Keywords: wizard of oz feminism, wizard of oz feminist allegory
When I got five yrs. old, my family gathered around the T. V. on a snowy Sunday night and watched a particular presentation of this Wizard of Oz. Soon thereafter, I picked up L. Frank Baum's THE BEAUTIFUL Wizard of Oz and was connected. I read every Oz booklet that I possibly could find at the public library. Nearly two decades later, I picked up The Wonderful Wizard of Oz again and found a simple depth which I did not expect, especially through the feminist zoom lens. Both the reserve and the film are well-suited for a feminist critique because of Dorothy, the feminine heroine, and other important feminine characters. While Baum's book presents a comparatively progressive view of women, the 1939 MGM adaptation of the booklet portrays women as poor and best suited for home life through the weakening of Dorothy as a identity, the emphasis of Dorothy's want to get home, the wish motif, and the elimination of important female characters.
The Wizard of Oz is one of the most crucial cultural texts of the twentieth century. "MGM's movie was an instantaneous reach: and, afterward, thanks to annual excellent time tv showings, more people have observed it than any other motion picture available" (McClelland 13). The Library of Congress even included The Wizard of Oz with 24 other videos that it declared to be "national treasures" (Rahn 109). Despite having the immense popularity, the film had not been met with universal critical acclaim when it was released. Raylyn Moore documents that lots of critics offered the film scathing reviews. She contributes her own examination: "Throughout, the development seesaws alarmingly between your sentimental and the grotesque, the very pitfalls Baum so scrupulously averted in his first Oz booklet" (Moor 90). Like the film, Baum's book has received its good talk about of criticism. Suzanne Rahn chronicles the history of the books reception throughout the century following its publishing.
Most people wouldn't think twice to call [The Wonderful Wizard of Oz] a vintage of American children's literature. Yet if a children's classic can be explained as a book that is admired by critics and enjoyed by children, then [The Wonderful Wizard of Oz] belongs in a peculiar group of its own. Enthusiastically received by the first reviewers, the Oz books fell into such disfavor with children's librarians 30 years later that these were systematically purged from collection choices. [. . . ] Then, in the 1970s, the pendulum swung again. The final 20 years have observed a renewed acceptance and gratitude of the Oz catalogs, associated with critical analyses from the full gamut of perspectives-political, financial, religious, feminist, and psychological. The MGM film version in the Wizard, too, has received careful research and increasing admiration. Yet reservations remain expressed; while no-one today would deny the cultural need for The Wizard, its quality as books remains relatively in doubt. (12)
As Rahn illustrates, even works which may have dubious literary merit often merit scholarly research. Arguably, the diversity of critical perspectives put on the analysis of the text and film in the scholarly community talk with the worthiness of the works as art forms. Irrespective of any particular reader's or viewer's personal respond to the film or the text, both show sufficient cultural effect to have earned closer scrutiny.
Both the novel and the film provide themselves very well to a feminist examination of the texts. While it may seem unusual to use feminist theory to children's books, gender issues are often blatantly displayed. As Lizbeth Goodman writes, If we have a [. . . ] look at some of the most popular children's storyline books, we can quickly notice that gender inequalities are displayed there" (16). Goodman also notes that our first experience with terms often come through the medium of children's catalogs and that these literature can have a powerful impact about how we conceptualize the earth all around us (16). Additionally, the life of Frank Baum firmly implies the appropriateness of a feminist reading. Baum was a vigorous politics supporter of the women's suffrage motion (Dighe 6). His wife also came from a family group of women's privileges activists. Her mom even wrote a publication about the history of the suffrage activity (Moore 50). It really is clear in Baum's Oz books that he consciously deals with gender functions. Baum's sequel to THE BEAUTIFUL Wizard of Oz is a blatant satire of certain strands of the women's suffrage movements (Huebel 35). S. J. Sackett "examines [Oz's] value system and depth and views there esteem for individual liberty and nonconformity, the lack of militarism, equality of the sexes, [etc. ]" (Rahn 20). But perhaps the most engaging reason to check out feminism in both reserve and the film is the preeminence of feminine heroes (Moore 119).
While both the book and the film have many of the same important feminine individuals, the film systematically portrays a far more oppressive and sexist perspective of women than Baum will in the original text. This is evidenced, most clearly, through the portrayal of Dorothy. Within the novel, Dorothy is portrayed as a very strong, courageous, resourceful six-year-old. Moore gives the following description:
To the Wizard's thundering "I am Oz the Great and Terrible. . , " she solidly replies, "I am Dorothy, the Small and Meek. . , " but she is not necessarily meek any longer than the Wizard is really terrible. Confronted with getting back to Kansas, she pieces about any of it with implacable perseverance. So when the Wizard helps it be an ailment of his supporting her that she destroy the second witch, she models out immediately to do it, even though she will not want to ruin anyone or anything. (154)
Dorothy is also very impartial. She meets people like the nice Witch of the North and the Munchkins who cannot help her, but she continues on her voyage. In the booklet, it is her idea to wear the shoes (silver precious metal, not ruby-red) as she moves because she characters that they do not run the chance of wearing out (Rahn 58-59). On top of that, Rahn illustrates how Dorothy will serve as an Everyman for children to follow:
[. . . ] Dorothy is not merely an Everyman but a model for children to emulate. [. . . ] She is smart, friendly, helpful, daring without being foolhardy, deeply mounted on her relatives and buddies, and resolute in chasing her goals. She does not change dramatically throughout the journey, because of this is not the course of someone who badly must change (like Bilbo in The Hobbit or Mary Lennox in The Secret Garden) but a tale of self breakthrough, where Dorothy involves realize her own potential by the journey's end. On this interpretation, the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the Cowardly Lion symbolize not only the friends most of us need to help us on our way but also the attributes Baum experienced were most needed for the traveler-qualities that Dorothy is to find within herself. (57)
Dorothy is the true heroine in the book. She is the one who supports the band of travelers mutually. She is a very strong female personality throughout the written text, notwithstanding periodic moments of weakness.
