Rough Draft

Okay, I wrote this as a very rough draft just to get my thoughts out there. I had this idea before the Wizard of Oz group presented, but I think I brought some new ideas to the topic, so I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.

Wizard of Oz: Text vs. Film

            When L. Frank Baum set out to write The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, he sought to make an enjoyable American fairy tale, but instead he created an American classic. Both novel and 1939 film were great successes, still to this day past down generation to generation. With the film being the more popular medium, I seek, by not condemning or commending the film, to examine the discrepancies from the novel.  For example, why does the film seek to change the character makeup of Dorothy? Why is the Wicked Witch of the West the main antagonist? And why does the film seek to inject morals and life lessons that the original text lacks?

            There is no doubt that Dorothy, played by Judy Garland, is a cherished American icon. She represents a strong female lead to young girls across the world, but one cannot help thinking about her counterpart in The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. In the novel, Dorothy could be called a proactive character, while her filmic counterpart is a much weaker opponent. For instance, in the film Dorothy cries many more times than in the novel. The novelized Dorothy cries about two times in the text and can be forgiven since one has to remember she is just a child far away from home. The film Dorothy is much older and instead looks to crying as a problem solver. The novel version seeks to actually solve problems. Instead of giving up and pouting she asks her friends for help. If not slightly annoying, her film version appears weak and too meek for such foreign terrain. In the novel when the Wicked Witch of the West is melted, Dorothy is the culprit, but not entirely by accident as in the film. In the novel she is upset at the Wicked Witch for attempting to steal her shoes and throws the water on her. Given, she did not know exactly what would happen, she had inkling. She knew that the Wicked Witch did not like water, therefore proactively solving a problem, but she did not know it would melt her therefore her childhood innocence is still intact. In the film the Witch lights her friend Scarecrow on fire, she must grab a bucket of water in order to save him. Some drips on the Witch and she starts to melt. Only when put in a certain instance does Dorothy reluctantly react, and not entirely of her own free will, therefore her naivety and innocence tricks her into acting.

            In the novel, the Wicked Witch of the West is a chapter long character. She is mentioned earlier, but never takes form until over half way into the novel. She appears in one chapter and then killed off. In the film she appears throughout as the main antagonist. She constantly stalks Dorothy and her friends and then of course there is the final showdown. 1939 marks the start of World War II and Hitler came into international consciousness. Although America would not get involved until 1941, Hitler had struck a frightening cord. The Wicked Witch of the West could very much represent this fear therefore directly affecting the expansion of her character. Not only did she watch Dorothy from far away, plotting and planning her attack, she had a large winged-monkey army of drones, no doubt representing the Nazi military. She was also said to be all powerful and to have enslaved a whole race of people, the Winkies. Maybe I could be stretching and maybe, as films do require, she served as a strong, lead antagonist just for stories sake, but looking at the Wizard of Oz in a World War II standpoint, it could be plausible. With Dorothy as a representation of America and her friends as the allies, she seeks to overthrow the Wicked Witch of the West and set the whole world of Oz free. Could it be a parallel of a fear that America was feeling at the time? Or is it just a strange coincidence?

            Lastly, when L Frank Baum set out to make The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, he sought to make a fairy tale and nothing more. Having written in the original introduction about children enjoying fairy tales and the morals going in the proverbial ear and out the other, he sought to make an enjoyable novel for children without a moral to the story. The film slaps the viewer over the head with heavy handed morals and life lessons. This could be because of the time period the film was set in. Dorothy has to repeat the phrase “There’s no place like home” while tapping her ruby slippers in the film, when in the book she only says the line one time when she describes her desire to go back to Kansas. In the ending of the film she says that if she desires anymore adventure she will look no further than her own back yard. The novel ends with Dorothy feeling no regret about the adventure, just a relief that she is safe and not costing her aunt and uncle any money. The whole film seems to have a moral of a young girls place in life. Almost shouting the dictum to young girls that fun is okay for the movies, but do not have too much fun, you still have to return to your domestic duties. Of course it could also be read that the dictum is just a heartfelt lesson that home is where the heart is, but one is left wondering if the same could be said if the story was written about a male child.

