1999 VS 1955
Could somebody please tell me if this is a better version of Oklahoma than the 1955 movie, because I want to have a copy of Oklahoma and I don't know which one to buy????
shareDepends on what you like better. If you enjoys stage theater, than this film is for you. If you prefer a nonstop film, than go with the original. Frankly, I liked this version better mainly because Hugh Jackman was brilliant as Curly. However the original had no audience clapping and it's "stage" was worlds larger.
www.freewebs.com/zacksucks
SIGN THE GUESTBOOK!!!
I hated the 1955 version. The two leads never wipe that stupid smile off their faces (even when they're supposed to hate each other) and Judd's an unassuming, non-threatening idiot.
In this one, they actually have some character development with the two leads. The cowboy versus farmer dynamic is much stronger. Hugh Jackman is absolutely wonderful. And they made Judd a real character rather than a stupid brute.
Plus this was the first version of Oklahoma to have the actors do the ballet. My only complaint is the lack of real bonus features even though they included a second disc.
Still, the musical is awesome, you should definitely check it out.
I went to see it on stage and i loved it!! But is this version's sound ok, i mean can you hear all the voices, can you see everything clearly???
shareYeah, sound is great. You can see most of the action better than on stage, especially the acting. At stage shows, only the first ten rows or so actually see the actors act (and most of the time, they overdoing a little for benefit of the further back seats).
On this DVD, the camera gets right up on stage with the actors (the majority of the show was filmed with no audience, so they can shoot muliple angles and takes and get lots of coverage. The camera is almost always right where it needs to be, and some of the camera movement is inspired. You get a lot of little moments, like Curly nearly petting Laurie at the end of the surrey song before he chickens out and she wakes up.
My only complaint is sometimes it's too close in the crowd scenes. No matter how many people are on stage, every one is doing something in character. A lot of the times, the camera will highlight one moment, and you'll only catch the end of another. You'll most see this at the fight scene and big choreography during the "farmer and the cowman should be friends" scene.
Still, it's excellently done. I wish this sort of treatment would be done to other musicals. Joseph, Sweeney Todd, Cats, and a few others have been done. I want a Phantom, Les Mis, Beauty and the Beast, and Wicked.
You get a lot of little moments, like Curly nearly petting Laurie at the end of the surrey song before he chickens out and she wakes up.
I thought that he sensed that she had woken up and THEN chickened out. but o well.
She's tricky Oh, it's easy What? Skippy: Yeah, I guess so. share
I liked the stage show best. First, they kept the original songs in. Secondly, Lawrey was a lot less saccharine, and I loved those dungarees she wore. Jud's character was better defined than in the film. And - a little personal thing here - I loved the send up of Les Miserables when Ali Hakim is waving his "flag" around as he sings about revolution. And lastly - well, let's just say I never fancied Gordon McRae at all!
shareis this version's sound ok, i mean can you hear all the voices
Oh, yes. Sound is great, as already noted. Partly this is because it's dubbed -- that is, the sound and video were recorded separately. This is actually my one complaint about the film, because although it's extremely well done, I still notice it some of the time. But it means that the sound is just as perfect as any original cast recording album.
Edward
I love them both equally, but for different reasons. I don't like seeing the audience. I want to feel like they're performing just for me. I saw Oklahoma in the U.S. and I loved it. I love the "Oklahoma hello" in the play becuase it is bigger and more theatrical. I also love Hugh Jackman and like that Laurey isn't a girlie girl. But in the movie I love the opening. Going through the corn is just sooo Rodgers and Hammerstein. I like Aunt Eller in the movie better as well. The Jud Fry in the play was the same Jud Fry that I saw in the U.S. and he gives me chills, but I don't always want to be frightened by this. The play is much darker. My opinion is buy both because neither are perfect.
share[deleted]
If you don't know which version 2 get, just go ahead and get both of them. It's not like it matters. They're both good, even tho I havent seen the 55 version for a while
He's right. A living IS a living, ain't it?
Some living! Lord help me! Some living!
The newer version is far more accurate to the actual play. Gordon vs. Hugh? That's more opinion and personal taste. They're both wonderful.
The only complaint I have about the Hugh version is "Ali Hakim." The character sounds more like some low-life from the Bronx, not a "Persian."
However, Hugh's version has ALL the music from the play, including "It's a Scandal" and "Lonely Room," which I think is the best written song in the show.
the new version is superior in just about every aspect. i made the mistake of buying the original first because of the stereotype of revivals. i loved the original at first, but when i found out 2 very important songs were cut, that disappointed me. shirley jones was far better than the newer laury. the new girl cried to much during some good dialogue.the 55' aunt eller was a little bit better than the new one. shuler is the best jud ever of course. his tony award is well deserved. both ali's are kind of weak, but the new guy is better. the first guy wasn't even close to be a convincing persian. he was white with a bad accent! the new one slips between a persian-ish accent and the new york accent, but that could be a character trait.could be he's a fraud and pretending to be persian. he gets a lot of free kisses that way!
share[deleted]
I think it comes across as overacting because it was filmed from the stage and they have to "project" a little more on stage, so actions and voices are often exaggerated. But your opinion doesn't make me mad. There's nothing wrong with defending your preferred version of a film/play. I do agree with you about Vicki Simon though, apart from the bit about her being hot, me being female and straight, I don't fancy her myself! (Just in case I get shouted at, I'm very pro-gay rights, by the way.)
share[deleted]
[deleted]
tealcandtrip my thoughts exactly on the differences between the 1955 and 1999 versions. :)
share