Magical Miseries SNL is a comedy sketch from the popular television show Saturday Night Live. The sketch features a fictional infomercial promoting a magical bracelet that claims to cure various everyday ailments and miseries. The sketch hilariously exaggerates the power and effectiveness of the bracelet, showcasing a series of ridiculous scenarios and testimonials. The sketch begins with the host introducing the magical bracelet and explaining its extraordinary abilities. The actors then portray characters who are suffering from different miseries and wear the bracelet to alleviate their problems. Each character has a unique misery, such as chronic bedhead, constantly stubbing their toe, or having an uncontrolled urge to shout random words.
Keep in mind, Judy Garland may have been 16 when she played Dorothy… but the character is meant to be 10 years old! And when she is crying in fear for her life, the Witch MOCKS HER AND LAUGHS!
W hen you think of the good witch Glinda, you most likely picture a woman with red hair, an enormous, frothy pink dress, and a truly impressive amount of sparkles. Dorothy Gale, Toto, Scarecrow, Tin Woodman, Cowardly Lion, Wizard of Oz, The Munchkins, Tom, Jerry, Tuffy, Hungry Tiger, Queen of The Field Mice, Spike, Tyke, Droopy, Wiser, Marshall Mallow, China Princess, Tugg.
Each character has a unique misery, such as chronic bedhead, constantly stubbing their toe, or having an uncontrolled urge to shout random words. As the sketch unfolds, the actors dramatically demonstrate how the bracelet miraculously resolves their miseries. They portray scenes in which they wake up with perfectly styled hair, effortlessly navigate through a room without stubbing their toe, and resist the urge to shout random words.
WTFAW: The Wizard of Oz
Last week, this blog marked its sixth anniversary. Such a milestone is a good time for reflection. To look back at ones work and ponder if perhaps there have been opportunities missed, mistakes made or-
Dave: We’ve never covered fan theories about The Wizard of Oz!
That’s true, but I was chalking that up as a happy oversight, personally…
Dave: Well, I have decided to rectify that oversight today, because I found a few really good ones!
Oh, what luck. Whatever would I do without you, Dave… So, what idiocy have you found, then?
Dave: The first theory is that Dorothy is the Wicked Witch of the East!
Oh, yes! Obviously! I mean, that’s an idea that makes complete sense! She looks just like a witch! Oh wait, no she doesn’t, so what the hell are you talking about?!
Dave: Right, so you know how the people in the land of Oz , like the Scarecrow, Tin-Man, the lion, the wizard and the wicked witch all have their respective counterparts?
I did pick up on that subtle casting choice, yes.
Dave: So isn’t it a bit strange that there isn’t a parallel to Dorothy? Well, what if she DOES have a counterpart, but it’s a character we never see: The Wicked Witch of the East? After all, we know very little about her, except that she and Dorothy have the same shoe size!
Ah, I see. Let’s explain what’s wrong with this.
First of all, there’s the problem that… why must Dorothy have a counterpart? Just because some of the characters have doubles, that doesn’t automatically mean Dorothy must therefore have one.
Dave: But all the other characters have doubles!
Oh? Who is Glinda’s double?
Dave: What?
Glinda. Remember her? Glinda the Good Witch of the North? She’s a fairly important character in the movie. So who is her double?
Dave: Well…uhm…
And if we go the other way, there is no Oz-variant of Aunt Em or Uncle Henry, is there? Seems kind of strange, if this is meant to be some alternate world, doesn’t it?
Dave: Well, what about the shoe size? That can’t just be a coincidence!
Oh, of course! What incontrovertible evidence! I mean, who has ever heard of two different people having the same shoe size, you moronic ring-sausage!
And this argument becomes even more hilarious when you consider the fact that, behind the scenes, the shoes didn’t fit! Judy Garland could only wear them when they had to be seen on camera, because they hurt so much for her to wear!
But ignoring that, this is really the only argument for the theory since, as you said, “We know nothing about the Wicked Witch of the East”.
But not only is that not true, but it leads to another pretty big problem with the theory.
Dave: What’s that?
Let’s suppose the theory was true, and Dorothy is the real world equivalent of the Wicked Witch. Now, she arrives in Oz, and all the munchkins come out and celebrate that the witch is dead.
And this leads me to something we actually do know about the Witch of the East: She was hated and feared!
So shouldn’t they all be terrified and distrustful of her, seeing as she looks just like the witch!?
But nobody makes even a passing mention of it!
Dave: Oh… Well, Glinda tells them it’s alright and not to be afraid, so…
Which is all well and good, but the Wicked Witch of the West doesn’t say anything about it either, when she would probably recognise the girl who looks just like her sister, right?
And that’s also ignoring the incredible age difference we’re talking about here. How can Dorothy be the counterpart to someone who must have been much, MUCH older than her?
And of course, there’s one kind of interesting detail.
Dave: What’s that?
Well, when Dorothy is in the tornado, she sees Mrs. Gulch turn into a witch, right?
Dave: Yeah?
What if that’s actually the wicked witch of the East?
