A Analysis Of The Wizard Of Oz English Literature Essay

When I was five old ages old, my household gathered around the T.V. on a snowy Sunday dark and watched a particular presentation of The Wizard of Oz. Shortly thenceforth, I picked up L. Frank Baum ‘s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz[ 1 ]and was hooked. I read every Oz book that I could happen at the public library. About twenty old ages subsequently, I picked up The Wonderful Wizard of Oz once more and found a elusive deepness which I did non anticipate, particularly through the women’s rightist lens. Both the book and the movie are well-suited for a women’s rightist review because of Dorothy, the female heroine, and other of import female characters. While Baum ‘s fresh nowadayss a comparatively progressive position of adult females, the 1939 MGM version of the book portrays adult females as weak and best suited for domestic life through the weakening of Dorothy as a character, the accent of Dorothy ‘s desire to acquire place, the dream motive, and the riddance of of import female characters.

The Wizard of Oz is one of the most of import cultural texts of the 20th century. “ MGM ‘s film was an instant hit: and, subsequently, thanks to one-year premier clip telecasting screenings, more people have seen it than any other gesture image of all time made ” ( McClelland 13 ) . The Library of Congress even included The Wizard of Oz with 24 other movies that it declared to be “ national hoarded wealths ” ( Rahn 109 ) . Even with the huge popularity, the movie was non met with cosmopolitan critical acclamation when it was released. Raylyn Moore paperss that many critics gave the movie scathing reappraisals. She adds her ain appraisal: “ Throughout, the production seesaws alarmingly between the sentimental and the grotesque, the really pitfalls Baum so conscientiously avoided in his first Oz book ” ( Moor 90 ) . Like the movie, Baum ‘s novel has received its just portion of unfavorable judgment. Suzanne Rahn chronicles the history of the books response throughout the century following its publication.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Most people would n’t waver to name [ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz ] a authoritative of American kids ‘s literature. Yet if a kids ‘s classic can be defined as a book that is admired by critics and loved by kids, so [ The Wonderful Wizard of Oz ] belongs in a curious class of its ain. Enthusiastically received by the first referees, the Oz books fell into such disfavour with kids ‘s bibliothecs 30 old ages subsequently that they were consistently purged from library aggregations. [ . . . ] Then, in the 1970s, the pendulum swung once more. The last 20 old ages have seen a renewed credence and grasp of the Oz books, accompanied by critical analyses from the full gamut of perspectives-political, economic, religious, feminist, and psychological. The MGM movie version of The Wizard, excessively, has received careful survey and increasing regard. Yet reserves are still expressed ; while no 1 today would deny the cultural importance of The Wizard, its quality as literature remains slightly in uncertainty. ( 12 )

As Rahn illustrates, even works that have doubtful literary virtue frequently merit scholarly analysis. Arguably, the diverseness of critical positions applied to the survey of the text and movie in the scholarly community speak to the value of the plants as art signifiers. Regardless of any peculiar reader ‘s or spectator ‘s personal response to the movie or the text, both have shown sufficient cultural influence to merit closer examination.

Both the novel and the movie lend themselves highly good to a feminist scrutiny of the texts. While it may look odd to use feminist theory to kids ‘s literature, gender issues are frequently blatantly represented. As Lizbeth Goodman writes, If we take a [ . . . ] expression at some of the most popular kids ‘s narrative books, we can rapidly see that gender inequalities are represented at that place ” ( 16 ) . Goodman besides notes that our first experiences with linguistic communication frequently come through the medium of kids ‘s books and that these books can hold a powerful impact on how we conceptualize the universe around us ( 16 ) . Additionally, the life of Frank Baum strongly suggests the rightness of a feminist reading. Baum was a vigorous political protagonist of the adult females ‘s right to vote motion ( Dighe 6 ) . His married woman besides came from a household of adult females ‘s rights militants. Her female parent even wrote a book about the history of the right to vote motion ( Moore 50 ) . It is evident in Baum ‘s Oz books that he consciously trades with gender functions. Baum ‘s subsequence to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a blazing sarcasm of certain strands of the adult females ‘s right to vote motion ( Huebel 35 ) . S.J. Sackett “ examines [ Oz ‘s ] value system and item and sees at that place respect for single freedom and nonconformity, the absence of militarism, equality of the sexes, [ etc. ] ” ( Rahn 20 ) . But possibly the most compelling ground to look at feminism in both the book and the movie is the distinction of female characters ( Moore 119 ) .

