It's Dorothy! A Review

IT'S DOROTHY!    

Some literary characters have taken on a life so far removed from their source material. Such is the case with Dorothy Gale, the protagonist of L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. The documentary It's Dorothy! looks at the various incarnations of this literary character. Using archival footage and interviews with the myriads of Dorothys from stage and screen, It's Dorothy! sometimes stretches some connections more than I think logical. However, it has some interesting background to the lives of the actresses and fans of this distinctly American figure.

It's Dorothy! interviews various actresses who have played the little girl from Kansas, mostly on stage or television specials. There is Shanice Shantay from The Wiz Live! NBC special. There is also Nichelle Lewis from the 2024 Broadway revival of The Wiz, pop singer Ashanti who starred in The Muppets' Wizard of Oz special and Danielle Hope, who won the BBC competition show Over the Rainbow in 2011 to play Dorothy in London's West End. The documentary also has an audio interview with Fairuza Balk, who played Dorothy in Return to Oz. She is the only Dorothy who did not appear on screen but was interviewed specifically for the documentary. Stephanie Mills, who originated the role in the original run of The Wiz, Diana Ross who played the role in the film version of The Wiz, and Judy Garland from the 1939 The Wizard of Oz all spoke about the character and/or Oz-related projects via archival footage. 

Each of the actresses who played Dorothy speaks to her experiences both before and after their casting. For Garland, the two figures of actress and character eventually blended into each other. It is surprising to learn, for example, that initially many objected to Garland's casting for being "too old" for the part. As time went by, Garland became the definitive Dorothy to where every other actress who played the role was measured against her. We see that Judy Garland had excessively high expectations as a child performer. The high price of fame, the dichotomy between the outward glamour and intense hard work is nothing new we learn. Ashanti comments that people see the fame and glitter but not the intense invasion of privacy and long work hours.

The more things change, I suppose.

The other people interviewed in It's Dorothy! were heard but not seen. The various interviewees speak on various topics related to both Dorothy and the Oz mythos. We get how director John Waters thought Glinda the Good Witch of the North was, in his words, "a sadist" for not informing Dorothy that she could leave anytime rather than letting her go through the land of Oz. He adds that Dorothy is, again in his words, "a fag hag" or at least a precursor to one. 

The documentary does cover how the character of Dorothy and The Wizard of Oz in particular became associated with gay culture. It also through the various adaptations of The Wiz delve into how the L. Frank Baum series was co-opted into black culture. 

Director/writer Jeffrey McHale covers a great deal of ground in It's Dorothy! To his credit he did a strong job in giving the various actresses who brought the character to life. As stated, all the living Dorothy actresses save Balk appeared on screen (Ross and Mills not interviewed specifically for It's Dorothy!). Hearing their stories about how fans still remember them and their experiences working on their respective Oz projects is an interesting backstage look.

I do, however, think that sometimes It's Dorothy! bit off more than it could chew. Late in the film, some of the interviewees suggested that the appearance of Wheelers in Return to Oz was a sign of disability empowerment. I think that while disabled people may see the Wheelers as some kind of representation, I do not think that was the intent. It was not just the Wheelers but the various figures who had different parts to them, like Jack Pumpkinhead and Tik-Tok. 

The Wizard of Oz/Judy Garland gay connection has been noted for years. It is interesting to learn that such a connection did not start immediately but built up over the years. The "friend of Dorothy" myth is dispelled in It's Dorothy! with the suggestion that such a euphemism developed over time rather than be immediate. 

The film also could not resist a dig at L. Frank Baum. It does point out that while Baum was a liberal in almost all matters, his editorials calling for the extermination of the indigenous Americans is a black spot on his record. I do not think that The Wonderful Wizard of Oz or any of his other Oz books will be pulled from the shelves because he was wildly wrong in that one take. This unfortunate lapse in judgment by Baum is connected to the Wizard himself not being what he was supposed to be. 

Again, this is similar to the Return to Oz take that the various creatures are a subtle sign of disability representation. Some of the connections between the various Oz projects and both its creator and its fans seems to stretch more than I'm willing to believe.  

Still, It's Dorothy! has some wonderful insights from academics, fans and the various actresses who have played the role. We get a nice montage of both Over the Rainbow and The Wiz's Home which are standouts. Both are brilliant songs that have stood the test of time. Seeing various figures like Barbra Streisand to Beyoncé take cracks at them is a wonderful reminder of how good the songs and singers are. It is also good to hear how various Dorothys have been received. Shantay calls her The Wiz Live! experience a "one-and-done" deal with no big bounce to her career. Conversely, Danielle Hope has found a career after winning Over the Rainbow and she was cast in the theatrical version of The Wizard of Oz.

How we see both Dorothy Gale and various interpretations of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz will shift with the culture. It's Dorothy! is a good snapshot of how both were seen then and are seen now. I am not sure that Dorothy Gale really is, as one person called her, "a bad bitch". It's Dorothy! ends with various people being asked to describe Dorothy Gale in one word. My choice would be "Dorothy Gale is...American". 

DECISION: B-

Wicked: For Good. A Review (Review #2075)

WICKED: FOR GOOD

I find that in life, people overcomplicate things. Case in point, Wicked: For Good. This is the sequel to Wicked and a spiritual if not literal prequel to 1939's The Wizard of Oz. Therein perhaps lies the problem. The original Wicked musical has been adored by many. I am not among them. Wicked: For Good did not win me over. In fact, I did literally cover my eyes at some moments.

After she defied the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum), the witch Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo) thwarts his work at every turn that she can. This means being the Ozian PETA, freeing the animals from doing such work as building the Yellow Brick Road. It also means being in the crosshairs of the Wizard's henchwoman, Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh).

Caught in the middle is Glinda the Good (Ariana Grande, billed as Ariana Grande-Butera). She is a willing front for the Wizard and Morrible, using her positive cache to win the various Oz residents to the Wizard's side. However, she also still thinks of Elphaba as her friend. She does not want to her now-frenemy. She also wants to keep her surprise engagement to Winkie Prince Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey). The engagement is a surprise to Fiyero, Captain of the Guard sent to track down and capture Elphaba, now dubbed "The Wicked Witch of the West".

He is conflicted, as he has feelings for Elphaba. Are those feelings sexual desire? True love? Sympathy for her plight and cause? Someone who has none of those things is Elphaba's sister Nessarose (Marisa Bode). Now the Governess of Munchkinland, she is not a tyrant. She is, however, that way to Munchkin Boq (Ethan Slater). Nessa wants Boq in every way possible. Boq, however, still has eyes only for Glinda. Nessa has no problem using her political power to go beyond enforcing anti-Oz animals to keep them silent. She goes one step further, imposing restrictions on the Munchkins themselves. Both animals and Munchkins can no longer travel freely, without permission anyway. Nissa's amorous desires for Boq have led her, albeit accidentally, to turn him into the Tin Woodsman. Elphaba did try to control the spell, but it ended up being a disaster for Boq.

