Theatrical Adaptation: September 2006

Thursday, September 28, 2006

9-29-06 #4

After reading through the Grimmerie and the script from the musical version of Wicked, I have become more and more intrigued by the history of the Wicked Witch of the West. What’s her history? Where did she come from? Is she really completely wicked? I think it is a case of prejudice against Elphaba solely based on her skin color. People look at her, and see where she came from and without even listening to her side of the story or trying to understand her, they assume she is a horror and a wicked person.

When looking at both versions of Wicked, the novel and the musical, Elphaba was just pushed into the life she had. From the beginning, her parents shun her, her mother just let’s her be and her father is often gone, Nanny is the only one to take care of her and show kindness to her. They create the image in the child’s mind that she is a social outcast, she is different and no one wants her around. When she goes off to The Shiz, she is used to being a social outcast and becomes a loner, not even trying to make any friends, and people take to that. She is shunned even more for her differences. Elphaba is living out the only life she knows, she doesn’t know how to act socially or how it feels to be accepted, so she doesn’t pursue that life.

After she goes to meet the wizard, she isolates her self for five years because that’s what she feels she is supposed to do with her life, become a terrorist. Elphaba’s does what people assume she is going to do, become wicked, mostly because she has isolated herself and appears to be different than everyone. I don’t think that she is truly wicked, I just think she is fulfilling others images of her. If Elphaba took control of her own life and fulfilled her own dreams as compared to someone else, she would have been able to do something to better society, rather than becoming a terrorist. The person that is portrayed in Wicked is not Elphaba’s true person; it is a mask that she covers up with so that people won’t get too close to her, much like the mask she wears when she goes into public while she is isolating herself. I think she is a good person, just completely misunderstood for a fear of someone getting close to her and hurting her. Elphaba just doesn’t know what it is like to be loved, she has been shoved into the painful life she has and does not know how to live any other way.

-Ann Nelson

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Don't We All Live in Oz?

When Kirk posed the question "Would you live in Oz?", I thought to myself, don't we all live in an Oz? Oz may have been a dictator who ruled over his lackeys that were duped into following his own beliefs and values. But really, isn't that similar to the society we live in today? Our President feels that his "citizens" need to be listened to with illegal wire-tapping devices so that they can live without fear of "terrorism". Does that not constitute as a form of dictatorship?

As for Lauren’s comment about Oz having emphasis on social status and class rank, that is exactly how it is in modern society, at least in America. Depending on where you live, the type of clothes you wear dictate your social status. Other people also judge your rank in society based on the square footage of your house or the type of car you drive. Isn’t that placing a caste system upon our nation?

In L. Frank Baum’s “Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” he states that “if you do not put on spectacles the brightness and glory of the Emerald City would blind you. Even those who live in the City must wear spectacles night and day. They are all locked on, for Oz so ordered it when the City was built, and I have the only key that will unlock them.” (Baum, 171) Isn’t that similar to the perception people have of Americans? Foreign countries, generally speaking, believe we feel superior to them, while we as Americans feel that we are misunderstood. Aren’t those our “Emerald spectacles”?

The advancement of politics and gender equality also raises an interesting question in Oz and in our society. While women technically have equality in the workplace, they are still not as highly paid as men and when it comes to promotions are second best to men. Along with the fact that women allow themselves to be used as objects and demeaned by selling their bodies and posing for magazines.

I don’t believe that Oz is so different from our society; our government, our way of life, even our thinking coincides with the people of Oz. It sounds harsh, but if you examine the reality of our society, you will realize that we all wear emerald spectacles.

Don't We All Live in Oz?

Oz is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!

The other day in class, I believe it was Kirk who posed the question – Would you live in Oz? I, for one, would never live in the Oz that’s portrayed in the book and what I gather from the musical notes.

First, I think that Oz is a dictator in the book. He has no one’s welfare in his mind expect his own, and maybe his minions. He puts on airs of maybe trying to care, but he doesn’t. It seems like in the musical, he is kind of like a bumpkin. He just wants to care for someone, wants to love someone and someone to love him. It’s not that he’s malicious or intentionally a bad guy, he’s just ignorant.

I also think that Oz puts way to much focus on social status and class rank, as well as looks versus being a good or intelligent person. In the book, Galinda won’t date Boq because he’s below her in the class system. Upper class girls tend to room with upper class girls at Shiz, they also tend to hang out with each other and alienate other girls, like Elphaba. And of course, the fact that Elphaba is green and that isn’t classically beautiful or accepted is a theme throughout the novel.

I also think that Oz has kind of gone backward in time. Even in the Grimmerie, the costume designer for the musical Susan Hilferty said, “My research focused on the period in which Baum wrote the books, from the 1900 to about 1920…So I created a style I called “twisted Edwardian”. (Grimmerie, 119) The way young girls interact with young boys, like the meeting between Boq and Galinda in the park at Shiz; to the way husbands can act towards their wives; like Frex and Melena shows that women have obviously not been a part of the feminist movement.

Oz seems like a generally unpleasant place to actually live. It hasn’t caught up with where the rest of the world lives today. I think that this is part of its charm – it’s intentionally, I’m sure. I’m also very glad I’ll never have to live there.

Meditation #4 -- Katie Marchant

I am really interested in the differences between Maguire’s Wicked and the musical version. One character that plays a very different role in the musical compared to the novel is Fiyero. Another character that plays a different role in the musical is Madame Morrible.

In Maguire’s novel Fiyero is introduced in a very different way than how he is introduced in the musical. In the novel the first time we, and the other characters, meet Fiyero he is attacked by a set of bewitched antlers and has to be saved by Crope and Tibbett. (Maguire, 143) While in the musical he is introduced as the beautiful party boy who makes life at Shiz one huge party. (Dancing Through Life, Wicked soundtrack) In the musical Fiyero and Glinda decide that they “…deserve each other” (Dancing Through Life) while in the novel Fiyero slowly becomes part of the group of friends and on one of their outings he tells them how he was married when he was seven but wont live with his wife until they are twenty. (Maguire, 150) In the novel the next time we meet Fiyero is in The Emerald City three years after graduation. This is when Elphaba and Fiyero begin their affair, even though he has a wife and 3 children back home in Vinkus. But in the musical Fiyero becomes attracted to Elphaba pretty soon after they meet and thus begins their romance.

In the book Madame Morrible is the arch-nemesis of Elphaba and Glinda but in the musical she is first seen by Elphaba as someone who truly believes in her and wants to help he achieve her goal. (The Wizard and I, Wicked soundtrack) But in the end Madame Morrible is the same evil woman that she is in the novel.

Monday, September 25, 2006

Happy vs. Sad

The Happiness of the Witch seemed to be the goal of the play. If you noticed she seemed a lot less crazy at the end of the play as opposed to how she was at the end of the book. At the end of the book she was driven crazy by Dorothy, in "The Witch shrieked in panic, in disbelief. That even now the world should twist so, offending her once again: Elphaba, who had endured Sarima's refusal to forgive, now begged by a gibbering child for the same mercy always denied her? How could you give such a thing out of you own hollowness?" (Maguire 402). Which actually shows two differences between the book and the play, first off this whole scene with Dorothy never really happens in the play; Elphaba just regards Dorothy as a minor annoyance. Elphaba doesn't go anywhere near crazy, she seems controlled all throughout the play. In fact the only thing that is not controlled is her magic, which the Witch (besides being able to read the Grimmerie) has no natural talent for, in the book at least. In the play she seems a bit like Rogue from X-men she doesn't know how to control her powers, she needs help to learn how. And the times she does display the powers early in the play just come out in bursts.
Also in the play, Glinda is a very bad witch in that, she can't really do any magic at all. Whereas in the book she is an expert at magic. Also Bog is much more evil in the play, also is nessarose's love interest in that she wants him, and he doesn't want her at all. So taking Elphaba's book, she does the spell on Bog to turn him into the Tin Woodman. While Nessarose did cause the Tin Woodman to come about ( The Nick Chopper sequence where she takes a women's Animals to enchant an ax to cut off his limbs one by one), there was no connection to Bog at all. In fact she seemed too busy to get a man, that and her deformity was far worse in the book than in the play. In the play she was only confined to a wheelchair, in the book she has no arms. Also she seems very good at magic, as opposed to Elphaba.
Elphaba also never really goes through the whole terrorist phase and lives in the emerald city. In fact the whole romance between her and Fiyero is a happy ending. He doesn't Die, he becomes the Scarecrow!!! Yeah, Cop out ending for everyone!!!! In the book the closest she come to this is when her insane mind lets her belief this and then her logical mind steps in after she sees that fiyero is not in there it's only straw.
So basically if you want happy see the play, if you want an insane and slightly depressing character study, read the book.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - with new insight

I have always felt that very valuable literary adaptations are able to almost change one’s perception of the original story from which it was based. Gregory Maguire’s Wicked did just that for me. Before, I had never done much research on either The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or Wicked, but after examining both stories I feel that my perception of and emotional response to Baum’s original book changed greatly after I studied Maguire’s interpretational prequel.

