What does Red Mean?

In reading Rushdie's different take on The Wizard of Oz, I began to think about my own experiences watching the movie. Looking thorough my notes to see a pattern of what I had written down, pondering if there was a key element of the film I was missing. As I kept going through my notes, I realized that the color red or different shades of this color kept appearing. Whether it was the dark color of red, almost mahogany, that made up the sky as the tornado hit Dorothy's town, the color pink that represented the bubble that the nice witch entered from, red apples, the red ruby slippers, red smoke that the wicked witch how the horse turns red in the emerald city, all of these instances of red note something that at first glance I missed. Red is the color that as a child we all fear. It is the color of blood, the color of a stop sign, the color of hell. But as we get older, we get to see that the bad in life, such as blood, stopping and hell may not be what we originally depicted them as in our brains. Likewise in Oz, Dorothy has a poor preconceived notion of her life, but once the experience of Oz has completed, her preconceived notions are null and void, based on the maturation Oz gave her. The color red and Dorothy's experience, I think, run parallel; furthermore, Rushdie's unique take on the movie enabled me to see the Wizard of Oz in a new way and come up with a reason for this mise-en-scene element that shouts important.

"Neoformalist Film Analysis"

I found Kristin Thompson's article on the Neoformalist approach to film analysis to be very intriguing. Thompson explained the general need and utilization for methods and approaches when it comes to film, but specifically zeroed in on the neoformalist approach - an approach to aesthetic analysis. Neoformalist approach applies a two way interchange between theory and criticism. It also "offers a series of broad assumptions about how artworks are constructed and how they operate in cueing audience response" (6). Thompson's breakdown of the sender/medium/receiver component was helpful in analyzing key formal elements of the Wizard of Oz. Thompson explains neoformalism as a communications model of art. In this case, the medium must serve as practical - it's effectiveness judged by how clearly the message is conveyed to the receivers. I previously decided to analyze lighting, which is a key formal element from the Wizard of Oz, using a neoformal approach. This would then suggest that the sender of the message is the scenes from the film. The medium is the light which is meant to convey a message (the mood of the film: cheery or dark), to the receiver which is the viewer. The Neoformal approach makes assumptions about the aesthetic of films, including the idea that: films are artificial constructs (they have no natural qualities) and that they involve a perception of specific aesthetic which is non-practical. Therefore, Thompson explains that the Neoformal approach specifically stresses the idea of being inventive  and original. I found this Neoformal approach as a very interesting and different way of analyzing films.

After reading Salman Rushie's analysis and not seeing or thinking about The Wizard of Oz since I was a child, I found it interesting to view the movie as an adult. I realized that there were many ideas and interpretations that I was entirely blinded to as a child, and moreover, there were ideas I would not have necessarily thought about had I not read Rushie's piece. In particular, I think the idea that Rushie points out in the portrayal of good witch vs. bad witch in terms of ugly vs. pretty was one of the most significant in The Wizard of Oz. As a child, I think that this idea of the bad witch as ugly and evil was subconsciously interpreted- in the sense that I was aware that the bad witch was being portrayed negatively and knew that her attractiveness was being criticized, but didn't know what it meant really. However, this doesn't mean that the message and connection between bad and ugly was not put into my head as a child; I just didn't realize how deliberate and what significance it held. Moreover, Rushie's idea of Dorothy as a feminist didn't even cross my mind as a child. When thinking of Dorothy as a feminist I believe it is very important to remember the year in which The Wizard of Oz was made. While Dorothy's character may not seem very feminist in today's society, at the time, Dorothy was one of the only lead female characters while also being portrayed as strong and heroic.

The Wizard of Oz is iconic American cinema at its most whimsical. A film as magical, colorful, and lively as this one is enough to satisfy the average viewer of any age, but as Salman Rushdie points out, there are a lot of other thematic elements at work that make the movie more complex and thought provoking. He makes a point of stating that the film highlights the inadequacy of adults, an idea I had never thought of, but upon a critical reflection of the film, seems to hold true. Auntie Em and Uncle Henry are both down-to-earth, practical, and emotionally distant, while Dorothy has her head up in the rainbows and is seeking emotional stimulation. The Wicked Witch/Ms. Gulch is an adult and the primary antagonist, the Wizard of Oz is a grown man, yet turns out to be a egomaniacal liar with a projector. Whether or not the Cowardly Lion, the Tin Man, and the Scarecrow count as "adults" is up to speculation, but I would place them in the "trusty steed" category. They aren't old or young, they simply are.
It is also interesting to consider the cultural context in which The Wizard of Oz was released into, and how its fantasy themes were groundbreaking in America, these sort of adventures were common other places (India). I also like how Rushdie mentions the lack of a religion in Oz, and how this inclusion helps to focus the audience's attention on Oz's characters instead of Oz's culture. The Ozlandian paganism lends the film a lighter tone and helps create the fantasy world millions have come to know and love.

