Badmovies.org Forum

I was watching Wizard Of Oz last night and something occurred to me.  I've talked to a lot of people who worship the film yet sneer at the fact I love B-Movies.  To me the Wizard Of Oz seems to fit all the fundamentals of a B-Movie.  A few examples;

1.) Midgets, Witches, Talking Trees
2.) Unresolved plot questions like why shouldn't the Wicked Witch be mad with Dorothy?  If someone killed your sister and stole your rightful property wouldn't you be PO'd? That and did the Wizard really give anything to anyone they didn't have already?
3.) Singing numbers about odd things.

Anyone else feel this way?

I'd say it definitely fits the "B' movie fold.  Not saying I didn't like it or anything cause I did, but I wouldn't say it compares to say, The Godfather in terms of like, a great script, acting, etc.

Plus, any movie with flying monkeys and a tree that throws apples gets a  :thumbup: in my book.

Good points, especially since many of the actors who played the Munchkins were also in The Terror of Tiny Town.

I'd never consider it a b-movie, though.

 I like it too...but ya gotta admit...it's not quite as cheezy or bizzare as K.Gordon Murry's import kiddie stuff...

  LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD and the MONSTERS
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhhPemapM18

   HAHAHAHAHA! Jebus...I gotta get this movie...!

 :buggedout:

That looks insane!  Did the narrator say "Frankenstink"?

i want that!!i collect k.gordon murray,my fave is santa claus...
have y'all heard about tinman?it looks interesting..we'll see,i guess...

I love this film. It showed on TBS last night. It's a film that I can watch over and over again.  The flying monkeys and the witches music especially when she rides the bike before the storm. It played nationally on the big screen about 7 years ago and we went to see it. All the characters and when the good witch comes to help Dorthy at the end of the film. Wait........I have to stop. I'm starting to cry. There is no place like home. 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X-ZULpr8m5o

I just loved this movie when I was a kid.  I wanted to escape to the Emerald City and live there (mainly because my real home life was a nightmare).  Because of this I never understood why Dorothy wanted to go home.

I never thought about it being a B-movie though.  I bought the DVD a few weeks ago because it was in the bargain bin, otherwise it would only have been a film I watched when it came on telly.

I enjoy it, but I don't love it like I did when I was a kid.  But I suppose some child hood movies can be like that.  Still, it makes me blub now just like it used to.   :smile:

The opening title card says this movie's for the young and the young at heart...and it is 100% correct.

I'm a pretty cynical guy but I still love the Wizard of Oz.  It's pure Horatio Alger.

I still get a little misty when I watch the movie.  It's so iconic and one of the few, timeless movies ever made.  Seriously, what movie can appeal to all demographics like the Wizard of Oz can.

I'd like to see a more faithful adaptation but until the folks in Hollywoodland do I'll take a pre-pills Judy Garland, a goofy guy from Boston, a gentle character actor and a vaudeville comedian any day.  Plus, the wonderful Frank Morgan as the Wizard/Professor Marvel/The gatekeeper, et al.  ("Well!  Bust my buttons!!!)

The movie is truly magical...

I was watching this on TBS the other night, it having been one of my all time favorite childhood films, and it struck me how many references there are to death and dying:

"We'd have to kill her to get it!"

"This is how much longer you've got to be alive..."

"I may not come out of there alive..."

"But what if she kills us first?"

"The last to go will see the first three go before her."

"My dear, you're speaking to a man who's laughed at death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophy..."

"Those shoes will never come off...as long as you're alive. But that's not what's worrying me-it's how to do it..."

It's funny, one of the reasons Baum decided to write the stories the way he did was to provide the fairytale experience without the Grimms style violence (not that I personally have any problem with violence, fairytale or otherwise).

That was the point. He just helped them recognize those qualities in themselves.


There is actually a book, Wicked by Gregory Maguire, that addresses that very question. Maguire wrote a book that encompasses the entire life of the Wicked Witch of the West, exploring her background and her motivations. It's written from her point of view and based on the idea that The Wizard of Oz was an account written by the victors. For example, the Wizard did not come to Oz by accident, he was more than the benevolent fraud people believed him to be, and his government was a fascist dictatorship. His motivations for sending Dorothy after the witch are also more complex and sinister than originally believed.

Its a book I've been meaning to get around to and I've heard good things from the people who read it.  The Emerald City always hit me as odd.  To paraphrase their song they wake up at 11, go to work at 12, work for an hour and go home after a small bit.  Seems like an odd civilization to me.  For some reason when I watch it as an adult it just seems creepy to me in parts.  I've always sympathized with the witch, even as a kid.