Dave: Wait, what!?
Think about it. She doesn’t wear black, like the witch of the west does. Furthermore, there’s this lyric from the song Dorothy and the Munchkins sing right after her arrival in Oz
Just then the witch/ to satisfy an itch/ went flying on her broomstick, thumbing for a hitch.
And then the song goes on about how the house crushed the witch. It seems to be pretty clearly suggesting that the witch Dorothy saw in the window and the witch who got crushed were one and the same.
And of course, there’s the small point that, from the looks of it, the witch Dorothy sees in the window is wearing the ruby slippers!
Dave: Uhm… this is sounding a lot like a fan theory to me.
Maybe, but it does make some sense that the house landed on the witch flying around it during a powerful storm, rather than just randomly landing on a witch, while ANOTHER witch was flying around it.
It may just be a theory, but it is one that does seem to fit rather well. And again, even without that, this entire theory is based on the fact that Dorothy could wear the Ruby slippers…
The magic ruby slippers… which Glinda teleported onto her feet. The ruby slippers that the Wicked Witch of the West also wanted, presumably to wear, despite her shoe size most likely being different to that of a 10 year-old…
I’m gonna be honest, it seems to me that the possibility that the slippers can change size hasn’t really crossed your mind, has it?
Dave: Well… no… But you did mention Glinda giving Dorothy the slippers.
Yes, I did. So what?
Dave: Well, that brings me to the next theory! What if I were to tell you that Glinda is actually the real villain of the movie?
I’d say that sounds like you’ve been huffing paint. I assume you’ve got a good explanation?
Dave: Yes, I do. See, Glinda is actually embroiled in a power struggle, with four people vying for control over Oz: The Wicked Witches of East and West, Glinda the Witch of the North, and the Wizard of Oz. At the end of the movie, the witch of the East and West are both dead, and the Wizard has left in his hot air baloon, leaving Glinda in control of Oz!
Dave: And just as the Wizard leaves, then Glinda conveniently arrives and tells Dorothy that she could have used the magic slippers to go home right from the start. But seeing as Dorothy had already killed the Wicked Witch of the East, and in doing so made herself an enemy of the Witch of the West, she just pointed Dorothy in the direction of the Wizard, and then let things unfold on their own. She manipulated events to ensure she’d control Oz!
Right… Well, what exactly makes Glinda so villainous, then?
Dave: Weren’t you listening? She sent out a 10 yearold child to kill her enemies! That’s pretty evil!
But… she didn’t send Dorothy out to kill anyone. She sent Dorothy to talk to the Wizard of Oz, and ask him for help. At no point did she say anything about hurting or harming anyone. Sending Dorothy to the Wizard didn’t automatically mean she’d discover the truth about the Wizard, or that it would lead to the Wizard leaving Oz.
Dave: But Dorothy killed the Wicked Witch, and she was sent there by the Wizard!
OK, firstly, that’s not a strike against Glinda, but against the Wizard. Secondly, Dorothy wasn’t sent to kill the Witch, but to bring back her Broomstick! Killing the Wicked Witch was an accident, because she threw a bucket of water at the Witch, trying to put out a fire.
Glinda had absolutely nothing to do with any of these events, so saying that she “manipulated events” doesn’t really work.
In fact, the whole idea of a “Power struggle” has no real basis. There is nothing to suggest that Glinda or the Wizard wants to control Oz. The Witch of the West mentions that the slippers will make her power the greatest in Oz, but that’s hardly a “four way power struggle”, so much as it’s a villain with aspirations to power!
Like I said earlier, the Witch of the East was hated and feared, to the point of everyone throwing a party when she died. Everyone in Oz also fears the Witch of the West, with the only exception being Glinda, who is also universally adored and beloved and known as “Glinda the Good”! You don’t think any of that might suggest she’s on the up and up?
Dave: Ah, but that might just be another example of her manipulating things to suit her goals, swaying public support!
Oh, of course! It’s all propaganda! Glinda is just an expert at spinning public image! I mean, just look at all the political maneuvering she performs in the movie!
You know… like not going around threatening children or appearing in columns of smoke and fire or subjugating people. What machiavellian cunning of her to actually help the child protagonist, instead of mocking her or sending out winged monkeys to kidnap her and torture her friends or THROW FIREBALLS AT THEM.
Glinda doesn’t threaten to drown dogs or plot to poison or murder children. Clearly, she is the devil!
Dave: But she also gave Dorothy the slippers, which made her a target of the Witch of the West!
Ok, first of all, The Witch was already going after Dorothy for killing her sister, not giving a rats damn about it being an accident.
Secondly, you are kinda vacating responsibility from the Witch of the West, since she didn’t HAVE to go after Dorothy for the slippers. And just like her sister, she’s feared and reviled by everyone in Oz!
Dave: But what if that’s just more propaganda?
Oh, for fuck sake! She threatens to have Toto drowned, unless Dorothy gives her the slippers. And then she makes it clear she plans to MURDER Dorothy, since the slippers “will never come off, so long as [Dorothy] is alive“.
