The Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

I hate this movie. I hated it the first time I watched it before I ever even read the book, and I almost exploded when I finally DID read the book and discovered what butchery had been done upon such a genius work of literature.

The best way I can think of to describe this movie (even though even I have to admit that I enjoy the songs to no end) is the following:

Take the shell of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by Frank L. Baum, rape it with a machete, then stretch it thin and twist it around an amalgamation of child molestation, abuse, suicide, drugs, alcoholism, and general debauchery and dysfunction and then tie it up with an emerald and ruby ribbon with a big fat bloody bow on top. THAT is what I think of this heinous film.

But the songs are fun.

Looking at War

Looking at War: Photography's view of devastation and death

by Susan Sontag

First and foremost I must confess to you that I do not like The New Yorker. I find it’s content stuffy and while intellectual it is far more snobbish in it’s use of said intellect. Everything I have read from The New Yorker (and I have read a few articles from them) has sounded like a highfalutin inside joke, constantly condescending to any and all that might read without prior knowledge of this “tight knit community.”

I had interest in this however before even reading it because of who wrote it: Susan Sontag. This was the first piece I have read by her and my first experience with her own particular flavor (having only previously known the name from watching Rent repeatedly) and I find it terribly unfortunate as a first impression. Because it is an article designed to appeal to the audience of The New Yorker it is written in a style that I abhor.

HOWEVER, let’s move on to the substance of the article shall we?

At once I find Sontag’s claims about men, people in general, and war unfounded and idiotic, not to mention her butchery of Virginia Woolf's essay Three Guineas which she refers to as "unwelcome". Speaking as a practicing Quaker (the very faith to which two of Woolf’s early female mentors belonged) it is both possible and probable that there is a massive contingent of human beings that believe war should be and CAN be “abolished.” Going deeper into the writing however I can see (somewhat) where she is making these claims, this being that in today’s world (or even a world of the 1960’s) images of war, death, and destruction really do NOT hold the same shock and horror value they would have in Woolf’s day.

So while I disagree with Sontag*1 I can at least understand her claims once reading all the way through her (overly long) article.

Also deeper within the depths of the article*2 Sontag makes her points about photography and it’s uses in war times to at first convey the horrors or war, but later to simply inform the public of the goings on in other countries. Her belief, near as I can figure, is that the images of brutalization no longer hold the same sway that they once did (in Woolf’s time) because we are so used to them.

Cutting my analysis short as I feel I am only going to start talking in ever shrinking circles, Sontag’s article is NOT one worth reading for the very simple reason that it was designed for The New Yorker and thus will not read the same as an article, essay, or book written by Sontag independent of the over-arching “sound” of a given publication. In fact I know for a fact that Sontag wrote other pieces that are much better examples of her opinions and it would be these that I would recommend as her perspective is truly one to appreciate.

*1 And please do keep in mind I hold little love for Virginia Woolf so while I may be in disagreement with Sontag, I am also equally disagreeing with many of the things Woolf said as well because I think she was a egotistical, oversexed idiot in a lot of respects.

*2 The redundancy of terms was totally intentional. I find this article insanely long given it’s content value. I mean seriously, was she trying to win a prize for longest windbag statement? Or was she simply being paid by the paragraph?

California Girls

California Girls (video)

by Katy Perry featuring Snoop Dogg

Candy boobies! (Nothing more can be nor need be said of this video.)

Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction

Walter Benjamin, 1936

Hooo boy had I not been simultaneously reading "A Room of One's Own" by Virginia Woolf when I began this article I think I may have thrown myself off a couch so extensive was the muddiness of the writing.

(Seriously, Woolf does not just bead around the bush in her writing, she dances around the entire freaking garden before settling to delve into the given shrubbery that is her main point.)

In this article written by a German artist and art critic during a most volatile time for such folk, we are given a lengthy exposition on the pitfalls of what Benjamin refers to as "mechanical reproduction." That being reprinting of famous works of art so that those unable to view them in their original setting at whatever highfalutin museum, may still appreciate them from the comfort of their own homes.

I feel I had a great advantage in reading this article because I had previously learned of the plight of artists in Nazi Germany. For those who do not know, artists were widely persecuted in Nazi Germany and took refuge in artists' colonies out of which some of the most influential artists of that time emerged (names escape me at the moment I'm afraid, but that's what Google is for) -- provided they survived of course. Having this prior knowledge really sheds new light on the often confusing opinions(rants) from Benjamin in this article.

Benjamin's main point in this piece (so far as I can surmise) can be summarized thusly*1:

"The presence of the original is the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity." And that works of art have an aura that is made up not only of the medium of the work (paint, wood, marble, etcetera), the format of the work (painting, sculpture, architecture, etcetera), but also the manner, place, and time in which it is viewed. ". . . which withers in the age of mechanical reproduction. . . [which] substitutes a plurality of copies for a unique existence."

Now this all makes perfect sense to me. As an artists and an art student I can completely understand that there is a tremendous difference in seeing something on a computer screen and seeing the physical piece in a museum or collection. Now being a citizen of the internet I feel equally strongly that the sharing of art and the making of fine art assessable to ALL is critically important in today's society, so I disagree with Benjamin there but that is not the last of my disagreements with him.

