On March 21, as a “comment,” post your response to the film The Wizard of Oz. Make your response a thoughtful two paragraphs. This will be your class journal, so also put a copy of your response in your journal document. Make in-depth comments (of at least three sentences) on at least three other entries from this class before March 23.
In the cover note section, in your “collaboration” page, note whose responses you replied to for The Wizard of Oz blogging. If you have not done so, also note whose responses you replied to for your previous film replies.
The movie The Wizard of Oz to me was more like a musical, because it seemed that whenever Dorothy met someone new or something occurred a song would be involved. Also the characters the Witch of the West, the Lion, the Scarecrow, and Tin Woodman were the same characters as the first ones introduced at the beginning of the film. Also, in the movie Dorothy wants to leave home because Mrs. Gulch wants to take away her dog Toto and Dorothy does not want that. While in the book Dorothy doesn’t want to leave home but the cyclone carries her away.
In the film the wicked Witch of the West appears several instances while in the book she only takes part when Dorothy and her friends are going to try to kill her. Also in the book the winged monkeys throw the Tin Woodman on some rocks so he is unable to move, and the Scarecrow in a tree, the Lion is put in a cage while Dorothy stays in the house cleaning for the Witch. The Witch waits for her to take of her slippers but the only time Dorothy takes of her slippers is when she showers or sleeps and the Witch is afraid of these two things. So in the book the Witch trips Dorothy to get one of her slippers, but in the movie the Witch can’t get the slippers unless she kills Dorothy. Also when Dorothy and her friends reached Emerald City they didn’t have to wear green spectacles and the Great Oz gave the Lion a medal with the words courage instead of a potion of courage, he gave the Tin Woodman a necklace like heart but didn’t put the heart inside him, and the Scarecrow was given a THD instead of a brain. What threw me off was the ending of the film how Dorothy wakes up and everything was just a dream.
You’re right the musical part of the movie plays a huge role and we can see the feeling expressed from the characters through song instead of having them just tell us how they felt. The book and movie had distinct differences and there is no Mrs. Gultch in the book like there is in the movie. I agree with you that the ending being a dream is a little odd but at least it was origional in this movie.
i agree that the movie and the book are unique in their own way but i enjoyed both of them. the fact that they both have a different reason why Dorothy left home sorta makes its own plot but still it was enjoyable. I also agree that the musical scenes impacted it audience emotionally.
It is so weird how alot of the details from the book were not in the movie. Like them not wearing the googles in Emerald City. And how the the gifts to the Lion, Scarecrow, and Tin Woodman were different compared to the book. I guess in the past, changing the details from the book to the film didn’t matter compare to as now.
Well, she originally wanted to run away, but after the fortune-teller convinced her that Aunt Em was ill/upset, she returned home, and THEN ‘left home’ via her dream into Oz. I noticed that much of the violence was eliminated from the movie as well. The movie alters the plot a lot concerning the relationship/encounters between the Witch and Dorothy.
I agree that the movie was musical and by being a musical it would appeal to children more than the book did. I noticed that the beginnings were different to and I think it is because the book was suppose to be more mysterious, while the movie had to set up a story for its audience. I also noticed those differences in the book as well, but I liked the ending of the book when she woke up and realized that the people closest to her were the ones she’s been dreaming about.
I liked that there was always a song whenever Dorothy met someone knew; it was probably the best way how to express each new character’s personality easily and quickly. I wished that they actually used the green goggles in the movie since then it would appear for the Emerald City to be more fantastic. That was sneaky of the director to make it Dorothy’s dream instead of her actually being there and interacting with the people of the Land of Oz.
I know that the movie is more of a musical because of all the singing and dance the characters do throughout the whole movie but, i feel though the director did that on purpose to get more people to see his film or to get more kids to watch it. I am not sure of this theory but, anyhow, I feel the reason why the director change many thing in his motion picture because I think it would capture more people attention rather than the original color in the novel.