The Wizard of Oz

My last memory of the Wizard of Oz is going to see it when I was to young, in theaters with my father during a Christmas break and running out crying when the Wicked Witch of the West attacked Dorothy with her army. Over the years I have seen snip bits as well as talked about the film often. Re-seeing it while watching more attentively allowed me to pick out the little details that I hadn’t seen before.

A phrase that stuck out to me, as well as the whole class because there was some chuckling during the movie was the line “only bad witches are ugly.” In todays society, that would be politically incorrect. Are society is taught that interior and personality is what defines someone, not his or her looks. It miss-represents women and is advocating that women look at physic in order to determine authority.

On the other hand, even though that comes off as a petty reason for being bad or good women in the Wizard of Oz, as Rushdie points out, women are seen as the real source of power.  I agreed with him when looking at the fact that all the lead characters, Glen, The Wicked Witch and Dorothy, are females. But I hadn’t thought of the reverse where, Oz, who is thought of as big and powerful, is actually just a small man who is intimidating his people in order to fake his power. The community has this idea of his great power, but later we find out that that was just an illusion.

This shows, as well as knowing that the Tin man, Scarecrow and Lion are now leaders but followers of Dorothy, that there is no man-oriented power in the movie. Rushdie states, and I agree with, that the women are represented through out the movie as the stronger, real force of power.

Wizard of Oz

I haven’t watched The Wizard of Oz in a very long time. The last time I was probably around 12 and I never really thought in depth about the meaning or interpretation of the film. I simply enjoyed watching it. After taking in Rushdies interpretation and talking about the film in class I realize that it has a much deeper meaning than I thought previously. The first thing I noticed was how old fashioned the movie was since it was made such a long time ago. It’s understandable for the time, but if The Wizard of Oz was made today it would come under heavy scrutiny regarding some of the scenes. For example when Glinda talks about good and evil witches she points out the difference of the good witches being beautiful and the evil witches being very ugly. Besides that one point, Rushdie points out other important things to look at.  Rushdie shows the feminist theme throughout the entire film surrounding Dorothy who is clearly the heroine in the movie and seems to be the leader. Her house lands in a mysterious world and she stays determined and strong to make sure she gets back home to Kansas. The male characters she comes into contact with throughout the movie she supports enormously and guides them throughout their journey. Without Dorothy these three male characters would be the same as when she first found them, weak and helpless. In the time this was debuted, Hollywood didn’t have the best conditions for female actors and to have a lead role played by a women I think was huge for America at this time. I know there are many different interpretations of this film but I believe this was very important especially in the 1930s to show how a woman can show such strength and determination to get out of a situation like she was in. Society in the 1930s perceived women as inferior and unable to do a man’s job. Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz proved that this was not true and she was a true heroine.

The Wizard of Oz (Rushdie's Analysis)

I vividly remember sitting down at a very young age with my parents, and watching the Wizard of Oz for the first time. However, this memory was not one of happiness and enjoyment, but rather terror and tear filled eyes. I don't recall what age I was exactly, but I know I was very young, because I specifically remember crying out of fear at the scene with the flying monkeys under the order of the wicked witch. At this tender age, the site of these bizarre creatures and an evil green witch was enough to deter me away from the movie, and it wasn't until many years later that I was able to enjoy it. That being said, Rushdie's recollection of watching this film at a young age could not have strayed farther from my personal experience. I found it fascinating that he was able to use this movie as his first literary influence, and was also able to compare it to his own life. As the book continues, his analysis of the film allowed me to view the film from a critical and analytical lens, which I always appreciate being able to do. I was especially intrigued by his frustration with the ending of the film, and how after the long journey Dorothy had gone through in Oz, the film ends with her wanting to return to the way life was before her heroic endeavors. When viewing this film, I had never fully considered the development Dorothy made as a character in the land of Oz. However, Rushdie's analysis helped me see the contrast between the dependent, childish Dorothy in Kansas, and the brave respected independent she becomes in Oz. That being said, I can relate to Rushdie's feelings of dissatisfaction with the end of the film, and how the line "there's no place like home" essentially reverses all the growth and change we see Dorothy go through. Rushdie also points to an interesting concept of feminine power in the film, which again, I had not recognized until reading his analysis. I was very intrigued by his point that the male power in this film is all an allusion, while the female characters are the ones who truly are powerful. In this sense, especially with reference to the time period in which this film was released, I do believe this is a notable power dynamic that can be recognized as feminist for the time period. Rushdie's discussion on the connection between "geometric simplicity" and the idea of home and safety is another valid and insightful point. I had not noticed the opposition between the safe geometric spaces and the "twisty, irregular" spaces of danger and uncertainty. I believe part of this would be a directors choice due to the fact that people automatically associate chaotic and unfixed settings as being unpredictable and potentially dangerous. In conclusion, I think Rushdie's analysis and research brings to light an innovative way to interpret a classic film that most people do not think far beyond the plot line of.

