Oregon Shakespeare Festival to include same sex Oklahoma!

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:40am

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/theater/oregon-shakespeare-festival-season-includes-a-same-sex-oklahoma.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0

 

What do y'all think of this? I'm excited to see something new done with Oklahoma! and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival does amazing work (although I am definitely in the anti-"translated Shakespeare" camp but that's another story entirely).

 

I wonder how they got permission from the R&H Organization-- there've been a few more radical adaptations/edits in the past that they've squashed, so I'm curious what about this production is different.

Updated On: 3/21/17 at 12:40 AM

[aimeric]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 8:48am

It'll be interesting, for sure, but this press release raises so many more questions than it answers.  They haven't even said /which/ sex the couple (or couples?) will be, which could affect things like voice part adjustment, etc.  If both Curly and Laurey end up being male, would the Jud kidnap/rape plot points still be left as is, or would they be adjusted?  Would the time period setting be adjusted?  Now that I think about it, the world portrayed in the plot is pretty specifically gendered to the time period it's supposed to be in, at least Laurey's part of the plot (Ado Annie is a different story entirely).  And would both couples become same-sex (i.e., Curly/Laurey, and Ado Annie/Will), or just one?

Or, as you say, will the Rodgers&Hammerstein estate just quash this before it even gets going...?  Because let's be honest, there would presumably have to be changes to the book and possibly the score for this to work...

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 9:22am

Well, the NYT article says that the OSF has been working with Chapin for over a year, so I can't imagine that whatever they're doing hasn't already been negotiated and approved. I'm just surprised that Chapin is allowing such a massive change; R&H Organization doesn't usually allow significant revisions. Which makes me curious, like you said, what adjustments will be made beyond gender changes.

 

I think the Jud plot would probably be adjusted if Laurey is turned into a man, but would be even more poignant if Curly is changed to a woman. That would give an extra dimension to Laurey not wanting to go to the social with Jud, and an added fear that he may hurt hurt not only for her rejection but for her queerness.

 

No matter what the gender switch is, I would pay a lot of money to see "People Will Say We're In Love" sung by a gay couple. The implications of that are really, really interesting.

[newintown]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 9:39am

Yes, the article is explicit in saying that Chapin and R&H are working with them on this.

Still, without significant libretto alterations, I can't see this gimmick really making any sense, or even being particularly interesting as anything more than an idle and pretentious novelty.

But I also feel that those Shakespeare "translations" are little more than an an idle and pretentious novelty themselves, encouraging nothing more but laziness ("Why should I expand my mind to appreciate art? Art ought to dumb down to appreciate me!".

Updated On: 3/21/17 at 09:39 AM

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:02am

"But I also feel that those Shakespeare "translations" are little more than an an idle and pretentious novelty themselves, encouraging nothing more but laziness ("Why should I expand my mind to appreciate art? Art ought to dumb down to appreciate me!"."

My problem with that comes with the idea that Shakespeare as is is inherently inaccessible. I teach for a Shakespeare outreach program, and kids as young as five and six can get a lot out of Shakespeare, if you know how to approach them and the text in a way that they can relate to. I don't blame audiences that go to that, I blame theatre companies that continue to perpetuate the elitism in the Shakespeare community. Under the guise of opening Shakespeare up to everyone, what OSF is actully doing is saying "we don't think you're smart enough to handle straight Shakespeare, because straight Shakespeare is for Intellectuals™." Which is insulting to audiences and reflects poorly on OSF-- good Shakespearean actors perform in an understandable and relatable way, they find the accessibility without having to alter the text. 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:14am

And although it's been pointed out ad nauseum, Shakepeare is all about the text, not the stories (none of which he created); if you can't handle the text, there are many sweet and easy reduced versions out there for you like this:

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:22am

Well what I'm saying is, it's not an issue of audiences being too lazy or stupid to understand, who need a no fear or abridged version. It's the Festival thinking that it's on audiences to either get or not get Shakespeare, as opposed to it being the actor/director's job to work with whatever audience they have and make Shakespeare understandable no matter who is in the seats. Literal toddlers can get something out of Shakespeare if you present it in the right way.

If the OSF thinks that their audience would struggle with the unaltered text, then "translation" isn't the right approach. They should think instead what they can do to get the point across in a different way, whether through staging or visual gags or slowing their tempo.

[JayG 2]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:23am

These directors need to be stopped. If they want to be writers, write the story you want to tell. Stop distorting someone else's work because you want to make a name for yourself. Oklahomo, the same sex version, has been a joke for years. This person is not coming up with anything revelatory.