The Wizard of Oz: A classic that can never be reproduced. The Wizard of Oz was one of the first to be filmed in Technicolor (Gone with the Wind is another first film that was filmed in Technicolor and was release in 1939 like The Wizard of Oz). I don’t know but whenever I watch this film, I fell like a child again. The film was indeed in sync with the book but there were some differences. One for all is the slippers. The Ruby Red slippers are consider a Hollywood icon in cinema but in the book they were silver. Another difference (well I don’t think you can consider this a difference but a change) is Glenda the Good Witch. In the movie, she is known as Glenda the Good Witch of the North whereas in the book she was Glenda the Good Witch of the South. The movie doesn’t mention the Good Witch of the South and in the book the Good Witch of the North didn’t have a name. The movie did follow how the book was introduce like how Kansas was all gray and once Dorothy was in Oz it was colorful.
The book was alittle dark and scary compared to the movie. The movie was a musical whereas the book wasn’t. In the book, there was alot of violence happening like the Tin Woodman (Tin Man in the movie) killing the wolves and the beast that was chasing the mouse. These scenes were never mention in the film. I personally think the scenes weren’t mention in the film because 1: Hollywood was at it’s prime and it didn’t have all the special effects to create a scary scene and 2: They made the film into a musical that was happy all the way except at the end before Dorothy kills the Wicked Witch of the West. Plus alot of characters were not mention in the film like the Good Witch of the South or Princess Ozma. The ending of the film (where Glenda the Good Witch tells Dorothy to click her heels 3 times) is similar to the book’s ending except it wasn’t a dream like how it was presented in the film. All in all I love the Wizard of Oz and I could talk more about the film in much greater depth (wrote an essay for the film in my film class). The Wizard of Oz is a classic film and it’s a film that is a must seen.
I agree with you that the book did seem more dark and scary than the movie did since it was a musical. And yes I agree the book was way more violent and they were not done in the movie, but I also agree with you that Hollywood might not have had all the special effects that are available today. And although a lot of parts weren’t mentioned I agree that the movie is a classic and it is a children friendly movie, while the book expressed deeper morals and more violent situations.
I can completly agree you with the book being dark and scary in a sense. Also in a weird sense I like that fact about the book. To me personally it made the book more interesting. Overall, I do think the film will always be a classic to anyone who grow up watching the film. I did too also notice the difference between book and movie. As though that is expected when comparing a book and a movie.
I found it amazing that the Wizard of Oz was not only the first motion picture to be shown throughout the world but, able to be consider a classic even though the director of this movie has change so much from the novel. I think the director wanted to just keep the root of the novel but at the same time put his idea and thoughts into the mix so the he can feel that it his own movie from his point of view. I do agree with you that The Wizard of Oz is one of those “most seen films” in our lifetime.
i completely agree that the book was pretty scary to read and the musical was magical and happy. however, if we take into consideration the diction in how the book was written we can conclude that it was not meant for children to read. over all i agree that people should read the book and watch the movie to get different view points of the story.
First of all, I can positively say that I love these scenarios when comparing a book to a movie. In a personal view the movie will always be a classic. I grew up watching the film. I was amazed to find out that this film was one of the first of technological advances in media. I can honestly say that the book was pretty close to being the same with the book although as in any situation there some noticeable differences. First of all the small differences such as the witch in the movie was from the north where as in the book shes is described as being the witch of the south.
Finally, in terms of the of book I can honestly say that I was surprised by how graphic it turned out to be. I was really surprised when it described the slaying of the wolfs. Also when it described how the bird’s necks “were twisted.” Although when the Tin Woodman killed the beast I was in a sense happy being that he had the courage to help the mouse from being eaten. The character’s pathway was also in a sense of their journey was slightly modified compared to the movie. Overall, as I previously stated The Wizard of Oz will always be a classic in my eyes.
