OK, before I begin, I just wanted to say some trivia. A few months ago, I read a book called THE ROAD TO OZ-not the actually entry in the Oz series, but rather a history of the making of the famous 1939 version by MGM as well as a little bit on the pre-1939 versions. I felt a couples things seemed relevant here. First, apparently the Larry Semon version was received terribly by Oz fans even back then, with some fans writing in letters to newspapers about how terribly it had been handled. Second, the book quotes a newspaper article from the early 1930s which stated that MGM was considering buying the rights to the WIZARD OF OZ...to be made as a Laurel and Hardy vehicle! If that article is to be believed, Hardy almost got another chance at making a true WIZARD OF OZ adaptation.
Ok, so I have seen a few Larry Semon shorts and the main thing that has stood out about them is their scale. Semon went all out with the physical humor and chases in his films...and they are quite impressive even to this day. Truth be told, when I first heard about this, I didn’t think that it was that bad of an idea. The Scarecrow has always been identified as somewhat of a goofball character, so Semon seemed like a good choice for the role, and his dedication to large-scaled chases and stunts could have provided a nice edge to the original story....if he had followed the original story.
Yes, this film has pretty much nothing to do with the original book. To be fair, the 1939 version wasn’t exactly the most faithful adaptation either. It did make some substantial changes, such as the elimination of the second good witch, which is why the first good witch didn’t tell Dorothy from the start that the slippers could get her home (in the movie, it seems odd that the good witch doesn’t give her this information from the start). However, the 1939 version also made some changes that were better fitted for its long-term appeal. For example, the elimination of the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion’s murder sprees felt justified. Plus, the 1939 version also does retain an important, yet also minor character: the Wizard himself. Yeah, remember that the title is WIZARD OF OZ? Even if he’s not in much of the 1939 version, he’s still important to the story in that the quest specifically relates to him. In Larry Semon’s version, the Wizard’s just another pawn in some dumb political scam.
OK, so let’s temporarily forget that this movie has any relation to a literary classic. Looking at it as its own original story, how does the story hold up. Even without the Oz connections, the story is horrible. A lot of stuff doesn’t make sense about this movie. For example, when the tornado comes and everyone runs into a shed, there’s a pretty noticeable person missing. What happened to Aunt Em?! Did she hide in the house? Did she die? Did she run away and end up in the real Oz? Where did she go?! The character just disappears and I guess we’re supposed to treat it as though she never existed. They make it seem as though Uncle Henry kind of filled her role from that point on.
Speaking of Uncle Henry, that’s another issue in this. Lots of these characters have personalities that are never truly defined and shift throughout. For example, Uncle Henry is portrayed as being abusive to Dorothy at the beginning of the film, but then he suddenly becomes really protective of her on her birthday. Hardy, meanwhile, is introduced as protecting Dorothy from Uncle Henry’s abuse, but then later teams up with one of the villains to steal the letter about Dorothy’s heritage. Then, he suddenly teams up with Semon when the Wizard needs their help, only to betray Semon again right afterwards (incidentally, seeing that scene, it was clear that Hardy’s character should have been the cowardly lion, not the tin man). Heck, even the Prince, who’s supposed to be the hero of this thing, is not really a good person. When the Prime Minister tells him that the farmhands tried to kidnap Dorothy, the Prince believes him and sends Semon and Spencer Bell’s characters to the dungeon...even though Dorothy clearly tries to tell him that this wasn’t the case. Why are we supposed to root for this guy again?
So, yeah, this is a very poorly conceived story, but what about the comedy? Well...that’s not really all that good either. There are a lot of scenes that either are just really strange, such as Semon struggling with the fly, or suffer from the obvious racial stereotypes that are done with Spencer Bell’s character. The few moments where the comedy does genuinely work are the moments where Semon actually does do some large-scale chases and stunts. The scene with the swing that metaldams mentions is great. I also really like the chases when Semon steals the letter from Hardy and when Semon is hiding under the boxes. The box chase would probably be my pick for the highlight of the whole movie. The plane thing at the end is also fun, but it’s so short and inconclusive that it doesn’t feel justified having to sit through the rest of the garbage that preceded it.
THE WIZARD OF OZ is an outdated and unfocused mess of a film that, along with 2010’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND, should be used as an example of what not to do in a feature film adaptation. Again, it does have a few fun moments that keep me from rating it as low as a 1 or even a 2, but this is a film that would certainly not please WIZARD OF OZ fans, and I highly doubt it would please Larry Semon fans either.
3 out of 10
