What do you think?
Rate this book
Oslo
1993. In this rollicking take on modern diplomacy, a Norwegian social scientist and his diplomat wife are determined to try a new tactic to break the long-standing deadlock of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. A secret back channel in Norway leads to unexpected breakthroughs as negotiators find common ground. When the political becomes personal, relationships are forged that offer a chance to alter the course of history. Includes a conversation about the Oslo Accords with Steven Spiegel, Director of the Center for Middle East Development at UCLA.
Lead funding for Oslo is generously provided by the Ralph M. Parsons Foundation.
Directed by Brian Kite
Producing Director Susan Albert Loewenberg
Anthony Azizi as Ahmed Qurie
Josh Bitton as Uri Savir and others
Edita Brychta as various characters
JD Cullum as Terje Rƒƒ‚ƒƒ‚‚d-Larsen
Matthew Floyd Miller as Johan Jorgen Holst, Joel Singer
Darren Richardson as various characters
Andrƒƒ‚ƒƒ‚‚ Sogliuzzo as various characters
Devon Sorvari as Mona Juul
Lead funding for Oslo is generously provided by the Ralph M. Parsons Foundation.
Directed by Brian Kite
Producing Director Susan Albert Loewenberg
Anthony Azizi as Ahmed Qurie
Josh Bitton as Uri Savir and others
Edita Brychta as various characters
JD Cullum as Terje Rƒƒ‚ƒƒ‚‚d-Larsen
Matthew Floyd Miller as Johan Jorgen Holst, Joel Singer
Darren Richardson as various characters
Andrƒƒ‚ƒƒ‚‚ Sogliuzzo as various characters
Devon Sorvari as Mona Juul
Audio CD
First published May 16, 2017
About the author
J.T. Rogers
6 books8 followersJ.T. Rogers’ plays include Blood and Gifts, The Overwhelming, White People, and Madagascar. He was nominated for a 2009 Olivier Award for his work as one of the original playwrights for The Great Game: Afghanistan. He is a 2012 Guggenheim fellow in playwriting. Other recent awards include NEA/TCG and NYFA fellowships, the Pinter Review Prize for Drama, the American Theatre Critics Association’s Osborne Award, and the William Inge Center for the Arts’ New Voices Award.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
May 30, 2021
Filme na HBO.
October 21, 2021
Oslo -- capital of Norway -- is the unlikely home of the Oslo Accords that brought a brief semblance of peace between Israel and the P.L.O. (Palestinian Liberation Organization), which ended with the Second Intifada. The back door channel to the Middle East peace process seems a difficult beast for the stage: so many players, so many months, so many meetings, so many concerns.
I expected to see one crucial moment of the process, one important meeting that would dramatize the overall historical moment. I expected a dull, dry, heavy handed (possibly even one-sided) opinion piece. I expected to be interested but not entertained. Truth be told, I expected very little.
I am so glad to have had my expectations overturned.
Playwright J.T. Rogers' Oslo is a wonder. It flies along at a Nandorian pace. It hits us with all the anger and arrogance and disdain we expect from the negotiating parties; it digs out moments of sadness and emotion and humanity from everyone involved; it also finds -- in this strangest of historical moments -- deep wells of laughter, sometimes slapsticky, sometimes witty, sometimes jokey, but always laugh out loud funny. And it left me wanting more of everything.
This is a play I have to see on stage someday. Or on screen (why is this not a movie?). But I have to see it someday. Well done, J.T. Rogers. Well done, indeed.
I expected to see one crucial moment of the process, one important meeting that would dramatize the overall historical moment. I expected a dull, dry, heavy handed (possibly even one-sided) opinion piece. I expected to be interested but not entertained. Truth be told, I expected very little.
I am so glad to have had my expectations overturned.
Playwright J.T. Rogers' Oslo is a wonder. It flies along at a Nandorian pace. It hits us with all the anger and arrogance and disdain we expect from the negotiating parties; it digs out moments of sadness and emotion and humanity from everyone involved; it also finds -- in this strangest of historical moments -- deep wells of laughter, sometimes slapsticky, sometimes witty, sometimes jokey, but always laugh out loud funny. And it left me wanting more of everything.
This is a play I have to see on stage someday. Or on screen (why is this not a movie?). But I have to see it someday. Well done, J.T. Rogers. Well done, indeed.
June 14, 2018
Interesting and important topic but the piece was a bit too long for me. It has many great lines which ring so true in my (unknown) ears.
"The world has washed its hand of this conflict, because they do not believe you can change."
"Well, what is a lie but a dream that could come true?"
"We have what the US can never have: the appearance of neutrality" (I SIGN THAT FOR SWITZERLAND TOO)
I loved how the third wall is broken many times. I can only imagine how it must felt for the audience right there in the theatre.
Around the Year Challenge 2018: A book with a location in the title.
"The world has washed its hand of this conflict, because they do not believe you can change."
"Well, what is a lie but a dream that could come true?"
"We have what the US can never have: the appearance of neutrality" (I SIGN THAT FOR SWITZERLAND TOO)
I loved how the third wall is broken many times. I can only imagine how it must felt for the audience right there in the theatre.
Around the Year Challenge 2018: A book with a location in the title.
February 24, 2018
Lynn Nottage and Paula Vogel were robbed.
September 25, 2023
These are truths of diplomacy: (i) dialogue, understanding, and compromise are key; but (ii) progress is temporary; and (iii) state power is likely to reassert itself.
June 13, 2017
The playwright has a natural knack for humanizing complicated political events and making them both relatable and human. While I question his inclusion of foul language, I applaud his rich text.
