If you know me personally, or are fond of looking to the righthand side of websites. then you will know that I absolutely adore the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz; it was my favourite film in my most formative years and thus contributed inexorably to my sense of storytelling, humor and visual aesthetic. As such, you can imagine I was wary of Oz the Great and Powerful.
Let's start right at the beginning: the title is improperly punctuated. A noun followed by a description of that noun without an interceding copula requires a colon or a comma (for example, my school uniform list always specified 'shoes, brown'). You could argue that it's a title like 'Katherine the great' but these titles are usually limited to one specifier (Katherine the great, Ivan the terrible, Edward the confessor, etc.) and since the wizard from Oz is not normally referred by this title, and thus people aren't used to be seeing this name written out like that, well, it just looks like you couldn't be bothered to put your movie pitch through a proper spell/grammar check. I understand not wanting to use a colon, as this might make this look like a sequel, but a comma would not detract from your film.
The content might, though. I will confess the film is funnier than I thought- I laughed out loud at least three times, almost exclusively at Zach Braff as the CGI monkey, Finlay, but other than that this film just irritated me. And the sad thing is, if this film existed in a vacuum, it would be fine. But, like a limpet on a rock, Oz the Great and Powerful has latched on for dear life and is begging to be associated with the latchee- but the rock it's chosen is a 24 carat emerald and, by comparison, the limpet attached just looks all the uglier. And this limpet isn't even paying its rock the proper respect.
When Dorothy met the munchkins, there was rapturous joy on her face, she clapped along delightedly to their musical number- when James Franco sees them he makes fun of their singing. But that singing is part of what elevated The Wizard of Oz to a treasure and allowed this stupid film to be made. When Glinda first arrived in a bubble it was a moment of magic and high fantasy that tapped intoyour imagination. Here, it's a trick which Glinda admits is 'just for show' and that, yet again, annoys James Franco. Maybe be a little more courteous to the bandwagon on which you are riding?
But then, the aspects of the film that are outright imitations are pretty lame themselves: I've seen many a folk try to do an impression of Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch of the West, and, honestly SPOILERS Mila Kunis' is among the worst. What made Hamilton so much fun was the sense of glee that her witch had- encapsulated perfectly in that infamous laugh. When Kunis tries that laugh out, it sounds like she's faking. And though we now get to see the Witch properly zoom around on her broom, it's closer to the Green Goblin from Spiderman (surprise, surprise, given the director) than the terrifying figure who wrote her wicked words in black smoke against the Emerald City skyline. James Franco is not trying to be Frank Morgan, and you'd think that that at least would be a blessing, but the character he cuts is so inanely douchey (it's just a series of smiles- some sarcastic, some not) that you kinda wish he had attempted to more like the old humbug.
And then there's the fact that the plot doesn't make sense: SPOILERS Evanora, the wicked witch of the East, framed Glinda for the murder of her father and then chased her away; this is presumably so her much more powerful sister, Theodora, will stand with her against Glinda. But then Evanora sends her hordes of flying monkeys from her personal home in the Emerald city anyway, so Theodora will know she's behind the mass destruction of Oz anyway. And then, when Glinda comes back, she bests Evanora in a magic duel anyway, with no outside help or new magic she's learnt in the interim, so why didn't she just do that in the first place?
And finally, we wade into the muddy waters of ethics. The Wizard of Oz is surprisingly sound, feminism-wise: strong but non-violent female protagonist with no love interest, fighting another woman, saves the men several times (gets saved herself, too, but at least it's even), and whose primary aid comes in the form of a woman. In Oz the Great and Powerful, James Franco tricks Mila Kunis into getting physical with him by pretending to love her. He sees no need to disillusion her about her presumptions that they'll be together forever. He uses her, is what I'm saying. She's understandably angry when she finds out. However, she is punished for her clinginess by being turned 'hideous'. James Franco is never punished for his deception. No one ever points out that the creation of the wicked witch of the west is, in fact, entirely his fault. And, as we know from The Wizard of Oz, he later has her killed. And yet, we're supposed to cheer when he drives the witch of the west away from the city WHICH IS HER HOME. I have some real problems with that.
Overall, the only thing this film has going for it is a few moments of humor and visual effects. Both can be found, and in greater quantities, in other films. The Wizard of Oz springs to mind- no idea why.
No comments:
Post a Comment