? What's with making Curly a cold blooded killer by shooting Judd?
@@warblerab2955 You have good taste in musicals!
@@maryleone2023 Thanks! : )
So Curly is a more successful version of Gaston? I can get behind that.
Curly: Walks on stage
The cowboys: NOOOOO OOOOOOOONE..
Wow, yeah, that checks out. And Hugh Jackman has played both haha.
What the heck? Why is this video and so many commenters ignoring the fact that in the song and conversation between Jud and Curly Jud basically admits to setting another house on fire and killing a family because their daughter spurned him?
Isn’t it heavily implied that the townspeople are bidding against him to protect Laurey because they know he’s dangerous and not because he’s a misunderstood outsider?
And the fact that Jud attacks Curly and Laurey, leading to his death?
Curly is definitely flawed and his Jud song is creepy as hell, but no way is he more of a villain than Jud.
Besides stating that the farmhouse fire "was no accident" Jud asks Ali Hakim if he has a "little wonder". Later, he buys the "little wonder" from Wil (who does not know it is a lethal weapon).He shows the little wonder to Curly and Aunt Eller stops Curly from looking into it (she was alerted to the danger by Hakim) Finally, Jud shows up after the wedding and while fighting with Curly, pulls a knife on him.( In the movie version he sets the haystacks on fire, as well as pulling the knife on Curly). Jud dies by falling on his own knife in every R&H production and revival except Daniel Fish' distortion.
Btw, the Jud song was supposed to be comical. Jud himself is singing along which makes it funny. The lyrics are funny and the audience in 1943, who had a major war to worry, about thought the song was funny.
@@maryleone2023 Agree with everything else you said, but I remember watching the movie as a girl (on TV in the 70's), and the Poor Jud song left a very bad taste in my mouth about Curly as the leading man. I couldn't understand why anyone thought it was okay, much less funny. Even with all you said about Jud, having the romantic lead suggest that a troubled man hang himself is just...yikes.
@@appletree6898 When Oklahoma premiered on Broadway in 1943, the song lyrics about Jud were written by Oscar Hammerstein and were intended to be satirical and not literal. Jud actually sang along and the lyrics poked fun at wakes and the way the deceased are presented. The theatre goers at the time needed a respite from the trauma of WWll and no one took offense to Oklahoma which was a huge success and later made into a movie. The overall take away is that Oklahoma is an uplifting and funny play and movie as evidenced by Ado Annie, Will Parker and Ali Hakim.
@@maryleone2023 I take it you don't like the Daniel Fish version then 🤣
Seriously, I'm not gonna be made to feel guilty about a confirmed arsonist and murderer getting his karma.
Curly isn’t perfect (especially During Jud is dead) but calling him and not Jud the villain is just silly. He’s an arsonist, stalker, and tries to stab Curly.
He tried to kill Curly with the Little Wonder viewer and when he showed up after the wedding by pulling a knife on him.
I think he's saying that neither of them should be seen as the hero of the story.
Rogers and Hammerstein's works have always been darker than they appear.
Yup. "Carousel"? Yikes!
They also illuminate what is almost always extremely dark source material, like Green Grow the Lilacs AND Liliom. They pull the light out of the dark primarily by creating communities where there are none in the plays. Their shows are dark because they're writing about human nature, and also because, in the case of Carousel and Oklahoma!, they were writing in the shadow of the war.
Oh, yeah. Look at Carousel. "You can abuse your wife, and it won't hurt her, at all, because she loves you." Ummmm...
A brick wrapped in cotton wool
Both Curly and Jud are flawed human beings who are capable of good and bad as we all are. That is why Oklahoma was so revolutionary. The complexity of human life hadn't been addressed in musicals before due to them being seen as nothing but mindless entertainment. While Curly was definitely painted as the hero in the original production, you can't deny that Jud wasn't seen as simply a villain. While I wish Curly had more development in the original production, I'm so thankful that Oklahoma exists and gave musicals an opportunity to be serious and to discuss important topics.
While Curly has his faults, it’s intellectually dishonest to call him THE villain when Jud exists, a terrifying depiction of the entitled man who is a danger to any woman he pursues. Laurie is clearly terrified of Jud, and his showing up to the wedding is evidence of his capacity for harm.
Also, Laurie is far more active than this video makes her out to be, as her marriage to Curly is not her only option other than Jud, but rather based on the fact that she does love him.
Some people want black and white in their characters. Nothing is all-black or all-white. Oscar Hammerstein understood this.
I actually think the Daniel fish production is great for this very reason, Jud isn't necessarily the worst person, he's the ostracised outsider. Jud is a character who's misunderstood by his community because he's this brooding farmhand he's a second class citizen. Daniel Fish's interpretation leaves you wondering if Jud really deserved to die and if letting Curly off for it was right. the world isn't black and white, and that's explored even in the original show. Jud's A bad guy, but you can't convince me he's THE bad guy when they're mostly all morally grey at least
he still murders him.
Plus Jud doesn’t take no for an answer and is obsessed with Laurey, he doesn’t respect her boundaries, Curly kills him out of self defense.
Great video Brandon! Although one thing does bother me is the painting of Jud as completely innocent. Let's not forget that Laurie states the reason she agreed to go to the dance with Jud, was partially out of fear. It's clear that Jud has a one-sided crush on Laurie, and like many women/womxn, Laurie is afraid of rejecting Jud because she doesn't know if doing so will result in an assault or her murder. Jud is much stronger than Laurie, and could easily physically take whatever he wanted from her. He partially proves her right when he threatens her twice after confessing his love, and vowing to make her regret not choosing him-- he even assaults her on the day of her wedding by non-consensually kissing her! Like I know some people tend to downplay the seriousness of it by saying, "It was just a kiss! It wasn't *that* bad!" but it's obvious from her body language that she was under duress and did not want Jud to touch her at all. If you inappropriately touch someone, especially after they said "No" or are not interested, that's assault. (I had that happen to me at work Sunday night when a bum came into my store, began sexually harassing me verbally and then pressed himself against me after I said no.)
Curly is not the only one that is effected by toxic masculinity. Jud is too.
Oh believe me, I know that Jud is FAAAARRR from innocent. I think there’s more than just one “villain” in this show lol
@@WaitintheWings Curly is an asshole (i don't think the text implies that he's persuading Jud to kill himself...he's bullying Jud because he knows he's being provocative but Jud is too unaware to meet him with violence like anyone else would; an asshole move but not an villainous one), that isn't the same thing as a villain (who is the person who works against the morality of the text). Curly doesn't, you just don't like what the text is saying. Fair, but there's no reason to muddle the connotation of villain to do so.
💯💯💯💯
@@ashmeadowphoenix Curly is a different kind of villain the Jud. When you argue about _"technicalities"_ , you're basically using the bigot's excuse to defend themselves. "I'm not racist because I'm not a klansman!", "That person's not a Nazi because _technically_ they have actually killed a Jewish person!", "I can't hate women since I have a mother/wife/sister/daughter/etc!", "I'm not homophobic or transphobic, because I'm not scared of them because _technically_ the definition of a phobia means to be afraid of it!" It's a lazy way of reconciling your prejudice because _you_ don't like what someone is saying, so you try to redefine it to fit _your_ narrative.
Maybe you know someone who behaves like Curly, or perhaps you identify with Curly in some way, and hearing someone calling him villainous and not a good person has got your dander up because it implies that _you_ or that acquaintance/friend of yours is by extension, a villain.
@@cannibalisticrequiem Well, I see why you're confused about my response. I'm not arguing technicalities, and no one who is well-versed in literary criticism would think so. Curly is not a villain, technically or otherwise. Villain has a specific literary meaning in literary interpretation. "Villain" is a term specifically meant to both make the audience aware of the ethical milieu of the media and suggest that a character is in opposition to it. Curly is very much the hero within the ethical milieu of Oklahoma, because the ethical milieu of Oklahoma is pretty unethical; it suggests in _more_ interactions than in the Curly and Jud interaction (including the interaction between Ado Annie's father and Ali Hakim), that bullying is fine if it's "deserved", where who is deserving is much less expansive than progressive voices in 21st century might like it to be.
Some advice: It's probably a good idea to ask questions _before_ you respond in a way that suggests you didn't read what I wrote very closely or thoughtfully and certainly didn't understand the lens of what was said. Willing to bet you could not quote a single part of my comment that a) indicated I think something is only a "technicality" and b) that I have indicated any actual personal liking or defense of the text's ethical perspective. And yet, your whole comment is full of useless extracted strawmen based on those very things.
Are just going to over look the fact that Jud burnt down three farmer's houses due to being rejected by their daughters? and creeping and hanging around Lauries bedroom window, thats not what a normal putogether farm hanfd should be doing to and with his bosses daughter. there is no way of making judgement out to be the poor victim sorry, and the fact that he tries and tries again to be around laurie and touch her and kiss her against her will, thats ok but curly is a bad man due to him being a cowboy and protecting the women and her aunt that he loves and the town that he has grown to love? sorry curly aint the villain, Jus is hands down.
It is not actually ever outright stated that it WAS Jud that burnt down the other farms. It's text left open to assumption and interpretation on the part of the production itself to run with or not. I have seen it both ways where it's implied it was him but also where it's implied it was not only a sort of cautionary tale. And that's the thing, making the director or the character choice that is was NOT him hits again with his video says about. The outsider vs insider mentality of the local culture. The socially accepted jock cowboy vs the socially shunned loser laborer. Is Jud the one that did it? Possibly. But it's also very possible that the locals are just using the story against Jud because if ONE farmhand did that, then ALL farm hands are creepers and capable of doing the same, It makes farm hands the local boogey man of sorts. To them, even if Jud didn't do it, they treated him lesser than because of it.
@@AmbeeLee Let's see now, Judd tried to kill Curly with the " Little Wonder" viewer w/built in knife. Then he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight that he(Judd) started .Judd ended up falling on his own knife. The death was accidental and Curly was deemed innocent due to defending himself from being stabbed to death by Judd. So that was the story in Oklahoma from 3/31/1943 through every revival except 2019, and as shown in the 1955 movie. Judd was not, nor ever was intended to be a poor, lonely misunderstood outsider. Curly was never portrayed as a cold blooded killer by (gun at point blank range) until 2019. The fact that the newlyweds both wore white for heightened effect, when covered in blood in 2019, is evidence of something more. They sang the title song covered in blood, to smear America, period. It was Carrie Meets Oklahoma!
I agree that Judd is absolutely the villain. However, as a person who WEPT for him during his solo, I have to also admit that he is a human being with feelings, and I feel for him. Loneliness has driven him to his villainhood.
And Curly tried to get him to kill himself. That is problematic.
Curly is NOT perfect. But I won't call him the villain, either, because, as you say, he was trying to protect Laurie from a man who wanted to take her against her will.
They both wanted to possess her. The difference is that Laurie WANTED Curly. So, it's a happy ending FOR HER.
Well, and a happy ending for Ado-Annie and Will, who are neither one exactly faithful sorts, but they are HONEST with each other about it. I think they'll manage well together, if they maintain that honesty.
Funny, I remember watching Oklahoma with Hugh Jackman as a kid and thinking it was a horror film-all the characters were so flawed and dysfunctional and I thought that was the point. Watching the 1960s version was jarring because it was so sunny and I remember thinking “Wait, this is supposed to be a comedy?“
I think you left out something kind of important. It depends on the production and interpretation, but I've seen productions where Judd is clearly portrayed as someone who is experiencing intellectual challenges. Seeing Curly and to a lesser extent, Laurie effectively bully someone with different needs always makes me VERY uncomfortable.
You are forgetting that the original story from the day it opened on Broadway, through every Broadway and West End revival, including the Movie, except the 2019 distorted version) show that Judd tried to kill Curly TWICE!. Once at the box social, with the Little Wonder and after the wedding, when Judd attacked Curly with a knife and ended up falling on his own knife! Judd was not some poor, misunderstood outsider with different needs!
@@maryleone2023 I did say that it depended on the production and I didn't say that he was blameless of any wrong doing. So, I stand by what I said.
"Experiencing intellectual challenges" and "different needs" lol. Such a condescending way to phrase it
I'm really glad that you mentioned the Oklahoma revival!
Everyone, welcome to the roast of Curly McLain. Please leave your best roasts in the comments below.
Our "Hero" talks his romantic rival into committing suicide, simply because they both love the same girl, and we're supposed to think that this is charming, because it's a musical, and not messed up at all?!
@@trinaq that's exactly what we're saying!! Like??? What??
@@GabrielaDay Precisely, everyone just seems to ignore the problematic implications, and instead focus on the songs, which are admittedly catchy, and to me, are more memorable than the actual plot! 🎶
@@trinaq Judd never committed suicide! Therefor Curly did not talk him into it..! Curly alluded to it, just as Judd alluded to setting the fire that killed 3 people! Judd also tried to stab Curly TWICE, once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding during the fight he started. He ended up falling on his own knife as per every B'wy and WE revival and Movie version until 2019!
No...he’s arrogant and kinda dopey, but not a villain...it’s still one of the better “classic” Rogers and Hammerstein shows (most of which HAVE NOT AGED WELL AT ALL...Just TRY watching The King and I and not stare at it, slack jawed, and wonder just WHY THE HELL WAS IT WELL LOVED??)
Yul Brynner’s charisma. I saw him in his last London production of it in the early 1980s, and I was riveted. Can I say the whole thing is terribly problematic? Oh, yes, but with Brynner it was compelling.
PS The video you use which is the London production from the National Theatre represents a mile stone in productions of this show. Richard Rogers' daughter was at one of the first previews and thought they'd rewritten most of the book so she came back the next night with a libretto in her hand and followed the show from that. They hadn't changed a word, it was just so freshly thought out and played that although she'd seen it hundreds of times, she didn't recognise it.
I think they're both dangerous.They both represent men who feel they are entitled to women, but the two characters live under very different circumstances. Toxic masculinity and misogyny unite all men in some way regardless of their social standing.
Thanks for this double perspective take! Ever since I first saw this musical as a preteen, Curly's actions towards Jud always freaked me out. Our "Hero" talks Jud into suicide, for seemingly no other reason other than to free up Laurey to be with Curly. And this is BEFORE Jud has even done anything remotely immoral, with his only "crime" being that he wants the same girl.
Curly figures out that he was the farmhand that had burned down several farms after the owners refused to let him date their daughter due to howe creepy he had been acting toward them. id say if i had know that and yet Judith was still able to work and live without getting caught, i would do everything in my power to get him to get out and away from the people and women he loved.
