Oklahoma: The cast-of-thousands musical

In fact, Oklahoma! is a tad unusual when it comes to its cast of thousands; it was one of the first musicals to start with a solo rather than a big number: "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" (and here's Gordon MacRae to make your bones melt).

However, the musical does produce a number of rousing, multi-person dance and song numbers.

Oklahoma! was the first Rodgers & Hammerstein musical and the first musical on this list that was made for stage before being transferred to film. It is being reviewed separately from next week's musicals (which will tackle more R&H plus Lerner & Loewe musicals). Starring Hugh Jackman and directed by Trevor Nunn, the 1998 revival of Oklahoma! was produced for London's National Theatre. Consequently, it is indicative more of the legacy of the stage musical than of the definitive Rodgers & Hammerstein/Lerner & Loewe approach.

MIKE SAYS Oy.  I'm not gonna lie; watching this film was torturous.  It was three, long, arduous hours of  musical numbers, painfully slow pacing, and an impressive set that was boring and well-known by the end of the play.

This was my first experience with Oklahoma!, I've never seen any of the other versions, though I am fairly familiar with the music.  In fact, for me, that may be more of a testament to a musical's impact than my personal enjoyment. Rather, the measure of success is to what level the musical numbers have permeated the our culture.  I may not give a hoot about Jud and all the other whooping and hollering folk in the play, but I've been known to sing a few bars of "Oh, What a Beautiful Morning" in the shower from time to time.

The power of musicals is impressive for this very reason.  I've never seen Oklahoma! before, nor did I end up really enjoying it a great deal, yet the music of the play is well known to me despite all this.  While the play may not have appealed to me personally, obviously it has impacted and influenced many people to the point that I've heard the music enough to know whole sections by heart.

I worked at a comic shop many years ago, and one of the things I loved was being around people that truly knew and understood the things I cared about.  More often than I would like to admit, a member of our group might start speaking a few opening lines to a song (often from a musical), only to have someone else respond, also speaking, with the next line, and this would continue until the whole shop had erupted into song and laughter.

Musicals, as a genre, bind people together in a way normal films don't; the music allows for people to share and relive moments that they enjoyed.

While I may not have enjoyed this play very much (and I may have nightmares from the disturbing portrayal of the farm hand), it was fun to hear the origin of music I've known my whole life.  If I was pushed, however, I suppose I could come up with at least one positive thing to say about the film: I did appreciate the quick resolution of the trial.  When the farm hand died, I rolled my eyes, expecting another 45 minutes or so of drama and crying song as the lovers were divided by jail.  It was nice to have a fast and happy resolution to the whole affair.  While Broadway isn't normally very forgiving, it was nice to see one of the exceptions . . . even if it was painful to sit through.

KATE SAYS unlike Singin' in the Rain, Oklahoma! was made for the stage; the numbers--more than the plot or the dialog--are the production's purpose. In fact, even by musical standards, Oklahoma!'s plot is about a teaspoon's worth of dialog to a barrel-full of music and dance. Unlike with Singin', there's a definite "now, it's time for a song" feeling; rather than move the plot forward, the songs instead comment on the action.

I quite like the Hugh Jackman/Trevor Nunn version, however, since even the songs are accompanied by subtle facial expressions and gestures that provide more information about the characters. Although "Pore Jud is Daid" is often played for laughs, Nunn's version carries a dark edge, mostly due to Shuler Hensley's disturbed portrayal of Jud and partly due to Hugh Jackman's interpretation of Curly. Curly is bewildered, disgusted, appalled, and frightened by Jud; his reactions go a long way towards explaining Laurey's terror.

In fact, this is one of the few versions of a 1940/50s musical where I don't mind the obligatory ballet number (Laurey's dream), partly because the sequence is so beautifully blocked and mostly because Nunn used the actual actors (in some versions, the dream Laurey, Curly, and Jud are different actors, who can dance ballet; Nunn used a far more stylized dance style which doesn't wear out the principal actors!).


I also prefer Nunn's image of Curly and Laurey. Gordon MacRae has a drip-like-honey stunning voice, but his Curly is so darn clean-cut and wholesome. Likewise, Shirley Jones looks like she just stepped out of Martha Stewart's magazine. In contrast, Hugh Jackman and Josefina Gabrielle come across as a  real, everyday, working-the-prairie couple, hardy enough to survive any changes that the new century will throw at them.

In fact, although Nunn's revival was later produced on Broadway, Jackman was replaced, and eh, I can't see it. The London revival is impressively dependent on the give and take between Jackman and Gabrielle: they give "People Will Say We're in Love" an adorable twist by teasing each other while also demonstrating friendliness and intense attraction.

So I greatly prefer the 1998 version to other, especially older, versions; still, I have to admit that Rodgers & Hammerstein probably did not anticipate the underlying sociopathic/Criminal Minds quality of Nunn's revival. Maybe that's why I like the 1998 version so much: I just love crime drama!