“Wicked,” the global musical sensation based on author Gregory Maguire’s 1995 novel, arrives in theaters some 20 years after its Broadway debut. Even if you haven’t seen the musical, you know about it, and chances are, you knew this movie was coming out around Thanksgiving. It would be near impossible not to know because the advertising campaign for this film, directed by Jon M. Chu (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “The Heights,” and uhm, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation,” has been nonstop. Still, suppose you weren’t familiar with “Wicked,” aside from perhaps the knowledge that it is tied to “The Wizard of Oz” in some way. In that case, you’d be forgiven in lacking the understanding that this film is a musical due to the marketing blitz’s keeping it a secret in much of its advertising.
Based on its stellar performance at the box office this past weekend, maybe those Hollywood marketing geniuses were on to something by not letting the unknowing in on the secret. It was a risky gamble, as the comic book faithful were not too pleased to discover that the Joker sequel had several song-and-dance numbers. I must confess that I find it amusing to think that some unsuspecting father got dragged to “Wicked” under the pretense that it is merely a backstory to the tale of the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda, the “Good” Witch. What a surprise it must have been to them the moment a cast of costumed extras started spinning around in fancied sets and singing their joy that the “Wicked Witch of the West,” at last, was dead before segueing into 2 hours and 35 minutes more of the story, and plenty more musical numbers.
Then again, should anyone be surprised at this? Wasn’t the original 1939 classic a musical? So, it makes perfect sense that re-imagining, re-telling, or providing alternative history should, at the very least, carry on that tradition.
Going into this film, I knew a few things: I read Maguire’s book when it first came out in paperback. I had never had the opportunity to see a musical. I wanted to but never did. So, I’m a “Wicked” newbie. And yes, I am from Massachusetts originally, and yes, I knew this film was not a musical based on the Boston suburb’s favorite catchphrase. I also knew this would be the first of two parts. I mention this because not everyone at the theater where I saw this was aware of this fact until the movie started. The original theatrical production of “Wicked” runs 2 -1/2, plus a 15-minute intermission. This first film runs for 2 hours and 41 minutes. Why couldn’t they tell the same story in one film? Well, it’s Hollywood folks, and no matter what they tell you or try to sell you on the reasons for making two movies instead of one, there’s one and only one reason that matters: money. These kinds of films are expensive, and if “Wicked: Part 1” is a hit, then there will be plenty of money on the table to be made for Part 2. And it appears that the gambit will pay off.
So, what did I get for my $10 dollars (which is a bargain compared with Broadway prices)? Pretty much everything I expected. Okay, not entirely. I was half expecting the film to be a slog. I could best entertain myself by hate-watching. I have no idea why I felt this way going into the movie, but the whole enterprise seemed to be a calculated money grab, and I couldn’t help but find the cynicism creeping through my insides. Turns out, I was wrong—mostly wrong.
“Wicked,” the movie based on the Broadway musical, is based on the 1995 novel, inspired by the 1939 film, and is based on the series of books from L. Frank Baum, whose personal racist views towards native Americans conflicted with his support of the women’s suffrage movement, make for some meaty material. The story of a university-bound Elphaba, the eponymous soon-to-be “Wicked Witch of the West,” and her frenemie college roommate, Glinda, or Galinda as the character prefers for most of the first film, doesn’t break any new ground, but it is fun to watch for a couple of hours. Despite its ambitious runtime, the movie is never dull.
The plot of “Wicked” runs through a political narrative that amusingly parallels our current situation. In the land of Oz, a populist fool calls the shots, and the population is willing to go along with the scapegoating of anyone different from their own skin color if it makes them feel safe and morally centered on an imaginary high ground. The film is not an intentional direct commentary on our nation’s political and cultural divide, but let it never be said that fascism ever fully goes out of style.
Where “Wicked” succeeds is building an engaging backstory to one of the most famous screen villains of all time and suggesting that if you, the audience, knew the whole story, perhaps you’d realize that maybe she wasn’t the baddie you thought she was.
As for the music, I didn’t have issues with it, but aside from two numbers, “Popular” and “Defying Gravity,” I can’t recall them and will never think of them again. However, I am fully aware that this could be considered blasphemy in certain circles, and if you are a major fan of the musical, you may find even more to enjoy here.
Director Chu does a serviceable job with the film, and there is nothing wrong with the musical numbers, but only the two I mentioned in the paragraph above truly captivate. Every other number fell flat for me. What Chu lacks is the ability to use the power of filmmaking to suck the audience into the musical numbers. In Steven Spielberg’s criminally underseen and underappreciated remake of “West Side Story,” we are fully aware of his filmmaking gifts. His ability to use camera angles, composition, setups, and editing to breathe new life into material we thought had been well-worn by now still excites us. That film transformed me within the first few moments. “Wicked” kept me at a distance for most of its runtime, but that didn’t mean I didn’t have a good time. It’s entertaining, and around the holidays, sometimes that’s enough.
But here is why you should see “Wicked” if you weren’t already one of its vast built-in fan base. The lead performances by Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande are outstanding. Both are excellent singers; having actors who can act and sing makes a difference. Erivo’s Elphaba and Garnde’s Glinda (or Galinda, you choose) are always captivating to watch. Their casting is so spot on, so terrific, that it almost makes the miscasting of everyone else in the movie stand out. I didn’t have an issue with Jeff Goldblum as the Wizard. At this point, he’s doing his Jeff Goldblum character, like when Christopher Walken does his whole persona. It may not be an acting stretch, but it is ideally suited for a character who isn’t supposed to be that good an actor. Michelle Yeoh. We love her. We worship her. It’s hard to say anything negative about her, and she doesn’t do an incompetent job as Madame Morrible, but it’s the wrong role for her. It didn’t work for me. Jonathan Bailey as Fiyero? I don’t know. He’s playing the typical Prince Charming role, and I didn’t feel anything about his character. As for everyone else in the movie, miscasting all the way. The screenplay doesn’t do any of these actors favors because this film is all about its two leads. Still, it might have been nice if the film invested any time in building up some of these side characters.
The lack of secondary character development could be the result of splitting the film into two parts. And that is the problem when you get two stories that are supposed to be one—it’s not an entirely satisfying experience. Pacing-wise, I was good. I didn’t need this movie to go on any longer, and it ended at the intermission point of the musical, so it felt okay. But waiting a whole year to get this thing wrapped up? That’s about as cool as it was when Peter Jackson made us wait a year between those “Lord of the Rings” movies. At least “Wicked” was good enough to make me want to buy a ticket to Part 2. So, the wait begins until next November.
James Kent is the publisher’s assistant at the Mountain Times and co-host of the “Stuff We’ve Seen” podcast.
