by Sam Juliano
It is arguably the most beloved film ever made in this country. It was based on one of the most venerated children’s stories ever written. It launched the career of the greatest female thespian to ever appear in a musical film, and it remains the one film she is most reverentially identified with. The movie’s celebrated score is woven into our popular culture, and it’s unforgettable screenplay has produced lines of dialogue that are ingrained into the consciousness of anyone and everyone who has watched the film countless times, and have come to value it’s themes of home, family and friendship as cinematically conclusive. The film’s most coveted song is probably the most popular number ever written during the twentieth century, and has been covered time and again by renowned artists. The story of it’s changing directors and cast auditions remain as fascinating to movie lovers as anything else about the film, and more has been written on the making of the picture than any other in history. The story of the little people who appear early in the film in one of it’s most celebrated sequences, remains a stand alone curiosity for many to this very day, with the old age passings of this unique fraternity a major news item. Every supporting member of the film’s distinguished cast will eternally be remembered firstly for the role they played in this film, even with exceptional careers to their credit. No film has been more referenced in other movies, and the final black-and-white sequence set in the bedroom of a Kansas farmhouse may well be the most emotionally moving scene in the history of American cinema. With the advent of home video in the late 70′s the film became an incomparable favorite, and to this day has been released more often on the many video formats up to a recently-released blu-ray box set. The smash Broadway hit Wicked is hugely indepted to the 1939 film. While it has come to represent homespun family values and the most vivid realization of one’s dreams, The Wizard of Oz is imbued with humor and humanity, two qualities that more than any other have contributed to it’s enduring, even spectacular appeal over decades all around the world. Much like the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the day astronauts first stepped foot on the moon, many Americans will never forget the day, the month and the year they first remembered watching the film, and in whose company they were with. Just two years ago, the seventieth anniversary of the film’s opening was celebrated to national fan-fare, with the original city of it’s first appearance being honored – Oconomwoc, Wisconsin.
For baby-boomers like myself The Wizard of Oz first took hold during the famous run of CBS holiday showings, which initially were offered around Easter time in the 60′s and early 70′s. In those exceedingly impressionable days watching The Wizard of Oz was the highlight of my week, month and year. It was a time when I was frightened by the wicked witch, the haunted castle and the winged monkeys, was reassured by the dismissals of the good witch Glinda, and was intrigued by the bizarre appearance of the Munchkins, whom had me asking question after question about. When Toto escaped over the draw bridge, when Glinda provided a snow panacea for the poppies that felled our beloved brood, when the tin man used his axe to help free Dorothy from her prison and drop a chandelier on her persuers, when the witch -made of sugar- is destroyed by a bucket of water, and when Toto unmasks the well intentioned but weak-willed charletan, by pulling open a curtain, I was exhilarated and relieved, even though I knew what would happen. Like so many other kids I took an immediate liking to the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion, all who added to the security of our young heroin, who was in this seemingly unsolvable dilemma from the beginning. I always shed tears -even to this very day in fact- when the Cowardly Lion wrenchingly tells Dorothy that although she is stranded on Oz, he and the others didn’t want her to go anyway. And the final scene is a sure-firer tear-jerker, broaching the concepts of home, love of family and the idea that happiness can be realized within your own borders.
The Wizard of Oz represented for many the technological advancement that brought color into many homes at a time when black and white televisions were the only real option for working class families. Discussion in grammar school playgrounds invariably reached the point where some kids bragged to others that they saw most of the film in color, with of course only the sepia-toned bookends standing apart for obvious intrinsic reasons connected to the storytelling. My wife Lucille recalls a close friend excitedly relating to her that “the witch was green!” and that “Munchkinland was as beautiful a place as anywhere she had ever seen.” More than any other single reason The Wizard of Oz can be credited with causing many to take the plunge and bring the wonderful world of Zenith and Magnavox into their living rooms. After-viewing quizzes though often brought conflicting reports of the colors of certain objects and clothes items, due to the non-conformity of different color tubes at a time when the changeover was in it’s earliest stages. The biggest compliment and validation of The Wizard of Oz’s hold on film (and television) watchers was that it was the main barometer of color control, and the example to be used against all others.
There has been so many documentaries, and volumes written on the film, that anyone taking up a new discussion will be fearful of repetition. Suffice to say that The Wizard of Oz was a huge hit from the very beginning. Reviews were almost unanimous in their praise of the film and all its components, and it was one of the top-grossing films of that golden year of movies, 1939, though surprisingly, it didn’t initially make a profit–mainly because the majority of tickets sold were children’s admissions that asked for only a nickel or a dime. In addition, the usually lucrative foreign market was undermined when war broke out in Europe. Of course subsequent releases and television sales earned MGM a tidy sum, and as broached earlier the videotape, laserdisc and DVD sales have generated one of the most profitable returns ever in that department.
Any attempt to frame The Wizard of Oz in any capacity, artistic or otherwise, must surely include at least an outline of it’s famed production. This was a true product of the studio system (in this instance MGM at the peak of its influence and powers) and a melting pot of creative ingedients. We all know from ample accounts about “Over the Rainbow” being cut three times during advance screenings and how Arthur Freed fought tenaciously to have it restored. We’ve read that Buddy Ebsen’s poisoning from the Tin Woodsman’s makeup forced him to drop out of the film. We are well aware of the revolving door of directors that included Victor Fleming, Richard Thorpe, George Cukor and King Vidor. Well documented too, are the seemingly endless teams of screenwriters who took their turns at the script. And few aren’t aware that Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin were considered for the role of Dorothy, W.C. Fields and Ed Wynn for the Wizard, and Gale Sondergaard for the Wicked Witch. Arthur Freed, who was depending on the film to help him land a full-time producing role at MGM was looking for the ideal, even perfect cast and creative team to make The Wizard of Oz an instant screen classic. Stories relate that in 1937, while he was checking out the latest new releases on Broadway, Freed attended a musical called Hooray for What! starring Ed Wynn. When he heard the song “In the Shade of the New Apple Tree” by Harold Arlen and E. Y. Harburg, he sensed he had found the perfect songwriting team. He really wanted Ed Wynn to play the title role, but the star demanded too much money. Freed continued his full-court press with Louis B. Mayer to be given the green light to make the movie, but initially the studio head and other top brass couldn’t envision a fantasy film making money. Purportedly what finally gave Freed clearance was the huge success of Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1938. That film convinced the bigwigs that fantasy could indeed make money, and could attract an audience of adults as well as children.
Further complications set in. Samuel Goldwyn owned the rights to the Oz stories, which he thought might make a good vehicle for Eddie Cantor (as the Tin Man). Twentieth-Century-Fox, also noting the success of Snow White, joined the hunt, envisioning the property as a perfect opportunity for Shirley Temple. MGM, however,unsurprisingly won the bidding war, paying Goldwyn $75,000 for the rights. Mayer then showed cold feet with Freed, who he felt was untested to produce Oz, and instead inked Mervyn LeRoy, who boasted many directorial credits, but few as producer. Freed was still signed on in a vital role as LeRoy’s associate. Although the picture had been Freed’s idea in the first place and he oversaw the casting and the musical aspects of the film, LeRoy took complete credit, especially after the film was a critical success. For the role of Dorothy, Freed had Judy Garland in mind from the very start. Metro had signed the youngster but didn’t know exactly what to do with her. She had connected with audiences when she sang “Dear Mr. Gable,” Roger Edens’s introduction to “You Made Me Love You” in Broadway Melody of 1938, so Freed had been assigned to find Garland’s next property and make her a star. He immediately thought of The Wizard of Oz. With a score, cast, and script in place, the grueling but professional work followed. MGM had to create new forms of makeup for the Cowardly Lion, Flying Monkeys, Tin Man, Scarecrow, and assorted witches and Munchkins. As one would expect at this early time in the use of color, endless Technicolor tests had to be performed. The performers, burdened by their heavy costumes and makeup, were purportedly wilting under the extraordinarily hot lights. For a film with so many chefs making the soup, it’s remarkable how everything melded together artistically with hardly a mistep. It could be argued that the witch’s flying monkeys were too sinister and grotesque for this film, but even that judgement is borderline.
The Oz phenomenon began at the turn of the century when Lyman (L.) Frank Baum was busy entertaining children at his Chicago home with stories he had written. According to family legend, one young girl asked the writer where the characters might have lived, and Baum glanced around the room and saw filing cabinets with the letters “A-N” and “O-Z.” And so the fantastical home of Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion was born. Eventually the success of the story convinced Baum to transfer it to the musical stage. It morphed into a comic opera and a vaudeville work, and finally wound up on Broadway. After Baum passed on in 1919, a young female writer was assigned to continue writing follow-up adventures of the same characters and settings. Oz was poised to be picked up by film producers, and Freed was the first to express serious interest.
Among Freed’s first choice to compose the music for Oz was Jerome Kern, possibly in partnership with lyricist Dorothy Fields or Ira Gershwin. Freed reportedly idolized Kern, whose 1927 Show Boat (written with Oscar Hammerstein II) was regarded as the first major musical where the songs were integrated into the story. This was precisely what Freed was after for his new film. But Kern was recovering from a heart attack and mild stroke in early 1938, and though working again, he didn’t feel strong enough to consider an assignment as complex as Oz. After some false reports that included Mack Gordon and Harry Revel (who had completed some scores for Shirley Temple pictures) it was announced that Harold Arlen and E.Y. “Yip” Harburg would compose the score, largely as a result of Freed’s being impressed with their whimsical and sprightly Broadway songs from several preceding seasons. The composers’ first number was “The Jitterbug” the most famous song not to make the final cut of the film. Entire essays and treatments have covered this song and it’s failute to end up in The Wizard of Oz. The Arlen/Harburg “Jitterbug” was a unique, pink-and-blue, mosquito-like insect whose bite gave one the “jitters” and, as such, caused a wild dance. The idea is thought to have derived from the swarm of bees sent by the Wicked Witch to attack Dorothy and her friends during their trip through the Winkie Country in the Oz book. The finished song was accompanied by a persistent mosquito-like whine. Despite vehement protests by Harburg, the song became a cutting-floor casuality in the end, and was thought to be the least important Arlen/Harburg number in adavancing the plot. By that point the film was considered to be too long. The lyrics to this cut song are as follows:
DOROTHY: Did you just hear what I just heard?
SCARECROW: That noise didn’t come from an ordinary bird
DOROTHY: It may be just a cricket or a critter in the trees
TINMAN: It’s giving me the jitters in the joints around my knees
LION: I think I see a shadow and it’s fuzzy and it’s furry
SCARECROW: I havn’t got a brain but I think I ought to worry
TIMAN: I havn’t got a heart but I feel a palpatation
Lion: As monarch of the forest I don’t like the situation
DOROTHY: Are you gonna stand around and let them fill us full of horror? (to lion)
Lion: I’d like to roar them down… But I think I lost my roarer
SCARECROW: It’s a whosis!
LION: It’s a whosis?
TINMAN: It’s a whatsits!
LION: It’s a whatsits?
SCARECROW: Who’s that?
TINMAN: Who’s there?
LION: Who’s where?
LION/TINMAN/SCARECROW: Beware!!!
DOROTHY: Who’s that hiding in the tree tops?
It’s that rascal
The jitterbug!
Should you catch him
buzzing ’round you?
Keep away from
The jitterbug!
Oh the bees in the breeze and the bats in the trees
Have a terrible, horrible buzz
But the bees in the breeze and the bats in the trees
Couldn’t do what the jitter bug does.
So just be careful of that rascal
keep away from
The Jitterbug!
The Jitterbug!
The triumverate theme “If I Only Had a Brain/a Heart/the Nerve,” for which Harburg simply wrote new lyrics to one of their old songs, was dropped from Hooray for What! released the year before. These songs in tandem represent the Arlen/Harburg musical style, which uses a bouncy, infectious main stanza that allows (in the film) for some dancing and some irresitible effects like the Tin Man tooting his top. It only takes the refrain from the Scarecrow’s segment to ensure immersion with the other characters in the encores. The combination of wry humor and a deep sense of humanity propel each character segue. The most lyrically complex structure in the score is undoutably the multi-section Munchkionland sequence, which is six minutes of song, dance and rhymed dialogue. It could well be divided into eight sections:
1) Come Out, Come Out Wherever You Are - Glinda and the Muchkins
2) It Really Was No Miracle - Dorothy and the Munchkins
3) patter/general greeting and tribute – Munchkins and Glinda
4) Reprise: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead – The Munchkins
5) patter/Munchkin Mayor, City Fathers, and Coroner
6) Reprise: Ding! Dong! The Witch is Dead – Munchkins
7) The Lullaby League/The Lollipop Guild/The Mother Goose Club – Munchkins
8) We Welcome You to Munchkinland – Munchkins
Harburg’s lyrics for this confection are marvelous, especially the report of the witch’s death by the coroner, the dances by the ballet-like Lullaby League girls and the Cagneyish Lollipop Guild members, or the welcome to Munchinland coda, where the little people tell Dorothy: “You”ll be hist, you’ll be hist, you’ll be HISTORY,” or “You’ll be a bust -be a bust -be a bust in the Hall of Fame!” Again it’s the humanity that is woven into these strange people, and the human qualities and aspects that define their own existence in this faraway place that validates it to a dreaming teenager looking for a kind of elusive happiness. The humor mainly derives from the undersized people speaking in deep voiced rhyming couplets, with seriousness that borders on parody, but it’s Harburg’s witticisms that ring most compellingly.
It is said that finding a ballad melody for “Over the Rainbow” gave Arlen more trouble than anything else in the score, and all things considered it’s no wonder. He needed a song that could bridge the transition between Kansas and Oz. The inspiration came suddenly as he was riding in a car with his wife, and he quickly pulled over and jotted down the phrases. The song wasn’t entirely accepted by the composers until it won extreme praise from Ira Gershwin. The story of it’s near elimination from the score has always astounded critics and audiences, insomuch as it is always identified as one of the film’s most beautiful and thematically relevent sequences. Garland’s name will eternally be attached to the song, no matter how many times it is covered, and her singing of it is a vocal landmark.
Four other songs, “We’re Off to See the Wizard,” “If I Were King of the Forest,” “The Merry Old Land of Oz,” and “Optimistic Voices” (the latter’s lyrics include ‘you’re out of the woods, you’re out of the dark, you’re out of the night…’) are spirited, cleverly-written and suffused with Arlen’s gift for melody. The first is a kind of anthem for this fantasy picture after “Over the Rainbow.”
