How exactly is it murder? Dorothy’s just inside the house, when a tornado picks it up, and drops it on the witch. That’s like blaming a hit-and-run death on someone tied up in the trunk of the car.
I wonder if it might be time for a remake – maybe a version without songs, based more closely on the book. Maybe even a whole series of films based on the Oz Books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oz_books). Would that work?
The last time [rul=“http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089908/”]that was tried, it bombed (unfairly, I’d say).
Oops. Let’s try that again.
The lion wasn’t gay. He was just a friend of Dorothy.
After reading your link, I’m trying to wrap my mind around that Hot Goth Chick from the Craft and the Waterboy playing Dorothy.
I had a long post. Then, Firefox crashed and closed all my pages. Attempt #2
I’ve had an Oz themed costume for the past two Halloweens. I go to the Henri David ball every Halloween. Besides the many stereotypically gay people attending, the judges of the costume contest tend to be very gay. 2004 I attempted a series of nested costumes- 7 foot tall spinning tornado with Gail house and witch on broomstick, Tinman underneath that, Scarecrow underneath that, Lion underneath that, at the center Dorothy (her little dog too). Due to my chronic procrastination, it didn’t work out.
This year, I used most of that costume to make 3 mannequins, outfit them as the Lion, Tinman, and Scarecrow and attach them to my body so that we moved in unison. Things were going very well until I ran out of duct tape on the train ride to the ball. I spent the night on a couch in the lobby trying to finish my costume with masking tape.
2006 will be the same costume. I need to sew many seams that I taped to save time,stuff the Lion, cover the Scarecrow’s head in new material and give him a better face, put more yarn in the Lion’s mane, make a new torso for the Tinman, an possibly recover the Lion’s face in different material. I also need to make a better gingham dress for Dorothy. I may attempt ruby slippers (I know they were silver in the book). Certainly, ruby slippers are part of the traditional Judy Garland image. However, even shaven and made up I look nothing like Judy Garland. I have no experience wearing women’s shoes. Finally, while this year’s footwear was largely a result of budget concerns and procrastination, I really like the idea of ruby sneakers.
I’ve wondered how many people at the ball would recognize it if I made the Tinman based on the book’s illustrations rather than the movie. I found a water cooler bottle that would be perfect for the torso of a book-style Tinman but fear people would think I’d just screwed up an attempt to make the film version.
In elementary school, a teacher read us the Wizard Of Oz. I prefer the book to the movie. It is is more whimsical and fantastic. The book has the quartet being attacked by armless men whose necks extend violently. The movie lacks these jack in the box men. The book has the Wizard appearing to each of the quartet in a private audience (OTTOMH, a winged lion, a ball of fire, a beautiful woman, and the giant head seen in the film).
I’ve stalled not far from the end of Wicked. I was reading it to my then girlfriend. She lost the book. I keep meaning to get another copy. But, as we are still friends, I keep hoping she’ll find the book and we can finish it together.
I’ve always wondered about that . . . why is it such a cultural cliche that all gay guys are Judy Garland fans? The only thing I think of is Glinda’s song, “Come out, come out, wherever you are . . .” but that seems like a stretch.
Return to Oz was pretty good. I even like the non-canon alienist/electroshock stuff they threw in there. It’s still too much of a jumble of elements from other books, though. Apart from the absence of musical numbers, it can in no way be considered “closer to the books” than Victor Fleming’s movie. Especially since they used large parts of The Marvelous Land of Oz (which Dorothy is barely mentioned in) but left out its protagonist altogether.
“That Hot Goth Chick from The Craft” used to live here in Vancouver, and was at some of the better parties I went to in the early nineties. When she was a teen she had very unusual eyes, which looked even more indescribably unusual if you happened to have a headful of LSD. 
Previous thread on that subject
I loved all the books, too, and haven’t seen the movie. I’ve got my own idea (aided by the illustrations) of what everything looked like, and it doesn’t involved singing.
They COLORIZED IT? Jeezus…that ruins the whole thing!
Actually, the colorized it in 1978.
I hardly ever do this, but: LOL
And, of course, no SDMB thread on Oz would be complete without Cecil’s masterly exegesis of Oz as Prairie Populism.
