Skip to main content

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oz the Great and Powerful

Some time in the past there were tinkerers who were great and powerful -- so great that in this mundane world of ours it still would require a moment's recalibration to not consider them actually half magic, if someone persisted in your face that they were in fact so. Edison, if you want the best example, though you might also go with Benjamin Franklin, or whoever it was Scorsese's movie Hugo was worshipping. Stage magician Oz hopes to be like that, and spurns women left and right to keep himself fixed to this goal. He'd have been okay if this didn't also mean his deceiving women into his bed, but for this, judgment appears to have cast upon him and the rest of his life is going to be about lifelong serving the bequests of women, fixed to a spot rather than a free wanderer, readily reached by three very empowered, three very great and powerful, witch-women. But the actor playing Oz is James Franco, and so maybe the people behind this film had in mind some revenge upon women too. For Franco is sensitive and responsive enough to suggest to most sensitive souls that he's hardly a man so involved with machines or aspiring to sky-high goals he's dulled to humans, but there's something about how though he says and does and expresses about as you'd expect and desire, he's still applied a thin layer everywhere that registers as if it's all a lie--like you're in truth interacting with some puppet of himself, that's close to him but not really him, he's operating via remote control, a la Tony Stark's suit in Iron Man 3 -- his passive-aggressive revenge, let's not kid ourselves, on Pepper, for her owning his day world while he couches in his basement cave. Franco probably isn't so savvy, so great a magician he's made himself entirely inaccessible to you; he can be figured out. But the thing is, what would cause him to smirk like he's got something on you you can't balk, is that you don't really want to figure him out: he's the only plausible man in town, and Oz had become akin to the Castle Anthrax, managed by women who are becoming insufferable to one another and in need of a man, that beacons out promise of man-rule glory to get some hapless guy in to serve as some post to steady them, as well as for stud. Anyway, Oz might become convinced that he's really great and powerful, after apparently making up for every past sin against a woman he's ever effected -- which is so much his foremost concern the last gesture he makes to the latest evil witch haunting the land is an apology -- but the audience knows this guy is owned by a need for reparations. How easy it is to keep a guy like that from growing up -- just making every step ahead seem a spurning of everything and everyone who preceded it, and he's back to being yours. The end of the film shows two great ones battling-- the white good witch vs. the more mentally balanced evil witch -- and when the good witch defeats the evil one, it most certainly doesn't end with her apologizing but with her sure of the rightness in making this once actually most beautiful and regal witch (here played very stately by the stunning Rachel Weisz), the only nightmare horror/grotesque to be found in the land -- something of irrevocable consequence just happened here. This is grown-up matter for the only grown-ups in Oz. Ben Kenobi vs. Darth Vader at the finish of Star Wars – but at a time when boys who know best toys and tech, a la George Lucas, aren’t going to be allowed to be so ball-danglingly front and center, so these roles go to the girls while the guys do the patching up.     


Popular posts from this blog

Full conversation about "Bringing Up Baby" at the NewYorker Movie Facebook Club

Richard Brody shared a link.Moderator · November 20 at 3:38pm I'm obsessed with Bringing Up Baby, which is on TCM at 6 PM (ET). It's the first film by Howard Hawks that I ever saw, and it opened up several universes to me, cinematic and otherwise. Here's the story. I was seventeen or eighteen; I had never heard of Hawks until I read Godard's enthusiastic mention of him in one of the early critical pieces in "Godard on Godard"—he called Hawks "the greatest American artist," and this piqued my curiosity. So, the next time I was in town (I… I was out of town at college for the most part), I went to see the first Hawks film playing in a revival house, which turned out to be "Bringing Up Baby." I certainly laughed a lot (and, at a few bits, uncontrollably), but that's not all there was to it. I had never read Freud, but I had heard of Freud, and when I saw "Bringing Up Baby," its realm of symbolism made instant sense; it was obviou…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …