I wasn’t going to mention my current theater (at Arlington, Virginia’s American Century Theater) project here, until I dropped Ethics Alarms’ conservative warrior Steven Mark Pilling a note on Facebook that I had just posted on the topic he is most passionate about, preventing the abuse of child actors in Hollywood. Steven is not, to say the least, a fan of gay marriage (this might be the topic he is next most passionate about) , and I realized that my Facebook thumbnail, showing two same-sex couples in an intimate moment from my show, might put him off.
The show I just finished directing ( with the assistance of Quinn Anderson and my musical director Tom Fuller) the old Harvey Schmidt-Tom Jones chestnut, “I Do! I Do!”, ( Remember “My Cup Runneth Over,“ Ed Ames fans? Hello? ) the tw0-actor Broadway musical based on the 1950 play “The Fourposter.” Back in 1966, when Robert Preston and Mary Martin starred in the musical, it was considered an affectionate and perceptive look at the institution of marriage, and the show has attracted nostalgic, usually elderly married couples to regional and dinner theaters ever since. Productions of “I Do! I Do!” are becoming rarer, however, because the societal developments have rendered the tale of the epic marriage of Agnes and Michael Snow increasingly alien to the current American scene. In particular, what was once a musical intended to speak to all married couples and candidates for future nuptials now appears to exclude the very group that comprises musical theater’s hardiest supporters: gays.
In marked abandonment of my theater’s usual principles (we don’t update shows, believing that it is more interesting and fair to the authors to let audiences reflect on what has changed since an original production, and what has not), I decided that for the benefit of audiences, the culture and the show itself, it was time to re-conceive “I Do! I Do!” so it would gain renewed relevance and vitality in a post DOMA age. My approach, courageously and generously approved by the authors, was to show the marriage of the show’s couple through a constantly rotating prism that alternately revealed them as a same-sex female couple, a same-sex male couple, and the traditional heterosexual couple of the 1966 version. This required four very versatile and gutsy actors who could pull off the illusion of showing one marriage three different ways without giving the audience whiplash or confusing them hopelessly. In Steve Lebens, Esther Covington, Chad Fournwalt and Mary Beth Luckenbaugh, I found the dream cast.
I don’t need to go into detail about the production, which also discards the time frame and the traditional set of the original (no fourposter in the musical adaptation of “The Fourposter”!), but only want to point out that such cultural adjustments are a small but important part of assisting any shift in societal values, perception and ethics. It was important to me not to do a flat-out gay “I Do! I Do!” because it would have looked like a stunt, and a political stunt at that; furthermore, the text wouldn’t support it. This way, audiences can compare same sex marriage and traditional marriage side by side, and watch all the familiar scenes–the birth of babies, the first fight, an affair, mid-life crises—through unfamiliar perspectives that, amazingly to some, don’t seem strange or threatening at all. I expected mass walk-outs (true, it’s early yet), but so far, the reaction is just as I hoped it would be. Shuffling the genders of the couples just doesn’t change very much about the show or its message. Marriage is marriage, love is love. Who knew?
I wish Steven could see it. I wish Rick Santorum could see it.
(I don’t think Michele Bachman would get it.)
I won’t claim that I devised this version of “I Do! I Do!” for primarily ethical reasons: I just thought it was the best way to present the show in 2013, and felt that if it was successful, this concept would take the musical out of the musty fogey category and give it renewed popularity and marketability. Still, this is one example of how art helps smooth over cultural disputes over right and wrong, and can be a factor in helping the public accept shifts in ethical standards.
You can read a review of the production here.
Ethics Alarms 
Where’s SMP been?
I hope Steven will have more to say here.
Meanwhile, Jack:
1. I wish you would fix the misspelled former senator’s name.
2. Your re-conceived play might become a new classic (or not).
3. Relationships are relationships; all us homophobes say “DUH!”
4. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Not a misspelling, but a Freudian typo, as I cringe at typing the disgusting word that now means what Dan Savage says it means…
Isn’t the commenter’s name Steven Mark Pilling? Not middle initial J?
Yup. He’s been gone so long, I forgot his name. Should have checked with tgt.
I guess I always thought Albee’s “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf” slyly depicted gay marriage while also being a nasty poke in the eyes of heterosexual theater goers. Have there been many all male cast productions?
“the very group that comprises musical theater’s hardiest supporters: gays.” Hah. No kidding. Clearly and hands down the most unarguable point ever made here.
Albee allows no changes to productions of his plays, conceptual, textual, casting, and a company defies him at its peril. By far the most strict playwright alive on that score.
Interesting.
What’s the peril? If a company pays the licensing fee, what legal right does Albee have to object to a casting decision? Does it constitute plagiarism? Have courts so held? (This is simply an intellectual property question.)
The contract gives the author the right to pull the licensing rights and shut down the show if you don’t follow the requirements to the letter. Most authors are lenient about it, even permissive. Some, like Sondheim and S & J, are adventurous and trusting.
Then there’s Albee.
Roger. Thanks.
Then someone should do a full out parody version of some of his plays, and tell him to pound sand.
Hah! I am surprised by Albee’s position. I thought playwrights were supposed to let go, at least after the first production. Shouldn’t the work stand on its own and be fair game for any producer or director to stage as they see fit?
Alas, non.
Reminds me of the old Jewish adage “Write Yiddish, act British.” They feared rejection by the public for acting too Jewish on stage, so they disguised their stories with prose and British/Germanic looking actors. Today the public no longer objects and we’re seeing a much more ethnic Hollywood display… Not sure it’s all to the good!
Same holds true for many playrights and songwriters, who were/are gay… They had to codify their dialogue to be digestible to a decidedly hetero loving public. Now we are seeing the transformation… Not sure all of it will be welcomed.. Poor taste knows no sexuality.
Reminds me of Albertine and all the other faux girls in Proust. Maybe Albee doesn’t want anyone decoding “Woolf.”
Sounds like a really fantastic production. I wish I could see it.
What’s stopping you? I’ll even buy you dinner first!
The commute from Oregon to Virginia is more than my wallet can take! But I appreciate the dinner offer. 🙂
Have to say I saw the show and it is absolutely brilliant. From the casting, to the actors’ performances and their direction, to the set (very arty), and the music. I was amazed at the way the show (and the cast and director) found ways to slip between the homosexual and heterosexual relationships with ease, sensitivity, and honesty.
I sat in an audience in which easily more than half was in the plus-50 age group… no one exhibited offense, little old ladies watched with tears in their eyes, and the show apparently lost no one at intermission. (Frankly, I would have cut the last scene — because the one before is so fabulous — but that was not to be because of copyright laws, apparently.)
Bottom line: actors terrific, music wonderful, and within about 10 minutes of the first act one realizes that this is a modern view of loving relationships, period. It has no agenda, except for demonstrating — beautifully, musically, sensitively — the ins and outs of the marital relationship, and how with honesty, love, and care marriages can in fact last for decades. (Note: it’s not completely maudlin, either; there’s lots of humor throughout.)
Bravo to all involved, and kudos to Marshall for his courage and brilliance. And if someone can’t come from Oregon to see it, believe me, the authors/producers will probably take this new version to Broadway (and then a road show) and make millions. No money to Jack’s theater, of course, but being a groundbreaker is often more important than making money. (Easy to say…) Only hope they give Marshall credit for the idea… (which they likely won’t.)
YOU saw the show? Now I’m going to go crazy trying to figure out who you are…