Wicked: For Good
Wicked, starting from the novel by Gregory Maguire, has a fundamental flaw baked into how it imagines the dynamic between Glinda (Ariana Grande)- aka Glinda the Good Witch- and Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo)- aka The Wicked Witch of the West- in its story. How the second half of the story unfolds, it’s predicated on the events of “The Wizard of Oz.” Considering how they are turned into Maguire’s story, some things work better than others, but there was one particular moment that just really feels like an awkward staging when the stories are mixed.
As with my review of last year’s “Wicked,” this is simply the words of someone who hasn’t read the book, or seen the stage show. One of the strongest aspects of the film last year was how it framed the story in how Glinda and Elphaba are stuck in the middle of a changing Oz, where the Wizard- who has always been a con man- is manipulating the system to give himself power. It struck a chord after the re-election of Donald Trump last year, and a year later, it still resonates. When “Wicked: For Good”- written by Winnie Holzman and Dana Fox, and directed, once again, by John M. Chu- focuses on this, and the connection between Glinda and Elphaba, it connects as a narrative; it’s when the events of “The Wizard of Oz” are shoehorned in, however, when this film is loses some momentum.
The music does not help “For Good.” Even more so than the first film- which is basically Act I of the stage musical- the songs by Stephen Schwartz do not really connect with me. Outside of the titular song of this film, I cannot think of another one that really resonated with me in this film. That means that, ultimately, I am not the audience for these movies, and that is fine. But when taking the film on its own terms, that is not good for a musical, especially one that feels as artificial as this one does.
“Wicked: For Good” is arguably more “pick out the references” as the first film. We begin with the building of the yellow brick road; we get the cyclone with Dorothy and Toto; and we see the Cowardly Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow, and the group’s first visit with the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum, loving hamming things up). One of the revisions to the classic story of “Wizard of Oz” that we see is how Tin Man and Scarecrow come to be, and they are two of the most calculated pieces of storytelling, but also very effective, especially in how they play into the narrative’s themes of domination and subjugation of anyone who goes against the established narrative of Oz. The ability to create real magic is fundamental to this film, and it’s especially effective in the relationship between Glinda and Elphaba- both played very well, once again, by Grande and Erivo- but also the consequences of using magic. There are some compelling narrative threads in this story, but unfortunately, the whole package just does not really resonate with me. There’s enough that some real cinematic magic would have been possible, but as with Glinda’s bubble, it’s an illusion to elevate its status with the masses.