Curly did not talk Judd into suicide since Judd did not commit suicide! Judd tried to kill Curly TWICE! Once with the Little Wonder viewer w/knife and after the wedding when he attacked Curly with a KNIFE!. Judd died accidentally when he fell on his own knife, after he pulled it on Curly during the fight that he (Judd) initiated. You are basing your comments on the 2019 distorted version shwing Curly shoot and kill Judd for no reason. Since the opening of Oklahoma on 3/31/ 1943, through every B'wy and WE revival and Movie, Judd tried to kill Curly. It was never Curly shooting Judd.
@@wwozanewmusical ONE farm and even that is enigmatical.
He has ALREADY killed his previous employers at that point, AND he has made Laurie feel HIGHLY uncomfortable, as she picks up his vibes.
And yet, even knowing that, I FEEL for the guy, who is so darned lonely.
My local theater production, without changing the lines and music, made him feel SO VERY HUMAN. Maybe it was because I'm good friends with the actor who portrayed him, but I wept for that man, in his shed.
I suppose you could call Oklahoma a villain origin story, combined with a "superhero saves the damsel in distress" story. There are just SO MANY layers to Oklahoma.
NOBODY, except perhaps Aunt Eller, is really a fully good human being. And many would say Aunt Eller is bad, because she's a spinster, in an age where being a spinster was looked upon as a sin, even though there were more adult women than men. But I digress. Don't get me started on "Ape leaders," and the like. UGH.
Anyway, everyone in that show is flawed, in one way or another.
But I do think Aunt Eller ROCKS!
I occasionally watch the 1950 movie of Oklahoma for the music (I don't have much interest in the story now), but this whole time, from watching it as a kid to now, I'd interpreted 'Poor Jud Is Daid' as Curly just trying to get a sense of Jud's ego. Also, in the auction scene it's quite clear that everyone can see that Laurie is uncomfortable, & Curly becomes protective over her after seeing her scared reaction to Jud's continuous bidding. I don't think I ever saw Curly as a 'hero', but I never disliked anything about him specificially. Jud, however, always made me uncomfortable. He's a peeping Tom, he was physically aggressive with Laurie and often possessive over her, and is forever reminiscing over the time Laurie was moderately kind to him years ago when he was ill (which strikes me as a bit creepy)... so I'd still consider Jud the no.1 villain, for the movie version at least! Is the movie much different from the stage version shown here? Perhaps I would have a different opinion of Curly if I watched that.
I remember Jud being physically aggressive and creepy, I felt bad for him but his actions were very much of someone who was ready to assault Laurie or Curly. Curly is not a clean cut hero at all, he's very clearly too into himself, but leaving that out about Jud feels disingenuous
@@BubblegumSocialClub Yes, I agree haha. I believe that often when someone decides they dislike the 'hero' of the story, they hold them to a much higher moral standard than the 'villain'. Curly wasn't perfect, but him being cocky and so on doesn't make him worse than an aggressive guy who creeps on women and burns down houses lol
The stage version shown here 2019, is a distortion of the original 1943 R&H opening night, 2,212 shows that followed, every B'wy and WE version and movie.
They show Judd as the villain since he tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulls a knife on Curly during the fight he started. The 2019 Daniel Fish distortion changes Oklahoma into Carrie Meets Oklahoma. It has Judd go to the wedding and give Curly a gun which Curly picks up and shoots Judd with at point blank range for no reason. Then a mock trial acquits Curly. This is not Oklahoma. It is Daniel Fish's own retelling of the story.
In the original and every revival, Curly never shoots Judd. Judd falls on his own knife during a fight with Curly. Curly is found not guilty because it was self defense and also since Judd fell on his own knife, it was an accident.
Oklahoma 2019 was so chilling, and so heartbreaking at the same time. My jaw hit the floor in Act Two; the audience was so shook. One of the most memorable nights I've ever had on Broadway.
I CLICKED THIS SO FAST! Oklahoma is something that just HAUNTS my mind since I saw the revival. Gosh, I could rant for awhile here so will attempt to restrain myself as much as I possibly can.
I HATED Oklahoma for most of my life. I started coming around seeing the Jackman version. Making Laurie a tomboy felt more 'real' and the performances overall added depth. Then the revival happened and it HIT ME LIKE A TON OF BRICKS! Dear god it's AMAZING how they did not change a single word of dialogue but entirely through direction and character choices it was a whole different show. And. That. ENDING! The lights were on in the theatre for 90% of the show allowed you to see the faces of those across from you at that ending and... oh GOD the looks on the older patrons faces was CHEF'S KISS. It's more than just "bringing a knife to a gun fight" but I don't wanna put it to many spoilers since the tour is going to go back out on the road again soon and EVERYONE SHOULD GO SEE IT. But you see Jud understand his place in this society that has shot him down and Curley at the same moment understand his place in it as well. What is expected of him. I saw the understudy for Curley so I cannot say if the main actor did this as well, but in that moment before the trigger is pulled you can see the look on his face that he does NOT want to pull it, but he does anyway because it's what everyone expects him to do. It's SO GOOD. And then LAURIE in that scene. NO I CAN'T SAY IT! IT'S SO GOOD!
I do have to say that I am on the side of "product of his upbringing" and it's not JUST him. Laurie uses Jud against Curley. She KNOWS that she does not care for Jud but she also KNOWS that going to the social with Jud will mess with Curly.
Quick unrelated question, did you see Ali Stroker? I saw the show a few times actually but I could only end up seeing matinees so I never saw Ali Stroker as Ado Annie since she was taking off matinees at that time.
That revival is one of the most incredible things I've seen on a stage.
I certainly saw Ali Stroker as Ado Annie. She was great and it was nice to see her getting a spotlight role on Broadway after Spring Awakening!
Oklahoma, from 3/31/1943 through every B'wy and W.E. revival and Movie, NEVER had Curly shoot Judd at point blank range at the wedding and kill him.
That was an invention of Daniel Fish. It was not Oklahoma that was put on stage but Carrie Meets Oklahoma! Having the two newly weds wearing white( for heightened effect) covered in blood while singing the main title song was a distortion and a travesty. It was Daniel Fish going to Rodgers and Hammerstein's graves and spitting on them. He took their smash hit first collaboration and turned it into NOKLAHOMA! Don't say lines were not changed, since Judd never went to the wedding with a gun as a wedding present for Curly. Curly never shot Judd - that was never in any other Oklahoma, ever, until 2019!
@@maryleone2023 Mary, it’s ok. You don’t have to like it. It’s true that not a line of dialogue was changed. The stage direction was obviously different. Performance art can be interpreted in different ways. It doesn’t have to be an exact carbon copy. R&H weren’t infallible. The original “from 3/31/1943” isn’t perfect. It can be enjoyed in many forms. You don’t have to convince everyone that Fish destroyed Oklahoma. There’s no right answer here. Are you also mad at Lin Manuel Miranda because the founding fathers weren’t black? It’s a different way of telling a familiar story so that society can examine itself and maybe change for the better. I like the original. I also like this new interpretation. I’m glad we have both.
@@bcdenton It is not true "that not a line of dialogue was changed" To wit: adding scenes that never were in the original like Jud going to the wedding reception and giving Curly a gun and having Curly pick it up and shoot Jud at point blank range, murdering Jud in cold blood
and changing the story at the trial. In the original,
Curly explains that Jud had a knife and came at him and they fought and Jud fell on his knife. It was self defense and an accident! So how does society change for the better by turning Curly into a cold blooded killer and having the newlyweds ignore the murder and sing the title song with both wearing white clothes spattered in blood? Answer: It doesn't!