The hunt for Elphaba continues as she attempts to fight for the animals. She eventually makes contact with Glinda, who attempts to negotiate between her and the Wizard. Things start looking Wonderful, with The Wizard agreeing to Elphaba's terms for animal liberation. However, we learn that all this is a ruse, with Glinda as a dupe. Things go from bad to worse in Oz.  Elphaba's discovery of an animal dungeon within the Emerald City enrages her to where she frees them on Glinda and Fiyero's wedding ceremony. Glinda gets more bad news when Fiyero turns against them and flees with Elphaba. Devastated and enraged, Glinda suggests using Nissa to get Elphaba. Morrible whips up a cyclone that manages to sweep a house from Kansas into Oz, with poor Nissa having the house fall on her.

Now enters a mysterious young girl desperate to go home. Elphaba and Glinda battle it out. Fortunately for the former, she and Fiyero had a night of passion. Unfortunately for the Winkie prince, he is turned into a Scarecrow. Elphaba already has an enemy in a Cowardly Lion (Coleman Domingo). Now with this Kansas trollop and an enraged Boq, will Elphaba find herself melting? Will Glinda manage to overcome being The Girl in the Bubble to help her friend? Who will end up triumphant in the Battle Sorceress? 

The first Wicked was fine, with some solid production work and a couple of pleasant songs. For full disclosure, Popular and Defying Gravity are the only Wicked songs that I recognize. I think the same can be said about Wicked: For Good, though to a lesser degree. The costumes and set design are still quite strong. They are elaborate and big, befitting the wonderful world that Wicked takes place in.  

In terms of song, I simply would not know which songs are from the stage musical and which were written specifically for Oscar consideration, I mean, for the film. I found that both The Girl in the Bubble and No Place Like Home were written specifically for Wicked: For Good.  I think the former has the stronger chance to win Best Original Song. I do not remember the song at all. I do remember the other song, though not for the right reasons. No Place Like Home is clearly meant to echo dialogue from the 1939 The Wizard of Oz. That, I found tacky enough. 

That it is apparently a song of empowerment about talking animals makes it look almost loony. I was working to suppress chuckles at the sight of Elphaba singing of the importance of home to animals who did not seem all that interested in hearing her. Out of all the musical numbers, the only one that I do recall is Wonderful. I would not say that I thought Wonderful lived up to its name. I also wonder if Wonderful needed to be there just to have a more upbeat number in Wicked: For Good. 

Perhaps the biggest flaw I found in Wonderful was that I never bought the premise. Somehow, I never believed that Elphaba would come close to agreeing to join the Wizard even with his promises at reform. The entire setup felt contrived. That is unfortunate. So is how for myself, I found pretty much all the songs with the possible exception of Wonderful pretty much the same. I could not tell one song from another. I also was growing more irritated by the number of musical numbers. I realize that this is a strange criticism of a musical. However, I think the wall of sound coupled with the similar nature of the songbook made me wonder if I was listening to just one endless song. 

I have a very big problem with Wicked: For Good in terms of plot. If one knows Oz only through the 1939 Wizard of Oz, a lot of Wicked is not going to make any sense. Wicked: For Good appears to want to tie itself to the 1939 film. However, that film's narrative will not allow itself to tie into Wicked: For Good. We got a Tin Woodsman origin story in Wizard of Oz that is sharply different from that of Wicked: For Good. The Wicked Witch of the West is supposed to continually want to set the love of her life on fire? Nissa's demise seemed rather quick, with no buildup.

You also have the issue of the slippers. The Wizard of Oz has them as ruby. In the original book, they were silver. Wicked: For Good tries to have it both ways. When Dorothy leaves Munchkinland, the slippers are silver. When Elphaba goes to Nissa for a surprise visit, she levitates her disabled sister and has her slippers shift color from silver to a red/silver blend. You also have the reasons for the Wicked Witch of the West's desire for the slippers. In The Wizard of Oz, they would grant her great powers. In Wicked: For Good, Elphaba wants them basically for sentimental reasons. 

I never shook the idea that Wicked: For Good wants to both separate and tie into The Wizard of Oz. It is a bit hard when songs and dialogue crib from the 1939 film. We got the aforementioned No Place Like Home song. We also have Madame Morrible say, "These things need to be done delicately" when contemplating attacking Elphaba. This is a direct quote from The Wizard of Oz's Wicked Witch, who says that about her plans to remove the ruby slippers from Dorothy by any means necessary.

I think Wicked: For Good pretty much wants its cake and to eat it too. It cannot be both a prequel to The Wizard of Oz and independent of it. For those unfamiliar with the musical and familiar only with the Judy Garland film, Wicked: For Good will be a bit puzzling. 

The film has serviceable acting. When it comes to the singing, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are still able to metaphorically hit the high notes. Credit should be given where credit is due. Jonathan Bailey is also fine when he sings. I cannot say the same when he or anyone else is acting. The worst of the bunch is Michelle Yeoh. She was wildly miscast as Madame Morrible. Not only did she give a bad performance overall, but she also cannot sing. The few times that she was required to try and hit a few notes, Yeoh failed spectacularly as to be cringe-inducing. 

I am at a loss to understand why Ariana Grande is singled out for a likely Best Supporting Actress Oscar win. Is it a good thing that she made Glinda into something of an airhead? I felt for both Bode and Slater. Both were wildly underused as was their subplot. Coleman Domingo was held as a great casting coup as the Cowardly Lion. I do not think that he sang or added much to the overall plot.

I do not understand how director Jon M. Chu continues to be given musicals. I thought In the Heights was poorly constructed. I was not overwhelmed with Wicked. With Wicked: For Good, we got some surprisingly awful moments. The idea of Fiyero and Elphaba being so passionate for and about each other is amusing, but in the wrong way. I was pushing down laughter at their love scene. The performances of Bailey and Erivo were totally unconvincing. They looked slightly uncomfortable, as if they could not believe their characters would do anything like this.

I also go to what I consider a cheat involving Elphaba's end. This might be true to the original musical. However, it strips away from any sense of poignancy when it comes to both her and Glinda's fates. 

Bette Davis in a perhaps apocryphal story was asked to comment about Joan Crawford's death. "When someone dies, you do not say anything bad, only good. Joan Crawford is dead. GOOD!" was allegedly her bitchy reaction to the death of her bitterest foe. I felt something similar when I think of Wicked: For Good. Unlike Davis, however, I will say something good about Wicked: For Good. 

At least the costumes and art direction are nice. 

DECISION: F

The Witches of Oz: The Television Miniseries

 

THE WITCHES OF OZ 

(aka DOROTHY AND THE WITCHES OF OZ)

For my Wizard of Oz Retrospective, I did not get to every adaptation and variation out there. One that slipped through the cracks was The Witches of Oz, a television miniseries that was reedited into a feature film called Dorothy and the Witches of Oz. I cannot say whether the film version was better, but the television miniseries was a bit of a lost opportunity. Some good ideas, some good casting made it bearable. It also could have done with more structure.

