The Wizard of Oz Review

Review of The Wizard of Oz (1939) by screenqueeen: 👍 4/5

hooptober 12 minutes to midnight: 32 clock shot tally: 3

through the lens of horror this can be deciphered as Dorothy befriending monsters as we understand them -- misunderstood, tragic figures -- and leading them to perfect their flaws in an already misguided journey. the only figures in this who know what to expect of the landscape and how its magic operates are the two witches that still draw breath, the titular "wizard" and the entirety of the munchkins.

Dorothy's kidnap is honestly a fake-out when she shows herself capable of enacting core final girl self-preservation in killing the wicked witch. the monsters assaulting the castle need not do so, unless their arrival triggers a combination of the desired traits of the lion's courage, the scarecrow's brains and the tin man's heart to commit such an act.

Dorothy surprises herself; she doesn't mean to kill and did not know her action would have such a consequence. She becomes a monster in effect here, but does not have a flaw that aligns with the monsters she has amassed. hers is a flaw that is a secret to her and the audience: she already has the tools she needs to complete her journey, but not the knowledge to carry it out. what could be more tragic than that, once she prepares to return home with the wizard only to have Toto run off and set the balloon lifting off without her?

before Dorothy, the lion, scarecrow, and the tin man the ultimate monster by way of simulacrum is undoubtedly the wizard of Oz, ruling with smoke, mirrors, and fear behind numerous façades for which their reasons are cryptic. this makes the wizard potentially the most dangerous because his motives are fully obscured even from those who become insiders and replacement rulers in his stead (the lion, scarecrow and tin man) which, in hindsight, is potentially even more terrifying.

if in the universal monster movies Count Dracula relinquishes even interim control of ruling Transylvania to Larry Talbot (the wolfman), Frankenstein's monster and perhaps the Creature from the black lagoon (kind of a stretch, i couldn't think of a monster that lacks courage but you get my meaning i hope), the entire Baltic region would be a raging wildfire by the end of the month. anyway.

the good witch decides to rid Oz of its now most unpredictable visitor by process of elimination and informs Dorothy that the slippers she was "given" at the very start can bring her back home, which she uses immediately to do so. interestingly once she returns she takes what audience members and horror enthusiasts have been applying to the theory of filmic monstrosity and applies their qualities to those of the people who remind her of each creature in the land of Oz she visited, dream or not.

It's an analytical series of association that goes beyond its time somewhat in terms of analyzing what something like horror as a genre can mean to someone who finds fulfilment in it, parallel to the era of the Universal monster film, to go back to the comparison i made earlier. it's been said (or i think it has) that you read WIZARD OF OZ countless ways and find methods to fit your argument(s), but this attitude towards monsters, personal tragedy, and the horrifying capabilities that lie within each and every one of us feels more solid against the framework of this film than any other theory i've ever encountered. there's probably a film thesis paper in here somewhere. if you end up writing it, please reach out to me. <3