I have some trouble adapting to stage musicals when I see them on the stage. There's something about the fact that the audience is there for pure — absolutely pure — entertainment in the form of singing and dancing, and somehow need a narrative to make it palatable. Opera is even worse for me in this regard. Oh, I know that the narrative can set up the emotional context for a song, so that it can be more effective, but the whole construction seems to reflect some fundamental flaw in our makeup, like our affection for sugar.When a stage musical is filmed, the problem gets worse. Most of these simply take what works on stage and tries to recapture it using the same techniques and values. "Seven Brides" is my touchstone for this. The result is bunch of clumsy stagecraft that does not translate to cinema, combined with those radical shifts from the story to the songs. Usually the older shows have this problem, because the later ones though made for stage are informed by cinema.This avoids all that, by reimagining one of the old horses in a new mold. Apparently, it was quite an effort because the "Foundation" that has a stranglehold over how the material is used had to negotiate every nit. This idea that some survivors of an artist should benefit from something they had no hand in is vile enough; that they can smother its very artistic soul by legal means is worse.Anyway, what we have here is stage presentation reimagined for modern tastes. That means solving the integration of the songworld and the stageworld. The extras explain how this was nurtured, essentially by honing the show by forcing the actors to speak the lines. There's some clever thinking about the dances along the same lines.Then that is restaged for the camera. It pretends to be a performance in front of an audience, as shots from a real performance are spliced in. But the (valuable) extras reveal the rework to bring it to the camera. This is about as good as it gets unless we have something born out of the camera like Taymor has done.I came to this because "Australia" is sticking with me. I learned that Hugh Jackman (unknown to me) is famous for his musical stage presence. Even though this is quite old in this context, I searched it out and was rather amazed. He sings, he dances. He has presence. In fact, his presence is so strong, he gets away with being not excellent in those areas. Presence.That's what he brought to "Australia" that mattered; it seems to be indicative of the national character. The very same scope of presence as Wolverine grates, because it is a substitute. There is some considered colorwork here too.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This is a wonderful stage production of Oklahoma! As a teaching guide for my drama students, Oklahoma! has everything that I need in it to teach about a musical. Vocally, the actors are wonderful. Josefina Gabrielle has a beautiful voice and range and is lovely as Laurey. Hugh Jackman, from the first note of 'Oh What A Beautiful Morning' grabs your attention and keeps it. Wow… what a voice, what a stage presence enough said. Shuler Hensley plays Jud Fry with a passion that allows the audience to embrace Jud and yet despise him – tough job to do, but Hensley does it well. Visually, this play uses simple designs and staging, which allows the actors to carry the story and they do an excellent job of carrying the story. Perhaps the lack 'Hollywood' style sets or backdrops may take some aback, but it's the music and the actors that you should notice in a musical. For any one who loves a good musical, it is a wonderful presentation.

I just bought and watched the video of this because I will be in an amateur production soon of "Oklahoma!", and my song was cut out of the 1955 film. First of all, Maureen Lipman was excellent as Aunt Eller, Josefina Gabrielle was a good Laurey, Shuler Hensley was absolutely brilliant as Jud and Peter Pollycarpou was alright as Ali Hakim, although the character he performed was nothing like the character in the script. I thought that Jimmy Johnston and Vicki Simon gave good performances, but they were terribly miscast, making my favourite double-act quite irritating Hugh Jackman is a good actor. He can sing, but he knows it and seems desperate to outsing everyone else, making one dread (quite justifiably) the big title song at the end.What I liked about this production was the very lavish stage and Trevor Nunn's direction. What made me laugh is that the director is clearly trying to be as unlike the 1955 film as possible, and so are some of the cast. However, the other people are copying their 1955 contemporaries (why does Will never pronounce the "t" in "Kansas City"?), and whoever rewrote the script undoubtedly had the film in his mind. The director for the video is treating it as a film rather than a stage show, but the shot goes back to the audience occasionally, reminding us that it is a theatre.The first thing I did after watching the tape was to rewind it and watch it again so that says something. The tape isn't that bad, and is certainly acceptable, at the least. I rated it 8 put of 10. I'd probably give it 8.5.

I originally tuned into PBS' broadcast because I was curious about Hugh Jackman's singing. - He was absolutely charismatic. It was too bad that Curly didn't have more stage time! I hope I can see him live in a musical or in a play sometime soon. Film work just does not do justice to his talents.While I tuned in out of curiosity, the updated production, exuberant musical numbers, staging, and dancing kept my attention. This production of "Oklahoma!" re-affirms my love of live theatre.