The Evaluation of ’That Man Behind the Curtain’:
Atheism and Belief in The Wizard of Oz
The article I have chosen to
evaluate is called ‘That Man Behind the
Curtain’: Atheism and Belief in The Wizard of Oz. It was published in an
online journal, Film-Philosophy, which, in their own words is “an open access
peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to the engagement between film studies
and philosophy”. It appeared in their 17th volume in 2013. The
author is Justin Remes, a lecturer in Film and Literature at Oakland
University. He has published several articles; for example, in the British
Journal of Aesthetics.
In his
article, Remes states that his purpose is to prove that The Wizard of Oz tries to undermine all kinds of supernatural
beliefs. However, even in these modern times, people cannot live without some
kind of belief, so they believe in belief itself (Remes 84).
Remes tries
to show the reader with examples and quotes that the question of disbelief has
been dealt with several times, and gives a general introduction before the two
main parts of his article. He analyses this phenomenon in both the original
book version of L. Frank Baum, and the famous 1939 film version directed by
Victor Fleming. He even makes a comparison, which reveals the different views
of the creators; and consequently, the impression the book and the film
versions leave in the reader and viewer.
In the first part of the article, Remes argues that the author of the
book, Baum, uses the story as a way to criticise organized religion, but one
should not call it atheistic, as opposed to the more radical MGM musical
version. Remes states that the wizard in the story is a reference to the
anthropomorphic Judaeo-Christian deity. He tries to prove this with quotes from
the book and the Bible. He points out that often the way people talk about the
wizard resembles the way God is talked about in the Bible; for example, “I have
never been permitted to see the Great Oz, nor do I know of any living person
who has seen him” (Hearn, 165) and what can be read in John 4:12: “No man hath
seen God at any time” (King James Version). If one would simply change the name
Oz to God, one would not even notice the difference. Even the language Baum
uses has Biblical reference; for instance, the description of the Emerald City,
home to Oz, is very similar to the
description of the Christian conception of heaven.
Another way
of Remes to convince the reader is to present Baum’s personal life and faith. The
author of The Wizard of Oz was
brought up in a deeply religious conservative family; yet, he was always sceptical
about religion. However, he was not an atheist. He believed in the divine and
the spiritual world, but he was not satisfied with the general image of God.
Remes thinks that this belief of Baum played a big part in the ending: Oz turns
out to be a regular man, the wizard does not exist. However, he is still a good
man, and that means that religious leaders are not bad people, either. The
important thing is to believe in something (Remes 85-87).
In the second part of his article, Remes argues that there is a drastic
change in the film version of Victor Fleming. The main difference is the ending
of the story: not only the magical abilities of Oz, but the entire land turns
out to be only Dorothy’s dream. The director makes sure that the viewers know
that the events exist only in Dorothy’s mind, just as heaven and the
metaphysical realm is just a projection of our mind, of our world. In songs
like Somewhere Over the Rainbow one
can see the characters’ spiritual longing for a magical, peaceful land, but
this longing can never be fulfilled because such places do not exist (Remes
87-89).
In the concluding part of his article, Remes deals with belief. He
writes that The Wizard of Oz does not
only criticize faith, it also shows the psychology and power of faith. He gives
examples of the certain belief in belief or “decaffeinated belief”: belief is
what makes Dorothy and her companions go to Oz, and even when he turns out to
be a fraud, they cannot believe it. Justin Remes’ conclusion is that the
brilliance of The Wizard of Oz is
that it captures the loss and the
maintenance of faith at the same time (Remes 89-93).
Justin Remes’ article seems very
professional and organized, even if the reader does not know anything about him
being a lecturer. His work had clear structure: a good introduction to the
topic with mentions of earlier works in the field, a clear analysis and
comparison of two versions of the same story, and effective concluding
paragraphs, which mention the most important parts of the article again.
He states his arguments clearly, and they are very well supported
throughout the essay. The reader becomes informed in the topic and can form
their own opinion about it. The only weakness I have found is one even Remes
himself pointed out: he describes Baum’s faith, but he could not really find
anything on Fleming’s. The personal views of the creators contributed a great
deal to the outcome of the film. As Remes mentions, in the film version there
were many contributors, not only one, so it cannot really be decided who
influenced it the most.
All in all, Remes’ article was organized, enlightening and interesting,
probably even for those who are otherwise not interested in religion.
Works Cited
The Bible. King James Version.
Hearn,
Michael Patrick. The Annotated Wizard of
Oz by L. Frank Baum. New York: W.W. Norton, 2000. Print.
Remes, Justin. “’That Man Behind the Curtain’: Atheism and Belief in The
Wizard of Oz.” Film-Philosphy.
Vol. 17.
(2013): 84-95. Web. 2013.
The article can be read here: http://www.film-philosophy.com/index.php/f-p/article/view/289/860
No comments:
Post a Comment