# Why is the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" considered Great Art? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 2, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021 "2009-08-02T02:04:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/21 "2009-08-02T09:42:35Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > 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. > > 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. Um hello? Upstream you were bitching about changing the story - silver vs ruby slipers … but in the freaking book Dorothy has to do the whole dog and pony show before finding out how to get home … so NOW you WANT to change the book to make it into a arthouse short flick? :dubious::smack::smack::smack::smack: ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/22 "2009-08-02T10:45:31Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > 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 was a product of its times, made by a brilliant filmmaker whose childlike faith in his grandfather’s tales of the Old South was unfortunate. Have you seen the film? It has sympathetic Black characters. We’re not talking about **The Turner Diaries** here. > [@](#): > > 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_? Both broke a lot of ground, and are great mostly for that reason. Prior to **Birth of a Nation** , most movies were one camera set in a stationary position in front of what amounted to a theatrical stage, with some close-ups. Afterwards, it was a whole new ball game. **Wizard of Oz** , while not a perfect adaptation (and try writing a perfect adaptation someday; **Frankenstein** would _suck_ if it were ever filmed exactly as written!), it was the first movie to give a big budget and respectful treatment by a filmmaker to a children’s story. Its success allowed others to follow. That alone makes it great. And jeez, **Wizard** is just fun to watch! Hard to quantify something like that, but what else really matters with this type of movie? I can’t imagine this film benefiting from a remake, can you? ---
**Author:** ![Skylark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Skylark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skylark)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/23 "2009-08-02T13:01:07Z")
The other day I was at a red light behind a car with license plates **&TOTO2**. I had to smile. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/24 "2009-08-02T13:23:25Z")
Whether its so bad it should be buried in the misty past, or so great it can never be surpassed, fine by me; but I hope no middle ground is permitted. (because I sure don’t want Tim Burton to do a re-make) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/25 "2009-08-02T14:14:25Z")
First of all, I don’t know that anyone is claiming that The Wizard of Ox (1939) is “great art.” I hope not, because that term is nothing but pretentious bullshit, the sort of stuff bandied about by people who will sip some otherwise bitter cabernet sauvignon solely because they detect “hints of honeysuckle,” which sets them aside from the hoi-polloi. :rolleyes: The Wizard of Oz is a very good movie, and that’s the claim being made. So good that television rebroadcast it annually for 33 years, as a prime-time event. So good that I watched it and loved it as a kid, despite **never seeing the color parts in color until I was 12!** (when we finally bought a color television). So good that the songs from it are classic fixtures in people’s minds. Everyone knows “Over the Rainbow,” but equally so, people know, and will sing/quote parts from: “Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead”, “Follow the Yellow Brick Road/We’re Off to See the Wizard,” and “If I Only Had a Brain.” “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” is likely to show up in any number of conversations/situations in real life (at least, among people I know). In other words, our collective society loves it. And complaining about the power of the slippers is silly. First of all, we suspend our disbelief over obvious plot holes: is Casablanca really a poor movie because the “letters of transit” are a MacGuffin? Should we think less of The Lord of the Rings when we realize the stupid Eagles could simply have flown the Ring to Orodruin? No, of course not. And, as pointed out, the slippers couldn’t take Dorothy “home” until Dorothy had decided that being home was the most important thing in the world. Which means that the movie’s story has an important underlying message: that which we take for granted may have more meaning to us than we suppose. Great art it ain’t, but that’s just fine with me. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/26 "2009-08-02T14:36:20Z")
It’s not Great Art, but it is a great Classic Film. > [@](#): > > 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’s not arbitrary. Like any good artist, the filmmakers were trying to most successfully exploit their medium. – red showed up a lot more impressively and glitzier than silver would have, and showed off the capabilities of the new color film extremely well. > [@](#): > > 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. THIS is your idea of “not good on techical merits”? The film is superb on technical merits – the glass paintings work extremely well. The long shots of the Twister are very well done. The technicolor quality is very well handled. The fudged and took shortcuts in many cases, but I’ll forgive them a few blunders. > [@](#): > > 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. Yeah, and Gandalf could’ve talked the King of the Eagles into flying Frodo to Mount Doom fro the outset, so Lord of the Rings is a fraud, too. Of course, the point is to explore Oz and the characters. And if the story turns out to be a dream (not in the book, of course), the aimlessness of the story is no detriment, but typical. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/27 "2009-08-02T16:15:05Z")
Wait a sec - the Scarecrow had a gun? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/28 "2009-08-02T17:35:02Z")
