Journey Back To Oz

Nitcentral's Bulletin Brash Reflections: Movies: Animation: Non-Disney Films: Journey Back To Oz
By Padawan Observer on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 3:52 pm:

I need information on this... thing. I saw it a while ago and it deeply disturbed me. It still disturbs me just thinking about it. Actually, at first it's all right, but as it goes it becomes progressively bizzarre and creepy (and not in a good way)

I'm really working from memory, but...

The best thing is not to take it seriously. I have not read the book or anything, and I realise that it isn't supposed to be all that serious. I can accept that the film is supposed to be a musical. That aside...

1) This is just a nit I can remember, not anything 'wrong' with it: During the signpost's song "I go up in all directions" he usually has three signs sticking out, but for one scene he has four.

2) It's too dark and surreal. All that's light about it is the comic relief, which is also dark and surreal, and the songs, which are surreal and often dark. Again, I'm not sure if the book is like this, but it sure is strange. And it makes it look very much like it's not for kids. But it's too silly NOT to be.

3) The cowardly lion is still a coward. Again, this may be the same in the book, but here's something else about him. To get out of the quest he says he is being called by an animation studio to "roar over their titles". Funny at first viewing but, animation studio, in Oz? This isn't a parody or anything, where lines can be dismissed, and who would get it besides people too old to call much else about it silly and immature?

4) The psychedelia. It's full of it. I understand the "love conquers all" concept, but there are better ways to show this than to have a song with swirly James Bond (or Austin Powers) style colors on screen. *shudder*

Not to mention more fantasy sequences, etc. I'll probably have more to say another time, but I'll leave it at that now, and I'd like to see what others have to say about it.


By Kira Sharp on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 4:17 pm:

I haven't seen this in fifteen years, but it was pretty entertaining back then. This is the movie adaptation of "The Land of Oz," right?


By kerriem on Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 5:44 pm:

Yeah...except the book The Land of Oz doesn't involve Dorothy, and isn't particularly dark and surreal.


By Padawan Observer on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 11:50 am:

The film has giant green elephants in it. That's probably enough to say which one it is, right?


By kerriem. on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 3:07 pm:

Poor Padawan. You really were spooked by this film, weren't you? :)

Anyway...according to the IMDb this movie also features a bit of stunt casting - the voice of Liza Minnelli as Dorothy. If it helps any.

I dunno why filmed 'Oz' sequels are always so dark and outre (see the live-action Return to Oz, as well). There's absolutely no precedent for it in the books - The Land of Oz is actually much lighter and funnier than the original. Subsequent books deal with some fairly intense fantasy violence (as does the MGM film) but Baum's tone on the whole is no more than gently satirical.

And no, there are no giant green elephants or any other type of psychedelia in the books; the 'love conquers all' theme may have been very hip in 1971, but is irrelevant to Oz, in which - as in most true fantasy universes - good usually conquers only after a very real struggle.
Also, in the books the Cowardly Lion retains the courage he received at the end of Wizard.


By Padawan Observer on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 3:51 pm:

I haven't seen this in fifteen years, but it was pretty entertaining back then. - Kira Sharp

Fifteen years is quite some time, and back then you were just newly in grade school, if you were even there.

Poor Padawan. You really were spooked by this film, weren't you? - kerriem

And, ah, what do you mean by that remark?

Anyway...according to the IMDb this movie also features a bit of stunt casting - the voice of Liza Minnelli as Dorothy. If it helps any. - kerriem

Yep. Looked it up earlier. And it's written/produced/directed by makers of several other bad animations (including Hal Sutherland of TAS fame).

And no, there are no giant green elephants or any other type of psychedelia in the books; the 'love conquers all' theme may have been very hip in 1971, but is irrelevant to Oz, in which - as in most true fantasy universes - good usually conquers only after a very real struggle. - kerriem

Oh, there was a struggle all right. And an awful lot of destruction and hopelessness. But Glinda announces in her slow, deliberate voice that "faith and love will give you the greatest magic of all". I am serious. And because of that Jack Pumpkinhead came back to life at the end.


By kerriem on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 6:54 pm:

What do you mean by that remark?

Nothing other than sympathy. :) That whole 'giant green elephants' thing sounds like it'd freak anybody out.


By Padawan Observer on Tuesday, January 22, 2002 - 10:03 am:

I have seen the film again -- well, not exactly seen it. I have skimmed through it with hand ever-ready at the fast-forward button. It wasn't quite as scary as I had remembered, but maybe I'd have been freaked out had I actually watched it. As it was, however, it was even worse in appearance than I remembered.

What I see is that this is clearly one of those films where the people making it are not really sure what audience they're writing for. It was written by American producers of Japanese animations such as Sailor Moon and G-Force, and animated by Filmation. That seems to sum it up, but still doesn't quite capture the exaggerated Disney-ness of it. It also combines celebrities being celebrityish with wacky shots of grinning animals and soforth.

More another time...


Add a Message


This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Username:  
Password: