Off to See the Wizard
In Narnia, we met a good lion; we will see a far different lion--a cowardly lion--in the Wizard of Oz. This Monday we will be viewing the movie based on The Wizard of Oz--Judy Garland's ruby shoes are not in the book, by the way. While we watch, we'll eat snacks and critique the movie using the Starting Points curriculum. Does the Wizard of Oz present the Biblical worldview--or something else (what?) Which character, if any, represents God?
Surely not the Wizard:
"I think you are a very bad man," said Dorothy.
"Oh, no, my dear; I'm really a very good man, but I'm a very bad Wizard, I must admit."
"Can't you give me brains?" asked the Scarecrow.
"You don't need them. You are learning something every day. A baby has brains, but it doesn't know much. Experience is the only thing that brings knowledge, and the longer you are on earth the more experience you are sure to get."
Perhaps this sounds like sound advice; but certainly not Godlike. The Wizard indulged the Scarecrow in the end, and stuffed his head with "a measure of bran, which he mixed with a great many pins and needles" to make him "sharp."
What is the source of the power in Oz? Is the use of power outside of God's glory condemned in Bible teachings on witchcraft? I must admit, when the mouse queen advises Dorothy to say a charm to call the Winged Monkeys to her command, I felt distinctly uncomfortable. Is this a pricking of my conscience, or simply squeamishness?
AFA Journal, http://www.afa.net/journal/february/2002/harrypotter.asp , asks regarding movies such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and the Wizard of Oz, "How do we define the evil that is to be opposed, and upon what basis do we decide between those for whom we cheer and those we don’t?...Tolkien’s wizards are not wizards in the Harry Potter sense. Instead, they are more akin to angelic beings – capable of falling into a state of dark corruption and rebellion against the One True God who created them (as explained in Tolkien’s background history to Lord of the Rings, entitled The Silmarillon.)The Lord of the Rings trilogy also contains sublime spiritual insights founded upon a Christian worldview, which is lacking in Harry Potter. These truths include the power of sin to corrupt and enslave; the self-deluding power of pride; and the nature of demonic evil as personal and universally destructive, rather than psychological or metaphorical."
Note that the Wizard of Oz movie is different from the book in important respects, and this may alter your arguments. For one thing, I suggest that if you write an essay with the contention that "Satan's footwear is red," that you must first deal with the fact that in the book, Dorothy's slippers were silver. The book is now in public domain; Get your own free copy of Baum's Wizard of Oz at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6896.
What do you think? Blog your comments.
Surely not the Wizard:
"I think you are a very bad man," said Dorothy.
"Oh, no, my dear; I'm really a very good man, but I'm a very bad Wizard, I must admit."
"Can't you give me brains?" asked the Scarecrow.
"You don't need them. You are learning something every day. A baby has brains, but it doesn't know much. Experience is the only thing that brings knowledge, and the longer you are on earth the more experience you are sure to get."
Perhaps this sounds like sound advice; but certainly not Godlike. The Wizard indulged the Scarecrow in the end, and stuffed his head with "a measure of bran, which he mixed with a great many pins and needles" to make him "sharp."
What is the source of the power in Oz? Is the use of power outside of God's glory condemned in Bible teachings on witchcraft? I must admit, when the mouse queen advises Dorothy to say a charm to call the Winged Monkeys to her command, I felt distinctly uncomfortable. Is this a pricking of my conscience, or simply squeamishness?
AFA Journal, http://www.afa.net/journal/february/2002/harrypotter.asp , asks regarding movies such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and the Wizard of Oz, "How do we define the evil that is to be opposed, and upon what basis do we decide between those for whom we cheer and those we don’t?...Tolkien’s wizards are not wizards in the Harry Potter sense. Instead, they are more akin to angelic beings – capable of falling into a state of dark corruption and rebellion against the One True God who created them (as explained in Tolkien’s background history to Lord of the Rings, entitled The Silmarillon.)The Lord of the Rings trilogy also contains sublime spiritual insights founded upon a Christian worldview, which is lacking in Harry Potter. These truths include the power of sin to corrupt and enslave; the self-deluding power of pride; and the nature of demonic evil as personal and universally destructive, rather than psychological or metaphorical."
Note that the Wizard of Oz movie is different from the book in important respects, and this may alter your arguments. For one thing, I suggest that if you write an essay with the contention that "Satan's footwear is red," that you must first deal with the fact that in the book, Dorothy's slippers were silver. The book is now in public domain; Get your own free copy of Baum's Wizard of Oz at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/6896.
What do you think? Blog your comments.
posted by Melissa Morgan, eaglesnesthome.com @ Friday, November 17, 2006
2 Comments:
At 12:10 PM,
Anonymous said…
I just finished the Wizard of Oz book yesterday. I think the message is that we all have the power within ourselves to do what we want. This of course is not a Christian worldview. The power of the witches came from "magic" and the power of the wizard came through deception. It is also interesting that the wizard became unhappy with the situation he created to keep his position in Oz.
I didn't understand many of the characters in the book. Where did the hammer-heads fit into the story? Were they just so Glinda could use the hat to call the winged monkeys again? Did her unselfish use of the hat to help the three travelers make her Christ-like?
I also thought it was odd in the book that the scarecrow, tin man and lion needed to be the ruler of people in order to be happy. Couldn't they be happy just being one of the guys?
Another insight that was made by someone at the class the other night was, you could tell if someone was good because they were beautiful and wicked if they were ugly.
At 1:49 PM,
Anonymous said…
The last thing you said about the good being beautiful and the bad being ugly always annoys me in stories. It's more realistic if the bad guy looks deceivingly normal or beautiful or sweet or anything but bad.
Of course, sometimes the bad guy could be ugly, but you can't judge that way. I haven't read the book so I don't know anything about the hat, or the three travelers becoming rulers to be happy, but I definitely agree with you on the worldview. It was pretty clear that everyone in the story found whatever they where searching for within themselves without any outside help.
Post a Comment
<< Home