Yeah, yeah I know its just a movie and one of the greatest at that.  I just think its fun to explore different opinions and theories on the film.  Indeed, no on can deny the impact of the film on our culture and how far ahead of it's time it was. We all know the songs and can sing them.  That and I'm sure we quote this film in our lives at least once a year. 

The Wizard of Oz is probably my favorite movie of all time, even over Star Wars or any other more recent movie. It is far better than it has any right to be.

HappyGilmore says that its script doesn't compare with movies like The Godfather. I would respectfully disagree. TWOZ is a journey of self discovery that can work as well for adults as it does for children. In the beginning of the movie, Dorothy is in crisis: Toto, who amounts to her best friend, has been threatened because of the mischief he has wrought upon Miss Gulch. She feels powerless to save him, so she turns to the adults around her for advice. "Be smart!" "Be courageous! Stand up to her!" These are qualities she doesn't feel she possesses, and the advice, mixed with her own feelings of hatred for Miss Gulch, make her confused and guilt-ridden, so, after Miss Gulch takes Toto and he escapes, Dorothy tries to "escape" by running away. Professor Marvel, the only truly understanding adult up to this point, steers her back home. The tonado knocks her out, and she "travels" to Oz.

While in Oz, she learns that intelligence, understanding and courage do reside within her: each of the characters is an embodiment of a quality she is seeking in herself. The witch, an obvious representation of Miss Gulch, is also the darker feelings Dorothy has, from which she wants to escape. Her adventure shows her that she does indeed possess intelligence, understanding (love) and courage, and she is "rewarded" with this knowledge by the Wizard, who in effect represents Wisdom in that he rewards reflection over one's life with the trappings one usually accumulates in getting experience: Intelligent people get college degrees, caring people get philanthropic awards, and courageous people get medals (keep in mind this is all through a child's perspective). At this point, Dorothy has recognized these qualities in herself and has banished the darker feelings. She is ready to face reality again, and so she finds a way home through Glinda, a representation of all goodness.

This movie is one of the few exceptions to the general rule that "the book is always better than the movie." The film has a far more literary structure and is far deeper than the book. I love the Oz books and read them all as a young man. The books, unfortunately, don't hold up as well to adult reading, but the movie grows more each time I watch it. It's not about nostalgia, though that is part of it. TWOZ is simply an amazing film. We have lost most of our ability to be charmed by musicals, and, yes, the acting is not as "realistic" as more modern films, but TWOZ still has the ability to touch us and teach us a bit about ourselves. I wouldn't even try to categorize this movie: It's not a kid's movie, nor is it just a musical. It is not necessary, in my opinion, to classify it as an "A" movie or "B" movie; it transcends those types of classifications, as do all really well-done, literary classics.

I once read an interesting essay that this movie is a critique of religion.  The main characters go through the story all searching for the almighty in order to gain something they each already had only to discover the almighty was just a guy behind a curtain with smoke and mirrors.

I thought that take on it was interesting.  I've also heard there is a similar school of thought regarding the Looking Glass/Alice in Wonderland and also in Frankenstein.

Plus, Harry Earles, who played Hans in Freaks, was one of the Lollipop Guild Munchkins.  The one in blue on the right.

Oz has been saddled with quite a bit of cultural baggage over the years --
Once upon a time, a popular interpretation had it as a critique of the US economy, the abandonment of the Gold Standard, etc.  The Emerald City & the green glasses were supposed to symbolize the illusory nature of a non-Gold Standard currency, the Wizard was supposed to be William Jennings Bryan, etc. etc.  I even believed this for a long time, before reading an essay that took it all apart & showed it as an "urban legend".
And let's not start on "Dark Side of The Rainbow" . . .
One thing many people don't know is that there were quite a number of silent film versions of the Oz books that predate the 1939 version by some 20 years in some instances -- I think the first one was filmed in 1912 -- some filmed by Baum himself.  He even wrote the musical scores for them & did stage adaptations of his work as well.
I worked with John Goodman, Phyllis Diller, and a huge cast (Mako as The Monkey King!!) on the 2000 radio version of the book for PRI.  Phil Proctor was on board as well & was a font of Baumish knowledge.  He had an original pop-up Wizard of Oz book from 1922 & we made the cut-out Emerald City & placed the buildings all around the recording studio.
peter johnson/denny crane

Where have you been Peter Johnson?

Mr. Johnson/Crane, is this Straight Dope column (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_392.html) the article you refer to?  (Or this less entertaining, more academic article (http://www.halcyon.com/piglet/Populism.htm)?)

