Skip to main content

I have always valued my lifelessness.

Return to Oz
(1985)

(SPOILERS) Is this the highpoint – so to speak – of the Dark Disney period? Return to Oz is a movie so uncompromising in respect of its target audience, it makes Babe: Pig in the City seem positively innocent. It also remains quite fascinating in a way the same year’s more compromised The Black Cauldron fails to be. Both arrived right at the end of Disney’s identity crisis, before Jeffrey Katzenberg unleased a whole new, Touchstone-led approach (albeit, Splash was the first glimmer of that). Of course, it flopped. How could it not? And yet, I’d much rather watch Return to Oz than the more celebrated Wizard. At least it wears its MKUltra on its chin.

In some respects, it’s incredible Katzenberg (and Michael Eisner) even got the chance to retool the Mouse House from something viewers considered incredibly uncool (it’s hurtling back that way as we speak). There were so few hits from its slate during the first half of the decade, and so many failures, or “financial disappointments”. You can chalk up Splash, The Fox and the Hound and Never Cry Wolf as winners, but beyond that… Elliot Gould failing to appeal to family audiences. Decidedly not the Spielbergian grosses hoped for from Popeye, Dragonslayer and Tron. No one going bananas for Herbie’s fourth round. Juvenile horrors The Watcher in the Woods and Something Wicked This Way Comes missing the mark, while Poltergeist scores a palpable hit. And Condorman.

Return to Oz was a big gun. Not as expensive as The Black Cauldron (little was) but in the ballpark of Something Wicked This Way Comes as a movie carrying high expectations. It was the suggestion of Walter Murch, best known for his sound editing work for Coppola and Lucas; this was his first directorial effort and also his last (unless you count an episode of The Clone Wars). It’s a not dissimilar situation to Saul Bass – title designer par excellence – switching to feature direction for Phase IV, and leaving it as a one-off.

Murch’s experience making Return to Oz was far from smooth going. He suggested the idea to Disney’s then production chief in 1980, who revealed the studio had the rights and were angling for a feature before they lost them. Murch cited The Marvellous Land of Oz (1904) and Ozma of Oz (1907), L Frank Baum’s initial sequels, as the first books he read and so holding a particular appeal.

By the time production was underway, regimes were changing. Murch was fired at one point, but Lucas and Coppola pled his case, with Lucas promising to step in if things fell apart. Murch admitted his own shortcomings in respect of the process: “my editing experience led me to underestimate the importance of master shots, not so much how they work in the final film, but how they function during the production phase… When I was back directing again, I started doing master shots even though they might be filled with imperfections – this was at George's suggestion, and it turned out great”. Of course, George knows all about master shots, preferring to avoid any kind of directorial “style”.

Perhaps surprisingly, give or take inhibiting budget cuts, Murch escaped the kind of messing with his vision that befell the similarly box-office stricken The Black Cauldron, released just over a month later (with the earlier Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend and later My Science Project, that was four significant Disney flops in a row). Murch felt “they mostly ignored it after it did not do so well in previews, which was both good and bad. The good part was that I was able to complete the film I wanted to make, the bad part was that they didn't really get behind its release”.

What was Murch trying to do with the movie, though? He shares the screenplay credit with Gill Dennis (Walk the Line), and the picture seems to be staring the MK Ultra elements oft cited of the original movie overtly in the face. Dorothy (Fairuza Balk, very good; she’d never quite go on to great things, although she did graduate from Toto to a dog man in The Island of Dr. Moreau) is unable to sleep, traumatised by her brainwashing experience. She knows reality just isn’t the same any more (if the whole movie is in colour, is she still in The Matrix?). If it was so liberating, then why does she suffer so (because Oz represents the disassociation that comes from abuse, and her programming is breaking down)?

Her Aunt Em (Piper Laurie, who for all her kindliness here is still Carrie’s mother) is despairing, so takes Dorothy to see Dr JB Worley (Nicol Williamson), brain-care specialist extraordinaire. His suggested treatment? Why, shock therapy! And the only way to escape that is to disassociate once more (this is where the dualities come in, of Williamson as both Worley/the Nome King and Jean Marsh as Nurse Wilson/Mombi). The best way to treat a mind-control victim whose programming is springing a leak is with further mind control.

