Oklahoma Musical Plot Summary



Musical theater is an incredibly unique art form and appeals to different people in many different ways. Because of this variability, rating individual musicals can hardly be objective by any means, even if selection criteria are consistent. Furthermore, selection criteria of musicals can be very different than typical selection criteria for other forms of media. Movies can be rated by earnings, music can be rated by requests, but musicals are distinctively difficult to rate. Having said that, I would propose the following criteria for selecting the best musicals of all time: general popularity, real life applicability, enjoyment of performing, recognition of references, and character of the show. As alluded to previously, these are unique measures to fit an exceptional art form.


General popularity is probably the most obvious, a musical has to have general appeal to a wide variety of audiences and must have made a significant amount of tours to be considered. Real life applicability relates to the ability of a musical to expose and explore real human emotions, teach life lessons, and be transposed (if just in interpretations) to real situations. For musical enthusiasts, the shows they are most sentimental about may be shows they had some part in performing in, even in small-scale, local productions; so the enjoyment artists get out of performing musicals comes in to play. Like popular movies, popular musicals often get referenced in pop culture and in conversation, and recognizing those references indicates a significant impact the musical had on its viewers. Finally, many musicals have traditions or stories behind the performance or plot, and I think these background stories add character to the show, enough that it may change the value of the show in this respect.



Jonathan Larson's "Rent" tops my list, with a tear-jerking story behind the story and plenty of real life applicability. "Rent" depicts the lives of several young, starving artists in the streets of New York, struggling with their values, love lives, sexuality, figures of authority, and HIV. The phenomenal soundtrack includes the flagship song "Seasons of Love", emotion-drenched love songs and fun, spirited dance tunes. The movie "Rent" is a good reproduction of the fantastic Broadway show, but nothing beats live theater. The movie "Team America" references the musical in an ironic parody sketch called "Lease" featuring a song stating "Everyone has AIDS. AIDS, AIDS, AIDS!"



I can't say enough about the musical "Wicked", which is based on the story of the "Wizard of Oz" but with a comical, clever twist. Wicked soared in popularity, probably because of its relation to real life issues and the attention it commands with its very presence; before even entering the theater, witty "Wicked" paraphernalia makes show-goers and passers-by chuckle at the ironic humor. While it takes place in a completely fictitious world, it deals with realistic issues such as discrimination, heartbreak, gossip, social standards, and moral values. The lyrics of "Defying Gravity" and "Dancing Through Life" are taken literally in the show, but taken figuratively, the show inspires the lives of its fans.


One of the best aspects of live theater is that the performance is not limited to the stage. Even at a conceptual level, I love "Phantom of the Opera" for its adaptation of the entire theater as the setting of the show. Rather than being in a theater watching a show on stage, audience is in a theater in which we are led to believe the story is actually unfolding. The special effects in this musical are breath-taking, and frightening at times, and definitely make it a joy to watch and presumably to perform. Well-known showtunes and life applicability also play into the appeal of "Phantom". It's no wonder this musical is incredibly popular. Don't be content with just watching the movie, the live performance will absolutely blow your mind!



I would include "Pippin" in my list, which may be a significantly more sentimental choice than an objective one, but it is based on the deeply-rooted character of the show. This specific musical may not win Academy Awards, but it is loaded with performing traditions and nuances that an unknowledgeable audience may never pick up. For example, the main character, Pippin, never wears shoes during the performance. Also, the musical has multiple alternative endings, and the director's choice of ending almost completely defines the mood throughout the entire musical. I've seen multiple performances of "Pippin"; one was very bright, bouncy and fun; another was more traditional, emphasizing drugs, sex and power as driving forces of the character's motives; and the one I performed in was dark, gloomy, and on the verge of being evil. For these reasons, I would say "Pippin" is one of the most diverse musicals, and therefore is more intriguing and interesting to see and perform. While it may not be as wildly popular as the other shows on this list, "Pippin" is very deep, and it definitely can have real life applicability.



"Go, go Joe!" rings out in my head as I think about "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat". Based on a Bible story, this energetic, charming and heartfelt show is packed with catchy tunes, funny references, and amazing special effects. While it has been a very popular musical, I wouldn't rate it high in real life applicability; it may seem ironic (and blasphemous) to say a Bible story doesn't have a good life lesson, but I think the issue is in the presentation of the story, not the story itself. The musical doesn't relate to common, realistic emotions as much as some of the others on this list. That issue aside, "Joseph" is a thrill to perform in, and the show has a huge presence and character.


