I hadn’t watched The Wizard of Oz in close to twenty years – a consequence of having seen the movie so often in my youth. But just recently, I saw a beautiful retrospective of Judy Garland’s career on PBS in which I was reminded of what a spectacular instrument her voice had been. Then, this past weekend, Ted Turner’s TNT and TBS networks ran the restored version and I took the opportunity to sit down and watch it.

The emotional reaction I had to the film shocked me. It brought back a flood of memories from childhood I had long ago buried under the wearied cynicism and callousness of adulthood. I recalled sitting in front of the TV with the whole family and watching the film on what was then the new technology of color television, being amazed, scared, entrhralled, and amused at the goings on in Oz. At that point in my life, I believed monkeys could fly, witches could really perform magic, trees could talk, and scarecrows could dance.

I suppose that’s part of the attraction in the Harry Potter series of books and films, although there is a much darker, more sinister element in J.K. Rowhling’s characters and plots than either Frank Baum, author of the Oz series of books or Hollywood would have possibly thought appropriate for children. The identification of children today with the young wizards in the Potter series also has a lot to do with the characters able to control their immediate surroundings simply by waving a magic wand – a tempting prospect for kids who, by nature are unable to affect their own lives except at the margins.

And that was on my mind when, right in the middle of my reveries about childhood and enjoying the innocence and pure entertainment found in The Wizard of Oz , a trailer for a new Walt Disney film was shown. Entitled Enchanted, to these adult eyes the film certainly looks like a winner:

A classic Disney animated fairy tale meets with the modern, live-action romantic comedy in Walt Disney Pictures’ ENCHANTED. Featuring an all-star cast, the film follows the beautiful princess Giselle (AMY ADAMS) as she is banished by an evil queen (SUSAN SARANDON) from her magical, musical animated land and finds herself in the gritty reality of the streets of modern-day Manhattan.

Shocked by this strange new environment that doesn’t operate on a “happily ever after” basis, Giselle is now adrift in a chaotic world badly in need of enchantment. But when Giselle begins to fall in love with a charmingly flawed divorce lawyer (PATRICK DEMPSEY) who has come to her aid—even though she is already promised to a perfect fairy tale prince (JAMES MARSDEN) back home – she has to wonder: can a storybook view of romance survive in the real world?

The juxtaposition of the two films was jarring indeed. Both can easily be enjoyed by adults. But trying to combine the fairy tale world and the grit and cynicism of the real world may be taking the modern “children’s movie” too far. While the film will come out with a “PG” rating, most parents won’t hesitate to take their kids to see it given that it is a Walt Disney movie and features classic fairy tale characters.

Perhaps it’s because the trailer so jarringly interrupted my trip down memory lane watching Oz that it started me thinking about today’s Hollywood fare for kids and ask are we cheating our children by forcing them to grow up earlier and confront the reality of becoming adults before it is really necessary?

The whole point of fairy tales is to stimulate children’s imaginations and place them in another world different than the one they inhabit. The themes and characters are designed to pass on cultural traditions to the next generation in a fun and memorable way.

Serious critiques of common stories like “Sleeping Beauty” and “Snow White” try to make the point that these cultural touchstones actually work to undermine gender equality and may even foster racial hatred and stereotypes. For example, Disney’s extraordinary technical achievement of combining live action and animated segments in the 1946 release Song of the South is never shown on television and has never been released on DVD due to the racially insensitive attitudes of the characters toward “Uncle Remus” and his oral creation of the Br’er Rabbit adventures. The original stories written down by Joel Chandler Harris were actually African folk tales told to him by former slaves in rural Georgia and tended to depict race relations in the post Civil War south in an idealized manner.

Too politically correct? Not according to the feminists:

Feminist criticism and re-visioning of fairy tales has centered on exposing the gender ideology that is perpetuated in tales. Criticism has focused on the passivity of young girls waiting to be rescued, the encoded binaries in a text that equate beauty with goodness, the representation of evil stepmothers, and the closures which seal a girl’s dependency on a prince.

All of that may be true. But does it do any harm otherwise? One might also note the strength to endure hardship with a determination to change their lot in life in both Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, their innate intelligence, their resourcefulness, and their eventual triumph. Aren’t these qualities to which young girls should be aspiring as well?

Being passed down through an oral tradition in western society, fairy tales like Rapunzel and Hansel and Gretel change from telling to telling, embellished to make a point or altered to obscure another. Some of the harsher cultural critiques posit that such touchstones were actually used to oppress women, that this was their purpose all along. Such nonsense may pass muster in academia but you and I see these tales for what they are; ways for children to imagine a different world from the one they inhabit on a day to day basis while passing on important moral lessons in such a way that they will listen and learn.

Most modern children’s films like the Shrek and Ice Age franchises try to walk a fine line between an appealing kind of smarminess and wide eyed innocence, ostensibly to keep adults entertained as well. The Shrek films may turn fairy tales upside down by having the monster marry the princess but it works because the “monster” isn’t really evil, just different.

But Enchanted is an entirely different kind of children’s film altogether. It may create a memorable world that will expand the imaginations of youngsters. But the moral verities one usually finds in fairy tales are mocked and satirized as being totally out of place in modern New York. The purity and innocence of the Princess is transformed into a kind of empty headed naivete while the gallant and courageous Prince becomes something of a buffoon. Their moral universe – where people are supposed to behave a certain way toward one another – is ruthlessly taken advantage of and exploited for selfish reasons by world weary New Yorkers.

I don’t see anything unhealthy or harmful for children in Enchanted, having only read about it and seen the trailers. But it nevertheless caused an indescribable sadness as I watched the beautiful fairy tale princess being treated abominably by caricatures of cynical New Yorkers. Of course, adults realize that life is not a “happily ever after” proposition, that tragedy and loss are a part of living. But must children be disabused of the notion so early in life?

It’s depressing to think that a film like Enchanted will color a child’s outlook on the world of make believe and fairy tales after they see the film. They won’t see the world of Snow White or Sleeping Beauty quite the same way again. It’s not a question of whether this is right or wrong but whether it is necessary. I know if I had little ones, I would think about taking them to see this film. One must measure what would be gained from seeing it against what might be lost. In that respect, the trade offs for some parents might be too high.

Disney is marketing this film to families so it’s a good bet a large part of the audience will be young children. No doubt some will dub the film a “classic” if for no other reason than the premise of combining reality with the fairy tale world. But in truth, I see this film (and the upcoming Sci-Fi Channel miniseries, a “re-imagining” of the Wizard of Oz called Tin Man) as “anti-classics” in that they deliberately set out to separate themselves from the classic genre and either parody it or, in the case of Tin Man, create an opposing vision of the original.

I really do wish both films success. It just saddens me that it comes at the expense of childhood visions of make believe and fantasy.