😬 saying curly isnt to blame because of society is so problematic. Let's not forget that their were always people that saw through the bs of every time period. Look at abolishionist and woman's sufferange. Curly's actions were WRONG, they may have been normalized but they were wrong.
Yeah that part got a big yikes out of me.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding with a knife, he pulled on Curly . Judd ended up falling on his own knife and dying. ( Every version of Oklahoma since 3/31/1943, except for the 2019 " Reimagined" Daniel Fish travesty. ) Fish changed Oklahoma into Noklahoma! or Carrie Meets Oklahoma! He spit on the graves of Rodgers &Hammerstein.
I think you all kinda nailed it. At the time of its original writing, I think Curly would have been seen as the hero, but time has changed him into a villain. He’s always felt like the “cool high school jock” from any teen movie: he can literally get away with murder because people think he’s handsome, and he has a sweet-ass buggy. The whole ending of “Oklahoma” has always struck me as more dark and messed-up than happy. I’m glad the 2019 revival leaned into that.
I mean i would hardly call it murder. In the original ending jud was actively trying to kill curly and he only died because he fell on his own knife.
@@burnttoastburt1467 Thank you. The original ( 3/31/1943) and every Broadway and West End revival, including the 1955 Movie, except for (2019) show that Judd died by falling on his own knife, while he tried to stab Curly. Judd also tried to stab Curly with the "Little Wonder " viewer he bought from Will and had with him at the box social. Aunt Eller called out "Curly" to stop him from viewing the Little Wonder after Ali Hakim told her about it. Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Judd=Villain.
@@maryleone2023 what I see you failing to realise time and time again in this comment section is that while Jud is A villain, he's not THE ONLY villain. R&H were very much aware that life isn't black and white and people aren't necessarily just "good" or "evil", they make it very clear that the community aren't entirely blameless in this situation.
Daniel Fish's interpretation isn't something R&H never could've possibly considered, it's one they didn't go for. if you're going to get all high and mighty about it, why don't you look to the fact that R&H adapted oklahoma from green grow the lilacs, in which the shivaree isn't a fun happy celebration of the newlyweds, it doesn't happen during the day, the play doesn't end with a happy "hell yeah we get to be a state", that's not what it's about, it is quite dark, R&H gave a sanitised pro-America take that wasn't originally intended. Daniel Fish's production, while being interpreted for a modern audience and the issues we currently face, isn't a "wrong" interpretation, in fact it could be argued that it's message is closer to that of the source material.
@@TheClobo2001 What you fail to realize is that Fish changed the original R&H Oklahoma to Fish's Oklahoma, period.
@@maryleone2023 he hasn't though, he changed none of the dialogue or even the order things happen. he's challenged you to view the show more critically and in a way the original playwright would've wanted. just because it's a different interpretation doesn't mean it's not R&H's oklahoma, if it wasn't that wouldn't be how it was marketed and that would be the criticism from actual critics
idk it seems illegal for Hugh Jackman to play the villain
All the more reason for him to do so! I love when actors play against type, and the best portrayals of villains are often by actors we love and trust (for obvious reasons)
Curly was never the villain. Only in Daniel Fish' distorted and made up 2019 Bwy version. Every Oklahoma from 3/31/1943 shows Judd trying to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started.
No you can not survive Oklahoma! It is a horrific musical!
I decided to watch this out of morbid curiosity for Oklahoma has always been one of my least favorite musicals of all time! I’ve never liked it and I never will, but I very much enjoyed your video!
You do need to appreciate Rogers and Hammerstein,For making their musicals complex and deeper than most even today. They had people singing about systemic racism way back in the day in South Pacific, and the terror of Natzis in Sound of Music. Don’t forget that Hammerstein before collaborating with Rogers gave the world Showboat; dealing with racism, gambling addiction, and a host of other stuff.
I may not like Oklahoma but I do recognize its place in musical theater history.
Bravo! Well said!
A lot depends on the production, but I have never understood Jud as anything other than a violent, dangerous, sexual predator. No one would phrase it that way in the context of a feel-good musical, and probably no one in 1943 or 1955 would even think to use those words. But Jud is not some poor misunderstood outsider. The community's reaction to him is based on legitimate fear. And complaining that Laurie has no say in her own life is like complaining that she never wears pants. If you want a story about the year 1906 to be a story about the year 2022, then why bother writing a story about 1906?
I’m now waiting for the Star Kid biopic musical about Jud Fry
It's an interesting title, but it's quite an assumption to think we're not watching it in the same way as you. Why would you think we see it as a romp?
It's also quite an assumption to think that no one at the time it came out and for the years following ever detected and contemplated the nuances of the show. It's always been a musical with shades of darkness.
I think your case might be more surely made if it were phrased as, "This is how we see this piece of mid-twentieth-century commercial entertainment in the twenty-first century." Ungainly, but more accurate. It's really disingenuous to present the tones and themes in works of art from the past, as we see them today, as if they were deep, dark secrets craftily hidden /unwittingly blundered by the creators now finally being brought to light! .
What about the fact that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started!
This is the story from 3/31/1943 until the Daniel Fish distortion of 2019 where Fish has Curly shoot Judd at point blank range.
I saw the 2002-2003 B'wy revival with Patty Duke as Aunt Eller. That was in the 21st Century!
Haven’t watched it yet, but yes… absolutely, Curly is the villain of Oklahoma!
My middle-school choir class watched the 1999 recording of the London production of Oklahoma, and we LOVED IT. The music, the dancing, the Hugh Jackman of it all 😍 (this show actually started my semi-unhealthy Hugh Jackman obsession). However, when we got to 'Poor Jud is Dead', we were like, "Is Curly kind of a dick? What he's saying is HORRIBLE. Poor Jud indeed!"
I'm so glad I saw the new revival on Broadway, it's the first time any of the characters on this show are taken to task for how horrible they are.
You are forgetting that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started!
Until the Daniel Fish distortion of 2019, every Oklahoma B'wy production, WE production and 1955 Movie show Judd as the true villain.
Major credit to the 2019 revival crew for a more downbeat ending & letting Laurie react. If they ever want to readapt the film, it would be great to use the 2019 revival. Although it likely won’t be redone given some of its subject matter is controversial and some would voice disgust with the idea, but who knows
As soon as I saw the title my answer was “YES 100%”. Like Jud is as well but god so is Curly. He tries to convince someone to kill himself over a girl and at this time he had no idea about Juds past, as far as he knows he’s just a weird loner! My favorite description I’ve heard of Oklahoma is “two assholes fight over a girl in the old west”.
No, he's the hero.....*remembers he tries to talk Jud into committing suicide*......Okay. Villain is good.
Remember that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly, then pulled a knife on him.
Judd fell on his own knife and died. Judd=Villain!
Anna does a great Aunt Eller
Well she IS an actress lol
D'aw thank you!
I think it's okay to see things from the past as they are and as they were made. It's good to see how far we've come.
Holy Moly, the first seconds itsannachloem spoke, i though "Jesus did he really just booked the BBC voice over voice?"
Brandon! I have been saying this for years! When I was in HS we did the obligatory production of Oklahoma and I gave my chorus part a backstory that she was in love with Jed. Jed's only crime was social awkwardness and unconventional looks. He is not the villain and Curly is trash.
