Dorothy's affinity with the scarecrow character can be explained by the idea that the scarecrow character represents the farming people and this more closely matches her background than the tin man whose character supposedly represents city dwellers in industrial employment.
They neither of them represent anything like that. The Scarecrow came from a recurring nightmare that L. Frank Baum had as a child; it would chase him and almost catch him, then he'd wake up. In the Oz books, he tamed that scarecrow and made him lovable. The Tin Woodman came from Baum's fascination with tin toys, like the ones he sold at Baum's Bazaar in the Dakota Territory. :-)
It was perfect casting for the time. Garland represented a generation of young people too young to haved enjoyed the roaring 20s but who had lived through the depression and still had some optimism for a better future (even if that future included ww2). This is why her future troubles are seen as so tragic. She is the ideal girl of the american ww2 generation who had to keep smiling despite the collective hell they had been through.
Good points -- although making a blanket statement such as "this is why her future troubles are seen as so tragic" totally disregards the other hell she was going through and continued to go through -- her managers/producers/studio heads feeding her dangerous cocktails of drugs daily, being sexually preyed upon, being bullied about her weight to the point of developing an eating disorder: these things are just as tragic as her loss of optimism (and probably greatly contributed).
@@timsopinion You're overstating things, and conflating her later life with her life at the time. There were no "dangerous cocktails of drugs," let alone "daily," and certainly not when she was making _Wizard._ Likewise no sexual maltreatment or bullying.
Judy Garland's horrifying treatment by the studio execs who mocked her appearance, belittled her at every turn, and got her hooked on multiple drugs, then makes Somewhere Over the Rainbow just absolutely heartbreaking to listen to.
I stated before on one of your 'Wizard of Oz' videos that a family friend is the nephew of Ray Bolger, and you are not wrong about the characters acting childlike, as that was exactly how they were told to portray their characters. It was mainly about bridging the age gap. Being that the film was made during an era of hard times for many Americans(As well as what was going on in Europe), spirits were low across the World. The Magic this film has gave happiness and HOPE to countless amounts of people. If Dorothy was played by a child, it loses a core demographic, especially at the time of its release. Just imagine the songs without Garland. Her voice full of beauty but also sadness... Its like seeing an Opera.
judy was perfect in the role, they basically captured lightning in a bottle with the casting/performances and it's become one of the most beloved classics of all time.. that said, i'm not sure they put as much thought into the casting of garland as you did.. from most accounts i've seen, the primary factor for judy's casting was her singing (they briefly considered borrowing shirley temple from fox as she was the bigger marquee "star" at the time, but quickly decided she wasn't up to the part vocally).. there are some stills of early filming with judy looking decidedly more 1930s "glam", but that was quickly scrapped by cukor after briefly taking over from thorpe, and before handing it off to fleming, so it's clear there was a deliberate decision to age judy down as much as possible. true, she's not as young as dorothy in the books, but you can't have everything.. like you said, we have shirley in 'blue bird' (fox's attempt at their own technicolor answer to 'oz' after shirley was passed over) and fairuza in 'return', though each have developed something of "cult" following over time, both were considered flops upon release and will never be as beloved/remembered from generation to generation the way 'oz' is..
fr3@kb!+¢h Mostly everything you’ve said is wonderful and I am grateful for the intel, but to say, “...i’m not sure they put as much thought into the casting of garland as you did.”, seems unlikely still and also comes off as condescending. Other than that I liked your comment as an addition to the video itself.
I really enjoyed listening to you on this analysis of this 1939 film. I remember watching this as a kid and thinking that everyone who played a part in the making of this film has long since passed away. It's a weird feeling I can't explain about it.
The physical attributes of the actors playing these roles don't really matter. The movie was a stage play at heart. The Oz books had a strong relationship with stage plays based on the property so it would only make sense this fantastical film from 1939 would follow similar rules. In stage plays, the age and physical attributes of the actors aren't always relevant. We know who they're meant to be playing. There doesn't have to be this one-to-one connection between actor and character that we expect in modern films. That's why we get, for example, Peter Pan being played by a woman.
I worked in a preschool last year and the town must have had a recent screening of the wizard of Oz at a local theater that a lot of families went to because all the little 3 and 4 year olds were asking the teachers if they have seen this movie and talking enthusiastically about it during lunch. We even had a discussion about what makes a good witch and a bad witch and how good people feel bad when they hurt people and bad people don’t feel bad when they hurt people or try to fix it. I had only been there 6 months before my client left the school and so did I but I never heard them react to a “new” movie like that. And I think there are others that come along they’d get very into to the point they’re talking about it a few days later but it’s more once in a blue moon, because children that age are watching a movie at least once every weekend. Spot on how this movie resonates so powerfully with the very young, and how Dorothy represents the innocence found in teens and adults of all ages
It`s funny because The Wizard of Oz wasn`t a box-office smash upon release despite winning oscars at that years academy awards, it was years later that it became the most watched movie of all-time on TV and video that it became a children`s favourite.
