I feel fortunate enough to have grown up on this version of Oz as well as the well-known 1939 MGM version starring Judy Garland. While I enjoyed both versions, this darker version is the version I look most fondly at in my childhood. The documentary by Rodriguez helped me to feel better about my preference, but made me feel sad that the movie itself is not looked at as a classic by others, except as cult film.
One of the biggest reasons I believe it do not do well was because too many people try to compare it to the Judy Garland 1939 version.
1.) The 1939 version was happy, whereas Return to Oz was quite the opposite. However, I think the duality of the two movies should make them perfect companion pieces. First of all, Return to Oz re-introduced us to Dorothy as a girl longing for Oz. When you think about the end of the 1939 movie, Dorothy is excited to be home in Kansas with her family. However, between the settings of the two films, it is very accurate that she would miss the magical world of talking scarecrows and cities made of jewels. In Oz, she was a hero and treated as special. In Kansas, she’s just Dorothy Gale, farm girl #482. I like to compare this with what I dub the “Doctor Who Syndrome”.
In the SciFi Show, Doctor Who, the Doctor is a time traveler whom goes on adventures through time and space. He often has companions from Earth, who share in his adventures. In the new series, the Doctor meets up with an old companion (Sarah Jane, who traveled with his previous incarnations in the 1980s) in the 2000s. She explains to him that she never married because there would never be anyone like him. She also expressed anger towards him as adjusting to a normal life when you spent years traveling beyond human imagination is a difficult feat.
In thinking about what Dorothy’s life was like after her adventures in Oz before, it’s very possible that after the happiness of being home subsided she began to miss the adventure that living on a Kansas farm cannot afford young women.
2.) No song and dance numbers. This kind of goes back to #1. But when you’re in a depressive state, the sun doesn’t seem to shine as brightly, music doesn’t always seems so cheerful and your voice seems lost in the harsh air that surrounds you. I can’t see song and dance in a place where the Emerald City is devoid of their namesake, where the people who made it so happy are gone or have turned to stone.This is related to the cinematography in the 1939 film where when Dorothy lands in Oz, the picture goes from the more normal and mundane black-and-white to technicolor. While they don't repeat this in 'Return', you could argue that since being in Oz, Dorothy sees everything in color though it is not as bright and cheery as technicolor.
3.) There's no real happy ending, because it never time never ends. One of the appeals of this movie to me is the fact that Oz lives on after Dorothy leaves. It doesn't stop existing or is frozen in time, which is how things are in reality. Like in the Chronicles of Narnia books, after the four children who were the Sons of Adam and Daughters of Eve leaves, the world doesn't end. It lives on for thousands of years without them.
Sometimes, it seems people want the world revolve around the hero. The world stops for them, they are forever seen as a sort of deity for the world's inhabitants and if the hero comes back, things will always be the same. Even in fiction, this isn't true. Even if the hero is supernatural, "The One", or any variant on human/mythological creature - one can be a metaphorical or literal "God". It may stem from the idea that we want to be immortal, that we want to be remembered long after we are gone over somebody else. The idea that we are special. While I am not saying we are not special, it doesn't mean the world revolves around us.
4.) Return to Oz is not necessarily a child-friendly movie. Between the Wheelers (men whose feet and hands are wheels), Mombi (who keeps a collection of heads that she switches off on using, and comments that Dorothy's head would be wonderful in a few years), and the Gnome King - children can be easily frightened since the villains are more than just green face make-up and a pointy hat. At the same time, children don't necessarily enjoy movies that are dark. This isn't a flaw or a negative aspect of being a child, but children may not understand why the darkness of the movie makes it enjoyable. An example of something that can be construed as being as being for kids that kids may not necessarily be something they would enjoy is Jim Henson's short-lived "The Storyteller" series.In this series, European fairy tales (particularly ones that were either obscure or Disney-fied in Western culture), and for four episodes - Greek myths, were told using a mix of puppets and live-action actors. Like "Oz", there were no song and dance and often the unhappy or cynical endings were kept. Other examples of media that are mistaken for being for kids, but are not can be found on the website "TvTropes", under the tag "What Do You Mean It's Not For Kids?"
Return to Oz, I would say is one of my favorite childhood movies. It has heart, soul and a vision not often found in fantasy movies. And for that alone, I feel should be given a second chance at life - beyond cult status.
Related Links
Posts
