Film Reviews

November 22, 2024

Some stage musicals have been able to make that leap to the big screen better than others, and their success is often tied to the film versions establishing an identity in the realm of cinema, apart from the live theater. For me, "Singin' in the Rain" (1952), "West Side Story" (1961), and "Moulin Rouge!" (2001) stand out as some of the top performers.

Conceptually, "Wicked" (this is Part I of II), based on the 2003 musical of the same name (itself adapted from Gregory Maguire's 1995 novel), should have struck a chord in the same way as the other aforementioned titles—by firing up the audience and taking us out of our own minds and space. But the key words here are "should have," because unfortunately, it didn't, or at least it didn't for me. I've a feeling I'll be in the minority on this, because the audience I saw it with seemed mostly enthused, but I didn't find myself getting whisked away by the production, although I do recognize its has virtues.

For the record, I haven't seen the stage version, but even if it didn't exist, I don't think Jon M. Chu's film would have registered with me. Some of it lands, especially the leads, who have big shoes to fill and a lot to carry, as does Stephen Schwartz's punchy music and lyrics, but save for a few vivacious spots here and there, too much of "Wicked" felt perfunctory and played as though it was merely trying to live up to something instead of coming into its own. Plus, as a stage musical, I think I would have been able to forgive the story of some of its well-worn developments because of the sheer magnitude of the live production, with its intricate sets, stunts, and costumes, but on film, the spectacle didn't feel as magical or make up for some of the lackadaisical writing in Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox's screenplay. Perhaps it's due to so much being presented digitally and in front of a green screen, resulting in a lack of tangibility.

Of course, I know that part of me is also drawing inevitable comparisons to "The Wizard of Oz" (1939), and all its practical effects, but is it wrong to have wanted the filmmakers to hang on to some of that movie's organic production values? After all, "Wicked" is sort of a quasi-prequel to "Oz." If it had been more palpable and old-fashioned with its presentation, maybe I wouldn't have been so hard-pressed to think there's something too artificial and meshy about what's displayed on-screen and that the underlying material would be better realized on stage, where it's easier to suspend our disbelief.

Where "Wicked" does break free of its classic predecessor and create a unique vibe is in the manifestation of the two main characters, who will one day become the Wicked Witch of the West and Glinda the Good Witch, but here we know them as Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo, in a star-making performance) and Galinda (a pitch-perfect Ariana Grande). The movie begins in the Merry Old Land of Oz—still a cornucopia of enchanted fields, forests, and a shiny yellow brick road—with the celebratory death of the Wicked Witch (we assume this right after the original "Oz" ends) as Glinda recollects to the giddy munchkins how she and the Elphaba used to be friends. It's an interesting tale for sure, and one can't help but get caught up in the intrigue and curiosity "Wicked" sparks as it gives us the backstory on its two iconic heroines.

We learn Elphaba and Galinda were once students who first met at Shiz University in Northern Oz (Shiz is a collection of different schools not terribly different from Hogwarts from "Harry Potter," although it doesn't center around witchcraft or wizardry). Forced to live with each other, Elphaba and Galinda start off as adversaries but soon become best friends.

For Elphaba, having a friend like Galinda is a first, which is to be expected for someone born with green skin (she'll be the first tell you she's always had it), and who's essentially been kept hidden from society by her ashamed father, the governor (Andy Nyman), due to the circumstances under which Elphaba was conceived. Elphaba was never even supposed to go to Shiz—she was only there to drop off her paraplegic younger sister, Nessarose (Marissa Bode)–but when Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), Dean of Sorcery Studies, saw that the young outcast had innate magical abilities, the professor took her under her wing.

As Morrible tries to teach Elphaba to channel her emotions and control her powers, the cheerfully self-centered and ultra bubbly Galinda, who wants nothing more than to be liked, popular, and viewed as a beacon of good, follows in her outsider friend's footsteps. Just the same, it's Galinda who gives Elphaba a lesson or two in fashion and socializing, and generally being proud and comfortable in her own green skin.

There are other colorful characters in the mix, each with a terrific name, including a munchkin named Boq Woodsman (Ethan Slater), who fawns over Galinda; Fiyero Tigelaar (Jonathan Bailey), a disaffected prince who pines after Elphaba and brings the house down with the number, "Dancing Through Life"; and Dr. Dillamond (voice of Peter Dinklage), a goat professor who stirs the underlying plot when he tells Elphaba he's losing his ability to speak. Elphaba eventually unearths a sinister scheme in the seemingly happy land of Oz, one that's overtly anti-animal, and whoever is behind it posts the message, "Animals should be seen and not heard." When Elphaba receives a personal invitation from the esteemed Wizard of Oz himself (Jeff Goldblum) to come visit him in the Emerald City, she jumps at the chance and brings Galinda along with her. Together, they hope the Wizard will save the animal citizenry. Of course, as any "Oz" viewer will tell you, the Wizard isn't who he appears to be.

With its semi-interesting story, strong leads, and mostly catchy music, of which no songs fortunately become obnoxious earworms, it's puzzling why "Wicked" didn't seal the deal for me as far as being entertaining. If I had to pin it down, I think that it tries too hard to live up to two unattainable entities—"The Wizard of Oz" and "Wicked" the musical—but loses focus while doing so and eventually fizzles out. It’s also too long, and besides the obvious commercial reasons, I wonder if it really needed to be delivered in two parts.

Ultimately, throughout its nearly two-and-three-quarter hours, “Wicked” didn't strike me as fully capable of standing on its own, and I felt it stretching and reaching to placate the audience. By the time the final act rolls around, it’s mostly out of gas—the action becomes redundant, the plot goes on autopilot, and the characters have begun to lose their charm and dimension.

Maybe my view boils down to the simple fact that, for some, musicals work better on their native platform. Chu and his production team, and the cast, have clearly poured their heart and souls into this effort, and I’m sure many fans of “Wicked” will believe the filmmakers have delivered what they wanted to see in a movie version, but for me, it was less than what I thought it should be. Perhaps “Part II” will win me over, but for now, “Part I” at least gives me hope that if I ever see the stage musical, it’ll be a rendition I’ll like better than the movie.