Cut the crap.

 

 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 10:29am

Thinking more on a lesbian relationship at the core of Oklahoma - there will be those who will shout "but there were lesbians in the territories then! It was real, and their stories should be included!" That may be true, but if veracity  is your goal, then Laurey should look like a real pioneer woman (and this kind of woman would definitely not sing in a pretty, flowery, Broadway vein - her music would be dark and grim):



 

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 11:09am

newintown said: "Thinking more on a lesbian relationship at the core of Oklahoma - there will be those who will shout "but there were lesbians in the territories then! It was real, and their stories should be included!" That may be true, but if veracity  is your goal, then Laurey should look like a real pioneer woman (and this kind of woman would definitely not sing in a pretty, flowery, Broadway vein - her music would be dark and grim):"

Though If you're making an argument about how Lauren is already an inaccurate depiction, then making her a lesbian wouldn't make it any less true.

i don't think the issue is Oklahoma! becoming inaccurate by including a same-sex couple, I think the concern lies in how true to the story this will be, not how true to history.

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 11:47am

I think there are problems with turning Ado Annie and Will into a gay couple. Ado Annie will just be turned into another stereotypical****hungry, grindr obsessed twink type; I'm sure he'll wear some "no fems, no fats, no asians" T-shirt as a form of "deep" social commentary.

The concept only works in fits and spurts, the obvious spot being the aforementioned "People Will Say We're in Love." How will "Kansas City" work with a gay Will? If Ado Annie is gay man how will Ali Hakem sing "It's a Scandal! It's an Outrage!" even with a pronoun change? It's a scandal! It's an outrage! How a guy gets a husband these days! LOL

[A Director]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 12:50pm

elephantseye - You haven't a clue about OSF's Play On!  Read this. https://www.osfashland.org/en/experience-osf/upcoming/play-on/play-on-faq.aspx

This season, OSF is doing Julius Caesar, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry IV Part ! and Part 2.  Each production is using the "original" text!

[icecreambenjamin]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 1:01pm

If they wanted to do a musical with gay subject matter why not do a show like La Cage or Falsettos?  Why change a classic show to include a gimmick?  If you're a director and you have to make substantial rewrites to make classic material seem relevant, maybe you should not be directing classic material.

[JVJ93]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 1:11pm

I feel like if you're going to have a same sex couple in any Rogers&Hammerstein musical, it should be Carousel. Turn Julie Jordan into Jamie Jordan 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 1:28pm

Considering even further, it would be vastly more interesting (and make much more sense) to do Oklahoma as written and direct/perform it with homoerotic yearnings between Jud and Curly; Jud's attempt to own Laurey would make sense as a sublimated urge to own Curly; Curly's murder of Jud would make sense as a violent act of self repression/loathing. The scene in Jud's smokehouse offers opportunity for a lot of feelings between Curly and Jud; the Ballet could incorporate Laurey's fear of Curly's sexual ambivalence, and perhaps her own. And Hammerstein's work needn't be altered. (And this has probably already been done somewhere, I imagine.)

But a show about open, post-Stonewall lesbian and gay relationships in 1906 rural America just makes no sense, unless the productions sets itself up as clearly taking place far, far, far outside any kind of real world  or history (which is not out of the question, just... weird).

Updated On: 3/21/17 at 01:28 PM

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 1:30pm

A Director said: "elephantseye - You haven't a clue about OSF's Play On!  Read this. https://www.osfashland.org/en/experience-osf/upcoming/play-on/play-on-faq.aspx

This season, OSF is doing Julius Caesar, The Merry Wives of Windsor, and Henry IV Part ! and Part 2.  Each production is using the "original" text!"

Actually, I am pretty well versed in what OSF is doing, thanks, and I have read that before. I know that not all of their performances will be "translated" productions. Bringing that up is irrelevant, actually, because scripts weren't due for the Play On project until October, so no shows have actually been produced yet. So yeah, their Shakespeare season right now will be entirely original Shakespeare because they haven't chosen any "translated" versions yet. And, when they do begin showing "translated" shows, even if it's in conjunction with original text performances in the same season, my problems with it still stand. In fact, I believe that they become greater; by putting the productions side-by-side, I feel that they're inviting audiences to chose between the 'easy' Shakespeare and the 'difficult' Shakespeare, and this increases elitism within the Shakespearean community-- not lessens it.

