You Can't Go Home Again...Not Even in Fantasy
This weekend's review: Return to Oz.
My parents recommended Return to Oz to me, both because they thought it was an interesting movie and because they were curious to see what I’d think about it. I had vague recollections of having read a review that suggested it was a little unnerving, which simultaneously made me wary and curious, but I figured two separate sources recommending the movie made it worth checking out. In the end, I agree with both sources; it’s unnerving and interesting, and the one contributes a lot to the other.
The movie simultaneously feels like a sequel to the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz and an adaptation of some of the later Oz books (at least from what little I know of them). Several months after her adventure in Oz, Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) is still fixated on what happened there, which make her aunt and uncle (Piper Laurie and Matt Clark) worry that the twister did something to her mental state. To try to fix the problem, Aunt Em takes Dorothy to Dr. Worley (Nicol Williamson), a doctor specializing in the brand new technique of electroshock therapy. Just as she’s about to undergo the treatment, a lightning storm knocks out the power, and Dorothy escapes with the help of a mysterious girl (Emma Ridley). She winds up floating down the river in a crate, and when she wakes up, not only is one of her chickens, Billina (voiced by Denise Bryer) now with her, she finds herself back in Oz. But Oz has completely fallen apart and is under the subjugation of the Nome King (Williamson again) and his henchwoman Mombi (Jean Marsh). Dorothy must once again try to save the day without fully knowing what’s going on, this time with a new set of friends, including a mechanical wind-up soldier named Tik-Tok (voiced by Sean Barrett) and a recently brought to life construct named Jack Pumpkinhead (voiced by Brian Henson, the son of Jim Henson) who looks on Dorothy as a mother figure. So yes, Oz is as bizarre as ever…but the tone feels more threatening than whimsical.
The tone is probably one of the two biggest things people will notice about this movie. Right from the start, as we see Aunt Em and Uncle Henry fretting about Dorothy, the movie feels a bit dark, as opposed to the more wistful and homey opening of the ’39 movie. This feeling only increases as the Kansas scenes go on, culminating with the sanatorium material that’s simultaneously very reminiscent of other scenes set in asylums and yet not quite shot in the expected ways. Once we get to Oz, things get even more surreal (admittedly as expected) but also more creepy. A new foe called the Wheelers have particularly unsettling designs, and we get a revelation about Mombi that’s outright horrifying, though it’s kept PG enough that it’s not unbearable to watch. There’s also the little matter of the symbolism. As in the ’39 version, actors play dual roles, and things we saw in Kansas make a reappearance in a different form in Oz. It’s not hard to see Oz as an allegory for Dorothy’s mental state this time around, and I bet someone could write an entire essay on what the various characters and situations are supposed to represent from a psychological perspective. Even if you don’t look that deeply into it, though, it’s obvious the two are somewhat intertwined, and that adds another layer to the atmosphere. The movie never tips over into outright horror, but I suspect this is one of those movies children either love or are terrified by. Or, as with me and The Brave Little Toaster, they look back on as adults and are shocked by how warped it is.
The other reason the movie is noteworthy is the special effects. As this was made in 1985, pretty much all of the effects were practical effects, and while that’s extremely obvious (Billina springs immediately to mind), it also adds to the movie’s atmosphere. There’s this recurring element of faces emerging out of stones that is simultaneously very fake looking and also is fluid enough that I wonder how the effects department pulled it off. Also, I think it gives off a bit of an Uncanny Valley effect that works in the movie’s favor, since these faces are henchmen of the bad guy. Other elements are incredibly well-done, like Tik-Tok, and there was one gradual transformation that was surprisingly subtle-I didn’t even realize it was happening until near the end of the transformation. So although there’s a certain cheesy quality to the effects, I think they’ve aged very well, and both the setting and the context help with that feeling. In fact, you can even explain the slightly unreal nature away in-universe, given Oz’s ramshackle state. I doubt that was the intent in 1985, but if it helps the movie retain its impact, I’m all for that interpretation.
While you probably have to be in the right mindset to fully enjoy this film (and have a relatively high tolerance for darker material), I do recommend it. It works perfectly well as a standalone movie, though you do have to have at least some familiarity with the first Oz story, and also serves as an interesting counterpoint to the 1939 film. There are a variety of ways you can approach the material, and I think that’s the mark of a good, or at least interesting, movie. In this case, I’d say the movie is both interesting and good.
CAT ALERT, sort of: We get a few glimpses of the Cowardly Lion (John Alexander) during the course of the movie. He’s not involved in the plot, but since we do see him, I figured it was worth mentioning.