Dorothy Gale (Paulie Rojas) has been writing stories about a magical land called Oz for some time. Still living on the Kansas farm that she grew up on with her Uncle Henry (Lance Henricksen), Dorothy is thrilled when a publishing offer is made. She, along with her illustrator friend Allen Denslow (Ari Zagaris) are whisked off to New York by their book agent, Billie Westwood (Eliza Swenson). Dorothy finds herself attracted to Scottish stockbroker Nick Chopper (Billy Boyd). 

Others, however, are attracted to Dorothy but not for any romantic ideas. Billie is really the Wicked Witch of the West, determined to unlock two things. The first is Dorothy's memories, for in reality what Dorothy thinks are fantasy stories are actually suppressed memories of when she was in Oz. The second is the fabled Book of Bini Aru, which was used to create Oz and which would give anyone who reads The Changing Word within it total power over Oz.

Long ago, the Wicked Witch of the West came close to obtaining the Book of Bini Aru, but the wily Wizard of Oz (Christopher Lloyd) managed to deceive her and made it disappear along with the key to open it, the latter which Dorothy unknowingly has. The Wicked Witch has been using Frick and Frack (Sean Astin and Ethan Embry), little creatures known as Muckadoos to spread memory powder on her while she sleeps to jog her memory.

Eventually, she does remember, but will she be able to defeat the Witch and save Oz? How are the thin, scarecrow-like Allen and Bryan (Barry J. Ratcliffe), a cowardly book publishing executive, connected to Dorothy? It's an all-out battle in New York City for the future of Oz, but who will win out?

There is a lot of material in writer/director Leigh Scott's screenplay (with story by him and Witches of Oz actress Eliza Swenson). One can see that some of his ideas are quite good, particularly having the Oz stories be suppressed memories. I think, to be fair, this is not too far from Return to Oz where Dorothy's stories were real but unlike here, she remembered them. 

I think thought that part of the problem in The Witches of Oz is the amount of material. We start the television miniseries with a very long introduction about the creation of The Book of Bini Aru and the rivalry between the Witch and the Wizard. There is nothing particularly wrong with that. I, however, think it would have been better to sparse that part out throughout The Witches of Oz versus giving us that long recap. That part might have served as part of other dreams that Frick and Frack opened to Dorothy.

Later on, we get another longer flashback where Uncle Henry reveals a shocking secret about Dorothy and her ties with Frank (Jeffrey Combs), who she thinks is her grandfather. There just seemed to be a lot of repetition in The Witches of Oz that I think could have been cut back or cut down.

I think some have blasted The Witches of Oz for its poor visual effects. I do think that at least in the television version, they looked like early versions and look pretty weak. The opening scene attempts to give us almost Lord of the Rings-type battles and fails hard. Later on, Dorothy and Allen are saved from a so-so dragon when a bubble lifts them and their cab driver up to safety. That scene also looks bad, but worse is how somehow that bubble managed to save Nick and Bryan too.

The visual effects and sheer length of the film push The Witches of Oz down. I think some of the violence also does more harm than good. The final battle between the Nome King (Allen Sarven) and Princess Langwidere (Mia Sara) was a bit gruesome if the target audience was kids and families. Same goes for whenever poor Allen gets unstuffed. 

As a side note, Allen says something curious the first-time straw is taken out of him. "I always knew that I was different. I just thought I might be gay". Given the suggestions that Allen may have harbored a yearning for Dorothy, this is a strange thing to say. It does not appear to be clear if Allen or Bryan knew who they were supposed to be or were just made to be certain characters because they tie into Oz itself. 

Frick and Frack are original to The Witches of Oz, and Astin and Embry did well as the comedy relief. I think they behaved as though they were in another film altogether and could have been cut. Still, it did give Billy Boyd's Nick a chance to say one of the funnier lines in the miniseries. "Memory dust. Witches. Drunk pygmies dressed as court jesters. I think I get it". 

I think some of the performances were great. It is a shame that Christopher Lloyd did not get the chance to play the Wizard of Oz both more often and in better material. He was a standout, mixing cowardice and cleverness quite well. Boyd managed the romantic lead respectfully, though at times he looked too eager to play situations for laughs versus taking them seriously. Rojas was a bit flat as Dorothy. Swenson and Sara were appropriately over-the-top as the villains, and credit to the latter for having a genuinely clever bit late in the miniseries. As she dreams of taking over both Oz and New York, the Wicked Witch of the West has more ambitions, planning to take over Camelot, Wonderland and even Narnia. That was a nice bit. 

I do not know if The Witches of Oz knew what the target audience was. Too long and a bit too violent for kids and families, poor visual effects for adults. Still, perhaps with more reediting or a remake, The Witches of Oz could be shaped into something good. As it stands, The Witches of Oz is probably best for those who want to be Oz completists.

4/10

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

THE WIZARD OF OZ RETROSPECTIVE: THE CONCLUSIONS

The Wizard of Oz has a hold on the American psyche that will never be broken. The tale of little Dorothy Gale, swept into a magical, fantastical world filled with wicked witches and talking scarecrows, is so ingrained into the American culture that it hardly seems like there was a world before L. Frank Baum began the first of fourteen Oz books. The Oz franchise is thoroughly and uniquely American, built out of the world of the Midwest that always was expanding. You can find Oz's roots in European fables, but could any of them have come up with flying monkeys? 

I think only an American, who held to an optimistic spirit, could have created the world of Oz. In a curious way, Baum reflected that westward expansion that pushed the pioneers onwards; born in New York, then moving to the Dakota Territory and later Chicago before settling in California, L. Frank Baum, probably unconsciously, held to that desire to explore what was over the rainbow.

As I looked on the various takes of Baum's works, I think that they do reflect the American past and its desire to reinvent, to take what has come before and have it fit for the times the new creations were made. It is impossible to not think on the 1939 musical version when we think of the world of Oz. 1939, to my mind, is the greatest year in film, where so many perfect films were released. The Wizard of Oz is one such film from that miracle year.

The music is perfection, as I've said it is one of the most literate songbooks committed to film. It helps that Judy Garland's rendition of Over the Rainbow is filled with such longing, such yearning, such richness and beauty that it truly is one of if not the greatest song written for film. The impact and power of The Wizard of Oz is so great that even those who may not have seen it will probably understand such expressions as "Ding-dong, the Witch is Dead" and "I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too". 

Will Wicked, the modernist reimagining of Oz with the Wicked Witch of the West being center stage have that kind of impact? It has on certain audiences who I think feel a kindred spirit with Elphaba, our not-so-wicked-witch. I do not think, though, that its songbook will play outside a niche audience. Apart from Popular and Defying Gravity, I think most people would not know or recognize these songs, let alone from their source material. 

