Return to Oz (1985 Film)

It's another cult classic from the '80's. In 1985, Walt Disney Pictures released Return to Oz, following up on the life of Dorothy and her adventures in Oz. The film would ultimately fare less than expected, but it would go on to achieve cult status, like so many others from that decade.

So much of the film's lackluster performance hinges on a few problems. First, many saw this as a sequel to the American classic The Wizard of Oz, the 1939 film featuring Judy Garland. The film's title does refer to an earlier work, but calling the film a sequel to the 1939 classic is not entirely accurate. The film is largely an adaption of L. Frank Baum's novels The Marvelous Land of Oz and Ozma of Oz. And there's really the problem.

About a month ago, I wrote an article entitled "Book to Film Adapations: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly." In that piece, I discussed the differences between various popular novels and the films they produce. Most will say they prefer the source to the adaptation, as I do from time to time. Strangely though, at times a film adaption can actually replace the source material in popular consciousness. I mentioned Planet of the Apes and Frankenstein as good examples. I only briefly mentioned Wizard of Oz. It is no different.

Baum's novel differs with the film in a few important areas. The most notable are the slippers. Dorothy's trademark Ruby Slippers were actually Silver Shoes in the novel. Many believe the change was made to make the shoes more flashy for the colorful production. The film also portrays the adventures in Oz as something that may not have happened. Dorothy wakes up at the end and tells her family that she had a dream, "and you were there. And you were there." This never occurs in the novel. Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, is actually two characters: the Witch of the North, who appears to Dorothy in Munchkinland, and Glinda of the South, who appears at the end to tell Dorothy of the Shoes' power.

A few of the novel's elements were not mentioned in the book, like the Tin Woodman's origin. Also, perhaps the biggest alteration, Dorothy is a young girl in Baum's novel, around 8-9. Judy Garland was 16 and portrayed Dorothy as such.

But the 1939 film is what people remember. When a sequel of any sorts is in development, it will face problems thereby. But Disney's Return to Oz actually stays more faithful to the books it represents, with minor changes. A few characters were removed for production and runtime restraints.

The second major complaint is that the film takes a much darker tone than the 1939 classic. It's not a magical, musical masterpiece. The film opens with Dorothy in her bed. For several seconds, there is no speech. Uncle Henry and Aunt Em fret over the farm's financial woes, fearing foreclosure. (Sound familiar?) Adding to this, Dorothy hasn't been the same since the big tornado six months prior. She can't keep talking about her friends in Oz to the point where Aunt Em and Uncle Henry nearly have her committed. She receives electro-shock therapy at a clinic, escapes during a storm, and wakes up in a chicken coop in a pond outside Oz. Huh?

Her sidekick this time is a talking chicken named Billina. They cross the Deadly Desert, which turns anything that touches it into sand, find a Yellow Brick Road in shambles, and discover the Emerald City has been laid waste. Tin Man and Cowardly Lion have been turned to stone, a street gang named the Wheelers threaten her, and a witch named Mombi now runs the city.

Mombi has 30 different heads, which she can replace with her own at will. She is a servant of the Nome King, a ruler of a mountain kingdom who makes and hoards precious gemstones. He attacked the Emerald City for its brilliance and took the Scarecrow, now King of Oz, as his prisoner. Dorothy and her new companions basically set out to restore the Emerald City and release her old companions from the Nome King's kingdom.

The action sequences are fantastic, but frightening. The Nome King's death and Mombi's head gallery sequence particularly stand out. It's anything but a child's movie. The only convention from the 1939 film that was kept were the Ruby Slippers. In fact, Disney secured the actual props themselves. Seeing the Emerald City in ruins strikes the viewer as incredibly sad, but at the end everything is righted and the city shines again.

Some complained about the actress playing Dorothy. She's Fairuza Balk, and she was 9 at the time. This was a stark contrast to Judy Garland, but as I mentioned before, it actually matches the character's real age better.

Overall, it's an amazing film. It's filled with wonder and some amazing moments. The effects and sequence really stand out as typically '80's effects. The film also features clever use of stop-motion claymation that would make Ray Harryhausen proud. All around, it's great, not what you might expect, but certainly worth the look.