OSCARS 2025: Wicked (2024)

In 1900, L. Frank Baum published his children's novel, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” The book was an immediate success, selling over 10,000 copies in a month. The story would be adapted into a stage musical two years later, which also a hit. This prompted Baum to write thirteen sequels, other writers keeping the cash cow going after Baum's death in 1919. Hollywood was taking a crack at “Oz” as early as 1910 but, obviously, the 1939 version became one of the most famous movies in history. After the first book entered the public domain in 1953, only some extremely specific copyright stipulations kept anyone from trying to cash-in on the popularity of Baum's creation. Given the nature of these things, many of these derivative works are parodies, deconstructions, subversions, or reinventions. Gregory Maguire's 1995 novel “Wicked” was one such example, elaborating on the backstory of the Wicked Witch of the West. 

Maguire's book was also successful, spawning several sequels of its own, but would really break through when adapted into an enormously popular Broadway musical in 2003. Before “Wicked: The Musical” became a certified smash, a film adaptation was already being floated but demand enflamed afterwards. The gears started seriously turning towards a “Wicked” movie in 2012  It took until last year for the movie of the musical of the book, based on a separate movie and book, to arrive in theaters. Predictably, this “Wicked” has also been a box office hit. That success has been further validated with ten Academy Awards nominations. Some, however, have dared to suggest that the director of “Justin Bieber: Never Say Never,” “G.I. Joe: Retaliation,” and “Jem and the Holograms” might have made a subpar film. “Wicked” is far from the most contested nominee of 2025 but, amid an exhaustingly massive advertising push, the merits of the adaptation remain hotly debated. 

“Wicked” begins after the end of the story as we know it, with the Land of Oz celebrating the death of the Wicked Witch of the West. When pressed about the rumor that she once knew her, Glinda the Good Witch recalls the story of the Wicked Witch and their history together. Turned green from her mother drinking a potion while pregnant, Elphaba was ostracized by her family. She developed strange powers and an interest in magic as she aged. Eventually, she set off to attend the Shiz University with her wheelchair bound sister, Nessarose. Elphaba's dream is to meet the Wizard of Oz and have him cure her greenness. Her roommate, the popular Galinda, resents Elphaba at first but pretends to befriend, in hopes of leeching off her academic success. The friendship slowly becomes genuine, the two eventually earning an invitation to meet the Wizard in the Emerald City... That's when things start to go horribly wrong.

The idea of retelling a popular story, especially a fairy tale, from the perspective of the villain was hardly a fresh idea in 1995 when Maguire published his book. I guess John Gardner's “Grendel” is the modern codifier of a concept that stretches back to at least “Paradise Lost.” The popularity of “Wicked” on-stage is probably responsible for the concept proliferating so much over the last two decades. “Wicked's” influence is such that Disney has already stolen its valor at least twice, meaning the belated film version can't help but feel a bit old hat. That's honestly not the biggest problem I have with “Wicked” and other switch-a-roos. Mostly, these kind of villain origin stories bug me because they inevitably approach the idea in the least interesting fashion possible. Instead of showing how someone with possibly good intentions fell towards the path of evil, or how they justify their own actions, these films usually lazily flip the script and do little else. The bad guys are now good. The good guys are now bad. No deeper introspection is required.

I guess “Wicked” isn't as bad about that as, say, “Maleficent” was. However, it still has a childishly simple moral outlook. Elphaba has a rigorously detailed back story that makes her sympathetic, cast out of her home and ostracized because of circumstances beyond her control. To dumb down the idea further, “Wicked” adopts a high school-like mentality. Elphaba is a bullied outsider while Galinda is shallow, self-centered, manipulative, and very pink. It's the kind of “goths vs. preps” viewpoint that you would have hoped we, as a culture, had outgrown by now. In order to re-enforce the idea that Elphaba is ultimately justified in everything she does, she is born with unexplained magical powers, a type of telekinesis that flares up when ever she's emotional. There's never any doubt about her righteousness. She's “special” and persecuted and, the people we've been told are the heroes of this tale will inevitably be revealed to be cruel and sanctimonious. 