The original illustrations, however, which he must have approved, definitely show a very young child, certainly nowhere near the teens.
c’mon,man,it was a drive-by housing
I can only figure that Toni Morrison has a beef with the film, and not Baum’s books. It’s well-known that Frank Baum was esconced in a very feminist household. His Mother-in-Law, Matilda Joslyn Gage was right up there with Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton at the forefront of early feminism. She’s not remembered because she was too radical; spoke out against racism and patriarchal Christianity as well, and fell from popular grace.
Her daughter, Maud, married Baum, was also a strong woman, acting as the family business manager. A nice description of their relationship on this site. Matilda Gage was close to Maud, by some description at odds with Frank, and stayed with them often, encouraging Baum in his writings.
Katherine Rogers, a Women’s Studies professor, has written a book detailing Baum’s life, including his feminist proclivities; “L. Frank Baum: Creator of Oz”, DaCapo Press 2003. An interview with the author worth reading: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/ark/stories/s1397336.htm
It’s sad to me that Matilda Gage has not received the same mainstream historical attention as Anthony and Stanton, but, with the Oz books, she really has had a more widespread influence, even if no one remembers her name. I know those books made me stronger as a young girl decades later. Dorothy as adventurer, sure, and a land ruled by Witches/women (The Wizard wasn’t so much, really), and , when Tip turned into Princess Ozma, wow, that rocked my world, I remember thinking about it all that week.
Baum’s Oz is really ruled by females. The Wizard is revealed thus:
“You must keep your promises to us!” exclaimed Dorothy.
The Lion thought it might be as well to frighten the Wizard, so he gave a large, loud roar, which was so fierce and dreadful that Toto jumped away from him in alarm and tipped over the screen that stood in a corner. As it fell with a crash they looked that way, and the next moment all of them were filled with wonder. For they saw, standing in just the spot the screen had hidden, a little old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face, who seemed to be as much surprised as they were. The Tin Woodman, raising his axe, rushed toward the little man and cried out, “Who are you?”
“I am Oz, the Great and Terrible,” said the little man, in a trembling voice. “But don’t strike me–please don’t–and I’ll do anything you want me to.”
Our friends looked at him in surprise and dismay.
“I thought Oz was a great Head,” said Dorothy.
“And I thought Oz was a lovely Lady,” said the Scarecrow.
“And I thought Oz was a terrible Beast,” said the Tin Woodman.
“And I thought Oz was a Ball of Fire,” exclaimed the Lion.
“No, you are all wrong,” said the little man meekly. “I have been making believe.”
“Making believe!” cried Dorothy. “Are you not a Great Wizard?”
“Hush, my dear,” he said. “Don’t speak so loud, or you will be overheard–and I should be ruined. I’m supposed to be a Great Wizard.”
“And aren’t you?” she asked.
“Not a bit of it, my dear; I’m just a common man.”
“You’re more than that,” said the Scarecrow, in a grieved tone; “you’re a humbug.”
“Exactly so!” declared the little man, rubbing his hands together as if it pleased him. “I am a humbug.”
That’s pretty strong for the early 1900’s, and always applicable for modern times. Thanks, Frank.
When I mentioned to my wife, whose family is Kansan, that I didn’t realize until I got my first color TV that part of the Wizard of Oz was in black and white, she replied that the whole movie was in color. “Kansas really looks that way.”
I, who had never seen Kansas outside of the area near Kansas City, thought she was kidding.
Years later, we drove through central and southwestern Kansas enroute to Phoenix. Kansas really DOES look like that–especially in December. Take the interesting parts out of the monotony that is the I-80 route through Nebraska and you have Kansas from the Nebraska border to Hutchinson and then Hutchinson to Liberal.
The panhandles of Oklahoma and Texas are just more Kansas, IMHO.
This won’t come as news to the posters here who have read the first book, but I just re-read it in the last year or so, and was interested to note that the decision to film the Kansas portion in B&W and Oz in color took no particular genius on the part of the filmmakers. The book itself practically insists on this, stressing the gray colorlessness of Kansas.