 

I get what they're trying to do, and I can see the point they're trying to make, but I do not believe that this is the correct way to do it. I have several colleagues that disagree with me, and several that concur. I'm definitely willing to have a conversation about it, but please don't insult me by assuming that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 1:46pm

newintown said: "Considering even further, it would be vastly more interesting (and make much more sense) to do Oklahoma as written and direct/perform it with homoerotic yearnings between Jud and Curly; Jud's attempt to own Laurey would make sense as a sublimated urge to own Curly; Curly's murder of Jud would make sense as a violent act of self repression/loathing. The scene in Jud's smokehouse offers opportunity for a lot of feelings between Curly and Jud; the Ballet could incorporate Laurey's fear of Curly's sexual ambivalence, and perhaps her own. And Hammerstein's work needn't be altered. (And this has probably already been done somewhere, I imagine.)"

I think that would be a fascinating reading. Going off of the examples you already gave, queer subtext could bring further texture to Curly encouraging/suggesting Jud kill himself in "Pore Jud is Daid", and Jud's interruption of Curly and Laurey's wedding reception/the role Curly plays in Jud's death would become even more tragic if Jud's rage was fueled by self-loathing or confusion.

[Ado Annie D'Ysquith]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 3:54pm

JVJ93, I hope you were being facetious about Carousel, otherwise we're going to get into some Pregnant Man sci-fi s***!

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 5:23pm

As someone who acts and directs in both Shakespeare and musical theatre, I have conflicting opinions about all of this crazy stuff OSF is doing.

Yes, finding interesting ways to make some of Shakespeare's "lesser" or more poorly-aged works accessible to modern audiences is something I would encourage. The same goes with finding fresh new ways to interpret well-known (some might say overdone) classics like Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet.

No, I am not a fan of "translating" Shakespeare. America is dumb enough already. I am however totally in favor of CUTTING Shakespeare for clarity and length, and changing the OCCASIONAL word if 90% of the audience won't know what it means or if the meaning of the word has drastically changed over time.

Yes, I think that having a "fresh" idea with directing a classical musical, such as one by Rodgers and Hammerstein can be worth while, and may even be necessary if the piece has not stood the test of time very well but is still worth producing for other reasons.

No, I do not think having two women playing Curly and Laurey and two men playing Ado Annie and Will Parker will offer any magnificent insight into Oklahoma. I mean, it's f***ing Oklahama. If you want to make some meaningful theater, find another show to do.

[BrodyFosse123]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 5:39pm

I was told by a reliable source that the title will be: 

R&H's OKLA-HOMO!  

 

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/21/17 at 11:19pm

The Distinctive Baritone said: "As someone who acts and directs in both Shakespeare and musical theatre, I have conflicting opinions about all of this crazy stuff OSF is doing.

Yes, finding interesting ways to make some of Shakespeare's "lesser" or more poorly-aged works accessible to modern audiences is something I would encourage. The same goes with finding fresh new ways to interpret well-known (some might say overdone) classics like Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet.

No, I am not a fan of "translating" Shakespeare. America is dumb enough already. I am however totally in favor of CUTTING Shakespeare for clarity and length, and changing the OCCASIONAL word if 90% of the audience won't know what it means or if the meaning of the word has drastically changed over time."

I am in almost entirely the same boat! There's ways to make Shakespeare more accessible or interesting without compromising the text. I've found that the most common, and for me enjoyable, way is to update to a different setting that brings out the nuances of the work in a new light. The Globe under Emma Rice's direction has been working to address "problem" plays and make popular ones fresh again, and they're doing a fantastic job.

I saw the Taming last summer and it was set just after the Easter Rising in Ireland. The way that they approached gender dynamics in that context was fascinating, and perfectly addressed the fact that Shakespeare wrote that as a comedy, but it is anything but in a modern context. We saw Midsummer at the same time, and it was the most exciting and enchanting evening of theatre I've been to in a long time. I've seen/been in Midsummer I don't know how many times, but still died laughing at jokes I've heard a thousand times.

And, while polarizing, Baz Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet sticks unbelievably closely to the text while at the same time consciously working to connect with audiences who are unfamiliar with or daunted by Shakespeare.

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 12:31am

SO many excellent points here.

OKLAHOMA! is my favorite musical, and while I agree with most of the posters here that this concept is not needed to elevate the story in any way, shape, or form, as the show itself stands, I applaud OSF for being willing to take such a bold stance on something that is such a definitive piece of American culture, and in fact, the crown jewel of the art; as it was the first, after all; fully realized piece of the musical theatre as we know it, which still remains the only pure contribution to the theatre that we as Americans have brought to the table.  

