“Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a perfect example why sequels and movies in a series originally begun over 70 years ago (or anything over 10 years past) shouldn’t be made. It loses its original vivacity that captured audiences. While I have no problem with movies being re-mastered (though converted to 3D and re-released into theatres is another story), there’s no need to make a movie that wasn’t made when it would have been the most opportune time.
People love “The Wizard of Oz” as it is, without CGI or bright colours that we see in nearly every single movie released in the market today. To make a film that is supposed to be a prequel and fill it with not only easily recognized, typically comedic stars (James Franco and Mila Kunis were definitely wrong casting choices) but more computer animation that would have been possible even 10 years ago is almost an insult to the original work. Imagine Tim Burton making another “Nightmare Before Christmas” – remake or ‘-quel’ – but using only CGI or even (perish the thought) live actors. It just wouldn’t be the same and would be an exercise in futility of re-hashing a franchise that is still doing perfectly well in the financial department on its own 20 years later.
Another major issue with the new Oz film is that it took L. Frank Baum’s original intentions and twisted them into something we should be well past in 2013. The women of Oz in Baum’s mind were strong, independent thinkers. Baum himself was a supporter of the radical feminism of his day – even married a feminist whose mother worked alongside historical figures such as Susan B. Anthony - which was obviously channelled into his books (a notable example is the allegory presented when seemingly male character Tip reverts back into Princess Ozma). However, Sam Raimi’s “Oz: The Great and Powerful” belittles the woman into stereotypical catfights fuelled by lust and jealousy and then having even the strongest of the three sisters (all who have magic at their whim) relying on a non-magic American male to do all the saving. The fact that Oscar is also a “ladies’ man” who continually lies and cheats his way through life and yet still manages to gain the trust of an entire world only to lie and cheat some more but, lo, all is forgiven in the end and he even gains the love of one Glenda (despite her knowing the entire time what a liar and cheat he is and even seemingly supports his personality instead of promoting change), is just an entire insult to what Baum had originally intended the world to be. Aside from the bleak view on individual thought and ability in women, it also has a poor lesson that you can lie and get away with just about anything as long as you charm yourself into someone’s pants.
I’m just not convinced the writers and director really understood the world Baum had created and didn’t properly appreciate the everlasting brilliance of the 1939 film. They saw an opportunity to make some guaranteed profit and ran with it. And, as expected, the film has made quite a bit but how long will it continue to do so? With a film, you don’t want to just get an audience member in the theatre once. You want them to continue to come back, buy the film for home, buy the merchandise, and pass on the recommendation of the film so others do the same. I would be blatantly surprised if this film has even a fraction of the staying power the ’39 film continues to possess.
No comments:
Post a Comment