It’s notable too that the divisions here are even more exaggerated between Oz – for all its urban decay and dilapidated state – being a positive place to go to, over the real world. The real world, where electrical current is “in”, on the cusp of the twentieth century and dawn of a new age: “The brain itself is a mechanical machine” explains Worley reductively. Baum has been much noted for his Theosophical links – although most referencing this seem to fall short in connecting him explicitly to any pronounced Elite agenda – but the theme here might be more properly understood as anthroposophical. Dorothy is explicit in her rejection of scientism and materialism, just as Williamson is Ahrimanic in manifestation (per anthroposophist Steiner's definitions); the physical and mechanical are everything, and so his rocky constitution in Oz – bound to the second density – allies him with the same.

Of course, the material is also either devious or undisciplined in its messaging. One of Dorothy’s main allies is Tik-Tok, the Royal Army of Oz, a clockwork machine; this is science presented as a positive, that not all progress is backward. Or is it the insidiousness of transhumanism by deflection (Tik-Tok comes to the screen in the wake of a succession of anthropomorphic robotic men and animals, C-3PO, R2-D2 and Bubo). Notably, the machine knows what it is and accepts its limited state (“I have always valued my lifelessness”).

Others are less certain. Dorothy is pals with Jack Pumpkinhead (whose design would inspire Tim Burton’s Jack Skellington), a homunculus animated by Mombi through use of the Powder of Life. By its essence, the powder is against nature, used by dark forces to create beings lacking a core self (suggestive of Paracelsus?) Pumpkinhead wants emotional fulfilment (he asks to call Dorothy “Mom”). And yet, it appears its use is in the eye of the wielder, since Dorothy manifests a Gump with it, one instantly afflicted by existential doubts (“Why am I here?”)

Notably, the Nome King is fatally done in by a chicken’s egg, a symbol of life rather than calcification (life breaks forth from it). With it, the stony Oz populace are returned to the land of the living (Raya and the Last Dragon recently revisited to the deathful life of stony-ness). This return fails to make the trio from the original seem any fuller of life, though. Apparently, the Tin Man, Cowardly Lion and Scarecrow were victims to budget cuts, but as realised in puppet form, they’re eerie cadavers, further underlining the distancing the material has from the comfort food The Wizard of Oz (this, perhaps, is in Return’s favour; it tells it like it is).

Return to Oz isn’t wholly successful when it comes to storyline. It begins well, and the arrival in Oz is heralded by the hugely sinister Wheelers; this is the sort of thing you just know would meet with Gilliam or Burton’s full approval. Murch conducts sequences of genuine suspense as Dorothy must elude various threats.

First the Wheelers, with their elongated limbs and rollerskated legs. Then Mombi, who keeps a collection of heads (from humans) in glass cases and changes them at a whim (both post Worzel Gummidge and pre Baron Munchausen; did Gilliam see this before the King of the Moon sequence in The Adventures of Baron Munchausen?) The sight of a headless Jean Marsh screaming “Where’s my Powder of Life?” her voice treated with a Twin Peaks-esque backward-masking effect is masterfully unnerving.

Unfortunately, Williamson is rather sedated here, and while the stop-motion work for the reports to the King (“She has a chicken with her”: “A chicken?”) adds to the unsettling tone, the Nome King fails to conjure any dread. As a consequence, much of this confrontation is lacking, even with the gambit of Dorothy’s dwindling friends as they disappear, attempting to find the Scarecrow.

Marsh is a far more imposing figure (and she’d later be called upon by Lucas – Willow – and Doctor WhoBattlefield – for similar duties). The sight of Nurse Wilson being carted off under lock and key makes for a neat final justice moment. It remains the case, though, that in Murch’s conception, Oz is no Narnia-like pleasure land, but one borne from trauma; come the conclusion, divided by the mirror, Dorothy has achieved an equilibrium for now and doesn’t need to return, instead going out to play with grubby Toto.

Murch said: “I'm proud of Return to Oz and happy that I got a chance to make it, but unless you're extremely lucky in the projects you choose or how things fall into place, you really need a burning desire to direct for the sake of directing, and I don't have that. I was passionate about this particular story, for a variety of reasons, but not about the process of directing per se”.

How does Return to Oz rate out of the Oz trio (I’ll do The Wiz the favour of ignoring it)? I’d put it out in front. Raimi’s Oz: The Great and Powerful is disappointingly inert (Franco doesn’t help, but it lacks any of the director’s expected energy and verve), while The Wizard of Oz is a collection of songs signifying not so much. Murch’s movie is flawed but fascinating, a different version of Disney sealed in amber (much like the Disney logo first used for its release; some have called it the “rainbow” design, although I favour the notion that the semi-circle above the castle is a representation of the dome).

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.