            Alas many of the discrepancies from novel to film could be attributed to the time period. 1939 was a time before the civil rights movement, before the second wave women’s movement and during the time of great economic disparity. Audiences at this time most likely craved innocent fun for the family and wanted a movie that preached to them that even though Kansas (America) seemed like a bleak place and there was a growing international threat, that home and happiness is really where the heart is and they too shall overcome.

How Children are Portrayed in Litertature and Film

Although literature and film have made great strides in the way it represents diverse populations, it still has only come so far.

In the novels we’ve read for this class and the accompanying films we’ve watched, children are represented in very much the same way, with one exception. The stand out novel would be Peter Pan. In the novel the children are referred to as “heartless” and downright selfish for their adventure to Neverland. Their adventure is put into context by the adult narrator instead of understood. The narrator tells us of the hardships the children left their poor, loving parents with. Their disappearance has caused their father to live his life, regardless of any social stigma it may carry, in a dog kennel. The mother stays up sleepless nights to wait for the children to return and her heart remains broken while she waits. All the while the children are having a merry time off in Neverland, not losing any sleep over whether their parents are okay at all. In essence the narrator comments on the most important part of childhood, but the rarely mentioned part, the selfishness of it.

In many novels, the parent’s feelings are either discarded as mean or not mentioned at all. In Alice, do her parents worry? We wouldn’t know, nobody mentions it. In fact, in the Tim Burton film, she is downright rude to the man that purposes to her. Given, it was the right thing for her not to marry him, she had no right to just run out on him, he was probably just as forced into the situation as she was (if I remember correctly, I last saw the film a couple of weeks ago).

Many novels and films seek to romanticize childhood and portray children as innocent angels. In Peter Pan, the children kill, yes, actually murder pirates; in fact, it is the most convincing reason the boys go to Neverland with Peter. Of course none of this is shown in the film version we watched for class. Why? Are children just too corruptible?  Can children’s minds simply read this information, but if shown on screen would it be too much? That is a different issue entirely, so I will get back on point.

Novels, down to how the children cry when far away from home like Alice or Oz don’t give children enough credit. Immediately after entering these strange portals, the children immediately want to find a way home. In Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, they do stay a while after their mission is done, but it seems they always end up at home and are happy about it. Is this re-enforcing that children should never wander far from home? Or that they should only let imaginations run so far? Are these books about imagination and magical worlds just anti-imagination books parading around in disguise?

I would have to answer a resounding yes. In all the books, including Peter Pan, the happy ending is the children ending up at home. They right whatever wrong they must in the other world, but must return home never to return to the magical world again (with some exceptions). If any of these children’s lives were really that bad, why would they want to return? In Oz Dorothy was an orphan and lived a harsh life in the plains of Kansas. I would rather stay in Oz, she and the scarecrow do joke about this in the novel, but that is all it is, a joke. She is conscientious child that doesn’t want her aunt and uncle to have to go into mourning because it would cost them too much money, but other than that, why does she miss her old life? Why is she miserable when she is in the Emerald City? As a child, I’d probably have to be drug out of there. The only film that represents a pro imagination stance is Pan’s Labyrinth. Ofelia has a reasonable pull to stay with her mother and unborn brother, but has a reasonable pull to disappear into her magical world as well. When her mother is gone, she logically wants to retreat into her other world, in which she eventually does. That makes sense, that film treats her as a person with logic, emotion and complexity.  Why do other films not treat children this way?

My answer would have to be because children’s novels and films seek to not only teach children a moral lesson, but to enforce gender stereotypes. In Peter Pan, Wendy goes to Neverland, not on the promise of adventure like her brothers, but because of mermaids and motherhood. In Alice, she attempts to escape school and in Oz she accidently ends up in a magical place. Each return to realize they never should have gone in the first place, their home is all they need (in the 1939 Wizard of Oz film, not the novel).  With new films on the rise such as Kick Ass (which was first a comic) and Hanna, they seek to change the young female stereotype. In Kick Ass, Hit Girl is a young assassin with no moral qualms with killing. Hanna (although I have not seen the film, only the trailers) it seems follows that same archetype, not only that, but a line in the trailer explicitly says, “Well sometimes children are bad people too” just hits my point home. These two films subvert the typical child/female depiction and seek to give greater complexity to these characters. Instead of portraying children as innocent beings with a deep desire to stay at home, these films seek to push the boundaries of portraying children. They are shown not only as adventurists, but morally questionable and pushing the envelope is what creating film and literature is all about.