It's considered by many to be the greatest film ever made, and for a long time it was also one of the most familiar; from 1956 to 1999, its annual appearance on television -- usually in the spring -- was a tradition in many families, including my own. Since then, as cable and internet streaming have diluted its influence, it's entirely possible to grow up without seeing it -- if that's your case, then you are in for a treat!
Oddly, in 1939, although it made back its production budget and received generally good notices, it wasn't regarded as a great success. The story of its production has itself become the stuff of legend, and all sorts of rumors continue to circulate about it. And yet, some of the strangest rumors are, in fact, true: the producers originally wanted Shirley Temple for the role of Dorothy; Buddy Ebsen was originally cast as the Tin Man, but had to be replaced by Jack Haley after he developed an allergic reaction to his aluminum paste makeup; Margaret Hamilton, who played the Wicked Witch of the West, suffered burns from the pyrotechnic device set to put out a cloud of red smoke when she stepped onto the elevator by means of which he was to vanish from the Munchkinland set. Perhaps most strange of all: the costume department at MGM had sent out for several racks of used men's suits for Frank Morgan's role as Professor Marvel, and finally identified a suitable one as "grandeur gone to seed." It was only when Morgan stepped out onto the sound-stage and glanced at the inner pocket that he saw a cloth label identifying the jacket as having belonged to L. Frank Baum! (Baum had died in 1919, but his widow still lived in their old home, Ozcot, just off Hollywood Boulevard, and had apparently given away a number of her husband's old suits to charity).
There were, of course, some changes from the book. "Miss Gulch" was needed to sustain the reality/dream pairings of the film (first used by the 1925 silent version); the Kalidahs were omitted, as were the mice who helped rescue the Lion and Dorothy from the Deadly Poppy Field. The swarm of insects that the Witch sends to attack the four companions was retained, but converted into a dance sequence, "The Jitterbug," which was ultimately deleted from the finished film (you can watch a reconstruction of it using Mervyn Le Roy's home movie footage here). And yet, inexplicably, the Witch's line -- "I've sent a little insect on ahead to take the fight out of them!" -- remained in the final cut. The biggest change of all, of course, was making the whole thing nothing but a dream. In the books, Oz was always -- as Garlad's Dorothy insists in the film -- "a real truly live place." In The Emerald City of Oz, the 6th in the series, Dorothy has her friend Princess Ozma wish Uncle Henry and Aunt Em to her palace in the Emerald City, and there they live happily ever after. There is, in the end, no need to return to Kansas.
After reading the blog post, it's hard to imagine that people haven't seen the movie or read the book. I feel like a complete outcast. Like you said in the blog post, it is considered to be the greatest film ever made which is a little difficult to believe. But yet again I haven't met anyone who hasn't seen or read it. Almost everyone I've talked to about The Wizards Of Oz has a memory of their first experience. I believe the reason the movie stays so popular is because its simply unique. Among the motion pictures and it mirrors peoples longings and imaginations as children. Or simply because people grew up watching it and just love the movie.
ReplyDeleteIts very interesting to read that they had to replace so many actors/actresses due to the strangest medical issues. It was also crazy to read that they made the whole thing nothing but a dream. Now I haven't finished the book or the movie so that spoiled it for me. I am very curious in why they ended up making it a dream. Did they not believe they could give a better ending? Was it always planned that way? Why did they think that ending it with just being a dream was the right decision for the movie/book?
I think one think to consider about the dream aspect is fantasy for most of the history of entertainment was expressed as just that, fantasy. So there was often this sense of having to return home to the real world. The Chronicles of Narnia are another good example of this in that while Narnia was expressed as being real it always was "unreal" in so far as Peter, Lucy, Susan and Edmund and later others always returned home at the moment they left and continued on with their real lives. Better for their time in Narnia but still, home was still just that. I think in many ways these authors and writers always wanted to convey the idea that fantasy is ok but should not replace reality. I think when FX really took off as well as the WWII era when comic books really became such a powerful media did the stories change more to the idea that fantasy had as much to say on its own as reality. unfortunately I think in many ways we have through technology and cultural shifts become in many ways stuck in OZ not just through entertainment, but also other cultural forces, politics and such. We have a vast data base of information, perspectives and opinions yet so many of us still cling to our personal OZ or Narnia were we are queen or king. We are in control. But growing up is more even then being a child about taking the control you can get but understanding at the end of the day you can only do so much, be so much. And that is ok. That is life. Kansas, London, here. Visit the unreal, live the real.