June 4, 2019
I saw an excellent production, then read it. As with most plays, it is better in the flesh (I direct for a living, so I am biased). Oslo is a bit long, but when it is crackling it delivers the goods both theatrically and intellectually. But alas, perhaps more theatrically. Rogers sets up the idea that if only Palestinians and Israelis could meet, the personal affect in the room might be enough to overcome the mistrust. Which is an interesting theory, but insofar as it was tested by Oslo, a failed one. At play's end, in an absolutely predictable moment, the characters zip through the events of the 25 years since the Accords without fully coming to grips with the fact that ultimately they accomplished very little save to sow more discord. It is also difficult to understand the Norwegian behavior as presented in Oslo other than, forgive me, Gentile privilege. "You poor people can't solve your own problems, so have some Jack Daniels and lingonberry jam and let's get a workable plan for Gaza going!" The entire problem started when colonial powers decided to wash their hands of the problem, leaving the Zionists and the Palestinians to settle it the hard way. 80 years later it remains a tangled knot of Western guilt, Jewish pride, Palestinian anger and frustration, terrorism --- all of which gets unusually short shrift in the play. The PLO negotiator boils over when an Israeli does an impersonation of Arafat. Arafat is presented in comic terms throughout, while Peres, who gets his share of mockery, eventually emerges as a statesman. And does so onstage. Arafat is never seen. Oslo is not a play a Palestinian would have written, or an Israeli; probably not even a Norwegian.
I unfortunately finished Oslo the same day Son-in-Law-in-Chief gave an interview in which he stated that he was not sure the Palestinians were able to responsibly self-govern. This after Kushner, a callow New York Jewish pisher who bounced on Bibi Netanyahu's knee and then presented his whizbang solution to the area's problems without (predictably) consulting with the Palestinian Authority. Sure, kid. The confluence of Kushner arrogance with script reading merely underlined the central problem with Rogers' worldview in Oslo. This mess is only going to be solved by the two sides most directly concerned. Even if we can offer the lingonberry jam.
I unfortunately finished Oslo the same day Son-in-Law-in-Chief gave an interview in which he stated that he was not sure the Palestinians were able to responsibly self-govern. This after Kushner, a callow New York Jewish pisher who bounced on Bibi Netanyahu's knee and then presented his whizbang solution to the area's problems without (predictably) consulting with the Palestinian Authority. Sure, kid. The confluence of Kushner arrogance with script reading merely underlined the central problem with Rogers' worldview in Oslo. This mess is only going to be solved by the two sides most directly concerned. Even if we can offer the lingonberry jam.
January 11, 2018
Witty, for sure, but not up to the hype of rave responses. A shallow political analysis that might as well say, "If we all had lingonberry waffles together in Norway, than we'd have a solution to conflict in the Middle East."
June 22, 2017
Tight structure, fully fleshed characters, tense scenes, and humor in the right places. A very fine play.
August 29, 2024
I'm still trying to decide if this was a good time to read this or not.
It's interesting. The pacing is excellent. The cast of characters is dynamic. I think it would probably be excellent live.
It's interesting. The pacing is excellent. The cast of characters is dynamic. I think it would probably be excellent live.
Read
January 5, 2018I...don't know how I feel about this yet. When I do, I'll put in a rating.
June 29, 2017
Rather vague and fuzzy on the context both in 1993 and 2017
Politics used directly on a stage as a subject for a play or an opera is quite common. It is known as agitprop in many cases where the objective is to move the audience into action. That was used a lot in Germany in the 1920-30s. It was loved in the USSR after the Bolshevik revolution, with some attempts before. After the Second World War, in the USA that type of drama developed a lot especially with operas by John Adams. I will call three titles: 1987 Nixon in China, 1991 The Death of Klinghoffer, 2005 Doctor Atomic. In the same line but fictionalized we have Stanley Kubrick’s classic 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. This play by J.T. Rogers is both in that tradition and yet different. It not only pretends to cover particular totally confidential historic events but it also pretends it is the truth about how it happened. The subject being the end of the first Intifada and the recognition of PLO by Israel on September 13, 1993 and the meeting on that occasion of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in Washington DC.
The play though can only claim to cover some secret negotiations leading to an international agreement and a temporary solution to a conflict. We cannot in anyway consider this is precisely what happened. The places and the people are probably correct but their feelings, their reactions, their way to behave can only be the result of the creative and mental reconstruction by the author. This means we cannot analyze this play as if it were some historical document, but only as what it is: a play written by someone who was not a direct witness of these totally secret events. The author knows about it since the final meeting of the two leaders in Washington DC is given as a real document: the real TV coverage at the time. It means that apart from this final true TV coverage of a true historical and historic event, all the rest has to be analyzed as a play and nothing else.
A Norwegian couple plus the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway are the main intermediaries and intercessors, at times nothing but facilitators. It is both surprising and interesting to see what the author considers as the good behavior of such facilitators. Norway provides the secluded totally secure meeting place away from everything and at the same time vast and comfortable, enabling distance and meeting spaces, isolation of anyone or any ones if necessary and closed door meetings. The intercessors are not supposed to take part in the discussions and meetings between the representatives of the two sides. They provide the delegates with secrecy, comfort and all they can request, telephones, copiers, typing machines and secretaries (I guess, because it is not mentioned), food, drinks, cigars, etc. Note at this level the play insists a lot on the very heavy consumption of Scotch or Whisky by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. In one scene some characters are said to be practically drunk, which is banal for the Jews but surprising for the Muslims, if of course the Palestinians are Muslims, since a fair proportion of Palestinians are Christians. Yasser Arafat’s wife and now widow is from a Roman Catholic family. Since there is no indication about this fact, we, I mean the audience, assume that the Palestinian representatives are Muslims, which might very well be wrong, though assuming the Israeli representatives are Jewish is of course absolutely true.