While both the novel and the movie have many of the same of import female characters, the movie consistently portrays a more oppressive and sexist vision of adult females than Baum does in the original text. This is evidenced, most evidently, through the portraiture of Dorothy. In the novel, Dorothy is portrayed as a really strong, weather, resourceful six-year-old. Moore gives the undermentioned description:

To the Wizard ‘s thundering “ I am Oz the Great and Terrible. . , ” she steadfastly answers, “ I am Dorothy, the Small and Meek. . , ” but she is non truly meek any more than the Wizard is truly awful. Faced with acquiring back place to Kansas, she sets about it with implacable finding. And when the Wizard makes it a status of his assisting her that she destroy the 2nd enchantress, she sets out instantly to make it, even though she does non desire to destruct anyone or anything. ( 154 )

Dorothy is besides really independent. She meets grownups like the Good Witch of the North and the Munchkins who can non assist her, but she continues on her journey. In the book, it is her thought to have on the places ( Ag, non reddish ) as she travels because she figures that they do non run the hazard of have oning out ( Rahn 58-59 ) . Additionally, Rahn illustrates how Dorothy serves as an Everyman for kids to follow:

[ . . . ] Dorothy is non simply an Everyman but a theoretical account for kids to emulate. [ . . . ] She is reasonable, friendly, helpful, weather without being heady, profoundly attached to her friends and household, and resolute in prosecuting her ends. She does non alter dramatically in the class of the journey, for this is non the class of person who severely needs to alter ( like Bilbo in The Hobbit or Mary Lennox in The Secret Garden ) but a narrative of ego find, in which Dorothy comes to recognize her ain potency by the journey ‘s terminal. In this reading, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion represent non merely the friends we all need to assist us on our manner but besides the qualities Baum felt were most indispensable for the traveler-qualities that Dorothy is to happen within herself. ( 57 )

Dorothy is the true heroine in the novel. She is the 1 who holds the set of travellers together. She is a really strong female character throughout the text, notwithstanding periodic minutes of failing.

In the MGM version, nevertheless, Dorothy is portrayed as a weaker character with minutes of strength. Arthur Freed, who worked on the movie, had a batch to state in the painstaking determination to weaken Dorothy ‘s character. Michael Hearn writes in his debut to the screenplay:

But the main failing so far, harmonizing to Freed, was the deficiency of “ a solid and dramatic thrust of Dorothy ‘s escapades and intents that will maintain the audience rooting for her ” throughout her trip to Oz. Freed [ . . . ] demanded that Dorothy have a deep-seated psychological demand back place that would warrant her actions in Oz. [ . . . ] There she is motivated by her generousness to assist everyone first before her small orphan bosom cries out for what she wants most of all ( the love of Aunt Em ) – ” which represents to her the love of a female parent she ne’er knew. ” [ . . . ] Consequently Dorothy in the movie became far more weepy than Baum ‘s practical, determined miss from Kansas. ( 12 )

Judy Garland ‘s portraiture of Dorothy is well more incapacitated than Baum ‘s character. In the movie, Dorothy is held a incapacitated captive by the Wicked Witch of the West. She can make nil for herself until her male friends, the Scarecrow, Lion, and Tin Woodman come to salvage her as she sobs. When Dorothy defeats the enchantress, it is because she by chance douses her with H2O while seeking to sprinkle Scarecrow. The book portrays a much stronger and proactive heroine. Baum has the Scarecrow impotently scattered across the land, the Tin Woodman dashed to the underside of a bouldery ravine, and the Lion impotently harnessed in her courtyard. Dorothy engineers her ain flight by purposefully throwing H2O onto the enchantress. While Dorothy did non cognize this would kill the enchantress, her subsequent actions show her as a courageous heroine. Moore helps to construe Dorothy ‘s actions.

