<sigh> Yeah, you’re right.
I realize now why the Village People had a construction worker, and not a deconstruction worker.
The reason is that she was Judy, and the others weren’t.
It’s (among other things) her talent, her style, her sense of humor (especially in later years), her public tragedies, the sense that she was knocked down repeatedly by life and persevered, the fact that we all love a comeback story and she had more comebacks than pretty much anyone, and of course we all love drama. Trying to explain gays and Garland isn’t something easily done on a message board. Volumes have been written. I’m an unabashed Judy queen and for me it’s simply that I believe she’s the single most talented performer that’s ever lived.
There is? I’m not saying I disagree, I just don’t remember who was rejected by their family.
jimbeam writes:
> I just breezed through the book. You realize this movie was based on a series
> of short stories. The original fans of the movie were probably familiar with the
> children’s books before the movie was ever made. In the book there are
> several reference to the queer people and queer this and that. The lion really
> is a daisy in the book and talks about feeling gay. The tin man cries at the drop
> of a hat and Dorothy is at first kissed by the good witch of the north. Then
> later practically falls in love with a princess she meets and later is kissed by the
> good witch of the south. There are lots of other examples in the book that lead
> me to believe the gay community then was probably familiar with the Wizard of
> Oz even before the film. The film just really clinched it, especially with the Over
> the Rainbow themesong, and Judy as the lead.
Almost every bit of this post is wrong. The movie is based on the first book in a series by L. Frank Baum. Baum wrote 14 books in the series. After he died, several other people wrote more books in the series for a total of 40 canonical books of the series. There are also some unauthorized sequels to the books. There are no references to homosexuality in the books. Baum often had a lot of weird things happen to his characters, including having characters who were male most of the book but eventually were discovered to be females under a curse which was broken at the end, but nobody at the time they were published thought of the books as being about homosexuality. Lots of weird things happened to characters in Baum’s books, most of which can’t be made to be symbolic of homosexuality even by the most crazed Freudian. The lion is not a daisy and does not talk about being gay. The tin man does not act homosexual in the book except under some bizarre interpretation that a crazed Freudian could put on his actions. I’m pretty sure that there was no homosexual cult around the Oz books before the film came out. They were thought of as a fairly standard children’s book series with lots of strange things in them. Incidentally the books are excellent, and I would recommend them to anyone. There’s much in the first book that’s not included in the film. Indeed, some of the fans of the books don’t like the movie much.
Dorothy felt rejection and alienation which led into her singing OTR. She also felt some rejection because Aunt Em and Uncle Henry allowed Miss Gulch to take Toto. Each of the three Oz companions believes himself to be deficient in some fundamental way and most pronounced the Lion is completely unable to fulfil his rightful role in the forest “family.”
It’s not IMHO an overarching theme of the movie (I’ve only read wo of the books and didn’t care much one way or the other about them) but there is a thread of it there.
Actually the only thing wrong about my post was referring to it as “short stories”. Episodic would be more accurate. Calling it a novel seems to be an exaggeration also. Children’s novel? Okay I’ll go with that even though an adult could read it in less than an hour.
The movie misses a lot that is in the book. Whether the homosexual references were intentional or not. I’d say probably not. Can they be interpreted that way? Well, obviously they can or we would not be having this discussion. Have they been interpreted that way in the past? Absolutely. So don’t say my post is wrong.
If you question the scenes I described read the book. I’ll even try to find you a cite if I can.
Is the tin man gay? I dunno, he had a fiance but broke up with her. He is highly emotional despite his lack of a heart. He cries at practically every little thing and is somewhat embarrased by this. Doesn’t mean he’s homosexual but it may be a trait some folks can appreciate.
The FACT is that Dorothy’s companions have characteristics that considered by society then and now as less than manly.
Your absolute statement "but nobody at the time they were published thought of the books as being about homosexuality"
You know this.
Surely you don’t think there was no gay culture then.
I too agree the books are excellent and recommended literature. 
I forgot to mention that when our heros arrived to the Emerald City the wizard saw each of them separately NOT all together. He was dressed as a woman at one meeting. Reference to tranvestite? Maybe. Not the only reference either.
BTW You might want ot check out the 1925 version of the movie w/ Oliver Hardy. Some kinky stuff in that movie. Here’s a link although I can’t say how good it is. There’s plenty of other cites.
I read somewhere? Can’t find the cite right now but I’ll try to find it.
L. Frank Baum may have been a cross dresser. I won’t swear to it’s authenticity but I read a newspaper article somewhere to that effect.
Yeah I know, CITE! okay… give me some time.
Oz’s director Victor Fleming rec’d an Oscar for Gone With The Wind and also directed Red Dust where Clark Gable starred as well. The movie Red Dust is quite sexual in nature and homosexuality is addressed in the movie. During the filming of Oz, Clark Gable ran the director (Cuko?) off the set due to some issues regarding his and Gable’s homo/bi-sexual past.
Gable got his way and friend Victor left the Oz set three weeks before it was completed to direct GWTW.
Victor Fleming directed several movies of a sexual nature.
coincidental huh?
Um…yes?
And it’s “Cukor,” as in George Cukor. And while the stories about his supposedly tricking with Gable while Gable was being gay for pay have been around for decades, I’ve never seen a reputable source for it.
I always thought it had something to do with Glinda the Good Witch of the North telling the munchkins to “Come out, come out, wherever you are . . .”
Cukor, sorry I dropped thr r.
So you are dismissing what part of my post? I didn’t say anything about gay for pay, only that they had a past which seemed to be a point of controversy.
So, there were eight or nine movies made about Oz prior to the 1939 Fleming version, including a couple that L. Frank Baum directed and/or produced himself. They were also sexually explicit for the time.
My point is… I see ample evidence of the possibility that Oz had a fan base prior to the '39 version and sexuality was definitely part of its appeal.
The part where you claim Cukor was fired from GWTW at Gable’s insistence because of their “homo/bi-sexual past.” Just because Kenneth Anger said it doesn’t make it so. Hell, especially if Kenneth Anger said it, it doesn’t make it so.
You questioned the coincidental. Sorry, I meant to address that. Cukor was the original director on “OZ” as well. He left to do GWTW when Fleming took over. It kinda goes round and round. Oz gay actors and directors combined with an author who in previous versions as creenwriter, director and producer shows his own slant towards sexuality in a “fairytale”.
Deny it if you will but after researching Oz. I’d have to say there more to this than mere interpretation and/or coincidence. Oz had been around Hollywood for a long time before Judy Garland landed the role.
anyway, I gotta run see y’all later
~JB
Everybody knows there’s a lot of gay sex in Oz.
Doesn’t that refer to Dorothy Parker, though?
I’ve almost never heard it as a reference to Dorothy Parker.
Almost never, or never? I guess it depends on how far back the references go. Assuming that we’re talking about the movie and not the book, is the first reference before or after the movie came out? Parker, IIRC, made a name for herself in the 20s NYC social scene.
The only places I recall seeing it are on Wikipedia, and your post. As opposed to the Oz explanation, which I’ve read in dozens of books, has been referenced in multiple documentary and fiction films, etc.
Which of course doesn’t prove anything, but besides that I’ve never heard of Parker’s having any particularly strong association or resonance with the gay community (other than claiming that her second husband was gay).
So I tend to go with the Garland explanation.
OK. I was more asking a question than trying to make a statement.