the wizard of oz faq

The Wizard of Oz is an enduring and endearing classic. Who hasn't seen it, perhaps even multiple times? It made a star out of cultural icon Judy Garland and has held up remarkable well over the years since its 1939 release, enchanting generations of young and old alike. There have been stories over the years about what went on behind-the-scenes of making the film. The most familiar factoids center around Buddy Ebsen, who was originally cast as the Tin Woodman, but had such a terrible reaction to the silver make-up that he had to quit. Another popular story concerned the ribald antics of "The Munchkins" during production, which were even featured in a 1981 film, Under the Rainbow, starring Chevy Chase and Carrie Fisher.

One might think that a new book about the making of the film, The Wizard of Oz FAQ, might just be a rehash of such stories, peppered with a few photos, but it is far more than that. An impressive tome, running over 400 pages, The Wizard of Oz FAQ is a detailed, analytic look at the making of the film in all of its aspects - from the writing of the original source material, by Frank L. Baum, to selecting the actors, to the production of the film and beyond.

They're off to see the Wizard, L-R: The Scarecrow (Ray Bolger), Tin Woodman (Jack Haley), Dorothy (Judy Garland), and The Cowardly Lion (Bert Lahr)

Author David J. Hogan ... starts off not with the making of the film, but the formation of the studio that produced it, MGM, providing background stories about Louis B. Mayer and the birth of Hollywood and proceeds from there. It is this attention to detail that makes The Wizard of Oz FAQ such a fascinating read. ...


Read my full review of Cinema Sentries

the love of trees in movies — we are groot!

Groot was such a terrific character in Guardians of the Galaxy. Even with his many variations on his one line of dialogue, "I am Groot!", he was able to become lovable and memorable. How did a walking, talking tree capture viewers hearts?

The wonderful Groot got me thinking about some other fun talking trees in movies through the years. Kids and adults alike love to climb trees and sit under them and dream — when they come to life on screen maybe we can't help but love them.

An Ent from Lord of the Rings

Disney's Pocahontas 

Dorothy runs across a rude tree in The Wizard of Oz

favorite song friday: la, la, la

I really liked this song, "La, La, La," by Naughty Boy [featuring Sam Smith], the first time I stumbled across it last summer, back in August. I'm really glad it's starting to get some radio airplay.

"I'm covering my ears like a kid
When your words mean nothing, I go la la la
I'm turning up the volume when you speak
'Cause if my heart can't stop it,
I find a way to block it, I go
La la, la la la la la na na na na na
La la na na, la la la la la na na na na na,"

Haven't we all felt that way sometimes?

The video is quite interesting, and was shot in Bolivia. It inclides elements from the Wizard of Oz and may or may not also be based on a Bolivian legend as well.

the good and pretty o.k. oz

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." But beware, some spoilers may abound.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not a classic like its predecessor and inspiration, 1939's The Wizard of Oz, but it was, for the most part, entertaining. Director Sam Raimi can hold his head high as Oz joins the list of other "inspired by" films and television miniseries, like The Wiz, Tin Man, and Return to Oz. It's actually unclear after viewing the film if Raimi and his team were ever shooting for anything more than just making another good film. All of the CGI stops were certainly pulled out, but with Disney footing the bill, that was to be expected. It's certainly not as much of a mess as Tim Burton's ghastly Alice in Wonderland, but there are many moments when it is also unclear whether Raimi was deliberately trying to out-Burton Burton. He uses his favorite soundtrack musician and longtime collaborator, Danny Elfman. And some of the over-the-top initial shots of the land of Oz temporarily bring back memories of the oversaturated Alice.

Kunis makes a stunning entrance in her red velvet and leather ensemble.

Contrary to what some reviewers have been claiming, what makes Oz worth a trip to the theater is its star, James Franco. Franco brings all of his trademark smirky sarcasm, which may put off some audience members, but which is an absolutely perfect fit for Oscar "Oz" Diggs, a two-bit, small-time magician and con man who dreams of being a great man. He feels stuck in dusty Kansas. When he isn't busy abusing his faithful sidekick Frank (Zach Braff), or trying to romance every woman he comes across with the same tired seduction routine (which involves multiple copies of his grandmother's music box), he is dreaming big — too big to stay put and marry a sweet local girl like Annie (Michelle Williams). This guy is going places, thanks to having to flee an angry husband, and a wild tornado, which whisks "Oz" in a balloon to the conveniently named land of ... Oz.