Frank Morgan’s casting as the Wizard yielded a bumbling con man who as most people would expect is making a dire statement on the insincerity of such charletans. But the charactor’s humanity was evident throughout, in addition to the Professor Marvel bookends, where the character’s concern was evident in his being agreeable when Toto ate the hot dog, and in checking by the farm after the tornado. Morgan was also a hoot in his multiple roles that include a turn as Emerald City’s horse driver and an attendant at the entrance door to the Wizard’s grandiose meeting hall. Margaret Hamilton, admitting at a young age that she would never have good looks, effectively negotiated one of the greatest of screen villains (her Miss Gulch was no less menacing) with a splendid high-pitched voice and the proper facial features. She is most frightening in the last scenes at the castle, when she decides to do away with Dorothy and her friends one by one. Ray Bolger, who won the role after remarkable resilience, is a bundle of joy in every sense; Jack Haley as the Tin Man is the quintessential sweetheart, and Bert Lahr’s Cowardly Lion is a charismatic personality that brings a gruffy vaudeville shtick to his delightful lines. His one solo, the aforementioned “If I Were King of the Forest” is enthralling and a complete delight. In smaller roles, Clara Blandick as Auntie Em, and Charley Grapewin as Uncle Henry are typical but deeply loving small town farmers who desire the uncomplicated life. As the good witch Glinda, Billie Burke is gleefully disarming in her unfazed dismissals of the wicked witch of the west with her confident declarations that her adversary is powerless.
As far as Judy Garland’s performance, it is of course the stuff that legends are built on. She received a special Oscar, but she deserved at least a nomination for the real thing in a year where Vivien Leigh triumphed for one of the greatest of all performances. She possesses the naivite, vulnerability and firmness of purpose. She breaks your heart in the film’s famous conclusion when she promises to look for love and happiness no further than her own back yard. Garland’s wide-eyed frantic delivery would break the most callous of hearts, yet it’s message speaks to the universal reckoning of home and the realization that love is within the person and can never be attained by misguided feelings or yearnings. The Wizard of Oz will speak to people for the entire run of mankind, and it’s message is attainable in any culture, at any time, in any place where the family dynamic is revered.
How The Wizard of Oz made the ‘Elite 70′:
Sam Juliano’s No. 2 choice
Pat Perry’s No. 4 choice
Marilyn Ferdinand’s No. 4 choice
Dennis Polifroni’s No. 6 choice
Judy Geater’s No. 7 choice
Greg Ferrara’s No. 11 choice
Allan Fish’s No. 16 choice
Sam, the complete post on a film so much has been written about and which is so familiar to just about everyone. It was the first musical many of us ever watched–and watched and watched–on those holiday specials on television you refer to. “Over the Rainbow” became not only Judy’s theme song, but an anthem for all youngsters who feel alone and different but whose youthful hopes allow them to have dreams that lead them on a fantasy adventure, only to realize in the end that things might not be as bleak as they thought. By the time its pyschedelic fantasy elements and Technicolor look turned it into an object of cinematic fetish during the seventies, it had entered into the movie collective unconscious. It’s hard to be objective about a film which has so thoroughly become a part of cultural mythology. I’m glad you didn’t try too hard to, but wrote about the film from a personal perspective overflowing with fondness and wonder. Still, I enjoyed hearing the factual stuff. When you say that with so many cooks in the kitchen, it’s a wonder the film ended up with such unity of feeling and style. I guess that’s partly because of the machine-tooled approach of MGM, where every department did its own special thing and was used to working as part of a team. But the universal appeal of the the story must also be responsible for this unity. I think everyone involved must have perceived the spirit behind the story and tried to stay true to it. I think you identified the essence of that spirit when you said that everything in the movie flows from its humor and humanity.
R.D. – This is a beautifully stated comment you wrote here, especially the part below.
“an anthem for all youngsters who feel alone and different but whose youthful hopes allow them to have dreams that lead them on a fantasy adventure, only to realize in the end that things might not be as bleak as they thought. By the time its pyschedelic fantasy elements and Technicolor look turned it into an object of cinematic fetish during the seventies, it had entered into the movie collective unconscious.”
Mr R.D., I will go a step further on your comments on Somewhere Over the Rainbow. It’s not just a song for youngsters who feel alone and or different. It’s for everyone no matter how you feel. My 1 and 3 year old daughters love the song, and they don’t really have a concept yet of “alone” or “different”. This song is just pure inspiration and emotion. Everyone can connect to it.
I guess this song is the most famous one ever sung in any movie, more than even “When You Wish Upon A Star”. It is one that seems to thrive, as it speaks to everyone in a way that few songs do. No wonder Arlen (as you relate) had such a difficult time crafting the melody.
RD—
This is yet another is your long line of stupendous comments entered at this site throughout this three month countdown. You have been absolutely invaluable, and in every sense your comments are as accomplished as all the essays you consider. It has been a pleasure to have you aboard, and I simply can’t thank you enough for all you have done. I love your discussion here of “Over the Rainbow,” the cultural phenomenon that defies rational analysis, the spirit, the universal appeal, MGM’s clout, the cultural mythology, and especially the acute framing of the film’s special blend of humor and humanity.
Many thanks my friend!
Sensational. After putting creative “new” spins on essays for OLIVER! and SHOWBOAT, Sam has stepped back and delivered a traditional review that covers, in one sweeping bundle, more insight and detail on the creation of, probably, the most seen film in all of cinema. The economy of this piece is astounding but never let’s an element of the film creation take short shrift. Myself, I’ve loved this film as one of my 10 favorites ever since that fateful Easter Sunday in 1971 on an old black and white RCA with aluminum foil wrapped around the aerial antennae. The music, sets, performers all stay in my memory from that day and Margaret Hamilton rendered herself unforgettable with her run for the prize as the greatest screen villian in cinema history. If there really is an example of true magic in this world, the this film surely is it…
Dennis—
Thanks exceedingly for the extremely kind words and the brilliant capsule assessment of cinema’s most beloved film. Your personal anecdotes are deeply appreciated, as are your individual appraisals of Margaret Hamilton and the film’s allure.
Thank you ten times over!
On another note… As I grew older and aquainted myself more and more with this film and its story, the logic of my age and thinking started making me look at the metaphors and details that lie beneath the surface. One can see it as a metaphor for the simplicity of conservatism. Some can say its nothing more than just a good yarn well told. However, as the sick and demented person I am, I always wondered about something else… If it really was all nothing but a dream induced by the crack to Dorothy’s head, then what would make us think that Miss Gultch wouldn’t be back the very next day to kill that fucking dog?????? LOL? Just sayin’…
Yes, yes, yes Dennis. Another buffo comment with some thought-provoking insights! Many thanks!
Great review Sam! As a kid I only saw it in b&w on TV, and it was only when I bought the VHS release in the mid 80s for my kids did I realise what I had missed. My kids were enthralled and wore the tape out, along with their copies of Duck Soup, and The Three Cabelleros. There is a universality here rarely matched, and it comes from a celebration of the richness of modest lives lived with decency and sincerity, and the joyful imaginings of childhood we can only treasure when we are adults.
Tony, I have long known of your fondness for this film, dating back to shortly after we met in comment threads and during the 1930′s polling at WitD, when the film finished No. 1. That is quite a curiosity there that you had never realized that the film was in color, but to be perfectly honest at one point in my early childhood I thought the same. I know family friends who bought color televisions just to watch this film!! That is a deeply moving assessment of childhood and the universality of this film that really enriches the literature and this thread. Magnificent!
Many thanks too for the kind words my very good friend!
I remember the annual holiday showings on TV like it was yesterday. While I have not watched this film in many years, it remains entrenched in my mind as a holiday and family treat. Garland in a career making role, the songs remain filed in everyone’s memory catalog. OVER THE RAINBOW is just breathtaking, even as a kid you are impressed, though you probably hummed OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD more often, annoying your mother to no end, at least I did! Margaret Hamilton’s wicked witch was as scary as a horror movie and those munchkins were pretty freaky too. Back in those days the film was of course broadcast in B&W so the spectacular color production was negated which may have been a good thing since the entire experience is almost like an LSD trip for young kids and it was for some later on when that generation grew up.
Your fond memories, which I imagine you relieved every time you watched with each of your kids as they discovered it for the first time, are priceless I’m sure and, to an extent, can be related to by just about everyone who has ever seen this film as a child for the first time. Beautifully done, Sam, Bravo!
John–
This is truly loving evocation of the most venerated American movie, and it’s imbued with the personal angle that always makes your comments a special treat. What you say about OVER THE RAINBOW is dead on, and I can vouch for what you say about WE’RE OFF TO SEE THE WIZARD. So true about Hamilton having a horror film capacity for fright, and about the film having a central role in our upbringing. It is loved and beloved by people all around the world, and it’s no accident. Thanks for the memories and the exceedingly kind words my friend!
I haven’t seen this for a very long time but, Sam, you have written a review full of interesting background information and, as always, plenty of heart. When you write about a film you love, it makes me wonder how I could ever not love it myself!
I think I know what’s coming at number 1. If I’m right, I’m glad as it would be my number 1 too.
That is a glowing compliment Stephen, one that is deeply appreciated.
No doubt you do have the #1 film figured and it’s one that has many legions of supporters in the musical ranks. We have both John Greco and Dennis Polifroni on board for review of it tomorrow!
Thanks again my friend!
“The Wizard of Oz will speak to people for the entire run of mankind, and it’s message is attainable in any culture, at any time, in any place where the family dynamic is revered.”
Absolutely Sam and a fine essay on a film that is really hard to write about with so much already said by others.
A favorite film is something that continues to evolve. Right now it’s The Third Man, but at times it has been others. The Wizard of Oz, though, has always been right there. If a film’s greatness could be measured in how many lives it touches, then there is no greater film than The Wizard of Oz. No other film in history has reached as many people of all ages across as many generations as this film. We all see this film at young ages and are shaped and molded by the archetypal characters, setting, and songs. Dorothy’s journey captures a wonderful trascendance that everyone can relate to. One which allows her to grow, gain leadership, loyalty, lasting friendship and life lessons. This is something that never will go out of style. In my opinion, this film is the only one on this entire countdown that transcends the Musical genre. I think all the other films are thought of as great musicals and in many cases, great films. When I think of The Wizard of Oz, it just IS. It has BEING. It is SET APART. This is not to say it’s not a great musical. On the contrary, the music is burned into our subconcious unlike any other film. However, it seems to float above categorization or cataloguing of any kind. It is simply magical. I think it stands apart from objective criticism as well. One cannot view this film without the prism of life reflecting the images and feelings through a filter and arriving at who you are. It is elemental, genetic. This film is more like an essential nutrient that the body needs to survive. It must be consumed every so often, or the body and soul begins to languish. We must return to it. We need to return to it.
My two daughters are already obsessed with the idea of it. They have not even seen the film, but they’ve seen pictures, costumes, heard songs on Youtube and are drawn to it compulsively. They will watch it in the next year or so and will begin the connection for themselves.
If I was to become aware of the hour of my death, I would not wish to be spending my last moments watching a movie, but rather spend my remaining hours and minutes with the people I love. But, this would be the one film that I would be compelled to see as the last film I watched in life. It has been beside me this whole time and it would be a friend that I would want to say goodbye to.
I should caveat this by saying I think Snow White and Pinocchio also transends the Musical genre.
Jon–
This is a towering comment, and joined with a day of comments you have made a magnificent case for the film. You know I am with you on this lock, stock and barrel, and will always and have always gone to the mat for the film.
Heck just last night as I was rushing to get this review written (and to be honest it is a very ordinary and modest piece, partially out of necessity and also because I just couldn’t quite nail it–your piece on SWING TIME, Marilyn’s on WEST SIDE STORY, Tony’s on GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 and Judy’s on MEET ME ON ST. LOUIS were the real masterpiece essays) I actually sat down with teh kids to watch it yet again. The tears flowed in the final scene unavoidably, but the enchantment washed over us in no uncertain terms.
Everything you say here is to be cherished. Many thanks!
Thanks Sam for the endless support!
Someone once asked me whether it’s possible to loathe a ***** classic. I said “yes, I loathe The Wizard of Oz.” It’s technically extremely well made, a film which could be seen as a poster film for Pleasantville, and I find its ideology as abhorrent as Triumph of the Will…coincidentally another ***** masterpiece I loathe.
If I might paraphrase Tiny Tim, “God help us…everyone!”
Oh please Allan this is very sad indeed. You should at least appreciate the Witch. She seems right up your alley!
Nope, though she is the only ray of light.
Haha! I figured as such. Why would you even want to spend time loathing such a film? Care to explain how you ever came to such a state Mr. Allen?
A certain irony Allan in your invoking the late Tiny Tim. His version of Somewhere Over the Rainbow is sublime and certainly a homage. Btw, I fail to see any ideological subtext, unless a deep humanity is deemed so. That the reality of America is really wicked witch territory hardly negates the truth to which the film aspires.
Allan Fish is one sad sack of a human being.
No doubt the fact that everyone likes this film alienates him from it. But yet he rates it five stars. Something is missing in this picture, but I think I’ll say no more.
Peter, are you surprised at what Allan says? Did you expect anything else?
While Allan undoubtedly rags on this film because everyone else loves it, perhaps there is also another more factual side to his ire. The fact that everyone on this thread holds the film in such high regards due mostly to childhood nostalgia is somewhat of a skeptical proposition. The way children see the world is fantasy and a cocoon of lies usually developed by parents (if you happen to have the right ones). When we grow up, we end up seeing people and our surroundings for what they really are. Only a population with spectacular blinders on still buys into the message of Oz as truth. Sure you can love the film to some degree for its technical marvels and also for those warm memories of your youth, but shouldn’t adults become somewhat wary to the sugary myths that Oz fosters on a willingly blind public? What does it say about grown ups who gush over such content like they have developed a case of Peter Panism. The movie is great technically, and I can still enjoy it today up to a point… but it is a whimsical con job that pulls the wool over the eyes of people still buying into a world that never existed.
And as a complement to my statement under Tony’s comments I must disagree with this: “The way children see the world is fantasy and a cocoon of lies usually developed by parents (if you happen to have the right ones). When we grow up, we end up seeing people and our surroundings for what they really are. ” I think adults live more in a world of illusion than children in some regards. Yes, in a way it’s quite notable how at a certain point our dreams can get dashed, the mysteries of adult life can evaporate like morning mists, leaving a more mundane reality. Yet in other ways children are more observant and “awake” than adults – more attuned to the terrors of existence, more aware of how strange and unique human behavior is, instead of taking it for granted as “the way things are”. The world of a child is often more unstable, chaotic, raw (even when the child grows up with the “right” parents) than that of most adults, unless the adult is a drug addict or mentally ill.