Keep in mind, Judy Garland may have been 16 when she played Dorothy… but the character is meant to be 10 years old! And when she is crying in fear for her life, the Witch MOCKS HER AND LAUGHS!
This is the same problem as with the theory about Maleficent! There’s no moral ambiguity here! The Wicked Witch of the West is self-admittedly evil, and openly sadistic and vicious!
Meanwhile, there is nothing to really show Glinda as an evil, opportunistic character. That argument only works if we assume there is a political power struggle, which is an idea that is invented for this theory, because why else would Glinda be opportunistic? It’s an idiotic, circular argument!
You know. It’s funny, in a way. You’ve mentioned the Witch of the East, North and West, in a theory that is itself going nowhere except straight South!
Dave: But then, why didn’t Glinda tell Dorothy about the Ruby Slippers from the start?!
That’s the thing! That is a question they actually ask her in the movie! And she tells them that Dorothy wouldn’t have believed her, and that “She had to learn it for herself”.
This leads to Dorothy reflecting on what she’s learned from her adventure.
I think that it… that it wasn’t enough just to want to see Uncle Henry and Aunty Em. And it’s that, if I ever go looking for my hearts desire again, I won’t look any further than my own back yard, because if it isn’t there, I never really lost it to begin with
And Glinda tells her that she’s right, that she had to find it out for herself, and that now the magic slippers will take her home whenever she wants. The phrasing suggests that it wouldn’t have worked before!
There’s nothing to support the idea that Glinda is a devious puppeteer, orchestrating her own rise to power. If she had caused the tornado, if she had caused it to land on the Witch of the East, if she had revealed the Wizard as a fraud, if it had been her direct intervention that caused the death of the Witch of the East… THAT would perhaps lend some credence to the theory. But there is NOTHING to suggest she interferes at all beyond giving Dorothy the slippers and sending her to the wizard!
Really, this theory hinges on a very depressing cynicism. This pessimistic notion that nobody can be this good, nobody can be this kind, without there being some ulterior motive. That behind every friendly smile hides a devious plan to exploit those who trust you. It feeds on the notion that, at the end of the day, everyone is a villain.
It’s a frustrating and misanthropic outlook, and it has absolutely no place in one of the most famous fairytales in cinema history.
The only purpose this theory serves, seemingly, is to try and make people dislike the ending! I repeat, this theory is trying to make people dislike the ending to The Wizard of Oz!
I suppose it’s kind of fitting. Whoever came up with this theory has a lot in common with both the Tin-Man and the Scarecrow, since anyone who could concoct something like this not only has no brains, but also doesn’t have a heart!
What if that’s actually the wicked witch of the East?
The exaggerated reactions and over-the-top performances add to the comedic effect. The infomercial also includes fake testimonials from satisfied customers who rave about the magical bracelet's life-changing effects. These testimonials depict absurd situations, such as an opera singer hitting the highest note ever recorded or a person winning a hot dog eating contest because the bracelet cured their fear of public eating. Throughout the sketch, the host and actors deliver witty and humorous lines that poke fun at the absurdity of the product. They emphasize how the bracelet is nothing more than a gimmick, yet the characters believe in its magical powers. The Magical Miseries SNL sketch provides an entertaining and satirical commentary on the prevalence of products and infomercials that make exaggerated claims. Through its humor and exaggerated scenarios, the sketch highlights how people are often willing to believe in quick fixes and magical solutions for their everyday problems. In conclusion, Magical Miseries SNL is a comedy sketch that parodies infomercials promoting products with exaggerated claims. It uses humor and absurd scenarios to highlight the gullibility of people and the allure of magical solutions. By showcasing the comedic effects of the magical bracelet, the sketch is a humorous satire on everyday miseries and our willingness to believe in the extraordinary..
Reviews for "The Best Magical Miseries Parodies on Saturday Night Live"
1. Jane - 1/5
I found "Magical miseries" on SNL to be extremely dull and unfunny. The sketches lacked originality and relied heavily on tired clichés and cheap jokes. The performances by the cast were lackluster, and it felt like they were just going through the motions. The writing lacked wit and cleverness, leaving me unimpressed and bored throughout the entire episode. I would not recommend wasting your time watching this mediocre attempt at comedy.
2. Mike - 2/5
I had high hopes for "Magical miseries" on SNL, considering the talent of the cast and the premise seemed interesting. However, the execution fell flat for me. The sketches were hit or miss, with some moments that made me chuckle, but the majority of them were just cringe-worthy and not funny at all. The writing felt lazy and relied too heavily on shock value rather than genuine humor. Overall, I was disappointed and would not rush to watch another episode of this mediocre show.
3. Sarah - 1/5
I found "Magical miseries" to be incredibly tasteless and offensive. The jokes were insensitive, targeting marginalized communities and relying on stereotypes for laughs. It felt like the writers were trying too hard to be edgy without considering the consequences of their words. I was disappointed to see SNL stoop to such low levels just to get cheap laughs. I would strongly advise against watching this show if you value inclusivity and responsible comedy.