'The Wizard of Oz' is a miraculous rarity in the history of cinema. It is an intricately structured work, whose themes, images, narratives and characters echo and refract each other across its story. Surely for this to be possible, we would expect the over-arching organising sensibility of a Great Auteur, a Hitchcock or a Hawks. But 'Oz' has none - neither the writer of the source novel, L. Frank Baum; nor the many scriptwriters usually at each others' throats; nor the producers Mervyn Leroy or Arthur Freed; not the directors, credited and uncredited, can claim the honour of solely creating this masterpiece. Out of a series of accidents came a near-perfect work, just as out of the Big Bang, the intricacy of living organimsms, 'simply happened'. As Salman Rushdie remarks, 'Oz' is 'an authorless text'.
Rushdie's many insights into this film - which is so far beyond labels such as 'great' or 'art' or 'important' that it has shaped the cultural consciousness of audiences the world over for decades - are more literary than cinematic. After a charming introduction, in which the for-its-time-spectacular-and-fantastic 'Oz' is considered quite routine for a child who grew up with the excesses of Bollywood, he sits down at the TV with a notebook in hand, throwing out ideas and interpretations as he goes along. His main idea is that, in spite of the sell-out ending (as he perceives it), the film's message is not 'there's no place like home', but that once you undertake the kind of journey Dorothy makes, you can never go back, you must make your own homes, your own destiny (Rushdie, in hiding from the Ayotollah and his fatwa when the book was written, remakes Dorothy in his migrating image). The film up to this point has been so radical and liberating, that Rushdie sees the ending as the usual Hollywood moralising.
I've always thought that if your theory has to reject some of the text, than it's not much of a theory; but Rushdie is persuasive. His description of monochrome Kansas as hell-on-earth; his account of Dorothy's growth and the wonder of colourful Oz; his charting the rites-of-passage that reveals to Dorothy the inadequacy of adults; are intelligent and witty. His reverie on the fate of movie stand-ins, the audience's relationship to stars and film, and on the conflict between the idealism of a film and the reality of its making; is beautifully, philosophicallly moving. His singling out genius wordsmith Yip Harburg and that unforgettble witch Margaret Hamilton, is generous.
On the downside, his short-sighted cavilling over inconsistencies sees him miss the point on a few occassions; and the appendix, a short story 'At the Auction of the Ruby slippers', which with laboured and long-winded 'humour' fails to ape the post-modern, culture-conscious fantasy of Angela Carter (to whom the mongraph is dedicated), is unreadable.