The same goes for The Wiz, which took Baum's story and transplanted it to Harlem. The all-black version is probably better on the stage than the film version. However, it too managed to have a couple of songs that have entered the popular consciousness. A Brand New Day (Everybody Rejoice) and Ease on Down the Road are in the spirit of Baum and his work. In them, I find them to carry that sense of optimism and joy at finding the power of friendship and the joy of home and family. 

Two other musical adaptations: The Muppets' Wizard of Oz and VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's also build on those themes of strength in unity and the need for home. 

Conversely, other adaptations make an almost fierce or apologetic effort to not have any songs. Both Oz the Great and Powerful and Return to Oz kept far from making music part of the experience. More than likely to try and establish their own identity as well as copyright issues, their ways of avoiding songs was interesting. The former took a mostly amused manner to things, suggesting such things were silly. The latter was in my view rather dark, making things almost depressing. 

If we lose sight of something from time to time, it is the brilliance of L. Frank Baum, the originator of this fantastical world. He was The Dreamer of Oz, but I think at times Baum's creativity and imagination get lost or forgotten in an effort to build up a myth around him. Did he have ideas that were wrong then are still wrong now? Yes, but before we condemn a man for being the product of his times, we should also look to how Baum was also a man of virtues as well as faults. He supported women's suffrage at a time when such ideas were not in the mainstream. Dorothy herself can be seen as a positive role model. She had the courage to face her fears and was the leader of the other figures. Granted, they had to rescue her, but I doubt anyone would have been able to escape a horde of flying monkeys.

As I finish up the Wizard of Oz Retrospective, I give my own quick views as to why The Wizard of Oz and its various adaptations, reimaginings and spoofs continue to have a hold over us. I think the story appeals to our collective childhood yearnings to find something beyond our own backyards, to find strength and safety among friends, and to overcome great evil with courage we did not know we had. The story, with its fantastical characters and theme of searching for a way back, hits us all. 

The Wizard of Oz, in all its forms be they books, movies, musicals, what have you, will live on for as long as children have imaginations.  

Wicked: Part I. A Review (Review #1900)

WICKED: PART I 

Few modern-day musicals have held fans in almost unhinged fandom as Wicked, the retelling of the L. Frank Baum series with the Wicked Witch of the West as our protagonist. I cannot explain why Wicked is adored by so many people, but it is. After a long gestation period, we have Wicked: Part I, the first of a two-part adaptation of the mega-hit Broadway show. I think Wicked fans (Wickies?) will love delving into this world. Those of us not familiar or enamored of what came before Dorothy fell from Kansas will find things to like but may still be unsure why there is such fervor.

Let the joyous news be spread: the Wicked Witch of the West is dead. The Munchkins are thrilled and celebrate that No One Mourns the Wicked. Into the celebration floats Glinda, the Good Witch of the North (Ariana Grande, billed as Ariana Grande-Butera). She expresses joy that the Munchkins are free, but when one asks her if it is true that Glinda and the Wicked Witch were once friends, Glinda then begins recounting the origin story.

The Wicked Witch of the West was Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo), the product of an adulterous liaison between the Munchkins' Governor's wife and a mystery man. Whoever her birth father was, it caused her to have green skin, horrifying all. Elphaba manages great powers when angered but is protective of her younger sister Nessarose (Marissa Bode). Nessa, the apple of her father's eye in part because she is not green, is now off to Shiz University. Ostensibly there just to see that Nessa settles in, the ridicule that Elphaba receives by the hoity-toity Shiz students unleashes a great display of power.

This intrigues Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), a powerful sorceress who runs Shiz. It also intrigues Galinda Upland (Grande), the Elle Woods of Shiz and unofficial Queen Bee. Morrible insists that Elphaba stay on and receive personal training. Galinda, desperate to get on Morrible's good side, very reluctantly agrees to share her formerly private suite with Elphaba. Things grow more complicated with the arrival of Prince Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey), the luscious Winkie prince that sends everyone's hearts and loins aflutter. I mean everyone: male, female, maybe even the animal professors. Elphaba herself is mixed on Fiyero, but Galinda is determined to use her feminine wiles to land the dream man. 

Eventually, Galinda and Elphaba form a bond, with the former determined to help the latter become Popular. Elphaba is distressed about the Ozian animals losing their rights and literal voice but then is thrilled when she receives a request for an audience with the Wizard of Oz himself. It's off to the Emerald City for Elphaba, who brings her BFF, now self-christened Glinda, along. Thrilled at the sights of the Emerald City, Elphaba hopes that the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) will save the Ozian animals. However, to her horror, the Wizard and Morrible are the ones stripping the animals of their rights and voices. They want Elphaba to use her extraordinary powers to help them in their planned destruction of the animals. She, however, will not join in this plan. Instead, she will defy them and be Defying Gravity to fight the Wizard and Morrible. She has an accidental army of flying monkeys to use and asks Glinda to join her. Glinda, albeit reluctantly, opts not to join her bestie, and with that, Elphaba flies out of the Emerald City on her broom.  

I perhaps should not have been surprised to see people wearing Wicked t-shirts and other paraphernalia at the Wicked screening that I went to. I was, however, surprised to find many children attending. I figure that the adults who took them were taken in by how Wicked is somewhat of a Wizard of Oz prequel. I do not know what they thought of slutty Munchkin First Ladies, talking animals being hauled out of classrooms and a pretty young thing arousing everyone's desires in a big musical number. 

As someone generally unfamiliar with either the Broadway musical or the Gregory Maguire novel on which the musical was based on, I can only speculate on how close or far the film veered from the source material. My sense is that Wicked may be perhaps too slavishly loyal to the original show, for it seems that almost nothing was cut. Whether that is a good thing or not I leave to individual audience members. I can say that Wicked feels long and a little bloated. 

This is especially true for me when Elphaba and Glinda (who changed her name in honor of her goat professor's accidental mispronouncing) arrive at the Emerald City. Once they meet the Wizard and are offered the chance to participate in the machinations, things feel very rushed. It is strange given that it took an hour for Prince Fiyero to pop up. I could not shake the idea that Wicked was stretched out. I don't think it was, as I understand that Part I covers the first act of the two-act musical. Curiously, the entire Broadway musical runs two hours and forty-five minutes including a 15-minute intermission. Wicked Part I runs approximately that long. I am thoroughly puzzled why Wicked is that long. 

I suppose Part I will set up Part II, meaning that Nessa's romance with Boq (Ethan Slater), a Munchkin student at Shiz, will be more explored. However, as they were not a major point in Wicked Part I, I did forget about them for long stretches. I do not know if screenwriters Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox or director John M. Chu considered cutting some numbers or trimming story elements (for example, cutting down the arrivals at Shiz University). It might have helped.

It isn't as though Wicked does not have some major positives. The film does an excellent job in capturing this Ozian universe. The production design and costuming are top notch, creating this fantastical world in believable ways. 

