Reverse Dorothy.

In Peggy Sue Got Married, the title character finds herself transported to high school after a traumatizing reunion goes wrong. The whole sequence reminded me of The Wizard of Oz of course...

Later in the film, we even meet the wizard!

It's all smoke and mirrors people!

This post is part of Nathaniel's "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series.

There's No Place like the Zone.

"Who knows what kind of wish someone might cherish..."
- from Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker.

The Wizard of Oz turns 71 today. During those seven decades, the film has become one of the most discussed, loved and influential pieces in cinema history.
This is why it's so fascinating to discover the ways in which has influenced the works of world renowned auteurs in the most singular of forms.
From the obvious like Baz Luhrmann and George Lucas to the more avant garde like Kimberly Peirce and Akira Kurosawa, Oz has charmed its way into the hearts and subconsciousness of all kinds of artists.
It shouldn't be surprising then, that Andrei Tarkovsky's seminal Stalker is perhaps the movie that most resembles it structurally and aesthetically.



Tarkovsky was a master at exploring the metaphysical, the dreamlike and anything that had something to do with the machinations of the soul. When Stalker was released in 1979 Tarkovsky was 47, it's easy to assume at some point in life he had seen Oz and the similarities are not mere coincidences.
But let's start with those.



In a nutshell both The Wizard of Oz and Stalker are movies about an external quest that leads to inner discovery.
In Oz, Dorothy (Judy Garland) is taken by a tornado to a magical land, where the powerful title wizard will grant her one wish.
Joining Dorothy on her trip are a Scarecrow (Ray Bolger) who wants a brain, a Tin Man (Jack Haley) in need of a heart and a Lion (Bert Lahr) looking for courage. The four of them, and Dorothy's dog Toto, must endure perilous tasks and missions to have their wishes granted.
In Stalker, there is a mysterious place simply called "The Zone" where it is said your innermost wish is granted, this place of course is surrounded by military forces and danger.
The Stalker (Alexander Kaidanovsky) has become an expert in getting people into "The Zone" and on the mission we see in the film takes a Professor (Nikolai Grinko) seemingly trying to win a Nobel prize and a Writer (Anatoli Solonitsyn) who has lost inspiration.
They too must endure all sorts of peril given that "The Zone" is known for its capricious nature.



When I first got the idea for this piece, I did some research and found there was an article in GreenCine which pretty much did a thorough comparison of why the movies were similar. It seems that great minds think alike huh, so why not read that piece as well? Be warned though, the article contains several spoilers.


(The Tin Man, Cowardly Lion and the Scarecrow encounter immense danger in a poppy field before arriving to the Emerald City)

(The Stalker, the Professor and the Writer get existential in a field before reaching "The Zone")

But what I'd like to explore goes beyond the aesthetic, formal and structural similarities between both films.
Sure both are divided in monochromatic, sepia sequences and lush vivid moments to separate the "realities" they deal with.
Both deal with dreams, wishes and the fear that comes when we see them about to materialize.

But more than an interpretation of The Wizard of Oz, Stalker gives it a new dimension by removing the main female character.
Under this reading, Stalker could very well be an alternate version of The Wizard of Oz, one without Dorothy.
There is a lot that can be drawn from the fact that both films refuse to give proper names to their three supporting male characters.
From the Scarecrow to the Writer, they are all merely known by adjectives mostly related to their work. With this they are not only robbed of something that would resemble an identity, they also become symbolic figures at their most basic form.



This is obviously intentional given that both the Stalker (if he is to supply Dorothy's protagonism) and Dorothy, have beings with proper names they use to link back to home.
The girl has her dog Toto, whom she refers to and talks as if he was the only connection she has to what she originally thought to be true.
The Stalker has his daughter Monkey (Natasha Abramova) who doesn't come with him but is often mentioned and most of the time is a mysterious figure who reminds her father about something he might've chosen to forget or ignore.

If we concentrate on Stalker we come to find that Monkey might very well be the Dorothy who stayed behind.
An alternate version of the perky heroine Garland played who might've missed the tornado and never got to realize her destiny.
When the movie ends we learn something about Monkey, probably no other character knows.
It's as if Tarkovsky is reminding us not only about the fact that the young female presence is essential to these plots but also giving us insight into the tragedy that would be for some art-forms to be altered.
"Mankind exists in order to create works of art" declares the Writer with absolute certainty.
It's also curious to see how Dorothy serves as a compass of sorts and her non-presence in Stalker makes the male characters seem lost at all times.
More than expressing some basic form of male-female complementarity, it seems to be saying something about the nature of the elements we carry with us.


