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.
posted by IPDB @ 9:13 AM
2 Comments:
I agree with pretty much everything you said here. The book was so much better at allowing the chracters to prove themselves over the course of the book - Scarecrow really did have a brain, Tin Woodman already had a heart, and Lion was already brave. I think not only did it make the book more interesting, it helped drive home the message to the children that were reading it. I mean, I'm 18 and sometimes I still have to be told more than once to do something before I get it.
Anyway, nice job!
At the same time, the movie may have not shown that the characters already had the characteristic they so desired, it also did not depict the big heads they got once they thought they had said characteristic. In the book Baum gives them an air of arrogance once they are told they now have a heart, a brain, or courage. If they had put each character actually showing his trait throughout the journey, one the movie would have been incredibly long and two they also would have had to convey their arrogance after they were given a heart, brain or courage by Oz. This would have taught poor morals and not achieving the family values the movie was aiming for.
-Ann
Post a Comment
<< Home