The play asserts it is just enough to bring people who are enemies, hate one another, refuse to even look at one another, together in the same room for a miracle to happen, and the play heavily asserts that miraculous development. Over and over again it is repeated the progress in the meeting, in the discussions, in the document to be produced and eventually in the agreement to be accepted by both sides is miraculous because it could not be foreseen. I frankly disapprove this vision. The objective was to make the two sides come to some kind of agreement because the Intifada was going on. There was a desire at least if not a resolution on both sides to settle some of the numerous accounts between the Palestinians and the Israelis, between the PLO and Israel. Difficult for sure but the will to reach some kind of agreement must have existed on both sides.
I have witnessed in Sri Lanka in 2005 and then during the last round of civil war how the Norwegians were unable to bring peace because they were used by the Tamil Tigers or LTTE to save time during which they could bring more weapons into Sri Lanka and prepare for some open military action if necessary, and for the Tamil Tigers there was no alternative. They were speaking double entendre all the time. It took some time for Rajapaksa to get out of the restraint these talks officially put on Sri Lanka and get rid of the terroristic LTTE that was unwilling to accept peace in cooperation. That kind of intercession could not succeed because at least one side if not maybe both did not want to yield on their basic belief: independence for LTTE and unity for the Colombo government. In July 2005 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka was assassinated by LTTE in his home in Colombo because he was a Tamil that defended the necessary unity of the country.
At the same time, and I must say the play is slightly naïve and discreet about this fact, the role played by the USA in the Middle East in general, in Israel in particular and in Palestine at the same time thouogh slightly behind if not under Israel, is not really depicted. It is asserted that for the USA the Middle East is their private backyard or something of the sort. This has always been true after the Second World War. The last time the English or the French tried something in Suez in 1956, the USA intervened diplomatically to stop it. The French and the English are tolerated there. The play ends in 1993. Luckily indeed. But yet it does not allude to the situation in Iran and the support of Iran to Hezbollah or Hamas. But we all know the heavy defeat in Iran, Operation Eagle Claw in 1980. No allusion to the first Gulf war (1990-1991). No allusion to the war between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988). The Palestinians were not alone and the Israelis were not alone. Both sides were in an international context that pushed towards an agreement. The Israelis showed they were ready to negotiate and make an effort to cool down some war-minded neighbors. The Palestinians showed they were ready to recognize the International community and to accept the existence of Israel, even maybe the legitimacy of Israel.
These missing elements in the context in 2017 when the insane policy of invading Afghanistan and then Iraq revealed the USA did not realize the world was one and they could not do what they wanted just because they wanted it and could simply called French fries Liberty fries for them to be right and to win. And in 2017 the play then becomes a manifesto against any military processing of the Middle East situation. When Mosul is down and when Raqqa is down a settlement will have to be found and some new actors have to be taken into account, Iran of course, but also Russia and China. In two years or so the New Silk Road will reach Iran through Pakistan (avoiding the more direct route through Afghanistan) and be ready to jump into Turkey and Europe through territories populated with Kurds and covering four countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey). The Kurds are going to be the great victors of the present war against ISIS. Only the USSR recognized the Kurds from 1923 to 1930. After that period Stalin deported the Kurds to various other republics like Georgia or Kazakhstan. There is supposed to be some Kurds in Azerbaijan. It is obvious that in 1993 the situation was easier for Israel and the Palestinians because of the fall of the USSR which was a very strong supporter of Yasser Arafat and PLO. There are only three of four allusions to the famous Lumumba University in Moscow. This context will never exist again. The next stage of the negotiations, if any, in Palestine will be a lot more difficult though the USA being little by little forced to recognize they are no longer what they used to be, it might not be as difficult as we may think.
And yet we do not know what role China will decide to play there, and “if any” is not even an option with the following news: “China's new type of domestically-built destroyer, a 10,000-tonne warship, is seen during its launching ceremony at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, China June 28, 2017. REUTERS/China Stringer Network.”
That leads me to concluding that the play is interesting though it requires a very dynamic and flexible stage production, but all the stakes of the historical situation are far from being considered both in 1993 and in 2017.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
Politics used directly on a stage as a subject for a play or an opera is quite common. It is known as agitprop in many cases where the objective is to move the audience into action. That was used a lot in Germany in the 1920-30s. It was loved in the USSR after the Bolshevik revolution, with some attempts before. After the Second World War, in the USA that type of drama developed a lot especially with operas by John Adams. I will call three titles: 1987 Nixon in China, 1991 The Death of Klinghoffer, 2005 Doctor Atomic. In the same line but fictionalized we have Stanley Kubrick’s classic 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. This play by J.T. Rogers is both in that tradition and yet different. It not only pretends to cover particular totally confidential historic events but it also pretends it is the truth about how it happened. The subject being the end of the first Intifada and the recognition of PLO by Israel on September 13, 1993 and the meeting on that occasion of Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin in Washington DC.
The play though can only claim to cover some secret negotiations leading to an international agreement and a temporary solution to a conflict. We cannot in anyway consider this is precisely what happened. The places and the people are probably correct but their feelings, their reactions, their way to behave can only be the result of the creative and mental reconstruction by the author. This means we cannot analyze this play as if it were some historical document, but only as what it is: a play written by someone who was not a direct witness of these totally secret events. The author knows about it since the final meeting of the two leaders in Washington DC is given as a real document: the real TV coverage at the time. It means that apart from this final true TV coverage of a true historical and historic event, all the rest has to be analyzed as a play and nothing else.
