Fireball - Spicey, Hot Cinnamon eLiquid
Fireball eLiquid creates a new definition for cinnamon eJuice. Imagine the simmering, hot goodness of a cinnamon asteroid burning through space only to be captured by lab techs at VapeSafe and distilled into a bottle of Fireball eLiquid. If you like the flavor of spicey hot cinnamon candy and you enjoy the sensation of heavy vapor pouring out of your electronic cigarette, then you are in luck. We created Fireball just for you.
Fireball eLiquid by VapeSafe brings the spice back into spicey. As with all of the VapeSafe eLiquids, our mixtures are designed to produce nice, heavy vapors and the most succulent flavors.
Try Fireball eLiquid today!
Technology Information:
Rodgers and Hammerstein's Oklahoma! (London Stage Revival)
Product Type: DVD
Product Price: $24.99
Manufacturer: Image Entertainment
Purchase
Description
Young cowboys strive to win the hands of their sweethearts.
When Mary Rodgers, daughter of the composer Richard Rodgers, was reported as saying she never wanted to see another Oklahoma!, it was her way of paying the highest tribute to Trevor Nunn's production at the Royal National Theatre which was subsequently taken into the studio and filmed. The camera follows the playgoers into the auditorium of the Olivier where in their company we watch the show and applaud the numbers as the real thing. Nunn treats Rodgers and Hammerstein's first collaboration with the utmost seriousness, restoring the full text so that it comes across as a drama indebted to Eugene O'Neill. Although Oklahoma! unfolds at a leisurely pace, it is extraordinary how one is drawn into the drama under Nunn's direction.
There's seldom a wish for true locations as the pace picks up and we move into the claustrophobic company of Judd Fry in his riveting encounter with the cowboy Curly. The close-up camera work affords an experience the theatre can't bring and also pays handsome dividends in appreciating Susan Stroman's intricate and lively choreography. Her dancers are a fine team, notably Jimmy Johnston who is outstanding as Will Parker leading the Kansas City ensemble. Hugh Jackman (X-Men) as Curly matches him in vocal prowess and looks, and Shuler Hensley sings the tricky role of Judd Fry very well. It's harder to place Peter Polycarpou's Pedlar, a considerably larger role than in the film version, whose accent strays from London's East End to the plains of Europe. Maureen Lipman, rightly deemed the lynchpin of the musical by Nunn, is a joy to watch as Aunt Eller. Laurey (Josefina Gabrielle) and Ado Annie (Vicki Simon) are good but not special. Aside from an abrupt start to Act Two and the occasional voice off microphone, the production sounds good with a larger orchestra present than in the theatre. An Oklahoma! on an epic scale. --Adrian Edwards
Reviews
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-07-23
Summary: "ENJOYEABLE FAMILY VIEWING"
THis is amusical you could watch time and again and thoroughly enjoy it. It's a fun musical adaptation of the original,and Hugh Jackman does a stirling perfpormance, as do all the cast
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-05-29
Summary: "Best Ever!"
This production of Oklahoma! is going away the best I've seen. The music and choreography is more contempoary without doing injustice to the original. (It's really better than the original.) Moreover this DVD is filmed in an innovative style juxtaposing studio performances with a live performance at the Royal Theatre. Brilliant!
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2010-05-26
Summary: "Oh....what?"
This is an important recording. It chronicles a major revival of one of the most important american musicals of all time. And it had some innovatons which not only kept the musical fresh, but also broke ground in terms of having the main characters actually dance the dream sequence--and beautifully. The production was precise, on target and captured the real essence of the antagonism between cattlemen and farmers in the early west. Moreover, Judd's character was explored in more depth than in any other production I have seen. Overall, a real tour de force for all the principals. I was, however, disappointed that this was not performed in front of a live audience which always provides that extra energy to any performance. That said, the camera work which caught every nuance in the actors faces was truly incredible. Highly recommended.
Rating: 4 / 5
Date: 2010-04-24
Summary: "If you like Hugh Jackman, you'll love this musical!"
I'll admit, I'm a bigger fan of the '50s version of this musical than I am with this rendition. But I still love to watch it! It's so fun to giggle like a school girl while watching Jackman as a dancing cowboy. And sure, they're singing voices are not as big and full as Shirley Jones and Gordon MacRae, but again, still enjoyable to watch. It's also impressive to see the original roots of Hugh Jackman as a stage performer, to which he's EXCELLENT. Overall, worth the buy.
Rating: 5 / 5
Date: 2010-03-06
Summary: "WONDERFUL!!"
I just received this and watched it from beginning to end. It's absolutely brilliant and just wonderful. Hugh Jackman is beyond question a great singer and I am offically in love with him now. What a Curly. And shirtless for a bit too! Sigh. I will say it now. This is the best STAGE production of Oklahoma, EVER, as far as I can tell. Since the original stage play premiered almost 50 years before I was born I cannot be sure. But looking at the original costumes,(not speaking of the Movie costumes which were great, the original plays costumes were borderline comic book, they seem dated although they were great for 1943.
I still cannot imagine that the original broadway show could have been done any better. There was a level of stage craft and knowledge of stage acting in 1943 far superior to today's efforts, simply because back then the stage was about 100 times more important as a mainstream art form than it is today. Today's audiences are much smaller and therefore there is a smaller well of talent to choose from when presenting musical theater. Vaudeville also is gone of course. All these media produced a huge variety of performers in 1943 that knew how to act on a stage. Those who look at the original or movie version costumes and sets and think "hokey" are off the mark. You simply cannot expect a 21st century aesthetic from a mid 20th century presentation.
Hugh Jackman is a revelation as Curly. His singing voice is powerful and gorgeous and he has the charisma and acting chops for any role. The fistfight at the end was amazing. That man clearly knows instinctively how to swing a punch and I wouldn't give Shuler Hensley much of a chance against him in a real fight. His Curley is also blessed with dialog that more closely resembled the dialog in the play, Green Grow the Lilacs, which was the source for Oklahoma!. In fact I am reading the play now and it is amazing how closely the dialog and story were adapted in both productions. Back to Hugh for the moment. His Curly is masculine and sweet just as he should be. The same, however, can be said for Gordon MacRae. I cannot decide which Curly I like better. Gordon MacRae has the edge for vocals. His voice is possibly the most beautiful male voice in the history of american musical theater. But that doesn't minimize the beauty of Hugh's vocals at all. His voice can stand alongside anyone with no fear. His voice also has a power that is quite amazing. Result, tie.
I have to say that Josefina Gabrielle is, to me, superior to Shirley Jones, as far as acting. Her vocals are as good, perhaps better than Shirley to some and not as good to others so I give them a tie. I do think Shirley sang in a much higher key but when she did sing more softly, as in "out of my dreams" her voice was definitely superior to Josefina, but not by a lot. On the other side of the coin, Josefina is also a trained Ballerina clearly and Shirley was not a dancer. In fact if you notice, neither Gordon or Shirley do ANY real dancing of any kind, thoughout the film, unlike Hugh and Josefina. And Josefina is just a better actress. However on Shirleys side her Laurey is much more the fantasy girl and Gordon's Curly the fantasy male lead. All of them are great actors but Josefina could clearly play Laurey either way and I am not sure Shirley could. Result win for Josefina.
On the subject of coveralls, I like them a lot and the way she is presented, however, females RARELY wore pants as hard as it may be to believe now. In that era, if you look at old photos of Oklahoma, you will never see a photo of a female, even working on a farm, in anything but a lovely gingham dress. Sorry folks, but here is where the yanks got it right, and the brits simply are imagining things. Even so, it works in this version because she doesn't wear pants for long, and because Josefina's Laurey is much more realistically drawn and human than Shirley's. Girls simply didn't wear much makeup if any in that era, it was considered scandalous. Shirley is beautiful in the 1940's way girls were all beautiful with gorgeous artful makeup. I love it, but I prefer Josefina's more realistic face and acting as I mentioned before. Since all the other females are presented in dresses sans makeup I have to say, Result: Win for Oklahoma 99.
As for the characters of Will Parker and Ado Annie, there is no competition. Gene Nelson and Gloria Graham simply blow away Jimmy Johnston as Will Parker and Vicki Simon as Ado Annie in this version. Gene Nelson was a brilliant dancer who starred alongside Doris Day as the male lead in several movies. He was tall and handsome with straight blond hair and the way he wore his black Stetson as Will Parker sends shivers down my spine. Not to mention those tight trousers. He also was a broadway star and his goofy sweet and very complex delivery of Will Parker just cannot be beat. Jimmy Johnston does some great roping but that's about it.
Same for Gloria Graham who found a way to play Ado Annie that is amazingly funny. The business she does, seeming so distracted and sweet hearted and dim were just amazing. Her delivery of a "I'm just a girl who can't say no" was priceless. Plus her lyrics are funnier than the ones that Vicki Simon was forced to deliver for the same song. I am not sure why the change was made. Vicki Simon just seemed more like a good university level player than a seasoned professional in the part. Result: win for Gene Nelson and Gloria Graham of Oklahoma 55.
Aunt Eller as played by Maureen Lipman was near perfection. However, Aunt Eller played by Charlotte Greenwood IS perfection. It probably all goes down to personal taste, as does everything in my review, but I found Charlotte Greenwood more expressive. Her attempts to get anyone to buy Laurey's basket but Jud are actually moving. She almost begs anyone else to buy it. Her relief when Curly wins the bid is almost ferocious. And in the Farmer and the Cowhand number, when she says "but dang if I ain't as good as anybody else" and does the little jig, that is just so close to old pioneer women that I have seen that still exist in the west. They do use the word dang and not damn and it's charming. Also, Charlotte's Grenwoods laugh and mannerisms are just more authentic. however, they are also much older. Aunt eller is said to be in her 50's in the play, and Charlotte Greenwood's aunt Eller looks to be in her 70's. In this area Maureen Lipman was probably more realistic. I think Maureen is the second best Aunt Eller ever, and that is nothing to be sneezed at. I could watch her all day. But even with that... Result: Win for Charlotte Greenwood.
Ali Hakim is terrible in this production. But he does get to sing that song altough it was badly orchestrated and hard to comprehend. Eddie Albert was much better in the role. He was simply a better actor.
Win for Eddie Albert and Ali Hakim .
Rod Steiger as Jud Fry was great. But Shuler Hensley was simply better. Firstly, his Jud was more believable and more moving, although not quite as threatening. But that is one reason he is better. Two women alone would simply not allow anyone as crazy as Jud Fry as acted by Rod Steiger to live within a mile of them. And he certainly would have been kicked off the farm for the threatening way he openly threatened Curly in the bidding as well as his menacing tone with Aunt Eller when he COMMANDS her to announce him winner of the bid. Shuler's amazing acting turn gave Jud Fry an underlying pathos and desperation that were badly hidden but still hidden behind a respectful smile. When he stands in front of the awakening Laurey and tells her it is time to go, he approaches her with a sweet almost worshipful smile and says "Miss Laurey"... Rod Steiger's Jud Fry just stands there like an ax murderer and I wouldn't have gotten in that carriage with him unless an army of Curly's sat between us. Also at the social during the bidding for Laurey's basket, when he tells Curly that he will need his gun, he says it far less menacingly, and he is never rude to Aunt Eller. His interpretation is simply more nuanced and meaningful. A brilliant accomplishment. Credit to Trevor Nunn here. Rod Steiger was a great Curly but Shuler Hensley is the defining Jud for me forevermore. Result: Win for Shuler Hensley.
The rest of the cast its pretty much a split decision except for Richard Whitmore as Andrew Carney, who I felt was a bit better as the father of Ado Annie. He read the lines better but he was not quite as amusing as Sydney Livingstone in the same part. The decision to make him a hick without teeth was interesting and amusing, but in the play the author is careful to say these people are not hicks, they speak with a western or southern drawl but take pride in it. I am not sure which one is more correct. I guess it all comes down to personal taste. But since I am speaking of the whole troupe.. I do like the fact that there were children in this production which made it much more real. I don't think I saw many small children in any in the cast of Oklahoma! 55. However, the players were amazing in both groups. I am forced to say tie.
As for production design there is no way to compare a stage production to a film but I will say that Trevor Nunn got it mostly right. I think the house could have been a bit less of a shack, but the sets are still gorgeous and there is corn. I have read a lot of incorrect assessments here about Oklahoma living at the turn of the century and about it being dusty, etc. And a lot of people think the Oklahoma in the 1955 was all wrong, but in fact it was just right. Claremore, Oklahoma where this play it set, is the MOUNTAINOUS and VERDANT northeastern quadrant of Oklahoma. It looks pretty much exactly as shown in the Oklahoma 55 version of the movie. Right down to the peach orchards. So in this case I think a lot of people here need to google a bit and find out the reality before posting that Oklahoma should have been set in some dusty squalid area. It just isn't true. As far as the Trevor Nunn production, even though the house seems a bit too much like a shack I still loved it. In the play, the house is described and it has polished woods floors, guilded photos on the wall, and an organ. That seems to be closer to the depiction in the original movie than the Trevor Nunn production but it's not a deal breaker. The music and accents of the cast members in the original Movie are close, IMO, to Western than Southern. This is a big distinction that Trevor Nunn does not seem to fully comprehend. However, in the Trevor Nunn production most people sound authentic but like authentic SOUTHERN hicks. I am not sure Brits understand the distinction.
The men in the movie version, while looking wonderful, also are never scruffy. The men in the Trevor Nunn production ARE scruffy. When looking at old photos of Oklahoma the men are almost always a bit scruffy. The women are rarely scruffy in either production nor should they be. They took quite good care of themselves in reality and always wore starched dressed and cute bonnets and hats that look quite a bit like those that the ladies wear in both productions. However, the artful and gorgeous makeup, while great for a 1940's movie, are simply wrong for a moden day play and Trevor Nunn was a genius in that respect. I would give the nod to Oklahoma 99 in that department (costumes and makeup).. but that doesn't detract from the gorgeous 1943 production at all. My only complaint at all in the 1940's production is that Shirley Jones and Gloria Graham wore too much makeup period. I would have to say Result: Tie.
Music. For me, the most important thing about a musical is the music. I would give an A to both productions because it is the glorious music of Rogers and Hammerstein here but there is one problem. The orchestration in the Oklahoma 99 version is simply not as good as the orchestration and arrangements in the Oklahoma 55 version. The original movie is much closer to the original intent of Rogers and Hammerstein. I give credit to Trevor Nunn for rethinking the play, which he did brilliantly, but I wish he had kept more of the original orchestration. For instance, at the beginning, when Curly sings "Surrey with the Fringe on the top" ... in the original movie you can hear with each beat the sweet clap of some drum that closely resembles the sound of a horses hooves pulling a carriage. This brilliant technique added so much to the sheer beauty of the song. In the 99 production this tiny detail is missing, and it makes a world of difference. Likewise during the "All er Nuthin" there is a little coca or flourish at the end of the song where Will kisses Ado Annie that is simply missing from the Trevor Nunn production, and I miss it so much. That sweet little coda of trilling winds or tympani is just too chillingly beautiful to be ignored. There are many musical flourishes that are classic Rogers and Hammerstein that are just missing from the Trevor Nunn production.
The sometimes jarring musical arrangements did nothing to lyricize the wonderful by slightly discordant vocal interpretations. Particularly so in the case of "People will say we're in love" The vocals by Hugh and Josefina, while wonderful, also were by design sometimes discordant. It was a great conceit when say, Josefina's soprano turned mocking and trilling when she sang "sweetheart, they're suspecting things..." It never made sense to me that a girl who was trying to hide her feelings from her love would say that line... Trevor's version solved that wonderfully and added so much to the context of the song. BUT it also ruined the flow of the song. The same can be said when Hugh's Curly reprises the song and sings "your hand feels so grand in mine" and screeches the last part of the stanza because Laurey is bending his thumb back. It's adorable and adds so much to the play but the screech ruins the flow of the song and the emotional impact of this song when sung with feeling as Gordon MacRae sings it. I still like this change and think it's right. If the arrangement had been a bit more like the original it would have kept the musical flow of the song and covered up and perhaps put the musical impact of the song back on track. Keeping its impact as a love song undiminished. Or perhaps if Curly had sung clearly from the heart when his back was turned to Laurey when he finished the song it would have put it back on track, and yet kept the lovely reinterpretation of the song intact. Another way would be a quick refrain of the song when Curly is walking toward the smokehouse that was truly heartfelt and exactly like the original so that the audience could get the full emotional impact of the song the way Gordon MacRae and Shirley Jones sang it and still kept the wonderful business by Josefina and Hugh.
Also during the ballet, the arrangements are just not as lovely as the original arrangements. I like the dancing better here better in the Trevor Nunn production mainly because Hugh and Josefina both dance, but the arrangements are simply not as musical or lovely and the spell of Curly and Laurey and Oklahoma! depends on this wave of beautiful music throughout. I know some will disagree and it's all personal taste, but I just missed the old music arrangements and orchestration. Of course the sound QUALITY is much better with modern day recording techniques than the original, so it was still wonderful to hear. And when Trevor Nunn got it right, it was so RIGHT. But still in all I would have to say Result: Win Oklahoma 55.
Dancing. Such an important part of this musical and even though some of the ensemble dancing is better in the original Movie, what Trevor Nunn has done by allowing Curly and Laurey to dance the dream sequence themselves is nothing short of revolutionary. This removes the biggest and possibly only downfall of every other version of this musical ever produced. I know the dancing, especially in the dream sequence, is more masterful in the earlier versions, but the confusion and suspension of disbelief caused by swapping out the two leads has always tended to be the achilles heal of every other production of Oklahoma!. I honestly think that if Fred Zinneman had taken the step taken by Trevor Nunn, and reworked the ballet sequences so that a competent dancer could dance them instead of a prima Ballerina, the musical would have been a much bigger hit. THANK YOU TREVOR NUNN for this daring and wonderful change to the musical! It simply cannot be stressed enough how wonderful this change is. Definite win for Oklahoma 99.
This review is of course way too long but I have to say I am so energized and overwhelmed by the Trevor Nunn production (although it may not seem so) and of course by the original movie that I just had to write all this down just to clear my perspective. I thoroughly loved this production, and yes on the whole while it is second to the Original movie (which for me, remains the defining film adaptation of any musical of any genre as well as the defining version of Oklahoma!) the Trevor Nunn was a VERY close second and in some ways far superior to the original. Frankly with the recast of Ado Annie and Ali Hakim, and with a closer interpretation of the original film score, for me THIS WOULD BE the definitive version of Oklahoma!. It is already, for me, the definitive version of the stage play, despite it's one glaring flaw, the arrangements and orchestration. But as I said, for me, the music is first and foremost so the result is: Win Oklahoma 55 (but very close).
I do want to thank Trevor Nunn and the entire cast of the amazing ensemble piece from the bottom of my heart. For preserving and energizing what for me is the premiere musical of American Musical theater or for that matter, world musical theater. Oklahoma! revolutionized Broadway in 1943 and this status alone gives this musical an eternal place in the annals of American music. But it is so much more. This is a poem to a bygone era of American pioneers, to the worlds natural beauty and to young love. The lyrics make me cry with their sheer beauty and textural detail every time I hear them. And they are wicked witty. But the musical WAS losing relevance to today's theatre goer due to beautiful but old fashioned staging and interpretation. Rogers and Hammerstein, unquestionably the greatest classic songwriters of the 20th Century, in my opinion, have been made more pertinent to a new generation of world theatre goer, thanks to this incredible, exquisite and nuanced version of Oklahoma!.
For lovers of classic American show tunes, I would recommend the original 1955 movie . For the modern theatre goer or people under 50 perhaps, I would recommend this version. You cannot go wrong whichever you choose but if you love music, choose both.