Wednesday, 27 May 2026

Wicked Witch variations part 1: The Wizard of Oz, the book and movie

So I had this ambitious idea for a blog post, where I gave an overview of the Chinese whispers that led us from a Wicked Witch of the West who was clearly villainous and not even green (as this exposé on YouTube told me: at this time in my planning I hadn't read the book yet) to the almost aggressively righteous Elphaba in the films Wicked and Wicked: For Good (based on Wicked the musical, but even more Wicked Witch-friendly). I've realised, though, that I have to split this topic into two or more parts, as there's a lot to unpack with all these different Oz versions. For one, Wicked the book, which I'm reading now, is nothing like the musical or the films – but I'll come back to that in a later blog post.

Let's start at the beginning. I didn't grow up with L. Frank Baum's Oz books, and have still only read the first one, The Wizard of Oz. Checking out the original of a much-told story is often a lot of fun, and given blog material, but still I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this children's classic. It was really charming: the characters, though not super complex, were likeable, the writing style beguiling and Oz itself properly intriguing. It's not a book that overstays its welcome, either. It made me curious about the other Oz books, although there are rather a lot of them. I'm not sure I'm curious enough to read them all.

It has to be said, though, that the original Wicked Witch version is not the most memorable one. She's a functional villain, much in the style of, say, the witch in Hansel and Gretel, but she doesn't have that much of a personality. Also, she's not so central to the plot as in the movie, as Dorothy's adventures carry on for a bit after she has defeated the witch before she can finally go home. Here are some things about the original Wicked Witch that may surprise you:

1) She's not green
2) She only has one eye
3) She's not, as far as we know, related to the Wicked Witch of the East
4) She doesn't show up demanding the magic slippers from Dorothy, or indeed show up at all during Dorothy's trek to the Emerald City. It's only when Dorothy and her companions are on their way to kill her that she makes her presence felt (though it's clear she wants those slippers too).

Already, there's something more than a little off about the Wizard's behaviour: he sends a child on an assassination mission, and has no reason to believe the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman (as the original Tinman is called) and the Cowardly Lion will be much help. On the face of it, although we have no reason to doubt the Witch's wickedness, she is at least partly acting in self-defence. Taken all in all, though, although the Wizard's case is not strong, neither is the Wicked Witch's. She is mostly a stock character and an obstacle for Dorothy and Co. to overcome.

The reason the Wicked Witch of the West has become such an iconic villain has to be all down to the movie The Wizard of Oz and how she's depicted there. (I think it's fair to stick with the term movie rather than film: movies don't come more American than The Wizard of Oz.) Margaret Hamilton's portrayal is a delight: here is a villain who relishes her wickedness in true Beagle Boy fashion. Here, we finally get the greenness too, as well as the broom and the cackling. The movie's framing device, where it's implied that Oz was all a dream and the characters Dorothy meets are versions of the people she knows in Kansas, helps to reinforce the Witch's role as a thoroughly bad lot: in the "real world", she's the termagant who wants to put Toto down (though not entirely without reason).

This so-not-in-the-book framing device serves to make the best case yet for the Wizard, too. Whereas in the book it's hard to believe him when he claims he is "a good man, though a bad wizard", it's easier in the movie. This is because his "real world" counterpart is the fortune-teller mountebank who out of kindness tricks Dorothy (who's on the run) to return home to her worried aunt. The Wizard's way of "giving" the Scarecrow, the Tinman and the Lion the characteristics they unknowingly already possess is also cleverer than in the book, although the moral is the same.

And yet... probably without meaning to, the movie manages to strengthen the Wicked Witch's case to some degree. In this version of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the East is her sister, and she has a far better claim to the magic slippers than Dorothy. That Dorothy is hailed for killing the Wicked Witch of the East and readily takes credit for it (although it's hardly her doing that her house happened to fall on the luckless witch) only makes matters worse. 

Like many other heroes and heroines of children's books, Dorothy is dropped down in the middle of a conflict she has no information about, and has to have explained to her by what one can only hope are the good guys. But how good are the Munchkins really? "Ding-Dong the Witch is Dead" is a really creepy song. And the slipper-stealing Glinda (in the book another good witch – Glinda only shows up towards the end there), can she really be trusted?

These slightly-off aspects of Oz – the gleeful celebration of a woman's death, the slipper stealing, the Wizard's assassination mission (admittedly, not as unprovoked in the movie version), the fact that he's a fake – could possibly form the foundations for a revisionist retelling of the story. How well did Gregory Maguire, and later the musical and the films, manage it? That's a subject for another time. Although I have to say, nothing the musical, the films or (so far) the book has served up can really top "I'll get you, my pretty, and your little dog too" for me.

Thursday, 14 May 2026

"What if fairy tales are real?" – now with cops

There is a quote from the animated series Phineas and Ferb which is often paraphrased like this: "If I had a nickel for every time [X happened] I'd have two nickels. Which isn't a lot, but it's weird that it happened twice." I understand why this quote is so popular, because it's genius. I for my part often imagine I can see certain trends in contemporary life, but when I have to come up with examples I can only think of two. Which is too little to positively point at a trend, and yet...

The TV series Grimm, airing 2011-2017 and currently on Amazon Prime where I'm catching up with it, is a typical two-nickel-phenomenon. What's even weirder than that there should be two American TV series airing in the 2010s with a "What if fairy tales are real?" premise, and specifically referencing the Grimm fairy tales before later branching out to all kinds of fantastical stories, is that Grimm and Once Upon A Time should be so different. 

They're both good, though. I actually started watching Grimm when it was on Netflix, but only an episode now and again, as it suffered somewhat from my ongoing Once obsession. However, the solid craft that has gone into making Grimm eventually won me over. It will never cater to my unhealthy fairy-tale villain crushes (well, when I say "crushes" I mean... mostly one) the way Once does, but that doesn't stop it from being extremely watchable. Once I realised this, Grimm had disappeared from Netflix, and I had to buy the DVDs to carry on my watching. Whereupon, shortly afterwards, it appeared again on Amazon.

So if Grimm isn't like Once, what is it about? The premise is almost as crazy in its way as Once's. Nick Burkhardt, a handsome, dedicated homicide cop in Portland, Oregon, is told by his dying aunt that he belongs to a family who has hunted different kinds of dangerous creatures, Wesen, for centuries. He's a "Grimm" (yep, in this reality the peaceful story-collecting brothers were monster hunters). Wesen mostly look like normal humans, but a Grimm can see what they are underneath when they are under stress and can't hide their true selves from a trained eye. Nick would probably assume that his aunt had gone barmy, only he has been seeing the oddest things lately... and then someone tries to kill his aunt.

Most of what follows are murder cases with a wesen (I'll go lower-case from now on) component, although there are also overarching story arcs. Nick swiftly learns that his ancestors were way too harsh with their wesen-slashing. In fact, wesens aren't unlike humans: some are good eggs, some are definitely bad news. Nick is lucky enough to early on come across super-good egg Monroe, a clock-mender who also happens to be a wolf-like wesen called Blutbad (yeah... I'll come back to the use of German terms later). 

They strike up a friendship, and Nick learns to use his talents for the good of wesen and non-wesen alike. Only, he has to come up with ways of solving crimes without letting anyone know the clues he gets from seeing suspects and witnesses turn into different kinds of creatures (from cute to downright scary) before his eyes.

It goes without saying that a concept where fairy tales are (partly) explained by the existence of "creatures" isn't as satisfying for a fairy-tale fan as the premise that actual characters such as the Evil Queen exist. Some of the earlier Grimm cases do take their cue from some particular fairy tale, and there's a fairy-tale- or folklore-related quote preceding every episode, which is classy. The show's real strength, though, lies elsewhere. 

While I was still grumbling over the somewhat haphazard way German phrases were used in order to explain various wesen (always pronounced with a short "e" in the series, for some reason) phenomena, I couldn't help appreciating the fun cop banter between Nick, his partner (in the professional sense!) Hank and the cynical Wu, who always brings the sass. The light-hearted police procedural part of the plot has remained strong throughout the seasons I've watched (I'm now at the beginning of season five). It's impressive how many variations the show manages on the wesen theme – sometimes they're perps, sometimes victims, and the dangerous monster isn't always who you think it is. There are plenty of amusing mini-whodunnits along the way.

The overarching storylines are more varied in quality, but are carried along by a cast of likeable protagonists. Nick is a bit of a clean slate at times, but has the core of decency a hero needs. Hank is a great mate, and Wu somewhat of a personal favourite of mine. But the big friendship prize goes to Monroe, who is there for Nick time and time again, through tough cases as well as personal hardships. It's a good thing that Nick saves his life once or twice, because he owes Monroe big time. Also, Monroe and his later girlfriend Rosalee (a Fuchsbau, that is, fox-like wesen) are unbelievably cute together, plus she is also extremely helpful to Nick. Monroe and Rosalee may be the most shippable couple on telly – perhaps even beating Snow and Charming in Once.

When it comes to girlfriends, though, Nick has a harder time of it, which leads me to a storyline the show handles less well. Nick's girlfriend Juliette has to put up with a lot and is actually often very supportive in trying circumstances. Nevertheless, I never really warmed to this particular romance, and judging from various IMDB reviews I wasn't the only one. Perhaps there is a certain imbalance – Nick seems to need Juliette more than she needs him, and although she stands by him through various surreal trials that would have most girls running for the hills she never accepts his marriage proposal. Maybe a certain coolness from the fans led to poor old Juliette being completely shafted in season four, which I still think is unfair. 

If Nick ends up with someone else than Juliette in the end, though, there will honestly be no complaints from me. But the script writers had better not come between Monroe and Rosalee – that would be a shootable-by-crossbow-arrows offence.