Since the dawn of the Hollywood era, a popular means for filmmakers to make money has been to re-create the favorite stories of literature into film productions. There are numerous examples of this from Hollywood’s early recreation of Tennyson’s poem “Enoch Arden” in 1911 to the recent production of the ancient text Beowulf as a filmic event. However, the ability of the film to provide an accurate depiction of the original text is almost always questionable at best.
Ask any fan of the popular Harry Potter series and it becomes clear that the film, while sometimes very interesting and bringing out elements of the story that were not particularly emphasized before, is never capable of delivering the story to the same degree of depth and artistry. In many cases, such as those listed above, the film adds in artistic elements of its own that may or may not help to inform the intended meanings contained within the book.
While more recent films are able to surprise and interest the viewer thanks to the technological advances of digital imaging and faster-acting cameras, the films of the past were a great deal more limited in their ability to reflect the stories they were re-creating. By investigating shifts in story, tone, and characters between the book and the film, it can be discovered that the film significantly changes the themes of the original written version.
General differences
There are numerous differences that can be listed between the book and the 1939 film version of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. While many of these differences can be said to be minor, it is important to note that they include a significant generalization of the book.
For example, the film version is necessarily limited by the amount of time it takes to relate the story. As a result, much of the detail of the book is lost within the film itself. However, the film is also capable of adding in the dimension of sound, through both voice and music. The actors are able to convey how the character is thinking to a much greater extent by showing rather than telling while the music also adds to the emotional reaction of the audience.
Small differences, such as the change from silver shoes in the book to ruby red slippers in the film, are little more than eye candy for the film’s presentation of new color technology while changes in wording, such as changing the Tin Woodman to the Tinman, seem equally harmless although it does lose something in the play on words found in the book. Other changes, however, are more in-depth.
Both the book and the film start in a Kansas that is portrayed as mostly gray and empty, but this is where the similarities in the frame story ends. In the book, Dorothy is not seen to have any nearby playmates, “When Dorothy stood in the doorway and looked around, she could see nothing but the great gray prairie on every side. Not a tree nor a house broke the broad sweep of flat country that reached to the edge of the sky in all directions” (1-2). This is quite different from the Dorothy seen in the film who is seen riding her bike home from school along a dirt road and interacting with other members of the community who are not her aunt and uncle.
The house she lives in is also quite different as Dorothy in the film is privileged to have her own room in a comfortable, if modest, frame house that would be acceptable in any middle-class neighborhood. This is much different from the house made of “four walls, a floor and a roof” described in the book. Thus, an immediate difference is introduced between the book and the film that already starts to change the audience’s conception of Dorothy.
Instead of the lonely young child without a living soul to talk to but a reticent uncle and an aunt leached of all color, Dorothy in the film has three friendly and comical farmhands to talk with and a bitter old maid with whom to contend. “Miss Gulch ‘owns half the county,’ and it is clear that this monetary fact makes her will the dominant factor in Kansas” (Conlon, 1990: 100). These characters help to make a bridge between the land of Kansas and the land of Oz that emphasizes the idea that Oz was little more than a pleasant dream for the young girl rather than an alternate location as is suggested by the book.
The return to the frame story at the end of the book and film is as different as its introduction, with the film again expanding upon and changing the fundamental nature of Dorothy’s existence in Kansas.
When Dorothy returns in the book, it is obviously from somewhere else as she first finds herself sitting on the prairie facing the new house that has been built during her absence and Aunt Em asks her, “Where in the world did you come from?” (205). As it was mentioned at the beginning of the book that wood to build a house on the prairie had to be brought in by wagon, the fact that a new house has been completely built is intended to suggest a great deal of time has passed by. This is quite different from the impression one receives at the end of the film when Dorothy awakens in her bed, fundamentally unchanged and confused and the farm is fundamentally unchanged.
This return to the frame story also highlights the differences between the characters involved from book to film. The film, through its expansion of the frame story, sets up a theme in which masks are stripped away to reveal the thinking, feeling man inside as compared to the stoic and reserved men of Kansas, thus questioning the wisdom of social expectations.
“The characters in Oz [Scarecrow, Tinman, and the Lion – all of whom are the ‘mirror’ of the Kansas farmhands] are willing to share with Dorothy their deepest need and desire. Such frank self-assessment and openness are not a part of Kansas where men do not admit and discuss their cowardice” (Conlon, 1990: 103). The absence of this element of the frame story from the book does not translate into shallow characters, however, as the book provides a great deal more background material of the characters involved.
