If there's a (horror) movie that seems to exist outside of film history it's the strange case of "The Wizard of Oz," newly released in a 70th anniversary package on DVD and Blu-ray. It's credited to director Victor Fleming, whose directorial stamp (if not his signature) was also emblazoned on another 1939 release, "Gone With the Wind." "Oz" is one of the first "scary movies" many boomer and post-boomer kids ever saw (even before exposure to the truly terrifying Disney versions of "Bambi" or "Dumbo" -- or, for today's kiddies, "Saw" and "Hostel" and "Irreversible"), and remains a formative childhood experience for millions. (Forget the flying monkeys; I was terrified by the tornado, then shocked and traumatized by the sadistic use of sarcasm, which I'd never encountered in a movie before, when the Wicked Witch mocks Dorothy's desperate cries for her surrogate mother: "Auntie Em! Auntie Em!") In a Newsweek interview, Dave Eggers (co-writer of Spike Jonze's film of Maurice Sendak's "Where the Wild Things Are") says that "Oz" is his daughter's favorite movie and that her favorite part is the bleak, sepia-toned beginning set in Kansas. Sendak responds:
That is so fascinating that she likes the beginning more than the rest of it, because the beginning is so scary. One, the sepia tone itself tells you to expect something stormy. The fact that they all unwittingly abandon her. Her aunt doesn't have time for her. Bert Lahr [the farm hand who reappears as the Cowardly Lion] doesn't have time for her. No one has time for her. And her being alone, even for that brief time--how terrifying that must be for her. It surely was for me. [...]
I've always had a private theory that when she gets home and she's in bed, and Frank Morgan [the Wizard], at the window, says something like, "Is she all right?" And her uncle makes it clear that they might lose her. It goes by very quickly, but then she tries to tell them her adventure, she tries to tell them what it was like when she was in Oz, and her aunt says, "It's all right, Dorothy, just lie down." In truth, the grown-ups just don't want to hear her death fantasy. They don't want to think that Dorothy could be in so much trouble that she might not survive. And she lays back in bed and says, "There's no place like home." And there were people who were very critical of that--sentimental--but for me it was pure irony. There is no place like home. Where the hell else is she gonna go? It's the opposite of sentimental--it's the hard truth. Grown-ups are afraid for children. It's not children who are afraid. That movie is unbelievably great. (tip: Sheila O'Malley)
In his New York Times review of the new DVD set, Dave Kehr gets to the heart of what made "The Wizard of Oz" a touchstone for a few generations:
A box-office disappointment on its first theatrical release in August 1939,¹ "The Wizard of Oz" assumed its place in American culture (and our collective subconscious) primarily through the annual holiday television broadcasts that began in 1956. The aura of specialness that attended those broadcasts -- here was a spectacle that could only be glimpsed once a year -- can never be recaptured in our age of media ubiquity and on-demand access, which makes it doubtful that the film will seem as personally meaningful to future generations as it does to the baby boomers who grew up with it.
For those who did, "The Wizard of Oz" remains among the most Proustian of movies, triggering waves of involuntary memories with each viewing. If there ever was a film that truly lies beyond criticism, "The Wizard of Oz" may well be it: for every viewer it is a different experience, layered with emotions and associations built up over the years.
Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" went through a similar process -- a commercial flop that was largely forgotten until it became an annual holiday ritual on television (after it passed into the public domain). Are there more recent forgotten films that are, or may become, rites of childhood for you or kids you know?
* * * *
¹ From Aljean Harmetz's "The Making of the Wizard of Oz" (1977):
The picture... opened well in the thirty-two key cities surveyed by Variety, bringing in more money the first week than such recently successful MGM films as "Goodbye, Mr. Chips" and "Idiot's Delight." But the picture didn't have firm enough legs to justify its cost. Part of the problem was the fact that nearly half of a typical audience for the picture consisted of children, who got in for reduced prices, so that even when the picture played to full houses, the theater made considerably less money than usual. Arthur Freed's "Babes in Arms," which was released two months after "The Wizard of Oz," cost $748,000 and grossed $3,335,000 for the studio. "The Wizard of Oz" cost $2,777,000 and grossed $3,017,000. When the costs of distribution, prints, and advertising were added to the cost of making "The Wizard of Oz," it meant a loss to the studio of nearly a million dollars. The movie edged into the black during its first re-release in 1948-49, when it brought in another $1,500,000; but it did not really make money until it was leased to television.
46 Comments
Not necessarily a childhood rite, but Fight Club and Donnie Darko were both required teenage viewing for anyone currently between the ages of 18 and 25. It also seemed like everyone cool had seen Pulp Fiction by the time they were 13.