DeleteI also think the change into not having to return to Kansas perhaps was a marketing decision as much as a evolution of the story?
DeleteWell, you're not entirely wrong about it being, in a sense, a "marketing decision" -- After six books, Baum was a little weary of Oz and wanted to move on. Settling Uncle Henry and Aunt Em in Oz was part of that, along with having Ozma cast a magic spell so that no one could get into or our of Oz after that! For better or worse, Baum's other books never did as well, and the financial strain forced him to return to writing them. The pretext given: Princess Ozma had obtained a radio, and could now communicate with Baum -- who had given himself the title of Royal Historian of Oz -- over the airwaves!
DeleteThats pretty funny. I have noticed writer fatigue often inn extended series. Especially in the case of series that were never I think meant to be such. As opposed to a constructed story like Harry Potter were the writer planned it all out in advance or at least had a idea from the beginning. I remember a series of books called Indigo (I think) were by the 6th book you could really see the author phoning it in.
DeleteI think all of the fine details and odd little tidbits are fascinating. The way the early years of special effects were ad hoc. And often unhealthy! The L. Frank Baum jacket story reminds me of 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. So many connections. I have a matchbox car that was made in 1974 that I had as a kid and walked into a thrift store in Montana and found the same car. Perhaps even the one I had as a child? Likely not but still. I was thinking reading about the stage play comparing stage work versus film and how much more immersive stage work is. No extra takes, no cut. Intimate theater at small houses are really fun and cool. When you consider the complexity of any large production I always find forgiveness for small errors and think there is something sad about how people spend time nitpicking the one frame were you can see a boom mike or a car in the distance out of place in a medieval epic. After all of that effort, the insect line was likely a editing error or maybe a moment were they were like were done. Nope, give them something to write about 80 years from now.
ReplyDeleteTess Collins
ReplyDeleteI have typically found that whenever a body of work, such as a novel, is adapted and metamorphosed into another medium, the result is never as iconic or memorable as the original. However, in the case of The Wizard of Oz, the 1939 film adaptation directed by Victor Fleming is just as well-known as Frank Baum’s initial novel, if not more so. As I mentioned in last week’s blog post, The Wizard of Oz was one of my favorite childhood films, so I found it really nostalgic and entertaining to get to watch it again for this class after so many years.
It was with a new and more thoughtful lens that I digested the film this time around and I noticed so many elements that I missed as a young child. From the exposition of the movie when Dorothy, Auntie Em, Uncle Henry, and the three farmhands are introduced, if you have any background knowledge on the plot, it is already quite clear that some of these characters are the same ones that you will later find in Oz. For example, one of the farmhands makes a comment about Dorothy not using her brains and then he says, “Your head ain’t made of straw you know”. This man will later be found in the Land of Oz in a flannel and jeans, tied to a post to scare off the crows, and desperate to find the wizard and obtain a brain. Subsequently, the other two farmhands will later double as the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion, Dorothy’s cruel and crotchety neighbor will be seen as the Wicked Witch, and the eccentric and manipulative Professor Marvel will bear similar false hopes and dreams in his charade of smoke and mirrors as the wizard of Oz. I think Victor Fleming made a very interesting choice in turning this fantasy story into a dreamscape. While I don’t think this distinction necessarily takes away from the magic of Oz, I do think that it makes for the movie to feel much more realistic and understandable and less strange and otherworldly.