Sorry it is jud not Jed...they even have song with his name it. Also wanted to say sure Curly is a problem but at least he wasn't ban abuser like Billy in Carousel.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice. Once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he tried to stab Curly. Judd ended up falling on his own knife. Judd most certainly is the villain and Daniel Fish is trash for spitting on the graves of Rodgers and Hammerstein with his totally made up 2019 version. It is Noklahoma or Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
He set the family's house on fire and killed them. That's what makes Jud a villain.
@@kichiwas-hargan4775yes yet so many people forget that and the fact he was obsessed with Laurey and didn’t respect her boundaries
Great video! There is a lot of gray area with both characters. Curly is manipulative and narcissistic. He is also absolutely a product of his upbringing. Oklahoma wants to have a clear protagonist/antagonist and does well with convincing the audience to either end. Laurie was also never really a favorite of mine, because she is pulled in every direction with no true meaning/motivation. Judd is the odd man out and takes Curly’s so-called kindness as communication without realizing it’s actually manipulation because he wants to fit in so badly. By today’s standards, Curly is the antagonist trying to be the protagonist, when in the end, both male characters are on the same equal playing field.
Empathy is significantly lacking in the musical, which may have also been a reflection of the time it was written in.
Can i go one comments section without people using the term narcissist like this plz
Curly trying to gaslight Jud to kill himself really just sort of makes Curly the Mrs. Danvers of Oklahoma
Love this
GTFO, that was AFTER Jud hinted he had killed a family for crying out loud. and there Jud is, living in the same place as the woman he loves.
I’m glad the new production doesn’t try and hide the darkness of the show, but I still can’t watch it. Even the original film is hard for me. I’m glad that it brings joy to others, it’s just not for me.
People who dismiss Oklahoma!, and then go listen to Be More Chill really need to reconsider their taste.
I think the real answer is that no one is 100% a villain or a hero; human beings are complex and nothing is black and white. In real life we all do things that we're ashamed of and are influenced by our culture and environment. Taking a new approach to this classic show by standing back and looking at it to see the gray and the complexities is brilliant and I would LOVE it if we did this with more classics. As human beings we feel more settled when we know there is a "hero" and a "villain" and it feels messy and yucky when the lines are blurry. I love it when the audience is forced to think and understand there's no "right" answer. Let's keep doing this with the classics!
I agree with so much of what you said. Not that Jud was a pleasant person in any way, but it did seem pretty blatant that the investigation into his death was never going to get a fair hearing. Another thing that always seemed a bit dissonant was how they're all singing about how the cowboys and farmers are working to make the territory into such a great place, with not a single thought to all the native people they must have had to drive away from their lands.
Not “must have had to drive away,” DID drive away. Oklahoma was the site of some pretty heinous atrocities.
Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he tried to stab Curly during the fight he started. Ever since 3/31/1943. every revival of Oklahoma + movie shows Judd as the villain. Curly never shot Judd as the Daniel Fish distortion shows. Curly was tried and found not guilty because he was defending himself from being stabbed by Judd. Judd died accidentally by falling on his own knife.
This analysis is the biggest bunch of crap I’ve ever heard.
Haven't watched yet but I've been saying for a year and a half since i first saw Oklahoma!, all you have to do is make Judd not an arsonist and Black guy and you've got a poignant story about lynching in America.
@@maryleone2023 that's why I said to change it.
@@maryleone2023 hi Hun, I just reread your comment and thought you should know it comes off as racist. What with dismissing a black person's point of view and the history of lynchings in America. You probably don't care, (why would you?) But just because you love Oklahoma doesn't mean it can't rub others the wrong way.
Who are you calling "Hun" ? That comes across as sexist! You should not want to make Judd a black guy since from the very beginning of the Oklahoma Judd was a villain. By making Judd black you are equating black and villain. As a person of both black and Italian decent, I take offense to your insensitive remark about blacks and lynchings since both black and Italian people were lynched. By saying Judd was the villain, I am referring to the story and plot of the original Oklahoma since its premiere on 3/31/1943 and all revivals except for the Daniel Fish distortion in 2019.
@@maryleone2023 I'm calling you Hun because I'm friendly. And you keep missing the point both I and the video are making. If you change the story just a tiny bit so Judd is just a guy they don't like instead of the villain it stops being a fairly pointless musical to an extremely meaningful one about how white Americans treat anyone different. Since you love the Original so much there's nothing to worry about since the movie and apparently all other theater productions follow the same plot, but not everyone wants to watch the same story over and over. And a person of color you should want Americans to acknowledge their history of lynching.
@@jordang7479 No, you said make Judd black! I am part black and part white
and find it offensive to make Judd black and an object of hatred. Am I supposed to hate myself? You are not friendly and definitely come off as a person who is not friendly! I am not missing any points in Oklahoma. Judd is a white guy who tried to kill another white guy twice. Once with the little wonder and again with a knife. Daniel Fish changes the story and has Curly shoot Judd for no reason. While he and Laurey are splattered in blood Fish has them singing the title song which was meant to be a celebration of America. Fish distorted the show and demonstrates his hatred for America. BTW, you come across as an America hater. I am a part black, part white America lover who is also a US Army Veteran!
Great insight. However, a lot of choices with the recent Oklahoma revival felt out of left field, personally.
I've always just LOVED the idea of the 2019 ending! It makes me so mad that I can't find a video of it! Does anyone know where I could find one?
A few years back, my local theater performed Oklahoma. When my friend performed as Judd, and sang Judd's solo song (cut out of the movie version), both my mother and I WEPT for Judd.
Sure, Judd turned out to be an evil man who did evil things, at the end, but he was still a HUMAN BEING with FEELINGS, and we empathized with him, because of that. But maybe that's because it was my friend on the stage. Nevertheless, although I sympathized fully with his loneliness, he had ALREADY burned down his previous employers' home and killed people, and was trying to kill Curly, JUST to get to Laurie, and was making Laurie EXTREMELY uncomfortable, as she picked up the bad vibes from her. Also, he wants to POSSESS her, and views her as an object, instead of a human being who can and should choose for herself, and would probably abuse her, if he did marry her. And yet, at the same time, I still feel for that LONELY soul. He's human. He's not a caricature villain. He's a HUMAN villain. And that just makes the whole thing sad.
And, no, Curly was by no means perfect and pure and innocent. He was really trying to troll Judd into ending himself. That is... I don't really have a word for that. Even though he was doing it to protect Laurie, there's also the jealousy aspect, and he wanted to possess her, as his own, and viewed Judd as competition, as well as a danger. It's problematic, at best.
And yet, we smile at the ending, when the handsome cowboy gets the girl, but mostly, now, I smile because she wanted HIM, all along, and she got who she wanted, warts and all. They won't live happily ever after, but I hope they live reasonably well.
I think Annie and Will will have a better marriage, actually. They are more open and honest with each other, and other people around him. Even though Will is a bit of a doofus, and so is Annie, I think that they'll manage together well enough.
Curly's not all that unlike Gaston.
I definitely want to see what happened with the 2019 Oklahoma revival with other musicals. Most notably Bye bye Birdie. A teenage girl is almost sexually assaulted by a famous musician and the musician gets away with it. I mean..they don’t need to look too far for inspirations to draw on. These classic musicals are iconic but they aren’t museum pieces or pieces of art in a gallery to be preserved. They exist on order for actors to bring their truth to characters and situation on stage. That won’t happen by sticking to the same ideas and interpretations. They’re to be constantly reimagined, re-examined and reviewed under different perspectives and as we as a society evolve and change.
