Monday, November 29, 2004

You're Doing Fine, Oklahoma!

I was never a huge fan of the musical, Oklahoma! I've seen it on stage twice (once, a production with Jamie Farr as Ali Hakim) and I've given the movie a fair shot. I thought it was good but not great, and always wondered just what it was audiences saw in the material that allowed the original production to run more than five years on Broadway. Well, I think I know...and all it took was seeing the video of the recent production mounted by the Royal National Theatre of Great Britain. It's currently running on PBS channels as an installment in their Great Performances series, and it's also available as a not-too-expensive DVD that includes a "making of" documentary. I just watched the show on TV and ordered the DVD. You can order the DVD from Amazon by clicking right about here.

The production starred Hugh Jackman, who gets mega-star billing. He's terrific in the show but so is everyone. I was especially impressed with how the show was filmed...and it seems to be filmed, not taped. This means, among other things, that the lighting is more evocative and it doesn't feel like you're watching a TV show. Ordinarily, preserving a musical means either rethinking it as a movie with no audience and a lot of different sets and camera angles...or just photographing what was on stage via cameras situated amidst the audience. This version of Oklahoma! has it both ways: You occasionally see the audience and they occasionally applaud a particularly spectacular number. But for most of the show, the camera is free to roam about the proceedings, move with the players and be wherever a good film director would put it. The result is that it's a stage musical when it needs to be, a movie when that is more effective...and a general success. Richard Rodgers' music has often felt cold and impersonal to me, but context is everything and here, the context is perfect. The "dream ballet" always struck me as an intrusion designed to take us out of the story. Here, it fits right in, in part because they don't substitute the lead actors with trained dancers, which is customary with stage productions. I can't wait to get the DVD and see the featurette on how this production was assembled.

Having seen a lot of my favorite stage productions eviscerated when someone refashioned them for film, I'm probably more enthused about the approach than I am about finally liking Oklahoma! Boy, can I think of a lot of shows that I wish had been committed to film in such a faithful yet creative manner. Some call the Rodgers-Hammerstein show the most American of American musicals, and it's often said that the musical comedy is one of the most significant American art forms. Looks like it took a bunch of Brits to show us how to do both right.

Here's a page with information on this production and some clips. And here, once again, is a link to order the DVD. Consult your listings to see when your local PBS affiliate will be airing the special four-hour-with-tedious-pledge-breaks version.

• Posted at 6:09 PM · LINK

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

Here's a link to a semi-silly article by Bill O'Reilly that says Dan Rather was "slimed." I agree with the sentiment that Rather was a good newsman but O'Reilly's piece is a pretty lame defense with some obvious self-interest lurking as subtext. He writes, "There is no way on this Earth that he would have knowingly used fake documents on any story." Uh, yeah. Has anyone aside from a few nut jobs suggested Rather knew the documents were bogus? That would have been a pretty stupid thing to do...risking one's entire reputation to slightly advance a story that a good part of America didn't regard as very important. (Or to put it another way: If Rather had decided it was a good idea to put forged documents on the air, I think they would have been better forgeries and far more damning.)

No, I think the charge against Rather was that he was so eager to bash George W. Bush that he didn't exert sufficient caution over arguable evidence. That may or may not be an unfair charge. For that matter, has Rather even concluded the documents were forged? Last I heard, he said, and I quote...

I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where — if I knew then what I know now — I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

Nothing in there about concluding the documents were forged. There's a big difference between "these documents were phony" and "we cannot vouch for them," though I wouldn't expect a lot of folks to make that distinction. For those who have never liked Rather — or even those who just like to see someone famous be humiliated — it's just too tempting to spin the story as Dan getting caught using obvious forgeries. And of course, they may well be forgeries, though perhaps not as obvious as some say.

I don't think it's unfair that Rather is having to step down, reportedly a year before he'd planned. The anchor and managing editor of the CBS Evening News receives a huge salary for which he really only has two responsibilities. One is to keep the ratings up. The other is to keep the prestige of the organization high. Even before the questionable memos were used on the air, Rather wasn't doing all that good a job on either count. A very good case could be made that going by usual practices in his industry, he should have been replaced years ago.

O'Reilly seems to just not like the idea that someone famous — like, say, Bill O'Reilly when he's sued for sexual harassment — could be presumed guilty without a trial declaring that. And I agree there's unfairness on some levels, though the "presumption of innocence" is really only something that binds a judge or jury. I can certainly say that based on what I've read, Robert Blake is guilty or that O.J. slit two throats or even that any number of public figures who will never be tried for perjury have lied under oath. My right to say any of this is not at the mercy of some prosecutor who may or may not decide to prosecute, or whether fancy lawyering lets a wrongdoer go unconvicted. For that matter, it was highly unlikely that the lawsuit brought against O'Reilly would ever see the inside of a courtroom or any verdict that he was or was not culpable. Should people never venture an opinion in that matter?

Yeah, O'Reilly's right that accusations often get too much publicity in these days and given the competitive nature of the news business, they always will. The problem is that the facts — which have a way of screwing up many of those juicy accusations — never quite catch up with the charges, and very few folks in talk radio or the news media these days can afford to wait for them. Let's see what Bill O'Reilly does to improve the situation at his places of employment. The fact that he starts by defending Dan Rather against an accusation no one even made — and presumes the documents in question were definitely forgeries — doesn't give me a lot of hope.

• Posted at 12:53 PM · LINK