Under Analysis

Did the law steal Dorothy’s shoes?

Charles Kramer, The Levison Group

Many years ago, in a land not so very far away, a movie descended upon the cinematic theaters of our nation which boasted an amazing special effect — COLOR. The movie was the “Wizard of Oz ,” and movie audiences were amazed when black and white Kansas gave way to a colorized Land of Oz Now, decades later, color is old hat, and 3D is the rage. However, sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

In the days ahead, the Disney studios will unleash a new version of the Wizard of Oz on the movie going public. Saying the film is “loosely based” on the original books that gave birth to the original iconic movie, the Disney version promises to have modern special effects wizardry and a familiar yet different story. It will be released in traditional (2D) format, but also in Disney Digital 3D, RealD 3D and the IMAX 3D format. One thing that will apparently be missing from this color and multidimensional film, however, will be Dorothy’s ruby red shoes. Some people are saying the reason is clear:  Blame the lawyers.

Or, better yet, blame the brothers — Warner Brothers. It seems the original Wizard of Oz remains the property of Warner Brothers and the sparkly red shoes are COPYRIGHTED, since the shoes were actually silver in the original books. So, the folks over at Disney can’t copy the shoes. Others, however, note that the primary reason that Dorothy’s red shoes are absent is that Dorothy herself is a no show.

Rather than taking on the iconic movie of Judy Garland fame, the Disney film instead does battle with the stage phenomena “Wicked.” “Oz, the Great and Powerful” is a rivaling “prequel” to the Warner Brothers flick. Whereas “Wicked” focuses on the youth and maturation of the witches from the film, however, the new Disney film focuses on the wizard himself, telling the story of the Wizard’s arrival in Oz and his maturation into the all knowing, all powerful, man behind the curtain that Dorothy met.

Still, the new film is as much a result of the lawyer’s eagle eye review as it is the child of the creative team. Copyright concerns may not have stolen Dorothy’s shoes, but they definitely shaped the movie.

Where they could get clearance to get away with it, the Great and Powerful bunch clearly pay tribute to the film’s well-known predecessor. The Good Witch still travels by bubble; the movie begins in black and white for Kansas before switching to mega color for Oz. There are flying monkeys and sleepy-time poppies, and even the yellow brick road — up to a point.

Although the yellow bricks put in an appearance, the copyright lawyers had their say. The road lacks its stylized spiraling look that most remember from the prior film and its posters. Similarly, the Wicked Witch of the West’s skin color was reportedly changed several times, so as not to reflect the specific green of the Warner Brothers version. The munchkins also did not survive the lawyers review untouched. Word is that the lawyers required computer modifications, post production, to at least one munchkin who they deemed too “warnerbrothersesque.”

So, go to the movie, enjoy your popcorn, and give the film your own review. Just keep in mind that in today’s day and age, the guy behind the curtain is more likely a lawyer, than a wizard.

––––––––––

Under Analysis is a nationally syndicated column. Charles Kramer is a principal of the St. Louis, Missouri law firm Riezman, Berger, P.C. You may direct comments or criticisms about this column to the Levison Group c/o this newspaper, or direct to the Levison Group via e-mail, at comments@levisongroup.com.
© 2013 Under Analysis L.L.C.