Waiting for the Hero?
Nov. 20th, 2012 03:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
matrilSo last Saturday we went to see Wreck-it Ralph, a clever and adorable movie which I'm sure I'll be poking at from a feminist angle once I've had the chance to process it a little more. For now, though, I've been thinking about the Oz the Great and Powerful trailer that showed up beforehand. There's a number of interesting details to pick apart here, including the fascination with prequels/backstories that has been so prevalent lately (and maybe-just-maybe sparked by a certain much maligned trilogy of prequels), as well as the idea of casting Oz as the hero in place of Dorothy.
The main thing that stood out to me, though, is this notion of a number of powerful women (the good witches) all waiting for a prophesied man to come and save them. A man who, we all know, is not really great or powerful, certainly not on the same level as the witches. Now, I can only assume so much from a trailer. Maybe the movie doesn't have this idea nearly as strongly as the trailer indicates, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. Nah, I'm a English major. I can never read too much into something. :P
So what's going on here? Knowing the ending as we do, can we assume that they're setting up the protagonist as a prophesied hero only to turn that trope on its head and show how he's a fraud who makes things worse? That the one who will really save Oz is a little girl who has yet to arrive? That makes for a rather rough ending, and I kind of doubt they'll have the guts to pull it off, especially when they seem determined to make him a genuine hero. Kind of telling that this is from some of the same people who made the Alice in Wonderland sort-of-sequel, which took a story of a girl wandering through absurdity and chaos and turned it into a straightforward hero/heroine quest. The Oz books don't have quite the same level of absurdity and non-heroic plotlines as the Wonderland books, but when I read a bunch of them as a child, even then I had the sense that L. Frank Baum was just kind of throwing stuff at the page and seeing what stuck. It was fun, but at times silly and not really leading anywhere.
The 1939 movie, in some ways, improved upon the original material, tightening a meandering plot and making the witch a more central villain. On the other hand, it added the "it was all a dream" element, which I never personally cared for. This new film borrows at least the green-skinned Wicked Witch aspect of the '39 film, but other parts - like the china people - are only from the book. It remains to be seen whether it will borrow any more of the hodgepodge canon of Baum's books or the iconic flavor of the original film. The film would certainly be more familiar than the book to most viewers.
As far as the questionable feminist readings, I'm reserving any permanent judgement until I see where the movie takes things. However, I am put in mind of the plot of The Marvelous Land of Oz, which I would probably classify as my childhood favorite of the Oz books. I certainly re-read it the most of the series, and I can still remember most of its plot without having to look it up. (Disclaimer if some of my memories are not accurate.) I'm not sure why it appealed to me the most - it's the only one that doesn't include Dorothy, and I certainly had nothing against Dorothy. But it had such a bizarre plot, with what seemed to me a shocking twist. We follow Pip, a boy who's living as little better than a slave under the minor witch Mombi. He escapes and gathers a few companions along the way, headed for the Emerald City as everyone in Oz seems to do. Meanwhile, the Scarecrow's rule of the city hits a major obstacle in the form of a revolt by the female populace, who are tired of being lorded over by men. Their primary weapons are knitting needles. The revolt is contained, the Scarecrow restored to power, and the women are properly shamed for the audacity of wanting to be on equal standing with men. How silly of them to think otherwise, and knitting needles! Hilarious.
But wait! (Spoilers abound.) Pip is not really Pip. He/she's actually Princess Ozma, the rightful ruler of Oz, who was hidden away upon the ascension of the Wizard. He didn't want any threats to his tenuous grip on power, so he had Mombi take Ozma away and transform her. What the heck? The Wizard's a real jerk, it turns out. Or maybe this is just a logical extension of the cowardice and duplicity we've seen from him in the first book. Whatever. Total jerk. And the rightful leader of Oz, whom the Scarecrow gladly accedes to once Pip becomes Ozma once more, is a girl.