In a battle over Dorothy ‘s thaumaturgy places, of which the wicked sorceress knows the worth while Dorothy does non, [ . . . ] that H2O is spilled over the miss ‘s enemy, who is at the clip besides her captress. The enchantress quickly melts off “ Like Brown sugar before her really eyes. ”

But practical, autonomous Dorothy is non one to blow clip in pointless craze. “ . . . The Witch fell down in a brown, melted, amorphous mass and began to distribute over the clean boards of the kitchen floor. Sing that she had truly melted off to nil, Dorothy drew another pail of H2O and threw it over the muss. She so swept it all out the door. After picking out the Ag shoe, which was all that was left of the old adult female, she cleaned and dried it with a fabric and set it on her pes once more. ” ( 154 )

Dorothy so proceeds to liberate the Lion and orchestrate the deliverance of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman ( 109-111 ) . Dorothy is unambiguously the hero in Baum ‘s novel.

Additionally, Dorothy is farther weakened as the dominant female character in the movie by her overdone desire to return place. While the book contains this same motive and even includes the phrase, “ There ‘s no topographic point like place, ” this becomes a dominant motive in the film. As Harmetz explains:

Dorothy ‘s pressing desire to acquire place was a portion of L. Frank Baum ‘s book. ( Intelligibly, since in the book, unlike the film, the cyclone that picked her up was non carry throughing any wish on her portion. ) But the film, by design, inscribed that subject with a tomahawk. “ Be it of all time so low, there ‘s no topographic point like place ” was a truism and a moral lesson on which L.B. Mayer, Mervyn LeRoy, and Arthur Freed wholeheartedly agreed. ( 298 )

Because the film purposefully portrays Dorothy as seeking to get away her Kansas farm, her insisting that she return place every bit shortly as possible sends an even stronger message: adult females go forthing the place is a error, and while it may take to colourful escapades, adult females are happiest when they are at place. This message is hammered in at the terminal of the movie when Glinda explains to Dorothy why she did n’t state her about the places at the beginning. “ Because she would n’t hold believed me. She had to larn it for herself. ” At this point, the Tin Man asks, “ What have you learned, Dorothy? ” Dorothy ‘s response is uncovering. “ Well, I. . .think that it. . . that it was n’t plenty merely to desire to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em. . . and it ‘s that if I of all time go looking for my bosom ‘s desire once more, I wo n’t look any further than my ain backyard ; because if it is n’t at that place, I ne’er truly lost it to get down with! Is that right? ” Glinda answers, “ That ‘s all it is ” ( Hearn 128 ) . The ground that Glinda did n’t assist Dorothy in the first topographic point is because Dorothy did n’t yet understand that her topographic point is in the place. The movie sends the clear message that true felicity for adult females prevarications in the domestic kingdom. Baum in his books, nevertheless, creates a topographic point for Dorothy both in Kansas and in repeated visits to the Land of Oz. Additionally, the good enchantress at the beginning of the book does n’t state Dorothy about the appeal of the places because she, herself, does non recognize the appeal ; she does non mean to learn Dorothy a lesson.

The biggest alteration made in the movie version from the book besides serves to intrench this anti-feminist mentality. In the book, Dorothy ‘s trip to Oz is really existent. The house is really carried away. When Dorothy returns, Uncle Henry and Aunt Em are surprised to see her. They have already built the new farm house to replace the old one ( 154 ) . This reality of Dorothy ‘s experience in a different universe is what makes The Wonderful Wizard of Oz a phantasy. The movie efficaciously eliminates the elements of phantasy from their text, altering the fantastical experience, alternatively, to a psychological dream. The authors reasoned that, “ you can non set antic people in unusual topographic points in forepart of an audience unless they have seen them as human existences foremost ” ( Harmetz cit. in Rahn 124 ) . This determination invalidates Dorothy ‘s full experience in Oz. Rahn describes the critical response, stating:

Most critics-and about every kid who sees the movie-agree that the worst error was to explicate away Dorothy ‘s escapades and Oz itself as a dream. “ As art, ” says Harmetz, “ The film is flawed by its mawkishness, by its cheerful insisting that ‘east, west, place is best, ‘ and by the determination to invalidate Dorothy ‘s experience by doing it into a dream ” ( 229 ) . [ . . . ] Whatever the movie may hold suggested about the power of dreams and aspirations, the journey through life, or the find of one ‘s ain potency is efficaciously invalidated by this stoping. ( 124 )

In a sense, Dorothy ‘s journey and watered down achievements go a forgery. The spectator has no ground to believe that Dorothy could last outside of Kansas in the existent universe.

