Oklahoma subtext

There was a production in 2018 in Oregon with a lesbian Curley and Laurey, and a gay Will Parker and Ado Andy. See this article from the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/theater/oklahoma-same-sex-oregon-shakespeare-festival.html

It might not have been gay subtext, but I don't think the word "homoerotic" would be out of place

qolbinau said: "It’s because in the scene with Curly and Judd in the dark like 5cm away from each others’ face. Personally I didn’t find it to have much gay subtext though. It was more that Curly was a cunning manipulator and was willing to exploit the loneliness of Judd - who was clearly not gay but lacking any kind of social interaction - to achieve his own ends.

I know some might claim it was over directed or a misinterpretation but I miss the revival dearly. I loved everything about it."

This is a pretty good summary- there is an intense scene where they are in each other's faces in a fairly involved way, but it seemed to me to clearly be two dudes sizing each other up as hated rivals- Curly seems seductive and threatening, Jud seems hungry for interaction and ready to snap. I did not get the sense that the production wanted us to think there was some underlying sexual attraction there- and it certainly did want us to think/feel the intense sexual attraction between Curly and Laurie and in a darker way, between Jud and Laurie.

and yes it was a brilliant production, hurts to think about that empty theater now.

I'm with quolbinau.

"The revival was amazing and there was absolutely no gay subtext in that scene. It was more about toxic masculinity"

I'm just thinking a person who can claim this so definitively either doesn't know what "subtext" is or hasn't figured out that "toxic masculinity" is at its root homophobia and misogyny combined. Of COURSE that scene in the dark was homoerotic, because Curley used his toxic masculine charms on everybody to get what he wanted. I mean, the entire gay hanky code came about based on lonely isolated men in the westward expansion of the US. To not even entertain those notions in a production based on taking a fresh look at familiar material, is to willfully remain... kind of dumb?

Here's a link (below) to an article by Daniel Pollack-Pelzner at Oregon Artswatch. ''The Hidden History of 'Oklahoma!'; Contemporary Reinterpretations of the Classic American Musical May Be Getting Back to Its Root: It's Based on a Play by a Gay Cherokee Man.''

It explores the background of Lynn Riggs, the gay Native American who wrote ''Green Grow the Lilacs,'' the basis of ''Oklahoma!'' For instance:

Stephen Sondheim, whom [Oscar] Hammerstein took under his wing in the summer when he was writing Oklahoma!, said in a recent interview that his mentor “took a play that was about homosexuality in the West and turned it into a sunny musical…beyond what Lynn Riggs had written, about the opening of territories, the promise of America.”

(“The play had distinct homoerotic undertones in the relationship between Curly and Jeeter,” Sondheim clarified in an email; Hammerstein changed Jeeter’s name to Jud in the musical.)

https://www.orartswatch.org/the-hidden-history-of-oklahoma/

Updated On: 8/28/20 at 11:02 PM

Thank you for the linked articles.

Wayman_Wong said: "Here's a link (below) to an article by Daniel Pollack-Pelzner at Oregon Artswatch.''The Hidden History of 'Oklahoma!'; Contemporary Reinterpretations of the Classic American Musical May Be Getting Back to Its Root: It's Based on a Play by a Gay Cherokee Man.''

It explores the background of Lynn Riggs, the gay Native American who wrote ''Green Grow the Lilacs,'' the basis of ''Oklahoma!'' For instance:

Stephen Sondheim, whom [Oscar] Hammerstein took under his wing in the summer when he was writingOklahoma!, said in a recent interview that his mentor “took a play that was about homosexuality in the West and turned it into a sunny musical…beyond what Lynn Riggshad written, about the opening of territories, the promise of America.”

(“The play had distinct homoerotic undertones in the relationship between Curly and Jeeter,” Sondheim clarified in an email; Hammerstein changed Jeeter’s name to Jud in the musical.)

https://www.orartswatch.org/the-hidden-history-of-oklahoma/

I respect Sondheim, but his comments about Green Grow The Lilacs are nonsense. The play is not about homosexuality in the West. Hammerstein changed Jeeter's name to Jud so audiences wouldn't be reminded of Jeeter Lester in Tobacco Road.

Are the homoerotic undertones in the play? Perhaps. Today, Native American Theatre scholars make a strong case that characters in the play are Cherokee.

In the play, the scene after the wedding is dark and unsettling. In a stage direction, Riggs mentions Laurey comes out of the house in her nightgown and the men may have rapped her. After Jeeter is killed, Curley is taken off to jail. In the final scene, Curley has escaped from jail and returns to the farmhouse. The sheriff and his men arrived and demand Aunt Eller turn him over. She convinces them they should allow Curley to spend the night with Laurey and come back in at the morning to claim him. The sheriff agrees, but says some of the men will wait outside the house. Curley has exited into Laurey's room. We hear him singing Green Grow The Lilacs as the curtain falls.

FindingNamo said: "

I'm just thinking a person who can claim this so definitively either doesn't know what "subtext" is or hasn't figured out that "toxic masculinity" is at its root homophobia and misogyny combined. Of COURSE that scene in the dark was homoerotic, because Curley used his toxic masculine charms on everybody to get what he wanted."

I appreciate that homoeroticism could be defined in such a way as to include a manipulative charismatic man's using his charm to get what he wanted, but by that definition, there is homoerotic content in countless productions and since such manipulation/charm are often right there in the text, its hardly sub. By the more layman's definition of homoerotic behavior, the fact that Curly manipulates and mistreats Jud does not mean that Curly was sexually attracted to Jud.

Of course I have no idea what Fish's intentions were here, but given his focus on both characters' intense attraction to Laurie, it seems a stretch to think he wanted that one scene to suggest that both/either man was bi. To each their own interpretation, but hard to square this one.

If that is the case, I’m struggling to understand what specifically was seen by some and interpreted as gay or homoerotic so much so that it was mentioned in articles and lampooned in a Forbidden Broadway parody, yet no one seems to be able to point to anything specific in the text or staging of this production. What did some people see that others did not?

CATSNYrevival said: "If that is the case, I’m struggling to understand what specifically was seen by someandinterpreted as gay or homoerotic so much so that it was mentioned in articles and lampooned in a Forbidden Broadway parody, yet no one seems to be able to point to anything specific in the text or staging of this production. What did some people see that others did not?"

they have a very intense scene together where they are very much in each others' faces, and both wear tight cowboy attire?