Many film scholars have argued that “event” or blockbuster films as we know them today didn’t come about until the 1970s, beginning with the release of Steven Spielberg’s 1975 summer hit JAWS. But THE WIZARD OF OZ contests this historical timeline.
Writer Horatia Harrod chronicled how the film was a hyped and heavily marketed affair. Star Judy Garland underwent a grueling bi-coastal press tour which involved interviews as well as live performances before screenings. According to Harrod, MGM’s publicity department coached theater owners on how to bring in audiences and created merchandise for stores around the country, from OZ branded gingham dresses to soap and dart boards — in all, they spent about $1 million on marketing alone (equivalent to about $17 million today).
Though this is a substantially smaller number than the hundreds of millions of dollars spent today on tentpole premieres, it’s easy to forget that the classics we know and love were once new releases struggling to find audiences in a saturated market.
THE WIZARD OF OZ wasn’t a runaway hit, at least not at the box office. And though it received generally good reviews, at least one critic absolutely hated the film noting, “The story of course has some lovely and wild ideas — men of straw and tin, a cowardly lion, a wizard who isn’t a very good wizard — but the picture doesn’t know what to do with them, except to be painfully literal and elaborate about everything.” This critic’s easy dismissal of “literal,” entertaining fare is echoed today, usually in conversations about the latest franchise movie.
So it is possible that a schlocky, special effects driven film of today might be the OZ of the future. After all, the film itself tells us that appearances and first impressions can be all too deceiving.