The performances were on the whole quite strong. Erivo, who showed she could handle dramatic work in her Oscar-nominated turn in Harriet, showcases her powerful vocal range as Elphaba. Her renditions of the Wicked songbook, culminating in a bravura rendition of Defying Gravity, dominate the screen. When she is not singing, Erivo makes Elphaba someone with a permanent chip on her shoulder. I figure that is how the character is, so I cannot complain too much. I do think that it is late when we get any sense that she might have shifted to a more positive figure had circumstances come that way. It is a good performance overall.

As a side note, I confess after a while on giving up trying to get Elphaba's name right and started calling her "Alfalfa". I also thought Wicked made her look like the Ozian version of Carrie to where I was expecting her to go on a murderous rampage at the Oz Dust Ballroom.

I do express some perplexion on why Ariana Grande is being tapped to win Best Supporting Actress. Again, I figure that her Galinda was played as the character was meant to be. She was appropriately fluttery, vapid, vain and cartoonishly exaggerated. She came across as a slightly more self-centered version of Elle Woods, complete with the obsession for pink. She handled the singing well, though I figure that original Galinda Kristin Chenoweth or a younger Sarah Brightman would have done better. Again, it was fine, but nothing that overwhelmed me.

I am more perplexed by why Michelle Yeoh was cast. She is a legend, but she did not sing The Wizard and I so much as she talked the lyrics to a melody. Goldblum was on screen too briefly in my view, but he did well as the sham Wizard. Bailey's Fiyero did fine as the uber-hunky Winkie prince who may be causing a divide between Elphaba and Glinda. The scope of Wicked gave Slater and Bode very little to do.

I figure Wicked fans will enjoy the cameos by Chenoweth and the original Elphaba, Idina Menzel, during the One Short Day number. You even get to see them interact with their counterparts. I think, however, that One Short Day captures a bit of why I am not as enthusiastic about Wicked as others are. Everything felt overproduced. The dance number felt too big, too choreographed, slightly forced in its attempt at grandness. There is a lot of underscoring in the film that I found distracting.

As someone not attached to Wicked as this life-altering experience, I cannot say that I was moved to tears or overwhelmed by some almost mystical spirit while watching the film. It was fine. It was respectable. It was long. I found Wicked Part I to be neither tragically beautiful nor beautifully tragic. 

DECISION: C+

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

Lynch/Oz: A Review

 LYNCH/OZ

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" is one of the many memorable lines in 1939's The Wizard of Oz. It has now become a saying for whenever one suspects that there is chicanery going on, that there is something rather plain behind a grand image. Could that expression, however, apply to one of the most avant-garde filmmakers around? Lynch/Oz explores the connection between the quintessential children's fantasy and the filmography of one David Lynch. Could The Wizard of Oz be the inspiration for Mulholland Drive? Lynch/Oz makes that case, along with how The Wizard of Oz finds itself occurring and recurring amidst tales of murder, lost souls and psychopathic supernatural monsters.

Director Alexandre O. Philippe divides Lynch/Oz into six chapters with seven filmmakers in voiceover sharing their views on Lynch the man and the artist, The Wizard of Oz, the connections they see between the two and how both Lynch and Oz have influenced their own works. In order of presentation, the chapters and interviewees are Wind (Amy Nicholson), Membranes (Rodney Ascher), Kindred (John Waters), Multitudes (Karyn Kusama), Judy (Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead) and Dig (David Lowery). After a brief and appropriately creepy presentation by "the lounge wizard" (Sid Pink), Lynch/Oz allows each of the filmmakers their say.

Wind speculates that in Lynch's films, we see a continuous theme of people going, willingly or not, into eccentric worlds. As with The Wizard of Oz, another film that has our lead character wanting to escape their world only to yearn to return may have touched on Lynch's cinematic world. That other film also became a beloved annual television event: It's a Wonderful Life. Membranes offers that Back to the Future too was like The Wizard of Oz; it too is another tale of a young person finding a world that had doppelgangers to his real world. While Back to the Future is not a David Lynch film, Mulholland Drive is, and there we have a twisted world of doppelgangers, a world where the central character travels to a different world, navigating dreams versus reality.

Kindred suggests that like the films of its interviewee John Waters, David Lynch finds the 1950's far from the halcyon world that that decade's films or memories made it out to be. The 1950's hid darkness beneath its outwardly pleasant visions. That evil lurking behind picket fences emerges in the portrayal of seemingly benevolent figures like Leland Palmer from Twin Peaks. That can be a mirror reflection of the Wizard himself, outwardly dangerous but in reality, a front. Multitudes offers that Mulholland Drive is almost a companion piece and even an inverse of Oz, the repeated themes of lip-syncing in front of curtains being a semi-conscious callout to the Wizard himself. We also hear from Kusama who quotes Lynch when he is asked about The Wizard of Oz after a Mulholland Drive screening. "There is not a day that goes by that I don't think about The Wizard of Oz," Kusama quotes Lynch as saying.  

Judy has our only dual interviewees make the case that David Lynch is in their words, a "populist surrealist", one who shows the American myth versus the American dream. This reveals itself in how in many Lynch films, the women are brutalized and beaten up emotionally and sometimes physically. They see a parallel to how the film industry devoured Judy Garland. There is also a strong use of "Judy" in Twin Peaks: The Return, that keeps emerging. Dig is mostly on David Lowery's own interest in Oz, but he makes the case that despite the surreal, almost despairing Lynchian worlds of Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive, he still finds hope within the dark worlds he paints, of people who can return to the safety of their own Kansas.

Lynch/Oz can be best described as a filmed essay, where the various interviewees offer less a concrete case for their ideas and more a rumination on how one film has had such a powerful hold over a renowned filmmaker. Some of the observations are not unique. Lowery suggests that Lynch has similar imagery running through his films, then Philippe presents a montage of other filmmakers who use the same imagery or hit on the same themes. 

Sometimes too, we hear different filmmakers speculate on a similar point. Both Waters and Benson & Moorhead think Lynch has a secret disdain for the 1950's conformity and outwardly peaceful veneer. How Benson & Moorhead tie the MAGA movement, such as it is, to something like Wild at Heart or other Lynch films, to my mind, is more of them trying to fit something that Lynch may not even care about.

As a side note, it is amusing to hear Waters' rather bitchy take on Glinda the Good Witch of the North. He remarks that she "dressed like she had gone insane getting ready for the prom". 

Lynch/Oz makes much use of split screens to show us how The Wizard of Oz is referenced subtlety or overtly in films like Mulholland Drive or Eraserhead. To be fair, I have yet to see Wild at Heart, but judging from the clips Lynch/Oz shows, Wild at Heart looks like the most overt callout to the Victor Fleming film. The use of curtains, the red shoes, people falling into strange worlds and suffering great troubles to escape back into their original reality. These are fascinating ideas that Lynch/Oz presents us.