I agree with you that the movie was pretty close to being the same with the book but there were a lot of scenes that were in the book left out in the movie. I was also surprised that for the time period there were good graphics and effects in the movie. And yes The Wizard of Oz will always be a classic.
The scenes from Wizard of Oz are classic and i found myself remebering parts becasue I watched it when I was young also. It’s interesting that this film marks a technological advancement and it must have allowed the directors to put thier full imagination into the film.
I also enjoy comparing books to movies, and agree that the movie is a classic. I was surprised about the brutality and violence in the book, as well. I think that Hollywood tends to alter plots to suit the intended audience.
I liked that the movie tried to follow as closely as possible to the book as well and that there minor changes to the movie. The book was very gruesome and was not the ideal children’s story that I had expect to read. Overall I think the movie did a great job with the graphics since it was one of the the first film to use “advanced technology”.
Watching the “Wizard of Oz” was something magical for me as a child. But now, I see the differences between the book and the movie, which makes it a love/hate relationship at the moment. By only having seen the movie a thousand times when I was a kid definitely made it hard for me to read the book, but by also not having seen the movie in a while also made it hard to see the good scenes from the book being cut from the movie.
I did like how there was a transition from Kansas to the Land of Oz as well as honoring Baum’s reference to the color “gray.” And I never noticed before how much foreshadowing was placed between the farmhands, Dorothy, and the Tin Man, the Lion, and the Scarecrow. I was really missing the actual threats from the book (the ditch and the river for them to trek through) and did not like that the witch replaced those threats. Overall, the filmmakers definitely made the movie into more of a children’s movie with the songs and dance; that is probably what drew me to it in the first place when I was younger and the killing of animals (as mentioned in the book) would have been a turn off for me at such a young age.
The movie definetly could not follow the book exactly becasue it would have been very violent and had some graphic scences. you are right that the filmakers turned it into more of a children’s movie by adding the musical song and dance aspect. I read that Baum used the word gray nine times to describe Kansas in only four paragraphs. This is a distinct constrast with the brightly colored land of Oz.
I agree with you on the love/hate relationship part because I also hated the fact that the movie cut so many scenes mentioned in the book. And yes the witch did replace the threats that the four friends encountered and I also did not like this. But I also agree a children’s movie can’t be as gruesome as the book was it would frighten children.
I agree with how watching the movie as a child was very magical. But having a love/hate relationship? I don’t hate the film because how different it is from the book, I still love the movie and preferred the movie over the book. I also agree with the transition from Kansas to Oz was the same as the book. If they didn’t do that in the film then I gues you can say the film ruin the book.
I also never thought of differences between the book and movie. After comparing the two it is also for me like a love hate relationship being that I love the movie but i cant help but love the book also. I love that the book goes into more detail even though its gruesome. I also never noticed the colors, I always just thought that they were simply colors. In the end I somewhat prefer the book only in the sense it showed the actual threats.
I would have to agree with you in which many scenes being cut off from the movie. I really was looking forward to seeing them in the film. The film did portray the color “gray” in the film, and I really thought the whole movie was going to be that color and I started getting disappointed but as soon as she landed in the land of Oz everything was in color and I felt a bit happier in watching it. In you mentioning of the Wicked Witch of West replacing all those threats, I agree because it seemed as if the Wicked Witch of the West was one of the main character throughout half of the book, when in reality the struggles the 4 travelers faced were morally on their own.
Even though I saw The Wizard of Oz as a child it never crossed my mind that it came from a book. The movie will always invoke more emotions out of people because it relies heavily on the musical performances. My favorite song in the movie was “if I only had a brain”. It was interesting to me that all the characters had their strengths sort of intertwined with their “perceived” weaknesses. That’s why Dorothy told him “with the thoughts you been thinkin you could be another lincoln if you only had a brain”. After watching an introduction to the movie I found it interesting how much time was thought was put into the filming of this movie. One of the actors recalled “it was hard work, it wasn’t fun at all.” He may have been exaggerating but it took hours and hours of planning to get everything done the way that it was. One challenge in the movie that makes it unique was that The Wizard of Oz employed over 100 little people. These actors were photographed after the first day of shooting so they could get the same appearance every time they filmed. It must have been hard to keep track of so many extras in the movie.