Sometimes I view the transition from childhood to adulthood less as a progression than a sidestep. Really, I think it is a progression of sorts, but it’s also a step back. It’s a stage we must go through to attain a higher reality, a more awakened consciousness.
Also there’s an irony to your statement “we end up seeing people and our surroundings for what they really are.” Isn’t that what the film is all about? Dorothy drawing the curtain on the wizard? I mean, jeez, talk about cognitive dissonance.
Maurizio – The proposition was to adapt a children’s book for the screen. If that film fills children with the kind of unanimous approval Oz does, why must it be judged by adult standards? Honestly, it really gets my goat how a child’s perspective is so ridiculed and made less important than an adults. I don’t think Oz is sugar-coated; rather, it helps Dorothy realize that she really didn’t want to run away from home herself and only did it to save Toto.
You missed the central point of my comment Marilyn. I have no problems with kids who love Oz. As a child I was obsessed with it.
Maurizio – I don’t think I missed the point at all. You don’t think its universal acclaim by children is good enough to make it a superior film, and that even as adults we recognize how wonderful the production design, costuming, music, and casting was. What are the quibbles then? That it’s too sweet? Not a problem in a film of this type, not that I can see.
Yeah I agree with Marilyn regarding the perspective on this film. Further, I think this film is rather lacking in sugar with many dark elements compared to many others on this countdown. To discredit the appreciation that one has as a child is rather pessimistic and just plain strange. Also, “A willingly blind public”? What is that referring to? What are you saying the film is putting over on us all? WTF are you saying when you say Con Job? I’m offended by these statements. I really am.
My only point I make, is as adults looking at this film, I don’t think you can honestly view a film objectively if you’ve seen it at such a young age, no matter what the film is. Can you honestly take a critical stance against the film if you’re so emotionally connected from a young age? My answer is no, but this is the greater question we should be asking ourselves. As for all this stuff about the film being a con-job, I don’t buy it at all.
There is a problem with seeing the world like this though, and wistfully embracing it as an adult. It’s not how the world is, nor should we personally submerge into escapism. If we can submerge, it’s just because we are in a class that safely can– a place many cannot. Many that need the help of those with the free time that can.
As such, it’s why I can sum up all my stances on art with one sentence (and it pertains to this iconic film): ‘Give me Kansas over Oz’. If we, as a culture more accurately reflected on reality, and what we wanted out of it, many ills would we more progressively worked toward to be broken down or cured. That’s the central conservatism of this film: creating a slack jaw populace that wants to be entertained when hard work needs to be done. It’s (one of) the ultimate status-quo defending films. As such, it can go fuck itself.
This doesn’t make me a ‘sad sack’, ‘cynical’ or any such glib populist adjective, if makes me a deep down depressive optimist. There is a world, that’s real, that is worth fighting for, and being sidetracked by entertainment as fantasy is, nothing but a sidetrack that many downtrodden can no longer wait for. It’s the difference of being a Liberal and a liberal.
Jamie – That’s a very sad stance to take and one that really doesn’t track with what the movie is saying. If you honestly think that people are using Oz to escape from reality 24/7, then you must think we’re all candidates for institutionalization. I don’t see the Occupy movement, now a worldwide phenomenon, reflecting the lotus-eating you accuse Oz lovers of having, and I bet if you talk to any of them about what they think of Oz, they’d say they love it. Why is it so hard to laud the achievement of this superior musical? Yes, we live in Kansas, so to speak, but there’s nothing wrong with visiting Oz once in a while; in fact, to keep our sanity, I’d say such a trip is necessary, yes even for the downtrodden. Somehow I detect a whiff of Boomer bashing in some of these criticisms.
@Jamie,
Who is saying that all of us or any of us sees the world this way and embraces this as as adults as a way to live? Also, no one can ever watch any sort of escapist film? Who are you to say that? People of all statuses watch escapist films. I’m not even saying TWOO is an escapist film.
Furthermore aren’t there life lessons that Dorothy learns about herself and others that can help her and others following that in myriads of ways?
Also, are you insinuating that all art needs to attend to “work getting done”? What is that exactly? Tell me how many films actually accomplish this. Really.
I suppose you and Maurizio are the “clear-eyed adults” who are instructing the rest of us on this film in an objective manner and teaching us all that we are “wrong”? Frankly, I don’t see anything in your argument that has merit regarding this film. You are so over-the-top negative that you don’t appear logical in the least here.
@ Marilyn— Also I am not a boomer in the least and I wonder if I’m the only xer/millenial defending the film here.
There isn’t a whiff Marilyn there’s a room clearing stench. Sure, we all need a break from the harsh reality, but not all get a break. You’re arguing for the necessity of breaks because you can take one, many can’t. That’s my point.
And then as an adult, continually living in the past just further deepens the unfocusing of contemporary reality. Again, you say I take a ‘sad stance’ (a criticism I already touched as I saw it coming), but how is fighting for a better reality over a more cherished past fantasy a ‘sad stance’ to take? To me this speaks volumes on the brainwashing effect.
Yeah Jamie basically got my point without directly mentioning it. My point is not about knocking a children’s movie, but buying into candy coated escapism as an adult. If you recognize the falseness of such a message and are aware of its limitations then fine… but many on this thread are going on and on about how amazing Oz is without acknowledging that the movie is ideological bullshit (and attacking someone when they rightfully point it out). And trust me, I’m not a sad sack either.
Jon, since your first three paragraphs largely don’t touch what I actually said I’ll take your criticisms as such.
Yeah Maurizio I loved a lot of stuff as a child, but I’m 30 now. Time to roll up my sleeves and click my heels back to Kansas.
I only got involved in this thread because everyone basically attacked Allan for pointing out that Oz’s message is complete utter nonsense. He voted for the film and claimed it to be *****, but that wasn’t enough for some.
Jamie, you might as well not watch movies at all then, because FYI, that’s taking a break. You think we’re choosing a past fantasy over a better future? No one said that. You say you’re an optimist? I don’t recognize your kind of optimism because It’s not optimism you speak of, it’s belittling others, being super negative and hateful, and misunderstanding the point of this film. The more you write here, the more you seem off-base as you clearly don’t understand this film.
Jon, not all breaks are the same. To state they are is almost the definition of reductive reasoning. I can take a break from work and read Sartre or I can take a break and watch TRANSFORMERS, do you think these activities/breaks are equal in what is asked of me and what is accomplished inside me?
I’m belittling no one, I’m just belittling an escapist film (an object), or ideas I feel are outdated or ultimately destructive to real progress.
Sorry I copied this in the wrong place.
@ Jamie,
You don’t think I addressed your argument? You are saying that buying into sugar coated escapist fantasy should not be something adults do. I said this-
“Who is saying that all of us or any of us sees the world this way and embraces this as as adults as a way to live? Also, no one can ever watch any sort of escapist film? Who are you to say that?”
In my original comment, I addressed that I can’t be objective about the film. At least I admitted that. You and Maurizio, and Allan to a degree, feel you are being so objective that you must belittle the rest of us who like the film. I haven’t read anything from any of you that leads me to believe you are being objective. I hear such negativity that it doesn’t feel objective at all. You obviously feel all of us are living by some code in TWOO? Do you honestly think we live that way? That anyone lives that way?! BS!
Address this please. I really don’t want to see you hiding behind the “you didn’t understand my intention” front.
@ Jamie, I understand your point, but I will watch any sort of film I want to, and that doesn’t make me some sort person who doesn’t care about people, or the future, or humanity. To label and pinpoint people in this way is rather dangerous.
Again, “…but I will watch any sort of film I want to..” implies, and brings, a nasty personal tone to the proceedings in regards to what I’ve actually said. Never do I even approach what you should or shouldn’t watch. By all means take your weekend, and indulge in anything you want… as Paul Weller sarcastically quipped, “it’s more then you get in Zaire…”.
@ Jamie, but when you say this, you create an implication for those that watch it.
“I’m belittle an object (in this case this film) that I find destructive to progress.”
This implies that those who watch it are adding to this destruction toward progress. It’s the people that matter here.
The usual suspects have over-reacted here. Allan can look after himself, not ‘everyone’ was attacking him. Some disagreed with him, that’s all.
Both Maurizio and Jamie start on false premises. Children have a clearer vision of reality. As Jesus said, one must be like a child to enter the kingdom. Adult perceptions are clouded by prejudice and self awareness.
TWOO is a celebration of childhood. Of the childhood we wish for ALL children. It is for children and adults and has life lessons for both: the basic values of community, of respecting others with all their imperfections, about the illusory enticement of the ‘yellow brick road’, about life as a journey where being on the road is the only true reality, about valuing people over things, about the nurture and love family can provide. TWOO is a subversive critique of society not a sugary endorsement. The usual suspects should remove their dark glasses.
I don’t know if I agree that Oz is quite “subversive” (though watching it with the Floyd music certainly makes it seem so
) but it IS dark, and that’s something I find fascinating about it (and hope to write an essay on eventually – framing it, among other things, as a “Tale of Two Depressions” – social, as represented by the economic slump of the time, and personal, as personified by Judy and the pathos she brings to “Over the Rainbow”). I agree strongly with this: “Children have a clearer vision of reality. As Jesus said, one must be like a child to enter the kingdom. Adult perceptions are clouded by prejudice and self awareness.” which is why I’m uncomfortable with pronouncements which ban fantasy or childlike elements to the nursery. I feel more awakened and engaged with the deeper strains of reality when reminded of childhood (when the world seemed a frightening place, which it indeed it is; and the relations between people and objects and ideas was amorphous and ambiguous) than entrenched in the narrow, somewhat dry confines of adult society. Dreams are an important part of this too – and I think in dreams, to a certain extent, we become like children again. That said, I think the trick is not to return to childhood, but to try to take the childlike virtues into an engagement with adult understanding. Someone I find who speaks very well to this is Aldous Huxley, in his round-ups of philosophical and spiritual insights in The Perennial Philosophy, Doors of Perception, and Heaven and Hell. The power of myth (and Oz certainly has become a cultural myth/icon, one of the strongest ever created in modern times) is an important tool in this project.
Can I be Fenster???
“TWOO is a subversive critique of society not a sugary endorsement.”
OK Tony, I must say this is truly a BRILLIANT point.
Nothing like good ‘ol Tony bringing Jesus (a man who supposedly walked on water, turned water to wine, and rose from the dead) to lecture me about reality. As if!
This ‘usual suspect’ while telling me to remove my ‘dark colored glasses’ should adorn a pair of reading ones for himself and reread what I’ve said here, and throughout this thread.
Jamie, one can accept the historical Jesus without accepting his divinity, and besides Jesus only encapsulated what others like Castaneda’s Don Juan discovered when he popped peyote.
As for the rest of your response it is oh so Jamie. A Clayton’s rebuttal that says nothing at all. Fail in Debating young-fella.
Yeah, because your rebuttal (that summarized two people’s entirely different perspectives—Maurizio and I) which was just “you are both wrong from the get go” is so much more enlightened and well-reasoned. It takes two to play this tango and I’m just trying to follow your lead.
As for the Jesus stuff, what can I say you can say “baaaaa” longer and louder then I.
Jamie, I think the clog is on the other foot. You are the one putting words in my mouth. I said you both started with false assumptions, not that they were the same. My rebuttal was of your and Maurizio’s conclusions, which were essentially the same, and Maurizio said as much.
If I have misrepresented your argument, then tell me where and how. Don’t dig a bigger hole, which must be hard with that massive chip on your shoulder
Me and Jamie agreed about a general mutual point in relation to Oz when the thread was first taking off. After that we certainly expressed rather different overall perspectives. I for one like The Wizard Of Oz, but consider it typical MGM fluff from this era. I don’t see any subversive critique on society personally.
There has been talk about some kind of “negative” ideology in this film throughout this day and I still haven’t seen anything from anyone, Jamie, Maurizio (not sure you’re included in this anymore), or Allan that provides any substantial evidence form the plot or film itself to prove their point. Until we start talking on those lines, I see no argument here worth going after.
You disagree with my comment Joel but then write something that basically gets to the heart of what I was alluding to.
“in a way it’s quite notable how at a certain point our dreams can get dashed, the mysteries of adult life can evaporate like morning mists, leaving a more mundane reality.”
What you write directly after this has merit as well. Adults surly can live in a world of illusion, but it never has the magical innocence of youth. Once we grow up the fantastic wizard/santa claus/tooth fairy/easter bunny behind the curtain is revealed forever as a myth. It seems those who revel in this kind of entertainment, with no questions asked, are those that also cherish Spielberg and his trivial ilk without noticing the absurdity of such subject matter. I guess that is what some of us are opposed to on this thread (at least with AI, Kubrick’s realistic pessimism adds grit to Spielberg’s optimism to forge a distinct sweet and sour blend). Dorothy reveals the charlatan for everyone to see, but in the film it just comes off as another reason not to trust those outside the Kansas farm…
Well, I wrote that not to illustrate my point but to provide some balance, part of my ongoing and perhaps self-defeating effort to recognize both sides of a question.
As for the rest, as you sort of sidestep in your final sentence, you’re pretty much describing the message of the movie – and keep in mind, everyone on the Kansas farm is distinctly related to everyone in Oz, and in fact provides their basis. Oz is a mythical projection of Kansas, not a strange world full of fur’ners who can’t be trusted.
Basically I have a real issue with people seeing “subject matter” as absurd. Since the dawn of time, myths have been one of the key ways humanity engaged with itself, its history, its philosophy, and and its society. Calling this “absurd” seems to me, well, absurd. It’s too ingrained in human consciousness, too much a part of who we are.
I don’t have much desire to drag Spielberg into the conversation, but, as with Wizard of Oz, happy endings do not mitigate sweet and sour sprinkled throughout a given film. Both E.T. and Wizard have moments of great darkness and both, incidentally, are quite engaged with real life, E.T. even more so than Wizard given the divorce plot. To me one of the richest thing a film can do is combine two seemingly divergent strands – call them the Lumiere and Melies schools of film. We could have a separate debate about whether pure straight-up fantasies (something like, say, Lord of the Rings) are valuable but that debate doesn’t really apply to Oz or E.T., two movies grounded in the real world which use fantastical elements to reflect and comment upon that world.
Or take my favorite example of this sort, because you’d be hard-pressed to find something more seemingly outlandish and ridiculous: The Brave Little Toaster. There’s a movie that sentimentalizes and humanizes a consumerist object, yet at its heart it’s about death, fear, mortality, aging (and even materialism and consumerism themselves, from a critical angle) – it gets at these themes far more effectively than the more ballyhooed Toy Story 3. While I assume it was somewhat toned-down from the source book, which was written by Thomas Disch a suicidal sci-fi author and subversive playwright whose work was banned by the Catholic Church, it still contains a good deal of his sensibility.