But if we're talking about forgotten films, I'll throw down Hook. It wasn't a big part of my childhood, but for tons of my friends, who can quote it front to back, it was. A local theater shows it every year during a film festival my college has.
My personal pick would be The Adventures of Milo and Otis, a film that got me through my childhood.
Don't really think too many "kiddies" of today are spending time watching Irreversible...
JE: No?
Well, A Christmas Story comes right to mind, of course. So does The Iron Giant, which was destined for greatness in a way that box office just couldn't reflect. And I have a sneaking suspicion that Where The Wild Things Are is going to impact an awful lot of kids in movie form, even more strongly than it has in book form. It'll be very interesting to see what art they'll be turning out in a couple decades or so...
A fascinating post, Jim. This seems like a deconstructive (maybe even Freudian) approach to films that do indeed seem beyond criticism, due to their intensely personal, almost nostalgic effect. My parents told me that within the first few months of learning how to talk, I devoted my linguistic education to the memorization of every line in Fleming's film. I have no recollection of this, but "Oz" exists in some bizarre, instinctual chamber of my brain, a place before understanding, before criticism, before "like" or "dislike". To watch it is to be fascinated by its past effect on my own personal history, my own Oz. There is something alien about watching the movie in a formalist fashion, something unnatural about it.
Similar experiences occur, as mentioned above, with the Disney animated films, essential rites of passage for children. The condemnation of "Sleeping Beauty" or "The Jungle Book" as structurally light-weight is counterintuitive to the fear I felt as a little boy watching Maleficent emerge from the shadows,and the joy of King Louie strutting to the jazz music of the jungle. The films of our childhood are protected by our earlier adoration.
Other films to consider: Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971), Ron Howard's Willow (1988), Richard Donner's The Goonies (1985), and The Sandlot (1993). All of these films strike to the very core of my own childhood, regardless of their flaws.
Perhaps the lesson here is that copyright terms are simply too long. Forgotten films, with 95 years from the time of release (thank you Sonny Bono) until the they enter the public domain, are likely to remain forgotten under the current regime.
But as far a substantive suggestion, I'd suggest "Iron Giant," although perhaps not technically forgotten, may become a rite of passage for children.
Now that Scanners has brought up "The Wizard of Oz," I have to comment. There are few films about which I have more of a dissenting opinion than that of the masses. Throwing Maurice Sendak's words back at him, I find it 'unbelievable' how this film is almost universally viewed as 'great'. First, to avoid any misunderstanding, my objections have nothing to do with religion or witchcraft. The attacks by religious organizations against Glenda, the Good Witch of the North, said more about their intolerance than about anything in the film.
I remember having trouble with portions of the film as far back as age 4, when I first saw it. I subsequently read the book, somewhere around age 9 or 10, and doing so clarified and, over a period of time, added to my issues with the film.
First, while L. Frank Baum's writing style was simplistic, many of the ideas he was conveying were ahead of their time, and apparently were still ahead of the time when the film was made. While condensing the story was understandable, and even an admirer of the book like me would admit that it isn't perfect and some fixing of details is warranted, MGM did a lot more to it than that. They dumbed it down. They also switched genres, turning what was originally a children's fantasy-adventure, with some subtle satire and social commentary, into an inane musical comedy.
Much more of the original story was thrown out than was necessary, and whole scenes were replaced with less effective material. Despite the fantastic situations, the dialog in the book is, for the most part, believable, yet much of what passes for dialog in the film is a string of unbelievably dumb cliches that make it impossible for me to suspend disbelief in what I'm watching. Thus, the "horror" scenes that Jim describes are not frightening to me, plus they are quaint in comparison with some of the suspenseful material in the book which was not used in the film.
The filmmakers also weakened Dorothy as a character. Judy Garland's portrayal of her may seem strong for that era, but her counterpart in the book proved to be braver and better able to adapt to situations, despite being just six years old. The girl in the book was simply too much for sexist Hollywood. Nowhere is this more evident than when Dorothy is captured by the Wicked Witch of the West. The famous (or in my mind infamous) hourglass scene, where Dorothy is rendered completely helpless and doomed to die unless the male characters save her, is a studio fabrication. In the book, Dorothy defeats the Witch on her own, and then rescues her friends.
Commandeering the title of one of Roger Ebert's books, I also "hated, hated, hated" the 'it was all just a dream' ending. It's one of my pet peeves in storytelling, along with "Superman II" style memory wipes, that reset much or all of the character development back to square one. The book, by the way, leaves open-ended the question of whether Dorothy's experiences in Oz are real or not. The better for the author writing sequels.