A Norwegian couple plus the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Norway are the main intermediaries and intercessors, at times nothing but facilitators. It is both surprising and interesting to see what the author considers as the good behavior of such facilitators. Norway provides the secluded totally secure meeting place away from everything and at the same time vast and comfortable, enabling distance and meeting spaces, isolation of anyone or any ones if necessary and closed door meetings. The intercessors are not supposed to take part in the discussions and meetings between the representatives of the two sides. They provide the delegates with secrecy, comfort and all they can request, telephones, copiers, typing machines and secretaries (I guess, because it is not mentioned), food, drinks, cigars, etc. Note at this level the play insists a lot on the very heavy consumption of Scotch or Whisky by both the Israelis and the Palestinians. In one scene some characters are said to be practically drunk, which is banal for the Jews but surprising for the Muslims, if of course the Palestinians are Muslims, since a fair proportion of Palestinians are Christians. Yasser Arafat’s wife and now widow is from a Roman Catholic family. Since there is no indication about this fact, we, I mean the audience, assume that the Palestinian representatives are Muslims, which might very well be wrong, though assuming the Israeli representatives are Jewish is of course absolutely true.
The play asserts it is just enough to bring people who are enemies, hate one another, refuse to even look at one another, together in the same room for a miracle to happen, and the play heavily asserts that miraculous development. Over and over again it is repeated the progress in the meeting, in the discussions, in the document to be produced and eventually in the agreement to be accepted by both sides is miraculous because it could not be foreseen. I frankly disapprove this vision. The objective was to make the two sides come to some kind of agreement because the Intifada was going on. There was a desire at least if not a resolution on both sides to settle some of the numerous accounts between the Palestinians and the Israelis, between the PLO and Israel. Difficult for sure but the will to reach some kind of agreement must have existed on both sides.
I have witnessed in Sri Lanka in 2005 and then during the last round of civil war how the Norwegians were unable to bring peace because they were used by the Tamil Tigers or LTTE to save time during which they could bring more weapons into Sri Lanka and prepare for some open military action if necessary, and for the Tamil Tigers there was no alternative. They were speaking double entendre all the time. It took some time for Rajapaksa to get out of the restraint these talks officially put on Sri Lanka and get rid of the terroristic LTTE that was unwilling to accept peace in cooperation. That kind of intercession could not succeed because at least one side if not maybe both did not want to yield on their basic belief: independence for LTTE and unity for the Colombo government. In July 2005 the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sri Lanka was assassinated by LTTE in his home in Colombo because he was a Tamil that defended the necessary unity of the country.
At the same time, and I must say the play is slightly naïve and discreet about this fact, the role played by the USA in the Middle East in general, in Israel in particular and in Palestine at the same time thouogh slightly behind if not under Israel, is not really depicted. It is asserted that for the USA the Middle East is their private backyard or something of the sort. This has always been true after the Second World War. The last time the English or the French tried something in Suez in 1956, the USA intervened diplomatically to stop it. The French and the English are tolerated there. The play ends in 1993. Luckily indeed. But yet it does not allude to the situation in Iran and the support of Iran to Hezbollah or Hamas. But we all know the heavy defeat in Iran, Operation Eagle Claw in 1980. No allusion to the first Gulf war (1990-1991). No allusion to the war between Iraq and Iran (1980-1988). The Palestinians were not alone and the Israelis were not alone. Both sides were in an international context that pushed towards an agreement. The Israelis showed they were ready to negotiate and make an effort to cool down some war-minded neighbors. The Palestinians showed they were ready to recognize the International community and to accept the existence of Israel, even maybe the legitimacy of Israel.
These missing elements in the context in 2017 when the insane policy of invading Afghanistan and then Iraq revealed the USA did not realize the world was one and they could not do what they wanted just because they wanted it and could simply called French fries Liberty fries for them to be right and to win. And in 2017 the play then becomes a manifesto against any military processing of the Middle East situation. When Mosul is down and when Raqqa is down a settlement will have to be found and some new actors have to be taken into account, Iran of course, but also Russia and China. In two years or so the New Silk Road will reach Iran through Pakistan (avoiding the more direct route through Afghanistan) and be ready to jump into Turkey and Europe through territories populated with Kurds and covering four countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey). The Kurds are going to be the great victors of the present war against ISIS. Only the USSR recognized the Kurds from 1923 to 1930. After that period Stalin deported the Kurds to various other republics like Georgia or Kazakhstan. There is supposed to be some Kurds in Azerbaijan. It is obvious that in 1993 the situation was easier for Israel and the Palestinians because of the fall of the USSR which was a very strong supporter of Yasser Arafat and PLO. There are only three of four allusions to the famous Lumumba University in Moscow. This context will never exist again. The next stage of the negotiations, if any, in Palestine will be a lot more difficult though the USA being little by little forced to recognize they are no longer what they used to be, it might not be as difficult as we may think.
And yet we do not know what role China will decide to play there, and “if any” is not even an option with the following news: “China's new type of domestically-built destroyer, a 10,000-tonne warship, is seen during its launching ceremony at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, China June 28, 2017. REUTERS/China Stringer Network.”
That leads me to concluding that the play is interesting though it requires a very dynamic and flexible stage production, but all the stakes of the historical situation are far from being considered both in 1993 and in 2017.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
August 5, 2018
The end of the Cold War was, for liberals like Francis Fukuyama, the "end of history": The great ideological battles of the twentieth century had been resolved, and liberal multinational capitalism had won. The Oslo accords were the creation of technocratic neoliberals who put aside ideology in favor of centrist solutions.
Of course, the Oslo accords also failed miserably, and like the failures of neoliberalism all over the world, their political legacy is the ascendance of far right nationalism. But rather than examine their failure, J.T. Rogers' Oslo is content to regurgitate the talking points of that disgraced ideology, in the process relying on common misconceptions about the conflict: That it spans thousands of years, that its violence is proportional, that Western nations will be trusted as honest brokers.
However, unlike Sorkin's amusing neoliberal propaganda, Rogers genuinely makes my blood boil. I imagine audiences full of pacified New York Jews, who probably donate $500 to AIPAC and JNF but haven't thought about its history since 1973, mollified by a play that tells them that a two state solution is still possible.