In the MGM adaptation, however, Dorothy is portrayed as a weaker character with moments of strength. Arthur Freed, who worked on the film, had a lot to say in the conscientious decision to weaken Dorothy's persona. Michael Hearn creates in his advantages to the screenplay:
But the chief weakness so far, according to Freed, was having less "a good and dramatic drive of Dorothy's activities and purposes that will keep the audience rooting on her behalf" throughout her trip to Oz. Freed [. . . ] demanded that Dorothy have a deep-rooted emotional need back home that could justify her actions in Oz. [. . . ] There she is determined by her generosity to help everyone first before her little orphan center cries out for what she would like almost all of all (the love of Aunt Em)-"which signifies to her the love of your mom she never recognized. " [. . . ] Subsequently Dorothy in the film became a lot more weepy than Baum's sensible, determined girl from Kansas. (12)
Judy Garland's portrayal of Dorothy is considerably more helpless than Baum's figure. Within the film, Dorothy is organised a helpless prisoner by the Wicked Witch of the West. She can do nothing at all for herself until her male friends, the Scarecrow, Lion, and Tin Woodman come to save her as she sobs. When Dorothy defeats the witch, for the reason that she accidentally douses her with normal water while endeavoring to splash Scarecrow. The publication portrays a much more powerful and proactive heroine. Baum has the Scarecrow helplessly spread across the land, the Tin Woodman dashed to the bottom of the rocky ravine, and the Lion helplessly harnessed in her courtyard. Dorothy technicians her own get away by purposefully throwing drinking water onto the witch. While Dorothy didn't know this might kill the witch, her subsequent actions show her as a courageous heroine. Moore really helps to interpret Dorothy's actions.
In a struggle over Dorothy's magic shoes, which the wicked sorceress recognizes the worthy of while Dorothy does not, [. . . ] that drinking water is spilled within the girl's enemy, who's at that time also her captress. The witch rapidly melts away "Like Brown sugar before her very eyes. "
But sensible, self-reliant Dorothy is not just one to waste time in pointless hysteria. ". . . The Witch fell down in a dark brown, melted, shapeless mass and started out to multiply over the clean planks of your kitchen floor. Since she had really melted away to little or nothing, Dorothy drew another bucket of drinking water and threw it over the chaos. She then swept everything out the door. After selecting the silver sneaker, which was everything was left of the old girl, she cleansed and dried it with a towel and put it on her feet again. " (154)
Dorothy then proceeds to free the Lion and orchestrate the save of the Scarecrow and Tin Woodman (109-111). Dorothy is unequivocally the hero in Baum's book.
Additionally, Dorothy is further weakened as the dominating female identity in the film by her exaggerated desire to return home. As the book has this same desire and even includes the key phrase, "There's no place like home, " this becomes a dominating motif in the movie. As Harmetz explains:
Dorothy's urgent need to go back home was a part of L. Frank Baum's reserve. (Understandably, since in the e book, unlike the movie, the cyclone that selected her up was not gratifying any wish on her part. ) However the movie, by design, inscribed that theme with a hatchet. "Whether it be extremely humble, there is no place like home" was a truism and a moral lessons on which L. B. Mayer, Mervyn LeRoy, and Arthur Freed wholeheartedly arranged. (298)
Because the movie purposefully portrays Dorothy as seeking to escape her Kansas farm, her insistence that she returning home as quickly as possible sends an even stronger message: women going out of the home is a mistake, and while it may lead to bright colored ventures, women are happiest when they are at home. This concept is hammered in at the end of the film when Glinda clarifies to Dorothy why she didn't tell her about the shoes at the beginning. "Because she wouldn't have presumed me. She needed to learn it for herself. " At this time, the Tin Man asks, "What have you discovered, Dorothy?" Dorothy's response is uncovering. "Well, I. . . believe it. . . which it wasn't enough merely to want to see Uncle Henry and Auntie Em. . . and it's really that if I ever go searching for my heart's desire again, I will not look any more than my own back garden; because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to commence with! Is that right?" Glinda replies, "That's all it is" (Hearn 128). The reason why that Glinda didn't help Dorothy to begin with is because Dorothy didn't yet understand that her place is in the home. The film sends the clear meaning that true pleasure for women lies in the domestic world. Baum in his catalogs, however, creates a location for Dorothy both in Kansas and in repeated trips to the Land of Oz. Also, the good witch at the start of the publication doesn't tell Dorothy about the appeal of the shoes because she, herself, will not realize the charm; she will not intend to educate Dorothy a lesson.