It's kind of a head-scratcher. Like I said, I don't think Baum had a strident agenda. His stories are too messy for that. He wrote whatever he thought would be entertaining, with plenty of weirdness and quirky character after quirky character. Which is why I think it becomes problematic to attempt to adapt these stories into straight-forward Hollywood hero's tales. Let's look at the bright side. The design and cinematography are gorgeous. We can enjoy the pretties, if nothing else.
The main thing that stood out to me, though, is this notion of a number of powerful women (the good witches) all waiting for a prophesied man to come and save them. A man who, we all know, is not really great or powerful, certainly not on the same level as the witches. Now, I can only assume so much from a trailer. Maybe the movie doesn't have this idea nearly as strongly as the trailer indicates, and maybe I'm reading too much into it. Nah, I'm a English major. I can never read too much into something. :P
So what's going on here? Knowing the ending as we do, can we assume that they're setting up the protagonist as a prophesied hero only to turn that trope on its head and show how he's a fraud who makes things worse? That the one who will really save Oz is a little girl who has yet to arrive? That makes for a rather rough ending, and I kind of doubt they'll have the guts to pull it off, especially when they seem determined to make him a genuine hero. Kind of telling that this is from some of the same people who made the Alice in Wonderland sort-of-sequel, which took a story of a girl wandering through absurdity and chaos and turned it into a straightforward hero/heroine quest. The Oz books don't have quite the same level of absurdity and non-heroic plotlines as the Wonderland books, but when I read a bunch of them as a child, even then I had the sense that L. Frank Baum was just kind of throwing stuff at the page and seeing what stuck. It was fun, but at times silly and not really leading anywhere.
The 1939 movie, in some ways, improved upon the original material, tightening a meandering plot and making the witch a more central villain. On the other hand, it added the "it was all a dream" element, which I never personally cared for. This new film borrows at least the green-skinned Wicked Witch aspect of the '39 film, but other parts - like the china people - are only from the book. It remains to be seen whether it will borrow any more of the hodgepodge canon of Baum's books or the iconic flavor of the original film. The film would certainly be more familiar than the book to most viewers.
As far as the questionable feminist readings, I'm reserving any permanent judgement until I see where the movie takes things. However, I am put in mind of the plot of The Marvelous Land of Oz, which I would probably classify as my childhood favorite of the Oz books. I certainly re-read it the most of the series, and I can still remember most of its plot without having to look it up. (Disclaimer if some of my memories are not accurate.) I'm not sure why it appealed to me the most - it's the only one that doesn't include Dorothy, and I certainly had nothing against Dorothy. But it had such a bizarre plot, with what seemed to me a shocking twist. We follow Pip, a boy who's living as little better than a slave under the minor witch Mombi. He escapes and gathers a few companions along the way, headed for the Emerald City as everyone in Oz seems to do. Meanwhile, the Scarecrow's rule of the city hits a major obstacle in the form of a revolt by the female populace, who are tired of being lorded over by men. Their primary weapons are knitting needles. The revolt is contained, the Scarecrow restored to power, and the women are properly shamed for the audacity of wanting to be on equal standing with men. How silly of them to think otherwise, and knitting needles! Hilarious.
But wait! (Spoilers abound.) Pip is not really Pip. He/she's actually Princess Ozma, the rightful ruler of Oz, who was hidden away upon the ascension of the Wizard. He didn't want any threats to his tenuous grip on power, so he had Mombi take Ozma away and transform her. What the heck? The Wizard's a real jerk, it turns out. Or maybe this is just a logical extension of the cowardice and duplicity we've seen from him in the first book. Whatever. Total jerk. And the rightful leader of Oz, whom the Scarecrow gladly accedes to once Pip becomes Ozma once more, is a girl.
It's kind of a head-scratcher. Like I said, I don't think Baum had a strident agenda. His stories are too messy for that. He wrote whatever he thought would be entertaining, with plenty of weirdness and quirky character after quirky character. Which is why I think it becomes problematic to attempt to adapt these stories into straight-forward Hollywood hero's tales. Let's look at the bright side. The design and cinematography are gorgeous. We can enjoy the pretties, if nothing else.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-11-26 10:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-11-26 11:23 pm (UTC)