You might say that having Dorothy on board didn't make things any easier for the Tin Man, Lion and Scarecrow but at the end of Oz Dorothy has learned something about herself and the people in her world. She has found home.
The Stalker though remains the same, perhaps even more detached from a world he no longer recognizes and fully aware that magic might not be what he needs; after all he himself declares "everything that happens here depends not on The Zone but on us".
But where is his accountability for his own actions? Why isn't he able, like Dorothy, to learn from past mistakes? How many more times will he do this journey?
This eternal search for the Emerald City is what makes Stalker such a moving essay about traveling down the confines of the human soul, where yellow brick roads might not always point in the right way.


Which of your favorite classic movies has inspired another movie you love?

A Woman's Right to Shoes.

Given the strain under which fashion culture has been placed lately I couldn't help but wonder if people have always been so critical of clothes and accessories.

My first thought took me to one of my favorite films, for what is The Wizard of Oz if not a feminist stance on a woman's right to shoes?


When we first meet Dorothy Gale (Judy Garland) she's a preadolescent living in a sepia Kansas. Her clothing is limited to a simple jumper and white puffy shirt, complete with inconsequential Mary janes.
Threatened by the lack of meaning in her dull life and the menace of her evil neighbor Mrs. Gulch (Margaret Hamilton) she dreams of going to a place over the rainbow, where problems not only melt like lemon drops but she can actually enjoy the color of said fruits.

As we all know, a tornado takes her to the far away land of Oz where she encounters a fierce enemy in the Wicked Witch of the West and the endless possibilities of a Technicolor palette.
The minute she arrives, her view of life is transformed because she has achieved color. Her simple jumper now in pale blue becomes a symbol of serenity and achievement.
Did you know that the color blue is meant to symbolize high ideals?
With this simple color choice we determine that the filmmakers are placing an importance in the way Dorothy looks, in her expression through what she wears.

It's also interesting to point out the fact that for the film, the slippers were changed as well. In the book they are made out of silver but once they are tinted in red for the movie they acquire the properties of what some call the color of life.
Red is supposed to increase energy levels in those who see it while also representing confidence to chase your dreams and protection from fear.

What has lacked in most commentaries on Oz is the notion that Dorothy's struggles also represent a woman's self discovery through fashion.



When Dorothy's house lands on the Wicked Witch of the East, her death doesn't become reality until she's ridden of her powerful ruby slippers.
Notice how her socks shrink only until the good witch Glinda (Billie Burke) magically removes her shoes. Before that moment for all we know she could still lift the house with a magical spell.
With this, the movie isn't validating her life expressly through her footwear but makes a remarkable commentary on the ability of a thing as simple as a shoe to give women means of liberation.

Once I read an article on Vogue in which a woman who hated high heels takes on the enterprise of trying them out to see what she's missing. After an experimental phase she decides heels are still just not the thing for her.
Her views are changed however once she meets a woman who confesses that like her, she could do without the pain of heels but she uses them to reach the same height of her male co-workers at the office.


Judy Garland was quite short and given Dorothy's age, one would also expect her to be lacking in height. But once she puts the slippers on she is on par with her eventual, all male, travel companions.
She may not tower over them but she's practically their equal and instead of being seen as a meek figure, it's Dorothy herself who becomes their protector.

And that's without even mentioning the fact that the slippers have magical powers.

Then again, what is magic if not the ability to transform the ordinary into the extraordinary?
A woman's shoes may not have the power to transport her to other worlds or grant her wicked witch exterminating skills but they are much more than means of protecting your feet.

I'm sure when Dorothy woke up back in Kansas, she grabbed the first bus to the city and made her way to a department store to get her first pair of heels.



This post is part of the musical blog-a-thon hosted by the awesome Andrew of Encore's World of Film & TV.

There's No Place Like Oz.

Seventy years ago "The Wizard of Oz" was released theatrically in the United States. It's quite probable that people back then had no idea how iconic this film would become.
On the surface it was yet another glossy studio product featuring rising movie stars, bold special effects and that marvelous, rarely used, thing called Technicolor.
Contrary to what one might guess, the movie wasn't a box-office success upon release (it grossed over $16 million-$3 million of which were domestic- which are nothing compared to "Gone With the Wind"'s $400 million worldwide gross-unadjusted for inflation), in fact it took MGM a decade to make profit out of the film.
But can the influence of Oz be measured strictly in economic terms? I think not.
The film has become so beloved that people give for granted that it was always a "classic".
This excerpt from TIME Magazine shows us otherwise:

"Metro put $3,000,000 into The Wizard of Oz, left out only the kitchen stove. Its tornado rivals Sam Goldwyn's The Hurricane. Its final sequence is as sentimental as Little Women. Its Singer Midgets, most publicized of all the picture's cast, go through their paces with the bored, sophisticated air of slightly evil children." TIME Magazine August 21, 1939

If that's not a bad review-at least not ecstatic-then I don't know what is.
A lot has been said about this movie, books, essays and reviews-oh my!- have been written that cover every little aspect of production up until the urban legends and curses surrounding this mythical movie.
The point in my tribute therefore won't be to cover things that have been said before or to reisntate the obvious, but actually to share the effect "Oz" has had on me as a film viewer.
The film has the sort of magic that makes people gasp and blink, even in the times of CGI, and its special quality for re-examination and re-interpretation are what has kept it alive for seventy years.
Only a decade after their scathing review TIME were already taking it back:
"The Wizard of Oz (M-G-M), dusted off and reissued, proves that true wizardry, whether in books or on the screen, is ageless." TIME Magazine May 9, 1949

Not many films become classics so fast right? Because even if the Wizard had no real magical powers to aid Dorothy and her friends, the movie has held a mysterious enchantment over all of us who have seen it and love it.
I can't recall the first time I saw it, but I remember I was dumbstruck by the colors; the vibrant, almost surreal tones that explode upon the land of Oz.
Even back then, I must've been eight or less, I knew that this wasn't the kind of movies I could pay to go see in the theater.
The colors, while real-as opposed to Black & White-weren't natural, there was something fascinating about them.
Years later my father asked me to watch the movie with him. I remember feeling bored and restless at the black and white sequences-I had no idea what sepia was so B&W got the job done-I asked and asked why was the movie like that.
He told me to wait and see.
The one thing I had clear about it is that I'd seen it in color, could it have been that I dreamed that? So as my head turned and turned about my memories of "Oz" then all of a sudden Dorothy opened the door upon landing on Oz...it was the first time I saw movie magic.
After that I was hooked.
I watch "Oz" at least once a year now, more if I feel like I need it. I say need it because like in the title song, the movie has become a safe haven of sorts for me, I know that watching Judy Garland sing, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr and Jack Haley accompany her and Billie Burke casting her protection over them there is nothing on the planet that can go wrong or hurt me-not even the Wicked Witch of the West!.
A few years ago TBS was airing the movie over Thanksgiving weekend, I made it a habit to watch it the four consecutive times it was broadcast and never seemed to get enough of it.
It's interesting to note that this might have been the first movie that defined the television era since it was through TV that many not only came to know it, but also to love it.
Thanks to television the film was granted a second chance, in a way creating cult for movies. It's kinda weird to imagine this as a cult film huh?
Through the years though the influences of "Oz" have become essential in pop culture and also in my life.
I'm sure not a single day goes by when I don't mention this movie. To not know "The Wizard of Oz" is to ignore one of the sources of constant cinematic pleasure and merriment.
References to it pop in places as unsurprising as "Gilmore Girls"-which made a habit of squeezing the last drop of pop culture in everything-to Tarkovsky's "Stalker"(which to this day I believe is a remake of sorts of the 1939 masterpiece).
Stoners owe great trips to this film and so does Pink Floyd, Baz Luhrmann's misunderstood epic "Australia" was also greatly inspired by this film and several "Sex and the City" episodes brim with Carrie Bradshaw-esque updates on the "Oz" quotes.
I could go on and on talking about why "The Wizard of Oz" is so important in my life (and believe me it doesn't even involve all the GLBT points) but for now I'd rather go watch it for the umpteenth time...
May "Oz" live for a million more years and light up people's imaginations the way it did with mine.

"...if the wizard is a wizard who will serve."

Another Reason Why I Love Musicals.

"The Wizard of Oz"'s tornado in "Cabin in the Sky".