In another thread, people are deriding nearly every year but 1939 in terms of the movies released. They mock people who put ‘fun but not art’ pictures in their lists for, say, 1984, but they turn right around and put The Wizard of Oz among the [del]Golddiggers[/del] Pantheon of 1939.
What the hell are they thinking?
It isn’t a good adaptation of the novels. For one thing, it changes Dorothy’s slippers from silver to ruby, simply because it would look better on screen. (I’m not of the camp who thinks Baum was a silverite. I just dislike arbitrary changes like those.)
It isn’t good on technical merits. At least one scene, the scene in the evil forest, is cut to the detriment of continuity, as the scarecrow loses his handgun in the scene that was cut and this loss is not otherwise explained in the film.
It isn’t good on storytelling merits. It doesn’t take long to realize that 99% of the plot is pointless: Glinda could have told Dorothy what to do almost immediately after she landed. Retconning a rationale for the majority of the movie is fanwank, pure and simple, and good movies do not depend on fanwank.
In short, it comes up very short in every concrete aspect people look for when they decide whether a film is Great Art. Yet it is constantly mentioned as a point in 1939’s favor whenever that year in film history gets mentioned. What gives?
I don’t think that anyone is arguing TWOOz is great “art” in the same way that Citizen Kane or Modern Times is art.
That said, I’d argue that TWOOz is a great movie. It’s entertaining, it tugs at the emotions, it has a couple of very good songs, and you don’t mind seeing it again. Like Casablanca.
Especially if you don’t think Baum was a silverite, wouldn’t you agree that changing the slippers to ruby because they look better on-screen is exactly the thing that good art directors and costume designers SHOULD do, especially when color was such an integral part of the movie?
The scene where Dorothy opens the door of her farm house and Munchkinland erupts in glorious Technicolor was as much an “OOOOOOOOHHHHH!!!” special effect moment for its time as anything George Lucas ever put on screen.
It’s a great movie because it clearly has resonance even after 80 years. People watch it and are still enchanted by it.
As for your various points:
This one trivial change makes it a bad adaptation? Given that as a basis, you couldn’t accept any adaptation of anything to film.
So? Scenes get cut all the time in films. That has nothing to do with its technical merits.
Actually, if you paid attention, the gun was probably lost when the Flying Monkeys attacked – so because you aren’t able to conceive of this perfectly logical and simple explanation, you’re willing to condemn the entire film? :rolleyes: Seems the problem here is not with the film, but with your own lack of imagination.
Were you even watching the movie? Glinda and Dorothy specifically say that Dorothy would never have believed it was so simple, and that Dorothy had to find out for herself. You may think it fanwank, but it’s a very strong psychological truth that we often can’t accept the truth until we’re ready for it – like, for instance, the fact that The Wizard of Oz is a great movie.
The way the film editing is synchronized with the sound of the album Dark Side of the Moon is fascinating. How could the editors have done this without psychics as TWOOz was made over 30 years before DSOTM?
Changing the slippers from silver to rubies is such a trivial change it barely is worth mentioning. The big changes are aging Dorothy from a girl to a teenager and having all of Oz reduced to just a dream.
In the book, she actually speaks to both Good Witches - the one she meets in Munchkinland is the Good Witch of the North. After her dealings with Oz, and successful (if accidental) assassination of the Wicked Witch of the West, she heads south, and meets Glinda, the Good Witch of the South. It’s Glinda, not the GWotN, who tells Dorothy she can use the Slippers to get home.
It’s very possible that North (not named in the first book) didn’t know the full extent of the Slippers powers. (It’s also possible Glinda doesn’t, as well, but she happened to know that one, while North didn’t.)
OK, see? You understand that my little example was just an example, and not an entire argument. Tengu also gives an example of the stupid changes made to the plot for the sake of the screenplay.
kunilou: I’d be more willing to give them the ruby slippers if they otherwise had done a good job of the adaptation. They did not.