> [@Skylark](#): > > The other day I was at a red light behind a car with license plates **&TOTO2**. I had to smile. There are license plates that contain ampersands? ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/29 "2009-08-02T17:46:10Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > It’s great art because it resonates with children on a primal level that sticks with them for the rest of their lives. And with traditional gay male culture, which, let’s face it, is a privileged one in determining matters of esthetics. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/30 "2009-08-02T17:57:35Z")
> [@Krokodil](#): > > it was the first movie to give a big budget and respectful treatment by a filmmaker to a children’s story. Its success allowed others to follow. That alone makes it great. That would be significant if true, but what about _Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs_? **Lantern** , I think _Star Wars_ is a good comparison—it seems fair to say that it and _Wizard_ are the same kind of classic. ---
**Author:** ![Jenaroph](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e8c25b/32.png) [@Jenaroph](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jenaroph)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/31 "2009-08-02T19:01:21Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Wait a sec - the Scarecrow had a gun? Scarecrow is holding a gun and a big stick as the group enters the Haunted Forest. The Lion has a big butterfly net and a large mallet, and the Tin Man is holding a giant monkey wrench as well as his axe. They’re armed to the teeth. I’m finding the people here concerned about the continuity of where the gun went amusing, as I was always concerned about where the heck the gun et al came from in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Slithy\_Tove](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slithy_tove/32/18248_2.png) [@Slithy\_Tove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slithy_Tove)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/32 "2009-08-02T20:39:52Z")
> [@Jenaroph](#): > > I was always concerned about where the heck the gun et al came from in the first place. Maybe it had been in Dorothy’s house (oh wait, that was Zardoz, not Wizard of Oz) Also in her 1939-era house, I hope there wasn’t any newspapers with anything about the Nazis, and the whole place ended up like that one Star Trek episode ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/33 "2009-08-02T21:23:11Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > 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.) Oh paleeeaasee…EVERYBODY knows the power shoes have over women. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/34 "2009-08-02T21:29:26Z")
> [@Derleth](#): > > **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. And the parrot’s eye in Citizen Kane was hollow, too. What an epic FAIL! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/35 "2009-08-02T21:44:48Z")
> [@Tengu](#): > > 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.) Yes, she tells Dorothy she can use the slippers (wisdom/know-how/self-sufficiency) to get home., but, like any modern adult telling a young person how to get through life, it doesn’t stick until one works through the emotional landscape of experience. That really is the whole point of a Journey tale like The Wizard of Oz: a young person gets into a position far from home with curious inhabitants, and they have to think and fend for themselves, usually accompanied by odd compatriots in a quest, ultimately giving strength and wisdom by going through the experience, Retconning and fanwank aside, :rolleyes:, it’s a fairytale, not using that term lightly, and meant to be a fanciful story to give meaning to the human experience. So, 99% of the plot is not pointless; the point is in the journey of the protagonist. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/36 "2009-08-02T21:59:03Z")
> [@elelle](#): > > it’s a fairytale, not using that term lightly, and meant to be a fanciful story to give meaning to the human experience. So, 99% of the plot is not pointless; the point is in the journey of the protagonist. Some of us take our flying monkeys seriously. ---
**Author:** ![cochrane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cochrane/32/10441_2.png) [@cochrane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cochrane)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/37 "2009-08-02T22:35:05Z")
I never saw the Wizard of Oz in color until I was about 10. I was born nearly 20 years after 1939, and for most of my childhood, we had a black-and-white TV set. It was a good movie on its own merits, seen completely in B&W, but when we got a color TV in 1967, that’s when it really dazzled me. Watching it on TV, of course, can’t compare to watching it projected on a big screen, but I wasn’t fortunate enough to have been around when it was shown theatrically, and even today, it’s rare to see a theater make a special showing out of it. But still, as a kid, not knowing what I was missing, I enjoyed it in B&W. I would have even if the segment in Oz hadn’t been filmed in color. ---
**Author:** ![elelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f0a364/32.png) [@elelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elelle)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/38 "2009-08-02T22:50:54Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Some of us take our flying monkeys seriously. That’s apparent here, sho’ nuff. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/39 "2009-08-02T23:27:27Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Some of us take our flying monkeys seriously. Around here, usually out of the nether regions. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021/40 "2009-08-02T23:34:38Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > Should we think less of The Lord of the Rings when we realize the stupid Eagles could simply have flown the Ring to Orodruin? Except that it wouldn’t have worked. The Eagles could have gotten there a lot faster than Frodo and Sam, yes. However, while Sauron was preoccupied enough not to notice two hobbits in his realm, do you really think he (and the Nazgul) would have been dumb enough to miss giant freaking birds flying over the border? The Eagles wouldn’t have been able to get through. Besides, whether or not it would have been possible, Frodo was the one who was supposed to do it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-1939-film-the-wizard-of-oz-considered-great-art/505021.md?page=3)