The Scarecrow tells Dorothy about the day he was made and the impressions he was receiving as he watched the farmer create and the Tin Woodman tells her of the problems he encountered that changed him into the tin. Numerous adventures experienced on the way to the Emerald City, including the troupe’s encounter with the Kalidahs and their detour down the river, reveal the inner characteristics of the characters much more than the film is able to convey by removing these scenes. In the case of the Kalidahs, the Scarecrow is able to reveal his intelligence and the Lion is able to reveal his courage.
Meanwhile, the Tin Woodman finds himself rusting shut as he cries over the death of a small beetle he accidentally stepped on and manages to secure the rescue of the Lion as a result of kindnesses shown to a small field mouse, who turns out to be the Queen of all field mice.
Many omissions in the film from the book can be said to have been judgment calls on the part of a producer limited by the time element – a film could not last much longer than about two hours if it was to be attractive to the viewing audience. Other details seem to be condensed as well. While Dorothy and her friends encounter many people on their journey, often stopping at farmhouses and villages for food, news, or directions, these people are rolled up into one community of Munchkins in a grand choreographed production upon Dorothy’s arrival in Oz and in one city, the Emerald City, as the travelers make their requests of the Great and Powerful Oz.
Similarly, the good witch of the north who greets Dorothy upon her arrival is transformed into the good witch of the south as a means of conserving explanation and talent, introducing a somewhat sadistic element to the witch’s motives as, in the film, it can be considered that the witch knew the secret behind the shoes all along, but chose to withhold that information from Dorothy for reasons of her own that are never explained.
This is handled much more smoothly and benevolently in the book as the good witch of the north is unaware of the secret of the shoes. This contraction of the story and characters serves to make Oz seem much smaller than it truly is and contributes to the idea that it was, after all, little more than a child’s dream. The overriding message throughout the film continues to focus on the concept that “there’s no place like home” as Dorothy must repeat in order to unlock the power of the shoes, but the book emphasizes the power of Dorothy herself, who had only to take the necessary steps to bring about the results she wished.
Tone
The tone of the book is undeniably darker and bleaker than that presented in the film. Part of this difference might be attributable to the historical period in which each was created. When Frank Baum wrote the book in 1900, the country was still recovering somewhat from the effects of the Civil War. The prairies remained relatively desolate and motorcars were yet on the horizon. Travel was difficult, social issues such as what to do with orphans remained mysteries to be solved and many people, particularly in the south, were still struggled to recover some sense of the prosperity they had once known by expanding to the west with limited materials, few neighbors and difficult times ahead.
This is reflected in many ways through the book as Dorothy is a friendless orphan living in her aunt and uncle’s small, one-room dwelling in the center of an open gray landscape. It is also reflected as she travels through Oz itself as the Tin Woodman finds it necessary to kill numerous creatures through the course of their adventures, including a wildcat, 40 wolves, and chopping the moving limbs off of some remarkable trees despite his desire to cause no harm to other living creatures. In addition, an entire swarm of bees is brought to its death attempting to sting the tin man on the orders of the wicked witch. The Scarecrow also participates in killing as he methodically twists the necks of 40 crows sent by the witch one by one until they were all dead.
Dorothy herself is also complicit in this violence as she first, accidentally, kills the wicked witch of the east with her falling house and then more forcefully, though equally unintentionally, kills the wicked witch of the west by dumping a bucket of water over her.
With the exception of the two witches killed by Dorothy, most of these events do not appear within the context of the film. The Tinman uses his ax only on inanimate objects, once to make a crown for the Lion during a musical number in the Emerald City, and once to try to make his way through to Dorothy who is being held captive by the Witch.
Another area in which the book seems to take on more realistic ideals and concepts is in the bestowing of attributes to Dorothy’s three companions by the wizard. In the book, although these three characters have continued to demonstrate the very traits they feel they’re lacking, the wizard finds a means of providing them that takes a decidedly internal, invasive approach.