JE: What you say is true. MGM made "Oz" into an MGM musical. What did you think of Walter Murch's 1985 "Return to Oz" with Fairuza Balk?
One incredibly similar to "It's a Wonderful Life" is Harold Ramis's superb "Groundhog Day," which did reasonably well upon initial release, disappeared for a few years, then kept growing in the culture through TV broadcasts, then rentals, then church/synagogue viewings, until now, a time when it's widely seen, widely loved, and widely considered to contain Murray's best performance.
It's also, like "It's a Wonderful Life," remembered primarily as a heartwarming rom-com fable, when it actually carries some very dark sequences and situations.
Interesting post, Jim. I'd echo Patrick's comment that A Christmas Story is the last film to receive this sort of once-a-year TV event pop culture adulation. It seems as though virtually everyone I know in my age group (the withering Gen X) grew up watching this film year after year on one of Ted Turner's cable channels and can quote it endlessly. I even remember the years it would run in a non-stop marathon on cable during Christmas day, almost like some perverse antidote to the notion that Christmas is a fun time to be spent with family.
Nowadays though, this sort of phenomenon is pretty much non-existent. As much as I love DVD rental, OnDemand video, and the internets as an instantaneous source of cinema ephemera, we've lost a little piece of our cultural identity when we miss out on little gems that quietly grow into annual staples like this, just because one really wealthy guy insists on tricking us into watching. It's possible it seems, but fairly unlikely, especially when cable seems to program the same drek hour after hour now for the holidays (Ron Howards The Grinch, anyone?). Even It's a Wonderful Life doesn't hold the same status anymore.
I think the "box-office disappointment" thing is just a myth. I think the film did as well as any, in fact better than most, and that the only problem is that it did not repay its large budget in its initial run. Can we get the sales figures on this and other major films from the era and see how they compare? We did this a couple years ago with The Beach Boys' Pet Sounds: blew the "disappointing sales" myth right out of the water!
There is one scary children's movie that towers above all others, and people just don't talk about it enough. I'm talking about Disney's Fantasia. After being afraid to sleep alone for weeks at a stretch as a child, I need catharsis. "Night on Bald Mountain" is Disney's cruelist practical joke. After all the previous sequences lull children into a false sense of security, "Night on Bald Mountain" suddenly drags them into the most terrifying monster movie imaginable. All they can do is close their eyes as the music crashes mercilessly over them. They can't get up to shut the movie off; if they get any closer, the devil will whip them up into the screen and burn them alive! This sequence is the stuff nightmares are made of.
I'm 22 so most of movies that had an "Oz-like" impact on me came out in the early-mid 90s (although I was also exposed to and traumatized by Bambi and Dumbo). I have to agree with Jacob with his choice of The Sandlot. The movie plays on one of the most fundimental of childhood desires; a place to play without adult supervision. I think you have to applaud the movie for letting the story be about the kids without having an adult actor hanging around and looking out of place. A movie that I might add to the list that I remember by brothers and sisters I enjoying a lot is Hook (1991). It seems to fit the criteria in at least one respect as the death of 'Rufio' was only slightly less horrifying than that of Bambi's mom. Hook is one of those movies that I continued to return to for years after seeing it and never saw it the same way twice. As a youn kid, there's the obvious appeal of no-rules world of the 'Lost Boys.' Later, I was able to better appreciate the humor in the performances of Hoskins and Hoffman (Robin Williams I never found particularly funny). No doubt a flawed movie but one that still gets popped in the ol' VHS player at family gatherings and I still enjoy it.
it's interesting that Oz is the one pre-70s film that almost everyone has seen. it has a legacy in pop culture greater than Casablanca or Citizen Kane. even the boneheaded 'i don't like old movies' crowd are more often than not fans of Oz.
i will echo that Oz along with Willy Wonka, A Christmas Story, The Goonies and The Sandlot were staples of my childhood. and for some reason Joe Dante's The 'burbs looms large in my memory as well.
The Sandlot is a great example of a film that was poorly received by critics at the time of its release but has stood the test of time and gone on to be something of a classic family film.
Jim,
You've hit the proverbial nail right on the proverbial head with this assessment of Oz. It will always stand as one of my all-time favourite motion pictures indeed, but even in this age of instant access to most of film history (or at least most of the well-known parts - since much is still left out) there is something not only nostalgic, but romantic, about watching The Wizard of Oz when it plays on television. Sure, it may be cut with commercials (and who wants that when watching cinema!?) but there is still that romantic childhood feel about watching the film that way. Indeed, anyway one watches Oz there is this feeling of nostalgic awe inherent in the whole experience. Strangely enough I also feel this twinge of romanticism when watching the original King Kong. Just as scary as parts of Oz for a little kid, it is one of the first films I remember seeing (aside from Oz of course) on my tiny black and white TV in my childhood bedroom late at night. As Mr. Kehr said, this feeling of nostalgia/romanticism can never be recaptured in future generations and that is sad. They will have memories (Where the Wild Things Are may very well be one of them) but nothing of the shared experience of those of us born prior to 1980 or so.
"Raiders of the Lost Ark". The first memories of my entire life coincide with this film - there isn't any sense of distinction between it being "just a movie" for me - it was huge, epic, as big as the universe, and I remember it as such, not as a "movie".
After repeated viewings, it remains impossible for me to look at it with any sense of objectivity at all. It's like looking at a picture album now, albeit a very nice one. Roger Ebert once spoke of this sense of initial disorientation in his review of "The Deer Hunter" ("...the unfolding of the final passages should occur to you as events in life...") and THAT film was the closest I've come to totally surrendering to a film's visceral power as an adult.
With "Raiders", it wasn't a "movie" because I had no concept of such a thing when I was 5-6 years old and first saw it in the early days of cable TV. Indiana Jones was a person, and this kind of "life event", one I could replay again and again once the VCR was available, became a minor obsession.
I think my lifelong love with film came from this sense of innocent displacement, and while "Raiders" may not be seen as a traditional children's film, it certainly was for me - it had everything a boy could ever dream of, and a script I could recite verbatim at 7 years old without knowing what the hell most of it even meant.
Over-the-top? I can't say. IT happened to ME. I didn't choose to sit down to the film, like we as adults how we seek out film. As childern we happen upon them. To all parents: never underestimate how powerfully magical film can be on an impressionable young mind. I am glad Steven Spielberg can understand and respect that in kids.
I enjoy your film blog very much, Jim - thanks.
Doug Y.
The Wizard of Oz is my single favorite movie, largely because in watching it I can re-trace so much of my life. By the time I was 8, I could recite every line from the Wicked Witch of the West, not because I had seen the movie that many times, but because my dad would recite them at random points in conversation (he still does). He and his family were of the generation that grew up to the annual TV broadcasts, and even though he's owned the VHS for decades, he still watches any television broadcast of the movie that comes on.
In my earlier viewings I would need to fast forward past the flying monkeys. Later I went through a rebellion against all things I thought feminine and had to fast forward all the songs. I once thought I had to skip the non-color scenes because I thought they didn't count. But I always found ways to watch it, even when I was (in my mind) supposed to have grown past it.
I'm told by my dad that the first time I watched the movie with him, I said at the end "but none of it happened, it was all a dream." For the record, I NEVER said that. Dorothy was sent to the land of OZ in a tornado and sent home by her magical ruby slippers, dammit.
Babe: Pig in the City?
I don't know, I never thought "OZ" was scary as a kid. Freddy Krueger and Jason were what scared me, and the Flying Monkeys never could measure up.
"OZ" always had that effect of leaving me thinking about it for days after I'd seen, wondering about what went on the mind of the characters, and what I'd do if I were in their shoes. The two most memorable moments for me, were the when Judy Garland sang "Over the Rainbow", and that first moment when the movie switched from black and white to color, contrasting the bland Kansas farm-life, with the awe of OZ.
The "defining movies of childhood" turn out to be the "defining movies of a generation" because, after a certain age, a generation stops having the herd mentality towards pop culture that allows them to all share a certain experience.
To wit: for American suburban boys born between 1975 - 1981, I would say we had 4 defining movie "sets." First were the Disney animated movies we consumed uncritically, neither liking nor disliking, because we were so young.
We had the Spielberg-Lucas blockbuster, to tell us what a movie should be ("Jaws," "Indiana Jones," "Star Wars," etc.).
Then we had the R-rated '80s adventure, with its strange subversion, nihilism, patriotism, homoeroticism, and extreme violence ("Alien," "Predator," "Terminator," "Rambo," etc.).
Then we had "Pulp Fiction" on down to "Fight Club" that, essentially, told us to be more critical of all those movies.
Now everyone I know pretty much just watches TV and is done with movies. "The Dark Knight" and "Lord of the Rings" were just blips on the radar for people my age.