The biggest change manufactured in the film version from the booklet also acts to entrench this anti-feminist state of mind. In the reserve, Dorothy's visit to Oz is very real. The home is actually overly enthusiastic. When Dorothy comes back, Uncle Henry and Aunt Em are stunned to see her. They have already built the new plantation house to displace the old one (154). This realness of Dorothy's experience in a new world is why is THE BEAUTIFUL Wizard of Oz a fantasy. The film effectively eradicates the elements of fantasy off their word, changing the fantastical experience, instead, to a mental dream. The writers reasoned that, "you can not put fantastic people in peculiar places in front of an audience unless they have observed them as humans first" (Harmetz cit. in Rahn 124). This decision invalidates Dorothy's complete experience in Oz. Rahn represents the critical response, expressing:
Most critics-and practically every child who perceives the movie-agree that the most detrimental fault was to clarify away Dorothy's ventures and Oz itself as a dream. "As art, " says Harmetz, "The movie is flawed by its sentimentality, by its cheerful insistence that 'east, western, home is best, ' and by the decision to void Dorothy's experience by rendering it into a aspiration" (229). [. . . ] Regardless of the film may have advised about the energy of dreams and dreams, the voyage through life, or the discovery of one's own potential is effectively invalidated by this stopping. (124)
In a feeling, Dorothy's journey and watered down accomplishments turn into a counterfeit. The viewers does not have any reason to think that Dorothy could survive beyond Kansas in the real world.
Additionally, the goal viewed as a manifestation of Dorothy's psyche presents an even more damning view to the potential of women to be strong and solve their problems. Nathanson shows that a psychoanalytic way is appropriate in working with The Wizard of Oz. "It appears clear that The Wizard's dream series can be interpreted psychoanalytically in conditions of growing up" (78). Whenever we look at the dream from this perspective, it is clear that the central turmoil shifts from Oz in Baum's book to Kansas in the film. Dorothy is not actually attempting against witches, soaring monkeys, and an incompetent wizard. She actually is attempting against Mrs. Gulch who wants to take her dog and her desire to flee the dreariness of the Kansas farm. Hence, fight for her independence and the struggle for Toto become the two main issues in the film. In regards to the first, her aspiration serves to influence her to remain at home in the home role prepared on her behalf by Aunt Em who even tries to keep her from arriving near the pig pen, let alone the outside world. In her have a problem with Mrs. Gulch, Dorothy's win is fleeting. While the movie ends with Dorothy in ownership of Toto, Mrs. Gulch still gets the sheriff's order and legal recourse to acquire Toto put to sleep. In this sense, Dorothy's unconscious desire in which to stay the domestic confines of the farm is so excellent that she sacrifices her love for Toto. Where Dorothy is unquestionably victorious in the booklet and gains durability and knowledge, the film's portrayal of her experience as a wish leaves her "the perfect woman": a more submissive, ineffectual version of herself.
Finally, the film's eradication of important feminine character types from the reserve devalues the contributions of women in Oz. In the reserve, there are at first four witches: two good and two bad. The movie condenses the heroes of the two good witches into one good witch Glinda. In the reserve, there is a queen of the mice who performs a crucial role in helping the travelers achieve their goals. She is completely omitted from the film. Finally, there is a feminine stork who rescues Scarecrow from a river. Dighe contends that the stork is symbolic for Baum's support of the women's suffrage movements (74). While the elimination of the important female people arguably gives the film needed directionality, it greatly limits the amount of major female characters, shifting the balance of power towards men in the film. The three left over female main character types all color an anti-feminist picture. Dorothy, as reviewed, is a weakened heroine who sacrifices her dreams and fights for domestic life. The Wicked Witch of the West is the one female character who is powerful in the movie and in the real world of Kansas. Ironically, she actually is portrayed as the stereotypical strong woman: unnatural and evil. Glinda, the main one good witch, is really the only major character would you not represent an actual person from Kansas. The implication is the fact women who are powerful and good are imaginary; they do not exist in reality.
While the popularity of The Wizard of Oz both in wording and film amidst readers and visitors of all age groups is nearly uncontested, the grade of each of works of art remains debatable. It really is clear, however, that gender issues permeate both novel and the film. While L. Frank Baum's e book is not the model of feminist equality judged by modern expectations, it portrays a world where good and powerful women can be found and where driven and resourceful little girls can accomplish outstanding things. He illustrates that there surely is a place for ladies in both world of the home and in the globe beyond your home, in the same way there are for men. Despite the fact that the film premiered 39 years following the publication of the novel, its adaptation represents a regressive method of gender equality through its portrayal of Dorothy, its glorification of local life for ladies, its representation of Oz as a wish, and its eradication of key women from the book. Which increases the question: why, inside our population, so "progressive" pertaining to gender and gender roles, are we still so drawn to MGM's backward film?