James Franco is clearly enjoying his role as an oily womanizing con man who discovers that he may have a heart after all (tin man, cough, cough). And Raimi pays homage quite often to the beloved film classic to keep things fun for grown-ups and kiddies alike. All the sequences that reference the 1939 film are winners. The film's entire opening sequence, which introduces "Oz" in glorious black and white, is a lot of fun, complete with an impressive ballon ride in a cyclone. Other nods to Dorothy's movie included a clever use of the poppy field, scarecrows, the frightening of a lion on the yellow brick road, and a very clever explanation to how the man found himself behind a curtain.

"Oz" may lack a tin man or a scarecrow, but the China Girl and flying monkey Finley make for faithful companions on the yellow brick road.

The CGI, was for me, a bit much. Flowers that look like gems or ring like bells might do it for some, but scenes featuring such wonders took on the look of an expensive video game. I wasn't that impressed with Avatar either, so sue me. But what I did love was the completely computer-created character of the China Girl, who was brilliantly rendered and realized. China Girl was consistently beautiful and enchanting to look at on screen.

Where I found myself being pulled a little bit out of the movie was, surprisingly, not with all of the CGI, but the costumes, which I found very disappointing. What may have looked playful in 1939, here re-imagined, in 2013, on a larger cast, looked more live-action Dr. Seuss than Oz. The one exception was Theodora's (Mila Kunis) first outfit, a red velvet cloak and hat and leather pants. It was so sexy and unexpected, that it was befuddling why her sister witch, Evanora (Rachel Weisz, who didn't get nearly enough screen time), and Glinda (Michelle Williams) both seemed dressed in old Disney princess cast-offs during the rest of the movie.

They really could have served Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz better than these costumes. Yawn.

I also have to admit that I hated the Wicked Witch of the West's look. It was too computer-enhanced or something. Her close-ups made me yearn for Margaret Hamilton's obvious green make-up. In fact, once the Wicked Witch of the West surrendered to her evil ways she became a lot less interesting a character, and unfortunately, so did the movie.

The filmmakers made a huge miscalculation in trying to keep the identity of the Wicked Witch of the West a secret. Which witch is which? Well it didn't take much to guess who it would be. If they had made it clear from the start, made her inevitable surrender to evil more of a struggle, more compelling, this Oz may have been transported into a great, instead of just a good, movie. The rivalry between the three women (witches) of Oz was never adequately explained. Why were they at war? Why would they attack China Town, its residents, or any part of Oz? Why did anyone think Oz needed a king when the three witches seemed to already be in control?

But these are script quibbles, and it seems that the real emphasis of the film was on the visuals. It must have been hard for the actors, who were mostly working with a green screen 90% of the time. My nine year-old daughter loved it, but I felt that it all ended too abruptly. There were hints all along that "Oz's" trip might just be a fevered dream a la Dorothy, but that plot thread seemed to fade away with no pay-off. Oz the Great and Powerful was a huge box office hit over the weekend, so maybe Disney will decide that some of these questions will be answered in the sequel (which is already in the works). L. Frank Baum did write 14 Oz books, after all.

good night irene

Everyone here is bracing for Hurricane Irene, which, like most tropical hurricanes, is unpredictable and could go any direction at any moment. Right now, it seems like south Florida will escape the eye. Hopefully that trend will continue and that it will miss the rest of the eastern seaboard as well.

I am getting my first taste of hurricane season mania here. So many people have the weather on 24/7. Not to mention the long gas lines and stockpiling. I get that we should all be prepared, but I also think some folks just like to overdramatize, to feel part of a bigger something.

The preoccupation with the weather by people in Florida, impending hurricane or no, is just as perplexing to me as the folks in the DC metro area who could only talk about the best way to approach the Capital Beltway. So many people I knew there would always have "the best route" and loved to talk and talk about different approaches in and out of the city. Yawn. I would get to wherever I was going whichever road I took. It was impossible to get lost, the Beltway circles the city. But I digress.

