This may be slightly complicated by the fact that so many people have
illustrated _Wizard_, and to a lesser extent, a few of the later books,
especially _Land_. But the main thing for people who look at books is
that there are two different conceptions of Dorothy, both the original,
fairly extensive illustrations from Wizard by W.W. Denslow, and the far
more numerous illustrations from the next thirty or so books by John R.
Neil. Most people I know seem to prefer the Neil as authoritative. I
remember Ruth Berman telling us at a meeting of a dream she'd had of
finding a Neil-illustrated _Wizard_, and how disappointed that she was
to realize, upon waking, that it was only a dream. As an adult, I
really admire the Denslow work, especially on design of the book. But
I've actually also enjoyed the various other illustrations by Michael
Hague and many others. Neil payed homage to Denslow in one of the later
books where statues appear in a courtyard of the way Dorothy and some
other characters originally appeared in the Denslow illustrations.
The wonderful thing about _Return to Oz_ is the way that many of the
characters appear the way they did in the Denslow pictures, 2-D
illustrations rounded up to 3-D of the Scarecrow, Jack Pumpkinhead, Tin
Woodman, the Gump, and others. Even Ozma, who initially disappointed me
for not looking like the Ozma of _Ozma_ and later books, looks exactly
like she appears in the two final illustrations in _Land_. (Basically,
she's blond in the movie, in contrast with the brunette Fairuza Balk
Dorothy, who looks like a young Judy Garland-Dorothy. But Dorothy
wasn't in _Land_, so Ozma could be blond. In the later books, with the
blond Dorothy back in the pictures, Ozma becomes brunette for a design
contrast). But Balk was marvelous in her part in a movie which was
quite different in mood from the 1939 _Wizard_ movie. All of the
competing illustrations help to lessen the impact of any one, even one
so overpowering as the '39 movie.
Similarly, perhaps, I do feel some impact from the new Tolkien movie,
but Strider, for instance, still looks like Annette Harper's in some
earlier _Mythlores_ and _Mythprints_, and to my mind, the Long Expected
Party looks like Bonnie Callahan's drawing from some early _Mythprint_
cover. I watched some video about _The Hobbit_ the other day, and since
then I can't get the Hildebrandt Treebeard out of my head. Please,
I'll gladly take the Jackson one in its place, if I can only remember
what it looked like. (the best Treebeard I ever saw was an illustration
in the T-K Graphics chapbook of Marion Zimmer Bradley's _Men, Halflings
& Hero Worship, but it's not really an illustration that can be
imagined in 3-D).
On Feb 23, 2005, at 10:03 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> Message: 10
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2005 00:22:09 EST
> From: aveeris523@...
> Subject: Re: movie images
> In a message dated 2/22/05 2:43:44 PM, mwinslow@... writes:
>> For that matter, does _anyone_ alive today read _Wizard of Oz_ and
>>> _not_ think of Judy Garland?
> Actually, if I pictured anyone it would be Fairuza Balk as Dorothy
> from the
> film Return to Oz (much closer in age). The book Wizard of Oz is so
> in story and general feel from the MGM movie that I regard them as
> distinct. For comparison, read the original, unabridged Peter Pan and
> try to
> picture the sanitized Disney version!
> Steve Gaddis
d-lena@... or david_lenander@...
2095 Hamline Ave. N.
Roseville, MN 55113
651-292-8887 or 651-697-1807