The fact that Maguire’s novel had a lasting effect on my opinion of Baum’s story was brought to my attention after I re-read the death scene in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Maguire’s book opened me up to the possibility that the witch’s wicked acts were a somewhat deliberate attempt to justify misfortune. I say this because it seemed to me that Elphaba felt obligated to become “wicked” in an effort to explain why her life was so miserable and difficult. In other words, her life was so hard because she was predestined to be evil. This concept caused me to re-evaluate the death scene in Baum’s book. When I first read this, I did not think much of it. I simply characterized the witch’s defeat as the predictable climactic end of a typical goodguy/badguy story. After all, the entire chapter seems to be focused on Dorothy’s attempt to kill the Wicked Witch so the Wizard with send her home to Kansas (Baum 201-230). However, after reading Wicked, I noticed I was a lot more sympathetic to the witch. Even though I know Maguire wrote his story long after Baum wrote the original, I still felt as though it was part of the original plot. In re-reading the death scene in Baum’s story, I noticed I paid a lot of attention to how the witch reacted. After Dorothy pours the water on her, the witch makes a comment about being surprised that such an innocent little girl would be able “to melt [her] and end [her] wicked deeds” (225). This statement shows insight to the witch and her character. She acknowledges the fact that she has acted in wicked and cruel ways. Most people do not try to behave in such ways, and the witch’s consciousness of her nature suggests that her “wicked deeds” were not only intentional, but also prided. This phrase also seems to compare the witch herself to her cruel behavior. She expresses being shocked that suck a weak child could destroy something as great as herself as well as her evil history. In this respect, she puts her self value equal to that of her wickedness. I can say that I only realized this insight after studying Wicked.

Therefore, I feel I can say Wicked was a valuable literary adaptation; because it was so meaningful to me that it gave me new insight to Baum’s original story of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

Wicked

The musical Wicked has many differences from the book than I ever would have thought it to have. First, in the musical, when Glinda gets to Shiz and is roomed with Elphaba, all the other students already are on her side, and adore her. In the book, however, she is a nobody at first, and the reason why she is roomed with Elphaba is because she doesn’t have her Amax to help her get acquainted with the other girls at Shiz, and it takes her awhile to get settled in with the other girls. And she doesn’t let anyone know for the longest time that she and Elphie are roommates. But in the musical, everyone knows from the first day that they are roommates.
Another big difference that comes to mind is the fact that in the musical, you don’t hear much about the wizard until she actually meets him. But in the book, you get a lot of information about him from the side conversations people have about him, and the stories they tell, and even the narrator helps with the stories of the Wizard in some cases. They are the same kind of person, the Humbug type of man, but you don’t hear all the horrible things he does to the Animal population nearly as much in the musical as it is explained in the book.
And, of course, the biggest difference is that Elphie doesn’t die in the end in the musical. She lives on, and so does Fiyero as the Scarecrow. That was a difference that I don’t think should have been made. Yes, the musical has a happy ending which helps make it more entertaining to go watch, but at the same time, it would have been nice to have the same ending as the book to get the same effect on the audience as all the other adaptations of the Wizard of Oz have had.

Friday, September 22, 2006

9-22-06 #3

If the wizard could give anything in the world that she wanted, Elphaba would ask for a soul. She truly wants nothing more than to be like everyone else and not be the social outcast anymore. At the same time, I think the fact that she has no soul makes her who she is. There is nothing to define who she is as an individual or to give her morals to live by. I think she has become the “Wicked Witch of the West” because that’s what people have made her become. She had no control over herself to become more active in the fight for the Animals, or to be what she wanted to be; she could only turn into what her father, friends and community expected of her, and that was a witch. More than anything, her future was sealed as destiny from the minute anyone spoke of what they thought she was or was to become.

And another thing, I think her wickedness didn’t come from anything more than people’s perspective of her. She didn’t have a soul to prevent her from terrorizing the country, as people thought she was, or to stop all the horror she caused to everyone’s lives. And though people who read “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” or watch the 1939 film may believe that the witch was trying to kill Dorothy, she was only protecting herself. I think here, her wickedness comes into play a lot; she isn’t intentionally trying to kill Dorothy for no reason, it is merely in self defense, but she could have come up with a less violent way to do so. The witch has no control over her actions, she does what she wants to please herself and no one else, because that’s all she can care for without a soul.

Ann Nelson

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

meditaion 3 J'D "WICKED"

I believe Elphaba has both a fear and a sense of compassion towards children. She sees childhood innocence to be in many cases nonexistent and those where it does exisit and excuse to become someones nes pawns.She is not obessed with preserving childhood naivity but rather for all her cyncism she has a hope for the future a future which belongs to the children.
She beieves one should work to that future rather then attempt to stop growth.
This hope in the future and the need to educate children is reflected in a line on pg (277) “I’ve never believed in childhood saviors Elphaba said “as far as I’m concerned children are the ones who need saving.A page earlier Elphaba had recommend Sarima send her children to school.
Elphaba is willing to kill Liir pg 286 because she knows he won’t get a proper education ad he is already spoiled wotten and n danger of hurting other children including Lirr.
But at the same time she does not kill the children around Madam Morrible despite their being the children of tyrants who likely will become tyrants.If she dimisse sthe hope of change there is no point to her terroism.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

True Colors

When I first watched "The Wizard of Oz" as a child, I automatically assumed that because the good witch of the North, Glinda, was pretty then she must be good. Especially since the wicked witch of the west was green and had a wart on her nose; obviously, physical deformities are the equivalent of being “evil”. It occurred to me as I was reading Wicked how much Galinda’s appearance is deceiving. From the first time we meet Galinda in "Wicked" she is condescending and obviously feels superior because of her beauty and social status. I found it particularly interesting when it stated in the book, “She reasoned because she was beautiful, she was significant,” (Gregory Maguire, 65). If that isn’t arrogance, what is? As for the character of Glinda in the 1939 film, she even says, “good witches are pretty, only bad witches are ugly.” As if to imply that each person’s outsides much match their insides.

In "Wicked," on the other hand, Elphaba, who’s only crime was being born a different color, received nothing but torment and rejection from her parents. How else was she supposed to turn out, her natural reactions were only defense mechanisms to the criticism that plagued her throughout her life. And from “good people” like Galinda, who must be good because of how they appear on the outside. So really, who is the green one on the inside? If Glinda was such a “good witch” why couldn’t she tell Dorothy from the beginning to click her heels three times so she could return home.

The 1939 film seems to only further society’s beliefs that beautiful equals good and kind. Even in movies today, the stereotypical witch is one who has warts and cackles. However, I don’t believe Baum intended his children’s story to be interpreted in that way. In the beginning, for example, the good witch of the North was “covered with wrinkles, her hair was nearly white and she walked rather stiffly,” (L. Frank Baum, 36). Also, nowhere in Baum’s book does the good Witch of the North say anything about looks equaling someone’s morality. In the book in fact, Dorothy says, “I thought all witches were wicked,” (Baum, 40). In the movie she said “I thought all witches were ugly”. Thereby telling children that ugly people are bad while good people are rewarded with beauty. I really appreciated Maguire’s more realistic interpretation of how such an attractive person might behave. Not to say that all attractive people are conceited, but it is ridiculous to assume that everyone’s insides match the color which appears on their outsides.

Oh, The Places You'll Go - Lauren's 4th meditation

Lauren Chiodo – Meditation 4
Usually I find that sequels, prequels, and remakes – as well as book to stage or movie adaptations – are rarely as good as the original work they are affiliated with. Since we’ve started exploring the world of Oz, I’ve changed my mind.

“…The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written solely to pleasure children of today…” (Baum 4). I honestly believe that Baum meant to simply write a long-lasting children’s book when he wrote The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I don’t think that there were any hidden meanings or deep allegorical content intended when he wrote this book.

Then came the 1902 musical adaptation in which Baum completely changed the way he told his story. Baum hired New York joke writer Glen MacDonough to add more humor to the play, and while most songs were Baum’s originals, two were not his at all. (Wikipedia, “The Wizard of Oz – 1902 stage play”) Toto becomes a cow named Imogene and Dorothy is older and sexier. The story morphed into something adults would want to see. Then came the 1939 movie version that most are familiar with, even today. The 1939 movie took us back to the child like telling of the story. Unfortunately, this remake bombed in theaters. Its budget was not made back until it was broadcast on TV. I think that it’s television success is largely due to the fact that in 1939 the movie would be telling the story to a completely new audience of children – they were mostly not familiar with the original work, so they simply took the movie at face value.

