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.