Subsequently, other elements from the film that struck me were those components which are now thought of to be the most essential and illustrative even though they either did not exist or rather played an insignificant role in the original novel. These components include costumes such as Dorothy’s white and blue gingham dress and the Wicked Witch’s sparkling ruby slippers along with music such as when Judy Garland sings the sweet, melodic and timeless “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” to Toto as Dorothy. It is simply interesting to me that audience members and readers alike have such comprehensive control over which movies and books are going to be successful and which elements from those selected will be deemed most distinct and quintessential.
I love all the little details like the ones you mentioned and the way modern filmmaking has really ran with that. Like for example the different meanings and connections between films and the breaking of the 4th wall! I love that. Its one of the many reasons I love the Deadpool movies. I wonder were the first filmed instance of that would be found? I could see the Marx brothers doing something like that.
DeleteWhat most interests me about this post, is to think that even in 1939 that there could be a "deleted scene" from a film. While I haven't researched this, I have to imagine that filming in Technicolor at the time had to be inherently expensive, and to film a whole scene just to not use it kind of blows my mind. Especially when you consider the costume work and choreography that had to go into making the scene. I'm genuinely curious how it correlates to deleted scenes in today's movies as far as cost and money sink due to time wasted.
ReplyDeleteAs far as making the movie a dream vs a real place in the book, I wonder if this choice was because they never wanted to or never considered making any sequels. Or was the director just trying to put his own spin on the the book, that instead of saying you should break away from home and explore, that's it's nice to explore and dream, but home is something you should always hold dear.
Mckenzie Desimas
ReplyDeleteRewatching this movie for class was no problem for me seeing that I grew up loving it so much. My favorite fun fact about this movie is that Margaret Hamilton, who played the wicked witch of the west, actually got a second degree burn on her face from the make up. The first thing anyone notices about the wicked witch of the west is that she is green in the hands and face. Most makeup made around the time of this movie was toxic and this makeup specifically was copper based which was toxic. Now that the fun fact is out of the way; one question that I’ve always wondered is, out of all the screen adaptations, what made this one the most well known? I used to think it was because of the unforgettable music or the lovable characters but now I think it is because of the time period it was released in. The movie was released when a great number of Americans were still unemployed from the Great Depression. This movie was so dark in the beginning but as the time went on it became colorful and created a sense of a new beginning almost. It looked like Dorthy had lost it all when she landed in Oz like many people of that time period felt, but something colorful and great came out of it in the end.
Olivia Bradstreet
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the book and then watching the 1939 movie of it, I got to put visuals to all the unique characters and scenes that happened during the book. The characters certainly get brought to life through the colors in the film, their outfits, and the way they portrayed themselves through their dedication during the filming process. Not only that, but the props and special effects they had where another great touch to the film’s dream aspect. The film was very well done for the time, inviting people of all ages to watch and enjoy it. More so a masterpiece in most people’s eyes.
However, while the overall picture and quality of the film was great, the actual production to make it was not. I remember reading that many cast members were harmed during the process, and some even had permanent effects from filming. For example, I remember there were harmful chemicals used to make the special effects and that many cast members were underpaid. I think the worst part about the production of this film was how Judy Garland was treated while on set. She was made fun of for her weight even though she was well fit for the role to begin with. Even as she was losing weight, she was still not skinny enough for the director. I know she had to be on a special diet and take diet pills while on set too. All of this while she was only 17 years old just amazes me. How can you force a young girl to be underweight, knowing it could cause her lifelong issues both physically and mentally, which it in fact did.
Overall, the movie was a success, and it was well done, despite the director’s actions throughout filming.
Tess Collins
DeleteI find it so interesting to watch films that are based on novels and see how the producers chose to interpret and portray all of the characters and scenes. I agree with you that all of the costumes, props, special effects, and set designs were really vibrant, beautiful and well-done for the time period.
Additionally, I found the juxtaposition of the quality of the final film and the quality of the production to be very startling and eye-opening. Was this classical film worth all of the pain and conflict that went into making it?