Anyway, Mortal Envelope's description makes more sense then a lot of the other interps.  Self reliance is definitely a theme of this American fairy tale.

Yes, the David Parker article -- He reveals Oz as a neutral screen upon which we can project our cultural interpretations.  I was always told that Baum was writing an intentional allegory, and not until later was I shown that this was not the case.
* * *
Scott:  Well, I've been working/looking for work/not able to spend much time at Badmovies, as I've been worn down by side projects.  I've been keeping my hand in on stage stuff -- lent my Theremin to a company doing "The Foreigner", so they could have spooky ghost noises when the phony Klansman gets sucked into the floor & disappears (Read the script -- it's around . . .).  I've done a few more short films:  "Still Water" got a screening in Hollywood this past August at the Flickering Images Festival -- I was mentioned positively by one of the judges.  Waiting on some other things to get finished.  Just finished filming a very funny short called "Two Men Walk Into a Bar . . .", which I really hope gets some wide distribution, but mostly film-makers spend their budget on product & hold very little back for entry fees and distribution costs.  I'm used to it.
peter johnson/denny crane

Glad to hear from you again Peter Johnson. Stop back soon.

The problem with this reading is that there is nothing in the story/movie/book to steer us to it. I am an English teacher, so I can claim at least a little expertise in this area. I understand that most of us have been taught that such-and-such a story is really about something totally different when you interpret it in a certain way. And I'll admit there is a school of literary criticism that allows for this. I just find that notion distasteful. I prefer trying to get at what the author was trying to do; it is a much more genuine approach in my opinion. Just because you can "interpret" a story or poem to mean something doesn't mean that the story actually holds that meaning. I always tell my students that if there is evidence that the author wants you to go a certain direction with a story, then that is fine. However, to overlay a story with some artificial structure just so you can make a statement that is not supported by the story and was never the intent of the author is disengenuous at best.


TWOZ most definitely has a theme of self reliance, but it doesn't get there at the expense of religion. I know I'm coming across like some kind of know-it-all "I'm Right and Only My Opinion Matters" type; I don't mean to. I just respectfully disagree with this type of approach to Literature (film included). TWOZ, as I said, is my favorite film, so I am probably overzealous in defending it. That said, there is plenty to examine without resorting to "interpretation."

Hey Derf, I agree with your basic philosophy of analyzing literature.  But Mortal Envelope does suggest some internal evidence for this theory.  The Wizard was a seemingly omnipotent, distant being.  He first appears as a flaming head in the sky, sort of an Old Testament God of wrath, but on closer inspection, once the curtain is pulled aside, he is revealed as a compassionate being who works in more subtle ways, a God who helps those who help themeselves.  That's not an anti-religious interpretation.  Admittedly, the fact that the Wizard resists being revealed and is embarrassed when he is found out weakens that interp.  But I don't believe that was Baum's (or the filmmakers) intent, I just think that theory's a lot more defensible than that gold-standard allegory jive. 

Sometimes, especially in a fairy tale type story, the author just puts big symbols on the canvas and lets them play against each other naturally and go where they will.  I think that's what TWOZ does.  As the author in the second article I linked suggested, Baum wrote "a story so rich it can be, like the book's title character, anything we want it to be..."
   
By the way, I wasn't offended by your comments and they didn't come off as self-righteous.  I just didn't want to be misunderstood myself.  I think we agree, both about the meaning and quality of the film.     

Heck...didn't mean to get all that started :)  I know what you're saying about reading into things and finding things that weren't meant to be so.  I just mentioned reading an interesting essay on it in the past...not sure if I really agree with all of it, but it was a way of looking at the story that never dawned on me before.   Never thought about the economic viewpoint of the story either.  Perhaps the author's only message was this: Kansas is boring! lol

Mortal Envelope, I love the Angry Red Planet avatar!   :thumbup:

I always wanted to slap the taste out of the mouth of the slimeball captain in that movie.  Well, him and the warrant officer.

The film and the wizard can represent the motif and a archtype of mankinds earthly journey, of heaven, and of God. It would be better interpreted that first mankind only sees God as this strict mean being who is to be feared because His created world is harsh. Veiled by the curtain of this world the mind has mistakenly equated the world/harshness/and God as one. Then later to be revealed that God's truth is only found in the heart. The world is kinda like a training ground and test for souls. The reason we follow "morality" or the "yellow brick road" is because other things distract us from God and these small distractions make us feel unworthy when we finally approach God's presence. Especially when we have been told of a greater place and didn't listen. Kinda like Dorthy running away from home. Lost souls literally send themselves to hell because lost souls are embarrassed and ashamed finding this world to be more interesting than the pure love of the Divine or in the case of the movie Dorthy's home.