The most recent movie that comes to mind for me is Robert Zemeckis' "The Polar Express." I'm not sure if it's just a desire to reconnect with what I loved about (secular) Christmas time as a kid (emotions that have long since left my 26-year-old frame), but that movie struck me as unusually old-fashioned for being entirely made (at its time) with state-of-the-art CG. Maybe it's also because I didn't catch it until it started airing annually on cable TV recently, not unlike "The Wizard of Oz" and "It's a Wonderful Life." I have a feeling that if we were still living in a simpler time stripped of on-demand media ubiquity, that movie might have reached the same once-a-year hallmark status. I'm curious to see how his upcoming "A Christmas Carol" turns out, but I'm already sick of the whole "It's in 3D, whoo!" gimmick.
And while I'm on the Christmas tip, it may not be a movie, but the Chuck Jones animated "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" special is, I'm sure, a hallmark for many, many children as well (I'm surprised every year when I find it can still make me laugh out loud). And the less said about Ron Howard's "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," the better.
Another one that I wish would become a rite of childhood is Hayao Miyazaki's "My Neighbor Totoro." That may be the best animated film suitable for children (it feels oddly reductive to call it a "children's film") I've ever seen, but I suspect too many kids will never get to see it if their parents have no clue who Hayao Miyazaki is.
And lastly, I'll second Jacob's mention of "The Sandlot." It didn't hold up as well when I rewatched it when I was older, but I adored that movie as a kid. And I don't even like baseball!
Also: I cannot wait, wait, wait to see "Where the Wild Things Are." Just four more days!
"E.T." may well be one of these. We started watching it on cable about halfway in. It entranced two 4- and 8-year-old girls and brought a 50-year-old mother to tears. Of course, there is the not-so-subtle message to never trust your government. Perhaps E.T. is what prepares people for Fox News, but I digress.
One thing stands clear: The holiday connection helps anchor the film, even if, as for "The Wizard of Oz," the holiday has nothing to do with the story. How is it we remember the words to Christmas carols better than other songs? Mel Stuart's "Willy Wonka" is my big childhood movie, but while friends my age remember it fondly, it feels like an underground, under-appreciated choice.
Let me echo the thoughts on Chuck Jones' "Grinch" and add "A Charlie Brown Christmas" to the list. Each less than half an hour, although I always remembered Charlie Brown as an hour. They could be made slicker, but never with the charm, the wit or the honesty.
The films that come to mind were made "special" in the same way that Oz was: by showing up on TV once a year. Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and the Charlie Brown specials. Out of all these, Chuck Jones' Grinch and Oz are truly great pieces of work, regardless of the contributions to their lore by way of nostalgia and lack of on-demand availability (until now).
I don't know that any modern films can become a "rite of childhood." When I was a kid, there weren't any options outside of four channels on TV and the VCR didn't come around until I was about six. Now, we live in an era of instant gratification. It wasn't just that I would watch The Wizard of Oz during Thanksgiving break, I knew that every kid in my class was watching it too. That's just not going to happen today.
I think the readers who mentioned The Sandlot and A Christmas Story are right on target. Neither film could ever match the social saturation of Oz, but what could, really?
"Slap Shot"
In my world - covering sports for a living - particularly hockey - there is not a soul I come across who can't recite half the movie verbatim. Especially players or anyone involved with hockey whatsover ... they all can tell you, it's not only hilarious, it's practically a documentary.
Not sure it qualifies, since it's within this niche - but within our niche, it certainly does.
p.s. I always thought the beginning sepia-toned part of Wizard of Oz was damned creepy, myself.
Don't know about "forgotten" films, but Alien represented sort of a rite-of-passage for me back when I was 10 years old, as did Jaws, I guess because they were both very adult while at the same time containing strong fantasy elements. They were steps into a larger world of cinema for me as a kid. Then, to echo a previous post, Raiders of the Lost Ark took things yet another step further. The truck chase (esp. Indy's escape under the truck chassis) and the melting faces of the Nazis remained stuck in my memories for years, until the movie finally entered heavy cable TV rotation. I think that the next big "rite of passage" films for say, my grandchildren, will definitely be the Harry Potter series and The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Jim my initial thought when reading your question was the original King Kong. When it first played on television in the mid 1950's in our neighborhood, all of the boys came pouring ou tof their houses pretending to be the bi-planes shooting down the giant ape. Then I thought of the original The Thing which was a Halloween staple in the fifties and sixties (and is the movie Jamie Lee Curtis is watching while babysitting in Halloween). After reading the various and isighgtful responses from your readers, it hit me. The icon movie for those born after ,say, 1975, is Jon Landis' Thriller with Michael Jackson. I know technically it's not a "movie" in the sense of Oz, but sit in a room of people under thirty and watch the reaction when the firast chord is struck. Heads snap up, shouloders square, eyes widden in the anticipation of what's to follow. The first thing wy children (22, 20 and 18) did upon learning of his death in June was to dig out the video and play it ceaselessly. And to me an even interesting aspect to this discussion of Oz is that Michael played the Scarecrow in the musical remake The Wiz in the late seventies. Just some thoughts on fascinating subject.
"The Wizard of Oz" never scared me; I thought at times it was hilarious and touching. Rite of Passage movies: "A Charlie Brown Christmas", How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and the Alastair Sim version of "A Christmas Carol" or "Scrooge". (title depends upon which station is broadcasting it.)
The Company of Wolves
That's the scariest it ever got for me. Still a unappreciated movie.
Sorry, but us original baby boomers didn't see any sepia (that's the restored version) and I suspect that, like our family, a lot of others didn't have color TVs yet - so no transition to color either. But I will say that when Miz Gulch turned into the Wicked Witch I would dive under the couch. Ditto to the feet disappearing under the house. I did eventually get over the scary parts, and I will still watch it from time to time, pointing out to the kids where the commercials used to go.
Hooray for the original Grinch, Rudolf, and Willy Wonka.
I've always been partial to Christmas Story because I grew up listening to Jean Shepherd on WOR radio (It's based on his "In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash").
But I will always change the channel elsewhere if "It's A Wonderful Life" shows up. Hate it hate it hate it.
JE: Good point. I don't know how many times I saw "Wizard of Oz" on our JC Penney b&w TV before I saw it in color for the first time. I recorded it onto a 5-inch reel-to-reel tape recorder (using the earphone jack in the TV) at one point and listened to it over and over. I still remember where certain commercial breaks were: one after Frank Morgan says "Poor little kid, I hope she gets home alright," and another right after the lion runs down the Emerald Palace hallway and takes a flying leap...
Hi Jim, I'm from Colombia and one film I can think of as a common experience many children of my generation(born in the 80s)had as some sort of seasonal event back in the late 80s and early 90s, in the days before widespread Cable TV around here, was the TV (or film?) version of Alice in Wonderland. They used to air that movie every Christmas morning and it was like 5 hours long (or at least it felt like that when I was a kid) it was an all morning event. That movie was another "angst-fest" for children, with all that madness springing around every courner of Wonderland, added up tp the horror that is feeling lost for a child ...and the Jabberwocky.
I too saw The Wizard of Oz at a very young age - maybe 5 or 6 years old. Scared the daylights out of me, yet I stuck with it because the scary parts went by pretty quickly. That very scene pictured above of the tornado haunted my dreams for years growing up. I would say though that the 1933 version of Alice in Wonderland left a far deeper impression on me as a child. It was very faithful to the Tenniel illustrations, and therefore it maintained a very weird and dark style. I saw it recently for the first time as an adult and I've got to say it's a strange film. Not easy to find, and I'm surprised it's not more well known. It had Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant, and virtually every character actor that was popular at the time. Worth checking out.
I remember my sister and I being allowed to eat dinner on little tables in front of the TV when The Wizard of Oz was broadcast every year.
For a film, actually a TV special, that stuck in my head because repeated over the years -- I still remember Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol. He plays Scrooge and it's done quite straight. I still remember the songs.
I think my sons would name Tim Burton's Batman as their touchstone. They were 9 and 6 when it came out, saw it many times and it became part of their games. The older one confidently informed me that he knew it wasn't real because the Batwing clearly couldn't generate enough lift.
My husband and I always watch The Nightmare Before Christmas on Halloween night (we're not doing it for our sons; they're in their twenties and have moved out.)
JE: I absolutely LOVE "Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol" -- my favorite version of Dickens' story in all of life! It's as yummy as razzleberry dressing. "LA - LA - LA - la-la la-LA!"
Great analysis, Jim, of a film that is on my list of the ten greatest movies ever made (yes, it's true...there's always a spot reserved for "Oz"). Like many great childhood fantasies, it adds some truly terrifying elements to what at first glance might seem to be a fairly harmless story.
Among modern films that I think should be viewed as classics, I would say Gary Ross' "Pleasantville" comes to mind. It's perhaps a little too advanced for an eight year-old, but it was one of my favourite films as a young teenager and I find it still holds up remarkably well.
