# Why "Oklahoma"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 7, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978 "2004-10-07T04:09:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/1 "2004-10-07T04:09:41Z")
It’s a cliche that \*Oklahoma \*was the first “modern” musical; a trope that it was the first musical in which the songs added to the plot and the characterizations; that before _Oklahoma_, musical numbers in a musical were just inserted, willy-nilly, as Musical Numbers. Now, unless I completely misunderstand what all that means, I wanna call bullshit, OK? I just watched the second movie version of _Showboat_, 1935, directed by James Whale, starring Irene Dunn. Sure, some of its songs were Musical Numbers performed by characters who were performers. But several of them were “modern” musical numbers, as I understand the distinction: songs that serve to give us insight into what a character was thinking, and that are relevant to the plot. And what about _The Singing Lieutenant_, 1931, directed by Ernst Lubitsch? All of its songs are integrated into the plot and serve to communicate relevant information about the characters. They’re also very pre-code and very racy, for that matter: “Jazz Up Your Lingerie” is a song I’d like to see Madonna cover. And howbout _Love Me Tonight_, Ruben Mamoulian, 1932? The songs were TOTALLY integrated into the plot: verses would pass from person to person as the camera followed the song around the city of Paris. Like _The Singing Lieutenant_, not a single musical number was staged as a Musical Number. So what’s with _Oklahoma_? What difference am I missing? Sure, it had a “ballet” inserted into it, but only after _The Red Shoes_ was a hit. And this was long after _On Your Toes_, 1939, “dance direction” by George Ballanchine. So seriously, enlighten me. What’s the big deal about _Oklahoma_? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/2 "2004-10-07T05:37:56Z")
The conventional wisdom, with what validity I can’t say, is that _Oklahoma_ was the first smash hit Broadway musical to use the songs-integral-to-plot convention that has become SOP since. While other shows had sporadically done it before, it was something of a hit-or-miss optional practice – but _Oklahoma_ turned it into a convention of the musical stage, to be flouted at your risk. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/3 "2004-10-07T05:56:24Z")
Hmm. Well, I’ve never seen that distinction made. I think I’m gonna add this myth to my list of myths to obnoxiously and pedantically debunk at every opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![BobT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e8cbc/32.png) [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/4 "2004-10-07T06:38:02Z")
I just looked at a bunch of articles written about “Oklahoma!” at the time it came out in 1943. Critics at the time all seemed more interested in Agnes De Mille’s choreography more so than the music, although that was held in high regard. But the critics of the day were very impressed by the dancing. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/5 "2004-10-07T06:38:34Z")
I believe that it was generally the first musical to have been written with the _sole purpose_ of fully integrating song and plot. Rodgers & Hammerstein set out to create a fully integrated musical and they were the first to do it successfully and consistently. Oh, and _Showboat_ (1936)? Writing credits: Edna Ferber (novel) **Oscar Hammerstein II (play)** It represented the intermediate stages of the idea that he had for musicals. Keep that in mind before you pull the whole obnoxious pedant routine. 😛 I haven’t seen the other films you mention, but it sounds like the musical numbers, while integrated into the plot, are not _integral_ to the plot. Could you remove them and still have a film? That is the idea behind the plays of Rodgers & Hammerstein. The songs are crucial to the advancement of the plot, and only occasionally for the purpose of fleshing out the story. Exceptions include _Kansas City_ from _Oklahoma!_, which serves to fill in the characters and storyline rather than simply advance the plot. The idea was present in an incipient but still developing stage for a while (primarily in the heads of Rodgers & Hammerstein, but present elsewhere). _Oklahoma!_ was the first major musical (and it was only written a few years after _Showboat_) to completely realize the full potential of the musical and fully implement the concept of integrated musical numbers. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/6 "2004-10-07T07:04:57Z")
