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.
anne f walker 
I also noticed that many stories were changed to make it take less time up. We also do not see how the flying monkeys take Dorothy to the Witch of the North when the Wizard of Oz leaves her behind as he flies away in the hot air balloon. Instead we see that the Witch of the North comes to Dorothy instead and then tells her how to get home. Instead of adding needles to the scarecrows brain he is given a diploma to be a Doctor of Thinkalogy. The lion is given a medal for courage instead of having to drink something. The tin man is given a clock in the shape of a heart which did not change the story that much. As all of the characters are given everything they asked from the Wizard, instead of coming on different days it is all done on one sitting. They all witness how the Wizard gives each one of them everything that has been asked from him. It shows that the story was followed on certain terms to make the message behind the book invisible.
After reading the book and watching the movie again I tried to find different things that would actually make sense with the whole political aspect in which it was written on. You can see that certain characters were shown in different light and trying to find everything understanding was hard but in the end the author did not what it to be to visible. The one thing that I did not hear that I was waiting for was “humbug” because that is what the Wizard of Oz was. He was a conman and a fake. In a way it made me think of the President of the United States and the campaign to get there. We have all of these candidates trying to get so high and get power; promising so many things. That when we do pick them to become our new President, they have a hard time keeping their promises and rarely are able to pass anything that they said they would while in office. It was just interesting to see all of the representations of the people during that time in a movie that was made for kids.
You noticed some of the same things I did, and discussed some really significant points. I was surprised how in the film we are oblivious most of the books message, and it is as you said “made invisible.” The way they portrayed the characters was interesting to. In the book they had explanations for how the tin man, lion, and scarecrow came to be, such as how the tin man became tin. This was all absent from the movie, I believe they do this as a means of shortening the time of the film, and also in the film, the main focus is on Dorthy, in the book it seems a bit more equalilibriated amoung the main characters.
The Wizard of Oz had been around a while as a book and stage play, but the makers of the film started over with new songs and new ideas. Oz was groundbreaking in a number of ways, most obviously in its visual impact. Movies in color had been made for a while, but most films in 1939 were still in black and white.
I have to agree, I did the same where I tried to find the difference and the similarities the movie and the book had to show through the political aspect. I also concur with the “humbug” since I did not realize it when I was younger if it was stated or if the “fake Wizard of Oz” was called a humbug, but that was not said.
I agree the story changed for example the different representatives changed of the brain and courage. Also when Dorothy called Oz a “humbug” and when Oz was explain that he was a “humbug” in the movie I felt that it did not go in depth as the book did about Oz being a “humbug”. In addition, good comparison about the president candidates.
I agree with almost all your points and I like the connection you made to the president however, I felt like the wizard of oz was portrayed as the “humbug” because he tried to deceive Dorothy and her companions which is what a conman does. I too thought it was interesting that the messages of the movie and book were different in that the movie was made for children while the book was a thoughtful allegory.
In the book “Wizard of Oz”, the author portrays the young girl as strong and courageous, capable of withstanding anything but in the film we have a young lady whom after having the neighbor take away her dog, Dorothy runs away. Toto returns to her but seeing that her neighbor will most likely come back, she runs away where they won’t bug her about her dog. It is certainly a difference from the book as well as having an older girl rather than keeping the young one that, in the book, is strong and stands for many things. One interesting thing that we see in the film is that the characters that are in Kansas also play a role in the story. We are presented with the wicked witch, the scarecrow, the tin man and the lion early on in the story. Although these characters are in Kansas, they still act along with their personalities from the other world.
Another difference or that the directors added to the film, is singing. This film is a musical; all the characters tell their stories through singing. Musicals do call our attention but in my opinion I’d prefer if it weren’t a musical because now-a-days we see that with most of the films. Then again, back then it may have been something new that was being introduced to the films. Besides this we also see the change of colors in the slippers, instead of being silver they are red, sparkling red. In the book, many of these little things stood for something going on in the world, so why would they change the colors in the film? Overall the film had some differences from the book but in the end it was all the same to a certain extent.
I think the way the characters appear early on in the film in Kansas (the lion, tinman, etc) is a representation of the psychological aspect of the story. She could have been dreaming, or their might have been a forth dimension in the story. This could lead to analysis about her feelings toward those characters. She obviously feared or disliked the woman who was riding the bike in the tornado and turned into the Wicked Witch, and perhaps she admired the tinman for his kindness, etc. The film and book were had some slight variations as you said, but we overall the same.
The Wizard of Oz isn’t personally one of my favorite pictures, but it’s hard to criticize a film which did so much to open up the possibilities of movies. In a sense, most subsequent fantasy and sci-fi films are tributes, if not remakes of Oz. It’s not so much a kids’ movie as an adults’ version of a kids’ movie, but that’s OK — some of the best books and movies of all time were written for children, but with adult overtones.
Interesting, I have not caught that, but now that I realize from your response about how Dorothy in the book is described as being very courageous, and yet in the movie she is far from being bold. Yes, I had blogged about the same thing that the movie was more wrapped around the “musical” kind of vibe to it. Where as in the book it describes the characters journeys to seek what they yearn for the most in life.
I agree the book and film portrayed Dorothy different for instance her solving her own problems and her friends solving her problems. Also I agree with you I would also prefer if it was not a musical. In addition addressing the color of the slippers the director changed the slippers from silver to red because he or she thought it would look better on the gold floor. However I thought this was a mistake because the silver shoes have an important symbolism in the book.
I agree the film portrays Dorothy as a timid and not very bright girl. In the novel she is brave and very witty to solve her situation out of all the complex places she is put into. i believe the musical made the film not interesting to watch because it made it less serious in certain situations.
The book and the 1939 MGM movie The Wizard of Oz have many similarities which follow the same plot, therefore the stories are nearly synonymous. There are some slight variations but I believe that the changes that were made were to improve the film, and keep the audience’s attention. Having most of the focus on Dorothy and not the other 3 main characters served to portray her in the film as the epitome of feminism. I was surprised at the irony; in the book, Dorothy was an independent child, and in the film was a helpless young lady who had a damsel in distress complex. She wasn’t very assertive, and wasn’t very adventurous. The way Dorothy was conveyed in the book was more likeable. In the beginning of the film we see men who look like the tin man, the lion, and the scarecrow. This led me to inquire about the possible psychological aspects of the film. Maybe she viewed the tin man in reality as kind, and perhaps the man who was the lion was a pushover. She was apparently frightened by the woman on the bicycle when she turned into the Wicked Witch, so she probably didn’t like her. The book’s message about the gold standard was absent from film, which is probably because it was a children’s film, and they wouldn’t have understood it. Also as I said before, in the film the main focus seemed to be on Dorothy, but in the book, the focus seemed more equilibrated among the main characters since the stories of how they all came to be were told.
I agree the changes were positive and to keep people interested. The men in the beginning were probably portrayed as the lion tin man and scarecrow based on how she seen them. The book was focused on everyone whereas the film focused on Dorothy, they probably did that so little kids could pretend to be her.
The wizard of oz like most films that are based on books had differences. It is understandable that not all details can fit into an hour and a half movie. What stood out was that the three men in the beginning ended up being the lion, tin man, and scarecrow. Everyone who was first introduced was someone in the other world. I like Judy Garland as Dorothy she was innocent and sassy. What I remembered when I was little from this movie was just the songs. Making the film a musical was memorable without the music I think it wouldn’t be as good as a movie.
Some differences between the novel and the film were when oz was supposed to get the liquid courage to the lion, the needles for the scarecrow in the novel where in movie the lion gets a medal saying courage and the scarecrow a diploma of thinkology. I thought part was better in the film because it was more realistic. When Dorothy threw the water on the Wicked Witch I didn’t think it was going to be so dramatic. What I noticed was that the witch of the North was an instigator between the Wicked Witch of the West and Dorothy. In class when we were talking about the gold and silver standard and how it represented the road, I was able to see and understand it. In the end both the story and the film were great.
