This blog will contain the commentary and analysis of Tulane University's COMM 315 class "Film Analysis," an introductory -- but intense-- course in the critical study of how films produce meaning. The class pursues film analysis in relation to two broad and integrated areas of study: formal film analysis and critical and theoretical approaches to film.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18881_5-reasons-greatest-movie-villain-ever-good-witch.html
ReplyDeleteThis article isn't exactly high-brow criticism, but it humorously suggests that Glinda is not exactly the "Good" Witch she claims to be. Instead of defending Dorothy, she magicks stolen property onto the child's feet. She stands idly by while Dorothy is blamed for the Wicked Witch of the East's death and while the terrified girl is threatened by an evil green lady with magical powers. Rushdie states that, "Interestingly, though she is the Good Witch, the goodness of Oz does not inhere in her", and implies that she is not really as strong or considerate as she initially appears to be (40).
Though she apparently has the ability to watch over the group's journey, as evidenced by when she wakes them from the poppy field, Glinda never steps out of her way to help Dorothy & co. when they're in real harm--she'll save you from taking a nap, but you're on your own when it comes to fireballs or violent trees. Auntie Em and Uncle Henry's inability to help Dorothy save Toto may have been the catalyst for her adventure, yet the "ineffably soppy" Glinda is intentionally ineffective. Rushdie presents a more positive outlook in his analysis, writing: "The Wizard of Oz is a film whose driving force is the inadequacy of adults, even of good adults, and how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies, and so, ironically, grow up themselves" (10). I found this a profound and accurate assessment of the film's meaning; it also inspired me to question which adult(s) in the film can be labeled "good". Are there any characters that one can deem completely good or evil?
I really liked the Rushdie analysis of the Wizard of OZ. A point I believe that he harped on that I completely agree with, is the lack of responsibility taken on by adults in the movie. Whereas Dorothy, seemingly the people of the Emerald City, and the Munchkins look to the adults at time for guidance and assistance they time and time again fail to provide it. Whether it is Glinda providing Dorothy with many more questions than answers and seemingly just standing by and watching while the Wicked Witch of the West yells at her; or it is the blind, almost brain washed type faith the citizens of OZ put in the wizard. Why does it take a child to finally questions what sort of trickery is going on behind the curtain? All of the adults portrayed in the world of OZ have some sort of flaws, Dorothy on the other hand only flaw is that of naivety she has far more courage, heart, and brains then any other character present in the movie. Which perhaps all can date back to that seemingly brushed aside line at the beginning of the movie that it is for the "young at heart"
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating that no male hero exists in this movie. Rushdie points out that the only ones with any power in the movie are the Witch, Glinda and Dorothy. The Wizard's power is an illusion, and the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion couldn't hold onto that illusion if they wanted to. The Scarecrow fails to frighten Dorothy with his flopping around, the Lion drops his bully facade after getting bopped on the nose, and the Tin Man runs around with an ax the whole movie and only uses it once on a door. (Not that he ever hopes to scare anyone or wield any power.) Furthermore, the Scarecrow is easily torn to pieces, the Lion is a blubbering coward at every turn and the Tin Man rusts up constantly. Their inadequacies pale in comparison to the power the witches display and the power Dorothy is thought to have. (Killing two witches, even by accident, is pretty legit.) Still, in the end Dorothy's three companions are put in charge of Oz, and the Wizard still receives all of his hero worship even though he is nothing but smoke and mirrors from when he arrives to when he leaves. In this way, even though the men's power is illusory, everyone still submits to them, making that power very real.
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed Rushdie's analysis of The Wizard of Oz, although I was a bit puzzled by the presence of the short story at the end. It just didn't seem to me to fit in with the tone of the rest of the book and presumably the rest of the series of books about great films.
ReplyDeleteUp until this week's screening, I had not seen The Wizard of Oz since I was a child, and had never noticed what Rushdie points out, that the ending/moral of the story doesn't really make much sense. I can see why Dorothy would want to return to her family, particularly after having been tricked into thinking Auntie Em is heartbroken or even physically ill. What I can't see is why she would swear to never leave home again, essentially labeling the trip to Oz as a bad experience. If anything one would think Dorothy would want to show her friends and family the magical land of Oz, or return to visit the Lion, the Scarecrow and the Tinman, or travel to other new places, having seen how interesting the world outside of Kansas can be. Her contentment with the flat gray empty world of Kansas after her amazing technicolor adventure in Oz seems completely unrealistic, and as Rushdie points out, out of step with the rest of the work, which would seem to glorify bravery, adventure and rebellion.