Of course, the Oslo accords also failed miserably, and like the failures of neoliberalism all over the world, their political legacy is the ascendance of far right nationalism. But rather than examine their failure, J.T. Rogers' Oslo is content to regurgitate the talking points of that disgraced ideology, in the process relying on common misconceptions about the conflict: That it spans thousands of years, that its violence is proportional, that Western nations will be trusted as honest brokers.
However, unlike Sorkin's amusing neoliberal propaganda, Rogers genuinely makes my blood boil. I imagine audiences full of pacified New York Jews, who probably donate $500 to AIPAC and JNF but haven't thought about its history since 1973, mollified by a play that tells them that a two state solution is still possible.
Read
June 6, 2019I get the appeal; I just didn't love it.*
Was more interested in Mona and Terje's marriage than most of the diplomatic tensions the play wants me to care about. Can't decide whether the ~brave new world~ outlook of the ending feels wryly, knowingly bittersweet or unstomachably shallow, reading in 2018.
* [universal disclaimer about understanding that reading a play versus seeing it staged are different]
Was more interested in Mona and Terje's marriage than most of the diplomatic tensions the play wants me to care about. Can't decide whether the ~brave new world~ outlook of the ending feels wryly, knowingly bittersweet or unstomachably shallow, reading in 2018.
* [universal disclaimer about understanding that reading a play versus seeing it staged are different]
May 30, 2017
Suspenseful, interesting, well-written, and inspiring. I left out a star only because I didn't feel like the characterization went farther in depth to understood the reasoning behind either the Norwegian couple's decision to take such a risk. We never really know them more than their official roles.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 1, 2017
Overall, a great work. Incredibly moving regarding the process of negotiation and a time in the early nineties when there was hope for peace between Palestine and Israel. Although it takes a while to get going by the end of the first act, you know you're in the hands of a master storyteller.
January 28, 2018
In Angus Deaton’s seminal work on inequality “The Great Escape” he observes, “Our current deep-seated concerns with fairness, as well as our outrage when our norms of fairness are violated, are quite possibly rooted in the absence of storage options for prehistoric hunters.” As with inequality, so too with race, with religion. Layers and layers of conflict going down one beneath the other into the murky pits of prehistory.
So what happens when they converge? What happens when history and time and fate bring together race rage, language and ethnicity and religion and inequality upon a tiny patch of earth? And what if, on that patch, a holy building for one tribe is built upon the holy ground of another? How can these two make peace, when the problems are not necessarily about ideas or philosophies, although there is that too, but more about that primal urge for sanctuary? “Arafat is tricky,” Shimon Peres’s character in the play says, “but he is a man. And a man aches for one thing above all. His home.” When one group is happier clinging in misery to their ideas of nation – checked by enemy soldiers before they enter their holy site – than be given golden castles in a foreign land; and another with an ancient claim that is so much a part of who they are that it is indivisible from their ideas of self, and who have been the recipients of so much prejudice and hate for millenniums that they have nowhere else where they can feel safe.
When both claims are so ancient, when parties to the conflict argue over stories of “the twelve tribes” or “the Canaanites” – when the fight is entwined in the roots of time so far beneath the grounds of prejudice and propaganda that every piece of ‘truth’ has an alternate; and meet upon a tiny patch of earth in a troubled part of the world.
I recently read the play “Oslo” by J. T. Rogers (I didn’t see it in theater, and plays lose some of their punch when they are only read, without observing the whole production). The play is of course about that – about the back-channel Oslo Peace Process that led to the formation of the Palestinian Authority and the beginnings of the ‘two state solution’.
It is a prescient play, because 25 years after 1993 – when the accords began to be discussed – we look to be as far from real peace as we’ve ever been. I don’t pretend there is an easy answer, and neither does this play. The greatest actors on the world’s stage have all set their herculean personalities against this boulder, and failed to even budge it. Only the moistened diplomats fresh from their safe spaces think it’s easy – and this play does exude the naivety of the Norwegians, for which we love them. To see the good in everybody, to believe fixing problems is only a matter of finding the right formula – we need people like that in the world; hope.
I’m glad for this play for one simple reason; it was not prejudiced on one side or the other (which is odd for the arts, so steeped as they are these days in anti-Israel propaganda, a thin and easily pierced veil hiding ancient deep-seated ideas of antisemitism that only reinforce the Israelite’s existential fight for their homeland). That made it readable. Maybe it will inspire some people to begin to rethink peace in the Middle East. I do not have the answers (although I certainly would love a chance to try); I’ve been working on issues of ‘war and peace’ myself for long enough to know that people are not rational and peace is not a natural state. Nevertheless it is achievable – if people can find a way; but the well has been so poisoned on this particular issue that the way is most certainly treacherous and those who embark will surely die upon the path. While we all want to see ourselves wearing that shiny medal; very few want to take the risks involved.
So read this play, and pray for peace. There is no greater commodity, for didn’t Jesus say, from that very patch of contested land, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”
So what happens when they converge? What happens when history and time and fate bring together race rage, language and ethnicity and religion and inequality upon a tiny patch of earth? And what if, on that patch, a holy building for one tribe is built upon the holy ground of another? How can these two make peace, when the problems are not necessarily about ideas or philosophies, although there is that too, but more about that primal urge for sanctuary? “Arafat is tricky,” Shimon Peres’s character in the play says, “but he is a man. And a man aches for one thing above all. His home.” When one group is happier clinging in misery to their ideas of nation – checked by enemy soldiers before they enter their holy site – than be given golden castles in a foreign land; and another with an ancient claim that is so much a part of who they are that it is indivisible from their ideas of self, and who have been the recipients of so much prejudice and hate for millenniums that they have nowhere else where they can feel safe.