I just don't need any more drama than I already have. I can't control the weather, but I also don't want it to control me. When my daughter asked what a hurricane was like I told her it's a bit like the scene in The Wizard of Oz with the twister, except coming from the ocean. I'm not sure how reassuring that was, but she adores the movie and now has a pretty good idea.

Either we'll stay here and hunker down or we'll be told we have to leave. Like everyone else, I have to keep an eye on the weather. Just not every 15 minutes.

i . . . feel . . . faint

Apparently my daughter has been amusing her friends at school lately by feigning fainting. I saw her amusing herself (and me) by doing it (complete with "woe is me" wrist applied to her forehead) while we watched a movie last night, during a crucial scene when the hero and heroine kissed. I asked her where she had been seeing all this fainting, to practice her technique—from what movie? At first she couldn't remember, and then she said it was when Dorothy saw the witch. I don't remember Judy Garland fainting in The Wizard of Oz . I do remember her falling to her bed after being hit with a window frame during the tornado scene. But regardless, whether the scene happened, how she remembers it or how I do, it is leading to some honing of an almost six-year-old's dramatic skills.

frankly my dear . . .

I just want to state here and now that I have never read the book, so this is a critique solely of the film. I watched part of Gone With the Wind for the umpteenth time the other night and was finally able to say without a shadow of doubt that it is a far from great movie. A phenomenon, for sure. A huge undertaking. But a film classic? Hmmm . . .

GWtW is on many lists as one of the best movies ever made.

From the American Film Institute

Voted the number one movie was CITIZEN KANE, Orson Welles' 1941 classic, which he directed, produced, wrote and starred in at the age of 25. The rest of the top ten, in order, are: CASABLANCA (#2), THE GODFATHER (#3), GONE WITH THE WIND (#4), LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (#5), THE WIZARD OF OZ (#6), THE GRADUATE (#7), ON THE WATERFRONT (#8), SCHINDLER'S LIST (#9) and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN (#10).

I actually think #4, GWtW and #5, Lawrence of Arabia are epics and definite must-sees, but both fall short of making it onto my greatest films list. Apart from a few shots of Peter O'Toole in the desert, his eyes the color of the sky and his hair the color of sand and the magnificent score, the rest of the movie is forgotten. There is a difference between a great movie to watch (The Ten Commandments) and whether it also qualifies as a great piece of cinema. At least that's what all those film theory books I read in college said and I agree with. Plus, no Hitchcock in the top ten? Already the list is shot. There are plenty of movies I adore, but only a few of them I think have crossed over into the great art category. Casablanca and Singin' in the Rain definitely.

I am not resistant to all of GWtW's charms. There is an amazing crane shot of Scarlett making her way through the thousands of wounded soldiers. Olivia de Havilland gives a truly great performance as Melanie and is the only reason I have toyed with someday reading the book. Clark Gable is Clark Gable, and that is always a good thing. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." Vivien Leigh does the best she can with a truly impossible character, but her beauty and raised eyebrow can only do so much.

Why am I being so resistant to calling GWtW a great film? Because its plot drags it down, down, down. Underneath all the sets and costumes it is the typical Hollywood romance where men and women do or say impossibly dumb things to keep each other apart for the sake of dragging this thing out for hours (and in the case of GWtW, for hours and hours and hours and hours.) I hate that. Don't get me wrong, much of the movie is fun and entertaining. Scarlett's oblivious cruelty. Rhett's amusement at everything she does (before he marries her). Any scene with Olivia de Havilland. Mammy and the red petticoat. "I don't know nuffin' 'bout birfin' no babies!" But there are also all of the horrible plot points that surround these scenes. Scarlett's stupidity about Ashley & Rhett. The fate of Bonnie Blue Butler. Scarlett's fall down the stairs. Yeesh. Leslie Howard has been great in many things, but apart from looking great in A-1 Hollywood lighting, his Ashley Wilkes is insufferable and it's inexplicable why anyone would want him.