I do have to disagree with Rushdie on one point though - I think the film is nothing without Toto.
I enjoyed Rushdie's book on The Wizard of OZ. Although I have seen The Wizard of Oz previously, I had never thought about the movie in depth; therefore reading Rushdies book was very interesting. What I never thought of before was the fact that The Wizard of Oz is a film whose “driving force is the inadequacy of adults, even of good adults, and how the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies, and so, ironically grow up themselves.” (10)
ReplyDeleteAnother fact about The Wizard of Oz that Rushdie touches on is the fact that there is an absence of higher values, which increases the films charm. I never thought of this, but if the book were more focused on religion or a higher power in that sense it may not be as appealing. I agree with Rushdie that the movie is successful because of the “creating of a world in which nothing is deemed more important than the loves, cares and needs of human beings.”(12)
Something that I did not pick up on before reading Rushdies book was the fact that Glinda and The witch of the West are the only two symbols of power in the film and also, they are both women! The Wizard of Oz does not have a male hero. The power triangle of the film is Dorothy, The witch of the West and Glinda. The Wizard of Oz is more of an illusion. “ The power of men, it is suggested, is illusory; the power of women is real.”(42)
Lastly, I agree with Rushdie in the sense that Dorothy, after seeing everything that she saw at OZ would not want to go back to her world of black and white in Kansas. She longed to find a place like Emerald City, yet wants to go back home.
After viewing the first scene in munchkin land the other night, I realized that everything within the town itself was circular. This can be seen on pages 21 and 22 within Salman Rushdie's "Wizard of Oz." Not only does the yellow brick road wind into its own circular demise, but the rooftops of the buildings, along with the ponds, stages, and lilypads are all circular. As a result I find Rushdie's argument concerning geometric shapes very interesting. Rushdie begins by pointing out everything within the film that is a solid geometric shape: Glinda's spherical carriage, the straight edges of both her home in Kansas, and the emerald city itself. On the other hand are the "tangled, claw-crooked, and weird" shapes: the evil anthropomorphic trees, and the witches crooked nose and hat. This, as Rushdie notes, proves that Dorothy's comfort zones lie within the structured, while she fears that which is not geometric. This perfectly answered my question, as Dorothy finds solace within the munchkin village before she departs on her journey. It is also why I found this section so interesting.
ReplyDeleteIt had been years and years since I'd seen the movie, and what surprised me most was my memory of the scene when the Wizard gives the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Lion their gifts. Granted, I was a little kid, but I remembered it as sincere. Upon this rewatching, realized how this scene shows exactly how the Wizard gained his power: by bullshitting (for lack of a better term).
ReplyDeleteHe's clearly making up everything he says as he goes along, but his rhetoric is convincing enough that the three heroes receive their gifts with pride. I think this reinforces Rushdie's point about the ineptitude of leaders/adults against the common sense of children, a common theme in literature of this genre. It's interesting, however, that although Dorothy discovers that the Wizard is only smoke and mirrors, she still has enough faith in him to believe his promise to take her back to Kansas.
This whole movie is thematically muddled for me. It seems like the multiple writers and directors of the film each had different ideas about what the point of the film was. Sometimes Dorothy gains agency over her life, while sometimes she is a model of feminine docility. Sometimes she longs for a life of bold adventure, while at the end of the film the lesson she claims to learn is that blandness and safety are all that matters. Who knows.
Wizard of Oz
ReplyDeleteSalman Rushdie, in my opinion, has a very appealing way of writing and a gift for analyzing formal elements of the movie. His analysis of “The Wizard of Oz” is compelling and very personal , and he points out aspects of the film that are both interesting and subtle. One sentence, however, startled me. According to Rushdie, “[the] absence of higher values greatly increases the film’s charme, and is an important aspect of its success in creating a world in which nothing is deemed more important than the loves, cares and needs of human beings […]. (Rushdie 12)
But is The Wizard of Oz really a film that is secular and does not convey “higher values”? And why should that add to the “film’s charme”?