When both claims are so ancient, when parties to the conflict argue over stories of “the twelve tribes” or “the Canaanites” – when the fight is entwined in the roots of time so far beneath the grounds of prejudice and propaganda that every piece of ‘truth’ has an alternate; and meet upon a tiny patch of earth in a troubled part of the world.
I recently read the play “Oslo” by J. T. Rogers (I didn’t see it in theater, and plays lose some of their punch when they are only read, without observing the whole production). The play is of course about that – about the back-channel Oslo Peace Process that led to the formation of the Palestinian Authority and the beginnings of the ‘two state solution’.
It is a prescient play, because 25 years after 1993 – when the accords began to be discussed – we look to be as far from real peace as we’ve ever been. I don’t pretend there is an easy answer, and neither does this play. The greatest actors on the world’s stage have all set their herculean personalities against this boulder, and failed to even budge it. Only the moistened diplomats fresh from their safe spaces think it’s easy – and this play does exude the naivety of the Norwegians, for which we love them. To see the good in everybody, to believe fixing problems is only a matter of finding the right formula – we need people like that in the world; hope.
I’m glad for this play for one simple reason; it was not prejudiced on one side or the other (which is odd for the arts, so steeped as they are these days in anti-Israel propaganda, a thin and easily pierced veil hiding ancient deep-seated ideas of antisemitism that only reinforce the Israelite’s existential fight for their homeland). That made it readable. Maybe it will inspire some people to begin to rethink peace in the Middle East. I do not have the answers (although I certainly would love a chance to try); I’ve been working on issues of ‘war and peace’ myself for long enough to know that people are not rational and peace is not a natural state. Nevertheless it is achievable – if people can find a way; but the well has been so poisoned on this particular issue that the way is most certainly treacherous and those who embark will surely die upon the path. While we all want to see ourselves wearing that shiny medal; very few want to take the risks involved.
So read this play, and pray for peace. There is no greater commodity, for didn’t Jesus say, from that very patch of contested land, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.”
February 10, 2018
On the final page of J. T. Rogers' funny yet prophetic Oslo, Larsen, a fictionalized version of a principal player in the Oslo Accords, says, "We created a process. Seeing all this, is that not clear? A model--that can be used again--to bring implacable enemies together, to find a way forward. Together" (115). The dramatic structure of Oslo functions as a metaphor for his newfangled process. Individual character development is relatively nonexistent because the play is about the development and exploration of this new diplomatic process. Early in the play, Larsen describes the particulars of this process by first suggesting that the old process is "rigid, impersonal, and incapable of building trust" (21). His new process eschews "grand pronouncements between governments," and by contrast, values "intimate discussions between people. Held somewhere isolated" (22). I cannot say I know anything about the particulars of international diplomacy, but the play successfully establishes the limitations of depersonalized diplomatic strategies. By doing so, Rogers suggests that peace is possible, but to achieve real, sustainable change, individuals must address other individuals instead of nations addressing other nations.
Of course, there are obvious limitations to this approach. Logistically speaking, this diplomatic model may be impracticable because it seems tricky to implement on a large enough scale. Mona, another principle players in the Oslo Accords, expresses doubt at the end of play, "I am trying. But, even now, I am struggling. To know if what we did--how we did--was right" (115). Mona's question addresses the intractability of some political conflicts, and while her declaration sounds pessimistic, even defeatist, it functions as a necessary counter-point to Larsen's unmovable optimism.
Nevertheless, Oslo is a play as much about the present as it is about the past, and in a political climate as fractured as ours, perhaps this process is the only means of building unity and dissolving division. Therefore, Larsen's pronouncement at the end of the play speaks to the wild optimism needed to affect change:
My friends, do not look at where we are; look behind you.
(He points behind) There! See how far we have come!
If we have come this far, through blood, through fear--
hatred--how much further can we go yet?
(Points ahead) There! On the horizon. The Possibility.
Do you see it?
Do you?
Characters break the fourth wall repeatedly in Oslo, and by referencing his audience as "My friends," Larsen gestures toward the radically and politically productive communal nature of theatrical space. At this moment, the theater becomes a diplomatic space, and even Rogers echoes this sentiment in the introduction to play: "the theater can expand our sense of what it means to be human. It is where we can come together in a communal space to hear ideas that grip us, surprise us--even infuriate us--as we learn of things we didn't know. For me, that is a deeply, thrillingly, political act" (xii). For Rogers, the Oslo Accords and the Theater are a shared signifier that articulate the hope of change and the means of securing such change.
Of course, there are obvious limitations to this approach. Logistically speaking, this diplomatic model may be impracticable because it seems tricky to implement on a large enough scale. Mona, another principle players in the Oslo Accords, expresses doubt at the end of play, "I am trying. But, even now, I am struggling. To know if what we did--how we did--was right" (115). Mona's question addresses the intractability of some political conflicts, and while her declaration sounds pessimistic, even defeatist, it functions as a necessary counter-point to Larsen's unmovable optimism.
Nevertheless, Oslo is a play as much about the present as it is about the past, and in a political climate as fractured as ours, perhaps this process is the only means of building unity and dissolving division. Therefore, Larsen's pronouncement at the end of the play speaks to the wild optimism needed to affect change:
My friends, do not look at where we are; look behind you.
(He points behind) There! See how far we have come!
If we have come this far, through blood, through fear--
hatred--how much further can we go yet?
(Points ahead) There! On the horizon. The Possibility.
Do you see it?
Do you?
Characters break the fourth wall repeatedly in Oslo, and by referencing his audience as "My friends," Larsen gestures toward the radically and politically productive communal nature of theatrical space. At this moment, the theater becomes a diplomatic space, and even Rogers echoes this sentiment in the introduction to play: "the theater can expand our sense of what it means to be human. It is where we can come together in a communal space to hear ideas that grip us, surprise us--even infuriate us--as we learn of things we didn't know. For me, that is a deeply, thrillingly, political act" (xii). For Rogers, the Oslo Accords and the Theater are a shared signifier that articulate the hope of change and the means of securing such change.
