Theater: Tony-winning Oslo excites without provoking

Oslo, a new play by J.T. Rogers, just won the Tony award for best new play of the season (that is, best new on-Broadway play of the season---small off Broadway plays need not apply). It is a large and complex play of 15 characters that tells the little-known story of how some unknown Norwegian diplomats facilitated a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian envoys in 1993, eventually leading to the “Oslo Accords” in which, among other things, Israel recognized the PLO, the PLO legitimized Israel’s right to exist, and Gaza became an official Palestinian state. It’s a fascinating tale centering on the large egos of mid-level diplomats, none famous. The playwright weaves a 2 ½ hour plot of intrigue, suspense, and the battling of prejudices and passions. He does so with great craft and a fine sense of pacing. I was never bored, and even though I knew the eventual outcome, he managed to keep a good sense of tension, mixed with the humor that often emerges from stressed people. Each scene moves briskly and quickly transitions on to another, and much of the negotiation occurs behind a door closed to the audience, making us relate to the Norwegian facilitators who organized the whole thing but had to wait outside while the big boys did the real talking. The feeling of the play is like a well-executed episode of TV’s Law and Order. Things move right along, the plot unfolds with minimal diversions, and the subsidiary players (e.g. the drawling American diplomat and the nervous Norwegian cook) add color but do not take up too much time, so that we never lose track of the onward moving negotiations. The play’s topic was certainly pertinent, as the Middle East is a topic that, sadly, keeps on providing us death, angst, and failed attempts at progress. So I fully understand the play’s popularity and the Tony award.

But, while entertaining, Oslo’s TV-like feel and relentless momentum is also its limitations. The best plays do sometimes pause to give us inner meaning and allow us to know 1-2 characters well---otherwise why are these people on stage live, communicating to us in person? I had the sense that a filmed version of Oslo would be just as effective, easily enjoyed from my living room screen. While all the main 6-7 characters were interesting and well drawn, I did not really get to know any of them, despite some potentially fascinating stories that emerged in short spoken vignettes. Humor was used often, both in dry dialogue and in overt jokes cracked by the characters. Somehow, although I like black humor, the play was not quite black enough (they succeeded in making the deal, after all) to qualify, and the humor did not really serve much purpose other than to divert. The ending, in which all 15 characters come on stage and update us as to what happened to them since 1995, is a bit stale, and to me is an overly-encyclopedic way of ending the play. Why not show us something more vivid about how the optimism of 1995 has subsequently disintegrated, with yet more death and destruction? The play chooses to focus on the characters and the process of negotiation, but carefully avoids taking a stand on the conflict itself. Ultimately, this lack of a real point of view makes Oslo well crafted, entertaining, and a bit bland, just like a good TV show.