Skip to main content

Yes, exactly so. I’m a humbug.

The Wizard of Oz
(1939)

(SPOILERS) There are undoubtedly some bullet-proof movies, such is their lauded reputation. The Wizard of Oz will remain a classic no matter how many people – and I’m sure they are legion – aren’t really all that fussed by it. I’m one of their number. I hadn’t given it my time in forty or more years – barring the odd clip – but with all the things I’ve heard suggested since, from MKUltra allusions to Pink Floyd timing The Dark Side of the Moon to it, to the Mandela Effect, I decided it was ripe for a reappraisal. Unfortunately, the experience proved less than revelatory in any way, shape or form. Although, it does suggest Sam Raimi might have been advised to add a few songs, a spot of camp and a scare or two, had he seriously wished to stand a chance of treading in venerated L Frank Baum cinematic territory with Oz the Great and Powerful.

In some interpretations, the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman and Cowardly Lion represent farmers, industry and politicians, while the Wizard is technology. There also allusions to the Gold Standard and Silver Standard being returned to at the end. Which is interesting… Ish. In another, which I like for twistedness, the Good Witch is really the mastermind out to rule Oz (this one is especially apposite for power behind the curtain/Elite takes on manipulation, or the Antichrist, come to that).

Then there’s the theosophical interpretation – Baum was a member of the Theosophical Society, but it’s unclear the degree to which he approved of their views – which has the face of the Wizard as Yahweh (albeit, it looks more like Crowley’s Lam or the Balok puppet from Star Trek’s The Corbomite Manoeuvre), only to reveal ineffectual Christianity behind it. However, that would be to rather avoid admitting it’s the Wizard who highlights the truth being found within the trio of characters.

The most interesting part of this scene is the way in which the Wizard mocks societal perceptions of prized qualities. All you need to be labelled intelligent is a diploma. All you need to be called a hero is a medal, and to have a heart one, just requests a testimonial (those cunning philanthropists). It seems to me, the Wizard lends himself to multiple interpretations, the man behind the curtain who is nothing “but a humbug” yet proceeds to spout wisdom. One who oversees an illusory, false realm populated by nominal good and bad forces in rotation against each other. A demiurge?

As for the MKUltra element, The Wizard of Oz is commonly cited as a programming tool. Certainly, if it’s Oprah’s favourite movie, you can sure there’s something corrupt at its core. Robert Anton Wilson noted the lore of Peyote Woman, who appears as “the Bubble Witch”, her appearances beginning “with a bright silvery globe descending from the sky, after which She appears where the globe lands. This is the way child Contactees generally report Her, according to Vallee, and the silvery globe was also around in some of Her miracles, under the guise of the B.V.M., at Lourdes and Fatima”. What with the poppy fields full of “snow”, it’s no wonder The Wizard of Oz is considered an incredibly triptastic movie in some quarters.

And what of the purported Mandela Effect sighting of the Scarecrow holding a modern handgun? Whether or not the Mandela Effect is a psyop, or a sign of our imprisonment in a simulation, I don’t have enough invested in my memory of the movie (unlike, say, C-3PO’s leg or Jaws’ girlfriend’s braces) to have a strong view either way. The case that it’s the effluent of a deleted scene – Tin Man is holding a wrench and a fire axe, the Lion a butterfly net and witch repellent spray – does, on the one hand, seem reasonable, seeing that it makes sense they’re armed in case of witch attack (they’re in the Haunted Forest, en route to her castle). And the idea that it’s a modern gun... Well, it’s clearly a prop gun. You can find people saying they never noticed the weapons before, but I didn’t either, so that hardly means it wasn’t there before (this is the most common and popular rebuke of a Mandela Effect addition, omission or alteration, that the memory cheats). On the other hand, there are also those who claim they were aware of the trio’s weapons since childhood, and they are definitely different now. That argument is a more interesting one. One thing’s for sure, those all-seeing owls at the end of the scene are not what they seem.

But while there are many and varied intrigues to find within The Wizard of Oz’s tapestry and influence, at a root level, I find I just don’t respond to the picture. I don’t particularly like any of the characters, and I’m not especially engaged by their rather static journey (I hadn’t realised how little time they actually spend on the Yellow Brick Road, perhaps due to it being the most famous song/sequence). For me, the likes of Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory or The Singing Ringing Tree were more memorable formatively freaky fantasy influences. Large parts of the proceedings are inert, and as amusing as some of the lines and exchanges are, there’s a pervasive feeling that The Wizard of Oz is really rather draggy.

There are notable positives, even to one of my jadedness, however. Margaret Hamilton is still absolutely terrifying as the Wicked Witch of the West, and convincingly despicable as Amira Gulch too. The whirlwind is a quite extraordinary piece of effects work that had me scratching my head at how they did it. Several of the songs are obviously highly memorable (okay, only Over the Rainbow and We’re Off to See the Wizard). Some of the design work is superb, even if Victor Flemying’s entirely four-square direction rather makes you think you’re simply watching a filmed stage musical at times. Toto/Terry is also utterly adorable.

Notably, The Wizard of Oz was an early (three-strip) colour production, and the studio specified a bookending “It was all a dream” because they didn’t think audiences would accept fantasy movies. Which isn’t so bizarre, as studios were still thinking such things as recently as The Lord of the Rings trilogy. While the movie wasn’t a flop, neither was it a significant hit until later, not so good since it was the most expensive MGM production up to that the time. The Wizard of Oz was also nominated for five Oscars, winning, perhaps unsurprisingly, song and score (Garland also received an Academy Juvenile Honorary Oscar). Gone with the Wind won Best Picture, of course, for which Flemying was also credited. So, having put The Wizard of Oz in its place, the real question becomes “Which is better: Wizard or Return?”


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.