Listen to this post:
|
Whenever analyzing a musical film, I stop to think if the movie would be good — though not necessarily as good — without the music at all. Musical numbers should certainly enhance the filmgoing experience but they should never be the only reason why we enjoy it. Masterpieces like The Sound of Music, Fiddler on the Roof, and Les Miserables would have been engaging had no characters sung a note.
via YouTubeReorganizing our perspective on the Wizard of Oz, Wicked may have sparked this current obsession with origin stories when it debuted on Broadway in 2003 but it was Stephen Schwartz’s music and lyrics that became the indelible engine that drove the show. Whether you bought into the fresh new story of how the Wicked Witch of the West came to be one of fiction’s most formidable baddies, the energy of watching two superb singers like Idina Menzel (Elphaba, the eventual Wicked Witch) and Kristin Chenoweth (Glinda, the eventual Good Witch) had you convinced.
It’s almost unfair how powerful “Defying Gravity” is as it wraps up Act One. I always thought that experiencing it performed live made all the difference but after watching the long-awaited film adaptation, I’m convinced that it’s one of the musical genre’s greatest numbers ever.
For the film, Menzel and Chenoweth are replaced with Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, respectively. Erivo might not have her progenitor’s charisma or ability to play opposite a goofball character like Glinda but she might be a more affable and versatile songstress. On the other side of her is Grande, who steals the show from a cinematic perspective. The child star-turned-pop singer has an absolute knack for comedy and quirkiness. Anyone who watched her early work on Nickelodeon knows how funny she can be. She’s so good here that the film would have landed completely flat with anyone else in her role.
A silver screen adaptation of Wicked has been in development for almost as long as the stage version has been extant. Everyone from J.J. Abrams to Ryan Murphy to James Mangold has been attached to the project as directors. Ultimately, Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, Jem and the Holograms) was tapped for the job. As much as I enjoyed his previous film, adapting Lin Manuel Miranda’s In the Heights, I left the theater complaining how poorly it looked. Colors were washed and green screen was overused to the point of abuse. CGI was leaned on for style when mere substance would have sufficed.
My first impressions of Wicked were nearly identical. The Land of Oz isn’t immersive; it feels just like rendered sets with limited camerawork (from Alice Brooks, who actually did some impressive work on the 2021 adaptation of Jonathan Larson’s Tick, Tick… Boom!) Worse, I couldn’t help but think how much I preferred the version of Oz depicted in MGM’s 1939 version of L. Frank Baum’s vision — a movie that’s over 85 years old. The Broadway version of Wicked benefits from the conventions and limitations of the stage. As an audience of a live performance, you don’t need the production to look a certain way and it’s always a joy to see how inventive stage design can be, regardless of how realistic it appears.
In case you haven’t heard, this 2024 Wicked adaptation just retells Act One of the two-act play. And at 2 hours and 40 minutes — around the same length as the staged version in its entirety — the film is too long. Some scenes are gratuitous, like the “Dancing Through Life” number sung by love interest Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey), which unfortunately happens to look better than most of the film up to that point. Scenes are stretched out and the pacing is strenuous. Again, if this were pleasant to look at, the laborious narrative wouldn’t have been an issue.
There are a few reasons why the film works better than the play, but these merely recapitulate any reasons why cinema is the greatest artistic medium in general. On the stage, you can’t have close-ups like you can on screen. And those close-ups enhance our investment in the characters and their emotions. Ever since the technique was promulgated by D.W. Griffith in the silent era, it’s been wielded as a tool to win over an audience. For Wicked, these close-ups imbue more pathos into the story, which Chu uses wisely, such as during Elphaba’s “I’m Not That Girl” lament and her “Ozdust Duet” with Glinda.
But while close-ups help the cinematic narrative, a lot of the set pieces feel too suffocated. On stage, you get to look at whatever you want, but Chu seems to limit our view of the sets, as though he’s not even proud of them.
I also noticed the themes much better in the filmed version. The stage play becomes more about the overarching plot, while the film allows for more nuance (see my close-ups argument above). The counterpoint between Elphaba and Fiyero is more present here. The attractive, popular prince has an upstanding moral compass but pretends to be immoral in order to play the role of what society expects of him. Meanwhile, Elphaba tries so hard to go against what society expects of her, due to her ugliness, but the pressure of society is too strong, ultimately creating a villain in the end.
Of course, there are plenty of ways in which Wicked works better as a play, but the aspect I noticed most during my own viewing was the unevenness of the tone brought upon by inconsistent comedic rhythm. For instance, Glinda’s airhead schtick feels off-balance in contrast to Elphaba’s seriousness. This may have more to do with the discrepancy between Grande’s adroit comedic talents and Erivo’s overly-serious approach to her role. However, in cinema, a joke landing has more to do with performances and editing than it does with the energy in a room.
An audience of a popular, beloved play will almost always react to even the most subtle of jokes, regardless of how other characters respond. Whereas, if you’re watching a movie, say, by yourself, a tossed-off comedic beat will feel jarring if the ostensible straight-man (or -woman) doesn’t know how to react, and this will have more of an effect on the overall tone of the narrative.
I always said I loved Wicked but now I realize I like the idea of Wicked instead, which is luckily enhanced by a few stunning musical numbers along the way. Wicked, the movie, will be loved by the obsessive fanatics of the source material, because fanatics typically love something more for its ethos rather than its artistic merit; how it makes them feel and the values embedded in the story. But the fact that it’s managed to please these diehards makes the film a success in and of itself. However, as a mere casual fan of the musical, I wish the film tried harder to appeal on a wider level.