No list is complete without "Les Miserables", likely one of the most complex and drastically serious musicals of all time. Taking place in France in the early 19th century, the musical portrays the hardships of a multitude of characters struggling with poverty, crime and revolution. There are tons of characters to keep track of, and so many motives and plots; it is very different than watching Dorothy try to get back home to Kansas. For first-timers, I would suggest you read a full synopsis of the plot before going to see it. Nevertheless, the artistic value and life applicability of this musical, plus its huge following and ease of referencing, make "Les Miserables" and must-see. If you are a reader, the musical is based on a very thick book of the same name (written by Victor Hugo), and the musical is just as complex as the book. From the more popular song "Castle on a Cloud", to references to prisoner 24601, "Les Miserables" is referenced in pop culture more often than many people realize. I was watching "South Park" the other day, and there were obvious references scattered through the episode "Helen Keller the Musical". I can't even imagine how awesome it would be to perform in "Les Miz", as it's called for short; I would guess the acting would be emphasized more than in the upbeat musicals.



My honorable mentions would be "Miss Saigon" for its artistry and drama, "Cats" for its clever choreography and popular showtunes, "Oklahoma" for its traditions and story, "West Side Story" for its reference recognition and popularity, "The Music Man" also for its reference recognition and popularity, "Pirates of Penzance" for its character and performing enjoyment and "A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum" also for its character and performing enjoyment.



Looking back on this list of the best theater musicals, I am struck by the variety of seriousness, appealing features, and contexts on which the musicals are based. "Wicked" is a twist on a commonly-known story made movie, "Les Miz" is based on a Victor Hugo book, and "Joseph" is based on a Bible story. On the contrary, there are musicals based on similar themes that I would argue were catastrophic failures; "Jesus Christ Superstar" was ridiculous (I know there is a huge fan base, and I apologize deeply but I just didn't get it), and "Legally Blonde" was a complete joke. It is apparent that a musical's success is very difficult to determine; there are no consistent factors that separate hits from misses. However, the few characteristics that I've used here in selecting the best musicals, general popularity, real life applicability, enjoyment of performing, recognition of references, and character of the show, may also be used to indicate a show's potential. One of the most successful Broadway musical teams was Richard Rogers and
Oscar Hammerstein. They produced some of the greatest show tunes of all time.
Songs that had audiences humming on the way out of the theater or cinema.
I saw both performances and movies of many of their output. I went to the
Broadway revivals of "Oklahoma!" (with character actress Mary Wickes as
Aunt Eller) and Yul Brynner in "The King and I" (he was dying and looked it).

And now I have special edition DVDs. But curiously, as I rescreened the
features and compared them to other musical playwrites like Lerner and Loewe
and Andrew Lloyd Webber I noticed they didn't hold up in some respects.

It would appear that in general, Rogers and Hammerstein had questionable taste
in selecting their source material. In fact their shows seemed to fall into two
categories. Plays with no story and musicals with too much plot. "Oklahoma!",
"State Fair" and "Carousel" are the near plotless musicals with "The Sound of Music"
and "South Pacific" the plot heavy shows. Very episodic with two many characters
to keep track of. "Carousel" is probably their best score but such a disturbing and depressing
downer it's hard to call it 'entertaining'. It's difficult to sympathize with a wife beater and
petty thief no matter how well he sings. I think their best musical was "The King and I" which had
just enough narrative and a limited number of characters to empathize with. Unfortunately
it didn't contain their best songs.


The show that started it all was "Oklahoma!" which opened in 1943.
It became a smash hit although it was inaccurately portrayed as the first musical
to incorportate songs into characterization. I would argue that "Show Boat" did
that in the late twenties too. Never the less, it's success made it a certainty that
it would eventually be adapated into a motion picture. But R&H were reluctant to sell
it to a studio and lose control. If you review my other posts about Michael Todd, you'll
note that he was itching to get into movie production but needed a property.
He had shot the first half of "This is Cinerama" with his son but wanted to
improve the process so that you got the peripheral illusion on the curved screen
on a single piece of film without join lines. He sold off his Cinerama stock and used
the equity to create the "Todd-AO" format which was 70mm wide film stock combined
with a 'bug eye' lens for the peripheral illusion and standard lenses for close ups without
distortion. He demonstrated it for the team and they agreed to allow "Oklahoma!" to be
the premiere picture in the process.