Leaving off his paragraphs (and there are multiple) about film and whether it is art or not (which I am honestly not clear on), what I disagree with and dislike about the article is the sneaky way politics emerge in the writing. In this it reminds me of the excerpt I was forced to read of Mein Kampf for another English course. That being that it takes pages and pages for Jews to even emerge as a subject of Hitler's writing. In this same subtle way do politics and the reign of Fascism find their way into Benjamin's writing.

In this very excerpt -- and I know it to be an excerpt because of the editing squidgieness evident in the text -- it takes until the end of the seventh paragraph (on page two) for him to even elude to politics as a player in this work. And it is a whole four pages later before the real political commentary begins. However once Benjamin starts in on Fascism and Communism and it's effect on art he really gets into it hardstyle. In between philosophical metaphors and illusions to Homer Benjamin states that ". . . through gas warfare the aura is abolished in a new way," and "Communism responds by politicizing art."

It is here however that it becomes so important to remember the frame of mind of a German artists during this era and no that there is a reason behind his otherwise meaningless ramblings about war and politics and their destruction of art and the artistic aura that exists in the natural world.
In all the article is an interesting one and one that will be of interest to those who have studied the arts and who are already privy to the tragic lives of German artists during the Führer’s regime. Otherwise it’s dry, dense, and generally uninformative. Not for the layman.

*1 Yes I really honestly did arrange that sentence just so I could use the word “thusly,” sue me.

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L Frank Baum

The phrase “Not always as it appears” is the best one I can think of to get you in the right frame of mind to appreciate this book.

Written by Mr. Baum in the very early 1900s this books appears to be about the journey of self-discovery a little girl and her dog go on through a magical world known as Oz, as well as the similar journeys had by her traveling companions The Scarecrow (who seeks a brain because he was made without one), The Tin Man (who seeks a heart because in the process of turning his body into tin replacement parts he neglected to include a human heart into the mix), and The Cowardly Lion (who is supposed to be the king of the forests of Oz but is afraid even of his own roar).

Through the pages of the book they travel to the Emerald City to seek the aid of The Wizard in granting their wishes and in the end Dorothy finds a wonderful witch who sends her and her dog Toto back home.

But, we all know this. However it’s not the truth of the matter.

Frank L. Baum wrote the story as a cover for a different journey: The populist movement which sought to change the gold standard to silver (currency in the United States is – supposed to be – based on how much gold we have in our vaults, however this meant that, ostensibly, money was too expensive which lead a huge group of people to march on Washington (the Emerald City) and demand that gold be changed to silver (the yellow brick road which leads to the city of power, and Dorothy’s shoes of silver – NOT NOT NOT ruby!!!).

They were not successful and a full account of the tale can be found here, as well as the full explanation of the undercurrent of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz here because it’s really too much to get into for a review.

Suffice it to say this is a great book, even if you don’t care about silver, gold, or emeralds and one that everyone should read if only so that more people understand that Dorothy’s shoes are SILVER, not RUBY.

Return to Oz

 Return to Oz (1985)

Placing aside my unending hatred of The Wizard of Oz for just a second, this movie is actually really good. It was surprising to me, let me tell you, but it’s well executed, the acting is right on par, and the story while really rather dark at times is well written and takes the right cues from the book its (loosely, but not as loosely as the original movie – bleh!) based on.

It incorporates my favorite parts from The Marvelous Land of Oz – Tock the royal army of Oz, Jack Pumpkin head, and the flying Gump – and adds original touches to tie it back to the original film (Dorothy having trouble re-assimilating to life in the “real world” after her adventures in Oz) without kowtowing to the really bat-shit loco crap the movie made up.

And as an added bonus the film includes the unmistakable work of Jim Henson and his ever-lovable animatronics. Now, I do have an undeniable weakness for animatronics, but you just can’t go wrong with the work of Jim Henson.

Tin Man

Tin Man (2007)

One word: Steampunkalicious. For those you are unfamiliar with the fashion/lifestyle phenomenon of Steampunk, please check out the wiki here and these other great resources.

The steampunk overtones of Tin Man are slight, but definite and well executed to boot. The subtlety of costumes and the unspoken idea of technology provide a really intriguing and different fantasy world in which the story takes place.

To be perfectly up-front, it won’t really make any sense unless you already know something about “The Wizard of Oz” (like, the fact that it exists, the main character’s name is Dorothy Gale, she has a dog named Toto, she travels through the magical world of Oz with a scarecrow, a man made out of tin, and a lion, and that there are wizards and wicked witches waylaying her at every step), and it adds a lot of nuisance if you’ve read the book and not just watched the movie.

However, regardless of your prior knowledge of the mythos of Oz – or lack thereof – this is a really great miniseries that I would recommend to just about anyone. The acting, while perhaps not Oscar worthy, is solid and the story is well thought out and well executed and the actors are top notch. I know not everyone loves Zooey Deschanel, but you CANNOT not adore Alan Cummings, and Richard Dreyfuss is the perfect cherry on top.

All in all this is a great experience and a fantastic addition to the legacy of Oz.

P.S. No dancing here, but there is an enchanting and haunting children’s rhyme which will get stuck in your head.