It’s great art because it resonates with children on a primal level that sticks with them for the rest of their lives. It was the first special effects extravaganza, and it set the bar so high that for nearly 40 years afterwards, only Star Wars approached it.
The Wizard of Oz doesn’t meet your high standards? Fine. I bet you’d kick Megan Fox out of bed for not being pretty enough. If you can’t enjoy The Wizard of Oz, no film can ever do it for you.
No. I saw it when I was quite young and… no. Didn’t happen.
So Star Wars was Great Art? I bet the kinds of people who hold up TWOOz would laugh at you for saying that. I’m nearly certain they would think Star Wars was a hokey little genre picture that pleased the morons long enough to rake in the cash.
My God, this isn’t about liking the movie. This is about standards of art and culture.
Here, I’ll give you an example: Birth of a Nation is a racist piece of trash written by someone who deserved to be horsewhipped for the views he held about black people and their proper place in society. It is impossible to defend it as a movie you personally enjoy unless you, too, are a racist piece of trash.
It is, however, Great Art. Why? Because it meaningfully advanced the art of movie-making by introducing camera techniques and editing styles that resonated down through the decades. It’s possible to watch Birth of a Nation today solely because its production was a technological masterwork rivaled by very few films before or since.
How does The Wizard of Oz stack up to Birth of a Nation?
That’s sort of what I was going to say. I guess if someone were to watch The Wizard of Oz for the first time as an adult, these could be criticisms. But I’ve never known anyone for whom the movie wasn’t one of his or her earliest childhood movie-watching experiences. And the memory stays with you for your whole life.
And by the way, it’s ridiculous to judge a movie by how it mirrors the novel in every detail. Movies and novels are different media and some things just don’t translate well into film . . . like silver slippers in a scene containing very saturated colors.
If the OP hasn’t seen the film since he was “quite young,” I suggest he see it again.
[ul]
[li]Clever, memorable songs.[/li][li]Judy Garland singing them.[/li][li]Stunning visuals using a (for the time) revolutionary color process.[/li][li]A script with lots of quotable lines.[/li][li]Margaret Hamilton’s towering performance as the witch.[/li][li]Ray Bolger’s dancing.[/li][li]Jack Haley’s dancing.[/li][/ul]Basically The Wizard of Oz is an example of the studio system at its best. Lots of people each doing an excellent job with their own little individual part of the production so that the finished product winds up being greater than the sum of its parts. It doesn’t have a masterful unifying vision like Citizen Kane, but it’s a collection of beautiful details, one following another. After a while all those beautiful details add up to something very special.
I’m going to at least partially side with Derleth on this one. The movie may have a lot about it to like, but it has a lot to legitimately not like, too.
The first time I saw it, I was very young and thought it was too scary.
Later in my childhood, I saw it after having read (and loved) the books, and I was really annoyed at all the changes. (Some of them still bother me; others, not so much.)
Sometime in my adult life, I tuned in once while it was on TV. I didn’t see the whole thing, but I saw enough to make me think it was full of cheesy over-the-top overacting and would be right at home on MST3K.
I don’t think it’s a very good movie. I don’t dock it points for taking huge liberties in the adaptation, but it’s not very well acted or choreographed and, even for a musical, is pretty trite and shallow. However, I do think it hit all the right notes with enough gusto to become iconic, and was perhaps even somewhat innovative in its scale and presentation. It’s also still popularly enjoyed, which is somewhat unusual for a film of its age and type. As a result, TWoO’s place in American culture and what elements are so enduringly appealing is worthy of the attention of film buffs, even if the movie itself is a hot mess.
I agree it’s not a great film. I would compare it to Star Wars: a landmark film with great special effects for its time and enduring appeal but quite deficient in acting and writing. I still enjoy Star Wars quite a lot and enjoy TWOZ a bit but neither is close to being a masterpiece IMO.