January 1, 2018
A social scientist and his diplomat wife decided to change the world. In fact, they pushed the boundaries of the word quixotic, in the process. After witnessing the fear in eyes of two child soldiers firsthand, Terje Rod-Larsen and Mona Juul chose to seek a lasting peace in the Middle East on their own. Now here’s the really bizarre part: their back-channel efforts led to the Oslo Accords of 1993. J. T. Rogers’ Tony Award Winning play delivered a fictitious take on their efforts.
To borrow an expression from the musical Hamilton , Oslo presented readers with a seat in “the room where it happens.” The playwright allowed his audience to witness for themselves the negotiation process that takes place with international agreements. Mr. Rogers selected a very unconventional back-channel, in the forms of an idealistic couple and some unorthodox diplomats. That made the story much more interesting and engaging.
The author described his work as, “a scrupulously researched, meticulously written fiction.” (Page X) I enjoyed the inclusion of such famous historical figures as Ahmed Qurie (the PLO’s Finance Minister) and Shimon Peres (the Israeli Foreign Minister). Although not actually a character in the play itself, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat’s presence loomed over the narrative.
I enjoyed the way the playwright humanized his figures. Simon Peres liked to begin conversations with a story. Ahmed Qurie expressed his immense love for his daughter. Terje and Mona’s marriage felt the strain of their seemingly naïve quest to change the world.
I also liked the witty way the author injected humor into the narrative. He included a few jokes that while referencing other cultures, didn’t come across as offensive or objectionable. That’s quite a delicate balance, but he executed it extraordinarily well.
The play’s major strength also became its biggest weakness. At times I found it difficult to read through 115 pages of diplomatic exchanges. Mr. Rogers varied the pace as well as he could by bringing in new characters to serve as negotiators. Through them, he interjected new sources of conflict into the story. Still, a few hours reading about the intricacies of international diplomacy may not appeal to some booklovers.
J. T. Rogers presented a realistic description of perhaps history’s most unconventional diplomatic undertaking. While the Oslo Accords didn’t achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, the playwright still found a hopeful lesson from this entire process. Perhaps, someday the author will find a more positive ending that he can apply to a sequel. After all, no one thought an idealistic Norwegian couple could’ve come this close to ending the conflict less than 25 years ago.
To borrow an expression from the musical Hamilton , Oslo presented readers with a seat in “the room where it happens.” The playwright allowed his audience to witness for themselves the negotiation process that takes place with international agreements. Mr. Rogers selected a very unconventional back-channel, in the forms of an idealistic couple and some unorthodox diplomats. That made the story much more interesting and engaging.
The author described his work as, “a scrupulously researched, meticulously written fiction.” (Page X) I enjoyed the inclusion of such famous historical figures as Ahmed Qurie (the PLO’s Finance Minister) and Shimon Peres (the Israeli Foreign Minister). Although not actually a character in the play itself, PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat’s presence loomed over the narrative.
I enjoyed the way the playwright humanized his figures. Simon Peres liked to begin conversations with a story. Ahmed Qurie expressed his immense love for his daughter. Terje and Mona’s marriage felt the strain of their seemingly naïve quest to change the world.
I also liked the witty way the author injected humor into the narrative. He included a few jokes that while referencing other cultures, didn’t come across as offensive or objectionable. That’s quite a delicate balance, but he executed it extraordinarily well.
The play’s major strength also became its biggest weakness. At times I found it difficult to read through 115 pages of diplomatic exchanges. Mr. Rogers varied the pace as well as he could by bringing in new characters to serve as negotiators. Through them, he interjected new sources of conflict into the story. Still, a few hours reading about the intricacies of international diplomacy may not appeal to some booklovers.
J. T. Rogers presented a realistic description of perhaps history’s most unconventional diplomatic undertaking. While the Oslo Accords didn’t achieve a lasting peace in the Middle East, the playwright still found a hopeful lesson from this entire process. Perhaps, someday the author will find a more positive ending that he can apply to a sequel. After all, no one thought an idealistic Norwegian couple could’ve come this close to ending the conflict less than 25 years ago.
October 12, 2017
Tal vez, antes de elaborar una crítica sobre un texto teatral, fuese mejor ver dicha obra. Puesto que, por mucho que intente ahora vislumbrar todos los cambios de luces, escenarios y personajes, sé que la realidad (y que Toby Stephens) irán más allá de mi imaginación venida a menos.
En cualquier caso, Goodreads y mi propia conciencia demandan una opinión, y ésta es que me ha entusiasmado leer "Oslo". Pese a que, debido a mi falta de curiosidad y de decencia, desconocía casi por completo las bases de la guerra entré israelíes y palestinos, la historia humana detrás del intento de resolución de la misma me ha introducido en el suceso con facilidad (lo más complicado era asociar los nombres a las nacionalidades) y me ha mantenido en tensión, riéndome en el tren de vez en cuando, para finalmente dejarme algo (por no decir extremadamente) desalentada.
Ahí quedaba, no obstante, el personaje de Terje (también conocido como el Flint sueco moderno), con la última palabra, con el último suspiro, siempre luchando por un imposible, para arrastrar al lector al campo de batalla con él. No descarto un desmayo cuando presencie la escena...
Así que en Diciembre volveré sobre esta crítica para darle más chicha...
En cualquier caso, Goodreads y mi propia conciencia demandan una opinión, y ésta es que me ha entusiasmado leer "Oslo". Pese a que, debido a mi falta de curiosidad y de decencia, desconocía casi por completo las bases de la guerra entré israelíes y palestinos, la historia humana detrás del intento de resolución de la misma me ha introducido en el suceso con facilidad (lo más complicado era asociar los nombres a las nacionalidades) y me ha mantenido en tensión, riéndome en el tren de vez en cuando, para finalmente dejarme algo (por no decir extremadamente) desalentada.
