The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →No: the 1939 film’s Ruby Slippers were not silver, a background shape on the Yellow Brick Road is likely a bird rather than a hanging performer, and production mishaps do not prove the movie was cursed. The real stories are still striking—and some, including an allegation about Judy Garland, remain disputed.
Three familiar claims, checked
1. Were Dorothy’s slippers always ruby?
No. In L. Frank Baum’s 1900 novel, Dorothy’s magical shoes are silver; in MGM’s 1939 film, they are ruby red. The Library of Congress says they were “purportedly changed to ruby to take full advantage of color photography.” The Smithsonian National Museum of American History likewise describes the change for the Technicolor film.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Wizard of Oz | $5.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
The Wizard Of Oz (75th Anniversary) | $14.67 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
![3 Film Collection: The Wizard of Oz / Gone With the Wind / Casablanca [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51wHuGnNX4L._SL160_.jpg)
|
3 Film Collection: The Wizard of Oz / Gone With the Wind / Casablanca [DVD] | $12.89 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
![The Wizard of Oz [DVD]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51zyJrjPvlL._SL160_.jpg)
|
The Wizard of Oz [DVD] | $14.60 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
The Wizard of Oz | Buy on Amazon |
The film’s slippers were designed by Gilbert Adrian, MGM’s chief costume designer at the time. Smithsonian conservation research describes commercial pump-style shoes altered with red dye, red netting and sequins, and beaded bows; multiple sets were made for production. The Smithsonian identifies its own pair as one of four known surviving film-worn pairs, while the Library of Congress records multiple pairs associated with the film. Those are source-specific counts, not a single definitive total.
2. Did a Munchkin hang himself in the background?
The rumor points to a moving shape in the Yellow Brick Road sequence and says it is a performer hanging himself. TIME’s 2019 fact-check says the shape is more likely one of the exotic birds borrowed from the Los Angeles Zoo for the set. The rumor circulated around the film’s 1989 fiftieth anniversary; the bird explanation is likely, not a conclusively established identification. TIME’s account separates what can be seen on screen from the story later attached to it.
Recommended Free Tools
#1 Best Overall
- Factory sealed DVD
3. Was the film cursed, and did Munchkin performers molest Judy Garland?
The production had genuine accidents, but accidents are not evidence of a curse. TIME reports that winged-monkey performers were injured after wires broke, Margaret Hamilton was burned in a special-effects incident, and Buddy Ebsen was hospitalized after exposure to aluminum-powder makeup.
A separate allegation—that Munchkin performers molested Garland—is contested. TIME contrasts Sid Luft’s claim, published posthumously, with film historian Aljean Harmetz’s account. Harmetz told TIME: “Nobody on the movie ever saw her or heard of a munchkin assaulting her.” That is Harmetz’s reported account, not a court finding or proof that resolves every uncertainty.
Three odd truths about making the film
Technicolor lighting made the sets hot
The Library of Congress exhibition explains that Technicolor production in 1939 required extensive lighting. Banks of lights made the sets uncomfortably hot, especially for performers wearing heavy costumes.
The Cowardly Lion’s costume was a burden
Bert Lahr’s Lion costume was especially heavy and hot. According to the Library of Congress, after takes Lahr removed it, and blow dryers were used to cool both him and the costume.
The wardrobe department made almost 1,000 costumes
The Library of Congress exhibition gives the production figure as almost 1,000 costumes for 600 actors. It is an attributed exhibition figure; the exhibition’s publication date is not stated.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Why the film is not the book
The shoe color is the clearest difference, but not the only one. The Library of Congress notes that the film changed character appearances from earlier Oz versions and fixed its imagery in many viewers’ minds. That helps explain why the movie’s visual details can feel like the original story even when Baum’s book differs.
Rank #4
The adaptation also reshaped the music. Rather than use songs from the stage version—many of which had little to do with Oz—MGM chose new songs. In the film, songs develop characters or advance the plot, an approach that later became standard but was unusual at the time, according to the Library of Congress.
To compare the two directly, read Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz alongside the 1939 movie: the book gives Dorothy silver shoes, while the film gives her ruby slippers and its own enduring visual world.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