I still don’t see the distinction. The songs of _Love Me Tonight_ are pretty damn integrated. In any case, it was Hammerstein’s involvement with _Showboat that set me to wondering. Although he had nothing to do with Love Me Tonight_ or _The Singing Lieutenant_, it seems pretty clear to me that he’d begun implementing those ideas much sooner than _Oklahoma_. Polycarp’s suggestion that it was only the show’s success that set it apart–though I don’t think \*Showboat \*was a flop–is the only distinction that sounds reasonable to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/7 "2004-10-07T07:16:44Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > I still don’t see the distinction. The songs of _Love Me Tonight_ are pretty damn integrated. > > In any case, it was Hammerstein’s involvement with _Showboat that set me to wondering. Although he had nothing to do with Love Me Tonight_ or _The Singing Lieutenant_, it seems pretty clear to me that he’d begun implementing those ideas much sooner than _Oklahoma_. > > Polycarp’s suggestion that it was only the show’s success that set it apart–though I don’t think \*Showboat \*was a flop–is the only distinction that sounds reasonable to me. Again, I don’t think that the idea was as fully realized in _Showboat_ as it was in _Oklahoma!_. Look at it this way: films before _Citizen Kane_ had deep focus, subjective camera, non-linear narratives, etc., but _Citizen Kane_ marked the full synthesis of those ideas. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/8 "2004-10-07T11:30:25Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Polycarp’s suggestion that it was only the show’s success that set it apart–though I don’t think \*Showboat \*was a flop–is the only distinction that sounds reasonable to me. **Showboat** was a megahit. I just read a really good series of books about the history of musicals, decade by decade, and the author (Ethan Mordden) explains why **Oklahoma!** is so important: (he’s distinuishing between musical comedies like **Anything Goes** and musical plays) > [@](#): > > …the sort of show favored in the 1940s and 1950s, the musical play based on a more or less serious antecedent usually but not necessarily from the 1920s or 1930s…the form sometimes tilts toward opera, but more often it balances book and score with the Higher Dance, featuring where possible a Dream Ballet in which dancers temorarily take over the lead actors’ roles. Originated in _Oklahoma!_,\* this genre reforms the musical, for instance in lyric writing that explores the character’s individual voices. > \*Those who see _Show Boat_ as the progenitor of the form mistake it’s epic grandeur for it’s essence. No: Most of _Show Boat_ inherets the zany frivolity of musical comedy, though revisions have been stamping out much of the fun since 1946. In an earlier volume, he dismisses **Show Boat** as the first integrated musical because it _wasn’t_. What we see nowdays is a stripped down version–the “good parts” version, to use a **Princess Bride** -ism. Almost no-one alive has seen the “real” **Show Boat** –what we’ve seen is the “Let’s make **Show Boat** more like **Oklahoma!** version” that cropped up in the mid '40s. For example, a tradition of pre R&H musicals was that you let the star do their “specialty” act–you’re a director who sees some woman who does a really spiffy bubble-dance act and so you tell the writers to write a spot for her into your new show. And so, in the middle of a zany story about a guy who must fulfill some weird condition to win his inhertance when the hero runs off, stage right after the heroine (who’s really the lost princess of Ruritania, unbeknownst to all) leaving the rest of the cast looking on. And then the specialty dancer says “Gee fellas, don’t be glum! Does anyone want to learn the new dance craze that’s sweeping the nation? Let me show it to you!” whereupon she goes into her dance while the scenery is prepared for the next act. And the public was cool with this. To paraphrase the author "The audience at the time didn’t say “Who is this woman doing the bubble-dance and what the hell does she have to do with what’s going on?”, they thought “A bubble-dance! Cool!”. There were several (IIRC) in the original **Showboat** , the one that comes right to mind is “Kim’s Imatations” where, in the end when Kim is appearing in St. Louis on stage, the actress did her specialty act of impersonations (of Bea Lillie and Ethel Barrymore to name two) while singing a reprise of “Why Do I Love You”. This scene/song has since been replaced. There’s another scene where a redneck gets so caught up in the melodrama that the Showboat players are presenting and starts shooting at the actors. The original Cap’n Andy was apparently a Danny Kaye-esque comedian and the musical left the spot open for him to take over and do whatever he wanted (since the performers fled)–usually he’d finish the melodrama, taking all the parts himself. Th’ thing with **Oklahoma!** is that _everything_ is integrated–the songs, the dialogue, no “specialty acts” and most importantly–the dancing. The dancing actually moved the story forward and that was _new_. Take out the “Laurey Makes Up Her Mind” ballet and there’s a huge gaping hole in the plot–we’d have no idea really who Laurey is or why she’s so afraid of Jud. The dream-ballet got inside her head and let us get to know her hopes and fears. By contrast, take out some of the dances in “Love Me Tonight” and you get a shorter movie–hell, take out the famous “Singin’ in the Rain” dance by Kelly from the movie and you end up with a shorter movie\*. **Oklahoma!** integrated _everything_. It may not have been 100% successful (you need the “Will gets off the train” sequence, but the “Kansas City” dance number is there because, at best, it lends atmosphere. But it’s completely cuttable from a story standpoint.) but it tried. At least Will didn’t get on stage and do, say, impersonations 'cause it was his specialty actl Fenris \*Not a _better_ movie, mind you. Don’t get me wrong–Kelly’s “Singin’” dance is one of the best ever filmed. But it doesn’t tell us anything new about the character or his situation–he’s already fallen in love with Reynold’s character and we knew that several scenes back. The dance is there because Kelly was a genius and it made sense to give every possible second of screentime for him to show off his art. In other words, it’s a specialty act. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/9 "2004-10-07T12:35:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I think I’m gonna add this myth to my list of myths to obnoxiously and pedantically debunk at every opportunity. A myth is as good as a smile. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/10 "2004-10-07T13:02:35Z")
