Why Wicked: For Good Does Not Work
When it was first announced that the big screen adaptation of Wicked would be split into two movies, released in back-to-back years, it was hard not to think of this choice as anything more than a cash grab. Of course, however, the creatives involved claimed that their motivation was story-based. Fans of the stage musical, like myself, hoped that the extra runtime would allow for more efforts to correct the many plot holes in the second act, but that’s not exactly what ended up happening.
Unfortunately, the added runtime had the opposite effect. Instead of repairing these mistakes, the screenplay for Wicked: For Good exposes those inherent flaws in an even greater way, making them more glaring and obvious. In the stage musical, the second act has a runtime of 60 minutes. That rapid pace allows for a suspension of disbelief as the story attempts to explain the creation of iconic characters from The Wizard of Oz, such as the Scarecrow and the Tin Man. In the film, the extra scenes make the story logic even more confusing and ridiculous.
For instance, one of the central themes of the stage musical is the dichotomy between how the lead characters, Elphaba and Glinda, respond to the nefarious government run by the Wizard. The stage show does not elaborate the point, whereas the film overdoes it. Wicked: For Good takes the backdrop of this authoritarian regime and makes it the central focus of the film. In doing so, the filmmakers prioritize making this adaptation politically and culturally relevant over giving fans what they actually want: Fun songs from iconic characters performed well.
A prime example of this flawed approach is the portrait of Glinda in this second half. In the first film, Ariana Grande showed off her comedic chops, leaning into the cartoonish sensibilities of the stage show and paying homage to Kristin Chenoweth’s performance in the original Broadway cast. In For Good, the screenplay focuses way too much on Glinda’s status as a political puppet figurehead, a privileged beneficiary of the system who wears rose-colored glasses in order to hold onto power.
This aspect of Glinda’s character is certainly part of the original stage show, but in the film, it becomes the focus of multiple musical numbers, including an unmemorable new song. At the end of the day, there are simply far too many lingering shots of a sad-looking Grande staring into oblivion in this movie. Fans of the musical do not need a closer look into the psychology of why Glinda the Good behaves the way she does. They want the showstopping comedic touches that have always made the character unforgettable to the fanbase.
The effect here is redundant, overdone, and most importantly, joyless. Glinda’s few comedic moments come across as tonally confused in this second half. That’s because the source material, which is much more carefree and unserious, does not support this artistic direction. The first film had its serious moments but it did not lose sight of its pure entertainment value. However, Wicked: For Good suffers from trying too hard to come across as having weighty subject matter, like the kinds of movie musicals that have won Oscars in the past.
Wicked Was Never Going to Be Chicago
The last stage-to-screen musical adaptation to win Best Picture was Rob Marshall’s Chicago. That film struck a compelling balance between showstopping musical numbers and clever thematic messaging. The key difference between the film adaptations of Chicago and Wicked is that the former did not need to be dressed up as having profound social commentary. That was already an inherent part of its DNA. A musical satirizing the infamous jazz slayings of the 1920s, Chicago was always about fame, celebrity, and the press. The movie did not strive to make the source material more of an awards magnet than it naturally was, and as a result, the final product is a more tonally cohesive and self-aware piece.
The irony is that the original novel of Wicked by Gregory Maguire is full of overt political overtones. However, the Broadway show reduced many of those themes to simpler messages of acceptance and female friendship in order to appeal to a family-oriented audience. If Jon M. Chu wanted to make Wicked a true prestige film, he should have considered adapting the original novel, not the children-friendly musical. The attempt to do both at once through a two-part adaptation comes across as disjointed and unaware of itself.
Why Wicked Should Have Been More Like Mamma Mia!
The Broadway production of Wicked is pure spectacle, complete with catchy songs, over-the-top costumes, and large setpieces. The films would have achieved this in a greater way if they removed the self-seriousness of its direction and embraced the cheesy, mindless fun of its stage roots. For example, Phyllida Lloyd’s 2008 film adaptation of the ABBA jukebox musical Mamma Mia! maintains the carefree joy of the Broadway show in a way that could have served as a compelling blueprint for Jon M. Chu.
Mamma Mia! may not have been an awards contender, but the filmmakers knew exactly what they were making. That self-awareness was a key ingredient to the success of Mamma Mia! and its growing cult status over time. In fact, Mamma Mia! has since become its own mini-franchise with the campy 2018 sequel Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again and a third film allegedly in the works. The filmmakers and actors were clearly having fun making these movies, and it is that combination of joy and self-awareness that Wicked: For Good could have used much more of.
This comparison is not to say that Wicked could never have been an awards contender. After all, the Broadway musical won three Tony Awards including Best Actress for Idina Menzel. It’s possible that a more faithful film adaptation, without the overwritten thematic messaging, could have been equally successful in the Oscar race. However, the filmmakers’ preoccupation with making Wicked: For Good an Important film with a capital I has led to its mixed critical reception, thereby jeopardizing its future awards chances. Time will tell as awards season unfolds, but if Mamma Mia!, a film that knows itself, couldn’t generate any Oscar buzz, why should Wicked: For Good?
via @FilmUpdates