I mean, what’s there to say? There are two kinds problems with Part 2: ones from the original musical and ones specific to this movie adaptation. I think there is also something to be said about problems any possible movie adaptation of Wicked (or, at least, a movie adaptation that stays somewhat faithful to the source).
The Earth World and Oz World
My own personal relationship with Wicked is somewhat unique. I went to high school with one of the actors, and they have gained significant notoriety from their role. This blog is anonymous, so I won’t go into much detail. I’ll refer to them as “Sammy.” It’s not that Sammy is my best friend (I was more friends with their sibling), but we are friendly and familiar with each other. And I will say: seeing someone you know pretty well in a major motion picture sure brings you out of the experience!
This is a natural segue to the star power shining out of this movie, which I (and I think many others) find distracting. Jeff Goldblum and Michelle Yeoh were just playing themselves in the first movie, and its much worse in the second. Same with that one guy from SNL. Ariana Grande is a bit of a different case. She seems to resonate so strongly with Glinda that its almost as if Glinda is now playing her. Phenomenologically, the thing on the screen was a superposition between Grande and Glinda. So I had an interesting viewing experience, although likely not an intended one.
Needless to say, I enjoyed the characters that weren’t mega-stars before Wicked. Cynthia Erivo was amazing, as always. The guy playing Fiero was also great; I enjoyed his performance a lot more in part 2. I also enjoyed the actress for Nessarose, but I think she had a tough role to play. And, to mention, I liked how they handled the ruby slippers without a hint of ableism. Even if you didn’t think it was necessary, it was safe and rather smart; and flying is better than walking or rolling.
The world also impacts our interpretation of Oz through the admittedly odd promotional campaign for Wicked. This is not to mention the general fanfare about the film. There was, of course, Grande dating the SpongeBob man and the drama surrounding that in Part 1. Apparently they are still dating. In recent news, it looks like Grande and Erivo are both starving and romantically involved with each other. Grande and Erivo take Wicked very seriously–exuding a kind of mature theatre kid energy–in every promotional. They “personally” greeted us film-watchers right before the start of the movie, mentioning how much the film and we, as fans, meant to the duo. I cannot hold it against you if this oddness influences the film for you as a viewer, but I’ll move on.
Script and Adaptation Problems
God, was that script awful. This isn’t a new criticism about Part 2. It suffers, first and foremost, from trying to fit the characters and story from Part 1 into the original Wizard of Oz movie plot. It feels forced, rushed, and clumsy. Characters do things for seemingly no reason, and every new scene creates a new problem for the “cohesive” Wizard of Oz plot. I’m honestly surprised they didn’t just say it was a “reinterpretation” of the original, or, better yet, say it was what actually happened. If they had leaned more on Dorothy as an unreliable narrator, perhaps they could have made it work. But as far as actual events go, Wicked has it that the Scarecrow was only in the field for 5 minutes before he was found. And somehow the Tinman rusted a speedy few days after his creation.
I’m not really sure about the timeline, but, as the movie presented it, all the scenes occur consecutively. This leads into a general problem with a Wicked movie adaptation. While on a stage the cute, fast paced snippets of the original Oz tale flow somewhat naturally, this is completely lost on the silver screen. I think it is genuinely a difference between film-as-a-medium / Hollywood-film-convention and theater.
To elaborate: with the space on a stage, you are able to portray two scenes at once like Wicked wants. I have a hard time articulating this, but you can almost “stack” multiple events together in theater with great elegance. This is not allowed in cinema–“stacking” simply makes the screen too busy. It is far more natural to focus on two storylines in an “every other” fashion, which is the prevalent practice in Hollywood adaptations. To see this in action, the second Lord of the Rings book, the Two Towers, actually has the Legolas story and Baggins story in two separate halves of the book. In the movie, it made more sense to go every other–one Baggins, one Legolas.
If I may be so bold, there is a sense in which movies require more “focus” than other mediums. I doubt I can make a conclusive argument for this, but there are a great many considerations in favor of this. In a book, you can spend a long time describing a tree, and a short time describing the final battle. It’s still a great book. In a stage-play, you can have dramatic background characters busying up the stage with antics. All this is less permitted in cinema.
All this considered, there is a dilemma for a Wicked movie adaptation. Focus too much on the “Oz side story,” and it really isn’t Wicked anymore. It, at the very least, would be a large structural departure. But to relax the focus on the side story, like in the original, is to make something unnatural in cinema. The director took the latter option. Things felt “busy,” or (to put it another way) the entire film felt like “stuff was just happening.”
This is especially hard to thread given the character driven nature of Wicked. Taking my focus line a step further, character driven stories in film require more focus on the characters. But focus is a limited resource. So to take away focus from Elphaba and Glinda is to weaken the force of the movie. But this is exactly what is required for the movie to feel less rushed. This is a difficult balancing act. It is more difficult considering that the original Oz storyline doesn’t really impact the characters as characters much. Really, the ball was rolling before the movie started: Elphaba was in conflict with the Wizard, Glinda had her popularity, the love interests were out and about, and eventually these (and all the weird, confusing politics) must come to head. The original Oz storyline didn’t even need to be here… but then Wicked wouldn’t be what it is without it.
I’ve trailed off to talk about the script itself, and not the particularities of a Wicked adaptation. Oh well. I think this just shows how unexpectedly complicated and strange it all is. It will continue to be an object of my interest and criticism. Speaking of criticism, and very quickly: The animal liberation subplot, literally everything about, feels like an afterthought. Also, how is Oz’s government structured? I don’t understand exactly what Michelle Yeoh’s character’s role was in all of it. For example, when the wizard left, why did she get so worried? Also, why such sudden violence against Fiero? Throughout the story, everyone else gets put in a cage, the guards (for the most part) seem like theater student extras, but then they suddenly go, “Yeah, let’s lynch this guy!” Really came out of left field.
Look, this isn’t to say that the movie wasn’t good for what it was. At least the first part deserved an adaptation. Part 2 is just an unfortunate tag-a-long. Not hopeless or so bad it isn’t worth adapting. Just mediocre. As far as I’m concerned, this was about as good as anyone could have done adapting Part 2.