The Collective Unconcious Synonymous with Oz

The Wizard of Oz (circa 1939) is a movie in which a young woman, Dorothy, is knocked unconscious and enters a land called Oz. Archetypal theorists, such as Carl Jung, would argue that her unconscious journey to ‘Oz’ is interchangeable with a journey into the collective unconscious. While in Oz, Dorothy encounters many characters which are eerily similar to those she had met in Kansas but with one major difference - the ones she met in Oz were exaggerated. These ‘ideal’ versions of the characters, undistorted and clear-cut, could be considered the essence or ideal form of the characters found in Kansas. Being that the term ‘ideal form’ was made synonymous with ‘archetype’ by Carl Jung and the ‘ideal forms’ in Oz are those of people in Kansas, Northrop Frye might argue that these characters must then also be archetypal. An archetypal critic would argue that because The Wizard of Oz shares many of the concepts theorized by Plato, Carl Jung, and Northrop Frye that shape archetypal criticism as a literary school of thought, this movie must then be archetypal.

Plato, a Greek philosopher (circa 424-347 BC), suggested a Theory of Forms. He suggested that the world as we see it is not the real world but rather a shadow of the real world or distortion. He had concluded that there was a place in which existed the essence of all objects. For example, the essence of the concept of a chair would exist in such a place. Further, he theorized that the chairs we see in reality are but distortions of the ideal. Through analysis of The Wizard of Oz, a comparison of the characters in Kansas versus the characters in Oz results in evidence of these forms manifested in the movie.

Zeke, a farm-hand on the Kansas farm, is a perfect exemplar of this. While in Kansas, Dorothy falls into a pig pen from which Zeke rescues her. After being pulled out, Dorothy replies saying, “Why, Zeke, -- you're just as scared as I am!” Hunk, another farm hand then alludes to the character of the Lion in Oz in the following way: “What's the matter -- gonna let a little old pig make a coward out of you?” This allusion allows the viewer to see the parallel between the character of the cowardly lion in Oz and Zeke, the cowardly farm-hand. However, a key difference to be noted is the way in which Zeke acts in comparison to the Lion. At first glance, Zeke is alike to any other person - his cowardice goes unnoticed - whereas the cowardice in the lion is recognizable right away. Dorothy comments saying, “Why, you're nothing but a great big coward!” Admittedly, the lion is a coward; “You're right -- I am a coward.” The parallels between said characters are further engrained in the viewers by the choice, made by the directors, to have the same actor (Bert Lahr) play both the Lion and Zeke making it impossible not to see the similarities between the two. Therefore, the similarities imply that the Lion is the ideal and undistorted form of Zeke; his qualities are obvious and unhidden as should be the case in the ideal, whereas Zeke is distorted.

Hunk, another farm hand, can also be used as an example of the ideal forms present in The Wizard of Oz. He too alludes to his alter-ego present in Oz while talking to Dorothy in Kansas; “Now lookit, Dorothy, you ain't using your head about Miss Gulch. Think you didn't have any brains at all.” He infers the concept of lacking a brain which is what afflicts the Scarecrow in Oz, and is the only character in Kansas to do so. The Scarecrow affirms this lack of a brain by saying, “That's the trouble. I can't make up my mind. I haven't got a brain -- only straw.” Although the parallels are vague, the allusion is there inferring that the characters are meant to mirror one another. Again, in order to accurately depict this the director of the movie chose to have the same actor (Ray Bolger) play both the Scarecrow and Hunk. Therefore, though the similarities are not as evident as in the case of Zeke and the Lion, the allusions made by Hunk to the character of the Scarecrow and the choice of the director to have the same actor play both characters allows the viewer to conclude that the Scarecrow must be the ideal form of Hunk located in the collective unconscious, or Oz.

Carl Jung took Plato’s theory of the ideal form and recoined the term calling them archetypes as opposed to forms. Northrop Frye then took the concept of an archetype and applied the idea to works of fiction. Both Jung and Frye concluded that these archetypes were known to all people and present everywhere. Being that the ideal forms present in Oz are those of characters, one might then suggest that these characters must also be archetypal. An archetypal character is one which shares characteristics with other characters in texts which acts in much the same manner in all instances in which the character is present. There are many archetypal characters, such as the wise old man and skeptic, which can be applied to more or less any piece of work - The Wizard of Oz is one.

The wise old man, described by Carl Jung, is typically described as a kind wise character who uses personal knowledge to guide the hero. The Scarecrow guides Dorothy in the right direction when she finds herself lost; “Now which way do we go?” she asks to which the Scarecrow replies, “That way.” However, this is not the only instance in which he uses his knowledge to guide the hero, Dorothy. When she becomes hungry, she cannot get any apples from the trees. The Scarecrow, however, knows a way to do this.

DOROTHY We've been walking a long ways and I was hungry and -- Did you
say...
FIRST TREE She...was hungry! Well, how would you like to have someone
come along and pick something off of you?
DOROTHY Oh, dear -- I keep
forgetting I'm not in Kansas.
SCARECROW Come along, Dorothy -- you don't
want any of those apples. Hmm!
FIRST TREE What do you mean - she doesn't
want any of those apples? Are you hinting my apples aren't what they ought to
be?
SCARECROW Oh, no! It's just that she doesn't like little green...worms!
TREE Oh...you...
SCARECROW Go -- Go!
TREE ...Oh -- Help -- let me
out. I'll give you little green...worms!
SCARECROW I'll show you how to get
apples!

The Scarecrow knows that getting a rise out of the trees will cause them to throw their apples, and in this way obtains food for Dorothy. It is his knowledge of the land that allows him to guide and aid the hero, Dorothy on her quest to see the Wizard.

The skeptic is self explanatory; it is a character whom is skeptical about the ideas which are supported by the hero, in this case Dorothy. Dorothy supports going to see Oz and believes that Oz will be the cause of all the characters’ problems. However, the Lion is always looking for reasons to opt out of going to see the Wizard. For instance, when he says, “Wait a minute, fellahs. I was just thinkin'. I really don't want to see the Wizard this much.” Throughout the plot, the Lion does things such as those outlined above. However, it is characteristic of a skeptic to eventually support the ideas supported by other characters in the plot. Such is the case of the Lion when he visits Oz, despite his hesitance and skepticism, and receives a medal for his courage.

Evidently, the collective unconscious is present in The Wizard of Oz being Oz itself as it is the place in which the ideal forms exist. These ideal forms are the Lion and Scarecrow, among other characters, and are the undistorted forms of Zeke and Hunk from Kansas. These characters, being that they are characters and not objects, are also archetypal being the wise old man, and the skeptic. Evidently, though the movie The Wizard of Oz is an atypical archetypal piece of work, it is archetypal. This is because regardless of its not following many characteristics common to archetypal pieces, it does contain many concepts suggested by theorists such as Plato, Carl Jung, and Northrop Frye as being the groundwork for this form of criticism. Therefore, because The Wizard of Oz contains the concepts of the collective unconscious, the ideal forms, and archetypal characters, the piece is archetypal.

Bibliography:

The Wizard of Oz. Dir. Victor Fleming. Based on the book by L. Frank Baum. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1939.