When I first watched The Wizard of Oz two years ago, I was shocked. There we were, in Munchkin Land, and the first introduction of the Munchkins and Glinda is how they rejoice over the death of someone! Nothing happening before that sequence lets the audience assume that the Munchkins and Glinda are good people. And only because Glinda is “beautiful” and thus a good witch, and the Munchkins are childlike funny people, why should the viewer immediately believe that everyone is as good as they say?
To me it was striking how that first scene in Munchkin Land did nothing but reaffirm that system of belief that is inherently Christian: Good vs. Evil. Glinda is the good witch and the green-faced lady (who does not have a real name) is the wicked and bad witch. Why would this way of seeing the world in black and white make the movie more enjoyable? I’d rather have a movie that challenges our system of beliefs than affirming it, and I feel like an analysis of a movie should do this as well.
I really enjoyed Salman Rushdies analysis of the wizard of Oz. I thought he made very interesting points and dug deeper into the meaning and symbolism of certain aspects of the film. One part of his analysis discusses the notion of the ever popular phrase, “theres no place like home.” He discusses the dream of getting away and the longing to return. Rushdie quotes, “In its most potent emotional moment, this is unarguably a film about the joys of going away, of leaving the grayness and entering the color, of making a new life in the “place where there isn’t any trouble.” Quite literally, Dorothy goes from a gray boring life into a colorful new world… hense the change in color of the film. Rushdie then takes time to explain why he feels the message is a bit contradictory. If there is no place like home why is home portrayed as such a boring, grey place with nothing to do while Oz is in full color, portrayed as a magnificent magical world?
ReplyDeleteIn reading Christinas post, I related to her interest in the role of grownups in the film and how Rushdie analyzed this. In comparing Kansas and Oz it is important to note that in Oz Dorothy acts as the adult taking care of everyone else where as in Kansas she is babied and has to follow very strict rules. Rushdie argues that the weakness of adults in this film is what allows Dorothy to grow up. Christinas view on Glinda being “good” but for some reason not helping Dorothy and co out when they really needed it was very interesting and may attest to one side of the argument in favor of home, Kansas, adults, rules, safety. After his analysis I am left continuing to wonder what the message of the film really was regarding home vs. getting away and experiencing adventure.
I thought Rushdie's take on The Wizard of Oz was very intriguing. I think he did in excellent job in analyzing different aspects of the film, many of which I would have never of realized. This made me aware of the meaning films can have and the thought that goes into every frame, scene, narration, etc. His points about things that happened off film, or the "secrets" were also very interesting to read. For example, how one original character had to leave filming because his costume gave him asbestos poisoning...who knew!
ReplyDeleteOne point that stood out to me was actually his conclusion. It brought everything together that he previously said and overall make me think differently about the entire film. He mentions how the lesson to be learned is "...to build on what we have, to make the best of ourselves, that we are given this conservative little homily?" (56) As the viewer, we are thought to believe that this is the moral of the story. However, Rushdie poses the question of whether or not we can really believe that Dorothy accepts the limitations of her life in Kansas and that the things she doesn't have are no loss to her? We never really know if Dorothy thinks "there is no place like home." Rushdie furthers this point by referencing the sixth book where Dorothy and her family actually move to Oz and she becomes a Princess. This completely refutes my belief that Dorothy does think of Kansas as her home. As a result, I'm left questioning what the moral of the story really is?
I found Salman Rushdie’s analysis of The Wizard of Oz extremely insightful. I had never noticed before the relationship between adults and children in the movie and how the inadequacy of adults is what drives the children to take control of their own lives. We find that an adult who is looked up to greatly, The Great and Powerful Oz, is actually a façade of character, a man who has created this powerful persona for himself. The woman who tries to take away Todo (later reintroduced as the Wicked Witch of the West), is also an example of a negative adult role.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the distribution of power is not what you would expect from a normal movie. Dorothy’s ownership of the Ruby Slippers gives her a certain amount of power (although we are never told the full significance of the Ruby Slippers). Rushdie talks about Judy Garland playing Dorothy, who plays this wide-eyed dreamy child, it is interesting she is chosen for the role because like what we said in class, she has this huge voice and looks like she is an adolescent, but still gives off the sensation of childhood innocence.