A book came out a couple of years ago ([perhaps this one](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312239513/qid=1097153728/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2587395-4558432?v=glance&s=books)) pointing out that there were many musicals with integrated songs and plot in the 30s. You can see it onscreen in something like **Footlight Parade** or **Dames**. Granted, the story for these were not particularly sophisticated: basically, they were “Let’s put on a show!” and the songs were integrated into the plot by the expedient of making them part of the show being put on. But the plot of Oklahoma is not particularly sophisticated, either: two people fall in love. **Oklahoma!** was just one more step in the evolution of the musical during this time, but retroactively, it was pointed to as a break from the earlier traditions, since it did have all the pieces in place and was the biggest success in Broadway history until the 1960s. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/11 "2004-10-07T13:10:15Z")
I can’t do a search right now, but there was a thread about this exact same topic less than a year ago—and it was pointed out that several songs in _Oklahoma!_ (don’t forget the exclamation mark!) were plunked in there simply for the the purpose of “being cute” or giving time for scenery and costume changes—“Everything’s Up To Date in Kansas City,” for one. I think both _Oklahoma!_ and _Citizen Kane_—as good as they may have been—have become way overhyped over the decades at the expense of other films and shows just as good. ---
**Author:** ![Ponder\_Stibbons](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ponder_stibbons/32/343_2.png) [@Ponder\_Stibbons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ponder_Stibbons)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/12 "2004-10-07T13:53:18Z")
> [@C K Dexter Haven](#): > > A myth is as good as a smile. Never myth an opportunity, do you? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/13 "2004-10-07T16:22:37Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Hmm. Well, I’ve never seen that distinction made. I think I’m gonna add this myth to my list of myths to obnoxiously and pedantically debunk at every opportunity. And while you are doing that, whomever you have cornered at the party will be looking over your shoulder to find someone more fun to talk to. Seriously, getting your knickers in a twist over Oklahoma!?! When Lucas has re-redone the Han and Greedo scene in ANH?!?!!?! Come on! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/14 "2004-10-07T20:48:32Z")
> [@Ponder Stibbons](#): > > Never myth an opportunity, do you? 🙂 I think you’re mythtaken, here – but if we keep this up much longer, we’ll need to take two Asprin and call him in the morning! ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/15 "2004-10-07T21:29:01Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > I can’t do a search right now, but there was a thread about this exact same topic less than a year ago—and it was pointed out that several songs in _Oklahoma!_ (don’t forget the exclamation mark!) were plunked in there simply for the the purpose of “being cute” or giving time for scenery and costume changes—“Everything’s Up To Date in Kansas City,” for one. Nope, beg to differ. “Everything’s Up To Date In Kansas City”, at least the song part, is an important character piece–it shows us that Will has pretentions of sophistication but is, in reality, a not-very-bright hick. (“They got uh big thee-ater/they call a burley-kew” or “Yuh c’n walk t’ th’ privy in th’ rain/an’ never wet yer feet”). I can’t defend the “Hey kids, let me show you the new dance craze that’s sweeping the nation!” two-step number that follows of course, but the song itself is important and at least the song (which, I think _was_ there to give time for a scene change) had _some_ connection to the plot and the preceeding action AND it was period-appropriate. He didn’t start jitterbugging or whatever was hot in the '40s. The other thing that _Oklahoma!