They brought the right desires to Emeral City, but they were detoured and are told to fight the evil witch by the false wizard. The wizards eventual false human mercy couldn't help them in the end. It's all part of the souls journey and discoveries. Then the Being (Angel) from the North (Heavens) comes and tells Dorthy she could have gone home anytime by saying "There is no place like home" which is the desire to be with the ones you love (or God) and by tapping her ruby red (red representing the heart) shoes.

Lest you become like these little ones (munchkins) you shall not enter the kingdom. Heaven will be even greater than Emerald City. Their will be great sights and lots of people. The lost souls will choose to crawl away from God to lonely low places where there is gnashing and gnawing of teeth. Most likely their own teeth. Ultimately fires of hell and loneliness. The weight of the worldly memories and the burden of old false desires will drag them to hell. In the movie and in life there is truth and hope. Finding the true religion with a heart and of the heart will get you home. The true religion that is all about the heart of God.

The films "There's no place like home" is the deepest longing of our souls.

Interesting takes on the religious aspect of the story and they do make sense.   However, let me throw this out in a friendly counterpoint manner.  If God (which I'm assuming is the Christian God) is truly represented in the story along with spiritualism, what are people's takes on the selection of witches in the story?  Granted the east and west witches are the embodiment of evil.   Still the North witch is apparently, as already brought up, good and wholesome. I've meet several "good" Christians who think all who practice a pagan religion are breaking the first commandment. Was there a witch of the south and if so why not or what are your feelings on it?

Then again, what if Baum set out to write a story with no meaning rather just a story about witches, munchkins and Kansas?   :teddyr:

My uber-religious aunt freaked out when my cousin bought a best of Garth Brooks CD that had Garth on the cover with a crystal ball.   :lookingup:

I never read the book, so I'm just interpeting the movie. Baum may have been philosophically somewhere between the Occult and Christianity. He wouldn't have included a good witch of the North had he been a Christian, but then again she had a much different aura about her entirely with the sphere and all. Maybe Baum was just making note that both Angels and Witches use what appears to humans to be majick. The good "witch" has to be considered more deeply. Who and what was she? After all she did send them down the yellow brick road. We also didn't ask to be in this world, but were put here by God. Hasn't God kinda sent us down the yellow brick road? In the end she was an Angel or maybe representing God him/herself.


Funny how Kansas is also kinda considered "the heartland" of America. Baum is pointing the way.

All I know is that the flying monkeys have to represent politicians hahaha!

If he was into the occult he would have known that in the East the monkey is considered to be like the mind which is always jumping around, so in the story Dorthy is thinking to much about getting home. Then she later finds out she only needs to repeat the prayer of the heart "There's no place like home". When you use the mind the heart is absent. The intellect (or mind) is only to be used to ward of evil. It can't enter the holy of holies. The mind is a weapon or tool that God has given mankind to fend off evil and help lead man back to the heart.

The monkeys (in the book) are actually good but the Witch of the West had them under her control.  She has a hat that lets he order the monkeys to do her bidding three times (I think).  I think this is shown in the movie when the Witch is pacing around her tower.  In fact, I think one of the monkeys gives it to her right before she sics the monkeys on Dorthy.

Interesting. The monkeys can be good or bad.

Here is where the mind (monkeys) carry Dorthy even further away from home into the hands of the evil witch.

I suppose, that ...in the wrong hands...the mind can be a dangerous thing.

I think I'm going to have to watch this flick again...it's been awhile.

Maybe a Freudian perspective is in order!  hahaha j/k

They're more neutral/good, but yeah, the Witch can only use them for a finite amount of time.

You should really read the book.  It's not too long and it will give you a deeper understanding of the movie and see what the director left out.  (i.e.- monsters with the heads of tigers and the bodies of bears, the china (porcelain) people, the people without arms but can headbut people with their long expanding necks, the mice that save Dorthy and the Lion from the field of poppies).  The book is very surreal, IMO.

Perhaps sometime I will look it up. Thanks.

Yeah I'll probably put down "A Man in Full" by Thomas Wolfe (Bonfire of the Vanities) and reread "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz".

Now, now, fellas, I leave for the afternoon, and I come back to find that you've gone and done exactly what I told you not to do.  :tongueout: TWOZ is not about religion. The book, according to Baum, was his attempt to compose a truly American fairy tale. He was a storyteller and loved entertaining kids with his stories. TWOZ was his big success, but it was a simple fairy tale, one with no greater purpose than to entertain children. He had no intention of critiquing politics (although I will agree with Mortal Envelope's comment about flying monkeys being good symbols for politicians) or of telling a story of a religious journey.

Scott, I can't say your interpretation is wrong; no interpretation can be disproven, and if that is the way you choose to view the movie, then so be it (like I could stop you :smile:). The problem with interpretations is that they seldom have anything to do with the author's intent. In the case of TWOZ, there is nothing in the story that says to the viewer, "This is a religous tale." Religion never comes up. Yes, Oz can easily be seen as a God figure, but the characters, even in the Emerald City, never worship him; at most, they fear him. This doesn't do much to establish a religious context. If anything, he represents the idolization of one human to another; Dorothy puts her faith in him, only to be shown that that is a poor place to put one's faith. The Wizard is a humbug, a good man, but not worthy of being someone's idol. Dorothy learns this as she learns to rely on herself and the abilities she has discovered in herself (see my previous posts in this thread). No religion; just good old American self reliance.

 :bouncegiggle:


:smile:


Well....I honestly don't know anything about Baum, but if he were an occultist he wouldn't admit it if he were trying to sell a book to a large audience.

Perhaps the director of the film was more influenced by religion than Baum.

Directors.  Though Victor Fleming gets the on-screen credit (I think), two others shot footage included in the final cut, including King Vidor, and a fourth director shot unused footage.   

In a way I agree with both Scott and Derf (though Derf more).  I was surprised at how Scott took that kernel of religion and ran with it to create a detailed allegory of the soul's journey to enlightenment.  I'd quibble with some details, and especially with the idea of dragging in occultic symbols, but overall a very good job.  I don't think Baum intended Scott's interpretation directly, but I doubt he'd be much offended, either.

   

Baum like any writer may have just been building off of what ever came to his mind which would be based somewhat on legends and religion he was already familiar with. The context being parallel simply because it's part of his and other peoples background and therefore the make up of the psyche. It's not easy to create something from nothing. It's usually something similar or a combination of 2 or more things to create something original.

You can go to Washington D.C. to the Smithsonian and see the actual ruby shoes that Judy Garland wears in the film.

As a kid I used to love the Scarecrow and Tin Man. 

Now, surprisingly I actually think Burt Lahr steals it as The Cowardly Lion. 

And I still say the Flying Monkeys are the coolest part.

Me too!  I guess I didn't appreciate his performance when I was a kid because I wasn't familiar with the comedy of the day.  (I didn't like the Marx Brothers until I got older too).  I think he steals just about every scene he's in.

Like the Scarecrow and Tin Man but every time he wipes his eyes with his tail cracks me up and when he asks if he nose is bleeding after Dorothy smacks him.  Still, the "King of the Forrest" song borders on the annoying but I'll give him a pass on that.

The "King' song he sings is annoying, but overall I liked his performance.  I watched it when it was on last week and started laughing when he pulls his own tail and doesn't realize it.

Or when Scarecrow came up with a plan for Lion, and Lion's like, "Who me? Hey do me a favor.  Talk me out of it."

read the book.i love both the movie and the book,but if you really want to"get it",read the book.and read both the alice books,frank baum used a few thing from them,in a rather strange way...

 :buggedout: + karma, but seriously  :buggedout:

ooh,i need that one!i have a much of murray's stuff,personal fave is the mexican santa claus movie...no lupita!!

Hey, the Oz Munchkins just got a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  Nice!

For real?

That's kinda cool.

They got one, but Weird Al can't?  Dude's had numerous hit albums, Grammys, a movie, tv show, MTV and VH1 specials, directed, produced, etc.  Dude's a genius.  What's he gotta do to even get nominated.  I mean, Bugs Bunny has a star.  Mickey Mouse too.  I like Bugs, but seriously.


Sorry, rant over. 

When I was a kid I found this a terrifying movie. Last spring I found it a terrifying movie. It's a terrifying movie.

It took me a while to realize how old this topic was.  I went back a few posts to start reading and there were so many names that I didn't recognize.  People where treating these people that i didn't know like they were regulars and it really threw me. 


But yeah, classic movie. 

Somehow I've never gotten around to reading the books though.  It seems like something I would have sought out when I was younger but somehow I never did. 

Wizard of OZ is one of those classic pieces of media where I think I've actually enjoyed a lot of the strange re imaginings  over the original.

I think I'm the only person on this forum who hates this movie

I don't hate it but I saw it as a kid and I was like "meh".

Same here.