I'm surprised no one's commented on this movie's enormous popularity and divine status that it developed in the underground (as if there were any other) gay community in the pre-Stonewall era. It's a film that's resonated strongly with the culture for so many reasons (obviously Judy Garland, a campy witch character, rainbows come to mind nowadays) but I think that this "rite of passage" status exists among many films within certain subcultures or communities. And I think that virtually any "cult" film fits the criterion. While a tremendous element of its popularity rests on the shoulders of the stage show and callbacks and bizarre theatrics of the audience, "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" certainly qualifies. I find the film absolutely transcendent in and of itself (it's been wildly misunderstood and underappreciated - I think it's a brilliant, loving parody of B-movie archetypes combined with a bizarro glam-rock sensibility that precedes the Age of Irony by 20 years) and its cult status has rendered it difficult for me to really see the film as something other than a document to be worshipped and experienced. Other movies that I think count include "Monty Python and the Holy Grail", "All About Eve", "Freaks", "This is Spinal Tap", "UHF", "Clerks", "Repo Man", and "The Breakfast Club", not to mention the films of Ed Wood. Whenever I see them, I feel like I'm witnessing something that seems to exist outside of other films and carries with it its own code. That may be what makes a cult film, but that's a debate for another day.
[i]JE: What you say is true. MGM made "Oz" into an MGM musical. What did you think of Walter Murch's 1985 "Return to Oz" with Fairuza Balk?[/i]
I had mixed reactions to the 1985 sequel but liked it considerably better than its 1939 predecessor. Despite their cobbling it together from two different books in the series, and inserting a seemingly out-of-place plot element at the beginning, Disney was at least faithful to the spirit and tone of L. Frank Baum's writing for the majority of the film, while MGM wholly disregarded it. I also found Fairuza Balk's performance as Dorothy stronger and more believable than that of Judy Garland.
Looks like my previous post didn't make it through your spam filter, but I do have many reasons (on my site) why Chitty Chitty Bang Bang is such a misunderstood and overlooked classic -not just as a silly kids' movie, but as a classic _film_ in its own right.
It's a film that keeps giving the more you view it in fact, but nobody feels the need to look closer because "it's just a kids' movie".
They don't make 'em like they used to.
The Shining had good box office at the time, but it's reputation has grown considerably over the last 30 years, from being a necessary commercial film from Kubrick following Barry Lyndon to being his most enduring film post-2001. The episodic nature of the film fits well in television broadcasts.
Sam, I agree with you about Return to OZ, especially your point about Fairuza Balk. She adds so much more just by virtue of being a real little girl. I always liked it better than the original, especially the gnome king. The '80s were a good time for vivid, scary, children fantasies, I also liked Watcher in the Woods and Something Wicked This Way Comes (an overlooked gem that's the only good Ray Bradbury adaptation other than The Electric Grandmother).
What did you think of The Wiz (I haven't seen it)?
No matter how one feels about Spielberg or the movie itself, "Saving Private Ryan" was a demarcation point for war movies. There've been more violent movies before and after "Ryan", but that movie changed the way that we perceive "serious" war dramas.
Two holiday films from the master John Hughes that have yet to be mentioned in this post, and which were integral to my childhood: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles and Home Alone. Although it is clear now that the former is a better film than the latter, both are extremely nostalgic for me. I can still remember the first time I saw "Planes" and was heartbroken at the end to see that Dell was a homeless man without a family. Of course Home Alone had more of an effect on me since I was about the same age as Kevin when I first saw the movie. It was so exciting to see a kid who gets to relish in absolute freedom, and yet so real for him to ultimately feel lost without his family. (I think Where the Wild Things Are will obviously reecho this sentiment.)
As for a classic and highly underrated Disney film, may I submit Sword in the Stone.
[i]What did you think of The Wiz (I haven't seen it)?[/i]
I saw "The Wiz" in its network TV broadcast, sometime around 1980, and remember it primarily for its surrealistic expressions of urban African American culture. It is not, by any means, an authentic adaptation of the "Oz" story, but it doesn't pretend to be, and that, I think, gives it more license to go its own way, than the 1939 film had. If I seem non-committal, it's because it was a close call at the time, my memory of is vague as to why, and it was on commercial TV which was not the best way to see it.
On the subject of scary children's movies from the 1980's, besides the 1985 "Return to Oz", I also liked the much maligned "The Black Cauldron" from the same year.
I grew up on an old farm in the middle of the country where tornadoes are frequent. I can tell you that I was horrified at the tornado in the Wizard of OZ because it was all too real. I lived through two very close calls when I was a child. I have seen the sky turn black as night, heard the terrible roar, and felt the grit in my teeth as my mother frantically carried us to the cellar in horror. I can tell you that a real the tornado looks like the Finger of God, coming to take you to Hell.
Oz perfectly captures the moment--the fear of the real thing.
