Oklahoma!, Mill Mountain Theatre

September 16-October 4, Mill Mountain Theatre Mainstage,7:30 pm, 2 hours 45 minutes including one 15 minute intermission.

Oklahoma! has been called the play that ushered in the golden age of musical theater. As the first collaboration of the celebrated composer/writer duo Rogers and Hammerstein, Oklahoma! set the standard for many classic American musicals that followed in the 1940s and 1950s.

In our local theater scene, some might say that Mill Mountain Theatre does the same thing. The only truly professional theater in our region (apart from some traveling productions that cycle through the Berglund Center or Jefferson Center), Mill Mountain charges higher prices for their tickets and sets higher standards for their performances.

This production does not disappoint. Audience members know we are in the presence of professionals, and production values are high. For Oklahoma! we are treated to a full, live instrumental ensemble supporting the singers (rather than a recorded soundtrack which most area companies use for their musicals). We have a well-crafted and well-conceived set with a fully functional fly system. And we have a cast that includes several members of Actors Equity. They do a fabulous job. 

Of special note was the choreography -- many joyous and delightful numbers choreographed by director Héctor Flores, Jr. brought so much dynamism and beauty to the stage. I could feel the energy and buoyancy reverberating through the auditorium. If for no other reason, you should go see this production for the dancing - glorious hoedowns, spins, dips. Sheer delight, such a gift.

Oklahoma! as a play is perhaps a bit dated. I knew the basic idea, but it's been decades since I've seen a production of this work. The musical play is clearly both a product of the time of its setting (1906 Oklahoma) and its writing (1940s Broadway). The play is rife with outdated gender roles and stereotypes, rewards bullying and violence, and is blissfully insouciant about native people and the impending dust bowl that results from bad farming and grazing practices endorsed in the play. I know, I'm a downer. But all of this was on my mind, in part, because of the casting.

Flores, as director, made a wonderfully bold choice by casting six African American actors in this typically lily-white production, five of them in primary roles. (The 1955 film version had no non-white actors.) This is historically plausible, as many African Americans did move to Oklahoma in its territory days, and many racially integrated communities existed around 1900 (though not without tension - surely we all have heard about the Tulsa race massacre of 1921). In this production race is not explicitly mentioned nor treated as an issue - it's just a dimension of diversity that seems to exist in this town and everyone ignores it.

I love that Flores made this choice, and the casting choices shine. Dwayne Washington, as Curly, captured everyone's heart with the opening strains of "Oh What a Beautiful Morning!" sung from the back of the house. His smile, those dimples, that glint in his eye and his incredible voice: not a soul in the audience escaped his charming spell in the first 30 seconds after he opened his mouth. It. Was. Magical. I was grinning like a fool. That right there was worth the price of admission, hands-down. 

Each person in this cast was very strong. Darius-Anthony Robinson's portrayal of Aunt Eller showed impressive range and similar charisma: she may well have been my favorite character. Raven Chareal as Laurey treated us to her strong, captivating voice and lovely smile. Justin Jackson combined delightful physical comedy with flawless vocals in a charming rendition of Will.

I especially appreciated Ashlinn Blevins as a loveable and clear-voiced Ado Annie, Shea Grande whose performance in the company stood out as engaged and inspired, and Chris Shephard whose slightly-older gravitas was a welcome relief (I kept thinking, "talk some sense into these crazy twenty-somethings all around you!"). 

But the play itself remained a puzzle to me, an artifact perhaps of the era in which it was written. Curly, as portrayed by the winsome Washington, was utterly charming, and his ability to persuasively blend charm with lying both vexes Laurey and cruelly taunts/bullies Jud. In the plot, I think we're supposed to like Curly, which I did because of Washington's charisma... but I felt incredibly sorry for Jud. If Jud is a simple villain, the production could have played this up (e.g. adding stage business where he's torturing a kitten or something) but instead, Dean Marino's portrayal brought pathos to this character, partly due to his beautiful voice. Marino and Washington gave us an utterly gorgeous rendition of "Poor Jud is Dead," but I ended the song thinking Curly is an arrogant ass, and hoping Jud gets help, not more alienation.

I can see why Laurey likes Curly, even though he's an ass, but I could not for the life of me understand why Curly likes Laurey. She's the biggest mystery: singing songs about never regretting past loves and delving into a dream sequence in which she tries to marry Curly but it turns out to be Jud, and violence ensues. She's needlessly coy, and I struggle to make sense of her relationships. None of this adds up into a real character for me, which may be the fault of Rogers and Hammerstein, but actors and directors are supposed to solve problems for the audience, not pass them on (usually). I don't "get" Laurey as a person, and I'm not sure Chareal does either.  

Maybe none of it's that deep. It's mostly a light story, with farcical characters like Ado Annie and Ali Hakim (extremely well played by the talented Gregory Carr). But when the lightness and humor largely trades on gender stereotypes and sexual double standards, and on weirdly whitewashed versions of history smilingly portrayed by diverse actors, it gives one much pause. ("The Farmer and the Cowman Must Be Friends"... yeah. Because nobody else was there in Oklahoma?!)

I love a play that makes me think, and this one did, though perhaps in ways the director and actors didn't intend. When I wasn't pondering what is Laurey's deal? I was pondering one other puzzle: why in heaven's name were all the women given such short skirts/shorts (mostly in the first act)? How short? Very short, like is-that-her-butt-cheek-peeking-out short. I know, I sound like a prude, but I will not budge on this. It would have been highly inappropriate for 1906, or the 1940s: it was so anachronistic I found it extremely distracting. Nobody needs to see that much thigh in a Rogers and Hammerstein musical. You know I'm right.

One more complaint: I really struggled to understand several of the actors' words, both while singing and while speaking. I'm guessing the mics are to blame, but I'm not sure. (I would think a high-quality outfit like Mill Mountain would have good mics, but times are tough for all arts organizations, I'm sure.) If you want to really follow along well, I recommend listening to a recording/reading the script beforehand so you know what they're going to say. It was especially hard for me to understand the words of Laurey and Aunt Eller, but your mileage may vary.

Oklahoma! and Mill Mountain both set a standard in their own ways. Oklahoma! blew away audiences in the 1940s and it still has that power. The title song was as magnificent as expected, and the production ended in a standing ovation. They really did do a wonderful job with it, and this is well worth your time, even if, like me, you also find this production raises fresh, new questions. That's why we go to the theater, right? For new ideas...! And some darn good dancing.