Ahí quedaba, no obstante, el personaje de Terje (también conocido como el Flint sueco moderno), con la última palabra, con el último suspiro, siempre luchando por un imposible, para arrastrar al lector al campo de batalla con él. No descarto un desmayo cuando presencie la escena...
Así que en Diciembre volveré sobre esta crítica para darle más chicha...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 3, 2017
Worthy of the best play Tony Award.
Based on the real life story of two Norwegians who orchestrate secret peace talks between Israel and Palestine that results in a real historic peace accord, this play is a great dramatic telling of this unknown tale. I was originally worried that I wouldn't follow the play because I don't have much background knowledge in the history and geopolitics involved, but the play did a great job of explaining everything without being too silly or making the audience feel dumb. It was a quick moving piece that flawlessly moved from scene to scene while covering a longer time span. Act One was great storytelling that really made you keep reading into Acts Two and Three. Awesome characters, great writing, amazing untold real story.
Based on the real life story of two Norwegians who orchestrate secret peace talks between Israel and Palestine that results in a real historic peace accord, this play is a great dramatic telling of this unknown tale. I was originally worried that I wouldn't follow the play because I don't have much background knowledge in the history and geopolitics involved, but the play did a great job of explaining everything without being too silly or making the audience feel dumb. It was a quick moving piece that flawlessly moved from scene to scene while covering a longer time span. Act One was great storytelling that really made you keep reading into Acts Two and Three. Awesome characters, great writing, amazing untold real story.
July 19, 2019
Gosh! I loved this play, and I didn't think that I would...it was tough to get into at first; I kept checking the character list, but...once I got acclimated to the geography of the piece, I was pleasantly surprised by how funny it is, how detailed the characters are, the intricate scene work/dialogue, the Brechtian elements causing good alienation to affect the last line, which, by the way, is a winner!
I wish this was being produced again, now...I (almost) think that we need this play more now than we did right after Drumpf's election. This is the process that needs to be heard and massaged...
I can't recommend this play enough, and I really want to see it, but I recognize that it is probably a bear to produce...
I wish this was being produced again, now...I (almost) think that we need this play more now than we did right after Drumpf's election. This is the process that needs to be heard and massaged...
I can't recommend this play enough, and I really want to see it, but I recognize that it is probably a bear to produce...
May 18, 2023
If I could give this 10 stars I would. It's exactly the way to write an historical play (the story of the Oslo Peace Accords in 1993, which would, on the face of it, seem almost impossible to make interesting for the stage)!
By focusing on the characters and their relationships, Rogers engages both readers who know the story and those whose grasp of the entire event is sketchy so that they feel they've taken place in the process.
The pacing varies perfectly. The humor and deep drama are in excellent balance.
I can hardly wait to see it on stage one day!
By focusing on the characters and their relationships, Rogers engages both readers who know the story and those whose grasp of the entire event is sketchy so that they feel they've taken place in the process.
The pacing varies perfectly. The humor and deep drama are in excellent balance.
I can hardly wait to see it on stage one day!
February 1, 2019
It's sort of fascinating how the traditional diplomatic process was usurped to create the Oslo Accord, but despite the historical nature, it was hard to get excited about the play. I think the lack of a central character is an issue. In a play with 40 characters, there wasn't one that I hooked into and identified with.
I'm sure that's not really the point of this play, but that's how I experienced it as drama. It felt more like a documentary or (good) history book then theatre.
I'm sure that's not really the point of this play, but that's how I experienced it as drama. It felt more like a documentary or (good) history book then theatre.
February 28, 2019
A Norwegian couple tells of their secret roles behind the 1993 Oslo peace accord between the Israelis and the Palestinians, which ended in the treaty signing by Arafat and Rabin at the White House.
The author tells this not well known story in an interesting and sometimes surprisingly humorous manner. The names can be a little confusing at times but it made me want to see the play performed, especially since it won a Tony Award for best play in 2017.
The author tells this not well known story in an interesting and sometimes surprisingly humorous manner. The names can be a little confusing at times but it made me want to see the play performed, especially since it won a Tony Award for best play in 2017.
September 9, 2020
Read this for my playwriting class. I was very entertained while reading it. But when I step back and thought about the play as a whole I realized how damaging it was to racial stereotypes. This play was a white savior story. I read an article that put it beautifully: This story might be about Palestinians and Israelites but the story is not for them. It’s for Americans and our biased views of Middle East conflicts.
January 18, 2021
The pacing in this play is incredible. The story is engaging even if you are not especially invested in politics or familiar with the historical events it is addressing. The characters are real and fascinating. The stakes couldn't be higher and at every turn you are at the edge of your seat. It also gives me great hope about the possibility of peace and that we all have more in common than we think we do.
May 11, 2017
Absolutely brilliant ... no wonder this has Tony nominations for Best Play and for a number of the actors involved in its Broadway debut. Despite a few isolated moments early on when the exposition gets a mite clunky, this distills a pivotal moment in history that few actually know anything about down to a three hour riveting theatrical masterpiece.
July 5, 2017
A nervy political thriller about the tense working out, behind closed doors in Oslo, of the peace deal between Israel and the PLO that led Yassir Arafat and Yizhak Rabin to shake hands (with Bill Clinton hosting them). Two married Norwegians use their social and political savvy to grease the wheels of the process and digging out the rocks and pebbles that fall or and placed in the grease.
August 7, 2017
Stunningly well-written and a beautiful descriptive journey behind the scenes of one of the most tense moments of the 1990s. J.T. Rogers does an excellent job of building dramatic tension and providing the perfect payoff, without much in the way of a sour note to be found. I can understand Tony voters' draw towards this work; excellent.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews