cahwyguy | It's The Differences That Make Us Standout

Wicked (Part 1) - The Movie When one sees a movie on the musical stage, one has to ask “Why?”. Usually, there’s no good answer, and such properties fade deservedly into posterity. Fifteen years from now, will anyone still be doing The Bodyguard or Pretty Woman?

When one sees a stage musical on the screen, one has to ask: “Why?” Was it just to preserve the story and execution for posterity? That could be done by just a filming of the stage production. There needs to be something more: something added. There needs to be something that the additional focus and time the camera can provide will bring. Something that the cinematographer and special effects can bring, that one doesn’t get from the stage.

Last Saturday, I saw Wicked: The Musical on the stage at the Pantages. Today, I saw just Act I of the stage musical on the big screen as Wicked (Part 1), since retitled Wicked as someone had the bright idea to retitle Wicked (Part 2) to Wicked: For Good. Part 2 comes out next November. I do wonder if people will remember the details from Act I (uh, excuse me, Part 1) when they see Act 2.

So, in elongating Act 1 to become a full 2hr 40min movie, what was added or changed other than significantly more dancers and a significantly larger orchestra:

Musical numbers were stretched and had more dialogue interspersed
Dance numbers were much more elaborate
There was more exposition, and slightly more backstory
There was more scenic locations and more scenery.
There was more closeups of the characters.

That last point is the interesting one. I don’t mean much more backstory on the characters. I mean literal close ups. You were much more up close and personal with both Glinda and Elphaba, and this simple cinematographic trick made you closer to the people. This simple change adjusted the focus, so to speak, of the story. Whereas the stage musical comes across (at least to me) much more about the story of the Animals and the discrimination against them, the movie comes across much more as the story of Elphaba: her relationship with Glinda, their growth as people, their growth as friends. All the foreshadowing of who would become what in The Wizard of Oz is minimal: you see the lion; you see Fiyero portrayed as brainless, you see Boq behaving heartlessly. There’s a reference to Toto being there, but I didn’t see him.

Even more than on stage, this was Elphaba’s story, and her growth from someone who was scared of who she was and tired of being different into someone who was confident in herself and who was proud of her differences. Mind you: This is with essentially the same story, and very little additional dialogue. It was how the camera served to change the focus.

I did love the little hidden things. The use of the 1900 Baum book as a history book. The references of Omaha and the carnival. The cameos during Wizamania, and the rivalry. The expansive use of poppies (and it wasn’t until now that I made the opium connection, especially in the classroom scene). When the Wizard plaster relief at Shiz broke, it revealed the Animal teaching origins (and they did a much better job with the Animals than the stage production ever could).

But they also made some mistakes. They made the same mistake the 1939 movie made, but that the stage musical, the Baum book, the Maguire books and even The Wiz got right: the Emerald City being green was part of the humbug: There were mandatory green glasses required. Nary a green glass anywhere in the EC.

The performances were very strong. At least based on the sample of the two movies I have seen this year, Timothée Chalamet deserves an Oscar for A Complete Unknown, and Cynthia Erivo deserves one for Wicked. The supporting cast was strong as well. Michelle Yeoh does evil so well, and was one of the best and most menacing Madame Morrible’s I’ve seen. Jonathan Bailey was a strong Fiyero, and Ethan Slater (who I’ll always think of as Spongebob Squarepants) brought the right childish quality to Boq. I applaud the producers for casting Marissa Bode as Nessarose, as she is actually in a chair. How they are going to handle that in Act 2, excuse me, Part 2, excuse me, Wicked: For Good, I don’t know (for those unfamiliar with the musical (c’mon, you don’t need spoiler alerts), Elphaba at one point enchants Nessarose’s silver slippers so she can walk). I also applaud the producers and the Telsey office for the diverse casting of the dance ensemble.

That last point brings up something which, regrettably, must be mentioned. As I noted in my writeup of the musical, “there are those on the right who are claiming that the movie is “woke” and propaganda. A petition from Million Moms states: ““Of course, the musical contains a tremendous amount of witchcraft and sorcery, and that content prompts most parents to avoid taking their children to see Wicked. But the film also shows not-so-discrete crossdressing and men crushing on men, which parents may not expect. Instead of an uplifting Broadway musical about friendship and family, talents and resources were used to create a dark movie that also pushes wokeness.” Kristen Chenowith, the original Glinda, has spoken out against this statement. But even more: Wicked has always been political. It has always been “woke”. It was never a musical primarily about friendship and family: it was a musical about the importance of speaking out for those with no voice. It is a musical that makes the point that those whom our leaders purport to be “wicked” may really just be those who are speaking out to power, who are speaking up for truth and justice. Wicked has always been this way, from the original book, to the original musical.”

So, was Wicked “woke”. If it was in the sense that the Hundred Moms speak of, it was subtle. Sure, there was magic in the movie—but there was magic in the original 1900 book, and magic in the 1939 movie, and the latter was definitely not a children’s movie (they didn’t have such movies in 1939). Was there cross dressing? This is a fantasy land: there is absolutely no reason that dressing conventions from the 2000s should show up in a movie in an undated fantasy land. Were there possibly some same sex relationships in the background? Probably, but they weren’t the main story. In short, Hundred Moms: Get a life. If you don’t like movies like this, don’t go to them. Go see Paddington in Peru.

Next: We have the people that have only seen the movie, and although they may have heard of the stage musical, they’ve never seen it. They write reviews about how this is a bloated movie. Duh. You have a 2hr 45min musical, with a 15 minute intermission, expanded so that Act 1 is now longer than the original whole two-act stage production. What did you expect? You want snappy, go see the Wicked Musical. It is on tour. Here are the dates for the North American Tour; it as at the Pantages until Feb 3.

Was this worth seeing? Yes, as it gives a different take and understanding on the stage show.

What’s next? Well, while you’re waiting for Part 2, excluse me, “For Good”, go and read the Greg Maguire books and learn the real political commentary in the story. Go read the original Baum books. Go see the musical on tour.

Will this be a classic, like the 1939 movie? Time will tell. There have been lots of productions of this story, and that’s because there’s a timeless meaning in a good fable. As long as that heart it there, the story of Oz will live forever.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as It's The Differences That Make Us Standout | "Wicked (Part 1)" - The Movie by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.