I have noticed that students from our class actually mentioned about the wicked witch. As I know most of the people watched “The Wizard of Oz” on a black and white TV every year. But when I was young I was scared of the Wicked Witch of the West and the Flying Monkeys, and I was astonished when adults told me that, in fact, the Oz portions were shot in color.
I agree that it wouldn’t have been as memorable without the songs, haha before I even started watching it i had that “we’re off to see the wizard…” song stuck in my head. I to was shocked at the drama of the witch having the water thrown on her, that drama was can’t be captured as well in books as it can be on film. I also could view the yellow brick road and emrald city in a completely different light since I now know about the way that the gold and silver standard applies to the film, which I certainly didn’t know enough to pick up on when I watched it as a kid.
I agree with you on that the movie was more wrapped around “music” since it was. Also, the fact that making a point about how they made the music very memorable. Just as of how “Over the Rainbow” was considered a classic. I had also noticed that the Wizard had given things to the characters different things compared to the things given in the book.
I too found it interesting that everyone mentioned in the beginning of the movie ended up as a character later on because I never payed attention to the hints as a kid.
I agree with you on the movie not being as a good without the music aspect because it made it a lot more engaging and fun. There were many differences between the book and movie but I think they worked out for the best.
I agree, the thing that stood out was that the characters from the other world were introduced in the first one. As for the musical part, it was good but my opinion is that it would have been better without the music. The book, in my opinion was better than the film.
I also agree that Dorothy in both the film and book is innocent and sassy. I think these two qualities are something that is shared by both the book and film for the character of Dorothy. However, one major difference between the book and film is how independent Dorothy is. In the film, she is a bit helpless and a bit of a damsel in distress.
Yes i agree with you, there were someways that the film had made changes such as they made it more musical to be more memorable where the book didn’t do that because it couldnt since it is a book. And they definitely did change the movie from the novel because of reasons like what you said that they couldn’t fit all the details into the movie such as the detail like what the novel had.
THE WIZARD OF OZ is a very well-made movie. It isn’t perfect and those Munchkins are so annoying, but it is fun, charming, and magical. The acting by Judy Garland is superb (her “Over the Rainbow” will bring tears to your eyes), and the film is shot in striking Technicolor. It is a great family film with no real inapropriate content. However, some of the scenes could be scary for kids. The Wicked Witch of the West is alarming (green and malicious) which we will be reading for the spring break, especially when she threatens the lives of Dorothy and her friends. However, good triumphs in the end, and all of the heroes are smart, unselfish, and courageous.
Also it’s impossible to watch “The Wizard of Oz” today without feeling, within minutes, some kind of mystical connection to people. When Judy Garland sings “Over the Rainbow,” there’s the sense of participating, just by watching, in some beautiful shared human experience.
Moreover, I wanna mention about the witch. Today, she’s scary as a vision of implacable evil that can’t be reasoned with or reached. In the film, the Wizard tells four peace-loving individuals (Dorothy and the trio) that they have to bring back the witch’s broom – in other words, kill the witch – and their only reservation is the danger involved. Killing the witch is recognized as an unalloyed good.
I agree it is not perfect. When I was younger the munchkins used to scare me.The songs in the film were magical it makes people feel connected. The movie is a great family film that does not seem so old.
The film was unique for its time but the novel and the film were based on the depression of the 1900s. so putting in a film didn’t show the symbolization of the crisis in which the country was in. But the film was well-made but the musical was not very interesting to me.
it made the film less serious and I couldn’t really understand the story they were trying to singing.
After watching the “Wizard of Oz” and reading the annotated book of it really shows how different the film had portrayed the book itself. Yet, I could not help but reminisce the old days where I would enjoyed the movie, but I did not fully understand the concept of it. As in the ties it had between the government-represented by Oz, and Dorothy as representing the people of that time. I also was still amazed as to how the movie went to black and white, then changed into color. It really made me wonder what a great accomplishment the movie had made, for it to be in technicolor.
