The first thing that has to be acknowledged about this film is that it's an unimpeachable classic. It's an iconic piece of cinema history and entertainment in general, and often for good reason. The visuals, characters, and music are memorable and lovable and there is very much a charm that's sustained the film- it's not just running on its own reputation. So my critiques cannot possibly change anyone's mind and that's not my purpose for making them. It's a good film that frequently charms me too.
That being said...the Oz books are something I only just started reading out of curiosity inspired by Return to Oz. And reading the first Oz book illuminated some points that the film didn't do as well. Largely, there's the device of the dream thesis that makes Oz a pure fantasy and adds parallel characters to Kansas. What's interesting to me is, for how iconic this aspect is, it really doesn't do the film any service to me. I think the extended Kansas sequence for the film with these new characters wasn't really the best executed and the book's expediency wasn't a problem. Return oddly made the parallel angle work much better for me by featuring a much more compelling Kansas opening that gave the parallels more weight and purpose, but in this film, it's not done for much but to flesh out the dream lens that also wasn't needed. The other two things that didn't land as well were Dorothy and Glinda. Dorothy's age and performance by Judy Garland often felt distracting. She's meant to be the most grounded, but she's too old to take seriously as a young child and performed in the time's melodramatic film fashion, which doesn't help her feel more down-to-earth than her friends. I think scenes toward the end of the film are better, but overall, a younger child actor would have been more true to the book, and Return did that really well. Glinda is the other problem. The script turns her from the end-of-journey benefactor who solves the problem into an omniscient trickster who starts the quest off for Dorothy before telling her the way home at the end when she didn't need to wait. Her performance as well comes across as a bit smug and self-interested, making her feel less like the Big Good and more like she's messing with or using Dorothy. If there were two Good Witches in the film, this could have been averted.
In the end, though, Oz is not a story that defined my childhood, so I can't be too upset with the film's take on it. There are great characters and indelible images and songs in the film that I can't help but smile at, and its historical and pop culture value can't be denied. Besides, Return to Oz does exist with a take that resonates with me personally, so there's a film for that too. This film is an icon that pretty much deserves it, flaws or not.
No review of this film could matter today...but here's one anyway.
The first thing that has to be acknowledged about this film is that it's an unimpeachable classic. It's an iconic piece of cinema history and entertainment in general, and often for good reason. The visuals, characters, and music are memorable and lovable and there is very much a charm that's sustained the film- it's not just running on its own reputation. So my critiques cannot possibly change anyone's mind and that's not my purpose for making them. It's a good film that frequently charms me too.
That being said...the Oz books are something I only just started reading out of curiosity inspired by Return to Oz. And reading the first Oz book illuminated some points that the film didn't do as well. Largely, there's the device of the dream thesis that makes Oz a pure fantasy and adds parallel characters to Kansas. What's interesting to me is, for how iconic this aspect is, it really doesn't do the film any service to me. I think the extended Kansas sequence for the film with these new characters wasn't really the best executed and the book's expediency wasn't a problem. Return oddly made the parallel angle work much better for me by featuring a much more compelling Kansas opening that gave the parallels more weight and purpose, but in this film, it's not done for much but to flesh out the dream lens that also wasn't needed. The other two things that didn't land as well were Dorothy and Glinda. Dorothy's age and performance by Judy Garland often felt distracting. She's meant to be the most grounded, but she's too old to take seriously as a young child and performed in the time's melodramatic film fashion, which doesn't help her feel more down-to-earth than her friends. I think scenes toward the end of the film are better, but overall, a younger child actor would have been more true to the book, and Return did that really well. Glinda is the other problem. The script turns her from the end-of-journey benefactor who solves the problem into an omniscient trickster who starts the quest off for Dorothy before telling her the way home at the end when she didn't need to wait. Her performance as well comes across as a bit smug and self-interested, making her feel less like the Big Good and more like she's messing with or using Dorothy. If there were two Good Witches in the film, this could have been averted.
In the end, though, Oz is not a story that defined my childhood, so I can't be too upset with the film's take on it. There are great characters and indelible images and songs in the film that I can't help but smile at, and its historical and pop culture value can't be denied. Besides, Return to Oz does exist with a take that resonates with me personally, so there's a film for that too. This film is an icon that pretty much deserves it, flaws or not.