_ had in _every_ song that no earlier musical did was a unique “voice” for each character’s song. Look at _Anything Goes_–it had possibly the largest number of huge hit songs to ever come out of one musical. And any song (pretty much) can be sung by any character: “Anything Goes” was sung by Reno, but could just as easily have been sung by Billy or Moonface. “You’re The Top” was a Reno/Billy duet that could just as easily have been Billy/Moonface or Moonface/Reno. “Friendship” was Moonface/Reno but could have been Billy/Moonface or Reno/Hope. Contrast that to “Kansas City” which could _not_ have been sung by Curley, Laurie, Aunt Eller, Ali Hackem or Ado Annie. Ado Annie’s big number “I’m Just A Girl (Who Cain’t Say No)” was tailored specifically to her character and couldn’t have been sung by Laurie. The “second banana couple resolves their issues” song (“All Er Nothin’”) is tailored to the plot and character so tightly that it _couldn’t_ have been sung by the main couple any more than the main couple’s song (“People Will Say We’re In Love”) could have been sung by the second banana couple. Even a masterpiece like _Show Boat_ didn’t have that kind of song/character integration, as can be seen by the newer practice of having _Parthey_ sing “Why Do I Love You” to her new granddaughter. At least _some_ of the songs are interchangable between characters. That _can’t_ be said of _Oklahoma!_. Even the big choral numbers have individualized lines that are character specific. **Chuck** –couldn’t have been that particular book–itwon’t be published for at least a year (I’m eagerly awaiting it! 🙂 ). That book is the last in the series of decade-by-decade musical theater history books that I mentioned earlier and Mordden is _very_ clear (and supports his thesis) that _Oklahoma!_ was something _new_. He spends about 20 pages on it (more than any other musical in any of the other books) in the '40’s book **Beautiful Morinin’** I think **Ilsa** summed it up nicely: the individual elements may have existed before _Oklahoma!_ but the complete…gestalt…wasn’t achieved until _Oklahoma!_. And it was such a powerful change that it completely changed musicals. Again, compare _Anything Goes_ (the biggest musical comedy of the '30s) with _Annie Get Your Gun_ (the biggest musical comedy of the '50s). Even in lighthearted musical comedy of the '40s, all the songs are integrated to the plot _and_ to the characters, none of the stars get specialty acts, there aren’t dances for the sake of dances, they have to _mean_ something (the “I’m An Indian Too” dance), etc. Even revivals were “Oklahom-ized” (the aforementioned 1946 revision/revival of _Show Boat_ where the songs were integrated, the plot tightened, the specialty acts removed and much of the fun (apparently) excised. It’s very trendy right now to dismiss the import of _Oklahoma!_ but history doesn’t support it. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/16 "2004-10-07T21:43:07Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > A book came out a couple of years ago ([perhaps this one](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312239513/qid=1097153728/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2587395-4558432?v=glance&s=books)) pointing out that there were many musicals with integrated songs and plot in the 30s. You can see it onscreen in something like **Footlight Parade** or **Dames**. There are **no** integrated musical numbers in _Footlight Parade_. They are all presented as stage numbers, and do nothing to advance the plot of the movie. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/17 "2004-10-07T22:10:20Z")
As a thought, I’ve noted in a wide variety of connections lately that there’s often one point in an ongoing process or sequence at which there’s a definite transition from X-tending-toward-Y to Y-with-elements-of-X-retained. Might it be appropriate, given everything discussed up to this point, to say that the Hammersteinian integrated vision was being moved towards before Oklahoma, most of Oklahoma follows that “doctrine,” and that musicals thereafter were judged by how well they followed that “doctrine” (in addition to many other things)? In other words, it may not have been absolutely perfect in its integration of “numbers” into plot, but it was the point where the line was definitely crossed? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/18 "2004-10-07T22:37:29Z")
There was never a point where the line was permanently and irrevocably crossed. It simply evovled. Like **Eve** I remember an earlier thread, but can’t search for it. I believe the argument was whether Oklahoma! had anything more to contribute than Pal Joey, which debuted a couple of years earlier. After a bit of squabbling, the debate turned into what was a proper mix of Book Lyrics Music Dance and how tightly they had been integrated with the characters and overall storyline. I’ve never seen Pal Joey, so I don’t know how dance numbers were handled. But of course, Oklahoma! had Agnes DeMille and a ballet scene that actually drove the story. I don’t think anyone had pulled that off before. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/19 "2004-10-07T22:38:53Z")
> [@Eve](#): > > I think both _Oklahoma!_ and _Citizen Kane_—as good as they may have been—have become way overhyped over the decades at the expense of other films and shows just as good. **O._K_.?** ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978/20 "2004-10-07T22:41:46Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > In an earlier volume, he dismisses **Show Boat** as the first integrated musical because it _wasn’t_. What we see nowdays is a stripped down version–the “good parts” version, to use a **Princess Bride** -ism. Almost no-one alive has seen the “real” **Show Boat** –what we’ve seen is the “Let’s make **Show Boat** more like **Oklahoma!** version” that cropped up in the mid '40s. You’ll note that the OP was inspired by my seeing the 1935 version of _Showboat_. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-oklahoma/267978.md?page=2)