Manohla Dargis begins
her review of Oz the Great and Powerful
by immediately bashing it. The first sentence is a question of whether or not
major studios can create magic, which is a good hook, but her swift scathing
response makes the reader wonder if there is more of a reason why she loathes
the film other than it having “a dispiriting, infuriating jumble of big money, small ideas and ugly
visuals.” This is the second review I have read by Dargis, and it appears she
feels immense pleasure from cruelly criticizing films as if she were truly
superior to film producers and directors. What gives her the credibility to do
this?
Dargis supports her critique by writing that Oz the Great and Powerful has “backwards
ideas” about females. There are numerous films that portray women as
individuals to be looked down upon – Disney classics are a prime example of
this. Dargis praises Disney for creating magical characters such as Tinker Bell,
but Disney is known for portraying princesses as damsels in distress – the only
way they can be saved and live happily ever after is to marry prince charming.
Dargis does not explain why she thinks Oz
the Great and Powerful is offensive to females other than describing the
female characters as having digitally altered faces and revealing that the
wicked witch falls for Oz; she turns green with envy when Oz shows affection
for “a pretty blonde”. Are readers who haven’t seen the movie supposed to
assume the blonde is Glinda the good witch? She does give background
information on L. Frank Baum’s (author of The
Wonderful Wizard of Oz) feminist mother-in-law who influenced Baum’s
renowned story. This background information is not useful to the reader and it
does not prove Dargis’ argument. She even brings up the sequel to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz; she thinks
it is relevant because it is a parody of the suffrage movement. She should have
had a legitimate argument as to why the film is offensive to females. It
appears like the main reason Dargis does not like the film is because Dorothy
does not appear, and the film is all about Oz. The film is titled Oz the Great and Powerful – is this
title misleading as to which character is the film’s focus?
Dargis even says the visuals are “ugly.” Readers will
probably question why Dargis writes this. Everyone has different opinions and
tastes, but it seems as if Dargis thinks only her opinions and tastes matter. She
provides some plot summary, but it probably does not do the film justice. She
writes that Oz is a man who has commitment issues and he has an “unfunny flying
monkey” sidekick. She does not provide any plot summary that might be useful to
readers’ decisions whether or not they should see the movie. Dargis’ review
makes readers doubt her credibility as a critic because she writes as if she is
biased. Readers will most likely get bored with the review because it bashes
the film without providing a credible argument. This review had potential to be
credible. It would have been readable if Dargis addressed the film’s
shortcomings and provided reasons why these shortcomings make the film a disappointment.
At the end of the review, Dargis says that The
Wizard of Oz has a moral – “there’s no place like home.” Is she
disappointed with Oz the Great and
Powerful because it does not have a moral? Readers don’t know because
Dargis does not write about it. She says that Dorothy is a relatable character.
By saying this, is she also expressing that Oz in Oz the Great and Powerful is not relatable? It just seems as if
Dorothy is Dargis’ favorite character in film history and lashes out at Oz the Great and Powerful like a pouting
child because her favorite childhood character is absent.
No comments:
Post a Comment