Last time I was this early,
Neither victim nor villain? Just like phantom this is a musical about how few choices women actually have.
Coming back to this video, I have to say I feel that this musical or at least some interpretations fail because the need of having a clear cut “good” and “bad” guy. Of course, there can be protagonist, but I feel even if you said Curly was the show’s protagonist he still was quite morally grey. Same with Jud. I don’t believe there are any direct “good” guys in the show, just people. Some more flawed or problematic than others. This and the Netflix movie “I’m thinking of ending things” was my introduction to Oklahoma! So I didn’t go in with the typical rose coloured glasses as I had an idea of the underlying story. But nevertheless, I hope this musical and others can help people learn how to watch them. Because not every story has a clear cut villain or hero. Often, I felt the actions of both Jud and Curly were gross. Even if for there own ways or reasons, I don’t think either person is better.
But can we talk about how Jud is real scary? Curly wasn’t just concerned that Jud posed a threat to his relationship. Jud posed a threat to Laurie herself. She didn’t WANT to go with Jud, but she was afraid to refuse and then didn’t know how to get out of it. Curly was coming to her rescue (we can talk about how men always rescuing women is it’s own antiquated trope, but the fact is, Laurie’s character was written that way and that isn’t Curly’s fault. Maybe Laurie is the villain for agreeing to something she didn’t want to do in the first place thus sparking the whole confrontation between Curly and Jud).
Jud was a dangerous person-which may have led to his being an outsider in the first place. Maybe no one wanted to be around him because he was scary and dangerous.
Was Curly’s approach flawless? Of course not. But I think calling him a villain is going a bit too far.
Yes plus Jud was obsessed with when he says he ain’t going to dream about her hair, he ain’t going to leave her alone that’s creepy. Plus it doesn’t have to be Curly, he would go after anyone that stood in his way. He viewed her more as property like Gaston did Belle and saw her as a prize but wouldn’t be surprised if he cheated on her with a saloon girl
The only good thing about "Oklahoma" is the music.
Yeah, when I say this people always say, "No, Jud is the villain." To which I try to point out that a story can have more than one villain, and this story has many.
This I'll agree with. To portray Judd as innocent when he physically and emotionally threatens Laurie seems ... off.
Someone can be an outsider without burning down houses in retribution for not being awarded a female he thinks he's owed.
Only in the 2019 Daniel Fish' distortion of Rodgers and Hammerstein's masterpiece, not in the original nor any revival on B'wy or WE or movie.
I'd love to see a version of Oaklahoma where it's the townsfolk that are the villains. Have Curly kill Judd in self defence, AND feel bad about it, and yet have the rest of his peers absolve him.
This is more or less the 2019 stage production, (Currently playing in London in 2023)
Question, i have only seen the 1950 film. While i was a little sympathetic to judd and his situation. I still got a feeling of being creeped out by judd. I felt like a outsider for a good reason that was unspoken. That he wasnt a good person. I would like to hear others thoughts on this. Thanks
Here’s my personal breakdown (as someone who loves art criticism and has watched both versions).
1. Both versions are products of their time. The original is simple. Curly is a good guy who has a weird moment and Judd is a bad guy. The new is apparently about toxic masculinity and makes Judd a victim rather than an actively violent man. Both have very obviously stylistic choices.
2. Laurie is honestly the bigger issue in this story. Because Curly from the original doesn’t clearly seem to be a cocky a-hole. If anything they’re simply playing a game of cat and mouse against each other. But instead of being honest, she chooses to play with the feelings of a man who obviously terrifies her and who she is aware might hurt her. Even more so, examining the original, Judd assaults her on the way to the party and Laurie ditches him. Instead of mentioning that Judd tried to hurt her to someone, she lets Judd and Curly duke it out. In the new version, Laurie plays with Judd’s feelings by kissing him.
3. This whole point about revisionist history isn’t fair because this isn’t an actually defined town so to make a claim as to what it must or must not be like outside of the realms of what the writers wrote is to be disingenuous. This isn’t a story about masculinity or oppressed minorities. The theme of Oklahoma if anything is about getting over one’s pride. The pride of Curly and Laurie inability to admit they love each other. The pride of the townsfolk to divide on the lines of farmer and cowboy. The pride of Judd for thinking that he is owed Laurie’s affection because he works hard for her and her family. Even Curly is supposed to realize his own pride in assuming things would go well for him and Laurie by virtue of having “beaten Judd” and married Laurie. This theme is also prevalent in the side plot about Annie and Will. Will doesn’t want to let go of the pride he has in his own single life and neither does Annie want to let go of her pride in being an attractive sought after female. Again, I’d say pride is the main theme of Oklahoma - one that does intentionally poke fun at the pride of a people who wanted the freedom of a territory and the rights of a state.
4. You can’t read something old through the lens of modern morals because morals are always shifting. Whether or not you agree with it, Curly isn’t the villain. Sure, depending on the acting he’s a braggart and a puffed up jerk, but that doesn’t make one a villain. That merely makes them flawed. The revival fairly does not let the characters have a happy ending which I’d say is the more realistic and nuanced ending as the pride of the town who rallied behind their young couple was shattered by ignoring what was coming in Judd’s revenge. So yea, realistic ending but it’s not because Curly is a villain, but because the characters are realizing how blind they were to the dangers of a situation they never considered - again because of pride.
Anyone can nitpick this issue but I think it’s frankly the most clear and simple reading. Saying all western heroes “are dripping with toxic masculinity” basically shows a disinterest in the genre, a lack of a nuanced reading, and a highly biased view of what it means to be heroic. Very 21st century to say that a “man takes the woman as his prize” and then play down a character saving a town. How he goes about it and his character do matter and examining each film and character are more important than blanket statements that do nothing to further considerate art criticism.
I saw a revival on B'wy with Patty Duke playing Aunt Eller, in 2003. I saw the 1955 move 23 times and the UNCSA recreation of the original opening night version of Oklahoma which is the way those in attendance at the very first B'wy opening saw it. I saw the UNCSA recreation 15 times. Judd was always the villain and it was the intent of R&H that he be the villain. He tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder at the box social, and after the wedding when he pulled a knife on Curly during the fight he started. Judd fell on his own knife and died. It was adjudicated as self defense for Curly and rightfully so. Not in the distorted Daniel Fish version that was deemed Noklahoma, or as I call it : Carrie Meets Noklahoma. Please see the UNCSA recreation of Oklahoma on You Tube. There are two acts so you can see it at different times. Also can be seen on John Mauceri's web site.
@@maryleone2023 Well said.
WELP I'm never going to be able to enjoy this musical QUITE the same way again. I still have a soft spot for it, but some really good points were brought up in this video.
I grew up primarily in the south and later the upper northwest, so I know exactly what you mean when you talk about the men that walk around like modern cowboy movie stars. There's a profound tragedy there because a lot of good is present, but it's tarnished by the sexist, racist, classist, ableist views that color them. It's sad because many of them grew up poor or abused and you'd think empathy would have a chance to take root but the socialization of these boys and later men stamps it out pretty early.