There’s no such thing as absurd subject matter; only absurd dismissals of such!
“Once we grow up the fantastic wizard/santa claus/tooth fairy/easter bunny behind the curtain is revealed forever as a myth. It seems those who revel in this kind of entertainment, with no questions asked, are those that also cherish Spielberg and his trivial ilk without noticing the absurdity of such subject matter.”
I keep seeing your argument throughout the day, but it has no form or shape that is grounded in anything substantial that I’ve yet read. It’s all inferences and unfounded statements.
Cowardly lion, feeble minded scarecrow, flying anarchist monkeys, sobbing tin man, green skinned witches, perfect pitch singing mobs of dwarfs, horses of different colors, green blob of smoke that turns into sexy enchantresses, tornados that lead to cool getaway destinations, emerald cities, chill out poppy fields, yellow brick roads, talking trees, and red ruby slippers…. yeah Jon nothing absurd happening here. Sorry I can’t ground the discussion into something substantial.
Maurizio,
You just listed everything that’s contained in the film. Bravo. Doesn’t add to any argument you’re making here.
Allan, I think you take this film too seriously. It’s not anything like “Triumph of the Will” or “Pleasantville,” a mediocre movie with an initially intriguing premise. You say that you find its ideology abhorrent, but you don’t say what you think that ideology is. I don’t find an ideological basis to the film. It’s pure escapism, and I can’t believe that anyone who likes musicals would reject escapism as a valid mode of entertainment. But it is also in the end a rejection of escapism as a way to live. To me it seems to be saying that escapism is fine for a while but that in the end we have to return to reality, accept it, and make of it what we will. (I know that a lot of people, maybe even most, who love the film ignore this last part, but that doesn’t mean it’s not in the movie.) I don’t see it as urging us to accept the status quo blindly and do nothing about our personal or collective problems, if this is what you are getting at in your objections to the movie’s ideology. I don’t think it tries to tell us WHAT to make of our lives or do about our problems, but leaves that up to the individual. I don’t see how something so open-ended can be said to be pushing an ideological agenda. By the way, I’m not saying this because I’m blinded by love for the movie. It’s a great film, but on my own list of best musicals it would be down around #10.
I agree Mr. R.D. Very well put.
Agreed. This is a perfect response, R.D.
@ Jamie,
You don’t think I addressed your argument? You are saying that buying into sugar coated escapist fantasy should not be something adults do. I said this-
“Who is saying that all of us or any of us sees the world this way and embraces this as as adults as a way to live? Also, no one can ever watch any sort of escapist film? Who are you to say that?”
In my original comment, I addressed that I can’t be objective about the film. At least I admitted that. You and Maurizio, and Allan to a degree, feel you are being so objective that you must belittle the rest of us who like the film. I haven’t read anything from any of you that leads me to believe you are being objective. I hear such negativity that it doesn’t feel objective at all. You obviously feel all of us are living by some code in TWOO? Do you honestly think we live that way? That anyone lives that way?! BS!
Address this please. I really don’t want to see you hiding behind the “you didn’t understand my intention” front.
Why I don’t want to address it: “Who is saying that all of us or any of us sees the world this way and embraces this as as adults as a way to live?…”
Implies a strawman that I never constructed. I never stated anything about the totality of you or your worldview. I merely stated the destructive force of an overabundance of fantasy entertainment on the lives of adults.
Then you create some ‘code I’m stating how fans of the film are living under’, another point I never even approached making.
And again, I don’t want to address the charge of ‘belittling’ anyone, as I’m not. I’m belittle an object (in this case this film) that I find destructive to progress.
@ Jamie, Fair enough… I still think it’s the way your words are perceived that are most important. That’s why I asked you questions to gain understanding. Hence the question marks. It makes people defensive when you address the film or those that watch it in the way you did. If you want to keep believing that this film is destructive to progress, then more power to you, I hope. I’m of the belief that someone can watch a film and not harm the world’s progress, but that’s just me.
What if the film’s TRIUMPH OF A WILL? What if the film’s a Crossroads Super PAC funded tutorial video on how to infiltrate sit-ins as phonies and de-legitimize them? Art (if you feel this film, OZ is) has implications and repercussions. These are important to deal with.
Remember Jon this thread war started because Allan gave an opinion on the ideological aspects of Oz and various WITD regulars including yourself belittled him for it. He clearly states that he views the overall film to be worthy of recognition (as I do as well), but does not agree with the sentiments expressed within the movie philosophically. When these reservations are stated and he still gets attacked, then it is reasonable for others (Jamie, Me) to concur that perhaps someone is buying the ideological nonsense that Oz is selling.
@ Maurizio, I started out by teasing Allan if you read my initial comments. I never itended this to end up so heated. If this whole war is my fault, then I hope I haven’t offended anyone. Also, I hope you don’t feel I’m buying any sort of ideologies from any film.
@Jamie, Yes there are limitations to anything. Just because I watch something though, doesn’t mean I agree with it. I don’t equate TWOO with something in the way that you do. And that’s fine. I’m sure there are many films that I would have the opposite opinion of than you.
Oh, and Jon no need to apologize, everything has been civil here. Any half way serious discussion needs this sort of thing. (touches glasses) cheers.
Jamie you have been on these board for two years and you do know this compared to other rows this absolutely has been civil. I completely concur.
Yep Jamie, we’re good. No offense taken or given.
Jon, you are a rare breed. I hope I get the pleasure of meeting you in person one day!
Thanks Sam. The feeling is mutual.
I think I understand Allan.
He refers to the fact that the film ends with the “search for happiness in your own backyard” or as I see it “comfort with what you’ve got, don’t search for anything else, don’t think of adventures, stay in the gray world and buy our products.”
Is that it?
I remember Dave Kehr saying that he gave up ever being objective about The Wizard of Oz because of his childhood memories of it. I have no such apprehensions – my childhood, described beautifully and almost to the letter by my baby boomer contemporary Sam, was made so rich by the yearly viewings of this classic children’s film. I remember watching my two-year-old niece watch it for the first time, and seeing her face light up with the most indescribably joy; this is still a dearly cherished memory of mine. This film’s wonderful music perfectly complements the fantasy world it recreated from the timeless books and drawings of the Oz series. I can’t imagine anyone not falling under the spell of this consummate work of artistry, except maybe Scrooge pre-visitation. Well done, Sam! You did this film the kind of justice it deserves.
You know I think Scrooge and Allan would share an agreement here!
Humbug!
Needless to say Marilyn I couldn’t agree with you more, but of course you acknowledge our similarities as to age and similar childhood experiences. I love the quip about “Scrooge visitation!” Ha! Musical and fantasy elements do indeed blend seamlessly. Many thanks for the very kind words.
This is as great an essay as any in this project, but I would say it’s a given considering that the film is such an insitution. What you impart, Sam, is abiding affection, and fond recollections of a time gone forever, except in the recesses of the mind. We all have our own Wizard of Oz stories. Mine was a long time crush on Dorothy. But haven’t we all had that at one time or another. She represented all that we wished for, and found bliss only when she lost what she long thought was an albatross.
Your first long paragraph, where you assert the film’s long scroll of superlatives, is simply tremendous
Thanks for the fantastic words Peter, and much appreciate the personal embellishments. Dorothy was indeed the one character that had so many mesmerized, young and old, male or female. Your sizing up too is superlative.
Very engaging essay, Sam. The part that really moved me was your giving access to how the film must have touched people who had never strongly considered color in their viewing experience. That added excitement would have been more than just addition, but instead a multiplication bringing forward areas of magic hard to secure but impossible to abandon.
That is a vital point Jim! Thanks very much! Yes, indeed, once experienced it is impossible to comprise!
As always I appreciate your kind and ultra-thoughful comments!
Everything but the proverbial kitchen sink. Something tells me that you may have preferred to stay clear of all the pertinent production information, but couldn’t with this film. Your opening is masterful, your discussion of the score outstanding, and your ending provides a surge of emotion. It does in the end add up to one of your best pieces, so your excesses are warranted. I have lost count of the number of times I’ve seen it. And I agree there is probably no other film that people know more about. I think some of the James Bond films may have been released generally as often as The Wizard, but maybe not any single one of em.
The stories about the Munchkins and their hotel sex orgies and Frank Moragn’s heavy drinking (though he was said to be a lovely chap) always greatly interested me. The book by Ajean Harmetz is the best of its kind.
Frank—
You may be right, at least to some extent. With this film it is hard to go in any other direction. And yes, I did think of the Bonds as perrenial releases, but I thought of them as a group. Obviously the first three (GOLDFINGER, DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE) were released most often.
I was actually tempted to include those sordid stories about the Munchkins, though Frank Morgan was reportedly too nice a guy to disparage in any way.
Thanks as always for the over-the-top praise my very good friend!
Wasn’t the munchkin stuff an urban legend like the hanging stage hand???
You were really able to bring a fresh perspective to a film that has to be incredibly hard to write about Sam. I completely enjoyed reading this piece and honestly marveled at how you kept it from becoming stale. With a film like Wizard Of Oz, so often talked about, this amounts to no small feat. I also never knew about the Jitterbug song and will investigate on Youtube immediately. To think I may see a scene from The Wizard Of Oz for the first time is almost hilarious. I guess your number one has finally been revealed… Dreamgirls it is!!!
Aye Maurizio DREAMGIRLS it is!!! I’d like to see Allan’s face when he realizes the truth!!!
Well, you really know how to make a writer smile from ear to ear. There is no better compliment than to state that the material -so often written about – dosen’t get stale or repetitious with yet another treatment. One of the other writers here (I think Frank) hit the mark when he said I discussed the movies’s production with reluctance. I knew of no other way to go here, as the making of teh film is just as renowned and as fascinating as the film itself. I’d love to hear what you think of that “Jitterbug” number, which all things considered, I think was rightly cut.
Thanks again for this towering comment my friend!
Sam -
Your wonderful essay here has allowed me (like other boomers on the thread, as Marilyn notes) the opportunity to relive a lot of fond childhood memories tied up with THE WIZARD OF OZ. We had a black-and-white TV at home until the late 70s, so not till I got to college and saw this in a film class did I get to appreciate the full-color glories of Oz. I would argue it was even more special to those of us of a certain age since it was only screened once a year – it was such an event in those days! Those who came of age after the VCR became common probably can’t appreciate that.
(That Danny Kaye hosted the annual CBS screening for so many years only added to my delight.)
I think we can all agree that Judy Garland’s iconic performance is one of cinema’s most enduirng and beloved. (And who doesn’t shudder at the thought of what the film might have been, had the original choice, Shirley Temple, actually been cast. I don’t dislike Temple, but she couldn’t possibly have brought the heart and vulnerability to the role of Dorothy that Garland did.)
Yep Judy. Garland’s role as Dorothy is the single most iconic performance and character in the history of cinema. Nothing else is on par with the scope and reach of her role and this film.
Have I just astrally projected onto another planet populated by 12 year olds? Garland’s Dorothy more iconic than, oh, say Falconetti’s Jeanne d’Arc, Baur’s Jean Valjean or Chaplin’s The Tramp for iconography.
Pass me the sad pills. I’m overdosing on rose-tinted spectacle bollocks.
I don’t think you understand what the term iconic is in regards to this role and the general public. Nobody would question Falconetti or Chaplin, but the visibility in Garland’s charcater exceeds all.
Yes Allan I said iconic, not best. You show a picture of Garland as Dorothy and a larger portion of the world’s population knows who it is and what the movie is than any other character from any other movie. You show me the Tramp, and it could be any number of films.
Pat, again you imbue wisdom and experience into your responses here, and this is all so much more than food for thought. The whole bit with the black and white vs. color television things resonates with a good many of us, and the limited showings did make many of us appreciate it all that much more. I used to count the days and weeks till the day it was to be shown. It was truly an obsession. I do indeed well-remember Danny Kaye too! I always thought the same too about how Sirley Temple could never have done what Garland did. Again thanks fo much for the kind words and super insights my very good friend!
Sam, I went through a cycle from eagerly awaiting the annual broadcast as a child, to despising the film somewhat as mere kiddie fare, to the point now where I like it slightly more than tomorrow’s film. If anything, I wonder whether the perception of it as primarily a kiddie film, generically speaking, even among its fans, has us discussing Wizard today rather than tomorrow. The other film, I suspect, is as overrated by now as Citizen Kane is, simply because it just about always ends up where it has ended up again — but that’s a topic for tomorrow. I’m at a point now where my opinion of Wizard improves with every viewing because of its extraordinary craftsmanship — and that reminds me to make what should be an obligatory shout-out to an unsung (or undersung) hero of the production, one Herbert Stothart. Despite winning an Oscar for the score, Stothart’s contribution still seems underrated, perhaps because people assume that all the music in the film is essentially Arlen’s. Yet so much of it must be Stothart’s, from the beautiful opening title music to the instrumental Witch motif to the “o-ee-o” march music — correct me if I’m wrong on any count. It’s really one of the great movie scores even before we count the songs and the performances. And those need no explanations from me.
Samuel—
Your honesty and vivid remembrance is a pleasure to behold. Yes, I agree and have said so several times on this thread that the crafsmanship of THE WIZARD OF OZ is beyond reproach. You are absolutely right about Stothart. Much of the reason he is so often slighted is because Arlen wrote the score’s anthem (“Over the Rainbow”) and because Arlen and Harburg were the initiators. Stothart wrote teh vital musical accompaniment, and you are 100% right to bring this out, but the point for most fans and musicologists is that Arlen and Harburg, wrote the songs, which in the large scheme of things is the most venerated aspect of the score. But there is no doubt that Stothart deserves way more credit than he usually gets.
Great comment, great insights, par for the course my friend!
“This doesn’t make me a ‘sad sack’, ‘cynical’ or any such glib populist adjective, if makes me a deep down depressive optimist. There is a world, that’s real, that is worth fighting for, and being sidetracked by entertainment as fantasy is, nothing but a sidetrack that many downtrodden can no longer wait for. It’s the difference of being a Liberal and a liberal.” ‘White Guilt’ is a pain, isn’t it J. ?? Trust me been there, led the march, sat-in, even worked from within for over two decades….I still know how to enjoy a fantasy. You don’t have to live in it.
If this were Facebook, I’d be hitting the “like” button. Very well said.
Haha! Pat I love it.
Yeah, I still enjoy a good fantasy, mine is just a Kansas that has improved not a la la land of gold roads and lion-men.
And yeah, ‘white guilt’ is a pain. It’s also something that gives me incredible drive, on a good day.
So Jamie, let me ask you a question for understanding. Are you implying sir that the rest of us are living in la la land? Just want to know to be sure.
God, it’s really in all or nothing proposition for you isn’t it?
I don’t like escapist entertainment, of which this is one piece of many. Now, in 2011, it’s the majority of what we get because most become full and are satisfied with this. I’m not. That’s the crux of my point.
I don’t care to say anything about you or what you’re living in. Obviously, you’re in a position where this type of entertainment is available and ‘fast-food’ breaks are afforded to you. I’m interested in those that can’t, or those that need a world that doesn’t do this. I’m also interested in a view that sees the whimsy and the fantastic in the mundane, reality of life.
I’m interested in the quote, “evil will triumph, when good men do nothing”. Or, to alter it so as to be more specific to this thread, “evil will triumph, while good men are rendered fat, slow, and dim because their poor diet has increased ten fold over the years”. Clearer still?
Jamie,
I think it’s great that you see the world that way and want to make a difference. But you know what, there’s more than one way to do that. You have no knowledge of who I am or what kind of life I live. If you don’t want to watch fantasies then fine. If you’re trying to describe me or others in that last paragraph then it strikes me as rather low under any circumstance.
“You have no knowledge of who I am or what kind of life I live…”
Exactly. The last bit is about you. It’s also about me. It’s also about my neighbor, my cousin, my father, a random person in China, etc. It’s about everyone. It’s about the responsibility we all have as humans to others. The responsibility that when someone is doing something destructive to themselves we as a society are strong enough (and morally correct enough) to help them stop. Whether it be slapping the heroin needle away, or the bottle, or the shit piece of art.
That, to me, means rejecting films that just satisfy out base level (and insular) individual urges. “It’s fun”, “it makes me feel good”, “I loved it as a child” are rendered, perhaps individually important, but collectively irrelevant.
Okay Jamie. Point taken. I can add nothing else here. Thanks for the debate.
I personally don’t see a problem with anyone enjoying a film due to “individual urges” or because “it’s fun” etc etc. I guess this is where me and Jamie will part ways. My only problem with Oz and films of its ilk, is when viewers starts to think that the message is worthwhile or important outside of frivolous escapist entertainment.
These films should only be rejected if taken as serious works of art with a important profound message. Otherwise I cannot find fault with anyone desiring to escape into fantasy if they wish it. Personally I don’t care for such flights of fancy usually, but who am I to criticize anyone else if that is what they wish to accomplish with a movie.
Haha! Just when I thought I was done with this.
Maurizio- why do you have a problem if someone takes a message from an escapist film? Or any film for that matter? Everyone takes something different from films. Why so particularly from an escapist film? Please I want to know what you think. I’m not saying there’s a right or wrong way here. You seem to have an opinion on this.
“These films should only be rejected if taken as serious works of art with a important profound message.”
I rarely disagree with you Maurizio, at least not to this extent, but on this point I am diametrically opposed. THE WIZARD OF OZ may not have been made with “art” written over it, but critics and audiences have for decades read into it to form these opinions. There are profound messages in this film; it is precisely why I have connected to it well beyond just escapist entertainment.
But again, we are two different speakers here. Fair enough.
There are deep and profound messages in KING KONG and in IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. Few have taken either to task for them.
LOL, if you search the archive enough you’ll find a point where I bad mouth IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE. KING KONG and I are a bit more simpatico.
Haha! Yes Jamie I do indeed remember you are no fan of WONDERFUL LIFE. I’d venture to say that the minority voices on WIZARD would carry over to OZ for precisely the same reasons. Taste, perceptions, and varrying expectations as to what one desires in a film are all part of the equation, and that’s fair enough, I’d say.
A conformist ideology that says trying to leave home and succeed in the unknown world is foolish (especially if your a women). Better to stay at home where you are safe and happy. No need to travel and learn about different places/cultures because “there is no place like home”. Leave that stuff to technicolor dreams where it belongs, not real life. A conservative message that seems to criticize progressive thinking and taking real chances. A very isolationist bent that decides Kansas (America?) is as far as you need to go in life. God knows what actually exists beyond that beautiful rainbow… just stay in Kansas, your better off.
Maurizio, Dorothy returns to Kansas but she ends the movie wiser (and more appreciative of her home) precisely because she has travelled – mentally at least, if not physically. She sees a new world, and then returns home with her newfound knowledge. It’s the classic hero’s journey.
Maurizio would you pose that assessment to today’s troubled youth, and the high instance of alienation that leads to the severing of the ways? The simple homilies in this film can also be taken at face value, rather than a cynical eye for what the “true” intentions might be.
I hear ya, I really do, but there are two sides to every coin here.
Wanting to stay home, or create a community isn’t necessarily a conservative idea (in fact in many ways, especially now in our world of hyper-urbanization where virtually every inch of the globe is a megalopolis, or being used to serve a megalopolis, it could be seen as an incredibly progressive one). Where I think the film is is in the connotation Sam almost pinpoints. The alienating aspect of it, escapist films work on an individual basis and no joy is brought after the film ends. Everything (joy, hate, contentment, etc) is seen inside the films running time prompting the viewer to do nothing after it finishes but perhaps rewatch it. Art should prompt you to do something (hopefully productive) other then just give a desire to rewatch it.
It’s a phenomenon more easily seen in, say, STAR WARS or INDIANA JONES but this steaming pile is where that idea really starts to take hold.
An insular ideology is also troubling in many other aspects as well. It inevitably leads to less tolerance for those different then yourself for instance. It makes you less likely to understand or have empathy for a viewpoint that exists outside your own sphere.
Troubled youth has existed since the beginning of time. Alienation can occur even if family ties are not completely severed. I actually come from a extremely normal family and maybe am not the right person to be talking about this stuff lol. Still I cringe when I hear which group of people love to espouse about “family values” and other similar talking points.
Right, but a closed ideology=/=a closed environment.
Maurizio, my response to your first point is that Dorothy is not a woman. She’s a child. This film makes no inferences to “staying at home” as adults. She’s a child and that’s the context. Nothing more. Remember Dorothy is running away. She realizes she loves her family and wants to stay home. That’s it! Nothing wrong with that for children as I see it.
I’m late getting back to the thread, and I hate to stir the pot, but I’d like to add my thoughts.
I don’t really see this film as espousing an isolationist ideology. As another commenter noted, Dorothy is a child, not an adult. She’s shown having a very bad day, when her aunt and uncle have no time for her and a mean lady wants to take her dog away. That happens -children/teenages have bad days, feel no one is paying attention to them, are dealt injustice (and having a dog taken is terrible but not on a par with starving or being forced into hard labor at a tender age) and they get dramatic about it and want to run away from home – to a place “where there isn’t any trouble” as Dorothy says. Of course, no such place exists. I honestly believe THE WIZARD OF OZ is pitched at that simple level and is no more sinister than that – the futility of trying to outrun or escape bad days and problems – they’re everywhere. (Although I love Dennis’ point that Miss Gulch will be right back the next day to get Toto! HA!)
My age and personal experience play into my viewpoint, I’ll admit. I grew up in a small town that I couldn’t wait to escape and I did travel and see a lot of the world and move to a major city – and it was all great. But now, in middle age, I appreciate what was good in my home and upbringing so much more and actually miss some of it. Dorothy also has to travel to a far-off land in order to put her life at home into perspective. Again, I don’t see that as sinister.
Great comment Pat. I can see the validity of your last paragraph.
Oh I agree that this is a tremendous comment that goes a long way toward explaining the problems we have had coming to terms on this thread. Pat, this is great stuff!!! You really puts things into the proper perspective here!
This thread amuses the hell out of me in some sort of socially irresponsible way. Jamie’s position is absolutely valid and so is Jon’s uncompromising enjoyment of the movie. People have the prerogative to demand commitment from art and art has a right to refuse commitment. Disagreement is inevitable. As long as Jamie isn’t proposing to ban the film, his objections to its, er, lionization are unobjectionable. All this over the movie version of a book long reputed to be a political allegory of the Populist movement of 1890s Kansas!
@ Pat- You bring up some of the best points of the day in your comment and provide actual plot points to add to your argument.
@ Samuel- Yes your point is well understood;) However, if someone is going to take down a film based on an ideology that they feel is present in the film, we should be given key plot points or elements to add to the argument, which I still haven’t seen. I will gladly acknowledge if given them, I just have not seen anything yet.
Jon I feel like I clearly provided my reason for disliking Oz’s ideology. I also provided elements (a quote) found within the film that correlate to my opinion. If I actually owned the DVD maybe I could furnish you with a minute by minute takedown. Trust me I already did that with Ford’s The Searchers once upon a time.
Though we’re probably Wizarded out here for a while, I for one would quite enjoy such a piece.
“Dorothy returns to Kansas but she ends the movie wiser (and more appreciative of her home) precisely because she has travelled – mentally at least, if not physically. She sees a new world, and then returns home with her newfound knowledge. It’s the classic hero’s journey.”
On a surface level this is all true Joel. But gnawing inside of me, I get the sense that the bigger message of Oz is that becoming a worldly person is not worth leaving town. Its better to stay where you were born and forget about what lies elsewhere. For Dorothy, she should just appreciate Kansas life, because tending the family farm is more desirable than any need to explore what lies over the rainbow. Yeah she travelled to some far away land (in her imagination), but her duty is forever tied to milking the family cow in dreary B/W lol.
Why do you feel this way though? I’m not sure the film states anything about Dorothy’s long-term future, just where she’s at in her life right now (and she’s a bit more grown-up already by film’s end) and she certainly doesn’t forget about what lies elsewhere, but uses its lessons and it applies it to her own home. As Jamie said, trying to stay in and transform your community is not necessarily incompatible with liberalism. Indeed, he seems to have other issues with the film and ironically several of the films’ detractors seem to be at odds in how they define the very film they’re opposing. Your take seems similar to another writers’ – a famous author, though I actually can’t remember who – who wrote about how they wished Dorothy had left dreary Kansas and stayed in Oz. Whereas others seem to feel Oz is the problem; that it’s fantasy and escapism that, as Jamie puts it, “Give me Kansas over Oz.”
Both viewpoints have some validity but they obviously set up different – even opposing – versions of what is necessarily conservative about the film and make me feel even more that much of what is being opposed in it is more projected-upon than inherent.
Remember I said it was something gnawing inside of me. An impression or an uneasiness I feel watching Oz as an adult. The fact that you already know of another example of someone agreeing with me is telling. And yes she should want to stay in Oz or go back immediately lol. To utter “there is no place like home” after traveling to such wonderful places just strikes me as regressive and conservatively safe. Like someone telling Brian Wilson to fuck the Smile album and go back to making more Help Me Rhonda’s instead. The floodgates have been opened… no turning back now. The film ends with her content in Kansas and thus this is where I assume she will reside forever more. The film surly gives no hint of her wanting to explore outside those confines after the credits roll. Personally I detest those sentiments (which were very prevalent in Hollywood films back then). Maybe its just a personal view I should keep to myself or not impose on others as true lol.
“Maybe its just a personal view I should keep to myself or not impose on others as true lol.” Not at all (well, at least the “keeping to myself” part) – such disagreements are how we define and inform our own views!
At the risk of resuming my previously mentioned self-defeating tendencies, I do see what you’re saying here; the film and the character both seem homesick at the end. A feeling I think is natural, but I do not think it’s uncomplicated or simplistic in the film. It’s time for Dorothy to go home, but just because she’s back on the farm as a (rather unconvincing) 12-year-old does not mean she’ll stay in Kansas for the rest of her life. I suspect her dream will inspire her to leave home, go to college, see the world, but that perhaps she’ll do so with a firmer sense of the value of home and a better understanding of the world around her with her experience.
But then this may also be taking too literally what is in part an allegory: and what it speaks to is not physical travel but mental. Her growth in that arena is not something she could outdo, nor would she want to given that, paradoxically, its that very mental growth which allows her to cherish home in the first place. Is there an element of “stay safe & warm” in her desire to return home and her fear of travelling? Yes, there is but there’s much more too. I think the “message” of the film, as such, is mixed and perhaps even unintentionally “open” – it doesn’t allow only for closed, one-way readings but rather multiple interpretations, as the reams of literature on it over time have shown. The film has conservative elements but also contains the seeds of subverting that same conservatism.
The ambiguity and complexity is appealing to me, personally. I don’t think the film is any one thing.
Also the Wilson example is apropos; sometimes the floodgates open and we drown. Saying the film shouldn’t let her go back to Kansas might make some sense (although I think it’s unfair in context) but saying she “should” want to stay in Oz doesn’t seem quite right – homesickness is pretty natural and sometimes logical. I say that as someone who believes in not turning back and pursuing adventures, but appreciates the risks and consequences involved – sometimes the tornado doesn’t plant you down in a magical land, it just rips the damn house to pieces!
Found it: http://chapman-cwhs.wikispaces.com/file/view/McMillan-TheMovieThatChangedMyLife.pdf
To clarify once and for all my position on The Wizard Of Oz. I consider it MGM studio system fluff with a conservative message. It is undoubtedly a marvelously made film with great songs and wonderful performances. Judy Garland is spectacular, and despite my reservations I cannot divorce the film from the indelible mark left on me since I was a kid. I would rate it ****1/2 stars and watch it right now if it came on cable. It reminds me of a childhood I could never get back and it will always have a special place in my heart (sort of like an alcoholic mother or jilted lover for some). When I have kids, I will no doubt buy them the Blu Ray and watch them fall over themselves with crazed glee. Done….
Oh I feel similarly about certain films – disagree with the message but love the experience. Just not sure I’d apply that to Wizard of Oz.
“On a surface level this is all true Joel. But gnawing inside of me, I get the sense that the bigger message of Oz is that becoming a worldly person is not worth leaving town. Its better to stay where you were born and forget about what lies elsewhere. For Dorothy, she should just appreciate Kansas life, because tending the family farm is more desirable than any need to explore what lies over the rainbow. Yeah she travelled to some far away land (in her imagination), but her duty is forever tied to milking the family cow in dreary B/W lol.”
Maurizio this is really the first time you’ve actually explained this, hence my questions for something concrete. I won’t go into this too much, but Joel already confirmed with elements from the plot and characterization that your reading is not necessarily how others view it. There is clearly a reading that does not believe at all she’s going to stay there for the rest of her life. As I said earlier, she’s a kid. She’s not an adult. We don’t know what will happen to her later. She’s clearly glad to be home at that moment. She went through a hell of a lot. I’m fine if that’s how you view it. I don’t view it that way at all.
That’s my boo boo! He and I have been and continue as activists. We’re not afraid of nothin’ – except a lighted match!
hahahahahahaha Marilyn!!!!
Good one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am here everyone. I wasn’t for most of the morning, as I had a full slate of classes and couldn’t get over to respond. I have gone to the mat for this film numerous times in the past, and there isn’t any reason that I shouldn’t now. Heck it was my #2 choice in this countdown, and I attempted to explain why the film has meant so to me through my life. When the film was voted by the site’s proctors and readers as the #1 film of the 1930′s, it set off a major controversy among those who felt the honor wasn’t deserving. It matters not in this discussion that in three years of intense blogging, that this is the first time at any site, in the company of a plethora of respected bloggers that this particular film has come under fire. It matters not that in the wide range of film criticism in the professional ranks that the film has been held on a pedestal as an example of cinematic perfection. Allan, Jamie and Maurizio (and anyone else who shares their views at least in part) are entitled to their sentiments here. But those who are taking issue with those sentiments in what I see it’s a comparatively civil if pointed discussion, are entitled to do the same, much since this has been the way of this site from the very start. Everyone here has been on both sides of the fence on various films, and all have at one point or another taken positions that correspond with the way things are being played out here today.
I love the film because it always makes me feel good. Case closed. There are many reasons why we watch movies, and no single one can be exclusive. Allan awards the film his highest rating (masterpiece) because he acknowledges it is exceedingly well made. That sentiment should really be seen as a clearance for anyone who connects, relates and revels in the world view that the film evinces. The fact that the film has meant so much for so many (and it seems to have just as strong a hold on young people as baby boomers I must say) speaks for it’s profound emotions and humanism. It’s a fantasy film based on fantasy books. One can live this fantasy or tune out, that is such with the freedom of expression.
I consider myself to have (mostly) eclectic and art house taste, but that won’t stop me from acknowledging the craftsmanship, the thematic richness, and the wonderful characters and settings that have made this film resonate in overwhelming fashion with movie lovers and non movie lovers. And as R. D. Finch stated earlier, one doesn’t have to take this film so seriously. In that case in terms of pure escapism the film is extraordinarily focused and well-made.
Yes, THE WIZARD OF OZ speaks of home, family, and friendship, but these are so deftly woven into the fantasy that I see their essence as beneficial, insomuch as the universality expressed here is consistent with a positive world view and the management of a psychologically productive mode of expression.
One is free to reject this for whatever reason, but it’s largely for me what elevates this film from excellent to truly great.
I would like to make a statement free from being a response to any particular post by any of the commenters. The desire to gain inspiration to do good in the world comes not just from examining outrageous conditions in a documentary or a serious-minded drama that examines social issues, but also from aspirational films that offer hope. One of my favorite films of the latter type is Lost Horizon, which shows dark times and offers encouragement to those who would seek to protect what is good in humanity and make it available to others when it is safe to do so. I recently walked through Chartres Cathedral, marveling at its stained glass and realizing that I could see it only because some brave souls removed and stored it away from the destruction of bombs and bullets during World War II. As a film preservationist, I try to do that as well, whether the film is a commercial or something as important as Metropolis because the films gave a human point of view that someone might find useful in some way.
Movies made solely for money or to propagandize are pretty easy to distinguish from those made with some degree of love and sincerity. And though I am an atheist, I took very much to heart a scene from The Song of Bernadette in which one nun tortured herself to be worthy of God’s grace, only to realize that she could not storm the gates of heaven by self-denial and self-flagellation; grace is a gift that comes from who knows where. I certainly think that giving children the gift of The Wizard of Oz is a priceless way to honor their humanity, simple of thought and deed though it may be, and, given the terrors of the 1930s, offered the original audience for this film a secure home, if only for a couple of hours, when they might not have had one. Why bother with a Make a Wish Foundation donation if not to give some joy to a child without a lot of future to look forward to. Does it change the world? No, but it does change one child’s world. So I stand firmly with Oz and its many gifts. While some may consider boomers who talk about their childhoods a pet peeve, I’d venture to say that there are a great many children past, present, and future who will find Oz a warm memory on a cold night.
Thanks for your honesty and this is a fine and well explained comment. Bravo to you.
Marilyn, I won’t violate this exceedingly beautiful statement with a loquacious response. These observations, experiences and missions are deeply moving, and be rest assured my heart and soul are in the same direction. I am also a huge fan of LOST HORIZON and find much worth in THE SONG OF BERNADETTE.
Bravo.
I’ll add my thanks to Marilyn here – this is a wise and beautiful response.
Great comment. And Song of Bernadette is a great movie – one I see as somewhat ambiguous spiritually. The Vincent Price character is so compelling, one of his great performances I think.
Perfectly said, Marilyn!
I guess I’ll do the same. I grew up poor of pocket. Carried knives, guns and pain on me like Boy Scout Merit badges. At damn near 60 I still beat my head against the “Wall”, why stop now? Will I stop to help someone who looks in need? Yeah damn straight! Will it change the world…………give me something to smile about once in a while, that’s all I ask.
Indeed Shane, indeed. This is the way I have always looked at the film myself.
This film is a masterpiece, maybe the best classical musical I’ve ever seen in my life (I’ve seen few, but I’m not in a hurry, if you know me).
I’ve loved this film since the first time I saw it from a… VHS? I think it was, or maybe it was on public television, and I’ve seen it a bunch of times since. Can’t say I call it a childhood favorite, I’ve just recently fallen in love with the beauty and overall structure of this magnificent film.
The songs are unforgettable, and that is the main reason for me to like this movie enough: I can sing the tunes, and it doesn’t really matter if I know them by heart or not, but just because I want to sing and sing a jolly song, and the song I have the nearest is usually a Wizard of Oz song.
The characters are essentially simple, since they follow the rules of the Hero’s Voyage (such as the Star Wars films did) to perfection, but that is the way we like it: simple characters, simple plot, simple entertainment. The characters themselves are just in the right position and they fulfill their goals. This movie should be taught at film schools (it actually was when we saw the Hero’s Voyage on our script class).
Now I won’t deny that the message may be a little… bad for newer generations, it should be the actual opposite in today’s world of sedentarism and overall worldwideweb interrelations: Look for Oz, Search Oz, Be in Oz, THEN come back, but don’t always wish to remain at home.
Lovely sentiments, buffo analysis, tremendous response here Jaimie. Your sentiments go a long way in validating your age group as well.
I must ask you a question. Would you say the film is as adored in Chile and South America as it is in the USA?
I’d say that the fanatism is there, but I don’t think it extends beyond my age group or my brother’s. My little cousin proves that. But my mom, my grandma and many people at my family just love the film.
Jaime, I like your take on the hero voyage stuff. I don’t think the film is saying don’t have adventures or go places. For Dorothy it was about not running away from home, which is something that still applies to children today. I don’t din any inferences to applying this to adults or anything outside the context of “running away from home” as children. This is under the understanding that the child’s home is not abusive. Let’s get that out there.
Jillian here. I’ll be 11 in December and I just LUV this movie. I’ve watched it over 40 times in my life, and I LUV it more and more on every viewing. Dorothy is my favorite character, and I really would like to have a puppy like Toto.
I am surprised at Allan. I thought he was our friend.
My name’s Jaime Grijalba and I aproove this message.
Unless Sam is using other names, like when he uses his wife’s email.
Did I say how disturbed I was the first time it happened?
It’s just heart breaking that this little girl’s main reason for coming on this thread is a not so subtle attempt to get herself a cute little dog. Sam’s silence speaks volumes…
hahahahahahaha!!!!
Jillian is a resouceful girl, Jaime and Maurizio!!!
Heck she is even coming with us tonight to see WEST SIDE STORY. I am leaving here shortly.
Jaime: I will absolutely respond mightily to your great diary comment late this evening when I return. Now that the musical countdown is over (sad in one sense of course) I can manage the diary in a more reliable fashion.
Sam, this is a lovely piece with your feeling for the film coming through – I’ll admit it is some years since I’ve seen the movie, and, while I recognise its brilliance, I don’t have the strong emotional connection with it that you do, but I will hope to see it again before too long. For me the best thing about the movie is Garland’s singing – here is a link to a great live performance of ‘Over the Rainbow’ which she gave at a show for the troops in 1943:
Judy–
This is a fantastic addition to this thread!!! Garland is luminous as always, and this rendition is top-rank!!! Enjoy all the patriotic images too, even though they stressed the military to a degree. Ha!
Yes, I do hope you get to see it again in the near future, and yes, one must have a real emotional connection with this film to consider it a masterpiece of the cinema. But you seem to like well-enough and placed it prominently on your ballot.
As always your contributions and insights are to die for here, my friend!!!!
Well, I worked my around this piece and thread completely backwards – going through WordPress and reading the most recent comments first, then getting to the first comments eventually (after responding to several along the way) and finally ending up with Sam’s essay, which overflows with information and insight. (I especially love the “Did you know the witch was green?” anecdote.)
Like everyone else, I have personal connections – it’s my mother’s favorite film, it was probably the first video I ever owned (along with Land Before Time) around my 6th birthday in 1989 when the film was celebrating its 50th anniversary, and I played the Wizard of Oz himself in the 8th grade production of the play – so I can probably still speak Frank Morgan’s lines along with him!
At this point, I find it’s difficult for me to concentrate on the film when I watch it, which was once the case with Star Wars and The Godfather because it’s become so familiar; I got over it in both cases and can enjoy those films again, so the same will probably be true with this eventually.
However, I quite enjoy the “Dark Side of the Rainbow” exercise (a title I might use for my eventual essay on the film, though it will not actually have much of anything to do with Pink Floyd), which even without herbal enhancement achieves remarkable synchronization – less in trite, obvious lyrical terms but in a general, overall ambience with a few musical moments coinciding nicely with what’s onscreen. It’s less a case of “synchronicity” (the mind seeking connections that aren’t quite there) than genuine coincidence – try syncing up the film & song 4 seconds earlier and you’ll see how “wrong” it feels. As an editor, I can genuinely say that sometimes things just mesh by sheer happenstance. This is one of those cases.
Another observation: sometimes substreams and undercurrents come bursting to the surface and suddenly everyone is experiencing something directly that before was more unconcious or indirect. It might seem like I’m bringing this up because Wizard of Oz has become such a cultural myth/touchstone, but actually I mention it in relation to the thread. Here you can see so many elements of previous Wonders discussions, sometimes danced around, sometimes alluded to or hinted at, come out into the open, with Sam, Tony, Jamie, Maurizio, Allan, Jon, and others pretty much directly engaging with one anothers’ philosophical outlooks on film and life. A fascinating spectacle and a real testament to the dynamic discussions this site can produce.
For my part, I’m keen mostly to observe though I would say that those who seek to discredit the film for escapism and fantasy should beware – what they are attacking is actually imagination, and that’s the goose that lays the golden eggs as far as cinema (and probably all art) is concerned. Not just Spielberg, Lucas, and Disney spring from the pool that spawned Wizard of Oz, so do Godard, Bunuel, and Lynch.
On a departing note, to anyone interested in the history of the film I highly recommend Aljean Harmetz’s “The Making of Wizard of Oz” (her mother was an MGM employee and she has personal recollections of the film’s production). It does a fantastic job grounding this legendary, almost otherworldly film in the context of the time in what she calls “The Miracle of Production #1060.” Many of the details are familiar (and well-covered by Sam) but there’s a lot that probably isn’t, and to see it all in one place really focuses in on the nitty-gritty of how the classic was made. Among other things, the Munchkins were quite the frisky lot.
Joel your words are quite well put. Thanks for adding to the proceedings with such great prose and examples.
Jon – the irony of the talk about escapism or diversion of time is that in a certain sense we all share the same affliction. Example: I just spent 2 hours on this site/thread. LOL.
Haha! LOL!
“For my part, I’m keen mostly to observe though I would say that those who seek to discredit the film for escapism and fantasy should beware – what they are attacking is actually imagination, and that’s the goose that lays the golden eggs as far as cinema (and probably all art) is concerned. Not just Spielberg, Lucas, and Disney spring from the pool that spawned Wizard of Oz, so do Godard, Bunuel, and Lynch.”
What a hugely incorrect leap. I’m not ‘attacking’ imagination AT ALL. In fact, I’m very skeptical of anything that dulls imagination. Escapist work does just this, it’s all glitz and glamor imagination (for the most part), and not the ‘blood, sweat, and tears’ imagination (i.e. the real thing) that it takes to produce creativity about the everyday and philosophical.
Jamie, the comment was not directed solely at you. That said, I don’t see the same split in “imagination” that you do, and I feel many of your comments about escapism & fantasy could be applied to imagination itself, which inherently has escapist and fantastical elements. I would define imagination as having more to do with freedom and liberation than blood, sweat, and tears. Rather, blood, sweat, and tears are what it takes to realize works of imagination in the real world (yes, even Wizard of Oz); they are the translation process but not what is being translated.
As for whether Wizard of Oz even merits the characterization being thrust upon it, look at it this way…I’d be hard-pressed to find two more politically engaged and informed film-writers than Tony & Marilyn (I’ve had very strong disagreements with them in the past, similar to ones I’ve had with you, about the relation between politics and art). They are, in your parlance, Liberals with a capital L. The fact that they disagree so vociferously with you over Wizard of Oz’s value and the role of escapism in political engagement should perhaps give you a bit more pause in how you are classifying the film and generalizing about its adherents. In this light, I think a “Yes, but…” rather than a “No way” would be a more productive and persuasive approach to your opponents’ arguments. Just my 2 cents.
Thanks Dad, I’ll take ‘pause’.
Lol…
Papa Bocko wants you to go hang Auntie Em’s socks pronto!!!
Not sure if Joel deserves this kind of curt response but whatever, this thread has been more than civil overall.
Yes, can we leave the arguments, fellas, it’s like a Python sketch. “Is this the right room for an argument…well, I’ve told you once…no you didn’t…yes, I did…”
Some of us love Oz, others want to nuke the blasted place.
I just read this now. It is a titanic comment in every sense of the word Joel, and I am humbled by it. Thankjs for the very kind words, the brilliant observations and the infectious spirit that underlines the remarkable prose. You have really been in so many ways the heart and soul of this project, and I must appreciate your own wonderful anecdotes into this screen classic.
167 comments! Christ alive! It only makes me wish Oz did exist so we can send all the lunatic fringe fanboys with a grasp of reality as loose as a crack whore’s knicker elastic off the yellowbrick road, up their own arses and leave the rest of us sane folk to breath more pollution contaminated oxygen.
Thank all the available Gods this luvvyfest comes to an end today. Let them eat spinach and gruel!
Spoken in true but admittedly creative misanthropic form!!!
I wish the luvfest would never end.
