Oregon Shakespeare Festival to include same sex Oklahoma! - Page 2

[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.

[jimmycurry01]

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

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.

"

I was going to make this exact same comment. Of course that is all done through subtext in a similar fashion to what newintown was describing. Changing the genders in order to create an openly homosexual narrative in a time specific musical leads to complications that will likely seem silly or trite in the grand scheme of things. 

Through text evidence, we know that the bulk of the musical takes place in 1907. In 1907 attitudes toward sexuality were very different than they are today. This is only 12 years after the trials of Oscar Wilde began. Perhaps this gay version would work in some sort of Zanna Don't gay fantasia, but it does not feel like it can work in a time when Oklahoma is about to become a state. Perhaps the production will prove me wrong, but I doubt it, and I think it will be a tough sell to audiences. 

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 10:47am

Just saw an update from OSF-- Laurey and Curly will be played by women, and Ado Annie and Will Parker will be played by men. The setting will remain Oklahoma Territory in 1906.

While I must say I'm glad that they are including both a m/m and f/f pairing in this production, I'm still confused how this will work within the world of the musical.

[carnzee]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 11:25am

How is Oklahoma! about homosexuality? The link didn't have details about Sondheim's thoughts. 

[A Director]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 12:02pm

This article includes a few more details. http://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2017/03/oklahoma_will_get_an_lgbtq_makeover.html

Lynn Riggs was gay.

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 12:13pm

Other than changing a few pronouns here and there, I think a gay Oklahoma would work. And I would especially love to see a male Ado Annie.  

So many arguments on this thread sound just like the arguments that were made when non-white actors were first put into traditionally white roles: it doesn't make sense historically so it can't work.

And, just like how some people don't like the civil rights movement to get co-opted by the gay rights movement, I expect some posters on here to tell me that changing genders is not the same as changing race, just as some people try and claim civil rights are about racial equality only, not sexual orientation also. 

Can anyone shed some light without ad hominem attacks? 

[newintown]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 12:45pm

I would suggest a read through of Hammerstein's libretto would show that the suggested lesbian/gay re-coupling would make no sense in a realistic production (barring extreme re-writes).

Although the idea of a female cowhand isn't unimaginable (see Johnny Guitar), what would make no sense would be a community not only accepting but celebrating a lesbian union in rural America in 1906. And in such a gritty world, would the women really sing such fluffy, flowery, empty-headed ditties as those Rodgers and Hammerstein penned?

Probably even less accepted would be a joyfully promiscuous openly gay boy, son of a judge or not, nor his union with what I suppose would be a joyfully promiscuous bisexual cowhand (unless all of Will's references to other women and the "burlyque" are changed to male things - was there a version of The Gaiety Theatre in Kansas City at the time?). And will Ado Andy be sufficiently gender-advanced to refer to himself as "a girl who cain't say no?" Or will he be cis ("a boy who cain't say no"*)? And to whom, exactly, can he not say "no?" How many men are pursuing this boy? Will Ali Hakim be Ally Hakim (a girl)?

Of course, if they choose to set this in a fairytale land where men mate only with men and women with women, none of these flaws will be a problem, I suppose. Or if it's merely a fantasy universe of wild tolerance among heterosexuals. But then, the piece will have little to do with Hammerstein's work by that point. And in an artistic environment where a dead author's work only exists as fodder for living interpreters to re-write at will, there will be nothing unusual going on.

And, of course, these questions will mean nothing at all to the majority of audiences, who are only too happy to turn their thinking apparatus off completely the moment they pass through a theatre's doors.

Updated On: 3/22/17 at 12:45 PM

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 1:01pm

How is asking an audience to suspend disbelief for a lesbian union in 1906 American any different than asking an audience to accept a black mayor in a 19th century French town? And the police officer who sings song after song about capturing him never once mentions his race? Is that what Hugo had in mind?   Not trying to stir the pot here. I am genuinely trying to understand how these two ideas are different. Without turning off my thinking apparatus : )

[elephantseye]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 1:48pm

Phantom4ever said: "How is asking an audience to suspend disbelief for a lesbian union in 1906 American any different than asking an audience to accept a black mayor in a 19th century French town? And the police officer who sings song after song about capturing him never once mentions his race? Is that what Hugo had in mind?   Not trying to stir the pot here. I am genuinely trying to understand how these two ideas are different. Without turning off my thinking apparatus : )"

I think that the problem with that comparison is that Les Mis is not about race. We can suspend our disbelief because a) the story itself is a bit of a romantic fantasy, and while based on a historical narrative, is never presented as a hyper-realistic musical and b) you don't have to change any of the text for a black actor to make sense. You could certainly add lyrics addressing the unjust police persecution of a black man and bring more nuance to the book, but you don't need to radically alter anything to suspend your disbelief.

With Oklahoma!, the plot is entirely about romance. There's a difference between what the plot of a musical is and what the musical is about, but, at its very basic core, the plot is about Laurey and Curly realizing and vocalizing their love for each other and Ado Annie choosing to be with Will and try and stay faithful to him. When you change these characters' genders, you entirely alter the plot of the musical. There's no way to change the genders of these characters and create same-sex couples without either a) making extreme changes to the text or b) asking the audience to really suspend their disbelief.

I'm not entirely concerned about keeping with original authorial intent; as musicals age, it sometimes becomes apparent that they are unworkable as-is (in keeping with R&H, the revival of Flower Drum Song had to be altered significantly to appeal to modern audiences, because the way Hammerstein depicted race was offensive). It can make sense to revive musicals with changes that speak more closely to the world we live in now, which is vastly different than the world Rodgers and Hammerstein lived in then. I enjoy updates that provide a new approach to an old favorite (I think my love of Shakespeare makes that pretty clear) but it still has to be recognizable as that old favorite. I think the concern is, is this musical actually going to be Oklahoma!? Or will it be a musical about gay couples in the Oklahoma Territory at the turn of the century with some music by R&H?

I'd like to reserve judgment until the show premieres in April, because I think that this really could go either way, but for right now I'm definitely leery of changes this drastic. I am 100% for gender changes and race blind casting in general, but something about this feels half-baked.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 1:49pm

I read about this yesterday and thought, Great — they're taking OKLAHOMA and turning it into the LGBT equivalent of a minstrel show. 

You want to do R&H and make it work with a s/s couple? SOUTH PACIFIC, people. "Carefully Taught"? "We Kiss in a Shadow"? That one pretty well screams for an LGBT interpretation, and you could do it with only minimal rewrite. But OKLAHOMA? Man, I'd love to have been at the all-night drinking party that resulted in this...

[Phantom4ever]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 2:08pm

Elephants eye, thanks for the response. You've enlightened me on the topic. I think I agree with everything you said. I'd also like to reserve full judgment until the show premieres. 

[BakerWilliams]

Posted: 3/22/17 at 2:58pm

SeanMartin makes a good point in that I actually think a same-sex Lun Tha and Tuptim might work. I'll probably see this, if only because I'm vaguely interested and always go to Ashland, but I can't imagine it will be particularly great.