Calendar letters: ‘Oklahoma!’ revival a head-scratcher

Misguided revival

Regarding “Daredevil Moves” [Sept. 19], theater critic Charles McNulty’s review of “Oklahoma!” at the Ahmanson Theater: I may be an out-of-touch senior, but I found the deconstructed “Oklahoma!” not electrifying — in the good sense — but shocking, destructive and an affront to the intention of the creators of the musical in 1943.

When we left the theater, we overheard a gray-haired lady telling her teenage companion that she would get the movie the next day to show her what the real “Oklahoma!” was about. A sweet, funny, energetic, dramatic telling of the optimism of the creation of the state and of that time. Perhaps this dark, dreary, emotionless rendering is symbolic of our time.

Frima Telerant


I can say that the audience heartily disagrees with [McNulty’s] accolades. I was told beforehand that this is the most walked-out-of show in recent history, and I completely understand why, despite failing to save myself at intermission.

I’m all in with the goals and changes promised by the show and highlighted in McNulty’s piece — on paper.

The ridiculous ending pretty much summed up the show, with myself and most audience members stumbling away, saying out loud, “What the hell did we just see?”

Brenda Gant

Show a little more respect

Regarding “The Emmys: (Un)Predictable,” Robert Lloyd’s review of the Emmys broadcast coverage [Sept. 13]: I’m surprised that no one called sharp attention to “Succession” producer Jesse Armstrong’s extremely cheap (and perhaps envious) shot at King Charles III at the end of a telecast that made no mention of world-revered historical icon Queen Elizabeth’s passing.

I was struck by that omission throughout the show.

But worse was when the full-of-himself Emmy winner made an ill-thought-out joke at a man, grieving for his mother and who has received mostly plaudits for his handling of the transfer, and the moving remarks about the queen.

Perhaps Armstrong is against royalty, as apparently another successful and mean-spirited man, John Oliver, is, though Oliver’s absolutely tasteless, so-called funny material was excised from his television program by his network. One can have political differences with a concept, such as whether or not there should be a monarchy, but even those nations under the aegis of the British monarch and angling to become a republic held back those notions and praised the queen and gave homage to the new king.

I was shocked that in the reportage throughout, not just in your newspaper, while there was mention of Armstrong’s “joke” and some thought it fell flat, there was no condemnation that I have seen.

Michael Russnow
West Hollywood

All that jazz

Thank you, Reed Johnson, for a beautifully written article of enlightenment [“Jazz History Comes Alive,” Sept. 17].

And thank you, Rachael Worby, artistic director, conductor and founder of the nonprofit Muse/ique, for making it possible. I love learning new things about Los Angeles and this just made me smile.

Music and art in schools deserve more funding. Let’s make that possible by passing Proposition 28 this fall.

Kathy Horbund

He wrote the book on it

Regarding the online article: “53 essential L.A. filming locations: How many have you visited?” [Sept. 15]: The Times should have at the very least tipped its hat to “The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book,” which has been in print and updated regularly over the last 30 years.

The book, which tour guides have referred to as the bible of Los Angeles sightseeing, helps tourists and locals find these and many other entertainment-related sites.

William A. Gordon, author of “The Ultimate Hollywood Tour Book”

Source link

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *