Munchkin billing in Wizard of Oz

Cafe Society
1

Okay, I don’t know if this is a General Question, Great Debate, or a poll, but since it has to do with the movie, The Wizard of Oz, here is where I’m putting it.

I just watched the movie for the first time in years. During the opening credits, I noticed that while scrolling down the cast list of the actors, it then billed “and The Munchkins”.

I also observed in the closing credits that the Munchkins were collectively billed as “The Singer Midgets”. An online search turned up that the group was collectively billed under this group name, which was the name created by the agent that hired them. In effect, they were a performance group being collectively billed as “The Singer Midgets”, so I have no real issue with that billing.

But I still feel uneasy with the opening credits listing is as it is. Does anyone else feel this way? Has there ever been controversy over this topic?

2

Aren’t the credits based on how big the stars are? Most of the Munchkins were background actors without lines. It would be like a movie set in New York listing people as “person standing next to stop sign”, “person behind person standing next to stop sign” etc…

There should be billing for the Mayor and related Munchkin characters as well as the actors in Oz with speaking parts. Are they missing? The backdrop munchkins shouldn’t have been mentions as a group.

3

I’m not going to say it.

4

The quality of mercy is not strained.
I bet someone’s going to say it though.

5

Would it have made any difference if the opening credits had also said that the Munchkins were played by “The Singer Midgets”? Either way, none of the people who played the Munchkins got individual screen credit. Are you feeling sorry for Singer?

6

What, I can’t inject a little humor into the discussion?

7

What on earth is wrong with it?

8

AFIK, there has never been any controversy about the billing. Most likely, the discrepancy is due to an administrative error, or some such (were the opening and closing credits done at the same time by the same people?).

I’m not sure of what point you’re trying to make. “Munchkin” was not a derogatory term at the time the movie was made. It had no life outside the film or book until much later; the OED’s first cite as an independent term is from 1976.

9

As I was told in fifth grade when I was cast as “Offstage voice” in the Prince and the Pauper, There are no small parts. Just Munchkins.

10

Not directly related to the OP’s question, but the LA Times had a recent story about some non-dwarf Munchkins.

11

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Aren’t the credits based on how big the stars are? Most of the Munchkins were background actors without lines. It would be like a movie set in New York listing people as “person standing next to stop sign”, “person behind person standing next to stop sign” etc…

There should be billing for the Mayor and related Munchkin characters as well as the actors in Oz with speaking parts. Are they missing? The backdrop munchkins shouldn’t have been mentions as a group.
[/QUOTE]

No, there is no separate billing for the Mayor, the Lollypop Guild Members, etc. There is no individual billing for any Munchkin actor. There is only a lump billing in the opening as “The Munchkins” and a lump billing at the end for the Munchkins as “The Singer Midgets”.

No it wouldn’t, because when a movie bills someone as “person standing next to stop sign”, that is the character reference used to identify who is the subject, and then the name is listed next to it. In the opening credits, there are no other character references, just the actors’ names, but they are treated differently, listed by character identity only.

It would be like billing for The Terminator and listing the credits,
“Starring: Arnold Schwarzanegger, Michael Beihn, Linda Hamilton, and a bunch of cops”.

[QUOTE=Walloon]
Would it have made any difference if the opening credits had also said that the Munchkins were played by “The Singer Midgets”? Either way, none of the people who played the Munchkins got individual screen credit. Are you feeling sorry for Singer?
[/QUOTE]

Fair point. Actually, I would think that certain characters (like the Mayor) might have rated individual billing. However, none of them have actual speaking parts, only song lines during the one Munchkin song. So that is why billing under the musical performance group “The Singer Midgets” is appropriate vs independent billing.

But yes, I think it does make a difference to call them “The Singer Midgets” vs “The Munchkins”. The reason why is that “Munchkins” is there character description. They didn’t list “Starring: Dorothy, Auntie Em, Uncle Henry,…” They were listing performer names. So it seems something of a slight to have the description for one group to be character names rather than their real names or performance group name.

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
AFIK, there has never been any controversy about the billing. Most likely, the discrepancy is due to an administrative error, or some such (were the opening and closing credits done at the same time by the same people?).
[/QUOTE]

I’ve never heard any controversy over it, either. I haven’t watched the movie in a while. To my modern ear, this sounds something of a slight which might not have meant anything at the time.

I’m not implying that “Munchkin” was intended to be derogatory. Rather, the act of billing the people by their characters rather than names or performance group identity seems something of a slight to me.

12

… the studios called the shots re: screen credits to a much greater extent than they do now. A lot of films did not have nearly the detailed credits for background and small part actors that they do now.

I suspect it had a lot more to do with the studio regs and rules and a lot less to do with anything regarding those particular performers.

For example, the citizens of Oz are quite a large crowd- and yet they are not named individually, are they?

Cartooniverse

13

Not until the late 1970s did the Screen Actors Guild obtain mandatory screen credits for bit parts. It’s sometimes amazing how many actors go uncredited in speaking parts before then.

BTW, whether the actors playing the Munchkins spoke or sang is irrelevant; it’s a performance in either case.

14

I think you have to look at it from a 1939 point of view. The film did OK but it wasn’t the classic it became (largely due to TV).

The Munchkins’ fame grew over time and especially when all the principal cast memebers started dying off and there was no one else left to talk about the film

Billing them as “The Munchkins” to me is akin to billing “The Three Stooges,” or “The Little Rascals,” yes there may be a stand out here and there but it’s the GROUP that is important.