I was surprised about how violent many origional fairy tales are. The story of the Tin Woodman was extremely gruesome as his appendages were cut off before tin arms and legs were attached. The main difference I noticed was that in the book Dorothy didn’t have a dream but was actually swept up by a cyclone. Lastly, I think this movie may have started the common trend we see all the time where the main character wakes up at the end only realize they were dreaming.
I knew that there was a book, but I always seemed to opt for the movie instead. It was a surprise to me as well that the original fairy tale hosted those many gruesome portions. The Tin Woodman story definitely put me in a different perspective of how he became and the Tin Woodman and why he aches to have a heart.
I agree on how the WIzard of Oz was a book, when I was a child I really thought it was a magical movie but of course as I got older I did find out it was a book first. I agree on how all the characters had the thing they needed but they didn’t know it was there. At that time of Hollywood, it was hard to make a film. The technology for film today is not the same as it was in the past. But I give them all the kudos because they made an amazing film.
I did not know that The Wizard of Oz was a book, either. When watching the movie this time around, I noticed that the twister seen is rather intense; meaning the actors probably dealt with getting dust/debris in their eyes. Maybe that’s a reason as to why the actors recalled that it was hard work and not fun at all. I also believe that The Wizard of Oz–the movie–started the trend of characters waking up from good/bad dreams.
Many young audiences will always prefer the film just for the same reason you mentioned because it is a musical. The media now a days does take control through music as a way to influence the audience. But looking closely into the movie, I do agree with the fact that this movie does seem like it took a lot of time and effort for the time period, in knowing that the technology wasn’t as advanced as it is today.
I honestly agree with you I always thought that there was only a movie and never a book. I also enjoyed the song “if I only had a brain” I found it to be the most appealing music from the whole movie. It is odd to think about how much time went into the making of the film. I can also say it was interesting to read about the gruesome Tin Woodman in the way the author described him. Over all this film will always be a classic.
My above comment was meant for Joel Woolfork
Although I have been very familiar with the movie “Wizard of Oz” since childhood, I did not know about the book, and discovered several differences in the translation. But before I even get into that, I would like to point out that re-watching a movie after many years always presents a change in my perspective. As a child, I am not sure I necessarily grasped what the neighbor intended to do with Toto (i.e. have him killed). I knew, of course, she was an antagonist and disliked by Dorothy and family/friends, but I understand now why Dorothy decided to run away upon Toto’s escape and re-entrance into her room; I would probably have done the same if anyone tried to have my best friend killed. Because I was involved in theatre and performed the play several times, I was not surprised to discover that I not only knew all the words to the songs, but could quote the classic lines (e.g. “I’ll get you, my pretty. And your little dog, too!” or “Toto, I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore…”).
What I found interesting this time around, after reading the book, is the significance of the change from black-and-white to Technicolor. I had figured that it was to accentuate the dream world of Dorothy (as well as introducing color to theatres), but in the story, the author really emphasizes the solemn, dull tone of Aunt Em and Uncle Henry’s characters and the town she lives in. In the film, there are also the additional characters of the farmers, the evil neighbor, and the seemingly homeless man/fortune-teller that each reappear in the Land of Oz as their true personas: the Tinman, Scarecrow, Lion, Wicked Witch of the West, and the Wizard of Oz. A major difference from the book is the idea that the Land of Oz is only a dream Dorothy has when she is knocked unconscious during the twister. A lesser difference is the loss/change of certain mystical creatures/animals. I can understand why in the book everything is ‘real,’ while the film makes Oz out to be fantasy, because the book is fictional and meant for children, whereas Hollywood capitalized on producing the book as a highly musical story. And I use ‘capitalized’ in the best respects, because I will always consider “The Wizard of Oz” (the movie) to be a timeless classic. I enjoyed re-watching the talented Judy Garland and cast.
I have not seen this movie since I was child and I seen a different perspective on the movie as well. I like the way the director kept Kansas dull “black and white” and The Land of Oz was so colorful. You can definitely tell that there was hard work put into producing this film. I agree that Hollywood seemed the movie to be more as a musical, but either way both the novel and film are great.
I agree with you in which you said you didn’t know there was a book to this film, but for me I didn’t even know there was a film. Thanks to this class, I know what The Wizard of Oz is all about. In the color change from the beginning, i was surprised because, once again, I did not know there was an advancement in color television at the time. I agree with you in the fact the the film did a very good job in portraying the “gray” in Kansas city, and the colorfulness in the land of Oz, to portray it much more like a fantasy land; which comes from Dorothy’s dream.
Yea I liked that they created characters in the beginning that can easily be seen as the main character in Oz. I like that you pointed out as a kid we miss a lot of things in the movie or don’t notice them such as saying toto would be killed, it is fun to compare how we thought of the movie if we saw it when we were younger and how we see it now. It really is a timeless classic both book and film.
For me it was the first time watching the movie. I dressed up as Dorothy when i was a child but i never really new her character. The only thing i knew was that she had red heels and she wanted to go home. however, the book changed it by making her have silver heels . However, it is good that i did not watched it as a child because it would of been scary seeing green wishes. Although it was funny how she melted with water.Over all i love how the characters are described both in the book and the movie.
By reading the book and watching the movie i was able to learn about Dorothy’s character. I loved how she is super nice towards her friends and she always looks after them.
The movie did a great job following the book even though some characters were change. i liked how the setting was still described the same and even though some names were changed for example the wish, i was still able to follow plot. The only thing i do not understand why in the book the wizard oz land is something Dorothy dream and in the movie everything is real. I enjoyed watching the movie as well as reading the book. thank you so much for the opportunity of comparing and contrasting both.
The Wizard of Oz was a great movie that I really enjoyed because it was closely related to the book and it was a musical. I did not know that it was a book either but I am glad that I read the book, that way I can see the differences between the movie and the book. The movie had a lot more background information about Dorothy and her family that the book didn’t have. The main characters stayed the same expect the characters were based off of people that Dorothy knew in Kansas. One of the first major changes is that in the book the slippers were silver and the movie they are red. There were only two main cities in the movie, which were a colorful munchkin and the Emerald city. In the movie the wicked witch of the west appeared more often and in the book she was only seen when Dorothy was taken to her castle.
One thing I noticed about the characters is that the lion seemed to be more cowardly in the movie than he was in the book. Baum focused on how the characters already had the “gifts” they were looking for, but in the movie the lion seemed to be more cowardly than courageous. The movie also emphasized the battle between Dorothy and the wicked witch relationship. In the book the first time Dorothy sees the wicked witch the next pages she kills her, but in the movie you can the see the building relationship between the wicked witch and Dorothy. Although in the end the characters get what they wanted, the Oz gives them different objects than in the book as well. When the Oz does leave instead of putting the scarecrow in charge, the tin-man and the lion are in charge of the Emerald city as well. I like the way the movie ended because it let the audience know that Dorothy had been dreaming all along instead of the cliffhanger the book leaves at the end.
Unlike you, I knew there was a book but I never got around to reading it. It was definitely a change to see how cowardly the Lion had become as well as how the movie was not big on displaying the Scarecrow’s knowledge, yet showed the Tin Man crying. To see the relationship and the wicked witch definitely made it better than the book since it showed that the wicked witch really wanted the power of the shoes at the very beginning. I agree that the movie had a better overall ending since
it ended up as a dream and did not leave the audience with a cliffhanger like the book. (sorry didn’t copy it all the way off of my Word document.)