Listen, I can understand why this dynamic is compelling. I was a relentlessly bullied nerd in high school too, growing up to see the obvious evil of authority. But such a simplified expression of this idea leaves no room for nuance. In “Wicked,” this inevitably bends towards an in-no-way subtle moral about prejudice. Elphaba is, after all, ostracized mostly for the color of her skin. The film invents a story of injustice in the land of Oz, of the talking animals becoming a persecuted underclass. Elphaba's path towards villainy is ultimately motivated by wanting to protect the talking animals of Oz, further emphasized by the Wizard being revealed to be a con man. I feel that comparing any societal minority to animals is not the best look. Either way, any lesson “Wicked” has is strictly of the heavy-handed variety. The script identifies that the ruling class of Oz are using the talking animals as a scapegoat for their own failings. Yes, that's how it works but maybe don't literally have the characters state that. Maybe don't make one of the innocent bystanders a literal goat. 

Perhaps going into “Wicked” and expecting any degree of subtly is my failing. That's not the point of a production such as this. Much like the Broadway musical it's based on, this is a production of crushing excess. The costumes are extravagant, growing more outrageous as the film goes on. Every production number is full of elaborate dancing. The sets are detailed and massive, further outfitted with flashy CGI effects. The camera swoops in and around these locations. Several moments in “Wicked” are indicative of its maximalist approach. The introductory song for Elphaba's love interest involves a library full of spinning ladders through a tunnel-like collection of books. When singing “Popular,” Galinda's collection of shoes and gowns pop out like a huge clockwork device. By the time we arrive in the Emerald City, “Wicked” is a full-blown spectacle of singing, dancing, special effects, and wild costumes. And it goes on and on, the film running for nearly three hours.

That boated runtime somehow doesn't enable “Wicked” to tell a complete story. This is a part one, as the title screen reminds us. The ending is less a conclusion and more of an act break. Weirdly, despite such an extensive run time, “Wicked” feels punishingly lopsided. Elphaba and Galinda get more character development in the last thirty minutes than they do in the proceeding 130 minutes. The closest thing this narrative has to a bead of emotional truth is the future Wicked and Good Witches developing from enemies to close friends. Unfortunately, Galinda is characterized so thinly that her switch from hating to loving Elphaba does not feel naturally. And I mean “loving,” as the film waste no time in teasing the shoujo-ai fans in the audience. Arianna Grande, adopting a Miss Piggy-like demeanor, can't make the character anything but an unconvincing caricature. Moreover, any real emotional resonance to this story is lost as the film has to interrupt any quiet moment with another action set piece, another blast of CGI effects, or another lung-busting high-note in the umpteenth show stopping song. 

I suppose it could not be more obvious that, simply put, I am extremely not in the target audience for “Wicked.” I've never seen the stage show and have no familiarity, or built-in affection, for this production. The film is clearly catering to fans of the stage show, including an extended cameo for the original stars that the already lumbering pace grinds to a halt to showcase. Generally speaking, I find the Broadway style of musical theater, that focuses on constant splendor and reaching-to-the-rafters singing, to be overwhelming. I guess the songs aren't bad. “Popular” is the catchiest number. A lot of the songs blend instantly together in my memory. Each one occurs at the exact calculated moment in the stories where they will be most powerful. “Defying Gravity” is the closing number, ostensibly Elphaba self-realizing, but the film rushes into it so heavily, laying a lot of groundwork within only a few scenes, that it made me feel nothing. 

Cynthia Erivo is fine in the lead, I suppose. Jeff Goldblum is well cast as the Wizard of Oz, doing what you expect of him. Michelle Yeoh is lost among the flashy costumes, deafening music, and unending CGI. The sets, especially the elaborate Emerald City props, are impressive. The cinematography, so drab looking in the trailers, admittedly is not so brown and grey in execution. I guess this kind of ever-escalating type of filmmaking hits hard for people who enjoy this kind of thing. People who hate slasher movies or martial arts flicks probably wouldn't get anything out of “Freddy Vs. Jason” or “The Raid: Redemption,” while I'd argue for those films giving me exactly what I want. I have no doubt that “Wicked: Part 1” gave people who love the stage show and Broadway musicals already exactly what they want too. Good for you guys but I cannot count myself among you. “Wicked” was a numbing experience for me. [5/10]