Didn't they want to cast Shirley Temple first though? My guess is there were no child actors with enough draw to lead the movie so they opted for Garland. So I don't think you can say that appealing to adults as well as children was anywhere near the forefront of their mind when they decided to shoot this story. It wasn't her CASTING, an after-thought, that was genius, but the art direction (and direction) used to accommodate it.
Judy Garland stated that the actors playing munchkin men groped her constantly on the set and thought they could get away with it because they were small.
Why do people complain when a film is different to the book it is based on? Especially when the differences are superficial. Filmmakers are not obligated to produce an exact celluloid representation of the book. If you want the book, read the book.
A suggestion for one of your analysis: the figural and symbolic connections between Oz and David Lynch's "Wild At Heart". A tribute to the importance of this beautiful fairytale and its legacy on modern cinema.
saw this in a real movie theater last year and it's still just as entertaining as when you're a kid -- and its sort-of dry sense of humor lands more effectively on the big screen
I haven't seen the film since I was a child and I never saw her as anything like a teenager or an adult. I never thought about the actress actually being as old as an adult. I just saw the character as a child.
It is also arguable that a child will see themselves as being bigger than they are, so that also makes sense when casting an older actor to play someone much younger. I might add as an aside that using a Cairns terrier has significance in that regard. The breed is said to be willful to the point of ignorance! A Cairns has no idea how small it is and anyone who has had one will testify to them squaring up to much bigger dogs, or even, ahem, trying to get 'romantic' with bigger dogs. I may be giving the film too much credit there however. The idea of dog psychology is relatively new, so it is perhaps a stretch to suggest that particular breed was used specifically.
No, but that doesn't mean there was some sort of plot to get rid of the guy either. Have you watched any of those ex con you tube channels? Pretty much the first thing a new inmate is going to be asked by fellow prisoners.....I say 'asked', usually a group of Neo Nazis white power types will bust in your cell and demand to know your charges! If the charges are anything sex related, that is bad news for the new inmate. There needn't of been a big plot to get Epstein. Prison code dictates that sex offenders are going to get beaten, or worse. Just get the guy in the right prison, preferable one ruled by the Aryan Brotherhood and regular prison life would do the rest.
@@glenbellefonte9620 You haven't read all the stuff I have written about Jeff. I am not saying he wasn't killed. 100% he was, because why leave a liability like him live?! My point was the guy was such a deviant, there needn't have been a plot to kill the guy by whom ever employed him. I'm sure there was, but that's not my point. Nice and gentlemanly reply from yourself though. I guess had you done the final 6 months, you'd of had time for charm school!
Honestly, I grew up with both WIZARD OF OZ and RETURN TO OZ (or introduced to them around the same time), but watching RETURN over the years, I've begun hearing some similarities between Fairuza Balk's voice with Garland's voice, so I wonder if that was just natural or if Balk was coached to imitate Garland a bit more. Both work for what the films' represented for the times (much like where RETURN TO OZ fits the typical darker fairy tale elements of what inspired Baum when he wrote the book). You could even compare similarities for Garland with Jennifer Connelly being played as a younger character of sorts in LABYRINTH; it's more a passing from childhood to "Teen-Hood" and echoes the dangers of reality interuding on fantasy.
I never read the book before I had kids. A lot of classic kids books are inappropriate for modern times, but The Wizard of Oz was fine for young ears. Even finer to old ears because of the poetic, nay lyrical narrative style.
I heard that they wanted Shirley Temple to play Dorothy but her studio would not release her to do it. This movie was written with her in mind but they could not get her so they cast Garland and tried to make her look like a little kid.
that was the story temple was TOLD by fox (an elaborate tale of a studio "trade" for gable and harlow that fell through when harlow died unexpectedly).. the truth is the musical director auditioned shirley privately and decided she didn't have the chops to pull off the songs.
I disagree that the giant sets make Judy seem little, because it applies to everyone. They are all little compared to the giant set. So if she is little age, they would be too.
Another amazing video!! - Love your content - What about the original studio deal that fell through with Shirley Temple as Dorothy? - Maybe a topic follow up video!!
didnt louis mayer try it with shirley or her mum?.. thats Temples side.... the studios side was that Temple couldnt do because she was already working on something else
@6:31 I just find this entire movie a little creepy. Those munchkins are like todays clowns. Cute back then, but scary as heck today. If a munchkin ever crossed my path today, i would run like the devil
Me: People should be more skeptical of the NEWS media they consume. You: Rob's telling us we should be skeptical of movies. Me: Hold up. Me: Wizard of Oz is a great movie. You: But it can't be (ignoring generations of popularity of the film among all ages) Me: Hold up. ;)
@@robag555 No I didn`t understand what the guy you were replying to was saying and so I didn`t understand your reply to his bull, 'no biggie' as Bruce Willis said in the same movie, lol
In my opinion, the opinion that Judy Garland "overacted" as Dorothy is preposterous. The fact that she has been so closely identified with--and so loved as--this character for 85 years puts the lie to such a comment. In fact, I can't think of any performance by anyone that has been so loved by so many people of so many different ages for so many years. Thanks, Judy.
Judy Garland did very well, and your points are well taken. However, I would still like to see the same movie with Shirley Temple. I think she could have handled everything except the "Over the Rainbow" song. On the other hand, as mentioned in Ager's video, it would have been hard to take Shirley Temple watching the hourglass, waiting for her imminent death.
This movie didn't scare me but I didn't like it as a kid. Idk why but I do remember liking the scarecrow and being pissed over the woman wanting to hurt her dog. Maybe it was how unfeeling the emerald city was cause it felt fake as fuck and the makeup being a bit much on the munchkins? I remember liking the munchkins that were all pretty but the ones with the gruff voices put me off. And it's not like I have issues with little people at all I just remembered I hated the makeup on some and the voices on the 3 guy munchkins singing together. The mayor munchkins I was cool with but those 3....nah lol my kid self wasn't having it.
I'm pretty sure in one version of this movie said that the scarecrow & her were love interests, but changed it to being an uncle to her. That's why she said at the end, "I think I'll miss you most of all!"
I’m not a big fan of remakes.... reboots etc. But I’ve thought for a while this film would work excellently if you were to make a very dark and serious (obviously non musical) version of this film.
Illuminati Supporter nooooo it’s purely a sequel, though of course with any sequel there are elements from the original film, though it is slightly darker.
fr3@kb!+¢h depends how you see it. Do you want it to be forgotten and not be enjoyed by a new generation? Because my kids and other kids (generally) would have no interest in watching this version. Or could you bring this up to date? As Rob talks about there are darker aspects to the original novel which could be brought to life and gain a new audience. It’s one of those films, for me personally, where a remake could be a positive thing, though I do understand some people would be against it purely for sentimental reasons.
But just to be clear, I personally am not a massive fan of the original. So for me I’m able to look at the film objectively, I don’t hold the same level of sentiment towards the film some do. Though I did enjoy it reasonably as a child. But objectively speaking Garland’s performance is poor, and the film itself is too childish in comparison to how it was intended to be, I believe it was intended more as a darker more fairytale type story. Apologies if that upsets those who love the film, as I say it’s just a personal opinion, but I believe it could have been a better film.
Saint Aqua absolutely agree with both your comments 👍🏻 one of my favourite films is Pans Labyrinth and I’d love to see this film made in that style and as it was originally intended to be, although I appreciate yourself and others like the original I think you could a fantastic darker better version 👍🏻
Before Judy, Dorothy Gale had been portrayed in many ways and at many ages. Her first portrayer was Anna Laughlin, who at 15 played a 19 year-old Dorothy in the 1902 stage version of _Wonderful Wizard._ Eight year-old Romola Remus was Dorothy in L. Frank Baum's multimedia presentation "The Fairylogue and Radio-plays." In the first motion picture version of _Wonderful Wizard_ in 1910, Dorothy was played by nine year-old Bebe Daniels, and in the 1925 version, both Dorothy Gale and her actress Dorothy Dwan were 18. In 1933, the all-child acting troupe the Meglin Kiddies did a film adaptation of the second Oz book, with Dorothy being played by Maryeruth Boone, though I don't know how old she was. And rather outdoing Judy, in Baum's 1914 movie _His Majesty, the Scarecrow of Oz,_ Violet MacMillan, billed as "The Daintiest Darling of Them All," portrayed Dorothy as a child. Miss MacMillan was 27 at the time!
Judy Garland was dating the most well-endowed alpha in Hollywood: Mickey "Chad" Rooney. Mickey wanted Judy to have the role and what Mickey wanted, Mickey got.
Return to Oz is the final epilogue when Judy Garland came back from Oz, this Dorothy explained who got her ruby slippers now on her way back from there. The Gnome King had them, Dorothy was anxious to get home. Return to Oz 's working title would have been back from Oz because she explained about her first adventure.
@@HeroJournalism How do you know the second one doesn't get talked about in film classes? And what about the 99+ percent of viewers who don't go to film classes?
@@robag555 - I'm not saying it never gets discussed in film classes, but in just about any film history program, they cover the three eras, Silent Age, Golden Age of the 'studio system', and Modern Age - Wizard is a bedrock film in the studio system era as one of the great films of it's time and in history. Not including it would be like leaving out Casablanca or Citizen Kane. Certainly, people might like Return better, and it may be a better 'adaptation' of the source material. But I've never seen a "best films in history" list that had Return above Wizard.
@@robag555, let me back off a bit - I think I read too much into "many say it's better"; "many" is actually a term I use often in film criticism to indicate "a significant amount, if not a majority", it's a fair comment. I still think that perspective is on stronger ground when it's phrased a little more precisely, not a better "film" but that they like it better or think it's a better adaptation. But I certainly wasn't trying to troll you.