Yenelsy Cepeda
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting to imagine the film being aired annually and families gathering to watch it. It’s in a way similar to when classic Christmas movies like Home Alone are aired each year. I assume that just as watching movies I once watched as a kid produces a sense of nostalgia, those who grew up watching this film feel the same way watching it now. With all the technological advances and the influence they have had on the filming industry, something so simple like seeing the transition from a (nearly) black and white Kansas to a colorful Land of Oz I think adds to the overall beauty of this film and those alike. I found the dream like aspect of this film to also be refreshing and quite funny. A quick example of that is seeing various characters, like Miss Gulch, fly around Dorothy outside in the tornado. In the end, I enjoyed watching the film and seeing how different yet entertaining several components were, from the unique wardrobe all the way to the detailed acting.
Dylan Gagnon
ReplyDeleteSo even as a kid I was never into The Wizard of Oz, or even Disney movies (Except Atlantis: The Lost Empire, that was sick), but anyways back to Oz. So after watching this movie at 2xspeed I can still say I do not care for it's existence, BUT I do believe it paved the way for many large production movies and the evolution of special effects in movies. The Wizard of Oz has surprisingly nice color for its age, so I looked that up and came across an article on how the used the newest Tecnicolor 3 strip process, and at the time there was no other movie that had done so. It must've been pretty cool to see in theaters at the time. In addition to that, other effects I watched really stumbled me on how in the world would they do this? The man behind the curtain, the tornado, etc. I looked through many links on google but they all sucked or wanted me to pay so I guess I'll never know. Another aspect of the movie that was interesting to me was cinematography was done nicely. Its no Tarintino movie but it's impressive none the less, especially scenes like the yellow brick road, the fact they were able to make such a bright scene with a false place with no green screen or cgi is wild to me, excepted like the clearly painted walls in some scenes. Overall, I still do not enjoy this movie or the extremely gimmicky acting, or the voices of the munchkins. And also why does the tin man just get a heart shaped pocket watch at the end? Oz said the lion needed a medal, he got a medal, the scare crow needed a diploma and he got a diploma, so why does the Tin man get a pocket watch that's supposed to be a testimonial? Weird. My other favorite aspect of this outstanding movie is that the snow was asbestos. Overall, good effects, poor plot. I say poor plot because how did any of this change her original conflict of Ms Gulch taking toto away?
Sabrina Soler
ReplyDeleteWatching The Wizard of Oz, I feel, brought the book to life. The quality of production was amazing for the time. It is a shame some of the actor's had to risk their health for the sake of the movie, but I can see why it is loved by so many people. Watching the film gave me a comforting feeling, kinda of like when you watch a classic movie you love such as The Grinch or Home Alone.
As I mentioned before, I don't personally have a special connection nor nostalgia for the Wizard of Oz despite experiencing it when I was younger. This story has been played and parodied countless times, I don't feel I can add anything that hasn't already been said. What I'm more interested in is the behind the scenes in the production of the 1939 movie itself, particularly with the actors. I feel that not enough people talk about what the actors went through when filming and what lengths the producers of MGM took in order to get it to quality it is.
ReplyDelete(I do want to leave a trigger warning here in case anyone wants to comment to my response. I will be lightly going over topics like sexual assault, workplace abuse, and things of that manner. Also, if you don't want your favorite filmed to be ruined feel free to ignore this comment.).
Interestingly enough, Shirley Temple was supposed to take the role for Dorothy instead of Judy Garland. However, from what I remember she didn't end up getting the role because she didn't have the exact singing voice that the production team was looking for. Judy ended up taking the role and went through hell and back both on and off camera. She was constantly berated and insulted for her body weight and messing up a scene because the film was expensive. Despite the fact that she was 17, and was perfectly healthy, the producers would say she's overweight and forced her to go on a diet consisting of chicken soup, black coffee, cigarettes, and amphetamine-based diet pills. They wanted her to lose weight and appear younger than what she actually was. She was also subject to multiple sexual assaults both from other actors and studio executives. This obviously took a big toll on her later in life, causing her to develop lifelong addiction problems as well as body image and mental health issues. Additionally, she had a really rocky relationship with her mother, had lost her father at 13, and has had multiple failed marriages in her lifetime. But that's a whole other story on its own.