My parents recommended Return to Oz to me, both because they thought it was an interesting movie and because they were curious to see what I’d think about it. I had vague recollections of having read a review that suggested it was a little unnerving, which simultaneously made me wary and curious, but I figured two separate sources recommending the movie made it worth checking out. In the end, I agree with both sources; it’s unnerving and interesting, and the one contributes a lot to the other.
The movie simultaneously feels like a sequel to the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz and an adaptation of some of the later Oz books (at least from what little I know of them). Several months after her adventure in Oz, Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) is still fixated on what happened there, which make her aunt and uncle (Piper Laurie and Matt Clark) worry that the twister did something to her mental state. To try to fix the problem, Aunt Em takes Dorothy to Dr. Worley (Nicol Williamson), a doctor specializing in the brand new technique of electroshock therapy. Just as she’s about to undergo the treatment, a lightning storm knocks out the power, and Dorothy escapes with the help of a mysterious girl (Emma Ridley). She winds up floating down the river in a crate, and when she wakes up, not only is one of her chickens, Billina (voiced by Denise Bryer) now with her, she finds herself back in Oz. But Oz has completely fallen apart and is under the subjugation of the Nome King (Williamson again) and his henchwoman Mombi (Jean Marsh). Dorothy must once again try to save the day without fully knowing what’s going on, this time with a new set of friends, including a mechanical wind-up soldier named Tik-Tok (voiced by Sean Barrett) and a recently brought to life construct named Jack Pumpkinhead (voiced by Brian Henson, the son of Jim Henson) who looks on Dorothy as a mother figure. So yes, Oz is as bizarre as ever…but the tone feels more threatening than whimsical.
The tone is probably one of the two biggest things people will notice about this movie. Right from the start, as we see Aunt Em and Uncle Henry fretting about Dorothy, the movie feels a bit dark, as opposed to the more wistful and homey opening of the ’39 movie. This feeling only increases as the Kansas scenes go on, culminating with the sanatorium material that’s simultaneously very reminiscent of other scenes set in asylums and yet not quite shot in the expected ways. Once we get to Oz, things get even more surreal (admittedly as expected) but also more creepy. A new foe called the Wheelers have particularly unsettling designs, and we get a revelation about Mombi that’s outright horrifying, though it’s kept PG enough that it’s not unbearable to watch. There’s also the little matter of the symbolism. As in the ’39 version, actors play dual roles, and things we saw in Kansas make a reappearance in a different form in Oz. It’s not hard to see Oz as an allegory for Dorothy’s mental state this time around, and I bet someone could write an entire essay on what the various characters and situations are supposed to represent from a psychological perspective. Even if you don’t look that deeply into it, though, it’s obvious the two are somewhat intertwined, and that adds another layer to the atmosphere. The movie never tips over into outright horror, but I suspect this is one of those movies children either love or are terrified by. Or, as with me and The Brave Little Toaster, they look back on as adults and are shocked by how warped it is.
The other reason the movie is noteworthy is the special effects. As this was made in 1985, pretty much all of the effects were practical effects, and while that’s extremely obvious (Billina springs immediately to mind), it also adds to the movie’s atmosphere. There’s this recurring element of faces emerging out of stones that is simultaneously very fake looking and also is fluid enough that I wonder how the effects department pulled it off. Also, I think it gives off a bit of an Uncanny Valley effect that works in the movie’s favor, since these faces are henchmen of the bad guy. Other elements are incredibly well-done, like Tik-Tok, and there was one gradual transformation that was surprisingly subtle-I didn’t even realize it was happening until near the end of the transformation. So although there’s a certain cheesy quality to the effects, I think they’ve aged very well, and both the setting and the context help with that feeling. In fact, you can even explain the slightly unreal nature away in-universe, given Oz’s ramshackle state. I doubt that was the intent in 1985, but if it helps the movie retain its impact, I’m all for that interpretation.
While you probably have to be in the right mindset to fully enjoy this film (and have a relatively high tolerance for darker material), I do recommend it. It works perfectly well as a standalone movie, though you do have to have at least some familiarity with the first Oz story, and also serves as an interesting counterpoint to the 1939 film. There are a variety of ways you can approach the material, and I think that’s the mark of a good, or at least interesting, movie. In this case, I’d say the movie is both interesting and good.
CAT ALERT, sort of: We get a few glimpses of the Cowardly Lion (John Alexander) during the course of the movie. He’s not involved in the plot, but since we do see him, I figured it was worth mentioning.