For the Scarecrow, the wizard removes the creature’s head altogether and refills the bag with bran, pins, and needles, using only enough straw to keep these new ingredients in place. This, of course, does nothing to add to the Scarecrow’s intelligence, as the wizard himself has said, but is a dramatically graphic way of symbolizing the internal nature of the request. This internal approach is taken with the Tin Woodman, who must have his chest cut open to insert a silk heart-shaped cushion stuffed with sawdust, and the Lion, who must drink a strange liquid that is probably nothing more than water. The film perhaps takes a better approach to this idea by refusing to perform surgery in order to convince the characters they already have what it is they most desire.
In the film, the wizard presents each character with the necessary credentials to prove they have what they seek.
The Scarecrow receives a college degree, the Tinman receives a heart-shaped ticking clock and the Lion receives a medal of honor. While not as dark and sinister as the concept of performing surgery and playing with chemicals, the message is still conveyed that the characters were gifted, to begin with.
Characters
Throughout the film, Dorothy is able to be with her friends with the notable exception of a few hours spent in worry and dreadful anticipation in the witch’s castle, again reducing the darker tone of the book. This again serves to draw attention away from the focus of individual resourcefulness and child autonomy explored in the book by providing Dorothy with constant companions and helpers. In the book, Dorothy is required to take up the full role of a participant in group activities through most adventures, is equally capable of making decisions that will affect all, and is as responsible for the welfare of the party as the others.
While her strengths are different from the others, she is not dependent upon them to the same degree as the Dorothy of the film. This is perhaps most evident in the scene within the witch’s castle. The Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow are nowhere near the castle in the book, each having been disposed of by the flying monkeys, and the Lion is securely pinned and tied in the witch’s courtyard, supposedly being starved into submission.
However, Dorothy, employed as a maid in the witch’s kitchen, ensures that Lion’s strength is kept up by sneaking food into him each night and brings about her own release when she resists the control of the witch who has stolen her shoes. Thus, it is completely Dorothy, without the help of any of her friends, who brings about not only her own release, but the release of The Lion, the freedom of the Winkies who have been enslaved by the witch, and the rescue of both the Tin Woodman and the Scarecrow.
Dorothy in the film, though not a weak character, is really just a shadow of the character presented by Mr. Baum. While able to take on a more adult role in Oz than she was given in Kansas, the character is also seen as someone quite a bit older than the images provided in the book, and the actions Dorothy takes are not quite at the same level of self-determination that is seen in the book. “She is a confidante; able to receive friends’ deficiencies without losing her respect for them. She is a leader, a force for action. It is her conviction that convinces others that their defects need not be permanent.
She provides both a plan to meet the needs as well as the inspiration to carry it out” (Conlon, 1990: 103). Yet it remains the other characters who generally take up the action to realize her plans. While the Dorothy of the book can be seen to develop from a little girl dependent upon the good witch of the north to guide and direct her along an easily marked road to one proactively taking on the challenges facing her through such activities as creating the balloon that floats the wizard away, the Dorothy of the novel seems not to have grown much at all, only just realizing the value of the comforts of home.
Conclusion
In the end, it can definitely be said that the film version of the story fundamentally changes the thematic focus of Frank Baum’s novel. While some changes are easily attributable to the change in media, from text to film, others are seen to change focus and attention, bringing out some elements of the novel while de-emphasizing others.
Time, talent, and technology undoubtedly brought about several of these changes, such as the desire to show off the color capabilities of new films, the constriction of the Oz community, or the blending of the good witches. However, in its attempt to lighten the storyline, the film perhaps inadvertently changes the focus from the strength, resiliency, and self-possession of the young girl to a message regarding the need to root oneself in home and family.
Separated by World War I and the Great Depression, these ideals were more prevalent for the filmmakers than they were for Baum writing nearly 40 years earlier.
Works Cited
Baum, L. Frank. The Wizard of Oz. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1900 (1956).
Conlon, James. “Kansas, Oz, and the Function of Art.” Journal of Aesthetic Education. Vol. 24, N. 3, (1990): 99-106.
Littlefield, Henry M. “The Wizard of Oz: Parable on Populism.” American Quarterly. Vol. 16, N. 1, (1964): 47-58.
Sale, Roger. “L. Frank Baum, and Oz.” The Hudson Review. Vol. 25, N. 4, (1972-1973): 571-592.
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Dir. Victor Fleming. Perf. Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Roy Bolger, Jack Haley and Bert Lahr. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1939.