While I did not enjoy The Wiz, I know many of my classmates and the public in general did. It kept a few of the original book elements, along with elements from the 1939 movie. It was able to make comments on the times; race issues and class issues are openly shown in this remake. It was one of the first all-black casts, drew a largely black audience, and got the message out to more people than I think anyone involved in the production thought it would.

Then there was the book Wicked, the Broadway play based on Wicked, and The Muppets’ Wizard of Oz. I personally found the book and the Muppets version very funny and very interesting reincarnations of the original story. What I think all of these remakes, prequels and sequels proves is that while Baum thought he was just writing a children’s book, he was actually starting an empire that spanned many decades and even a century thus far. What other story do we know that has withstood the stand of time this long?

Citation
“The Wizard of Oz.” En.wikipedia.org. 19 September 2006.

A helpful Wizard of Oz webpage

Hey everyone! I found this page while I was working on my meditation tonight and I think it's got some interesting information about The Wizard of Oz and all its reincarnations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_Of_Oz

Meditation # 3 -- Katie Marchant

I loved The Muppet Wizard of Oz and I am very impressed at how much closer this version is to Baum’s original book that most of the other versions we have watched. In some ways this adhesion to the original text is very admirable but in others ways it can be kind of derogatory because it only uses pieces the writers found easy to manipulate into a sarcastic, and yes, hilarious film.
For example The Muppet Wizard of Oz makes use of the scene from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz where the Tinman chops down the tree to cross the wide ditch (Baum, 126). What makes the scene in the movie very similar to the book is the motivation they have to get across the ditch. In the movie that motivation is the two ghost Muppets yelling insults and creating fear while in the book it is the two Kalidahs approaching. Although the scenes are very different the major theme is the same, that of the friends helping each other through an obstacle.
Another detail that is close to the original story is the cap that is used to control the “flying monkeys”. In both versions after she melts the Wicked Witch of the West, Dorothy comes into possession of the cap and uses the power to get the monkeys to help her along the path back to Oz. In the book after three uses the cap is passed on to someone else while in the Muppet version there seem to be unlimited uses. But in the end, in both versions, the monkeys are set free to go about their happy motorcycle gang or flying ways.
I really like how the Muppet version keeps the “…I’m really a very good man; but I’m a very bad Wizard…”(Baum, 270) sentiment stated by the Wizard in Baums book. This to me is one of the most important ideas of the Wizard of Oz story. The fact that because a person is bad at what they do does not make them a bad person. This sentiment can be applied to any of the main characters in any version. For example because in the beginning the Lion is not good at his “job” does not make him stupid, because the Tinman doesn’t have a heart doesn’t mean that he cannot feel and love, and because the Scarecrow doesn’t have a brain doesn’t mean that he cannot overcome difficulties.

Monday, September 18, 2006

the wickedness of the wizard

The wizard of Oz in any incarnation whether it be in the Wonderful wizard of OZ, the Wiz or Wicked, is inherently wicked. There is one fact from every incarnation that supports this: THEY ALL SEND DOROTHY TO KILL THE WICKED WITCH OF THE WEST. They send a little girl (except the Wiz) to kill this supposed enemy of the people who is fairly powerful and in control of a vast vinkus army. They are all cowardly in this fashion and of course wicked.
In the wonderful wizard of Oz, he seems to be the least wicked of all the incarnations, however his sending of Dorothy against the Wicked Witch of the West lends itself to negligence. One may argue that he knew the Good witch kissed Dorothy to protect her and knew she would come to no harm. However he was a humbug wizard and though his powers of illusion are expanded in later novels when he returns to Oz, and I don't believe he would have known this. He also scared her and all her friends.
IN the Wiz he was more cowardly than the lion, however he still comes back to the same action of sending Dorothy to face the Witch. He is however more wicked in this by being such a coward and he has no excuse for his wickedness. All he wants is power because he couldn't attain it in his original world. He is like most insecure men, he needs power to reassure himself that he is worth something....
Now we come to the wickedest Wizard of them all, the Wicked Wizard. He not only is a true mastermind as opposed to the coward that is the Wiz or the well intentioned humbug that is the Wizard, he is pure evil, He is as Elphaba puts it "horrors". He not only starts up a racist regime of anti-Animal and Quadling sentiment. He starts to exploit all the resources of Oz. He is basically a petty Dictator who has come to power and knows it and uses his power. He believes emotion is irrational, and sees no reason to be honorable. He also is the father of Elphaba, which doesn't make him evil but the fact that he could be so callous to his own daughter and not realize that his own daughter is against him. He was supposed to be smarter but he doesn't care about compassion or duty he only wants power.
and thats why all the wizards are wicked.

The Wiz - reading between the lines #3

Although my first impression of the 1978 film The Wiz was skeptical and highly critical, after examination and research on the movie’s background I feel am able to appreciate its true intentions and purpose.

When watching the movie, The Wiz, I now understand that one almost has to take every scene with a grain of salt. That is to say it is necessary to examine the scenes’ theatrical purposes, and not just how it fits into the original plot. The long “strip” scene at the end of the sweat-shop sequence is a good example of this. I think that having men and women take off their clothes and dance around in underwear is highly irrelevant to Baum’s children’s book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. However, one must examine what is going on in society at the time when this movie was being made and what social purposes this scene might have served. It was in the late 1970’s and at the end of the civil rights movement. Although black rights had been briskly acknowledged, the black community had still not left its footprints in cinematic history. Taking this into account, this scene is more about social acceptance than Baum’s story. The “stripping” of the Winkies is an opportunity for the black community to unveil itself on the big screen, literally and symbolically. The long camera close-ups on the actors’ bare bodies is a way signify the emergence of a culture that is no longer ashamed of its color or feel a need to hide under layers of costumes or makeup. And finally, the end of the Winkies’ suppression is a way to publicize the end of black suppression in society and in popular culture alike.

I still hold true what I wrote in my second meditation that certain aspects of The Wiz were more distracting to the overall plot than they were to making a modernized version of Baum’s book. However, I now see that the original intent of such a movie was never simply to recreate The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, but instead serve as an adaptation of the story that would give voice to a social group in society that until this point in history had been hushed by mainly all-white productions.

# 3

McGuire does an outstanding job of making Wicked follow the basis of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. He gives great clues throughout the book that, if read before reading Wizard of Oz, would make the reader understand both Wicked and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. He shows the two witches’ weaknesses while they are growing up and learning more about themselves and they are learning to see more in others. McGuire also does a great job of making the story lines follow very closely together.
In Wicked, Elphaba, who later becomes the wicked witch of the west, is born into a family where the father is rarely home and the mother sleeps around. Not to mention they move around because of the father’s work. So with the troubles of the new baby, they must call in Nanny. Now Elphaba, as a child, is not like typical children. She bites with sharp teeth at herself and anything around her, and she doesn’t talk or respond well to the other people around her. But when she goes to Shiz, she is a very witty young woman who has grown into herself and her surroundings. She isn’t the most polite person, but she does try to get along with those around her and she makes some strange relationships with Dr. Dillamond, Boq, and the other boys that help her while she is helping the doctor. She never really becomes so cruel and wretched in Wicked.
The same goes for the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The witch is never depicted and cruel and wretched until she knows that she is truly threatened by Dorothy and her friends. The witch, unlike the 1939 film, never appears to the travelers until they appear at her castle to kill her. However, in the movie, the movie, the witch appears numerous times throughout the adventures and she threatens them with fireballs, and lines like “I’ll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too.” But in the book, you hear nothing of her besides in the wizards challenge to them, and you read nothing about her threatening them until they have been captured and taken to her castle.

Friday, September 15, 2006

9-14-06 #2

I think The Wiz is a good representation of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, despite the many obvious changes that have been made to it. The way that it has been adapted allows the story to reach more audiences and relate to them on a whole new level. The first, more obvious changes are that the film has been modified so that it is in a current time period, where all of the characters are black. This brings on a whole new perspective to The Wizard of Oz (1939), which has a historically white cast. Having an all black cast allowed the film to explore a new medium of telling this classic tale. More and more people were able to relate to the characters modern language, dress, background, and the music presented in The Wiz, than in the classic movie. The connections that people began to have with this movie allow it to be understood from a whole new perspective. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wiz) We may not all be able to relate to the quaint, young, farm girl from Kansas during the 1930’s, in relation to the young adult, school teacher who lives in a New York City apartment and is struggling through life with many more of the same problems we experience today.

As for the storyline of the movie, not everything would be able to remain the same, but Lumet does a good job of staying true to the story. When Dorothy arrives in Munchkin land, she falls through a sign locating Oz in the galaxy and ends up in a park, surrounded by graffiti children and a rapping Good Witch. Although it may stray from the idea of a chorus of munchkins, in all their adorableness, and their land of bright colors, flowers and happiness, it represents the same story in a modernized, more hip, fashion. The Good witch is still good and tells Dorothy where to go and what she needs to do, the children still sing their gratitude to Dorothy and they all whisk her away on her journey down the yellow brick road. Another difference, as the characters travel down the yellow brick road, and throughout the story, they sing entirely different songs. In the beginning there is no “Somewhere Over the Rainbow,” but still a song that shows that Dorothy feels as if she doesn’t belong with her family and wants to go on an adventure of her own. Also, “Follow the Yellow Brick Road” does not appear in the film; instead “Ease on Down the Road” takes its place adding the hip, new exciting beats that the film is playing toward. One final example, the Wiz is still a curious and lonely man who is faking his way along, trying to make the people believe that he truly is a wizard and has magical powers. He gives each of the characters a different representation of what they come desiring than what the wizard gives in The Wizard of Oz, but the premise is still the same.

There are several differences between The Wiz, and The Wizard of Oz, but I believe that The Wiz still holds true to the original story. It comes from a different perspective and has to change the story to remain constant with the modernized story. I do not believe that it takes away from the original at all, but perhaps enhances it. It allows more people to relate to it and find interest and enjoyment in this classic tale. It never hurts to take a look at something you are familiar with from an entirely new angle; it brings about aspects that you may have never noticed. The Wiz does a good job staying true to the story while adapting it to suit a current audience and allowing some spunk to pep up a classic.

-Ann Nelson

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

The Wiz

I feel as though Diana Ross was the incorrect choice for the role of Dorothy for the following reasons: a) her total inability to act b) she was far too old for the part c) her body structure lent itself more to the role of the scarecrow ( which I would not suggest either due to the fact that Michael Jackson was excellent in the role). Other actress of the period could have fit the role perfectly, Pam Grier for instance is a much better actress ( Jackie Brown) although I don't know how well she would have sung, or perhaps the original broadway actress. However due to her popularity she was cast. Hell, Michael Jackson would have done a better job as Dorothy. Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz (book and film) is a much stronger character in terms of not being afraid all the time, there is the feeling of safety where ever she may be.
Now this may be because of the difference of the material between the Wiz and the the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, of which there are many, seeing as the Wonderful Wizard of Oz was ment as a children's book, whereas, in a lot of ways the Wiz is more of a social commentary. Which actually lends itself to more camp than the WWO in that the ideas have to be more broadly expressed on the screen including-the taxi's and the inability of any black people to get them.
But back to Dorothy, in connection with the socio-economic situation in OZ. It's seems the Wiz's view of Oz in and of itself is a social commentary. Because of the similarities of Oz to New York, there is no real fantasy land, and in a lot of instances it seem the fantasy land is more dangerous than reality. This seems to show that for a young black woman there is no safe place, even in a fairy tale land and the only way to survive is to be sure of yourself. which is explained at the end of the film, but it strikes me as odd that Dorothy is not portayed as strong due to the presence of the Women's right movement. But then it hits me, after all these challenges, she becomes strong which actually shows the struggle for sufferage and women's rights.
The Material was not perfect but the general message got through and think it was an important commentary, but I still think Michael Jackson would have been a better Dorothy.

The Wiz

Although I understand the film “The Wiz” was made to be a modernized adaptation of the 1939 MGM film “The Wizard of Oz” and L. Frank Baum’s book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, I still fell that certain modifications made in “The Wiz” were distracting to the overall plot. For example, in the original book, the characters are chased by two Kahildas across a canyon, but in “The Wiz,” Dorothy and her companions are attacked in the subway by two paper machete puppets that grow extremely tall. These puppets follow the protagonists until some trashcan with teeth and possessed pillars begin to move and join in the chase. While watching this happen I was dumbfounded as to why the screenwriters would fell it necessary to include this series of events in the story. Instead of focusing on Dorothy escaping, I was thinking about how strange it was to watch such inanimate objects come to life and aggress the four characters.

Another example of why I thought “The Wiz” was awkwardly uncharacteristic of the original story of Oz is the fact that in Baum’s books Dorothy is an innocent child. Although she acts with maturity through most of the tale, at times we can still see evidence of her being young, especially through her repetitive statements about wanting to “go home” and see “Aunty Em.” The whole central message of both the 1939 film and the book is the idea that one is always accepted and loved at home, and that you don’t need to search the world to find your place because it is right under your feet with the ones you love. In “The Wiz,” the same message is attempted to be portrayed, but this time with Dorothy as a schoolteacher in her early twenties. When she first arrives in Oz she even cries and says she wants to “go home to Aunty Em” – a sentence that is very awkward to hear coming from an adult, much less a schoolteacher. After seeing this I almost thought the Dorothy in the 1939 movie and the Dorothy in the book were more mature than the older Diana Ross’s Dorothy in “The Wiz.” I felt this was inconsistent to the story and I even lost respect for the character throughout the rest of the movie because she seemed so childish. Therefore, between the bizarre adaptations of the troubles the characters encounter on the journey to Oz and the immaturity of the older Dorothy, I found the movie “The Wiz” to be a more distracting and strange interpretation than to be a successful modernized version of the Oz story.

Meditation #2

Liz Webb

I don’t think its fair to say whether or not The Wiz is a good movie or not. Yes, there are some things that were random to the point of being absolutely stupid, but at the same time, this movie was made geared for a different type of audience. I think that by having an all black cast, the movie took Oz to a different level of how it is seen by viewers. Each part of The Wiz, whether it is similar to the Wizard of Oz or not, had a different way of expressing the morals of the movie, and of connecting to the audience.
Now, if you look at it from a different perspective, each of Dorothy’s friends represents a living class. The scarecrow, being made out of trash and living in what could be known as the dumps, represents the lower class. The Tinman working at the amusement park represents the middle class, or the working class. And the Lion represents the Upper class, as he is the King of the forest, and where he was found was on a more upscale part of the journey to find the Wiz. With this thought in mind, this movie may seem interesting to all sorts of people watching it back when it was made. But now, people look too far into things, and base their interpretations and judgments off of what they know. Still, many like this movie.
At the same time, children might enjoy this movie because it is very interesting to watch. A few of the songs are catchy, and the characters are very animated. Plus, the dancing numbers are fun to watch because the choreography is so interesting. But at the same time, it makes one wonder who thought of having trashcans with large teeth, or having the pillars come to life and chase after them. Not to mention the strange puppets that were following them in the subway area. Some would blame this on the director, saying he was probably high when he was making the movie, others might say that this movie was supposed to be a spoof of the original, and in a sense mock the original movie. It does, in a way, mock the original movie. The original is all about the joys of going home; the Wiz is about finding a place of your own. The original had the ever popular twister; the Wiz had, well, a twister in the middle of winter, in the middle of New York. The original Wizard eventually told the characters of their abilities that they thought they never possessed and they eventually like him; the Wiz is a scared man who, well, stays scared throughout the entire movie, and Dorothy tells her friends that they have what they’ve wanted all along.
So in the end, I believe it is up to the individual viewer to determine whether or not the movie is good. Personally, I thought it was good entertainment. It kept me into the story with the puns in the lines, and the animated characters. I didn’t care that it was no where near the original story. People want entertainment, and if they like Michael Jackson and crude humor, then they would very much enjoy The Wiz.

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Meditation #2

Watching The Wiz, I couldn't help but notice the obvious similarities between it and L. Frank Baum's original novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. To begin with, the Scarecrow, gleefully portrayed by Michael Jackson, helped Dorothy by concocting numerous ideas about the next plan of action. He even started the journey by discovering the yellow brick road in The Wiz, even though supposedly he has no brain. Secondly, the Tin Woodman is always crying and was the overly emotional one, as he was portrayed in the novel. Yet again, the character is using something he supposedly was not given.

As I wrote about in my previous meditations, in the book, the lack of camaraderie is shown so vividly, as it is in The Wiz. For example, during the scene when the group is trapped in the subway platform, the "Cowardly" Lion defends Dorothy from the crazy moving pillars. He also defends the Scarecrow from the malicious and bizarre trash disposal cans, in The Wiz. The movie displayed the lack of camaraderie, as shown in the book; while the Lion did help Dorothy out of the "pillar situation", he immediately abandoned her afterwards to flee for his own safety. So much so that she had to call after him and beg for the group to wait so that she could catch up. But like the novel, in the end, Dorothy brings them all together by standing up to the Wiz and telling him that she will not see him unless he grants access to her friends as well.

While The Wiz was poorly made, it did stay more honest to the book than the 1939 The Wizard of Oz, without manipulating the text in any way or without redefining the characters that Baum wrote the story about.

Meditation #2 -- Katie Marchant

One difference that really struck me between The Wiz and Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is how in The Wiz Dorothy not only helps her friends along the path to try to get what they want from the Wizard but in the end she also explains to them that all along she could see in each of them what they were searching for. In Baum’s book Dorothy helps create ways for her friends to demonstrate the characteristics they desire but she never expresses to them that she could see those traits in them before their wishes were granted by “The Magic Art of The Great Humbug”. (Baum, chap.14 title)

The fact that in The Wiz Dorothy puts aside her own wishes to tell her friends that she can see in them what they desire means a lot more to me than Dorothy (in Baum’s book) just standing by and wishing that it was her turn so she would get home while the phony Wizard stuffed the Scarecrow’s head with bran-pins, cut a hole in the Tinman’s chest for a silk heart stuffed with sawdust, and gave the Lion some random potion to drink. (Baum, chap.14) It really bothered me that the Tinman, Scarecrow and Lion become full of what is was the Wizard gave them, it was almost like they were saying “my heart is better than your heart” or something like that. Each of the three characters in the book came back from the chambers of the Wizard boasting about their new brain or heart or courage while in The Wiz they were much more humble about accepting the fact that they really had what they wanted.

I really like the concept of The Wiz and I feel that it is more meaningful, in some ways, than Baum’s book and the 1939 film. The characters in The Wiz seem to support each other more than the characters in the 1939 film do, for example in the motorcycle monkeys scene and in the subway attack scene. These are the scenes where the Lion really shows his courage, the Tinman really shows his heart and the Scarecrow, well little MJ get his chance to show his brains a little later during the Sweat Shop scene and with meaningful quotes from his “garbage” stuffing. Each of the characters really contributes something along the way to the city and Dorothy uses these instances as examples to let her friends know that she appreciates how they used their talents to protect her and each other.

Blog 2 “No place like home”

Blog 2 “No place like home”
The biggest difference between “The Wiz” movie (see link) and the “Wizard of Oz” is “is the interpretation of home. In the “Wizard of Oz” http://www.fiftiesweb.com/movies/wizard-of-oz.htm
Dorothy says” Oh, but anyway, Toto, we're home. Home! And this is my room, and you're all here. And I'm not gonna leave here ever, ever again, because I love you all, and - oh, Auntie Em - there's no place like home”“The Wiz” in contrast has Glinda say “If we know ourselves were always home anywhere.
In “The Wizard of OZ” Dorothy is only able to go home after she states the moral Well, I - I think that it – it wasn't enough to just want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em - and it's that - if I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own back yard. Because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with! Is that right?
”But the Dorothy in the Wiz not only feels leaving ones own backyard is acceptable but necessary, telling the Wiz “I don’t know what’s in you.You’ll have to find that out yourself.But I do know one thing you’ll never find it in the safety of this room.”
I am inclined to agree with the moral “The Wiz” not only because of my own bias in enjoying new places, but because a broader definition of home, beyond a physical house or geography, seems to link far better with the other morals of the story. In both versions mentioned as well as “The Wonderful Wizard of OZ” Baum 270.The Tin Man and Scarecrow have been told they possessed heart and brains even though they lacked the physical organs. The Cowardly Lion’s been told that courage means facing you fear rather then lacking it. It doesn’t fit in then for Dorothy to be told to just go home and be safe rather then seek knowledge and more friends and love.
By JD’

The Wiz - Lauren's second meditation

While I find The Wiz a pretty entertaining movie, (aside from the fact that the moviemakers could have cut about half the songs and I would have been ecstatic) I really do not see it as anything award-worthy or even note-worthy, aside from the fact that it was a musical with a all-black cast, which is rare in musicals.
I do believe that The Wiz was intended to make a point amongst the racial tension in the 70s, but I think whatever points they were trying to make was lost in the campy, over-the-top way the movie was done.

The moviemakers cast huge names in the film, most notably Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. Just the fact that these huge stars were in the movie made people want to go see it, not for the original story it was modeled after or even because it had an all black cast.

What The Wiz was able to do, aside from draw big names to the cast, was to draw audiences with its flashy scenes and costumes. The whole scene were Dorothy falls into the playground and the Munchkins and Miss One tell her about the land of Oz and the great Wizard was intense, from the lighting to the movements to the lavish but sparse set.

The scene with the hooker Poppies was a chance to attract men to the audience, as well as show off some cool sets once again – the neon signs hung seemingly in the air, the smoke that billows out to our travelers and knocks them out – this is all done as a big production, as is the courtyard scene when our travelers first enter Oz. The costumes are loud and vibrant; the song and dance is memorable and entertaining to watch.

The general story of Dorothy and her visit to Oz is completely, totally, and utterly lost in the remake or reinterpretation. I find that while The Wiz may have been made to pay homage or even make a social commentary, it has mostly served as a comedy, a parody of the original story. None of the original morals really remain. The Wiz seems like it only fulfilled one of its main goals – to make money.

The Young and The Pretty (revised)

After watching the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, a few students brought up what Glinda told Dorothy when they first met. It was that ‘Only bad witches were ugly – good witches were beautiful.’ As a class we began to wonder if this theme, this moral or message conveyed in the movie – beauty equals good, ugly equals bad – was a message that the moviemakers drew from Baum’s novel or if it was an idea all their own.

I believe that Baum did stress the value of beauty in his novel, but not in the same way or with the same characters the movie did. When we meet the first witch in the book, the Witch of the North, she is written as an old woman who seemingly looks old and tired not only in the illustration, as well as described in the text as less than conventionally beautiful – “But the little woman was doubtless much older: her face was covered with wrinkles, her hair was nearly white, and she walked rather stiffly.” (Baum 36) There is no comment made about the way witches look in relation to their powers or their affiliation with good or evil – the Good Witch is the mothering type, not a beauty queen. She explains Dorothy’s situation to her and even offers her advice on who could help her get home.

Later in the book Baum stresses how Dorothy and her traveling companions often change or update their appearance when they plan to meet someone of importance – the Wizard or Glinda. I believe this puts unnecessary emphasis on “looking good”, especially for a children’s book. Towards the end of the book Baum makes two more references to looks – once in China Country and another once Dorothy goes to visit Glinda. When Dorothy inquires about the china milkmaid being mended, the china milkmaid tells her that she can be mended but that “One is never so pretty after being mended.” (Baum 322) Soon thereafter Dorothy is so happy with Glinda she compliments her beauty and her personality – “You are certainly as good as you are beautiful!” (Baum 351)

I understand Baum’s thinking when he made the ‘good’ characters in Oz pretty – little kids may be more comfortable, more apt to trust pretty, nice looking people. I do not think that making a point about beauty was Baum intended at all when he was writing, simply reading his introduction note lets the reader know that this book was meant as nothing more than a children’s book. I do believe, however, that the moviemakers of the 1939 film did find it necessary to cast ‘pretty’ people, which they did. They then added the line referenced in my first paragraph about good witches being pretty as a reference to Baum’s original thoughts on the subject.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Irony in OZ and a disagreement with the annotations

I disagree with the annotation Baum,194 n. 25 which says the "The Lion comments on the irony of the situation.Had each only gone before the other in sequence all of their problems might have been solved.The Scarecrow could have appealed to the great Head's intellect for a brain, the Tin Woodman might have wooed the lovely lady for a heart.... each could have shown a different form of Oz that he already knew how to use the gift he so desired..."
This comment is based on the Lion's naive assumption that a changing of the Wizard's shape constitutes a changing of the Wizard's matter.This is shown untrue by the Scarecrows comment on the "lovely lady" Baum 192: "'all the same said the Scarecrow ' she needs a heart as much as the Tin Woodman.'"Baum through his pun and the Scarecrows comment teaches children looks can be decieving; a beautiful lady may have no more heart then a talking head.Baum foreshadows the later revealing of the "Wizard."
The real irony of the lions statement Baum 195." If he is a beast when I see him I shall roar my loudest, and so frighten him that he will grant all I ask" Is that to do so the Lion would be showing courage if his action was just a bluff however even more humorus would be the results of the Lion's hoped for outcome. If the wizard after being frightined asked the Lion what he wanted the Llion would be forced to admit his bluff by askingfor courage.
Finally the logic of the annotation that someone without a brain could make the best appeal to intellect, or someone without a heart the best appeal to sympathy is ridiculous.Rather again Baum shows through characters wishing to encounter someone with the feature they ask fo,r that they do no how to "use the gift" as the annotation suggests. but as good reasoning tells us you can not use something you don't have, and the Lion the Scarecow and the Tin Woodman all already have what they desire.

Irony in OZ and a disagreement with the annotations

I disagree with the annotation Baum,194 n. 25 which says the "The Lion comments on the irony of the situation.Had each only gone before the other in sequence all of their problems might have been solved.The Scarecrow could have appealed to the great Head's intellect for a brain the Tin Woodman might have wooed the lovely lady for a heart.... each could have shown a different form of Oz that he already knew how to use the gift he so desired..."
This comment is based on supporting the lions naive assumption that a changing of the Wizard's shape constitutes a changing of the Wizard's matter.This is shown untrue by the Scarecrows comment on the "lovely lady" Baum 192 "'all the same said the Scarecrow ' she needs a heart as much as the Tin Woodman.'"
Baum through his pun and the Scarecrows comment teaches children looks can be decieving a beautiful lady may have no more heart then a talking head.Baum foreshadows the later revealing of the "Wizard." The real irony of the lions statemtn Baum 195
If he is a beast when I see him I shall roar my loudest, and so frighten him that he will grant all I ask" Is that to do so the Lion would be showing courage if his action was just a bluff however even humorus would be if the wizard then asked the lion what he wanted the lion would be forced to admit his bluff by askingfor courage.
Finally the logic of the annotation that someone without a brain could make the best appeal to intellect or someone without a heart the best appeal to sympathy is ridiculous.Rather again Baum shows through characters wishing to encounter someone with the feature they ask for that they do no how to "use the gift" as the annotation suggests but as good reasoning tells us you can not use something you don't have and the Lion the Scarecow and the tin man all already have what they desire.

First response Blog

Liz Webb

Now, as I was finishing the Wizard of Oz, I was stopped by some strange wording that was used by Baum. After reading more of the imagery, I starting thinking why any child would want to listen to this part of the story. Though I will admit, it definitely showed me why it was not part of the movie or the stage version. I’m sure I will now have nightmares because of the following images:
“So the Woodman raised his axe, and as the wildcat ran by he gave it a quick blow that cut the beast’s head clean off from its body, and it rolled over at his feet in two pieces,” (Baum 148)
“…the Tin Woodman swung his arm and chopped off the wolf’s head from its body, so that it immediately died,” (Baum 207)
“The King Crow flew at the Scarecrow, who caught it but the head and twisted its neck until it died,” (Baum 208)
Plus, there were many, many more. As a child, I don’t believe I would have wanted to hear about this, or get the imagery of these characters killing anything. Just the thought of it now makes me ill and gives me the hint of a nightmare. I’m not sure what Baum was exactly thinking when he wrote those bits and pieces of imagery. I am sure, however, that he was not thinking about how the children would be lying in their beds trying to sleep, only to be thinking about the friendly Woodman chopping off the head of the wolves and the wildcat; or the sweet Scarecrow twisting the heads of birds. Yes, the Scarecrow hates these birds, and they were attacking, but there’s another way to put things other than bluntly stating how they are killed.
This helps me understand why these parts were not in the movie. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is not a horror film. But had they put these parts in, the once beloved movie would have been a horrible movie that turns away not only children, but also their parents, and the easily upset people in between. I know Baum only wanted to entertain the children of the world, or at least of the places his books were sold, but does entertainment really have to involve the vivid imagery of how one kills other things? I think these parts are morbid. Yes, they are entertaining to read because they go against everything you thought about the characters, and yes, the imagery is wonderful, and Baum’s use of words and images really brings these scenes to life. But, the life form of killing animals by chopping off heads, or twisting heads, or even pouncing and clawing off the head, are just not great to imagine.

9-8-06 #1

Baum shows a lack of consistency throughout the novel that I believe hurts the story itself. When the details are not consistent, you do not know which to believe or which is true and can inhibit your view and understanding of the story. It is written in The Tin Woodsman of Oz, after “Queen Lurline left one of her fairies to rule this enchanted Land of Oz… no one in Oz ever died.” (Hearn 94, 6) The idea of death and aging is not something that exists in Oz, while Baum has the lion offer to “go into the forest and kill a deer for you,” (Baum, 119) so that Dorothy may eat. If death does not apply to the woodsmen, scarecrows, lions, munchkins, why would it apply to deer? At the same time, we need to eat meats to be healthy, and the only way to get that would be through other animals. Something would have to die in order to sustain this need, so the idea of death is not impossible.

When Dorothy meets the Queen of the Mice, she is told that “If ever you need us again…come out into the field and call, and we shall hear you and come to your assistance.” (Baum, 157) When our heroes need help again in later chapters, “Dorothy blew the little whistle she had carried about her neck since the Queen of the mice had given it to her.” (Baum, 245) Baum has mixed up his information here because the mice never gave her a whistle to summon them, but the Wicked Witch does use a whistle to summon her creatures, maybe he was thinking of that. (Hearn, 242, 3) This is inconsistent with the facts we have been given in earlier chapters and therefore can hinder the story by Baum’s inability to check his facts throughout the book.

Baum also has a tendency to be indecisive when discussing places, or describing things and does not keep the place or description consistent throughout the book or the series. Baum tells of Gaylette’s “handsome palace built from great blocks of ruby, ” (Baum, 248) while this is a castle in the north, where the favorite color is purple. (Hearn, 249, 4) To be consistent with the other lands, everything would be purple in this country, especially the castles and homes. The colors are one way to keep each land separate as it exists in Oz, and to make each place more distinct and unique in a child’s mind. When the details are skewed or changed, it becomes difficult to distinguish one land from another.

-Ann Nelson

Thursday, September 07, 2006

The Young and The Pretty - Lauren's first meditation

After watching the 1939 movie The Wizard of Oz, a few students brought up what Glinda told Dorothy when they first met. It was that ‘Only bad witches were ugly – good witches were beautiful.’ As a class we began to wonder if this theme, this moral or message conveyed in the movie – beauty equals good, ugly equals bad – was a message that the moviemakers drew from Baum’s novel or if it was an idea all their own.
I believe that Baum did stress the value of beauty in his novel, but not in the same way or with the same characters the movie did. When we meet the first witch in the book, the Witch of the North, she is written as an old woman who seemingly looks old and tired in the illustration. There is no comment made about the way witches look in relation to their powers or their affiliation with good or evil – the Good Witch is the mothering type, not a beauty queen.

Later in the book Baum stresses how Dorothy and her traveling companions often change or update their appearance when they plan to meet someone of importance – the Wizard or Glinda. I believe this puts unnecessary emphasis on “looking good”, especially for a children’s book. Towards the end of the book Baum makes two more references to looks – once in China Country and another once Dorothy goes to visit Glinda. When Dorothy inquires about the china milkmaid being mended, the china milkmaid tells her that she can be mended but that “One is never so pretty after being mended.” (Baum 322) Soon thereafter Dorothy is so happy with Glinda she compliments her beauty and her personality – “You are certainly as good as you are beautiful!” (Baum 351)

I understand Baum’s thinking when he made the ‘good’ characters in Oz pretty – little kids may be more comfortable, more apt to trust pretty, nice looking people. I do no think that making a point about beauty was Baum intent at all when he was writing. I do believe, however, that the moviemakers of the 1939 film did find it necessary to cast ‘pretty’ people, which they did. They then added the line referenced in my first paragraph about good witches being pretty as a reference to Baum’s original thoughts on the subject.

Meditation 1

Throughout The Wizard of Oz film, camaraderie between the four main characters is a major factor in the plot. I found it curious that during the course of the novel, L. Frank Baum did not emphasize the importance of alliance and teamwork. The film seemed to continually repeat how staying together and working toward a common goal, as a group, was the key to success. In the novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, it struck me as odd how the main characters only seemed slightly bothered by abandoning a struggling friend during their time of need.

In chapter 8, The Deadly Poppy Field, the group attempts to cross the broad river and the Scarecrow becomes trapped mid-stream on a stick. Once the rest of the group reaches the shore safely, “they all looked at the river and saw the Scarecrow perched upon his pole in the middle of the water looking lonely and sad, they sat down upon the bank and gazed wistfully at the Scarecrow.” (Baum 136) Another instance occurs in the Deadly Poppy Field chapter when the Lion falls under the power of the poppies. “The flowers had been too strong for the huge beast and he had given up, at last, and fallen only a short distance from the end of the poppy bed. ‘We can do nothing for him,’ said the Tin Woodman, sadly; for he is much too heavy to lift. We must leave him here to sleep on forever, and perhaps he will dream that he has found courage at last.’” (Baum 143) Of course after both preceding instances, a random character interjected to save the day, but the characters did not seek out assistance for their ailing comrade.

However, in chapter 13, entitled “The Rescue,” after the Lion and Dorothy have defeated the Wicked Witch, they set out to save their friends. “‘Don’t you suppose we could rescue them?’ asked the girl, anxiously. ‘We can try,’ answered the Lion.” (Baum 232) They called upon the Yellow Winkies for help in rescuing their friends. From what I gather, it seems at the end Dorothy and the Lion realize how important teamwork and friendship are and how no one can be left behind, no matter the cost. It also shows the growth of the characters, maturity wise, of lessons learned. Because in reality, each character helped the others reach their goals. Without the Tin Woodman, they could never have survived the swarm of bees that the Wicked Witch ordered and had the Scarecrow not joined Dorothy, they would all have been torn to shreds by the crows. The Cowardly Lion frightened away the Winkies who were also commanded by the Witch to destroy them all. And finally without Dorothy, none of the group would have discovered what they thought they were lacking at the beginning of the journey.

Baum's Morals

L. Frank Baum’s classic children’s book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, has been annotated and scrutinized for the past century by critics, historians, and writers alike. Allegorical theories and explanations have been formed to explain the true meaning or underlying messages hidden in between the lines of Baum’s tale. However, I find such analyzing to be demeaning to its original simplicity that makes the story so magical and appealing to children. In reading the book, I have come to believe that Baum did not intend for his series to be viewed as a complex criticism of politics, but instead to simply teach children about wholesome, life morals through an enjoyable story with lovable characters.

Take, for example, Baum’s own reaction to the public and how he showed very little interest in the reviews of his storybooks. In fact, he “paid little attention to his critics. So long as the books kept selling and the children liked them, he was content” (Hearn lxxxix). As an author, his top priority was to appeal to his youthful audience, and not to create some novel with varying levels of political and psychological depth. Afterall, a writer that wants to write about politics as a type of propaganda, would not necessarily be so concerned with his books being appealing to children. I believe Baum was interested instead in making the children fall in love with his stories and then using the children’s attachment to the characters to teach them life lessons. Even Baum himself said that he felt compelled to spread certain messages. And that he felt the most appropriate way to do so was to use his books to “open the doors to sympathy and understanding, joy, peace and happiness” (xcv). If Baum truly was so concerned with portraying his political or even religious beliefs, he would have spent more time incorporating those ideas into his story through word choice, as opposed to focusing so much on such moral aspects or the children’s reactions.

Even taking a look at the text we can see that Baum almost creates ongoing themes throughout the story dealing with moral issues. The idea of helpfulness is mentioned or demonstrated multiple times. For example, after the Stork saves the Scarecrow from the river, the Scarecrow offers to do something in return. But being kind and selfless, the Stork only replies, “That’s all right…I always like to help anyone in trouble” (Baum 138). This same concept is emphasized again after the Woodsman saves the Queen of the field-mice from the wildcat. While the Queen is showering the Woodsman with her graciousness, he modestly tells her, “Don’t speak of it…I am careful to help all those who may need a friend” (148). In these instances, Baum is clearly attempting to show his children readers that it is good and moral to be kind and helpful to everyone. If teaching a lesson like this one was not important to Baum, he would not have strategically placed such moral traits in his characters that come out at different times throughout his series. And I think that Baum did an amazing job in doing so, because for the past century children have been able to read his stories and associate with the ethical deeds of the heroes in the story and hopefully to want to become more like the heroes by being understanding, kind, helpful, and forgiving.

Meditation #1 - Katie Marchant

Throughout The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, both before and after they are allowed to meet with the Wizard, the Tin Woodman, the Scarecrow, and the Lion all show characteristics of what it is they are hoping to gain from the Wizard. The Tinman must overcome feelings of compassion, that he supposedly he doesn't have, to kill the wolves and save Dorothy. (Baum 207) The Lion must use the courage he doesn't possess to scare off the Winkies (Baum 211) and the Scarecrow must prepare a plan to protect the group from the crows and the bees using the brain he is hoping for. (Baum 209) Because Dorothy came to Oz these characters had to use the attributes that they desired even before they received them to assist her on her journey.

Because of these seemingly impossible acts of love, courageousness, and ingenuity these three seemingly lowly characters are offered positions of power by those that they assisted. Because of how the Tinman shows compassion for the Winkies after Dorothy melts the Witch they ask him to return and be their ruler. (Baum 236) Because of the Scarecrows problem solving and leadership qualities the Wizard leaves him in charge of Oz when he returns to Omaha. (Baum 290) Because of how the Lion saves the animals from the "great spider" he becomes, as a lion should be, the King of the Forest. (Baum 335)

If Dorothy had never come to Oz her friends would have never had the chance to prove themselves worthy and to become more than what they were. Near the end of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz Dorothy expresses that she is very happy to have helped her friends but that now it is time for her receive what she wanted all along. "...and I am glad that I was of use to these good friends. But now that each of them has had what he most desired, and each is happy in having a kingdom to rule beside, I think I should like to go back to Kansas." (Baum 351) Without Dorothy the Tinman would have remained rusted in the forest, the Scarecrow would have stayed up on the pole in the cornfield and the Lion would have still been cowardly skulking around the forest. But because she included them on her journey and because she helped them get what they so desired she left them with a sense of pride and accomplishment and worth.

Wizard of Oz

"be it ever so beautiful. there is no place like home." (Baum 77 #1) The whole of this annotation is the explanation of how the "no place like home" came to be a type of mantra for Dorothy in the movie. The filmmakers of course, failed to realize the fact that Baum himself was being ironic. This is evident in the film with the constant moral of "there is no place like home", which in and of itself was overly simplistic.The book, on the otherhand, has true genius in it's prose, by true character development. Rather than the one scene in which the scarecrow, tin woodman and lion prove themselves, they prove they actually have the qualities they want to begin with they just don't have faith in their ability. Also, there is a totally lack off pun and satire in the movie whereas, in the novel, the use of pun and satire create a marvelous tale for not only children but adults.
But that's what usually happens in american cinema, filmakers tend to dumb down the movie in order for everyone to get it. The complex, the ironies of everyday life are abandoned in favor of special effects and obvious plot twists. Every romantic comedy has the same basic formula, a couple that stand out in mind as truly original are Sideways and Chasing Amy, or horror which used to be truly scary with films like Nosfertu. The problem is that the average filmaker just doesn't think the moviegoer will get anything above the apparent. And it actually hurts us more as a culture and as thinking human beings, if we just allow hollywood to spoonfeed us that happy ending, the improbable situation that always turns out for the best then we become like the scarecrow, pbrains.
There are exceptions, true artists who focus on the innerworkings of situation or idea. Some may be arrogant like Michael Moore after the amazing Farenheit 9\11, but doesn't he have aright to be after the rest of the shit that came out that year? He actually put forth an original movie, which in and of itself was an annotation of the Bush white house and the Bush family. He made his own annotated Wizard of Oz. Or maybe just Wicked. I'd hate to think what it would be like to think. If I only didn't have a brain. What will it take to do justice by a written text?
Baum actually didn't help by putting on his 1902 musical extravanganza, where as explained in the introduction page lviii, where he basically rewrote is book in order to make it more flashy, more stageworthy. ' "I was told,"Baum explained, " that what constituted fun in the book would be missed by the average audience, which is accustomed to a regular gatling gun discharge of wit-or what stands for wit..." So scratch everything I said, screw the text and make the audience happy, cause there's no place like home.

Monday, September 04, 2006

Style Suggestions for Meditations

For your meditations, use these rules of thumb.

1. Be sure to include your name. In a printed copy, make sure your name is at the top of your meditation. In your post, consider signing each post at the end, or providing a brief title line.

2. Provide a subject or title. Choose a system that you will use consistently for each meditation. You could, for example, number your meditation (by week or sequence or date); you could simply use a title, provocative or descriptive. I recommend using some combination of both. (e.g. "Meditation #1: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" or "Week #3: Dark Oz: Maguire's Wicked"; "Sept. 8: Which Witch is Which?") You could, if you like, include your name in the meditation title (e.g. "Everist 1: Bad Witches Are Ugly?"). I ask only that you (a) provide a subject or a title and (b) try to be consistent.

3. Consider providing hyperlinks. You can make the title of your post into a hyperlink (just enter the web address in the "link" box on the posting screen), which is handy for making reference to key subjects or examples. Hyperlinks are a good way to broaden your discussion by providing context - either central or tangential.

4. Make references and quotations as specific as you can; if you're addressing a classmate's post, for example, specifically mention (and link to, if possible) the post and the date, so that your reader can follow your thinking.

5. For clarity, please italicize titles of plays and films. Feel free to use bold face for emphasis (but not to excess), or to clarify a citation. Because this is an on-line forum, avoid underlining text (it is likely to be confused with a hyperlink). Note that you may have to italicize titles from directly within the "posting" screen in blogger - there is a convenient button at the top of the screen. In general, use the formatting options available to help clarify your position, rather than simply for effect.

6. When posting a comment, be specific about which part of the meditation you're addressing. Sign your name to your posted comments!