The director’s translation from book to film is amazing. There were bits and pieces missing, but overall the musical film was done amazingly. I couldn’t have agreed more that the characters in the film were a little light and the characters in the book were much more violent and dark. I actually like how Wicked was given a much bigger role in the film than in the book. The book, if you say, didn’t really go in-depth with Wicked’s character.
I liked the background information they gave on all the characters as well, allowed the audience to better sympathize with the characters. The slipper color was probably just for looks because they did look nice, and silver may have been to dull for the movie, other than that I cant think of a reason to change them. Yea I like the dream ending as well, but in the book without it you can create your own ending.
for me the shoes meant a lot. changing the color was like what really, but over all i like both the movie and the book. i also agree about the lion i notice his cowardliness however, i believe that in the movie because you are able to see the actual character act it seems that way. i cannot agree with you with the fact that the movie tells you Dorothy is dreaming. i like how the book allows you to create you own ending and conclusions.
I honestly I have to say that if it hadn’t been for this class I would have never have read or seen The Wizard of Oz.
When I compared both the book and the movie, once again, I would have to say I would very much prefer the book. I learned that there are many editions of films to this book, but compared to the 1939 film, I honestly did not like it.
I am not a fan of musicals and that is exactly what I got out of this film. Many scenes from the book were left out. Especially my favorite scene where the lion is being carried out of the poppy field by the mice. More important scenes, in which the Winged Monkeys share their story of their past, and also with the Oz himself, he only gives a brief description of his life background.
With the character’s description, I was content in which the film did a good job in portraying the characters as well as the book. The only detail they forgot was about the Oz, he was described as a little man in the book and in the film he was exposed as a big man, even a bit bigger than the lion.
Overall, I still give props to the movie in still having the plot correctly follow the plot from the book. The book gave a clear ending of Dorothy believing it was real but to the audience it portrays as a dream.
I’m a big fan of musical plays, films and etc, so I guess that’s why I really enjoyed this film. This is one of the few films that I actually enjoyed every character. Now that you mentioned it, I barely realized what was missing. Considering that this film was done in the 1939, it is amazing how the scenery look so lively and real.
I can’t say that I did not like the film but there were many parts that I found creepy or scary, which cannot be taken to seriously because many things like this movie freak me out. I have to disagree with your taste in musicals, it made it more child appropriate and uplifting even at dire scenes. Yea the dream and realistic thing makes sense since its a movie.
I really do not like musicals either. I don’t know what it is about them but it just seems silly to me, or just awkward. LIKE WHY ARE YOU SINGING EVER THREE SECONDS?! But I have to disagree, I just love this movie! Despite everything that is different from the cross-over between literature and film, I think the director did an exemplary job. Any film-movie adaptation is going to have its differences and a viewer/reader I guess needs to anticipate these differences.
I really enjoyed re-watching the Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Every time I watch this film, I feel as if I’m watching a live musical and sometimes I can’t even help but sing along with the characters. I truly adore the actors and actresses that took on the role of the characters. They all did an excellent job and even though the movie is somewhat different from the book, they made everything enjoyable. Somehow I actually preferred the musical film over the book. I always knew there was a book to the movie, but never once did I put myself to picking up the book and reading it. Now, after finally reading the book, I am able to re-watch the movie and understand the wonderful world of Oz even more.
What I found really interesting was that the film is a little more light and fluffy than the book. The book whereas portrayed the characters more violent and scary. For example the Lion was presented braver in the book than the film and Tin Man was more violent in the book than in the film as well. As the audience we can see some slight differences, but all in all this was one of the closest book-film adaption that I’ve seen.
I agree. I think that even though the film was a lot different than the book I had never thought to read, the film is still enjoyable despite me knowing the ‘whole story’. I think what makes it enjoyable for me is that the director kind of added their own twist to the story, especially at the beginning. So it didn’t seem like the story was being lost or something like that, it seemed just a unique adaptation of the story itself.
Overall in my opinion, the directer translated from book to movie very well. Many scenes were missing but they seemed to be scenes that would have made the movie to much for a kids movie. I thoroughly enjoy the fact that they filled the movie with music. I think that the music adds a friendly and child appropriate feel. The beginning of the movie has more of an introduction or background into the normal life of Dorothy which helps build her character and what she is like at home other than with new people or friends. Something similar to the background we get in the movie would have been nice in the book. It also gives the three characters she meets in Oz more of a realistic feel because they are portrayed or are the men at the beginning. The vivid scenes from the book that pertained to graphic or gory actions displayed, by the group really caught my attention in the book and it would be interesting to see if they made a movie that captured all the scenes not appropriate for a kids movie. The pictures in the book really helped outline and follow the story and characters as it progressed and in my opinion really made the book great, the movie is also good but in a different way.
I guess you can say the book and film has its pros and cons, but overall both are still enjoyable. The film is presented more childish than the book, but probably because this was a children’s book and film. Like you mentioned, the director did a great job of opening the film and giving the audience a warm greeting to the characters. If only Breakfast at Tiffany’s was more like this than I would have enjoyed it as well.
I totally agree with your statement because the narrator of the movie just abstract the overall message that the author was trying to get across towards his audiences. I do agree with Mai Thao on the other hand because the movie was too childish. I am impress overall of how the director addresses his audience even if it was targeted to child mostly.
The Wizard of Oz is a classic film of all time. I have first seen this movie when i was very young. On the other hand, the novel bring a whole different prospective toward the movie. A example that I can provide that in the movie, Dorothy was wearing red heals rather than sliver compare to the novel. I know this is something small but, it does make a big deal. the reason why I am bringing this up because I feel that the movie director is trying to send a message towards their audience without them knowing or, just wanted to make people feel that he bring some sort of contribute in the movie. What i am trying to figure out is why red? why couldn’t be blue or yellow?
Overall, I like the movie and the director did a great job but bringing out what the author point of view without it conflicting with one another. The Wizard of Oz novel show the whole story from everybody point of view and provided tails of how and why did everything happened in the movie. I kind of wish i was able to read the novel first rather than the movie because it would of explain a lot of thing that i was confuse about, but yet again, I was little and would not be able to comprehend the overall message. Even if someone would explain everything to me.
I was also wondering WHY RED? The famous red heels that Dorothy wears in the movie weren’t even in the original story. But why red though? Who knows. Maybe the director or person in charge of costumes had a hidden meaning behind red. But I remember in one of the annotations in the book, it said that red was used because it would pop up more against the yellow brick road than the silver shoes would have. Maybe this is the truth, maybe it is not.
I really am glad that I read this book. I had seen the movie a few times as a kid and was convinced that I knew the story of The Wizard of Oz, you know? But I was mistaken. Personally I liked the story better than the movie but that does not discount the movie at all. It is a classic, and of course any film adaptation is going to be different. You have to accept the differences between the book and the movie and accept each for what they are. I think the best thing about the movie was that it was not catered specifically toward children or adults or to either gender—it entices all viewers.
My biggest complaint about the movie is that it seemed like a lot of the adventures of Dorothy and her friends were left out. But this makes sense because the movie would have been much longer, but it seemed like they just got to emerald city way too quickly for me. I think what was also a big change was Dorothy herself. I had pictured her as a child while reading the book and had seen her way differently than she was portrayed in the movie. Again, this movie is a classic, and am not trying to discount Judy Garland’s acting she was simply following her given script. But Dorothy’s character in the movie seemed to make her fit into the typical female gender role—I think this contradicts Baum’s entire intention of creating Dorothy’s character. I wish they kept a little bit more of Dorothy’s independence and left out a little bit of the helplessness they added in the movie.