Oh, no.
I liked the first "Wicked" movie. Was it perfect? No. But GOD they could have screwed it up and they didn't. Nothing will top the Broadway production, but at least the first film felt like a decent reflection.
And then came Part 2.
I understand why they split this into two movies. According to composer/lyricist Stephen Schwartz, "Defying Gravity" is SUCH a dramatic act one closer it was difficult to find a way to turn that into the midpoint of an intermission-less film (though who says they couldn't have pulled a "Gone With the Wind" and had an intermission? They paid tribute to films of the 1930's in other ways...) with a scene or song coming right on its silver heels.
I get it.
But it didn't work.
Surely finding a fix to the "Defy Gravity" problem would have gone over better than the almost disaster that the second film turned into - complete with two new (and wildly unnecessary, if not downright bad) songs, padding out what was a tight act 2, and changing plot points for no solid dramaturgical reason.
The team also kept saying that one movie would simply be too long. I know that things have to change when you're adapting a theatrical work for film, but the stage show is a tight two hours and forty-five minutes. If they had done "Wicked" as one movie how much longer could it have possibly been?
I do find these films a fascinating study of how different performers can completely change the center of a story. The musical was originally written as a vehicle for Kristen Chenoweth as Glinda. Then the creatives realized the show really had to be about the relationship between Glinda and Elphaba. Then the show opened and Idina Menzel as Elphaba walked away with it. Just as Elsa became the surprise favorite of the "Frozen" pair, so Elphaba became the STAR of "Wicked".
But in the films, it's Ariana Grande's Glinda who walks away with that title. The films are unmistakably Glinda's story... so much so that Elphaba, especially in the second film, starts to feel like a side character. This isn't helped by Cynthia Erivo's puzzling interpretation of the role. In an interview she gave for the first film she said that she wanted her Elphaba to be confident in who she was from the beginning. I, theoretically, understand that from a "girl power" perspective - problem is, Elphaba's entire story arc is about learning to be confident in who she is. As such, Erivo had absolutely nowhere to go with the character. And the fact that she never seemed anything less than a "Strong, Powerful Woman" made it difficult at times to empathize with her. Characters need to have flaws, and insecurities. This Elphaba seemingly has none. She's "Strong and Capable" and the only problem here is that everyone else needs to fall in line.
Ok. Good for her.
I have no interest in seeing that.
This second film installment picks up some indiscernible amount of time after the first. Elphaba has been branded "Wicked" by the establishment, Glinda is the poster child for that establishment (though, like the Wizard, the only actual power she has is popularity). She's engaged to Fiyero, who is secretly in love with Elphaba. Elphaba has been trying to free the animals with little to no success. Dorothy shows up, Glinda realizes that maybe she's the wicked one after all, Nessarose is killed by a house, characters turn into "Wizard of Oz" staples (the Scarecrow, Tin Man and Lion) and Glinda eventually takes control of Oz and tires to be truly "good" after Elphaba's "melting" and disappearance.
There are two new songs - "The Girl in the Bubble" for Glinda, which is fine, but a repeated emotional beat. And the perplexing "No Place Like Home" that Elphaba sings to the animals trying to escape Oz...confusingly in an attempt to get them to stay. WHY? It literally goes against everything about her character.
There's been a major change to what happens to Nessarose... in the original she lashes out at Elphaba for never using her powers to help her. Nessa believes that the reason Boq doesn't love her back is because she's in a wheelchair. Elphaba enchants Nessa's shoes (which will go on to become Dorothy's infamous slippers), to allow her to walk. But, instead of this finally making Boq love her, it instead makes him think that Nessa no longer needs him - and he is free to tell Glinda of his love for her. What's tragic about this is that Nessa realizes that this element of her life that she hated and felt was holding her back, actually had NOTHING to do with her problems.
There was much discussion in the lead up to this film about changing this plot beat. Marissa Bode who plays Nessarose is a wheelchair user, and spoke out about feeling that this plot point was ableist - sending the message that differently abled people want to be "fixed". I understand that, and we do need better and more wide ranging representation of disability.
The problem is that the way they changed this plot point makes absolutely no sense. The whole point here is that Nessa WRONGLY believes she needs to be fixed. When she does get the ability to walk unassisted it causes her world to come crashing down. It was never the chair holding her back. SHE was holding herself back.
In the film, Nessa says that she wants to feel the kind of joy she felt dancing at the Ozdust ballroom with Boq again. Elphaba enchants the shoes... which make Nessa levitate for a moment. Somehow this is "exactly what she wanted." She goes back down to the ground, and then tells Boq that she's experienced joy again... and he says "great, you don't need me, let me go woo Glinda".
This is not the same beat. This beat makes no sense. Not to mention the added complication of the last time she cast a levitation spell it caused a full on body horror moment of turning monkeys, against their will, into flying monkeys. Something she's STILL trying to atone for at this point in the story. Why on earth would she cast that spell on her sister?
It's these kinds of choices that wildly muddy the waters. There's a whole set piece where Elphaba frees some animals that then end up disrupting Glinda's wedding as they run to their freedom. Glinda is now involved in "Wonderful". The list goes on.
And that's not without mentioning the technical issues (I've lost count of how many YouTube videos there are now calling out the color grading on the film...)
The first "Wicked" film was a cultural sensation. But the sequel is not the bookend... it's a fading whimper as it disappears from our collective consciousness.
The glory here belongs to Grande which, frankly, I never thought I would say. But she clearly cares about this role deeply, and she did an excellent job with it - bringing a unique take while at the same time honoring Kristin Chenoweth's performance and vocals.
I will never understand how it took so long to turn a juggernaut like "Wicked", that was already backed by a film studio, into a movie. The show opened in 2003. The first film came out in 2024. My heart aches thinking of the film we could have had if it had been made within a few years of the Broadway opening and had starred Menzel and Chenoweth.
The first film is worth checking out if you're a fan of the material. I would say skip the sequel and just buy a ticket to see the musical again. It's well worth it and by far the better offering.
Beth Hartley
WICKED: For Good
is currently in cinemas worldwide
Comments
Post a Comment