As for the other actors, while they arguably didn't have as tough of a time as Judy, they were often subject to dangerous conditions on set due to the lack of safety regulations at the time. Crew members would often used harmful chemicals and pyrotechnics for the film's special effects. For example, Margaret Hamilton who played the Wicked Witch of the West had to use paint that contained copper (which can be VERY toxic)to make her skin green. She'd have to thoroughly clean off the paint every time to prevent any harmful effects. Additionally, she had suffered horrible burns during a set where she disappears from the stage with a fiery background. Another example was the original actor for the Tin Man, Buddy Epson. He only lasted 10 days on the film because they made him used aluminum powder for his makeup to make his skin silver. Unfortunately, he was soon hospitalized in critical condition because the aluminum had coated his lungs. He had then suffered with breathing problems for the rest of his life. That's just a few examples and the list goes on. For anyone who's interested, I highly encourage you to go out and do your own research. Thank you for reading!
Tess Collins
DeleteThank you so much for taking the time to do some additional research about the production experiences of the Wizard of Oz that occurred out of public view. I found your blog post particularly interesting because I was completely unaware of the conflict and strife that went into producing this film. I feel particularly heartbroken for Judy Garland. I cannot even imagine the physical and mental toll that it must have taken on her to have been conditioned at such a young age to believe that she needed to lose weight because her body didn't meet the beauty standard.
Chloe Marrapese
ReplyDeleteSomething that interests me about this post is that in the movie the entire journey Dorothy took was a dream, but in the books Oz was always "a real truly live place." There is, in the end, no need to return to Kansas. To me it always seemed like it was real and never was a dream. To me there seems to be a big element of foreshadowing in this movie relating to what happened in the outside world, when at the end of the movie Dorothy says, "But it wasn’t a dream. It was a place. And you and you and you… and you were there. But you couldn’t have been could you? No. Aunt Em, this was a real truly live place and I remember some of it wasn’t very nice, but most of it was beautiful; but just the same"(Langley).
BreAna Durand
ReplyDeleteWhile watching The Wizard of Oz, I realized how many of the details I missed from watching while I was younger. I now notice all of the detail in the film such as costumes, lighting, and how the actors portray each character. They all really embraced their characters and played them to their full potential. In the blog post you mentioned the difficulties the actors and actresses faced. Now knowing what they went through makes me appreciate their acting even more. One thing I specifically loved about the movie was how the movie managed to portray the same image I had in my head while reading the book.
Breanna Jones
ReplyDeleteIt is really interesting to see the transition between film and book. It can be enjoyable to dissect the complex and simple differences. For instance, many characters from the book were watered down. Backstories, motivations, and very core character traits are left out. The witch in the film is much more evil than perceived in the book. Granted, she was an antagonist, but to make the film more appealing to the audience, of that time, she was made into a complete villain. One more comparison would be the ending. The “It was all a dream” trope really took off, like an airplane, with this film. Just like in “Alice in Wonderland”, it revealed the protagonist was merely dreaming. To conclude, the movie is an utter classic, and it serves as an interesting case study on the transfer of mediums.
Karina Nunez
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the film Wizard of Oz (1939) it definitely took me back to my childhood. It was a great film and book to revisit after all these years. I found certain parts of the film comical from the rooster flying outside of the window to the man who was supposed to help Dorothy meet the wizard crying more than Dorothy when she was starting to lose hope in getting home. Even though the movie was released years ago I do appreciate how well choreographed everything was. From the make up to the dances and the witch disappearing it was all played very well considering how technology was long ago.
At the end of the movie when she was waking up, I've noticed how the three men played a part in her dream and I feel like she envisioned them to be the tin man, the scarecrow, and the cowardly lion. She also envisioned the woman who was trying to take Toto as the witch. i admire this film/movie just a bit more after learning things about the cast that I never knew before. It’s very unfortunate certain things that happened behind the scenes in which we all can agree with, nonetheless I hope the characters in this film feel somewhat accomplished that after all these years they were a part of a movie that has been watched from generation to generation. Overall great film it’s a classic.
Kendra Roach
ReplyDeleteI have seen the movie in color, but vaguely remember seeing it in black and white. I also watched my high school remake of the movie for the school play. The one scene I remember from the B&W version was when Dorothy’s house is spinning in the wind right before her line "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." It's one line that'll always be stuck in my head, but I always thought it was “Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas anymore.” Any movie or show that has referenced it uses my version.
I love when Glinda the Good Witch comes into her scenes in her bubble because there is always a look of surprise on Dorothy’s face. She stares at it as if she hasn’t seen it before. Glinda the Good Witch always has a smile on her face and such an uplifting voice, that brings joy and hope to every scene even when Dorothy is in distress.
I also always thought the line was "Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore" and not "Toto, I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Although they essentially mean the same thing, by Dorothy saying "I don't think" versus "I have a feeling" shows different versions of emotions that she is having.
DeleteAlexander Delaney
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the last blog i was suprised how many fellow classmates have also not read or watched The Wizard Of Oz. It was nice to finally see the film. I enjoyed it. Most of the film was accurate with the book. Hearing about the struggles the actors and actresses faced during the production of this film made me appreciate it even more. It was really good quality especially for their time. I'm sure it costed a lot of money to produce the film especially the part with color. This film must have made so many people happy upon its initial release during the great depression which was a tough time for many Americans. The only thing I have a question about is why they made it a dream?
I honestly was not sure how to post on this, because i am always afraid that my opinion is the unpopular opinion, but after reading everyone's posts i realized that it was not just me. I always knew the wizard of oz as this kids movie that had a girl named Dorothy a dog named Toto and a wizard. I will admit that when i was in middle school we did the wizard of oz as a play, i was one of the munchkins and it was so much fun. I had seen the movie, but after reading the book it kind of makes a lot more sense to me, which i know may sound weird, a children's book and movie making more sense to someone in college, but it did make more sense then it ever has. The movie and book were a lot more alike than i thought they would be, like i said i had seen the movie but remembering back to the movie while reading the book, everything basically matched up, and it was like i was watching the movie in my head while reading the book. I really enjoyed this book and movie and look forward to seeing what the next book we read has to offer.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised in the last blog post to see that not many people had read or watched the movie. For me, personally, the Wizard of Oz was a large part of my childhood. The concept that in 1939 they had "deleted" scenes in movies shocks me because I did not believe they had the technology. I am interested to learn more about the making of movies in that time period and learn about how they made these "deleted" scenes. However, the comparison from the book to the movie are interesting to me. Since I watched the movie multiple times before reading the book I always thought that in the book Dorothy was experiencing a dream until this class. After reading that in the book she just experienced a better version of life I was able to connect the points that made that clear. The other change that I did not understand why it was necessary, however, I learned that red shoes would be more appealing to the eye rather than silver.
ReplyDeleteI feel like I was cheated out of my childhood for not seeing this movie nor reading the book. I would be more interested in knowing more about how the making of the movie went and what the actors had to go through to make the film possible. But that ending is great that Dorothy came to her senses and decided not to return to that dull Kansas and bring her family to her.
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my eye the most when watching the film was the set. It is amazing how much production has changed over the years. It is clear that this was advanced for the time and I enjoyed looking at the sets and outfits of all the characters. Before this class, I had no idea that some of the actors risked their health for this film and that is really sad to me, seeing as how well they each played their character. I think reading the book and watching the film again all these years later I could actually understand the messages and learning experiences they all went through. I also really liked how when Dorothy wakes up, she makes the connection between all of her friends in the dream to the people in Kansas. I think that’s why she was so drawn and motivated to come home.
