Comments

1
Those Oregonian comments are bizarre. Most musical theater casting calls are for white actors only. And there is a white guy in Oklahoma, playing Ali Hakim. I don't share Noah's discomfort with the production, mostly because I don't think the musical has enough depth to support any kind of sociological discussion but also because I don't see the point in forcing old art to serve as a vehicle for ideas it was never intended to carry. If Coleman wanted to direct a play about race in Oklahoma at the turn of the century, presumably he would have found or written one.
2
Look, Coleman's done this before. True West a few years ago featured a hispanic cast (as well as a cartoonish 30-kitchen-cabinet-wide set) and made no changes to accompany them. If you can shoehorn race into that play, then I'll listen to your defense of Oklahoma. I don't disagree that there is something subversive about race-switching the cast of a traditionally lily-white play, but you'll have to show me that Coleman isn't a hack first.
3
Much ado about nothing.
4
Ben, I think this kind of apathetic response to the piece might be what I find most discomforting. For me the play was ultimately lacking a sense of realism that would have actually grounded it in the setting that Coleman presented. The historical research and justification for the casting decision were made loud and clear (which you can see from the response that Hicks wrote to my original review) but there wasn't a follow-through to this reality on stage. So my discomfort stemmed from the fact that textually and aesthetically the play didn't support the research it was being based upon. Which in the end, I think harms the perception of the very real history that PCS decided to use as a jumping off point. I'd agree that if Coleman wanted to direct a play about race in Oklahoma he could have picked or wrote another play. But the fact remains, he decided to do "Oklahoma!" and he decided to frame it in such a way that race (and African American History) was/is a factor in the fabric of the presentation.
I'd encourage people to take a look at Barry Johnson's review of "Oklahoma!" over at Oregon Arts Watch (orartswatch.org). He has similar thoughts:

"So, I started thinking about an alternative 'Oklahoma!', a bleaker one, one that emphasized that community and its poverty even more. This was fed by a photo in the program of a black family homestead in Oklahoma, a crude building built into a little rise in the land with no windows.

Now, imagine Curly sauntering up to that homestead singing 'O What a Beautiful Morning,' stopping to banter with Aunt Eller and then watching Laurey come out of that shack reprising the same song. What spirit does it take to sing that song in those circumstances? Or to sing the rousing conclusion 'Oklahoma!', a song with with optimism as high as an elephant’s eye?"
5
You're taking Coleman at his word when he says the play was informed by history. I don't believe him. I think he wanted to work with a cast of really good, black singers and came up with a historical framework to sell it to the board.

I believe Coleman deserves credit for not ignoring the interesting problems of Oklahoma!, starting with its basically unsympathetic protagonists. Rodgers and Hammerstein botched the plot of the musical, and yet it's a classic. Why? What does it say about America that no one cries for Jud? It's a far more interesting question to me than the ones Coleman is ostensibly addressing.

I'm not about to wade into the fray over at the O, but I think Marty's being to kind to those goons. All musicals, regardless of subject, should be cast with nonwhite actors. We have a long way to go before we've made up for The Jazz Singer Affirmative action, yo.
6
Let's just put the race issue aside for a moment.

Aside from all the race hubbub, how was the musical?

Could they sing?

I don't give a crap about the other stuff, I am looking forward to hearing a black Curly with a strong voice belt out Oh What a Beautiful Morning. Does he and the rest of the cast deliver?
7
Ben, no one cried for Jud because he was a jerk. A cautionary tale...don't be a jerk or no one will miss you when you are gone.
8
@6 I'm gonna go ahead and just quote Ben's review:

"I had feared that Coleman’s decision to cast only black actors meant we were in for an awkward concept production, but it turns out the director just wanted to work with incredibly talented performers who don’t often get to sing Rodgers and Hammerstein’s music. If color-blind casting is all it takes to get this kind of talent in Portland, then let’s have more of it: Oklahoma! has the strongest cast of any musical yet produced at the Gerding."

So, yes.

http://wweek.com/portland/article-18009-ok…
9
Well, as a gay man, I was just saying the other night that I wanted to see a movie where the main couple was gay without the movie having anything to do with the main couple being gay. So I get this.
10
@BruceWang: I'VE BEEN WANTING THIS SORT OF THING FOR A LONG TIME. CHARACTERS JUST BEING GAY OR BLACK OR WHATEVER AND THAT ISN'T WHAT THE STORY IS ABOUT. LETS MAKE IT HAPPEN.
11
Right, just like Crispin Glover did with re-Tards!
12
Up until the attempted murder, Jud is no more of a jerk than Curly. I think the musical would make a lot more sense if Hammerstein had made him commit suicide, bringing Curly's "kill yourself" suggestion to fruition.
13
@9&10 I think The Kids Are Alright is the best example I've seen of that so far.
14
@6 I would take a look at my whole review. The performances are very very strong in "Oklahoma!". As as musicals go, it is really well done.
15
@ALISON: I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THE WHO WERE GAY. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kids_Are_…)
16
@graham

YOU're alright.
17
PS - Barry Johnson has a great round-up of all the reviews over at Oregon ArtsWatch. http://www.orartswatch.org/rounding-up-cen…

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.