The differences that I found was there there were no such things as the flying monkeys, and the things used to represent courage was different. In the movie it was a medal given, where as in the book it was a liquid substance that the lion had drank. Overall, the movie was fantastic, and how it had the “hollywood” vibe to it by adding many musical numbers, and the part where Dorothy sings “Over the Rainbow”- a classic. I enjoyed seeing the comparison and the differences that the movie and the book had, but I give many props to the movie since it portrayed the book very well, despite the fact that it did not follow every detail, but it did move me in the same way.
I agree as a child I also watched the film The Wizard of Oz and did not understand the concepts of the film but now I understand the correlation between the Wizard of Oz and what was occurring in that time period. I also found it interesting that they changed the representation of a heart, courage, and a brain in the movie. I wonder why they changed them?
I definitely agree, the movie was amazing considering the time in which it was produced. The color made the movie so beautiful especially the part where the horse was changing colors. The music also made the movie very enjoyable and fun.
Oh wow, I didn’t even realize to note that the film did change colors. I did love how colorful the film was though. There were many differences from the film and book, but I do love how Oz made the three realize their ‘gifts’, I’m not sure how to put it. But I did enjoy the musical as well. I think that helped make the film more entertaining.
I agree the film was very advance for its time, with color and special affects. But the musical led me to not care for the films direction, though the musicals in the film have become the classic of our time. The film seemed to drag because of the musical, the singing did not explain the situation well, but yet just made the background story of the characters confusing to me.
I enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz but I personally prefer the book The Wizard of Oz because the book completely captures Dorothy as brave and courageous. In the book Dorothy, “differs from the conventional heroines of European fairy tales, because she rescues herself and her companions. She does not depend on ‘snaring’ a prince or reconciliation with a father figure in order to improve her situation” (13). Dorothy in the book rescues the tin man, scarecrow, and the lion and destroys two evil witches. I felt in the movie it was based more on “there is no place like home” and a lesson to not run away from home. Versus the book I felt as if Dorothy was an independent woman that rescues herself.
I felt as if the movie did not capture the complete Dorothy that is writing in the book The Wizard of Oz. In the beginning of the movie Dorothy seems as if she does not have a voice because she is a child and no one listens to her. In addition when Dorothy falls inside where the animals are a man picks her back up. Also when the wicked witch of the west captures Dorothy the tin man, scare crow, and lion came to her rescue. This was completely different from the book because Dorothy first saves herself by throwing water to the wicked witch of the west. The Dorothy in the book goes back to where her friends were and saves them by helping them get repaired. I felt that the movie did not grasp the idea that Dorothy can solve her own problems. I felt as if the movie made it seem as if Dorothy can’t do it by herself when in the book she could. On the other had Dorothy is shows to be brave in the movie as she is in the book. For example when the lion was intimidating the tin man, scare crow, and Toto Dorothy stood up to the lion and hit the lion. So I felt there was still that element of Dorothy being brave and courageous but not as I expected. Since it has been so long that I had not seen The Wizard of Oz I expected it to be exactly like the book but it did not include all of the parts of the book. However including all the parts would consume too much time so I could see why the film focus mainly on the important parts. Overall I enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz.
I do think it would have been nice if they portrayed Dorothy as she was in the book, but that probably wouldn’t have been as entertaining as it was. However, being that the movie was meant for children, perhaps that was why Dorothy wasn’t characterized like she was in the book. I did love the courageous act Dorothy did by hitting the lion, really unexpected. I do wish there were more than her being rescued as well.
I agree that the character of Dorothy is translated differently from book to film. In the book, she is independent and solver her own problems, whereas in the film, she is kind of a damsel in distress. I think that this change in the character of Dorothy was to possibly appeal to a broader audience, considering the film was produced in 1939.
Dorothy did seem more interesting in the book compared to the movie. I agree that Dorothy was more dependent in the film, but maybe it was to make little kids believe that could happen. The book always is better before I read the book I thought the movie was good but not so much anymore.
