|
Post by marshamae on Mar 3, 2020 16:09:59 GMT
I can’t imagine how anyone would willingly trade away Judy Garland’s stunning vocals and her beautifully controlled emotional performance for any kid actor. Weidler was a terrific little actress, but she had none of Garland’s star quality, none of her emotional sensitivity. And to trade Garland for someone who “ looked” like your idea of a child? Judy’s troubled adolescent made emotional sense of tge story. Her urge to run, her desire for adventure, are all more typical of a young teen. Her age has another plus. As a young teen she is old enough to have some agency , to control events a little. It makes tge events a little less terrifying tgat she is not a 7 year old.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,676
Likes: 1,301
|
Post by The Lost One on Mar 3, 2020 16:29:29 GMT
I read the original story once and found it tough slogging and without charm. To each their own, but the original novel was probably my favourite book as a child. The Oz books are basically Alice in Wonderland with a folksy American vibe and slightly more coherency. Love the film too of course. For what is a "silly" film, the script is very sharp.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 3, 2020 19:56:57 GMT
We weren't annual Oz watchers at my house, although I had seen it several times on B&W TV by the time we got our first color set when I was 10. I had always wondered how the film makers accomplished the transition: did the color bleed in; was there a dissolve; did it dimply burst into full color as Dorothy opened the door? Even at that age, I was immersed in film technique and language, so that year, I insisted we watch it again so I could finally see how it was done.
There still weren't that many color shows on in '63, and whenever the set was tuned to one apparently in B&W, somebody in the family would go and tinker with the color knob "just to make sure." They'd crank it all the way up and, once convinced the show was really B&W, crank it back down, usually too far.
That year, as we watched B&W Dorothy open the door of her crash-landed house to colorful Munchkinland, it remained B&W. She stepped out...still B&W. I rushed to the color knob and, sure enough, someone had left it turned all the way down. I cranked it back up to the proper level and it was gorgeous, but it was too late, so my curiosity was still unsatisfied.
It really wasn't until about 9 or 10 years later at a revival house screening that I saw Oz in its original form, with the first two reels in sepia tint, which made all the difference. The first shot of the Technicolor Reel 3 is of sepia Dorothy, seen from behind, opening her sepia door to reveal full color Munchkinland. It was still some years before I learned how they did that: the interior of the Gale house set was painted sepia, a double for Garland wearing a sepia version of her costume (and with her exposed arms covered in sepia makeup) pulled the door open and backed out of the shot. As the camera began to dolly forward, Garland in her blue-and-white costume stepped into the shot and through the door.
No cuts, no opticals or other lab tricks; a wonderful visual effect, done for real right there on the set and in the camera. Decades before anyone ever thought of CGI, clever and creative people could always figure out how to put whatever you wanted to see on the screen. They were the real wizards of Oz.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 3, 2020 20:50:16 GMT
Its a good movie.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 3, 2020 20:58:52 GMT
We weren't annual Oz watchers at my house, although I had seen it several times on B&W TV by the time we got our first color set when I was 10. I had always wondered how the film makers accomplished the transition: did the color bleed in; was there a dissolve; did it dimply burst into full color as Dorothy opened the door? Even at that age, I was immersed in film technique and language, so that year, I insisted we watch it again so I could finally see how it was done. There still weren't that many color shows on in '63, and whenever the set was tuned to one apparently in B&W, somebody in the family would go and tinker with the color knob "just to make sure." They'd crank it all the way up and, once convinced the show was really B&W, crank it back down, usually too far. That year, as we watched B&W Dorothy open the door of her crash-landed house to colorful Munchkinland, it remained B&W. She stepped out...still B&W. I rushed to the color knob and, sure enough, someone had left it turned all the way down. I cranked it back up to the proper level and it was gorgeous, but it was too late, so my curiosity was still unsatisfied. It really wasn't until about 9 or 10 years later at a revival house screening that I saw Oz in its original form, with the first two reels in sepia tint, which made all the difference. The first shot of the Technicolor Reel 3 is of sepia Dorothy, seen from behind, opening her sepia door to reveal full color Munchkinland. It was still some years before I learned how they did that: the interior of the Gale house set was painted sepia, a double for Garland wearing a sepia version of her costume (and with her exposed arms covered in sepia makeup) pulled the door open and backed out of the shot. As the camera began to dolly forward, Garland in her blue-and-white costume stepped into the shot and through the door. No cuts, no opticals or other lab tricks; a wonderful visual effect, done for real right there on the set and in the camera. Decades before anyone ever thought of CGI, clever and creative people could always figure out how to put whatever you wanted to see on the screen. They were the real wizards of Oz.
Bless you, doghouse, for explaining all of this so well. I've always marveled at what they were able to do in those days. Somewhere on this board there's a thread that addresses other effects in the film, which I can't locate right now. But there's no question that Oz is a wonder in that regard, back in the day when they were still, in some ways, "inventing" the medium.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 3, 2020 21:21:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 3, 2020 23:05:14 GMT
Bless you, doghouse, for explaining all of this so well. I've always marveled at what they were able to do in those days. Somewhere on this board there's a thread that addresses other effects in the film, which I can't locate right now. But there's no question that Oz is a wonder in that regard, back in the day when they were still, in some ways, "inventing" the medium.
And bless ya back for your appreciation. Our industry backgrounds differ, but we share that fascination for the nuts and bolts, and thanks to BATouttaheck 's link, I've reread your 8/29/19 post going into valuable detail about some of the other effects and their pre-CG, hands-on nature, which is what makes it all so exciting to me. When you've got software allowing you to visually depict anything you can imagine, is there really a vast difference in the creativity required to render a grizzly bear that will attack Leonardo DiCaprio, or a mythical flying dragon, or Tom Cruise clinging to the fuselage of a jet going hundreds of mph? Different results, but the same disciplines involved. It's neither as impressive nor as much fun when compared to the ingenuity of "building" a tornado, or creating a fleet of flying monkeys, or melting a witch so they can all be shot in physical space with a camera.
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 4, 2020 0:20:56 GMT
|
|
spiderwort
Junior Member
@spiderwort
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 9,340
|
Post by spiderwort on Mar 4, 2020 0:28:26 GMT
Bless you, doghouse, for explaining all of this so well. I've always marveled at what they were able to do in those days. Somewhere on this board there's a thread that addresses other effects in the film, which I can't locate right now. But there's no question that Oz is a wonder in that regard, back in the day when they were still, in some ways, "inventing" the medium.
And bless ya back for your appreciation. Our industry backgrounds differ, but we share that fascination for the nuts and bolts, and thanks to BATouttaheck 's link, I've reread your 8/29/19 post going into valuable detail about some of the other effects and their pre-CG, hands-on nature, which is what makes it all so exciting to me. When you've got software allowing you to visually depict anything you can imagine, is there really a vast difference in the creativity required to render a grizzly bear that will attack Leonardo DiCaprio, or a mythical flying dragon, or Tom Cruise clinging to the fuselage of a jet going hundreds of mph? Different results, but the same disciplines involved. It's neither as impressive nor as much fun when compared to the ingenuity of "building" a tornado, or creating a fleet of flying monkeys, or melting a witch so they can all be shot in physical space with a camera.
Could not agree more, doghouse!! Perfect example, this time of using technology just for the sake of using technology: the new Call of the Wild, starring Harrison Ford. I was looking forward to seeing it until I learned that it has an animated dog! Really?? Give me the real thing any day. Even Ford, in the interview I saw, seemed a bit frustrated by the experience of filming it.
|
|
|
Post by hitchcockthelegend on Mar 4, 2020 2:13:47 GMT
Timeless classic still entertaining the masses as each new generation comes in.
Dorothy is a young girl living on a Kansas farm, during a tornado, she, along with her dog Toto, is swept up and plonked down in a magical and mysterious land known as Oz. Desperate to get back home and under threat from a wicked witch, she is advised to seek out a great wizard who should be able to help her get back home. As she sets off and on her way, she meets and befriends a wonderful array of characters whom also have something to ask of the fabled wizard. It's a journey that will prove to be both magical and fraught with danger.
The Wizard Of Oz is a film that has been pored over and dissected from almost everyone involved in the wonderful world of film. One thing that strikes me every time I view it is that there not only is no place like home, there is also no film like The Wizard Of Oz, and really, when all is said and done, there is unlikely to be another film of its ilk to ever grace the silver screen. Upon multiple viewings only the most biased of film fan could say that it is a technically perfect picture, it clearly isn't, for at times it's a wee bit creaky and when scrutinised, some of the performances in the piece are far from being of an excellent standard. Crucially, though, any misgivings are quickly erased due to the utter wonder of it all, you see this is because the film has a beguiling ability to transport everybody who is watching it and slot them into OZ alongside Dorothy.
The Wizard Of Oz appeals (and caters) to every demographic and pretty much any age group, we have adventure, the meeting of new friends, fears and trepidations, booming colour, songs to singalong with, and of course the total crux point of homely values. The Wizard Of Oz stands up well 80 years later because it taps into all the emotions available to the human being. Be it a young child spellbound on a first viewing, or an octogenarian couple of grandparents wistfully humming along to the tunes, it's a film that shouldn't be dissected looking for faults and hidden meanings, it's a film that should be loved and praised for the ode to fantastical whimsy that it so obviously is.
The film of course will forever be associated with its darling star, Judy Garland. Viewing now, and knowing what a sad life she would eventually lead, The Wizard Of Oz is a fitting picture on which to remember what a magical and wonderful performer she was. Myself as a lump of waning middle aged machismo, has no shame in saying that as Judy sings Somewhere Over The Rainbow I melt and feel as though I'm being sent spinning into another world, that's the power of the piece, because as a sepia Kansas becomes the glorious colour of Oz, nothing else in my world matters, I'm in hook line and sinker.
There are many interesting back stories to the picture, with books galore available to anyone interested. Some notes that might interest you being the original castings to be W.C. Fields, Shirley Temple and Deanna Durbin, munchkins running riot, drunken cast members, sadness and suicides, and grizzled old pros fighting hard not to let Garland steal the picture. Well it makes for a great read, for sure, but what remains to this day is one of the most beloved pictures to have ever been made, for once in the pantheon of great cinema we have a film that is termed a classic, that actually deserves to have that tag!
One of the great things about the advent of technology is that it can benefit old classic movies to make them better, for now we can view remastered editions of The Wizard Of Oz and appreciate even more what a great job the makers did. Keep your eyes on Dorothy's Ruby Slippers during the film and see how they are the sparkling important character that they should be, or take in the brilliant work of the make up crew, the tiniest of rivets on The Tin Man a testament to the brilliant work that goes into bringing magic to our lives. Get the newest copy you can and then also see it on the biggest screen available to you because The Wizard Of Oz is a 10/10 movie. And then some.
|
|