This shining example of "masculinity" from cowboy movies, I think, was a beacon of safety and confidence for them. For my own father, I know he holds men like John Wayne and Roy Rogers in high regard because they were just and noble and provided a good role model for him outside his alcoholic, abusive, cheating dad. There's a trauma there that I don't think makes it easy to confront how harmful these movies were to the real history they painted over. I believe for me the best I can do is gently continue to encourage him to go to therapy, and do the work on myself instead to pull away the layers of ignorance I built up as a child living under these social conditions.
OOOOOOOKLAHOMA, where you get roasted by Brendon
I once heard of a production of "Oklahoma!" that cast Jud as the only black person in a white community and I haven't been able to look at the show the same way since.
Also, "Lonely Room" is my favourite song in the entire show because it gives Jud humanity, allowing him to express his ache for love and acceptance with a vulnerability and eloquence that he can never muster when talking to the other characters.
"Lonely Room" is still a scary song. A great song, yes. And it does show Jud's humanity, but also brings you into the recesses of a dark mind.
That production you mentioned sounds brilliant.
"If curly were modern he would be good!" "She realizes her situation through a modern-day lens" i'm to lazy to articulate why i hate this but i hate it. This double take should have been a single take, tbh.
I saw this a few weeks ago in London, the transfer of the 2019 revival, and i haven't stopped thinking about it!
One thing that really came across for me during the trial scene was that, well, Aunt Eller was the antagonist. Curly is a charismatic manipulator, Judd is intellectually challenged but equally morally flawed and selfish, whereas Aunt Eller is the one who is motivating Curly's defence of Laurey at the Box Social. She is the one who encourages him to stop Judd's bidding, and drums up the community to find Curly not guilty. Which is such a fascinating take, i honestly can't praise it enough!
so Gaston wins?! wtf?!
Growing up I thought curly was the good guy that operated as a ‘simple’ cowboy. It was almost like he was supposed to not be the brightest on purpose but a good guy. Yes it was wrong to intimate to Jud to die in order to get affection. There was a love triangle that seemed more like Competition than love for the first half of the story. But the story was endearing and improved the movie as a child. “Out of my dreams” was a frightening aspect but still one of my favorite songs of all time. The aspect of slavery is a whole other post
Great post! The character of Jud is like
The end result of a child left behind growing up without affection. Now that I’m older I can see the trigger of suicidal ideation that would bother people
One of the reasons I like Oklahoma is that it is so problematic. The following comments refer to the 1998 London production directed by Trevor Nunn. The scene that made me the most uncomfortable was Curly and Jud bidding over Laurey, who was being auctioned off like a meat pie in her hamper. I was surprised she had the fortitude to stay there as both of her increasingly deranged suitors gave up every penny they owned to possess her. It was a humiliating and excruciating scene. Love in Oklahoma is often portrayed as a business transaction. Example: Will Parker having to pay Ado Annie's father 50 bucks in order to marry her. Don't dowries usually work the other way around?
But let's focus on Laurey and her complicated love triangle. While Jud is an outcast in the community, Laurey is the only one who shows him kindness and recognizes his humanity when she visits him while he is sick. But she also recognizes that he is a voyeur and therefore dangerous. We don't know why Jud is the way he is. We don't know his backstory and whether we should empathize with him or villainize him. Laurey's big mistake was accepting his invitation to the "box social of the century!" She led him on. She did put on airs, both with him and with Curly. She bares some of the responsibility. Jud's tragic death could have been avoided had Curly and Laurey been more honest about their feelings from the beginning; had Laurey been less stubborn and Curly less full of himself. Then again, Jud's sexual and emotional obsession with Laurey was so great that there was no way he could let Curly McLain exist. Jud came back to the reception with the intent to kill Curly. Similarly, the "Poor Jud Is Daid" song does imply that Curly thinks the only way Jud can be fully out of the picture, the only way he can cease to be a threat, is if he dies. This is a messy situation full of messy characters with lots of flaws. But let's remember that this is a story about the Wild West trying to civilize its way into the Union with schoolhouses, play parties, and farmers getting along with cowmen. I think the real victim here was Ali Hakim who gets stuck marrying Gertie. That might be the biggest tragedy of them all.
Can you do an analysis on Pippin?
Yes. PLEASE.
I...think you don't really realize what the show is trying to say.
This show isn't a romanticized America that never existed. This show is a primer on how to beat the fucking Nazis. The Farmer and the Cowman Should Be Friends. Jud is the outside element that has to be removed either by suggestion or by force. It's not a show about toxic masculinity (that's Carousel) or gun culture (looking at you, Yeehaw Revival). read the source material and realize how great R&H were at illuminating very dark source material by presenting a sense of community.
What absolute nonsense, trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. It is entertainment, a musical and nothing more. Everything is down to the scriptwriters. I suppose you wanted a platform to do your preaching from. Well, your preaching went right over my head, and I hope, everyone else's.
I watched the original musical for the first time a few months ago (I am on a musical kick) and while I did not view Curly as the bad guy per say, I did not feel comfortable with the way he and everyone else in the play treated Jud. Yes Jud did horrible things because of his obsession with Laurey, but at the same time Laurey did kind of lead him on when she intially said yes to his offer of being her date to the dance. The reason she did this was because she not want to go with Curly, denying her feelings towards him. When she changed mind later, Jud being upset is understandable but I do not excuse the violence that he exhibited in the midst of that anger. If either Laurey and/or Curly had been honest about their feelings towards each other from the beginning, Jud could have been alive at the end. The dead Jud song Curly sings in front of Jud is just uncomfortable and foreshadows Jud's death that happens later. My mom who hadn't seen the musical in awhile did recall that scene and remarked that when her high school did it she wondered why they kept number considering the theme of suicide. The trial scene where Curly gets off scott free, just seals the deal that Jud was a victim throughout all of this. While he was not perfect, Jud could have been treated better by Laurey (who used him because she was uncertain of her feelings for Curly), Curly (who threatened him for even looking to "his woman" Laurey) and the rest of the town (who subverted the course of justice so that Curly does not have to face any consequences for the death of Jud).
Judd tried to kill Curly twice, once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly and pulled a knife on him. Judd fell on his own knife. He died accidentally. Curly was just defending himself and at the trial it was deemed self defense. Why should Curly face any consequences? Judd tried to kill him twice. The smokehouse scene also shows Judd alluding to the fact that a fire that killed 3 people was no accident. While Curly alluded to Judd hanging himself, Judd alluded to being an arsonist and murderer!
So I saw in college I saw a production of Oklahoma and I honestly couldn’t EXACTLY understand what made the show tick. This explains A LOT!
Speaking of Nostalgia and how it warps our sense of America, how bout them Follies.
I really disliked this musical when I watched it for the first time. I don't agree with most of your points, but I believe that Curly is definitely a villain. He does the exact same things as Judd, but while he is forgiven and gets the girl, Judd is portrayed as an evil villain. The only real difference is that Curly is charismatic and handsome, while Judd is more awkward, reclusive, and ugly. The whole musical, and the twisted morality of its characters, left a bad taste in my mouth.
Jud killed a family because their daughter spurned him before he started working for Laurey’s aunt.
I think you’re projecting your own biases and hatred for certain groups onto this while ignoring context within the text that goes against your interpretation of it.
soooo Curly is Gaston
In fact, one man in the play said that Curly should face justice, but he was overruled.
You left out Laurie (toxic femininity) manipulating Jud to manipulate Curly. All in all Curly is no more a villain than anyone else.
