![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficI rewatched "Return to Oz" last night. I was four when this movie came out, probably a little older when I saw it. The movie flopped, in large part because critics felt it was inappropriate for children —there's that pesky scene where Dorothy is threatened with electro-shock.
I was a kid when I saw this, and that didn't scare me at all. Watching it again, I was trying to figure out why. First—I had no idea what electro-shock therapy was when I saw it. I'd never heard about it or seen images of people being shocked. And the electrodes they put on Dorothy are earphones, something I was familiar with and not scared by. The characters say it's a machine to suck out her dreams and make her forget all about Oz, and I took them at their word. I knew it was a bad machine because it would make her forget Oz, but I had no reason to picture Dorothy getting electrocuted. I didn't know that's what was about to happen.
Most importantly, maybe, is that Dorothy isn't scared in that scene. She looks wary, but she's not panicking, not crying or screaming, and not struggling to get away. She wasn't scared, so I wasn't scared.
The wheelers on the other hand (which Dorothy is frightened of), those scared the crap out of me.
I was also thinking about why I like this film so much better than the 1939 "Wizard of Oz." I recognize that "Wizard of Oz" is a cultural touchstone and a classic and "Return to Oz" is an obscure cult favorite. But what always bothered me about "Wizard of Oz" is that Dorothy spends almost the whole film crying or whining and being homesick.
The last time I watched it, I realized that she's a freaking Mary Sue. Granted, most children's and YA novel's heroes could be called Mary Sues—they're often a character from our own world thrown into another, or an average child who discovers an extraordinary destiny. They're meant to be reader insertion characters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But look at Garland's Dorothy. Everyone loves her. Immediately. And through no particular merit of her own. The reason why they all love her is because she was in a house that fell on the Wicked Witch, which makes Dorothy about as responsible for that heroic act as it would make me responsible for a pop fly I just happened to catch because I was sitting in the right seat in the stands. There's no particular quality of hers that made her heroic, just random chance. And I know people will argue with me about this, but despite the fact that she's in this magical place where everyone loves her and gives her stuff and she's famous, she won't stop whining about going home and that annoys the snot out of me.
Take, on the other hand, Dorothy in "Return to Oz." Aside from being the right age for the character, she has something Garland's Dorothy lacks: agency. Balk's Dorothy cries once in the movie, and only when the Scarecrow is taken away. The rest of the time, she confronts each new problem, whether it be being chased by wheelers or having a witch say she'll steal her head, by making new friends and forming plans of escape. She's very much her age (nine) in the innocence with which she sees the world, but she's still taking charge. She never gives up; she's always the master of her own fate. And, before she realizes it's been destroyed, she's happy to be back in Oz, which I feel is a proper acknowledgment of the wonders of this fantasy place.
One other major difference between the films is that in "Return to Oz" there are no good adults. The only adults are Mombi and the Nome King, both of which are villains. Her companions are a chicken; a mechanical man who, while clever, seems to have no desire to set his own course and was told to follow Dorothy; a pumpkinhead that's only been alive a short while and is, for all intents and purposes, a child much younger than Dorothy; and a talking sofa that was just brought to life. The rest of Oz is empty in this movie—all the other adults have been turned to stone. In other words, Dorothy has to be the leader. She's the only one. It's natural that these people follow her.
Contrast that to "Wizard of Oz" where Dorothy is surrounded by adults who bow to her lead. All the adults in "Wizard of Oz" are weirdly damaged in some way, but they're still adults, which makes their sudden immediate deference to Dorothy odd.
It was fun to rewatch this film, which I don't think I've seen in fifteen years. I remembered almost all of it, including the strangest things, like the lay-out of the hen house or the way a key bounced when dropped in the hay. I also noticed a number of things that had gone straight over my head in previous viewings.
It's nice when something from childhood actually holds up when watched as an adult, isn't it? So many of my favorites (*hem*She-Ra*hem*) have been quite painful to see again.
I was a kid when I saw this, and that didn't scare me at all. Watching it again, I was trying to figure out why. First—I had no idea what electro-shock therapy was when I saw it. I'd never heard about it or seen images of people being shocked. And the electrodes they put on Dorothy are earphones, something I was familiar with and not scared by. The characters say it's a machine to suck out her dreams and make her forget all about Oz, and I took them at their word. I knew it was a bad machine because it would make her forget Oz, but I had no reason to picture Dorothy getting electrocuted. I didn't know that's what was about to happen.
