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 expos̩ 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 up in 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 Рbut 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 finally can 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 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 a 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.
