Recensioni degli utenti

This 1933 version of "The Wizard of Oz" is quite short but it's surprising to see it today because its filmed in lovely color--colors that were quite dramatic for 1933--especially the blues. This appears to be true Technicolor--not the Two-Color Technicolor used in the 1920s and 30s and I was surprised it was in use that early (since it wasn't used in live action films until 1934 and 1935).

The film begins in a black & white Kansas and soon a tornado brings Dorothy and her home to Oz--and the film switches to color! I was surprised at this, as this technique was the same one used in the famous 1939 film and appears to have inspired them. As for the story, it's so abbreviated and told without dialog and has little to do with the original novels. So, it's very, very hard to compare this to any other Oz story and you have to accept it for what it is. It's a bit too cutesy for me, but technically speaking it's a marvelous little film. It is certainly not brilliant when seen today, but for 1933 it's awfully good.

This short cartoon version of "The Wizard of Oz" is notable, I suppose, for being the first of the film adaptations to be in Technicolor, although since it wasn't originally released due to contractual disputes, its influence was likely negligible. Moreover, although the 1939 MGM film receives much credit for its use of Technicolor, the contrast between grays and colors has always been a feature of Oz, from the start in L. Frank Baum's book, as illustrated by W.W. Denslow. Like the films, such painting was a remarkable addition in the literary field at the time. Thus, similar to the book and as in the 1939 adaptation, this cartoon begins in a black-and-white Kansas, with a cyclone transitioning the fairytale to the rainbow-hued land of Oz.

There's a curiouser aspect to this particular cartoon, though--that's reproductive and sexual and almost along the lines of a Freudian, psychoanalytical treatment. After the familiar narrative of Dorothy meeting the Scarecrow and Tin Man (although, no Lion this outing), they travel to a bridge overlooking a romantic, spring-time scene about, quite literally, the birds and the bees. After this strange sequence of animal, insect and plant-assisted courtship, intercourse and reproduction completes, Dorothy and company are escorted to the Wizard. He performs a magic demonstration on reproduction that echoes early trick films in the cinema of attractions mode (e.g. "The Red Spectre" (1907)). Only, the Wizard's presentation exclusively involves birth and duplication--ending with the chicken and the eggs fertilized by the Wizard's phallic wand. Thankfully, Toto cuts this magic act short. As with the rabbit hole in Alice's adventures, to the Freudian mind of perversities, such an interpretation adds an entirely new meaning here to the funnel of the tornado from Dorothy's Kansas and the color transformation (decades later, "Pleasantville" (1998) did the latter explicitly). It becomes a story of rebirth and, seemingly to some extent, one of sexual awakening.

I've read Baum and Lewis Carroll's books, though, and this isn't how I read them, but that seems to be the message encoded here--and concluding with the hen holding her chick, as "Rock-a-bye Baby" plays us out. I tend to find such Freudian analysis amusing rather than serious-minded, so I'll conclude this review before further considering the implications here for the portrayal of Dorothy, from falling atop the Scarecrow to the Betty-Boop-type skirts and of the Wizard's focus on the posteriors and undergarments of his duplicate dancing girls. It's as though someone misread "children's story" as meaning that it's a story about where children come from.

Until the big one came out in 1939, this film ends up being the best "Wizard of Oz" film adaptation ever made to this point. Unfortunately, if you read up on the history of this film, it sounds like it never saw the light of day until the 1980s. It also sounds like it wasn't restored to all of its glory until 2014. Since it was made in 1933, that is enough to say it is a theatrical motion picture, but it never saw a release in the theaters.

This is an animated version of the Oz classic, fairly loyal to the original book, directed by Ted Eshbaugh and has the same great classic animation style seen in early Mickey Mouse, Betty Boop, Popeye and Porky Pig films. This film has some nice style, imagery and color to it. It is wonderful having it back completely restored too. Especially, when you see the transformation from black and white to color as Dorothy falls from the twister into the land of Oz. This simple effect would be recreated to great success in the 1939 classic.

The problem with this film is its just an eight minute musical number with no real story to go by. It flashes some brilliance at you, but by the time you get to the end of this eight minute musical number you wish it was half the length it was. Enjoy it as a 1933 music video with not much more than that.

6.3 (D+ MyGrade) = 6 IMDB.

Wizard of Oz, The (1933)

*** (out of 4)

Pretty good Technicolor cartoon based on the book. The animation is rather nice and the scarecrow and tin man are pretty funny here as well. This was the first version to show Kansas in B&W and then Oz in color.

Magic Cloak of Oz, The (1914)

*** (out of 4)

The fairies of Oz create a magic cloak, which will give one wish to the person who wears it. Once again the production design is very good here with wonderful and magical sets. The story is quite touching and I'm sure kids would love this version just as much as adults. The highlight of the film is the scene where a horse (played by a human in an outfit) is scratching his butt up against a tree and tries to teach a monkey how to do it.

Wizard of Oz, The (1910)

*** (out of 4)

Nice if strange version of the classic tale. The production values here are actually pretty nice and it's a rather strange trip seeing humans in outfits playing the various animals including the lion.

The Wizard of Oz (1933) is an animated short of the classic story and it is a fun time to watch.

Positives for The Wizard of Oz (1933): Out of the older versions of this story, this is my favorite version aside from the 1939 classic. I love the hand-drawn animation in this short as it gives this short a lot of fun vibes. And finally, this is something that you can show to kids and they will have fun watching it.

Negatives for The Wizard of Oz (1933): The short is under 8 minutes long, so there's not a lot to invest your time with. This short was clearly made for kids only. And finally, the beginning of the short is almost exactly like the beginning of the 1939 movie.

Overall, The Wizard of Oz (1933) is a fun animated short that kids will have a fun time with.

Among the special features included with the recent 3-disc DVD release of MGM's 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz is this obscure 9-minute cartoon, produced in Canada and directed by Ted Eshbaugh, whose best- known work is that old time TV perennial The Sunshine Makers. Needless to say, with such a brief running time we can't expect much more than a highlights version of the famous story, but even viewers who approach this short with modest expectations are likely to be disappointed: like so many color cartoons of the '30s this one is a pseudo-Silly Symphony that falls far short of the Disney standard.

At first the cartoon looks fairly promising. A petite Dorothy who resembles a Kewpie doll lounges on the porch of her Kansas farm, sighing with boredom, for only a moment or two before the twister arrives and carries her away -- and her little dog, too. Interestingly, after the "storybook" opening credits the animators chose to utilize black & white for the Kansas sequence and then switch to color as Dorothy plummets to the ground in Oz, thus prefiguring the 1939 feature film. Dorothy lands on the Scarecrow (forget about the Munchkins, there isn't time), and they quickly discover the Tin Woodsman frozen in position and free him from his paralysis. The trio then proceed to the Emerald City.

Here's where we start to notice the cartoon's flaws. For starters, there's no dialog. Aside from Dorothy's yelp of fright during the twister she never makes a sound, and neither do her companions. They team up and head for the Wizard's palace on some sort of unspoken signal, apparently because that's what they've been programmed to do, but their eerie silence doesn't encourage much viewer sympathy. The filmmakers obviously assumed we were already familiar with the story, but if that's the case then where's the Cowardly Lion? He makes no appearance in this cartoon and his absence is distracting: we keep waiting for him to arrive. And although the filmmakers mysteriously chose to delete a major character, they nevertheless found the time to include two brief, gratuitous musical sequences: a courtship interlude involving woodland animals and then a parade of welcome when Dorothy and her sadly reduced entourage arrive at the palace. The only sign of a witch, incidentally, is a quick shot of a witch-like character seen in silhouette, welcoming Dorothy and her friends to Oz with a big grin! Perhaps the strangest aspect of this version is the characterization of the Wizard of Oz himself: he is presented as a scrawny little man with evil eyes and a sinister chuckle. When Dorothy and her friends come before him he proceeds to intimidate them with what appears to be Black Magic: he summons up some Raggedy Ann-like dancing dolls (for yet another pointless musical interlude), and then causes a few monstrous animals to hatch from eggs. At this juncture we meet a hen who resembles Billina, a character from L. Frank Baum's later series of Oz books. The last portion of the cartoon involves this hen and an egg she has laid which grows to enormous size; meanwhile, Dorothy, the Scarecrow and the Tin Man are reduced to forgotten onlookers. The film ends on a resoundingly anti-climactic note.

The animation technique on display here is not at all bad for the period; I was reminded of the cartoons produced in the mid-'30s by Ub Iwerks, the former Disney animator who broke away from Uncle Walt and went into independent production. Like Iwerks' products this one has decent color and good technical effects, but also like Iwerks' products this one is deficient in story, pacing, dialog (as there isn't any) and, most of all, characterization. Only readers of the Oz books and fans of the later film will care at all about the creatures who populate this curious cartoon, and yet they're the viewers most likely to conclude that it's a misfire.