Meditation #1: Cite a Passage

Before Friday's class, by 8:00 am on Friday morning, post a meditation that addresses either or both of the two texts of The Wizard of Oz that we have studied so far. This meditation should be at least 2-3 paragraphs in length, and must also include a substantial quotation from either source (preferably Hearn's Annotated Wizard of Oz). This quotation should serve as evidence for your argument, or context for the question you pose. Be sure to cite the page number and annotation number, as applicable.

Your meditation should either make a claim or pose a question, providing your reader with sufficient evidence or contextual information to enable them to engage your discussion. To put this another way: if you wish to make a point, defend your argument. If you wish to ask a question, prepare your reader with the proper context. Use citation as the central part of your meditation.

Wondering what to write about? Try this question as a starting point.

Why would a particular scene in the 1939 film be different from its counterpart in the original book? For what reason, can you imagine, might the screenwriters and directors have chosen to render a scene differently or not at all? Isolate a particular moment in the book and discuss how it fares in the film. Describe specifically the key differences or similarities. Speculate as to why these changes were made - or why no changes were made.

Your meditation does not have to address this question; this is just a suggestion. However, I do ask that you restrict your subject to the 1939 film and/or the 1900 book, rather than introducing other variants of The Wizard of Oz. Feel free to draw on outside sources for your quotation, if that quotation is relevant to the subject, so long as you cite your sources fully (with a hyperlink as well, if possible).

On Full Citations

We have engaged two texts so far in this course:

L. Frank Baum, The Annotated Wizard of Oz. Centennial Edition. Ed., intro., notes by Michael Patrick Hearn. Illus. by W. W. Denslow. NY: W. W. Norton & Co., 2000.

The Wizard of Oz (1939). Directed by Victor Fleming, et al. Written by Noel Langley, Florence Ryerson, and Edgar Allen Woolf, et al. MGM, 1939.

When you discuss these texts on-line, on this blog, you do not need to provide the full citation. For Hearn's annotated text, use (Baum [page number]); for the film, use (Wizard of Oz 1939: [time signature, if available]). If you are citing text from another source - for example, an on-line copy of the screenplay - you must provide a full citation to that source.

Once a source has been listed on the blog, you do not need to provide a full citation again. Just be sure that the source is clearly identified - i.e., distinguish between the book (The Wonderful Wizard of Oz) and the film (Wizard of Oz (1939)). However, you should provide a link. Providing a hyperlink on blogger is relatively easy: select the passage of text you wish to serve as a link, click on the "hyperlink" button in the posting toolbar (it looks like a planet with a chainlink attached), and type in the address in the dialog box that appears. When possible on this blog, if you're making reference to a text, provide a link to the text in question - even if it's just a listing on Amazon.com or Barnesandnoble.com, or an entry in our library. When possible, include a link to the posting that provided the full citation (such as this one for the two sources above).

Hello...

So. I'm Liz. Aka Kansas. Or the Midge. Either way...I chose this C/I course because I love theatre. i always have, and I always will be an actress / techie at heart. Plus, I loved the idea of learning how scripts differ from when they are being written to when they are being put onto the stage, or onto the screen. But I do believe my favorite part is learning about Wicked. Thats one of my favorite musicals of all time. And of course, I love the Wizard of Oz...but thats a personal preference! :-)

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Why I'm in this C/I class

I'm in this class because, Theater is my escape. Reading was my first, but Theater is how I escape the pressures of everday life. Luckily this class it takes care of two problems at once and allows me to talk with like-minded people( about theater at least). I really like what we've done so far, and I hope the class continues in the same vein throughout the course. Yeah I'm Ian Patrick Downing-Beaver by the way, and I'm from Houston. So that's that.
P.S. I expected to back earlier from soccer but my goalie had to go and break his leg. Sorry.

Katie

Hey I'm Katie and theatre is the LOVE of my life. I have been deeply involved in many aspects of technical theatre since I was 11 and I cannot imagine what my life would be like without it! I chose this C\I class because it looked like a good way to investigate another side of theatrical production. I am very interested in learning the processes people went through in order to adapt a work into something new. I don't know if I will be majoring in theatre or not but I do know that I will never lose my appreciation for all the hard work involved in every part of a production and I know that this class will give me a broader knowledge of one of those parts.

I'm Lauren.

In case you couldn't guess, I'm Lauren. I picked this lovely C/I class because both writing and theater have interested me since junior high. I've always been interested in reading books and then seeing how they change once they become movies or plays. I also picked this class because it seemed like one I wouldn't fall asleep in - so far, so good!
I am very, very excited to be studying the Wizard of Oz and it's offshoots. The author, the story, even Judy Garland have been a huge part of my childhood and I'm interested in knowing more about all of them. I also think this course would be a great foundation if say, I write an amazing novel one day and someone then wants to make it into a movie or play. Hey - a girl can dream, right?

Taylor

My name is Taylor and I selected this C/I class because I love theatre and I am interested in learning the sequence of adapatations which take place from the initial writing of the script to the stage and so on. Also, it seemed significantly less painful than the molecular biology and nuclear fission class. Theatrical adaptation is such a crucial piece of the whole puzzle, and it is essential to learn at least the basis of its foundation in order to fully understand each play as a whole. As in The Wizard of Oz, I am already learning new things about its adapatation which I never knew until this class, so many common misconceptions were my beliefs until I began to read the Annotated Version for myself. I am looking forward to discovering even more through this experience.

Ann

Well, I'm Ann. I chose this class because I have always been interested in theatre, but have never had time to get into it, or learn anything about it. To discover how some of the great works we have to day were created and developed fascinates me. Understanding the adaptations that works such as the Wizard of Oz have gone through to become what they are today shows how society has developed and the experiences we have gone through as a nation. It is interesting to see how history and society have influenced different interpretations and remakes of stories/productions. I look forward to discovering why plays are adapted, who decides how to adapt them, and what the revised version brings out compared to what was left out from other versions.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Julia D

My name is Julia D.I Chose this class because I enjoy playwrighting and feel studying others adaptations will help me with my writing. I just wrote and directed a play last year and found that by nature theatre involves alot of adaptation.I was basing my show on real excperinces that I had to condense and bend to fit the limits of the stage.So even though it was an orginal work it wasn't because my material came from offstage.I'm hoping this class will help me learn the craft of adapting.Also I like reading plays and seeing them that's the biggest reason. On second thought I think my biggest intrest in this class is possiblities. I've always wanted to be an inventor even though i'm not at all a mechanical person.I like tinkering with ideas and trying on perspectives and this is all about taking ideas apart and putting them back togther in novel ways its a concept version of toaster destruction, which makes me happy.

Friday, September 01, 2006

blog one

My name is Layne Rylander, and I was really interested in the theatrical adaptation CI course because I have always had a passion for theatre arts. I thought it would be a wonderful opportunity to not only work on and learn some acting skills but also to explore how and why scripts and books are changed to fit the stage or the screen. I think that understanding the differences between acting in a theatre and acting in a movie would be very important to someone that wants to improve their communication skills. And one way to go about doing that is to learn about script adaptation to portray a character to appeal to the audience in the most appropriate. In taking this course I also hope to learn a lot about the history of the Wizard of Oz and other works whose stories have lived through books, plays, movies, and musicals. I find such adaptations very interesting and think that much can be learned when one takes a close look at why the stories survived such changes.

Theatrical Adaptation

Thursday, September 28, 2006

9-29-06 #4

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Don't We All Live in Oz?

Don't We All Live in Oz?

Oz is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there!

Meditation #4 -- Katie Marchant

Monday, September 25, 2006

Happy vs. Sad

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz - with new insight

Wicked

Friday, September 22, 2006

9-22-06 #3

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

meditaion 3 J'D "WICKED"

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

True Colors

Oh, The Places You'll Go - Lauren's 4th meditation

A helpful Wizard of Oz webpage

Meditation # 3 -- Katie Marchant

Monday, September 18, 2006

the wickedness of the wizard

The Wiz - reading between the lines #3

# 3

Friday, September 15, 2006

9-14-06 #2

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

The Wiz

The Wiz

Meditation #2

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Meditation #2

Meditation #2 -- Katie Marchant

Blog 2 “No place like home”

The Wiz - Lauren's second meditation

The Young and The Pretty (revised)

Friday, September 08, 2006

Irony in OZ and a disagreement with the annotations

Irony in OZ and a disagreement with the annotations

First response Blog

9-8-06 #1

Thursday, September 07, 2006

The Young and The Pretty - Lauren's first meditation

Meditation 1

Baum's Morals

Meditation #1 - Katie Marchant

Wizard of Oz

Monday, September 04, 2006

Style Suggestions for Meditations

Meditation #1: Cite a Passage

On Full Citations

Hello...

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Why I'm in this C/I class

Katie

I'm Lauren.

Taylor

Ann

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Julia D

Friday, September 01, 2006

blog one

Contributors

Links

Previous Posts

Archives