So why does GWtW show up so high on that AFI list? I have to go back to phenomenon. GWtW should be remembered for its box-office power and it's sheer length and ambitions. Hattie McDaniel winning an Oscar. The fuss about selecting its leading lady. But all these things can't help it through those painful scenes while you are actually watching it. At least with a television viewing you can get up and walk away through the dull parts. I remember seeing GWtW in a big theater in New York many years ago, thinking that maybe I'd like it more, experiencing it as it was meant to be, rather than cut up by commercials as I had originally seen it as a kid. Nope, the stuff that I listed above was really the stuff that I liked. The stuff I didn't like I really didn't like. And an intermission was very necessary. It was a test of endurance to view the movie in a theater.

Rather than best film, I prefer how TCM is listing it (and other films)—as an influential classic

7. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)

If one film epitomizes the Hollywood blockbuster, it's Gone With the Wind. Made in Hollywood's annus mirabilis, 1939, it remains the most popular film of a sterling crop. Not only has it sold more tickets than any other American made film, but with its box-office adjusted for inflation, it remains the highest-grossing film of all time. Something in the tale of the Southern belle fighting to save her beloved Tara has struck a chord for generations of audiences, from the U.S. of World War II to post-war Europe to Japan in the '80s. Scarlett O' Hara has inspired a legion fiery females caught in the sweep of history, like Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain and Kate Winslet in Titanic. Gone With the Wind is the definitive producer's film. David O. Selznick defied conventional wisdom to purchase the rights to Margaret Mitchell's novel, personally supervised every detail of the film and spearheaded three years of publicity to raise public interest to a fever pitch. He spent the rest of his life trying—and failing—to top it. And decades of Hollywood blockbusters have drawn on his work to create and sell romantic dreams writ large on the screen.

So will I ever watch GWtW again? Probably. It's impossible not to enjoy watching Vivien Leigh transform from spoiled brat to strong woman of Tara and back again. At least up until Bonnie Blue takes her fateful ride. But when you ask me to compile my greatest films list you'll see Victor Fleming's other film from 1939, The Wizard of Oz, not GWtW. Clark Gable may turn up via It Happened One Night. Vivien Leigh in A Streetcar Named Desire. Olivia de Havilland in A Midsummer Night's Dream or maybe The Adventures of Robin Hood. But that's another post, and a very different list.

...but mad north by Northam...

Jeremy Northam is one of those actors that I don't exactly have a crush on, even though he fits my tall dark and handsome type, but I might as well have. I first saw him in the Sandra Bullock mess, The Net, and if I was flipping channels right now I would probably stick with it long enough to see him in the beginning and then switch away before it all goes to hell, fast.

He has been fantastic in everything I've seen featuring him—The Tudors (his Thomas More was wise, annoying, saintly, heroic—just as I imagined the real man might have been), Emma (a perfect Mr. Knightley), The Winslow Boy (I love this one), Gosford Park (and he sings!), etc., etc. Some resume, huh? There is always a subtle element about his acting, a mystery to the man and the character that I will never quite unravel, which makes me want to watch him again to see if I've got it right. So when a little movie about a "man who thinks he was a dog" called Dean Spanley aired on cable the other day with Northam, Peter O'Toole, Sam Neill and Bryan Brown, I simply had to see it.

Warning: some spoilers follow...

It was the weekend and there was a bit too much talking in the movie at first for my daughter, who was impatient for the dog part of the story to start. When it finally did, and then took some emotional and dramatic twists and turns, I looked over at her and saw her sobbing, at the fate of one of the dogs. Wow. This quirky little movie first bored her and then ripped her heart out. Luckily, the soothing presence of Northam's Fisk Junior and the denouement (and huge hugs and comfort from mommy) helped calm her down.

Dean Spanley is is one of those movies that may appear silly or quiet at first, but by their end reveal something quite a bit deeper. Such a movie reminds us how film, like no other art medium that I have experienced, can take one on an emotional roller coaster, lasting anywhere from a few moments to 2 1/2 hours. My daughter's reaction to the film's ending also reminded me how childhood is a constant ride on that roller coaster—where you can fall in love in a second with a dog in a movie, only to be crushed in the next. Now I know what a betrayal Bambi must have felt to some helpless parent who took their child to see a cartoon in the 40s, only to have them sobbing in the first reel.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think I should have shielded my daughter from what happened in the movie, or that she should be "protected" from such movies. I do think I should be there to experience it (and the Wicked Witch from The Wizard of Oz or any other scary movie moment) with her at her age. But I am humbled and amazed at how deeply hurt, no matter how transitory, this fictional event was for her. Movies and fairy tales are magic and sinister and wonderful and emotional. It will be interesting to see what affects my sensitive flower next.

half-blood prince

I just caught Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (finally) and really loved it. I actually want to see it again. Soon. Maybe 3-D?

