Dark Side of the Rainbow: ie: the simultaneous performance of Victor Fleming's Wizard of Oz (1939) and Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon (1973) which, upon its viewing, did reveal some really nice moments:
two of my favs:
- Money starts right when Dorothy opens the door from her house, which reveals Oz (in color) a fabled new World
- Eclipse climaxes and ends with the oiling of the Tin Man, or (in meta) oiling of a stagnant soul, to now experience the conclusions and observations of the album, to reach a realization, a la the "oiling of the soul"... the album ends with a heartbeat which coincides with Dorothy beating on the Tin Man's chest
"Some guy with too much time on his hands had this idea of combining Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon."
But what really is the value of these supposed patterns? Beyond trivia? Beyond the novelty, do these connections mean anything? Do they affirm some undercurrent? Learn more about this here.
Wizard of Oz: An American Fairy Tale
Wizard of Oz as the first American children’s book; what is so “American” about it? And how does it differ in its American traits to that of, say, Alice in Wonderland’s British quality? Oz represents American ideals in its democratic uniformity and its goal-centered, want-based plot. Alice is more chaotic in its undercurrents of monarchic rigidity. Oz as a character is a salesman, an entrepreneur who makes a “sale” to the people of Oz that he is in fact a great and terrible wizard, which is completely false; he is just a man from Omaha, an American like Dorothy from Kansas. He has to keep up this “sale” in order for himself to be safe, for if they were to discover his ruse (that he is indeed a “humbug”), then he would be in grave danger. This seems to exemplify the core of American capitalism, in that one centers his safety and security on the idea of sale/trade/bargain cosmology; this kind of idea is nowhere to be found in Alice’s Wonderland.
Much commerce (and give and take) happens in Oz, the idea of “you do this for me and I will do this for you” scheme. Even Glinda the good witch wants the monkeys’ golden cap in order to help the heroes, yet she uses it in order for them to achieve their goals. Each character needs something, wants something, feels that he/she is incomplete without it, and sets off on the book’s journey to claim it. Alice doesn’t even act as if she wants to go home, there is no want, at least not as deeply displayed in Oz. A distinct American ethos is identified with the Scarecrow, Tin Man, Lion, and Dorothy because they want, and will do anything it takes to get it.
Alice has a sense of wanting to see the Queen, a sense of purpose, but it is nowhere near the intense drive that Dorothy and her companions feel in their goal-driven activity. Alice sort of meanders from one scene to the next, from one absurdity to another; it is dreamlike and is a daydream after all. Dorothy is manifest in Oz; this is no daydream. She is actually there and wants to go home; this perhaps could be another American trait, an allegory of reality and its convictions, versus the dreamlike quality of Carroll’s British fantasy?
There is no central leader in the Oz pack, each one has traits that work to help the group; it is communal yet democratic. Alice, in contrast, is an individual locked in an absurd world with an overarching British style monarchy at its core. Yet each has a central figure which the people fear: Oz in the Land of Oz, and the Queen in Wonderland. Oz the fake is a friendly despot replaced by a wise scarecrow who undoubtedly will rule the land with a fair hand with no injustice. Oz is the salesman with a dash of the industrialist since one of the first things he had his subjects do is build something, possibly to get their minds off the fact that he is a sham – he had them build the Emerald City, his palace, the glimmering center of the World (and it is green, the color of money $$$ coincidence?) what lies at the heart of a balanced life? A green palace ruled by a humbug? A fearful man who refuses to reveal his true nature? That of a fake? He refuses to leave his palace for fear of being found out, so therefore he has become a prisoner of his own judgment, and toils away in his home built by people who believe in him and are terrified of him. Good man but a bad wizard, is this at the heart of any salesman? Or are salesmen really good wizards but bad men? Perhaps the most affluent are! Oz is distinctively American because of his salesman status and the fact that as a salesman, he was able to sell the heroes what they wanted without really giving it to them; his magic was real insofar as they heroes had belief, which goes into magic, truth and belief...etc. is there magic in capitalism in this way? To bring morality into it would this be good or bad magic? Is the perfect sale giving someone what they want without really giving anything at all? Is the term right: perfect sale? Or should it be commerce in a vacuum? The commerce of ideas? Sales equal security in some form, truth?
Violence. Oz seemed to be more riddled with acts of violence than in Wonderland. Is this a valid point? Perhaps there were acts of violence in Wonderland but not including brutal death as is the case in Oz. The American sensibility needing that violent edge, the British more mental, absurd. Which brings up the point of views of the body, have to read again but was there views, traits of the body with Alice as there are in Oz? Stuffing the Scarecrow’s head with pins and straw; stuffing his body with straw; the Tin Man and his mechanical body (which brings up ideas of science and progress, the “heart in the machine”; where is the human element more apparent than in the heart, the seat of the soul?) the Lion and his primal strength, his awe-inspiring potential of power, the king of beasts, the cerebellum, the instinct, the Id, the Body.
Could there be a rebellious, social-defying tone in Wonderland since it tends to mock perfunctory social idioms, manners, and culture of “proper” society and etiquette? Versus the Land of Oz where they did whatever they were told to do, with no idea of subversion, no claim to falsehood until Oz was discovered? It is straightforward and matter-of-fact, minus the Oz sham, but even this was found out, resolved and forgotten by the end. Wonderland is full of absurdities, diversions, subversions to the “natural order” in Alice’s real world.
Alice followed a non-linear path from here to there in an instant if need be, in Oz they either had the Yellow Brick Road, or flying monkeys to take them straightaway to wherever they wished to go, which was usually a straight path, linear and focused with a goal in mind. The white rabbit had a mission and was the only stable fixated point in this unconscious realm of the Queen (the maternal overseer of chaos – the female being the land of mystery – menstruation, Moon etc.) Dorothy and Alice are both pre-menarche females who travel through a foreign fantasy-land at an age when exploring the world is still evident and essential to understanding and identity formation—before the rite of passage into adulthood. (or at least the next stage of life)
These comparisons are instant and superficial, and take advantage of certain cultural stereotypes in some arguments. Oz and Wonderland are both fertile grounds upon which those who seek to dig may find interesting parallels and contrasts for deeper discussion.
Bizarre. Baum's son credited with storyline, script (?) Interesting how it was loosely adapted, oh so loosely, overtly sexual in content, and in visual display. Dorothy with her underpants exposed in Kansas (in black and white) taken by tornado (lust?) to a fantasy world where she meets the Scarecrow and the Tin Man (eligible suitors), this penchant for the displaying of the Scarecrow and Tin Man as potential mates was not new and was appropriated in earlier film incarnations (see: Larry Semon's 1925 version Wizard of Oz)
They then witness various scenes of fertility and consummation in nature before entering the grand gates of the Emerald City (not before crossing a bridge) Once inside, they take part in a parade (sexual intercourse?) which leads them to the Wizards inner chamber of sorts (womb) where there are scenes of dancing girls exposing their underpants as well, in blatant crotch shots, Oz creates a handful of composite creatures, all of it ending with an egg that grows larger and larger to only explode, leaving a chicken and her new baby chick, with mama chicken singing: "Rock a bye baby..." wtf? A baby was the end product of Dorothy's adventures into this fabled land of Oz. A meditation on sexual emergence? trip to menarche? becoming a mother/motherhood? what was this guy thinking? an allegory of sex/deflowering?
Dorothy looked the part of Betty Boop, Oz was definitely a Wizard (no humbug in this version) and last but not least, this is the original treatment of Kansas as black and white and Oz in color, as the Victor Fleming version used 6 years later, (was this idea "borrowed", or was it synchronous?) Bizarre!
