Wednesday, October 27, 2010
When contrasting the resolution of MGM's film The Wizard of Oz and the book The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum there are some significant differences. In the book Dorothy's adventure starts in a storm in Kansas, where she falls asleep and when she wakes she finds herself in Oz. She spends the book meandering through Oz, almost at the expensive of the readers time. It seems the book is long merely for the sake of being long, and it is for this reason that the resolution does not seem adequate for such a drawn out tale. At the end of her stay in Oz, Dorothy claps the heels of her shoes together and demands "Take me home to Aunt Em!"(258). We are met with five astrix's and she whirls through the air and ends up back in Kansas, mid stride toward Aunt Em. The book leaves the reader with the idea that Oz was a real place, that she traveled to some fantastical land while asleep in the storm. The film contrasts greatly. While stuck in the storm at the beginning of the film the house is uprooted and fly through the air, landing back down in Oz, much the same way Dorothy returned to Kansas in the book. While the book seemed to continue merely for the sake of being long, the film had a clear beginning, middle and end. It was Dorothy's return to Kansas in the film that gave the film the sense of resolution that the book lacks. Dorothy wakes from the colorful Oz, in a sepia tone Kansas. We are told repeatedly that Dorothy was dreaming, that she bumped her head. And while our dreams of some distant, mystical land fade with each character's reminder that she was dreaming, they are themselves evidence that Oz was a real place. The characters in Kansas played roles in Oz, leaving the audience unsure whether her unconscious surfaced in her dreams, or some parallel world does exist. The book leaves us back in Kansas, and abruptly ends shortly after, with no doubt that Oz was a very real place. The film on the other hand leaves us unsure, questioning, ever hopeful that Oz is truly out there...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The book leaves us back in Kansas, and abruptly ends shortly after, with no doubt that Oz was a very real place. The film on the other hand leaves us unsure, questioning, ever hopeful that Oz is truly out there...
ReplyDeleteVery well put, Dylan. I suppose the film's ending is ambiguous, on the one hand affirming, on the other hand denying the "real" existence of Oz. Perhaps that ending functions like a Rorschach blot test, revealing the way each viewer wants to view Oz, saying more about the viewer than it can about Oz itself? Some will say, sure, it's a dream, others no.
OTOH, I must admit I've always assumed that the filmmakers meant for me to come away from the film thinking Oz was a dream. I've always assumed that their final intentions were clear (though I thought they were successful at making me want to believe Oz was real, in spite of their clear message). Since I happen to dislike the device of the dream-frame (it was only a dream!), I've resisted the ending of the film for years, thinking that it went too far toward domesticating Baum's weirdness.
It seems the book is long merely for the sake of being long...
I can see why you would say this; the film is better organized, more cohesive, more driven, clearer, more conclusive. Probably more emotionally powerful for most audiences too. But I don't agree that the book is long just to be long; I would say, rather, that the book is episodic throughout, and therefore it doesn't build the way the film does. But it's a very different kind of story in Baum than in the film, and that in itself is not necessarily a failing.
Baum's value may be in beguiling characters, weird inventions, and a slyly poker-faced tone, not so much in emotional follow-through or sentimental yield.
I'd like to see you take this analysis further.