Additionally, the dream viewed as an look of Dorothy ‘s mind presents an even more damnatory position to the potency of adult females to be strong and work out their jobs. Nathanson suggests that a psychoanalytic attack is appropriate in covering with The Wizard of Oz. “ It seems clear that The Wizard ‘s dream sequence can be interpreted psychoanalytically in footings of turning up ” ( 78 ) . When we look at the dream from this position, it is clear that the cardinal struggle displacements from Oz in Baum ‘s novel to Kansas in the movie. Dorothy is non truly fighting against enchantresss, winging monkeys, and an unqualified ace. She is fighting against Mrs. Gulch who wants to take her Canis familiaris and her desire to get away the boringness of the Kansas farm. Hence, battle for her independency and the battle for Toto become the two chief struggles in the movie. In respects to the first, her dream serves to convert her to remain at place in the domestic function prepared for her by Aunt Em who even tries to maintain her from coming near the hog pen, allow entirely the outside universe. In her battle with Mrs. Gulch, Dorothy ‘s triumph is fliting. While the film ends with Dorothy in ownership of Toto, Mrs. Gulch still has the sheriff ‘s order and legal resort to hold Toto set to kip. In this sense, Dorothy ‘s subconscious desire to remain in the domestic confines of the farm is so great that she sacrifices her love for Toto. Where Dorothy is unimpeachably winning in the book and additions strength and wisdom, the movie ‘s portraiture of her experience as a dream leaves her “ the ideal adult female ” : a more submissive, ineffective version of herself.

Finally, the movie ‘s riddance of of import female characters from the book devalues the parts of adult females in Oz. In the book, there are ab initio four enchantresss: two good and two bad. The film condenses the characters of the two good enchantresss into one good enchantress Glinda. In the book, there is a queen of the mice who plays a critical function in assisting the travellers achieve their ends. She is wholly omitted from the movie. Finally, there is a female stork who rescues Scarecrow from a river. Dighe contends that the stork is symbolic for Baum ‘s support of the adult females ‘s right to vote motion ( 74 ) . While the riddance of these of import female characters arguably gives the movie needed directivity, it badly limits the figure of major female characters, switching the balance of power towards the work forces in the movie. The three staying female chief characters all paint an anti-feminist image. Dorothy, as discussed, is a diminished heroine who sacrifices her dreams and conflicts for domestic life. The Wicked Witch of the West is the lone female character who is powerful in the film and in the existent universe of Kansas. Ironically, she is portrayed as the stereotyped strong adult female: unnatural and evil. Glinda, the one good enchantress, is the lone major character who does non stand for an existent individual from Kansas. The deduction is that adult females who are powerful and good are fanciful ; they do non be in world.

While the popularity of The Wizard of Oz both in text and movie amongst readers and viewing audiences of all ages is about uncontested, the quality of each of plants of art remains problematic. It is clear, nevertheless, that gender issues pervade both the novel and the movie. While L. Frank Baum ‘s book is non the theoretical account of feminist equality judged by modern criterions, it portrays a universe in which good and powerful adult females exist and where determined and resourceful small misss can carry through extraordinary things. He illustrates that there is a topographic point for adult females in both the universe of the place and in the universe outside the place, merely as there are for work forces. Even though the movie was released 39 old ages after the publication of the novel, its version represents a regressive attack to gender equality through its portraiture of Dorothy, its glory of domestic life for adult females, its representation of Oz as a dream, and its riddance of cardinal adult females from the novel. Which raises the inquiry: why, in our society, so “ progressive ” refering gender and gender functions, are we still so drawn to MGM ‘s backward movie?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *