Eccentric Flower:199811/off to see the wizard

seven eleven none

off to see the wizard

Went to go see the lovingly restored print of The Wizard of Oz this evening. I've seen it about a zillion times, but always on a television-sized screen; that plus the better print made it almost like seeing a new movie.

Here are some random notes. Actually, they're sequential notes, in more or less the order I thought them while watching:

First off, why is Warner Bros. rereleasing an MGM film? I admit I don't keep track of studios too closely - did MGM go under?

[Ted Turner got the MGM/UA library in acquisition of same in 1986. Turner later sold the MGM/UA logos and brand (Sony has them) but kept the library. Turner Entertainment is now owned by Warner Brothers. Voila.]

The framing sequence isn't in black-and-white exactly; it's in sepia tones, like old photographs, and it is absolutely gorgeous. In fact, Garland looks better in those sequences than she does in the color portions, where her facial makeup makes her look a little like she has a skin condition.

The reason "Over The Rainbow" works here, and never never works when anyone else sings it, is that Garland underplays it considerably, never trying to hit that dramatic note, never reaching for the power. It's the only way to sing it.

The cyclone's great too - is that actual back-projected footage of a twister, or did they make it in a tank? Did they even have effects tanks then? [They made it in a tank. The DVD discusses it in the extras.]

The plants in Munchkin land are plastic! They're so deliberately unnaturally shiny! Even the leaves on the cornstalks in the Scarecrow's field are shiny. (The poppies aren't, though.)

Nonelvis' favorite factoid: Technicolor was named for MIT (which was commonly nicknamed Tech at the time).

I didn't see the filmed version of The Man Who Came To Dinner until a few years ago - I've seen it performed on stage a few times - and this is my first exposure to Oz since then. I find I cannot look at Billie Burke quite the same way. I've become aware of just how delightfully ditzy Glenda is.

The special effect with the cloud of red smoke that marks Margaret Hamilton's appearances and disappearances is still effective, darn it. Who knows how many years later and I still get anticipatory chills when that red smoke begins to billow. (Nonelvis: "Of course, some of it is due to Margaret Hamilton.")

You have to place things in historical context. Ray Bolger and Bert Lahr had both made some reputation for themselves by then. Bolger was mostly noted for his unique, zany dance style. When the 1939 audience saw the Scarecrow, they knew the character was going to do some dancing. It'd be like casting Gregory Hines as the Scarecrow today. One brings preconceptions with one.

A lot of people have this idea that Oz is a place frozen in the past, reinforced by the fact that the definitive Oz movie is almost sixty years old, and the Oz books nearly a century. But Baum's Oz was mostly contemporaneous with his 1900's world - with odd and occasionally futuristic touches - the City Of The Future appearance of the Emerald City domes in the movie's matte paintings would have fit Baum's ideas for the city perfectly.

Toto is an exceptionally well-trained dog. I never noticed that before. I don't know why.

I seem to recall that in the books, Glenda is the good witch of the South (the red section), not the north (purple). You know how long it's been since I read the Oz books?

I saw only one special effect in the movie which didn't seem to have held up well - the owls and vultures in the haunted forest with the obviously peanut-bulb eyes. Ok, that, and the flying monkeys lost a little something in the new print - you can see how artificial the masks are. But the vital parts hold.

The children in the audience were very respectful of the movie. I'm not sure it held their attention at all times, but they seemed to realize that their parents were having a lot of fun. Or something. I swear I heard several cases in the movie where the adultts were all laughing at something, and then the kid laughter would chime in, as if they knew something was supposed to be funny there but weren't sure what it was.

When Hamilton is sending the monkeys to capture Dorothy and torment the others, she says, "Send the little insect creatures first, to soften them up," or some such. This, I believe, is a cue for the missing Jitter Bug sequence, part of the movie's rather substantial lore.

I could tell you all the other lore as well: How Frank Morgan and Garland were not the original choices to play those roles; how Jack Haley was a replacement for Buddy Epsen, who was nearly killed by his makeup; how Haley's makeup and Hamilton's gave them skin conditions; how the Munchkins made life unholy hell for everyone with their rowdiness; how the actors nearly got heatstroke (the whole thing was filmed on soundstages under the oppressive lighting needed for color filming at the time - over a hundred degrees on set); how Hamilton got badly burned during one of the disappear-in-flames sequences ... but you already know all those, right?

The writer for the Globe points out that the film was a flop for its time. It was made for what was then an ungodly three and a half million, and didn't break even. Did you ever wonder why the only Oscars the movie won were for Best Song and Best Original Score? Easy. (Put your hand down, over there in Austin; I know you know.) 1939 was a banner year for American cinema, maybe the best ever: Among others, it also produced Gone With The Wind, Dark Victory, The Women, Destry Rides Again, and Goodbye, Mr. Chips.

Victor Fleming, the director, probably didn't even get any attention/blame for Wizard flopping that year; his name was the one which eventually went on Gone With The Wind, which was not a flop. (George Cukor, who got cheated out of the credit for GWTW, should not be pitied - The Women by itself would have been a reputation-making film. And don't let's go into the whole story behind GWTW, because that's really tawdry territory.)

After the film, I asked Nonelvis and Marc: You know, there have been a whole slew of rereleases of classic films in the last year or so. Is it cynical of me to think this means the public is disenchanted with the current state of Hollywood product?

Nonelvis replied: It has nothing to do with that. It's that the studios have realized they're sitting on a profit goldmine - that people will actually pay to see the old films.

Marc thought that the answer was probably a little of both. Marc is probably right.

previous
next
this month

© columbine