The Wizard of Oz

Similarly to many other individuals, The Wizard of Oz was a movie I watched countless times over the course of my childhood. Salman Rushdie’s interpretations on the film discuss ideas and patterns that never crossed my mind when watching as a child, and actually rarely watching as an adult. This fact demonstrates how successfully films can incorporate various film techniques without being too obvious to its audiences. 

The time in which this film was created, the late 1930’s, was definitely not a period that primarily supported feminist ideas. While this may be so, Rushdie points out the feminist themes and the strong female lead roles involved in The Wizard of Oz. Dorothy is a wandering individual, lost in a foreign city, yet she remains strong-willed and determined to get to her destination. Just as well, those that Dorothy come into contact with along the way such as the Tin Man, the Scarecrow, and the Lion, are all male supporting characters. Rushdie emphasizes Dorothy as this female heroine while the males in the film are all emotionally unstable and insecure with themselves. 

Dorothy: An Entitled Immigrant With A Yappy SideKick Dog

In his brilliantly critical- seemingly satirical- analysis of The Wizard of Oz, Salman Rushdie acknowledges some overlooked (and over-romanticized) themes in a relatively conservative home. The message that weaved its way along the yellow brick road- and that eventually concluded the film- "There's no place like home,"he argues, may not be synonymous with a "happily ever after." Rushdie claims that most adolescent adults struggle to rationalize their conflicting desires to both love "home" and also leave and live elsewhere independently. In a frustrating oversimplification of those complexities, the film's overarching message, "there's no place like home," creates a sense of doubt and disbelief among viewers. Rushdie's kurt impatience for Toto is surprisingly contagious; the closer the analysis, the more useless Toto appears, for this dog is hindering Dorothy's opportunity to truly transform and grow independently from Kansas.

The Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz “was my very first literary influence,” writes Salman Rushdie in his account of the great children's classic. For Rushdie, The Wizard of Oz is more than a children's film, and more than a fantasy. It's a story whose driving force is the inadequacy of adults, in which “the weakness of grown-ups forces children to take control of their own destinies.” Rushdie rejects the conventional view that its fantasy of escape from reality ends with a comforting return to home. On the contrary, it is a film that speaks to the exile. The Wizard of Oz shows that imagination can become reality, which there is no such place like home, or rather that the only home is the one we make for ourselves. Overall, Rushdie’s criticism of one of America's most treasured movies is spot on. Mixing arguments that include topics such as immigration as well as self-concept, Rushdie proves why this masterpiece is more than just a fantasy movie. This really is a good piece of writing on film, produced by a major literary figure, and is as rare and successful a film adaptation of a major literary work. I really enjoyed watching The Wizard of Oz again, with slightly fresher eyes and having a different outlook on the film.

Wizard Of Oz and the Unreal vs Surreal

I really liked viewing this movie again as an adult, and I found Rushdie’s essay to be a great complement to it. I found the bits about something being “unreal” versus “surreal” especially interesting. While Dorothy is supposed to be a poor farm girl, Rushdie draws our attention to the fact that she is still made up, in a clean dress and seems to be well fed. Although she is supposed to come from a place of poverty and isolation, she is not represented as the suffering prairie girl that would be typical. I definitely would not have noticed this without Rushdie pointing it out, and I liked how he labeled it as “unreal.” It isn’t unbelievable, it isn’t something striking and loud, it is just “unreal.” We didn’t have to think too much about the Kansas scenes (for they seemed common and mild), but when the details are brought up we get to see the cracks in the portrayal.

            On the other hand, we also see the “surreal” aspect of the film. When Dorothy is transported into Oz through the tornado (another point that Rushdie points out, that the twisty shapes represent the unsafe and unknown), it is done in a very surreal way. We see the people that she knows flash by in somewhat absurd poses, which in and of itself is surreal, but is nothing compared to what she lands in. Oz is pretty much the definition of surreal, with the bright landscape, small people, and witches traveling in bubbles. While this is also pretty unreal, it is a completely different category from the unbelievable-ness of Kansas. Oz is something that could never exist in our world, much like Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. We cannot grasp Oz, nor compare it to anything else. I found Rushdie’s elaboration on these points to be especially interesting, and I will be looking out for the unreal versus surreal as I view the film again.