I know there are those who bemoan the absence of certain scenes and characters from the book - but this was not a concern for me. It's a movie, an artistic interpretation of someone else's work. I love The Wizard of Oz and don't feel the ruby slippers should have been silver, as they were in L. Frank Baum's original book. Rowling's books may be untouchable to some, but not to me. I have enjoyed reading (and re-reading) them, but I am not blind to their flaws. I love the HP universe and the characters that inhabit it, but apart from the first and possibly the second book, they could have all used a brave(r) editor. In fact, a lot of red ink was called for. Do they still do abridged versions? Her plotting, although ingenious, is over-done at times, characters and situations over-explained. The repetition of some motifs (the prerequisite Quidditch match, the opening scene at the Dursleys, the endless battle-scenes) became too repetitive.

I actually appreciated the opening scene of HBP which had 16-year old Harry flirting and trying to pick up a pretty waitress. It effectively made Harry real, and young, and hormonal - all aspects that were treated very clunkily by Rowling in her books, I'm afraid. The movie portrays the young wizards' coming-of-age through their early romatic experiments, as their more serious coming-of -age, the shadow of adulthood, responsibility, and the threats of an unsafe and insecure world, Rowling's major plot elements, hover ever closer.

[Romilda Vane and Harry are staring at each other across the library]
Hermione Granger: [snaps her fingers] Hey, she's only interested in you because she thinks you're the Chosen One.
Harry Potter: But I am the Chosen One.
Hermione Granger: [smacks him on the head with the newspaper]
Harry Potter: Sorry... kidding!

The film is simply wonderful to look at. The Death Eaters chase through the field is brilliant. Hogwarts hasn't felt as visually real to me since the first movie. I have enjoyed the "stunt casting" of some of my favorite British actors Kenneth Branagh, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Oldman, etc. in previous films, but this movie's newbie Jim Broadbent brings something extra-special to his role as Professor Slughorn. He fits in seamlessly with the cast, as much as a comfortable armchair...

The younger actors really shine too, especially Daniel Radcliffe, who has made Harry a strong, even obstinate at times character. The scene where he comes across a sobbing Draco, also played wonderfully by Tom Felton, was true to the characters while also making the audience (or at least me) cringe a bit. Harry has no compassion for Draco. He is always angry, suspicious and on the attack. Not that his suspicions aren't valid, but where is his empathy? It brought back the earlier scene of Harry caught spying by Draco on the train. Both boys behave badly, as teenagers are wont to do.

Draco Malfoy: [looking at Harry's broken nose] Nice face, Potter! [Harry nods disdainfully; Luna pulls out her wand]
Luna Lovegood: Would you like me to fix it for you?
Harry Potter: Um... have you ever fixed a nose before?
Luna Lovegood: No. But I've done several toes, and how different are they, really?
Harry Potter: ...Okay, sure, give it a go.
Luna Lovegood: Episkey! [a loud crack]
Harry Potter: Augh!... [rubs his nose gingerly; looks at Luna]
Harry Potter: Well? How do I look?
Luna Lovegood: Exceptionally ordinary.

For teens the world can be black and white, with no gray. For Harry Potter, the world and the film, gets progressively darker. And thanks to cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel, beautifully so.

up, up and away

We saw Up this weekend and was it ever good. It was touching, heart-breaking at times, beautiful, scary, hilarious at others. All the things that a movie is supposed to be. There were all sorts of references - The Wizard of Oz, Howl's Moving Castle, The Red Balloon, and of course, The Incredibles and other Pixar gems. All the grown-ups in the theater cried at scenes which silently, beautifully, encapsulated a life, much in the manner of a classic Chaplin film. The kids enjoyed it too, but I suspect will be surprised in later years when they see it again and truly "get" some of the film's deeper themes. One of my favorite references has to be the Monty Python/Terry Gilliam short, The Crimson Permanent Assurance. I don't have enough praise for this great film. Just see it. It rocks. We saw it in 3D, by the way...