OKLAHOMA! has always been ahead of its time. At the time it was premiered it truly changed the game in the way music and dance were used to tell stories.  When Trevor Nunn directed it in the late 90's with the stunning Josefina Gabrielle and charming Hugh Jackman he brought a sense of true realism to the proceedings which caught us all by storm. When Molly Smith directed her brilliant colorblind (or at least, for the first time, presented with any sense of diversity at hand outside of the "token chorus person" production at Arena Stage in DC, it was ahead of its time in the sense that we as Americans were ready to discuss the role of people of color in our society in a way that was all-inclusive, and it captured a feeling of joy in a way that was present, and in the moment, if you will, and simply enraptured audiences.  I hope OSF's will do the same in this current climate and it brings me joy to know that there are still people out there willing to push the envelope, as R&H did so many times.

However, that being said...

What drives me crazy about the concept is that it feels half-baked.  I understand WHY the decision is made to have Curley and Laurey played by women, and Will and Annie are being played by men, as it feels appropriately feminist, but I don't feel it is as effective as it should be.  I think it muddles the story rather than telling a new one.

Now, there is no reason a woman should not be able to play Curley (historical accuracy aside), and no reason why Ado shouldn't be played by a man (other than it stereotypes gay men as sex starved airheads, which in itself is a totally different conversation - men have had it too easy for too long but why straight people don't get to feel the sting is the real question)...but I feel like they're only halfway there.  To me, they should just go all out and make this an all-male or all-female production...all male being my preference, (not just because I'm gay and want to see some beefcake) but it makes, I think, historical sense, but also serves the piece in a new way dramatically. The first men to breach the frontier, the pent up sexual feelings of being a man in love with other men at that time, but keeping your love a secret...can you imagine how interesting the Curley/Laurey/Jud relationship becomes when Curley and Laurey (and so many others) become two lovers on the d/l, and Jud is tragically ostracized for being outwardly homosexual in the pornography he posts on the smokehouse wall, that Will Parker and Ali Hakim becomes savants of a sort for traveling to urban areas where people are "exploring", that Annie is played by a very young man who is starting to feel all of these things...we get a picture of what gay men, who in certain societies still today, feel forced to be closeted, forced to be hyper-sexualized, forced to cowtow to stereotypes, but in the end still band together as humans and men, both straight and gay, to celebrate expanding a country of freedom and limitless expansion...

...and honestly, the same thing could be said for an all-female production, just needs a different framework - perhaps what the wives and sisters and mothers of these men who push further west and leave them behind to fend for themselves on the land deal with what they are dealt...and how powerful they are - how they have been able to survive without men, but still own themselves as women in a new country,, and how they have thrived.  They are "tough", as Aunt Eller as always been. And how they celebrate themselves as sexual women, strong women, women who seek love from other women, and do so in celebration of their settling of a "brand new state".

Both are far more interesting, and paint a full color of the LGBTQ population in today's climate, (at least to me) which is what is really needed and I would hope, the goal of this production and concept.  

However, the concept as it stands currently, is just halfway there..."we want to challenge people, but not so much that they don't come". The long running Christmas Carol at the Goodman Theatre in Chicago has recently done the same sort of halfway concept by casting Fred as a woman, which colors his/her base relationship with Scrooge in a totally new and exciting way...but then we see in a later scene that the role traditionally cast as Fred's wife has been changed to a husband, so they are "Fredrika and her husband" as opposed to "Fred and his husband" or "Fredrika and her wife". And while I understand baby steps are the first on a long journey...I think that in terms of storytelling, and getting the full impact of a concept like this, you need to go all the way, or don't do it at all.  Perhaps the R&H estate wouldn't let OSF go as far as they should have.

But the news of this production has led me to hope to see a production when I see the title song to be sung by a full chorus of hearty men with gorgeous voices, or women with deep altos in conjunction with angelic sopranos, celebrating their brand new country, for what it is and should be.  Cheers to OSF for this baby step...but next time time...let's try to go all the way.

My two cents.

EDIT: My two VERY LONG cents.  More like dimes.  I applaud anyone for getting this far.  I don't post here often anymore but I think this production is a very interesting topic so I kind of opened Pandora's box of passion.  lol.

Updated On: 3/22/17 at 12:31 AM

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 1:00am

inlovewithjerryherman said: "What drives me crazy about the concept is that it feels half-baked.  I understand WHY the decision is made to have Curley and Laurey played by women, and Will and Annie are being played by men, as it feels appropriately feminist, but I don't feel it is as effective as it should be.  I think it muddles the story rather than telling a new one.