The luvfest will never end Sam. And please pass the spinach and gruel that Allen has so graciously given to us.
Jon, Allan knows well from his two vists to us here staeside that I LOVE spinach. I have it in my egg whites every morning.
Pass it on indeed!
We should all give ourselves Sesame Street nom de plumes. I’m Oscar the Grouch, naturally. Stop hanging around my dustbin!
Funny, if I had made a similar comment, the comrades would not have been slow in coming forward with a noose. But, let me have the last word and a recommendation: plenty of fibre helps.
Indeed Tony, indeed on both counts!
I view this film as less about escapism vs. reality and more as an existential statement. As Dorothy says, we can find our heart’s desires in our own back yard. This doesn’t have to be dreary and dull as opposed to the thrills and spills of Oz. Any poo pooing of this notion I believe haven’t come to terms with their inner child.
I first saw this film in the 1950s on TV when it was all black and white and rediscovered it as a hippie marveling at the existential messages — not to mention the color work.
Well, Pierre, that is an absolutely brilliant stroke there! And it flies in the face of the extreme minority conventional dissenters who too often look to demean the film with simple disclaimers based on all-too-literal interpretations. Thanks for the personal anecdote as well.
I apologize to all those on this thread who don’t like The Wizard of Oz, for liking the film. I guess I’m a sentimental simpleton who needs to get a grasp on life.
Ricky, you are forgiven, though at times in the civil row I was tempted to say much the same thing. Thanks for taking the time to stop by my friend.
Sigh…. I don’t think I’ve ever noticed you around these parts before Rick. Judging by the written tone of your comment you’ll fit right in. Pull up a seat and rant away…
Sam, this is a massive and highly informative review. Can’t agree with you on this part: “the final black-and-white sequence set in the bedroom of a Kansas farmhouse may well be the most emotionally moving scene in the history of American cinema.” but I loved the rest of it.
I haven’t seen the film in a few years, but I must confess that the last time I watched it I felt it was too childish, and I couldn’t get into it. It’s likely that’s a failing of me, though, and if I was really in touch with my inner child I would love it again. It was never a big favorite in my family or a part of my childhood, though, so that may be part of it.
Regardless the film is obviously ingrained in my memory from beginning to end. Is there any other film with more famous lines? I don’t think even Casablanca can approach the number of immediately and universally recognizable lines that Wizard of Oz has. It reminds me of a point blogger Chris Stangl of Exploding Kinetoscope once made: “King Kong ’33 is an Ur-film, a primal, godlike thing that lives in human consciousness like the Old West, the Christ story, and the Oedipal complex. Kong has no company but The Wizard of Oz up in that stratosphere. Chaplain does not live there, not Casablanca, nor Citizen Kane. Just Kong and Dorothy.” I think that’s true, though of course Dorothy has a literary precedent.
Wow, a bold statement on Kong. I’ve recently been musing on which films are the most iconic and I felt that Kong, while an iconic film, was more an iconic character than anything else – after all, who would attempt to remake The Wizard of Oz? (And no, The Wiz doesn’t count!) Wonder if I’ve misjudged.
Oh well, Dennis will set us straight one of these days. And if that’s a cryptic statement, good – I’ll keep it that way.
Yeah, I think about Kong he’s not saying it’s the movie as a whole, but rather the character and the elements of the plot, which can be interpreted in innumerable, generally Freudian, ways. Kong is King of the jungle, a true god, but brought down by beauty and falling from a huge phallic symbol. Heck, remember the Inglourious Basterds scene where Tarantino suggests it can be read as “the story of the Negro coming to America”? I’m not sure it’s great art in an aesthetic sense, but everyone–whether they’ve seen it or not–knows the story, and its strange, primal power lurks in the back of the mind.
All of the different re-adaptations of “Wizard of Oz” have something legitimate to offer– I’ve often thought that the original book series ought to be given a proper, straight film or television telling, one that’s true to Frank L. Baum’s books (thus ensuring that nobody ever has to actually read them again). Both of the remakes of “Kong”, however, are pure shit, with the second one by Jackson being especially so. Ragged and unsophisticated as it is, the original “Kong” is an absolute classic, both as a character and film. For the sheer amount of originality and imagination on display in that picture, it’s at least as essential a contribution to classic Hollywood as, say, “Casablanca”, another great film that’s ragged and unsophisticated in its own ways. It’s not necessarily one of my favorite films, but I dare say I’m the worse for it.
And neither Dorothy nor Kong has a dong.
No, they saved that for the Borowczyk version…
Is he the Polish director who’s into zoophilia or something? I’ve never seen his work, unfortunately.
http://www.finemoviesonline.net/watch-movies-online/horror/the-beast-la-bete/
1:13:00
Don’t say I didn’t warn you though!
Oh boy Mark. This is one director you do really need to see. I must get you copies of GOTO: ISLAND OF LOVE and BLANCHE!!!
Boy Joel, talk about baptism under fire! Whooo!
Stephen, I can’t thank you enough both for this great comment and for all the support you have given the site over the past months. The final scene, when Dorothy realizes he is living where she really wants to be has always affected me deeply, so my statement was admittedly tinged with a personal conviction. I fully understand that this won’t ring true with everyone. It is true that it probably has the most famous lines of any film (with CASABLANCA) Stangl’s point there is fascinating. I quite understand that if the film was a big part of your family or your childhood the resonance would obviously be diminished. Thanks again for the buffo comment my friend!
An overripe chick in gingham leaning on a haystack (Jane Russell-Russ Meyer here we come), midgets, an effeminate Lion, flying gargoyles, a putrefied witch (Poe, ‘The Strange Case of M. Valdemar’) a disembowelled scarecrow, a harpy who leaves the smell of flatulence in her wake, a big, black phallic tornado (the same one used in ‘Cabin in the Sky,’ I think). Who the hell directed this sicko piece of twisted shit? Eli Roth?
Hunter S. Thompson.
No, John Waters is doing a remake with Kim Kardashian and a real lion he plans to inject with Judy’s leftover amphetamines. The MGM logo with a bloody maw.
hahahahahahahahaha!!!! Love it!!! I love Waters, especially for FEMALE TROUBLE and DESPERATE LIVING, and just saw Waters alumni Mink Stole over this past weekend in a bizarre Tennessee Williams play!
I welcome it!
Mink would be perfect as Glenda the Good Witch.
Sorry, it’s Glinda. Carrying an axe instead of a wand.
There is actually that prequel being planned. At least Michelle Williams is in it. I would watch her read the newspaper.
Me too Jon, me too!!!!
Mink would indeed be perfect as Glinda! Ha!
Mark, when yopu get a chance would you check your e mail. I just sent you something.
Are you pulling our ruby sequins, or is that prequel for real?
Mark S., no seriously it’s being filmed now. James Franco is the Wizard. Michelle Williams is Glinda I think. And also Mila Kunis is one of the witches.
Jesus H.Corbett!! 200. This is like a disease. It’s like waking up and finding someone’s pissed syrup into your cornflakes. Pieces on Citizen Kane, La Règle du Jeu, Tokyo Story or Sansho Dayu wouldn’t get anywhere near that combined. Bloody depressing as hell, like someone stuffing valentine’s cards up my arse and being surrounded by eejits singing “la, la, la! I wish I had a brain” (So do I, you sad bastard!). What next, bloody Watership Down and those feckin’ rabbits and Art Garfunkel, singing Bright Eyes like he’s got his bollocks in a vice. The rabbit’s dead, people. Toto will get taken off to the pound to be shot, Morgan’s fraud will get taken to the hoosegow, Auntie Em will lose her farm to the creditors and Dorothy will become a streetwalker in Topeka. I’m now going off to listen to some Leonard Cohen and read Nietzsche until all’s right with the world.
Haha Allan! I love it. The films on this countdown that got the most comments were ones that people disagreed on. Who would argue against those films you mentioned? There would be a lot of nodding and hm hmms and agreement. It doesn’t make any of them better or worse depending on the number of comments. It just makes a better comment thread when people fight over something. I refuse to let you have the last word!
Yeah, I agree with Jon – comments aren’t a reflection of the quality of the movie or even the quality of the piece, but rather the contention over it. And sometimes not even that, sometimes they just take a life of their own because of something someone said in an aside. That’s certainly happened plenty of times here.
And I refuse to let him have it as well Jon!
This is a film that he, Allan Fish, has awarded his HIGHEST RATING (five stars). His book tells you in the introduction that ***** is the masterpiece label.
It sits with all those other great films he mentions here. He cries “la la la I wish I had a brain” condescendingly and mockingly, yet he awards the film his HIGHEST RATING. This is hypocriocy of the highest order, and it immediately dismisses any issues he has regardless of what double-talk he’ll come back with.
And as I recall THE SOUND OF MUSIC got somewhere around 218 comments. Allan genuinely hates that film, yet he said nothing on the thread about it receiving too many comments. THE WIZARD is one of his masterpieces, and now he complains. Get the picture? Too many people like the film to sit well with him.
Yes Sam that sounds about right! You bring up a question I have though and that is: what is the all time highest comment post on your site and what was the #?
Jon:
The most comments ever submitted for a single post occured in 2009 on the Japanese anime decade countdown review of AKIRA, by Allan Fish. The total was a staggering 366.
http://wondersinthedark.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/akira-no-50/
However, we did have two other instances where the total went over 300, and about 10 or 12 other times where we went over 200, including twice here during this musical countdown with THE WIZARD OF OZ and THE SOUND OF MUSIC.
We’ve gone over a hundred comments well over 90 times or so.
I’m a realist and a misanthrope, it goes against my entire constitution, you old fraud. Making me sit through this is like making you sit through A Serbian Film, but I can give top marks to films I loathe, you can’t.
“but I can give top marks to films I loathe, you can’t.”
That statement is false, but aside from that how can you bring in excrement like A SERBIAN FILM into this conversation.
The whole idea of giving the highest rating to something you loathe reeks of forced conformity, and the desire not to look foolish. Is that what film criticism is all about?
The syrup brigade went hardcore at defending this film. Anyone with a hint of negativity was figuratively horse whipped relentlessly. This helped drive up the comments section, as a crazed mob mentality broke out. Jon lead the pack like some red eyed burgomeister. These WITD sugar merchants are all getting together this weekend to celebrate their tenuous victory. They are unifying with a celebratory screening of Sandler’s Jack And Jill. If I were you Allan I would let sleeping dogs lie lol…
“The whole idea of giving the highest rating to something you loathe reeks of forced conformity, and the desire not to look foolish.”
Good point Sam.
I actually disagree on this point – I like the fact that Allan makes, however haphazardly and imperfectly, an attempt to suss out objective and subjective perspectives on film. That he gives ***** to a film he doesn’t like (though, having read his original review, he must have soured with it more over time!) actually makes me respect his opinion & judgement all the more as he is obviously looking at more than just what turns him on/off but examining craft, etc – how the film works on its own terms. I’m not sure that is done enough in the blogosphere, which even among the more erudite trends more towards like it/dislike it types of engagement. Granted, some of those dislikes (I’m thinking of Stephen with Citizen Kane or Maurizio with The Searchers) have been very well-informed but as a general rule, bloggers tend to dismiss or ignore the works they don’t like rather than grapple with them. An approach that has some advantages (less negativity, more time spent on works the writer “gets”) but definite disadvantages too. IMO.
I guess it comes down to what the star rating means. After all, both you and Allan give the film high marks while disputing its message and recoiling from it personally a bit. The difference is that Allan’s objections seem more visceral than yours – but I guess the key question is, what is the star rating based on? Are you, like Allan, giving it ****1/2 because you admire it? Or are you giving it ****1/2 because you personally enjoy it, whatever your reservations about it. Personally, this is why I tend to avoid star ratings all together!
You may have a valid point Maurizio, but any impartial observer reading through this comment section might also see that the initial enthusiasm by the film’s supporters was whipped down by the dissenters in a way that at least in some instances made the loving regard look foolish.
I do believe that the aggressive response was a beautiful thing to behold, as it showed the initial passion was deep and lasting.
As far as the sugar quotient, I think we did establish that there is a compelling subversive and existential element at play here. But as always everyone comes to the party with a different set of glasses.
But I must say, that you, Maurizio, handled yourself magnificently throughout and never lost your sense of humor.
That’s the key here. When a person making commentsa allows himself or herself to become unhinged, well then the whole focus is compromised.
Haha Sam. I even went on record as saying that I actually like Oz to a certain extent. I hoped this would allow me some leniency from the blogging court… but to no avail. I was deemed a dissenter and payed the price with demeaning insults from every angle.
Yes well the black attired and eyeliner wearing crowd (which I’m sometimes considered a part of) refusesd to see anyone having anything approaching fun on these threads. You guys should of toned down the lovefest so the rest of us could self loathe in silence.
Inevitably and appropriately the comment I am placing here is No. 214, which passes the 213 on THE SOUND OF MUSIC thread among the musical countdown’s highest totals. Considering the level of contention, it seems fitting.
But hahaha Maurizio, you have an excellent point. But if not anything else, I’ll say the out-of-control passionate mania for the Land of Oz, was way too strong to tone down. How many movies will that many people go to the mat for and risk some hard feelings over? It would have been much easier and less costly to employ a more congenial strategy, but the feelings were too deep I’m afraid.
“The syrup brigade went hardcore at defending this film. Anyone with a hint of negativity was figuratively horse whipped relentlessly. This helped drive up the comments section, as a crazed mob mentality broke out. Jon lead the pack like some red eyed burgomeister.”
Maurizio you want to go another 12 rounds today?
Listen I never came on this board for TWOO and expected to go as far as we went. But I’ll be damned if there’s a film I enjoy that others are throwing jabs at that I will sit by idly and do nothing, okay? I would do the same for another film, (yes even films not involving ruby slippers). You want to call us the sugar brigade? I’m fine with that if that’s how you want to label me and Sam or whoever. I’m obviously not going to change your mind. You don’t know what I watch, but I watch a whole wide range of stuff. I can provide you a list of what I’ve seen this year if you like. 
What I also took task with is dismissing an entire category of films (fantasy, sugar, absurdist or whatever you want to label it as). I can’t remember if it was you or Jaimie, but I heard things along these lines. That would not seem to provide someone with more credibility in my opinion.
DOWN HERE JOEL….