Unfortunately, things didn't go as planned for Todd. The director, Fred
Zinneman, seemed to have little interest in re-inventing Cinerama. Todd
made sure his format was utilized for maximum impact in the opening sequence
as the camera dollied through the corn field to reveal a spectacular vista
in "Oh What a Beautiful Morning" and in the 'you are there' shots in the
tune, "Surrey with the Fringe on Top". Thereafter he got into a fight
with Zinneman and R&H and left the project. The rest of the movie resembles
a photographed stage play with little use of the peripheral illusion. When
Todd saw how poorly the finished film demonstrated his system, he went
out and re-made parts of "This is Cinerama" as a short shown with the movie
called "The Miracle of Todd-A0" including the famous rollercoaster ride.
It must've have been disorienting for audiences to see some spectacular
simulated Cinerama in the opening and a standard stage play in the actual
feature with the exception of those two scenes. Because they didn't
have a method of reduction printing 70mm yet, they simulateously shot
the movie in 35mm CinemaScope which looked very distorted.


In the special edition DVD of "Oklahoma!" they offer both versions for
comparison along with the Todd-AO demonstration short. The CinemaScope version
looks acceptable. It's reasonably sharp but has those grainy opticals
(fades, dissolves) and the distorted CinemaScope close ups. The problem
with this set is the Todd-AO version on the other disc along with the short.
For some reason they look terrible. Very soft focus and fuzzy. I saw
the new 70mm print they made of "Oklahoma!" in 1982 in New York City
and it was so sharp and vibrant it was almost three dimensional. It needs
a major restoration and re-mastering for blu ray some day. Don't even think
of projecting that version of it on a DLP.

There are minor differences in performances and shots in the two versions.
The Todd-AO version has the spectacular opening dolly through the corn
field but poor credits with letters against a black background. The CinemaScope
version has credits superimposed over images but doesn't have that opening shot.
It's in there but at a later point in the song.

When Jud asks Laurey to go to the dance, he sounds threatening in one version
and friendly in the other which is strange too. Why would she go with him
when he sounds dangerous. There are many nuances in the performances
of the two versions.

As mentioned above, the main problem is there isn't any plot to speak of
or drama. I was waiting for a big confrontation between Curly and Jud
at the end but there isn't. Jud accidently falls on his knife and dies which
was anti-climatic. They made the same mistake in "Carousel".

The cast in the movie is a mixed bag. Gordon MacRae and Shirley Jones
have good chemistry (as they did in the later "Carousel") and excellent
voices. Rod Steiger is appropriately menacing as Jud. Gene Nelson is
a great dancer and character actors Charlotte Greenwood and James
Whitmore are fine too.

However, I found Gloria Grahame rather whiny and annoying as Ado
Annie and Barbara Lawrence really obnoxious as Gertie with that
excrutiating laugh. The worst performance is Eddie Albert as Ali Hakim.
Albert is a fine actor but he's painfully miscast here with a dreadful phony
accent. He ruins every scene he's in. You cringe when he appears
on screen.


While the ballet sequences (using a different cast) might have worked on
stage it doesn't on film. It seems like a short subject spliced into the main
feature and completely takes you out of what little narrative momentum
there was. It also takes up a huge chunk of the extended running time and is
too long as a set piece. I thought it would never end and couldn't get used
to different actors dancing the roles of Curly and Laurey while Rod Steiger
still played Jud. Very disorienting. I had the same problem with the ballet
number in "Carousel" and Uncle Tom's Cabin play within a play in "The King
and I". They seemed like padding to me.


So I recommend the CinemaScope version which has pretty good stereo sound
for the songs but not the Todd-AO version which is a terrible transfer and since
I've seen the film in 70mm I know they can do a lot better in the future. For
completely unknown reasons "The Miracle of Todd-AO" is mixed down from
6 channel to 2 channel stereo rather than adapting it to 5.1. A real sloppy
job. No excuses these days since better material exists to master from.
Depending on how much you like this musical will determine whether you want
to wait until a better blu ray version or versions are released.


In summary for the CinemaScope version: Picture quality B, sound design A, cinematography A, performances B + (to accomodate some bad supporting
players), musical numbers A, story and screenplay C.

For the Todd-AO version: Picture quality F, sound design A and the rest the same.