Now, there is no reason a woman should not be able to play Curley (historical accuracy aside), and no reason why Ado shouldn't be played by a man (other than it stereotypes gay men as sex starved airheads, which in itself is a totally different conversation - men have had it too easy for too long but why straight people don't get to feel the sting is the real question)...but I feel like they're only halfway there.  To me, they should just go all out and make this an all-male or all-female production...all male being my preference, (not just because I'm gay and want to see some beefcake) but it makes, I think, historical sense, but also serves the piece in a new way dramatically. The first men to breach the frontier, the pent up sexual feelings of being a man in love with other men at that time, but keeping your love a secret...can you imagine how interesting the Curley/Laurey/Jud relationship becomes when Curley and Laurey (and so many others) become two lovers on the d/l, and Jud is tragically ostracized for being outwardly homosexual in the pornography he posts on the smokehouse wall, that Will Parker and Ali Hakim becomes savants of a sort for traveling to urban areas where people are "exploring", that Annie is played by a very young man who is starting to feel all of these things...we get a picture of what gay men, who in certain societies still today, feel forced to be closeted, forced to be hyper-sexualized, forced to cowtow to stereotypes, but in the end still band together as humans and men, both straight and gay, to celebrate expanding a country of freedom and limitless expansion..."

I would pay so much money to watch that production.

I'd only thought of "People Will Say We're In Love" in a queer context, but your comment about Curly and Laurey keeping their relationship a secret made me realize how powerful the reprise would be. Curly deciding that he is so in love that he no longer cares what others think, and vocally refusing to bow down to societal norms that say he should not love another man, would bring an incredible power to a moment that, as stands, is sweet and charming but not particularly brave.

I agree that making Ado Annie a gay man could play into some really harmful stereotypes, but at the same time I think there would be an interesting opportunity to explore, as you said, a young man dealing with a sexual revelation. I mean, the song starts with the line "It ain't so much a question of not knowin' what to do/I knowed what's right an' wrong since I been ten." The lyrics as stand offer a reading that explores the anxiety of sexual desire that is difficult to control and socially unacceptable. I'm not sure if the song would still be as up-beat and humorous in this context, but it could become an amazing moment between two young gay men, one of who is in denial about his sexuality and the other who is more willing to acknowledge it to himself, but struggles to suppress.

[Fan123]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 3:59am

Perhaps they'll have the gender-swapped characters as britches/drag roles, where the rest of the characters have no awareness of the gender-swapping at all? Anything else seems rather too complicated, but I guess we'll see.

By the way, although I haven't seen or read Green Grow the Lilacs, the Lynn Riggs play on which Oklahoma was based, many here will be aware that some (including Sondheim) believe that that play was about homosexuality. If anyone's interested, the article here includes a link to a video of a non-professional production of the play; I haven't watched it, but the video appears to be legit as it has been uploaded by the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. (Also interesting, to me, to find out that Lynn Riggs was part-Native American. The aforementioned article mentions that GGTL also has some Native American themes. I recall hearing once or twice the opinion that Oklahoma is lacking a Native American perspective, though I can't remember if that criticism related to the way the source material was adapted per se.)

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 4:32am

Fan123 said: "By the way, although I haven't seen or read Green Grow the Lilacs, the Lynn Riggs play on which Oklahoma was based, many here will be aware that some (including Sondheim) believe that that play was about homosexuality. If anyone's interested, the article here includes a link to a video of a non-professional production of the play; I haven't watched it, but the video appears to be legit as it has been uploaded by the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian. (Also interesting, to me, to find out that Lynn Riggs was part-Native American. The aforementioned article mentions that GGTL also has some Native American themes. I recall hearing once or twice the opinion that Oklahoma is lacking a Native American perspective, though I can't remember if that criticism related to the way the source material was adapted per se.)"

Thanks for the links! Unfortunately, it looks like the GGTL video is broken, but it's posted here on the museum website, with an interview with director of that production here.

As far as I can tell, GGTL deals with Native American themes only very subtly/vaguely (depending on how you look at it). If I'm remembering correctly, Jeeter (Jud in the musical) is coded as Native, but I don't think it's ever explicitly stated. Oklahoma! is certainly lacking a consciousness of the role that white settlers had in the oppression of Native American peoples living on the land they took, but I wouldn't say that that is a failing of adaptation, and instead reflects Hammerstein's complete unfamiliarity or lack of awareness of the issue. As socially conscious as Hammerstein's writing can be, Oklahoma! is not one of those cases. I would argue that if anything, Oklahoma! is politically, not socially, motivated.