MovieChat Forums > The Wizard of Oz Discussion > 1925 Wizard of Oz; why is it really so b...

1925 Wizard of Oz; why is it really so bad?

posted 20 years ago by Drezzilla
40 replies | jump to latest

Okay. There have been numerous bad reviews about this version of L. Frank Baum's classic novel that went on to become one of the most important musicals in cinema history. But why? Is it because it's silent? Maybe. Most people who have seen the 1939 Oz could never even picture it without song and dance or even spoken dialogue, but in a time where silent pictures were at the pinacle of their success and the idea of the reality of talking pictures wouldn't come for another 2 years, I mean, what do you expect? What else makes this version so bad? Most people said it took many liberties from the original story. Of course it did! Don't all movies? I know. I know. There's no Toto, no Wicked Witch of the East or West although the names of the characters in their place are quite interesting; Prince Kynd, Ambassador Wikked, Prime Minister Kruel, Lady Visshus (meow). This film is also notable for certain actors that appeared in it, like Oliver Hardy, who with Stan Laurel became one of the most successful screen comedians in cinema history. Otto Lederer, who played Ambassador Wikked, went on to play a couple of film roles at Warner Bros. most notably his supporting role as the temple chairman in the movie milestone, "The Jazz Singer" (1927) and another early talkie (but unfortunately lost), "On Trial" (1928). Despite the very dragged out storyline, the gags in this film, some of which include actors getting thrown 50 feet in the air, are just hilarious. If you haven't seen this version of "Oz", or have no desire to see it whatsoever, see it anyway. You may like it, you may hate it. Either way it's worth a shot. And even it you end up hating it with a passion, you might still find it a bit interesting.

[–] brian-40 20 years ago

As a real lover of silent movies, I can safely say that this movie sucks sucks sucks. Everything about it is terrible, from the racist black farmhand, to the truly bizarre ending that makes no sense. I don't need singing and dancing in a Wizard of Oz film, but a little magic and light heartedness might be bad.

If you want to see a sweet and wonderful kids silent movie, see Peter Pan.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015224/
Now that is a silent movie with the sort of magic a fantasy should have.

[–] Drezzilla 19 years ago

I respect your opinion and commend your effort for sitting through it and being the only other person for responding to my board.

[–] Kabumpo 17 years ago

It's nowhere near as racist as _The Birth of a Nation_, and nowhere near as boring.

[–] dirkgently4 19 years ago

I also enjoy silent films and let me tell you also, this movie sucks more than a thousand vacuum cleaners. One of the very few movies I walked out of offended. Seriously, I almost walked out from the racism in the movie. Very educational though to see how black actors were treated back then. Very sad. I saw this in a small place that had a local band playing music to go along with the movie. Very neat idea, and I usually enjoy it, but this time... Stay away. Stay away.

[–] rporldavies 19 years ago

I have just watched the film, and it is very, very different to the much more celebrated 1939 version. I had read that it was really put together to showcase the talents of Larry Semon, who plays the scarecrow character, and this is cetainly the case. It is remarkable how physically he resembles Ray Bolger, who played the scarecrow in 1939.

There are too many differences to comment on without giving the whole of the atmittedly contrived plot away, but it does not age well as a piece of cinema. apart from the pantomimic skill of Semon it is a slow moving and rather repetitive film. My print had such leaps of narrative that I suspect that some was actually missing.

I expect nothing from a film made in 1925 regarding a realistic representation of black people and this was the case here.

The thing which really surprised me was that the film was made as late as 1925..it could easily have passed as one made in earlier years which is an endictment of its lack of quality.

Worth watching? Probably, but only as a curio. And it is a real effort to get to the end without shouting at the screen for them to hurry up...

[–] leitrim 18 years ago

Quote:

I expect nothing from a film made in 1925 regarding a realistic representation of black people and this was the case here.

It's worth noting that this was the peak of the Ku Klux Klan in America, with something like 3 million members, and the state with the largest membership wasn't even in the South--it was Alabama.

On that basis alone, this is interesting. And the Black actor was called G. Howe Black.

[–] patconolly 18 years ago

Um, why do you consider Alabama not part of the South? Or did you mean type somrthing like, maybe, Indiana?

[–] BlondeVixen 18 years ago

<and the state with the largest membership wasn't even in the South--it was Alabama.>

What???? Alabama is in the deep South!

[–] tvashtar2919 18 years ago

The racial stuff is important, but we can write that off as a sign of the times. In regards to the original question, this movie sucks due to its lack of comprehension. The only reason we have any idea what is going on, is due to either reading the books or watching better versions. This thing is just set up for one incessant pratfall after another. Even those were not done that well, at least in the context of a storyline. Each of the love stories and especially the last one are either creepy or lack of substance. The arbitrary punishment to the dungeon was only another vehicle to create another set of lame scenes. Immediately after one worker betrays her, he is let into the shed for safety. The dancing on lightning was just bizarre. The hundred foot falls without any bruises was odd. The open door for the lions and stairs that were not used is just stupid. The musical score doesn't really match the scenery. The list could go on much longer, but this is a bad movie that should not be using the name of Oz.

[–] pepperdoggie 18 years ago

"G. Howe Black"????? Uggh, you've got to be kidding me.

[–] tvashtar2919 18 years ago

G. Howe Black is an amazingly stupid thing to name someone. Not sure of the hatred or ignorance indicated in that decision, but it says a lot about the director/manager and the repressive times of the nation. That minor point in the movie though, his name was never mentioned besides the credits as he was mostly just mocked, is not a reason alone to say this movie was bad. It is only a symptom of a total waste of time and self promotion of slapstick by the director. While that type or movie is okay, it has no place in an OZ storyline, but then very little in this movie had any resemblance to the books. Maybe Semon was a good comedy actor, but as a director he failed miserably in whatever he was trying to accomplish here.

[–] josiahrowe 17 years ago

The actor credited as "G. Howe Black" is apparently Spencer Bell (see http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0068520/), a frequent collaborator of director/star Larry Semon. There's a little information about him at http://allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=ESpencer|Bell. Amazing that anyone would ever have thought "G. Howe Black" was a good idea for a stage name.

[–] cnicknz 13 years ago

Racial issues aside, this movie is hideous! Larry Semon is not funny and ugly to boot, Dorothy looks like a showgirl doing Betty Boop and the storyline bears almost no resemblance to the Baum books or the classic 1939 movie. SKIP IT! That is unless you are a fanatical Oliver Hardy completist. It is interesting seeing him slimmer and cuter than later and with no mustache,but there is no hint of the comic genius lurking within.

[–] kerrydragon 13 years ago

Bad acting,miscast actors,crummy special effects,racism,badly written,edited and just boring

[–] EXPLICITSOUL5 13 years ago

I mean you no disrespect and if I offend you I do apologize it was not my intent. But my question is this: If the "racial stuff" is just a "sign of the times" why do SOME White people(certainly not ALL)get so upset by "Ms.Black America","BET"(which isn't even owned by Black people)"Blackplanet",or anything else which denotes "race"(a word I used only for clarification since we are all human beings)I mean couldn't it be because of "racial stuff" (back in the day)that Blacks and other minorities are able to show "pride"(POSITIVE pride,NOT racism)nowadays? I mean the Black guy Spencer Bell was his real name not G.Howe Black was a stereotype to the Nth power,lol! But if Black actors wanted work in those days that's the price they had to pay. And IMHO speaking only for myself,I couldn't see me as a director or whatever treating a fellow human being like that. Again I'm not trying to start an an arguement just giving anothe POV,peace.

Panaluv

[–] gibstrokin 17 years ago

I am from Alabama and it is definitely in the south. Actually, it pretty much epitomizes the south.

[–] Kabumpo 15 years ago

I hope you also walked out of _The Birth of a Nation _ offended. That film was offensive and incredibly boring. At least this one had interesting sets to look at.

I wanted to walk out of _The Birth of a Nation_, but I was in a graduate-level film course where we watched only five films and I was going to have to do extensive writing about it.

[–] UrbanUte 19 years ago

Larry Semon was the Adam Sandler of his days. Imagine Adam Sandler remaking "The Wizard of Oz" changing everything about it, including the hiring some bimbo for lead actress pretty much for no other reason then he wanted to get her into bed (he actually later married her) and change the script so it looked like one of your routines with just a few Oz characters in place.

That pretty much sums up the movie.

[–] cimmeon 18 years ago

Amen to that.

[–] nellybly 18 years ago

Charlie Murray, in the title role, makes a really fun humbug wizard. I paid a buck for a 2 sided disk (the 1914 "His Majesty, The Scarecrow of Oz" produced and directed by Baum is on the other side) so I figure for 50 cents this ain't too bad.

Until the 1940s (really the 1950s) blacks got treated pretty poorly in films. Not to be excusing it, but I've seen worse. The watermelon joke was a sterotype, of course, but the actor handled it really well and he didn't over-act any worse than the white actors (I think he was actually better).

[–] soybean913 18 years ago

This movie just sucked. I was SO looking forward to watching this version,only to be seriously let down. I have been a fan of silent movies since childhood. Good, cohesive, silent movies with decent titles. This version of 'Oz' was like a nightmare that made less than no sense. The movie was just a series of sight gags ( made me wanna gag ) and unnecessary pratfalls. I don't need Toto or Munchkins, witches or flying monkeys. This movie is a blight to silent cinema.

If you want to see what silent movies SHOULD be check out : 'The Unholy Three' starring Lon Chaney. Actually anything starring Chaney, seriously he's great. 'The Wind' starring Lillian Gish (?), Anything Chaplin. 'Daddy Long Legs' starring Mary Pickford. These movies are great and are a credit to silent cinema.

What knockers!
Oh, thank you, doctor.

[–] greenpen33 16 years ago

I never even knew this movie existed until I just looked at the 1939 one. They made a Wizard of Oz already? I had no idea. How come they decided to make another so soon after the other one? And how come people say this one is bad? I've never heard that but the other one is in the top 250 and talked about a lot and this one Is only rated a 5.

Jennie

[–] bonafido2003 16 years ago

The main problem, as with so many silents from the era, is that rather than the entire story unified into a whole, tends to be a series of gags strung together with no thought of the overall architecture. I'm watching it as I am posting this, and I also notice that while plot twists, segues and/or scene changes are one thing, many of the scenes here seem to be randomly strung together with no real story advancement.

I could probably handle the major changes to the book if there were at least a REASON for it, but there doesn't seem to be any other than what another poster noted was Larry Semon's monumental ego.

I can also see why a film like this could go overbudget very easily in 1925 (think of the scene of the bee's nest chasing Larry where each one of the bees were hand drawn onto every frame. A little more and this could have been classified as an animated feature). I loaned my video copy to a friend and he never saw Oliver Hardy's scenes because he lost interest and stopped watching before the setting shifted to Kansas. I was going to loan it to friend of mine who is African-American because the 1939 version is her favorite film of all time, but I am going to warn her of the stereotypical rascism in so many of the scenes in this version.

[–] otma18 16 years ago

I'll admit I haven't seen the silent Wizard of Oz, much as I overall prefer the original version of 99% of all re-made movies. I will say I'm not surprised remakes may be better than the originals. Cases in point: Read Bram Stoker's Dracula or Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Much as I adore the original Lugosi and Karloff versions, they have practically nothing in common with the books! The (much) later film versions with Gary Oldman and Robert DeNiro, respectively, are not only more loyal to the books, but are excellent for the good old fashioned frights Hollywood WISHES they could produce anymore.

[–] christianjbrooks 16 years ago

I'm going to have to agree with most everyone here and say that this was a pretty sad film. It would not have been as bad had the DVD not been narrated, allegedly, by a porn star and updated with that wretched mix of trance and piano music.

Even for this film's time, there were directors and actors approaching slapstick with much better taste. Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd. The worst Fatty Arbuckle film outsmarts this attempt.

It's ironic that my DVD came packaged with a Little Rascals short. The short was worth the $1 I spent on this DVD.

The only saving grace to this film was Oliver Hardy but I'd much rather watch him paired with Laurel.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dyrkt 15 years ago

First of all, the actor's "name" is listed as G. Howe Black, which is just infantile, but worse is all the stereotypes of the time. Blacks were considered lazy and cowardly by many, so they have the "cowardly lion" played by a black man.Get it? Me neither, but that's how it was.The fact that he is portrayed as being so dumb (or insensitive?) that he doesn't realize he is being hit by lightning is yet another example.Perhaps they thought that the fact he rescues a person in a plane at the end to be some kind of compensation.Not really.
Definitely an indictment of the times,racially speaking.Although there were other movies about, and by blacks at the time that were not so crass.

[–] drxcreatures 13 years ago

(It would not have been as bad had the DVD not been narrated, allegedly, by a porn star) <---Why does it matter?

http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com