I agree with you, Denise.I thought that the movie did not fully grasp the character of Dorothy Gales. She seems more independent and fragile in the movie while in the book, she was brave and strong-will. I also the Dorothy from the book. But again, they were targeting children, so it is understandable.
It is tre that Dorothy is depicted differently in the film than the book which is dissappointing because we had already created a mental imgae of this young girl as a brave one. And it seems that no one seems to listen to her but as the film progresses this changes. The film overall was great to a certain extent.
As a kid I always enjoyed watching the film The Wizard of Oz and remembered it pretty vividly so when we read the book in class I noticed the differences right away. Some of the main things that stuck out to me were the gifts that were given to the lion, scarecrow, and tin man which were completely different than the book. Some of the stories were also changed in the movie because of what I’m guessing was a time issue but I don’t think that it negatively affected the movie. Also, the overall theme of the film and book were different. The moral of the movie was “there’s no place like home” which appeals to children and makes it more of a family film. However the book, as discussed in class, is an allegory on the populist movement so it raises the question of whether or not the book was really intended to be just a children’s story. Another thing I thought was interesting was how the book was told from different perspectives while the movie was only from Dorothy’s which was probably because it would be hard to make a movie with different point of views.
The movie was very enjoyable and I always have fun watching it but I definitely liked the book more. Perhaps it’s because I connected with Dorothy’s character in the book more so than the movie. I felt that in the movie Dorothy appeared to be very naive and dependent on the other characters but in the book Dorothy is portrayed as independent and courageous. There definitely are some major differences between the book and film but I think that it was for the better and I can easily appreciate both.
I definitely love the moral of the story and it does appeal to children and family. Even now, I understand how there really is no place like home. I do agree that it is interesting whether the book was meant to be a children’s story. If not, how did the movie come about in that way? I think Dorothy was shown as naive in the film which definitely annoyed me, but the film was great.
I agree that the moral of the story to children is that there is not a place other than home. It reaches out more toward children as the audience. In the perceptive of older adults, there can be more meanings in the book. I do too feel more connected to the Dorothy in the book because she demonstrates that one must be determine and brave during times.
The Wizard of Oz was a great film especially for the time it was made. I loved how creative and colorful the movie was. Of course, like every film and book there will be alterations with the story. The movie definitely brought me back to my childhood when I saw the play. Dorothy was a bit annoying in the beginning probably because her family and friends made her come off that way. I do agree that she seemed more helpless and not as strong compared to her character in the book. The funny thing to me is that I got scared during the film. I feel like the film was a bit mind blowing and there were just too many munchkins. The film was just kind of creepy like the Wizard in the beginning. Not only that, but everything was just really scary at first like the lion, who was really adorable in the end. The witch is always going to be scary to me. Also, the film was a musical, I think a lot of the movies back then were musicals. Additionally, I just thought it was crazy how Dorothy happened to be the victim. When she came out of the house and the wicked witch came I just felt like the blame was put on her even though she had no idea what was going.
I don’t understand the whole government side of creating the book, but I do love the message the film provides. Throughout the film, these characters are hoping to obtain the things they feel they are missing such as courage, a brain, and a heart. However, one can see that they do have those things, but I guess one just need help to see their own qualities sometimes. The film does show how Dorothy learned her lesson. One should not be a naughty girl and run off for her own selfishness. Overall, I did enjoy the film. The film scared me and made me laugh. Additionally, I did love that they kept some of the most important parts like the big scare from the flying monkeys, which steals Dorothy and her dog away. One more thing is that I love how talented the actors must be to dance and sing and act.
Yes, the show was quite entertaining. For the government side, sometime I would think that maybe the people are reading too much between the lines in the book and even in the book, there was not mention by the author, Baum, about political views at all. However, if you look at the time period of the publication, it is during the Populism party movement. The Populism party was mainly made of farmers who wanted a bimetallic system, where both gold and silver are used. This would allow more money for the farmers. The yellow brick road and the silver slippers represent the gold and silver standards. The yellow brick road lead to Emerald City which demonstrates the the gold standard heading toward green paperback monetary. Scarecrow represents the farmers and Tin symbolizes the industrial workers at the time. Oz symbolize the politicians who is know for lying and fooling people.
I noticed Oz’s symbolism, but thank you! 🙂
I do agree with you that the film came out as more creepy rhan anything to a certain extent. Besides this I did not like that Dorothy came out as annoying because in the book we had built this mental picture of this brave, young girl whom knew her booundaries. Overall, the film did have great actors.
I too had a difficult time understanding some of the symbolism throughout the book and film. I also think it’s an interesting point you make about the lion, tinman and scarecrow all searching for something that they had all along. I also think it’s interesting how scary the wicked witch is, considering that the book and film are aimed at young audience.
A truly magical movie. Its is well played and tasteful, with a happy ending, but I do not think people understand how Oz was groundbreaking in a number of ways, most obviously in its visual impact. Thinking about the relation to the times, movies in color had been made for a while, but most films in 1939 were still in black and white. I heard that this is the real first movie beginning in B&W and shifting to Technicolor, a method that was very effective. Some of the special effects were advanced at the time, definitely one of the movie’s strengths, and the effects are well done for the times. yet they had simple was for effects, for example “One of the most famous sequences, the tornado which sweeps across the farm fields, was created by filming a windsock being blown around by electric fans.” it is said that this is even advanced technology 57 years later does not look as real.
Story wise,comparing the book and the movie, I don’t think there are too many differences that drastically change the story. I honestly preferred the movie much more than the book. The one adventure in the book that adds an important lesson that was not included in the movie is the passage through the china country. Dorothy and her gang cross through a country entirely made of porcelain. People, animals, buildings, etc. Everything is fragile and subject to breaking very easily. The lesson learned here is that although you may complain about your life (having no brains, or heart, or courage, etc), there is always someone less well off. It is important to be thankful for what you do have and not what you think you don’t. (This can actually get more philosophically confusing since the Scarecrow thought he did not have brains, but he actually did.)
I thought that the movie was entertaining overall especially the musical. Similar to most movies, the storyline of the movie does not follow the book because the books just have too many details to fit it into a two hour movie. However, there were many changes that I noticed that the producer and scriptwriter made in the movie. For example, they changed the silver shoes into ruby instead because they thought that is will be more visible and nicer contrast against the yellow brick road. In the book, from a political view, the silver shoes symbolize the silver standard. There were no mice to rescue Lion, Toto, and Dorothy; however, it is understand because it would be difficult to create the mice and make them real. Furthermore, the movie does not show why the winged monkeys drop Tin and Scare from the sky. The movie skips scenes that demonstrate the Lion’s courage, Scarecrow’s intelligence, and Tin’s emotions. These scenes were the main points of showing that no matter what if you just believe in yourself, you will be able to achieve it. Also, when the Wicked Witch of the West tried to steal the shoes from Dorothy and how Dorothy throw water at the witch. I thought that it was funny how she melts away. And there were many more scenes and I can go on. Furthermore, Dorothy’s attitude does not seem to fit her character. She is more dependent and strong will in the book than in the movie. I feel that she was not as strong as Baum portrays her to be. In the Baum’s story, Dorothy was seems as an everyman and represent early feminism. Even if she was young, she had determination and knows what she wanted. Dorothy, in the movie, seems more whining and fragile. In the movie, she ran away from her home showing hopelessness and no ability to conquer her obstacles.
In the film of Wizard of Oz was different than the novel because it became a musical, the translation from book to film didn’t have the same tone to it. The film put the story and the plot into a light situation, when it got serious it didn’t portray to be sad or serious. The novel talked about many situation Dorothy is put into, but with a tone to make us worry or curious to what will happen. In the film the movie is written and directed for children to watch. In which when the film turns dark it still had a light feel to it. The film didn’t grasp my attention like the novel did, the musical made it hard for me to focus and take the movie seriously. The film didn’t have a grasping plotline for me to be intrigued by the characters. In the novel the characters had an intriguing personality, the musical made the situations not interesting to watch. With the scene of the witch melting, in the novel it was serious and a one of the climax parts of the novel. In the film it was a comedy scene in which I thought it became a ridiculous scene, for which a witch was defeated by water. Overall the film had many of the scenes from the book put into the novel. The plot was translated very well, which all the scenes were there and the ending was the same.