One of the ONLY hopeful things I look forward to in the future is the great reawakening of originality, new ideas and new art that will come after the deep disaster of the social collapse that the past two years have forced on us for political power grabbing.
So I just watched the old movie version of Oklahoma. And how does no one else see the female lead as the villain? She instigates ALL the conflicts.
This fells too woke and preachy
I always felt strange about Oklahoma. I didn't like Curly, while I imagine he's supposed to be a lady's dream man. There are parts of the story I like, but overall it's not a musical I go back to much.
What in tarnation
Well, some may say, you're reading too much into this show, but as an actor or director, you brought up some good points. it's bothered me as well that Laurie doesn't seem to have much of a say in the matter although there's a whole ballet devoted to her choosing. i think future productions will have to look at who really is the bad guy in this.
You have entirely misunderstood the character of Stanley in "Streetcar" if you think that he wants things to go back to the way they were. He represents forwardness, change, industrialisation and - in every action he performs and line he utters - the anti-nostaglic stripping away of illusions of the past
That is true but he also represents the inherently ironic position of such a representative. Think of his constant focus on the Napoleonic Code, a completely out-dated (even for the time) form of law. He represents the ways in which 'progression', 'change' and 'industrialisation' are not in the slightest synonymous terms. He is certainly anti-nostalgic in that he contrasts directly with the nostalgia of Blanche for 'The Old South', but equally represents the repression at the heart of 'progress'.
Anyone know if there is an accessible video of the revival online? I've heard that it reads much differently and is a "darker" version of the original show. I'm super curious how some of the themes and ideas from the video present themselves, but I can't find a recording anywhere.
Oklahoma the music walked so Rittenhouse could run
I think the true villain in this play (I just re-watched it last night) is pornography. His addiction is what has driven Jud to those social extremes, and what leads him to assault Laurey. All of the men view porn at one time or another during the play, and every time, the women are obviously uncomfortable and disapproving. Without the sick pictures papering his walls and his mind, Jud would have had a much better chance at a real (not twisted and lustful) relationship.
What about the fact that Judd tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding when he started a fight with Curly and pulled a knife on him. I say that makes Judd the villain in every B'wy and WE revival + Movie since Oklahoma opened on B'wy 3/31/1943. Not to go by 2019 distortion aka Noklahoma or Carrie Meets Oklahoma.
I've always considered Oklahoma a show with excellent music but a terrible story
One thing that you misrepresent that's important to me, in what I saw last night Jud was suicidal and gave curly a gun to kill him.
Daniel Fish's distortion is just that ! It is called Noklahoma or as I call it Carrie Meets Oklahoma. It is established history of the show since 3/31/1943 that Judd was the villain and tried to kill Curly twice: once with the Little Wonder and after the wedding, when Judd pulls a KNIFE on Curly during the fight he started.
11:43 =One of the reasons why I hate Oklahoma & the theme of the Wild West...
Curly giving us ‘ I’m a nice guy’ trope just raises red flags about his behaviour
Thank you for exploring the context & themes in this musical so thoroughly! I appreciate how you try educate those of us more on-the-outside-looking-in in regards to theatre & theatre history. It's very interesting! As uncomfortable as watching how problematic quite a few theatre classics are thru a 21st century lens...you can't deny that it's both necessary and cool to watch revival & derivative productions explore the problematic themes/characters for 21st century audiences.
I do also understand & can love a tragedy story too, tho. I'm working on being more open to "non-happy endings". The frustration on behalf of a character is part of the story experience in the middle; it can be for their ending too. Art is a spectrum. Not all stories end happy, even if originally intended to present as such...I like how the 2019 revival decided to encourage the audience to view Laurie's ending as more of a tragedy than one of bliss. The beauty of theatre is that there is always room for a production crew & actors to interpret the story & their characters in another way. Just because Curly is portrayed as a pure macho hero in most classic Oklahoma productions, doesn't mean he always has to be.
Also, 18:18 . This is also my frustration with Christine's situation in the Phantom of the Opera lol. I love that musical but dang I wish she was able to have an ending without being "saved" by Raoul....the guy who was tryna convince her she was worried over nothing thru act 1 and then made her "bait" without her consent in act 2. And the Phantom actually IS a serial killer, so lol nope. I'm glad the agency of female love interests are gradually no longer being silenced in romance stories.
So I had to watch Oklahoma for a musical theater class I took in high school and I absolutely hated it for a lot of the reasons you mention, namely the fact that the town decides to just ignore that he is, at the least, partly responsible for a man's death. I was so pissed off (still am, lol) and I couldn't figure out why so many of the other people in the class loved it. Cut to senior year and that was our fall musical. I auditioned for Judd cause I've always been a large brick of a woman and have a deeper voice and none of the other guys who did the musicals would've been able to do the role justice imo (they were romantic leading guy types). I didn't end up getting it and decided to be stage manager (the role went to a Chilean exchange student who was as sweet as can be but worked well in the role because he was even taller than me, and only as an adult can I see the subtext of this Chilean student playing the outsider among all these very very white New England students).
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who's reaction to Oklahoma is "ugh", since I seemed to be the only one who felt that way back then. I do appreciate the take of Curly and his behavior mainly being a product of the culture he lives in, but I don't think I can forgive his character, it just makes me hate the town even more. ^^()
Y'all are twisted!
A “small town” of 5000 lol
Saw a live production of this musical for the first time last week and left feeling shocked. No way this is the famous musical that's been performing for over 70 years! What a mess of a story, I couldn't root for a single character!
As other people point out, Jud is obviously dangerous. That being said, take away 1-2 character flaws and he becomes a far more sympathetic victim rather than a horrible monster the movie paints him to be. Granted, those character flaws are pretty major, but I personally feel like these characteristics were more likely born of the dated stereotypes of the time rather than the behaviors of actual lonely, introverted men. This isn't always the case, there are far too many "nice guys" out there who in actuality probably do act a lot like Jud. But I don't think this is the hard-fast rule that the musical seems to depict.
On the flip side, Curly is painted as the popular, good-looking guy who gets the support of the townsfolk simply by being well liked and cool. These are the types of men in real life who all too often take advantage of their popularity/privilege to get away with doing some pretty heinous things. We even see this in the musical with Curly being subjected to a sham trial, or when he seemingly encourages Jud to off himself in an attempt to remove what he supposes is his competition. And yet despite these flaws, Curly is lauded as the hero while Jud is dismissed as a villain. I wish the script contained a bit more nuance where both leading men were seen as dangerous options. As it stands the ending feels more akin to a tragedy to me than a victory.
Jud Fry is a murderer. He's murdered before. This is something he admits to in his thinly veiled story about the Bartlett farm. It doesn't take a genius to realize that he's talking about himself as the one who burnt the family alive. Jud has no qualms about murdering again. He makes no bones about his plan to murder Curly with "The Little Wonder", and he attacks Curly during the shivaree with the intention to kill. His response to Laurey's rejection is to threaten her with violence. That is not the reaction of sane person. Curly, on the other hand, does and says some dark and cringy things, but it's pretty clear that he isn't a cold-blooded murderer nor is violence his go-to when Laurey spurns him. Curly is definitely not the villain of the piece. That is clearly Jud Fry. Curly is a flawed protagonist. While Oklahoma! does have a basically happy ending, it's clear that the shadow of Jud Fry's death will hang over Curly and Laurey and the rest of the community for a long time.