Most importantly, maybe, is that Dorothy isn't scared in that scene. She looks wary, but she's not panicking, not crying or screaming, and not struggling to get away. She wasn't scared, so I wasn't scared.
The wheelers on the other hand (which Dorothy is frightened of), those scared the crap out of me.
I was also thinking about why I like this film so much better than the 1939 "Wizard of Oz." I recognize that "Wizard of Oz" is a cultural touchstone and a classic and "Return to Oz" is an obscure cult favorite. But what always bothered me about "Wizard of Oz" is that Dorothy spends almost the whole film crying or whining and being homesick.
The last time I watched it, I realized that she's a freaking Mary Sue. Granted, most children's and YA novel's heroes could be called Mary Sues—they're often a character from our own world thrown into another, or an average child who discovers an extraordinary destiny. They're meant to be reader insertion characters, and there's nothing wrong with that. But look at Garland's Dorothy. Everyone loves her. Immediately. And through no particular merit of her own. The reason why they all love her is because she was in a house that fell on the Wicked Witch, which makes Dorothy about as responsible for that heroic act as it would make me responsible for a pop fly I just happened to catch because I was sitting in the right seat in the stands. There's no particular quality of hers that made her heroic, just random chance. And I know people will argue with me about this, but despite the fact that she's in this magical place where everyone loves her and gives her stuff and she's famous, she won't stop whining about going home and that annoys the snot out of me.
Take, on the other hand, Dorothy in "Return to Oz." Aside from being the right age for the character, she has something Garland's Dorothy lacks: agency. Balk's Dorothy cries once in the movie, and only when the Scarecrow is taken away. The rest of the time, she confronts each new problem, whether it be being chased by wheelers or having a witch say she'll steal her head, by making new friends and forming plans of escape. She's very much her age (nine) in the innocence with which she sees the world, but she's still taking charge. She never gives up; she's always the master of her own fate. And, before she realizes it's been destroyed, she's happy to be back in Oz, which I feel is a proper acknowledgment of the wonders of this fantasy place.
One other major difference between the films is that in "Return to Oz" there are no good adults. The only adults are Mombi and the Nome King, both of which are villains. Her companions are a chicken; a mechanical man who, while clever, seems to have no desire to set his own course and was told to follow Dorothy; a pumpkinhead that's only been alive a short while and is, for all intents and purposes, a child much younger than Dorothy; and a talking sofa that was just brought to life. The rest of Oz is empty in this movie—all the other adults have been turned to stone. In other words, Dorothy has to be the leader. She's the only one. It's natural that these people follow her.
Contrast that to "Wizard of Oz" where Dorothy is surrounded by adults who bow to her lead. All the adults in "Wizard of Oz" are weirdly damaged in some way, but they're still adults, which makes their sudden immediate deference to Dorothy odd.
It was fun to rewatch this film, which I don't think I've seen in fifteen years. I remembered almost all of it, including the strangest things, like the lay-out of the hen house or the way a key bounced when dropped in the hay. I also noticed a number of things that had gone straight over my head in previous viewings.
It's nice when something from childhood actually holds up when watched as an adult, isn't it? So many of my favorites (*hem*She-Ra*hem*) have been quite painful to see again.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-12-06 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 04:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 05:04 am (UTC)That's not all that surprising unless you've read the books. Yes, there is more to Oz than the scarecrow, the tin man and the cowardly lion.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 03:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 03:33 pm (UTC)It's a weird thing to say, but the movie that made Oz famous isn't actually a very good representation of the Oz books.
no subject
Date: 2007-12-07 03:39 pm (UTC)That hardly surprises me. I had a few shocks when I first read Stephen King after seeing some of the movies made of his works. Generally, I think the book tends to be superior to the filmed version though there are filmed versions (the BBC Pride and Prejudice and The Lord of the Rings) that are just as good (if not even better, in a different way).
Then there are movies like the ones made of Michael Crichton books where, if you don't deviate wildly from the shit he wrote, your film will suck. It'll probably suck anyway (Jurassic Park is the exception), but if you don't try to get away from the source material, it'll suck.
Children's books seem to pose a real conundrum when it comes to adaptations, mostly because adults pervert a lot of what is mostly innocent about them by realizing what parts of the book weren't actually that innocent to begin with. The drug references in The Wizard of Oz or the violence in Alice in Wonderland. Kids don't mind them because they don't get it, but adults get crazed about kids being exposed to them. I'm all for exposing them to it because, hey, they're classics for a reason.