The film does cover a lot of ground, making its case on how The Wizard of Oz, this one particular film, resonated so much with young David Lynch that he finds himself by design or by accident repeatedly referencing it or what he drew from it. Even something as notorious as his adaptation of Dune can be vaguely Wizard of Oz like, everything from the sepia-like tones of Arrakis to the hero traversing a strange world to defeat a great evil.

Perhaps that is stretching, which is always a risk when speculating on a topic like whether David Lynch specifically revisits The Wizard of Oz in his films and television projects. It should be noted that outside a few archival interviews, David Lynch himself does not make his case for The Wizard of Oz being the film he draws so much from. Given his mercurial nature and refusal to give definitive interpretations on his films, we may never fully know if Lynch/Oz captures his mindset or is mere speculation. Still, it is hard to not think that Lynch/Oz is on the right track when we see David Lynch himself play Over the Rainbow on the trumpet (not very well in my opinion). 

One may even think that Lynch/Oz is less about what David Lynch himself drew from The Wizard of Oz than on how others see a connection between the two. Many may even think that all this may be a case of reading more into things than intended. I do not know if Wizard of Oz director Victor Fleming or producer Mervyn LeRoy intended or imagined that The Wizard of Oz had some kind of great symbolism behind it. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. That quote, attributed to Sigmund Freud, may not have been uttered by the Austrian psychiatrist, but it might apply to how so many may be putting The Wizard of Oz into this bizarre cinematic universe. Maybe even David Lynch himself may have read more into The Wizard of Oz than The Wizard of Oz intended. 

Lynch/Oz is a fascinating exploration connecting the Lynchian worldview with that of little Dorothy Gale from Kansas. Even I can see connections that were curious not remarked on by any of the interviewees. In Mulholland Drive, the restaurant is named Winkies, just like the Wicked Witch of the West's imperial guard. There is also a great deal of green in the restaurant, almost emerald color. You can find a connection between the filmography of David Lynch and The Wizard of Oz. You could miss it. It won't take away from either. Lynch/Oz makes its case well, but it is up to you if you accept it or want to throw water at its ideas.  

DECISION: B+

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's: The Television Special

THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF HA'S

I have come across a few curious takes on L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. I very much doubt, however, that the man who spun this yarn of farmgirls swept into magical lands by tornadoes ever imagined that his story would be adapted by Christian vegetables. The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's is an adaptation of the New Testament story of the Prodigal Son geared towards toddlers. With pleasant songs and cutesy animation, The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's works for its target audience.

For those not versed in VeggieTales lore, this is a franchise centered around Larry the Cucumber and Bob the Tomato. Bob tends to be the more sensible of the two, with Larry being the more oddball one. It is a bit like Abbott & Costello, with Bob being a much nicer and more patient Bud and Larry being a less dimwitted Lou. In this story, Bob comments that "Felix Rosenwinkel of Grinnell, Iowa" has written to them about how he is concerned that his father won't love him anymore because he stole something. With that, Bob and Larry recount a variation of the Prodigal Son parable, which is found in the Gospel of Luke, Chapter 15 verses 11 to 32.

Young Darby (Junior Asparagus) wants to go to an amusement park, the Land of Ha's, overseen by a wizard. Darby's father Farmer O'Gill, a farmer raising dental floss, tells him that they cannot afford such a trip now.

Before I go any further, it should be understood that VeggieTales operates on its own eccentric logic, so a dental floss farm where the crops are original or mint flavored dental floss should be seen as perfectly logical in this world.

Darby knows he has money in his piggy bank, but Father insists that the money is for Darby's future. Finding it too much to endure, and with a desire to go Somewhere Beyond the Barn, Darby takes the piggy bank and goes off to Ha's with his pet pig, Tutu. Wouldn't you know it: a tornado sweeps them to a land populated by peas known as Munchies. The fairy queen Splenda (Madame Blueberry) tells Darby that he has crushed the Munchie Muncher of the East. Now, Darby sets off to the Land of Ha's, led not by the Yellow Brick Road but by Yellow McToad, who is an old Scottish yellow toad.

On his way, he encounters a scarecrow, a tin woodsman and a lion, who all go with him. The Wizard of Ha's welcomes them, especially when Darby has enough to pay for a day's outing. There are more wonders in the magical land of Ha's, but Darby is out of money. No prospects, no real friends, no help from the Wizard who is just a guy running an amusement park. How will Darby get back home? Moreover, will his Father welcome him back if he is able to escape the land of Ha's?

As The Wizard of Oz is so engrained into American culture, I wonder if The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's target audience will get the references, such as Darby's three traveling companions and the parody versions of Follow the Yellow Brick Road or The Merry Old Land of Oz. I think that younger children do not have to have seen The Wizard of Oz to get the story. I do not know if they will follow the refrain of "Ohioans and fifers and mares! Oh my!" though. 

What children might not understand is His Name is Darby, the song that the Munchies sing in tribute to Darby's work in getting rid of the Munchie Muncher. The lyrics, which to be fair are meant to be nonsensical, make reference to Dana Carvey and Robert DeNiro. Leaving aside that the pictures of Carvey and DeNiro look nothing like them, at least to me, these references would clearly go over the heads of children. They might even go over the heads of some adults unfamiliar with Carvey, who is not as prevalent as he was when he was on Saturday Night Live. 

There is another song that does not fit anywhere in the narrative. Again, my understanding is that every VeggieTales episode is supposed to have a "Silly Song with Larry" which is superfluous to whatever plot there is. This episode's Silly Song, Monkey, is again meant to be as the intermission says, a silly song with Larry (the cucumber for anyone who forgot). To the constant refrain of "If it doesn't have a tail, it's not a monkey it's an ape", Larry confers the title of "monkey" or "ape" to every imaginable object or being. Therefore, a kite and a comet are monkeys because they have tails. When Larry and Bob finally spot a creature, Larry proudly calls it a monkey because it has a tail.

Never mind that it is actually a cow. Monkey has an amusing wit and melody to it, not just the song but the presentation. We can "hear" the set being wheeled out and the text "Not a Monkey" flash when we see the cow. Yes, it is silly. Yes, it has no reason for being there. Yes, very young kids will be amused. 

Most of the songs are quite catchy and amusing. Somewhere Beyond the Barn, an obvious nod to Over the Rainbow, is surprisingly moving. The closing song, You Can Always Come Home, is equally moving even if it is underplayed in the closing montage. Other songs, such as Follow Old Yellow McToad, are less silly and more eye-rolling. This is especially true as Yellow McToad plays no real role apart from a sight gag.

The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's does a very good job of putting both the Parable of the Prodigal Son and The Wizard of Oz into a more toddler-friendly mode. For example, Darby does not kill anyone, let alone witches. He merely crushes a Munchie Muncher. We do not see the wastrel life of the Prodigal Son in wild living. It is put in context that kids will understand without having to go into detail about the young man's wasted life. 

Sadly, it does what many retellings of the Prodigal Son do: leave out the dutiful older brother. I cannot fault it too much for that in that The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's is meant to be a primer, not a sermon.