ReplyDeleteI can remember watching The Wizard Of Oz as a child and being absolutely terrified. I found it to be dark and gloomy and was so fearful for Dorothy that she would never make it home to Kansas. As an adult, I still find the movie to be incredibly creepy, and just as dark, but I can now appreciate the literature part of it and the messages behind it. I think the book and movie were both way before there time, and they slightly remind me of social media, with "Oz" being the social media part. Both "Oz" and social media can represent a world we visit to fulfill what may be lacking in our day to day life. I also found it odd that they were so insistent on making this movie in Technicolor after all of the issues (burns, assaults, injuries etc). On a side note, in high school the Smithsonian museum was doing a traveling exhibit that included the ruby red slippers. I was able to see them in person and they were absolutely stunning and I don't think silver sparkles would have done them justice!
ReplyDeleteI really like your posting. I never really thought about the plot and setting from your point of you but I can see where it is valid. It is definitely a more than safe assumption to say that this was before its time. I thought that you likening Oz to social media was also a good comparison, as in many ways they can parallel each other. I would have loved to have seen the Smithsonian Exhibit! I am a huge fan of things of that nature, and agree, the shoes had to be red :)
DeleteSo as I said in our last discussion post i had watched the movie, and actually done a play of the wizard of oz... but that was in middle/high schoool- that was never as a kid. I feel like honestly i would have been so scared to watch this as a young kid. The one thing that really stood out to me in the 1939 version on the wizard of oz, was the set- it was absolutely incredible, not to mention that it was a long time ago, which just makes looking at the set even more interesting. If someone now a days was to re-make the wizard of oz i would definitely watch that, not really because i would be interested in the movie but becuase i would love to see how much the technology behind set design has changed, and not only on the set how the actors and actresses have changed, and the technology in general to produce a movie has definitely advanced throughout the past years.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching the wizard oz. as a kid but the actual movie itself is fuzzy to but due to its acclaimed it feels like I know the movie so well its like I watched it yesterday. I was never a huge fan but the wizard of Oz series was quite fun to watch. I very curios to see how the musical version of this would go. I read and hear about it all the time since people have claimed it to be very good. Musical tend to be a great experience and I just know the wizard of Oz be a very great experience.
ReplyDelete- Lindsay Nadeau
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote in the background of Oz blog post, this is an absolute classic! This is actually the only version of the wizard of Oz that I ever saw growing up, although I did see it plenty of times in my childhood. What I found interesting was that Buddy Ebsen actually had an allergic reaction to the aluminum paste makeup and Margaret Hamilton suffered burns from her props as the Wicked Witch of the West. That is crazy and awful! It's crazy to hear these things and the little details about actors/actresses because I have never been a huge movie/theater study person. To put it in simple words, I watch plenty of movies but never actually read the summaries or any further details about them. In my opinion hearing these little details is very interesting. It is also very interesting now that it has been several several years since this movie came out to see the differences in the production and quality as compared to the new children's and family movies from today. That classic line stated from Dorothy " there's no place like home" and the clicking of the ruby red shoes is something that will always stick in my head. I hope that people from our generation do not forget about this film and deprive their children of the chance to see it!
Hi Lindsay, I really enjoyed your posting. I also only saw this version as a child, as it was aired annually. I felt awful for the poor actor who played tinman, and for the Margaret Hamilton. Add to that the treatment of the other actors and actresses and its hard to picture these circumstances as happening while they were producing such an iconic storyline. I too hope that this film and story continue on to future generations, I know my daughter absolutely loved it, and if and when her time comes to be a mom, I hope that she too will share it with her children.
DeleteMany of the points that I will make will likely echo sentiments of my last, but I personally feel that you can't say enough awesome things about this movie. When I was younger I thought that the story line had lagged a bit until she had landed in Oz, but now I see more that it was important to understand what was happening there as it would come into play with the plots and settings later on. I felt that the transcript itself had nothing much lacking as it had your protagonist and villain, as well as trusty side kicks, and a beyond beautiful setting. The story itself had flowed nicely along, one piece of plot into the next, and it had held the interest of its audience very well. Add into it the costumes and set design itself and you had a piece of literary and cinematic work that had the right "stuff" to make it popular throughout ages and future generations. I love reading some of the responses on here, as the personal touches that many put into their own experiences with the movie are really neat.
ReplyDelete