The Wizard Of Oz is a highly entertaining nostalgic trip down memory lane for me. I admire and enjoy it while rolling my eyes at it at the same time. I find the message to be trite and conservative, but can’t divorce myself from the many admittedly fine points of the movie overall (not to mention its function on my early life). It is well acted with multiple iconic moments that bring a crooked smile to my face. I think higher up this thread I lay out other specific point’s that would relate to your question Joel. I would say that my view of Oz is clearly nowhere near as hostile as Allan’s and I don’t feel any particular hatred for it. I think that Allan is just throwing out hyperbolic statements to get a rise out of Sam to some degree (plus playing the contrarian for all the Oz groupies). For him to rate it 5 stars, he can probably stomach it to a greater degree than he is letting on. Otherwise I have to still agree with Sam’s retort. If you really loathe something that passionately than a perfect rating makes little sense. If I really think it over in my own head Oz should probably get **** from me. I do have some major problems with it and maybe my rating yesterday was slightly too high. As for other questions…
“you give the film high marks while disputing its message and recoiling from it personally a bit.” YES PERFECTLY SAID HERE.
“what is the star rating based on” INSANITY PROBABLY.
“Are you, like Allan, giving it ****1/2 because you admire it? Or are you giving it ****1/2 because you personally enjoy it, whatever your reservations about it. I CERTAINLY ADMIRE IT AND ALSO ENJOY IT UP TO A POINT. I WON’T JUST DISMISS A FILM DUE TO PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS IF IT IS WELL MADE AND REASONABLY ENTERTAINING.
@ Joel
“That he gives ***** to a film he doesn’t like (though, having read his original review, he must have soured with it more over time!) actually makes me respect his opinion & judgement all the more as he is obviously looking at more than just what turns him on/off but examining craft, etc – how the film works on its own terms.”
Then who the hell cares about giving films star ratings then?! Let’s just read the essays and get the star ratings out of the discussion. I’m all for displaying the struggle one might have in an essay with what is working and what isn’t in the film. But if you honestly don’t like the film, you should not be putting star ratings attached to it that do not reflect the opinion. The star rating should be a complete redundancy to the essay. If it’s not, then one should either be writing essays or just posting star ratings. You’re not telling people what your real opinion is if this is at odds. It makes one sound undecided and lacking in conviction. This is a major issue we’re talking about here.
Yes I don’t need star ratings either but I mean to say the fact that he can say it’s a “great” movie but doesn’t like it makes sense to me, though the vehemence of his dislike is a bit surprising.
Joel, Yes I can agree that this in principal could make sense, especially if broken out in an essay and the argument is put before us. However, an essay at complete odds to a star rating still doesn’t work for me. Let’s eliminate the star rating then as the main point of contention in this argument, because I don’t put much stock into star ratings in the first place. I want to know what someone “says”. A conundrum is best put in words, not in the dichotomy between words and stars.
Remember familiarity breeds contempt and there’s a bit of annoyance that this film has been rereleased a million times, every six months it seems, by Warners, who sit on so many other films without a release. Then again, it’s the flagship film of the hard right wing corporations who control what is released by them; middle America for middle Americans; we know what we like and this is it. No, you can’t have Greed, The Big Parade or The Crowd, Ambersons can only be released as a DVD extra and The Devils can only be released by the BFI if they don’t put back in the Rape of Christ and it’s only DVD not Blu Ray. But why would you want those when you can have another Oz with a Blu Ray case with red glitter designed by the friend of the granddaughter of the best friend of a bloke who shook the hand of the creator of Dorothy’s shoes. Fuck off!!! Fuck RIGHT off!!!!!
Imagine in a cinema if you went to see a film especially, then they cancelled it and said they were showing The Wizard of Oz. if they kept doing this, you’d be pretty damn sick, right? Well I am pretty damned sick of it. My essay was written eight years ago when I was trying to be optimistic about it, but now I realise that there is nothing to be optimistic about, its popularity is just about as good an exhibit for the prosecution of media manipulation of what’s good and what isn’t, as could be offered.
Allan,
You’re not the only one around here who’s upset those other films don’t have a proper release. You’re right to blame it on the studio, or the public, but don’t blame another film. That’s pointless. Secondly, I’m fine if that’s how you feel about the film. Don’t put up a front using 5 stars and then not defend the rating then. I’ll read the essays and ignore your ratings then.
Joel’s tried to explain, but it seems I may have to show distinction here. Star ratings are – or at least should be – an indication of the film’s EXCELLENCE primarily, and only a small portion of that should be personal preference. There are films that are brilliantly made but absolutely repellent – I picked A Serbian Film, I could also pick Saló a generation earlier. These films may not be films you ‘like’ or indeed could ever like, but that should not stop one’s appreciation of their concept, creation and achievement. The Wizard of Oz is a wonderfully made family film, it could be made no better. But for me I view it as I view Aliens or The Terminator or Sin City, or Harry Potter 8 come to that, brilliantly made films of their type, but a negligible type. Yes they’re included as I have to include them as it would be to overlook their undoubted qualities of filmmaking. If someone asked me to pick absolute favourite films, I’d have to include Dwain Esper’s Maniac, because it’s so joyously bad, but that doesn’t make it a classic. Hell, no.
I’m not a fan of family wholesome entertainment because I don’t see the world through such rose tinted spectacles. Where I live we don’t do such namby pamby shite. These are films for the Leonard Maltin set where family films cannot get less than *** and Blade Runner and Taxi Driver can be given *½ and ** (making them inferior to Pearl Harbor). And yet I do love the very best of Disney because through their classic period (1937-1942) there was an undercurrent of darkness there. In Fantasia the entire Stravinsky and Moussorgsky sequences, in Snow White in the woods, in Bambi the fire and the mother sequence, in Pinocchio Pleasure Island and Monstro the Whale, in Dumbo the drunken nightmare, etc. etc. It may not have been as good, but even Sleeping Beauty had the same. Disney hasn’t done proper dark for decades. Even Beauty and the Beast is in there for its technique and as a musical, not purely as an animation. It lacks the darkness of its greatest predecessors. Please, please, please, can we differentiate between admiration and affection.
Allan,
“Please, please, please, can we differentiate between admiration and affection.”
Why yes we actually can! Okay so you have defined how you work. I more clearly understand your ratings system and how you view films. I’m okay with that, if that’s your definition of using your system. However, there are people that don’t necessarily agree with this. I don’t really believe in the star ratings system for myself very much. We can understand it without agreeing with the fact that this how a system should be run. Therefore, others have a right to call someone out and question for more clarity on a particular film if we feel like. I thank you for staying on this thread and explaining with more detail why you feel such a way about a particular movie. Again, like I said, it’s the words that count. Without the explanation there is confusion.
Allan, while I’m with you on the star-rating/personal preference split, I’m with Jon that it’s dangerous ground to start blaming a film itself for being overexposed. Understandable, certainly, but still something one would want to guard against I think – because it opens the door for a film to be judged on something other than its objective merits or personal enjoyment factor (both of which are valid criteria, as long as they are distinguished somewhat).
I also don’t agree that, unlike the Disneys, The Wizard of Oz lacks darkness. I think there’s a very dark, partly intentional, partly unintentional subtext. I’ll admit that context too – the Depression of the time, the forthcoming war, Judy’s own issues – play into this but I think it’s there in the film as well. However this will be the subject of an essay I hope to pen next year, so I’ll wait till then.
Sam has identified the central issue here. How can you – unless you inhabit some bizarro universe – rate a film a masterpiece and then defile it with vulgar abuse? The truth is you can’t, so Allan waffles. A more sincere Mr Fish in 2009:
However, The Wizard of Oz for me, though a masterwork of its type, belongs no more on a best films of the 1930s list than Star Wars in the 1970s, ET in the 1980s, etc. They’re classics yes, but I cannot consider them for truly high.
IMO, if I give something the highest rating, or any rating, I better have reasons for why I did so. This means defending my position in any case. If my words and rating were at odds with each other, I would have to change my rating to better reflect how I feel about it. Otherwise, there’s no point to the rating system. I want to know what someone says about the film, not how many stars it got.
I’ve stayed out of this conversation so far– really, what’s the point?– but I do like the cut of Tony’s jib here. For me, the first criteria for whether or not to rate a movie high or call it a masterpiece is personal estimation, not popular concensus. I, for example, can recognize that just about everybody and their 100 year old grandmother loves or respects something like, say, “Gone With the Wind”, while I consider it overrated, amoral, and frankly kind of dull. As such, the historian in me can look at it and say “yes, it’s important,” while the critic in me can say, “yeah, but it sucks”. I’d rather be honest about it.
Bob,
So when you say it sucks, are you attaching a star rating? If so then is it 5, 2 or what? Are you not following Allan’s principle? Do you even believe in star ratings? Do tell.
I try not to give star ratings anymore– I have, but I’m never consistent with them. For me, filmgoing is a very binary thing– either I really like something, or I don’t. Or, barring that, either I’m engaged or I’m not, and there whether or not you like it is immaterial, somewhat. Assigning star ratings at that point is almost just a chance to hedge your bets.
If I were going to give a star rating to GWtW, I’d probably give it two, maybe two and a half out of five. It scores points for the scale of the production and historical importance, and maybe a little for Rhet Butler being a pretty cool bad-ass. Other than that– I hate what it stands for politically, I hate pretty much all of the characters (especially Scarlet), and just find the whole enterprise just plain boring.
Really, I suppose the most honest rating would be to give it no rating at all– not zero stars, but N/A. That’s how I’m tempted to rate movies in the future, a simple pass/fail grade with notes in the margins.
A movie that I dislike or hate, regardless of importance, like say La Bete or Salo would get * or ** from me.
Something like Oz or Gone With The Wind which I have major problems with, but that I still find entertaining/highly watchable (and are considered important) would fall in the *** to **** range.
Films that are important and I also consider highly enjoyable like Open City or The Third Man would get ****1/2 to *****.
Movies that are perhaps less important in relation to film history, but that I still find personally important and extremely enjoyable like The Thing (82) or Act Of Violence would get ****1/2 to *****.
Enjoyable for me is a combination of many factors including watchability and thematic resonance.
I know no one asked, but this is my rating system in a nutshell.
Bob and Maurizio,
I’m with you guys. Your systems, or preference to not use the ratings are completely understandable. Allan mentioned above that his rating system is different than these. Hence, how we ended up in this mess. We need to all be aware that there’s going to be some sensitivity and misunderstandings as none of us use these in the same exact way.
My personal quirk, and I don’t prefer star ratings, is that I only go from 1 to 4 stars. I find the 5 star system too broad for me. I see a tendency to not use the lower end of the scale, and there is a muddled mid section around 3 to 4 where I really can’t gauge how good a movie is when I just see the stars. Like I said, these are my own quirks. Trying to wade through all this is rather messy.
Maurizio, out of curiosity where would a “guilty pleasure” fall in that star firmament (or do you recognize such a category)?
Guilty pleasures would usually fall in the *** to ***1/2 star range.
I think there has been quite enough name-calling and putdowns for one thread. I hear that I would rank Pearl Harbor over Taxi Driver simply because I leave room in my critical aesthetic for something so “syrup brigade”-y as the imagination-killing Wizard of Oz. I have also learned that someone I’ve broken bread with on several occasions carries a big prejudice against the generation from which I spring, offering not a “whiff” but a “stench” of Boomer bashing to this discussion. It’s hard for me to believe that so much bile and dire warnings can be issued against this movie – I feel like I’m being dictated to by a Breen commission that insists we must protect impressionable minds from excessive cheerfulness. Sorry, kid, I can’t take you to see Dumbo because it’s NC-17; we’re going to see Melancholia instead.
I hope none of these people will be invited to participate in the comedy countdown; we might find out their No. 1 film is The Sorrow and the Pity.
Heavens To Betsy!!!!!
How Marilyn figured out my favorite comedy is almost supernatural. It was a toss up between Pity and La Strada. The latter is only applicable for its laugh-out-loud ending.
Haha Marilyn this is great! If I wasn’t married I think I would propose to you!
If I wasn’t married, I might just accept!
Marilyn I wasn’t really attacking you at all (or anyone in this thread) but rather I object to this film (which I’ve stated at least three or four times now), which I’m more then welcome to do. If you do however feel I’ve slighted you personally, well then I apologize. While I do have problems with Baby Boomer values on a whole, it’s not different from anyone of an older set thinking all young people (which I’d be included) are mindless dolts. If you feel my criticisms don’t apply to you, then don’t take offense because I’m probably not speaking to your values (just as I wouldn’t take offense to any broad comment you’d make about young people). I think this is incredibly fair and cordial.
“I hope none of these people will be invited to participate in the comedy countdown;…”
No worries, my days here are essentially numbered. Especially so when posters start actively campaigning for me to not be invited to participate.
OK, Jamie, this is absolutely a fair and reasoned position, While I implore you not to bail out, and hope time will heal, I have nothing but the highest regard for everything you have done at this site for almost two years. You are a true friend.
Jamie – Your “apology” is hardly sincere when you take a joke (yes, it really was a joke, though I hardly expect you to believe me) as an another opportunity to feel persecuted. I actually predicted this response from you when talking with Shane. You don’t actually say you weren’t talking about me personally, so you can never be accused of the “some of my best friends are” kind of prejudice; rather you suggest that I delude myself into thinking you have no beef with me. What an interesting way to engage in stereotyping while remaining true to yourself.
Well, again sorry. I won’t cloud it with anything else. I apologize for anything I’ve said. I’ve met both you and Shane a handful of times and consider you both kind and generous people. I’d hope you feel the same about me as I’ve always tried to be as accurate to what I feel I am (a nice person at heart) but perhaps I’ve failed.
Again, my apologies. I will not comment further to distort this.
Marilyn’s position is most understandable, (and eloquent as always) and after reading through this thread I am admittedly at a loss of words, even after expressing myself numerous times. I think Maurizio did a commendable job coming to terms with his actual views and rating, and as always Joel exhibited reason and perspective. To the point as always, Tony makes some telling observations. Jon’s passions are dear to my heart.
I’ll allow for the smoke to clear, and to move on, hoping and anticipating this will all subside, and we’ll all live on to engage in more fruitful discourse.
Isn’t the best measure of success a combination of critical and popular approval? I mean, what’s the greatest performance in the world if it has been done in front of the bathroom mirror?
Oh God yes Pierre. Couldn’t agree with you more on this (typical for you) witty and perceptive sizing up!
I haven’t been at this thread in a couple of days because too much Oz makes me nauseous, but honestly, reading through this discourse is like watching an American Boudu Sauvé des Eaux. Answers on a comment for who plays the Michel Simon part? Just don’t expect me to be here to read the reply. No, I am not leaving the site as I have no reason to do so, but am leaving this thread.
As for the comedy countdown and who’s writing for it, who gives the proverbial rodent’s rectum. That’s a long way off and long may it remain so, instead of moving remorselessly towards us like Von Trier’s Melancholia….
Are you auditioning for a part in this week’s new comedy show?