I am still fluttering around in the magical world of Oz. The more I think of it, the more cool connections I locate neatly woven into the fabric of the script. The homage paid by the movie to the works of L. Frank Baum and the movie The Wizard of Oz is well known by now. Beyond that, there are some neat parallels and yet contrasts drawn between the period in Oz's life in Kansas (which would be the black-and-white part of the movie) and his life as the Wizard in the land of Oz. The most obvious one is the character of Annie who appears at the circus in Kansas and then Glinda, the Good Witch, both of whom have been portrayed by Michelle Williams. But the more selfish Oz lets go of Annie's love in search of his own greatness while the transformed Oz is told by Glinda that he has displayed something beyond greatness, which is 'goodness'. A bit cheesy maybe, but these scenes happen at such ends of the movie, that they kind of showcase the whole transformation that Oz has gone through in this adventure.
The more interesting analogies are the other two characters in Sam Raimi's movie. Remember Zach Braff says to Oz early on that he is the only friend that Oz has, to which Oz replies that Zach is nothing but a trained monkey? Guess what, the monkey who assists Oz in the land of Oz has been voiced by Zach Braff himself and in the end Oz offers him 'something that I have not offered anyone before'... his friendship! Ahh, a tear for that! And then there is the China Girl. After Oz discovers her with her legs broken, he delicately fixes them and helps her back on her feet so she can walk again. And what had he not been able to do early on in Kansas? Bingo! Oz could not do the same feat with the girl in the chair who said she believed in him and wanted him to make her walk again. To tie these two together, the girl in the chair is Joey King herself, the one who voices the China Girl, thereby displaying the differences Oz made in the land of Oz which he failed to do so in his previous life. Seemingly minor connections, these are the little things that add to the charm of such a movie, and provide further credence to the running theme of the movie without blatantly stating it out. This is another artistic manner of expressing things, which appear delightful in a properly conceived movie as the Oz the Great and Powerful.
On another side is the story of Jack the Giant Slayer which is witnessing a gigantic crash in its second weekend, largely due its own doing and also not helped by the release of Oz the Great and Powerful this weekend. Jack this year is what John was last year, and by John, I mean John Carter. Made on huge production budgets and released in March, both these movies have drilled massive holes in the pockets of its producers and distributors. While I still liked John Carter and its portrayal of Mars and the alien set of creatures, it lacked a tighter screenplay and no real star-power to justify the astounding $250 million production budget. Jack the Giant Slayer though does not even feel like a movie where close to $200 million has been spent on its making! It has recovered a partly $34 million in the first weekend (USA) and a Friday-to-Friday dip of 67% as the second weekend begins, is the last thing the producers would have wanted to hear about. John Carter in its complete theatrical run had managed $73 million in USA and another $210 million in other countries (but remember that the proceeds would be split by the theatres and the studios in almost an equal ratio), and seeing the progression of Jack the Giant Slayer, it is going to fall short even of these figures by quite a margin. Tells you that create the giants as big as you want, a good movie these do not always make!
No comments:
Post a Comment