It is also a bit unclear if the Wizard was meant to be villainous or not. From what I saw, he was not a bad man but a businessman trying to drum up business for his amusement park. However, he does cause Darby to become trapped in a dungeon. 

The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's succeeds in what VeggieTales bills itself as "Sunday morning values, Saturday morning fun!". It presents its moral on the Prodigal Son in a cute, amusing way. It even closes with 1 John: 3:1 to reinforce the lesson of God's unbounded love for His children. It is a pleasant parody of The Wizard of Oz, not meanspirited but sweet, if a bit eccentric. 

7/10

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz: The Television Movie

THE MUPPETS' WIZARD OF OZ

The Wizard of Oz and the Muppets are American institutions, beloved by generations. Why not then bring the two of them together? The Muppets' Wizard of Oz has a few positives in terms of staying close to the original L. Frank Baum story and with a good cast. However, the television movie never decided to be more kid-or-adult friendly, leaving a very disjointed end result. 

Young Dorothy Gale (Ashanti) dreams of leaving her Kansas home to become a singing superstar. Her big chance comes when The Muppets come to town to hold auditions. Dorothy's Aunt Em (Queen Latifah) opposes Dorothy auditioning, telling her that true happiness does not come from fame but from loving herself. Dorothy's Uncle Henry (David Alan Grier) is more supportive, quietly encouraging her to go. She misses the audition but does quickly meet the Muppets before they leave, handing her audition tape to Kermit and a very jealous Miss Piggy.

An argument between Em and Dorothy is interrupted by a sudden tornado, but Dorothy goes back to save Toto, her pet king prawn. With that, she and Toto, who is now Pepe the King Prawn, find themselves in the world of Oz. They also find themselves having killed the Wicked Witch of the East (Miss Piggy), after the house fell on her a second time when she could not lift it off her. Warned by the Wicked Witch's sister Tattypoo the Good Witch of the North (Miss Piggy) to avoid offending their sister the Wicked Witch of the West, they go off to find the Wizard of Oz.

On their way to the Emerald City, they meet up with the Scarecrow (Kermit the Frog), the Tin Thing (Gonzo the Great) and the Cowardly Lion (Fozzie the Bear), each joining her to get brains, a heart and courage, with Dorothy's great dream to become a pop star. They get briefly distracted at the Poppyfields Club before making it to the Emerald City. Here, the Wizard, coming in various forms, tells them that he will grant their wish if they can get the Wicked Witch of the West's magic eye. 

The Wicked Witch will not go down without a fight and a song. Will Dorothy and her friends outwit and outlast the Wicked Witch? Will Dorothy become an international sensation or find that there really is no place like home?

I found The Muppets' Wizard of Oz to have something of an identity crisis. It wants to appeal to children, no surprise given that L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a children's story. However, The Muppets' Wizard of Oz also wants to be daringly adult bordering on obscene. Early on, one of the Muppets comments on the difficulty of finding wholesome American girls to be part of their show. Rizzo the Rat replies that he can't believe that given how Girls Gone Wild can find them easily. Hearing a Girls Gone Wild shoutout in a Muppet movie is not daring. It is flat-out shocking.

Children are hopefully not going to get the reference. That is clearly something adults would understand. However, including something like Girls Gone Wild in what is targeted at families is to my mind, highly irresponsible. There are other moments in The Muppets Wizard of Oz that I think are not appropriate for children or that at least would not make sense to them. When we see the various forms the Wizard takes place, one of them involves a very sexy but creepy-looking CGI woman attempting to seduce Gonzo's Tin Thing. This version ends up shifting into Gonzo's chicken love Camilla, and the whole thing is quite strange to disturbing. Quentin Tarantino appears out of nowhere, attempting to pitch more violence in the special. Apart from being pointless, it is highly unlikely that kids would know who this crazed, intense figure is.

When Dorothy and her friends arrive at the Emerald City, the Guard (Sam the Eagle) asks her who she is. She states that she is Dorothy. Looking at the others, he asks who they are. "We're friends of Dorothy," Fozzie states, with silence following. I all but did a spit take when Fozzie basically comes out as gay. 

There are four writers for The Muppets Wizard of Oz: Adam Goldberg, Tom Martin, Steve L. Hayes and Debra Frank with the last two having a story credit. They could all make the argument that yes, technically Fozzie was correct in calling himself and the others "friends of Dorothy". It is also a fair argument that kids would hear that on a surface level and not think anything else. 

However, it is, I think, absolutely absurd to think that the writers did not know or intend to say anything more than that despite the phrase "friend of Dorothy" being longstanding code for saying that one was gay. Granted, the phrase "friend of Dorothy" has fallen out of use. However, to say that they were thoroughly unaware of the euphemism or did not intend to slide a gay joke in a Muppet movie is to my mind disingenuous. They knew what they were doing when they selected "friend of Dorothy" as the term used. 

To be fair, there were some clever bits in the script. I think either Fozzie Bear or Kermit asks the Wizard, "Are you by any chance a relation to Frank Oz?", Oz being a longtime puppeteer. There was also a bit where Pepe was commenting how everything they were going through was connected to 80's bands. Kansas? 80's band. Toto? 80's band. They were all on a Journey, which is an 80's band. 

However, these bits were few and far between. Most of the bits fall flat, such as when Dorothy enters a makeover machine and ends up coming out like Kelly Osbourne. "You've been reborn," one of the friends of Dorothy says. "No, you've been Osbourne," is another's reply. Pointless and unfunny, one just shakes their head.   

Out of the human performers, Latifah and Greer came out best, mostly because they came across as people. Ashanti exceled in the singing, but the acting was on the weaker side, consisting of mostly puzzled or irritated reactions. Jeffrey Tambor was the worst of the lot, looking bored as the Wizard. I was surprised that one of the Wicked Witch's lackeys was not voiced by Chazz Palminteri as he sounded exactly like Chazz Palminteri. 

The songs are surprisingly forgettable save for the first two. Kansas speaks about Dorothy's desires to find a better place from which to launch her life and hoped-for musical career. When I'm With You is a nice, charming number about how nice it is to be around supportive friends, of Dorothy or otherwise. As for the other three, well, The Witch is in the House is, curious. 

I think it would have been best to have fully embraced The Muppets' Wizard of Oz as a thoroughly family-friendly to children-oriented production. Too many contemporary bits will fly over kids heads and not be particularly appealing to adults. It simply could have been better.

2/10

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Dreamer of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions

The Dreamer of Oz: The Television Movie

THE DREAMER OF OZ

There are few people, especially Americans, who are unfamiliar with the story of The Wizard of Oz. Most know it through the 1939 MGM musical film. There are those who have read the original Oz books along with their follow-ups. Few however, I think, know much if anything about the man who created this American myth. The Dreamer of Oz is the story of Lyman Frank Baum, the man behind the story of young Dorothy Gale from Kansas. Earnestly acted, The Dreamer of Oz does its best to follow a tried-and-true biopic trope of having the subject's best-known creation be made up of bits of the author's life rather than his imagination.

Using the framing device of an impromptu interview at The Wizard of Oz's premiere, The Dreamer of Oz has cub reporter Albert (John Cameron Mitchell) be the only one to recognize Maud Baum (Annette O'Toole), who is the widow of Oz's creator. Maud was the daughter of ardent feminist Matilda Gage (Rue McClanahan), which frightens struggling actor Lyman Frank Baum (John Ritter). However, at his sister's insistence, he makes the acquaintance of Maud and it is love at first sight. Despite Matilda's firm opposition to her college-bound daughter marrying a traveling performer, Maud and Frank marry and she begins touring with him.

Eventually, the need to settle down with their growing family brings the Baums to try a life in the Dakota Territory, where Frank is convinced his Baum's Bazaar will be a big hit in selling finery to the settlers. It isn't, and his other ventures in Chicago also meet with limited success. The one thing Frank has a strong affinity for is telling his children and their friends about a magical land with good and bad witches, scarecrows without brains and cowardly lions. He finally comes up a winner when he adapts Mother Goose rhymes into prose, then more success with a Father Goose book of original verse. However, he puts those royalties on the line for his dream project: the book on the Magical Land of Oz. 

Maude finally snaps, terrified that this will put them in financial ruin after their decades of struggle. Frank gets a surprising ally in Maude, who finally sees the positive of fantasy in people's lives. Together, they now work to find a proper title for the book and bring an original American mythology to the world.

As I watched The Dreamer of Oz, the word that came again and again is "earnest". No one can accuse anyone involved in The Dreamer of Oz of insincerity when it came to the subject. Richard Matheson's screenplay (with story by Matheson and David Kirschner) along with director Jack Bender clearly had affection for L. Frank Baum, who is shown as a man who is almost always optimistic, convinced that the next venture will be a success.

The Dreamer of Oz also shows what is sadly rather rare in many biopics: a remarkably happy marriage. By all accounts, Frank and Maud Baum were indeed happily married and devoted to the other. That is not to say that The Dreamer of Oz does not have them having down moments or struggles. However, I can recall only one or two instances where Frank and Maud were anything other than supportive or stable. In one scene, a despondent Frank comes close to destroying his then-titled Emerald City of Oz manuscript after it meets with constant rejection. In another, Maud finally berates Frank for putting the book royalties they are living off on the line to self-publish The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

However, these scenes feel placed in the biopic to remind us that Frank and Maud were not perfect people who were forever looking doe-eyed at each other. 

The earnestness in The Dreamer of Oz extends to almost all the performances. John Ritter, gone too soon, will probably always be best known as the lovable rogue Jack Tripper on television's Three's Company. The level and depth of his talent was never fully tapped, so it is nice to showcase Ritter in something that does not call for pratfalls. His L. Frank Baum, as I stated, is always an optimist, a man who loves the life he has no matter how unstable or peripatetic it is. You do like Baum for his boundless optimism, his inventiveness, his sincere, almost childlike belief that things will turn out well. 

The same goes for Annette O'Toole, who rarely makes Maud's devotion and support for Frank look insipid or idiotic. Instead, her Maud is a woman who has faith in the man she loves and knows that in his way, he is perfect as he is. To be fair, sometimes that loving look manner to Maud becomes slightly silly, as when through a set of strange circumstances Frank ends up in a duel on the streets of Aberdeen, North Dakota. While her role is smaller, Rue McClanahan is in turns imperious and surprisingly supportive as Matilda Gage, the fearsome mother-in-law who ends up becoming Frank's champion. 

Other times, the love displayed between Frank and Maud does look comical. When Matilda comes to stay with her daughter and son-in-law, Frank becomes visibly irritated at how Matilda puts him down while he adds a new section to his story. As Matilda is typing away, Frank talks about how only wicked witches are ugly while good witches are beautiful. One guess as to how Matilda and Maud are visualized as he talks about wicked and good witches.

Here is, I think, where The Dreamer of Oz fails. I cannot vouch for the veracity of every aspect in the biopic. However, The Dreamer of Oz has the unfortunate trope of metaphorically bringing the various elements of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz come to Baum through real-life interactions. The genesis of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, if The Dreamer of Oz is to be believed, is when he has to tell an impromptu story to distract his son from falling off the ledge while said son is holding Frank's razors. 

His mother-in-law? She is like a Wicked Witch. When he is building his Baum's Bazaar, who should come work for him but Ned Brown (Ed Gale), who happens to be a midget, almost Munchkin-like. He has a young niece named Dorothy, who tragically dies at a young age. The duel he has to fight with local bully Al Badham (Charles Haid)? Badham, this big, burly man, ends up running away in fright, almost like a Cowardly Lion. On one of his traveling salesman trips, he overhears an old wheeler-dealer named Sullivan (Frank Hamilton), who is a flim-flam artist but is also a wizard at selling himself. 

At one point, I genuinely wondered why Chicago did not look like an Emerald City when the Baums were headed that way. Perhaps that was a touch too much even for those involved the biopic.

The Dreamer of Oz goes almost out of its way to connect well-known elements from The Wonderful Wizard of Oz to Baum's life. I get what the biopic is going for: see how Baum found bits of his story along the way of his life. It is easy shorthand for the audience to connect Baum and his life to Baum and his work. I am sure that I have seen this kind of shorthand in other biopics of artists. However, those tend to be comedic like in Shakespeare in Love. Another recent biopic, Tolkien, did the same thing. For me, the results are always the same: slight frustration. 

The frustration comes from how I do not need to have the author's work spoon-fed to me via the author's life story. I know the stories well enough to not need these "Baum thought up Munchkins when he saw a midget" bits. Moreover, these elements, for me, take away from what I think makes an author successful: his or her imagination. I get why The Dreamer of Oz put in those parts and the visualizations of Oz. I, however, think that those parts actually downplay Baum's creativity and talent for storytelling. I do not know L. Frank Baum ever hired a midget to work at his emporium, but I do not think he needed one to come up with the Munchkins. 

A final element that works against The Dreamer of Oz is some simply ghastly makeup work when we get the older Frank and Maud. It looks downright freakish. Moreover, the ending seems a bit rushed where his death scene is rather quick. 

I keep going back to "earnest" to describe The Dreamer of Oz. It is that, a sincere, heartfelt love letter to a man who gave the world a uniquely American fairytale, one that still is beloved long after the author's death. Respectable, entertaining if perhaps a bit heavy-handed, The Dreamer of Oz gives us some insight into one of childhood's greatest friends.

1856-1919

5/10

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: An Introduction

The Wizard of Oz (1925)

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

The Wiz

Return to Oz

The Muppets' Wizard of Oz

VeggieTales: The Wonderful Wizard of Ha's

Oz the Great and Powerful

Lynch/Oz

Wicked Part I

The Wizard of Oz Retrospective: The Conclusions