There were many notable differences between the Wizard of Oz book and film. First and foremost, Dorothy’s age in the book is about 9 years, and in the film she seems to be about 15 or 16 years of age. Also, in the beginning of the book, Dorothy falls asleep while the cyclone takes her and her house to Oz, while in the film; she is physically knocked out of the window into the land of Oz. In the book, the Tin man was originally a human, while in the movie it is mentioned or noted. Also, one notable difference is when Dorothy lands in Oz (in the film) the munchkins seem to be afraid of her, when in the book, they readily approach her without any fear. However, one major difference between the book and the film was Dorothy dreaming her entire trip to Oz, which was only in the film. I think this major change in the storyline was to appeal to a broader audience. Also, another notable change was the fact that the Wicked Witch’s shoes in the book were silver, but in the movie were ruby. Considering the fact that the Wizard of Oz was the first film shot in color, this slight adjustment in the color of the Witch’s shoes were probably to further enhance the audience’s experience with the first film in color.
Yes i agreed to what you have said, there were many differences from the novel to the movie whereas the movie pretty much completely changed many of the crucial parts in the book like the ones where you had explained.
The Wizard of Oz novel compare to the movie differentiate greatly from each other. Whereas in the novel, it seems that the story has went throughout a couple of days rather than one or two days such as what has happened in the movie which completed the whole story in a day. (Evidence, they never took an actual rest in the movie whereas in the novel they tend to take breaks and even slept in the Tin Woodman house before they found him). The novel was definitely did have a better story in it than the film did itself, but i guess the movie did not want to make it longer than what an average movie usually is so they probably skipped a lot of part to sum up the whole story quicker. The movie was also pretty cool because they started out as a boring plain black and white area (kansas) into this wonderful imaginary place (Land of Oz), which was a transition that had many people amazed esp since it was the first movie in color ever.
Watching the Wizard of Oz was very nostalgic for me. I used to watch this movie all the time as a little girl with my grandmother. Now that I have read the book and know more about the reason it was written I have a new respect for the story. However, I am displeased that the director and screen writer of the movie chose to change the script so much from the book. I feel that the book had much more in depth information about the society at the time and that the movie did not reflect that very well. Also, I didn’t understand the point of changing the color of the shoes, where the witches were from, or omitted parts of the story where Dorothy meets significant characters.
Overall, the movie did a good job summarizing the entire story and was revolutionary in the film world for being the first technicolor film That was a huge accomplishment and no doubt contributed to the success of the film. I also thought it was interesting how the movie was geared towards younger audiences when the book was geared towards adults with understanding of politics. I wonder if the producers new they would make more money by targeting a younger audience or if it was just coincidence.
The film Wizard of Oz was, in my opinion, alright I enjoyed the novel more than the film. Although I did enjoy seeing the actual characters, I believe the characters were in their appropriate attire and fit the description of the novel except for Dorothy’s age difference. As any other film translated from a novel, there are many alterations. Such as the Dorothy’s slippers and the items the Wizard gives to her companions. The beginning of the film does follow the novel; Dorothy is taken away by a cyclone along with the entire house. I thought the Munchkins were very odd looking a bit creepy along with the Wicked Witch of the West. One thing that I did not enjoy throughout the film were the musical scenes, I thought this was completely unnecessary. It bore me and made me lose interest in the film.
Overall I thought the film was alright, however I do respect that the film was the first to use Technicolor. I think the intended audience of the film was to young children especially with the use of many brilliant colors and characters. I think it would be exciting if the film was remade by modern directors and producers, perhaps the film would translate properly form the novel.