The special effects from 1939 still hold up well 70 years after it was made. The tornado scene is much more effective and terrifying than any in "twister."
Leave the movie for a minute. . .
What do you do when you are in the cellar? Even if you've never been to church you are praying.
You are listening as everything outside is being ripped apart by huge angry hands. You hear glass breaking, shutters banging, trees being torn apart (they sound like giant celery stalks being broken).
When the terrible roar ends, you go back up the stairs and look at the shattered world. Trees gone, grain wagons turned over and spilled in the field, corn crib "exploded", shingles torn off the house's roof and windows shattered, pigs dead field (motionless and in odd positions), grain bins dented like huge crushed pop cans, electrical poles snapped off with their wires on the ground, sparking and sizzling.
The movie resonated with the experiences of the Heartland.
For me, "The Wizard of Oz" was not simply a key movie experience for me as a child, it was perhaps the only movie that could fit that description. I'm 40 years old and I spent almost all my childhood in a small town in Canada. One consequence of this was that there were only two channels on my television. My town had a movie theatre (which eventually closed when I was 24) and it had a Saturday matinee. I saw "The Wizard of Oz" as a matinee when I was seven, when I was eleven, and on television when I was twelve. I may have seen it some other times when I was a child. By contrast, Disney animated movies could only be seen if they were rereleased into theatres: they never appeared on network television. As a consequence I saw "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" when I was six, "Bambi" and "Dumbo" when I was seven, and "Pinocchio" when I was eleven, and have never seen them again. My family would occasionally rent a VCR after my mid-teens, but we didn't actually own one until I was twenty.
Footnote to the above: Had I not gotten into trouble immediately after seeing "Pinocchio" and been punished by being denied the opportunity to go to movies I would have been able to see "The Song of the South," at probably the last time it was ever rereleased.
Not really a ritual, but a movie that scared the beeejayzus out of me as a kid: "The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T.", anyone?
My favorite part of that interview is when Spike Jonze is reminiscing on that conversation he had with the skateboarder on the subway who kept going on and on about how excited he was for "Where the Wild Things" are without quite realizing Jonze was the director, and the whole time Jonze is asking himself, "Is this guy *beep*ing with me?" I wanted to laugh out loud.
It's funny, but I watched the Wizard of Oz about a month ago. My youngest daughter (16 years old) was watching it. I was walking by, sat down, and began watching it too (at the Munchkin sequence), then my wife, then my oldest daughter.
I've probably seen the film a dozen times (maybe more, I can't really even remember the first time I watched it). There's something irresistible and magical about it that makes it one of the greatest and most viewed movies in the history of the cinema. Rather than becoming old and tired, I find myself remembering each scene with a smile; the introductions of the main characters, the first visit to the wizard, the delightfully over the top witch, the bittersweet ending. And you can forgive Garland her later decline, she achieved that rarest form of immortality from this single film.
I know there was a lot to hate about the old studio system, and its overthrow lead Hollywood to some extraordinary films, but in some ways I love Old Hollywood the best. It's a cliche, but it's still true, they just don't make movies the way they used to.
It's telling that there's a separate Wikipedia article for The Wizard of Oz on television.
Oh Oz.... I still can't watch Oz all the way to the end. Something about that film creeps me out to no end... It's not the flying monkeys, the colors, the little people, or the witch; its Dorothy herself. Dorothy is the creepest little girl in film history. Something about a little girl being played by an 18 year old drunk pillpopping drug addict with a baby talk voice in a overly sexualized outfit gave me the creeps at age 6 (when I didn't even know or care who Judy Garland was) and at age 33. Judy Garland's Dorothy is an agresively wierd charactor. Its seems that the film has this underlining sexualty to it that is freakishly out of place with the childlike tone of the film.
P.S. I find it funny reading this blog I had to throw Dark Side of the Moon on the Ipod. Syncs up nicely.
Scream Queen, yes, the 5,000 Fingers of Dr. is a good one. It stands out because there are no positive adult role models in the film and the kid is on his own. I imagine it would strike a nerve with any child who was in an alcoholic, abusive or divorced family.
I might as well bring up North. We all know what Roger ("I hated, hated, hated this movie") thinks about it. But what do you think? I'd have an easier time with it if it was an R rated movie for adults, but instead it's obstensibly intended as just another '90s child empowerment revenge movie (like Richie Rich, Blank Check, Getting Even with Dad, House Arrest, etc.) But are children supposed to understand the black satire, and stomach the extreme violence? Of course, The Good Son was shamelessly and exploitively pitched toward kids, with Culkin in the lead, so who knows.
Leave a comment