Despite The Off-Screen Drama, “Wicked” Is A Solid Spinoff

I thought “Wicked” was going to be yet another movie where all the drama surrounding the production would outshine the movie itself. I thought this back in March, when it was discovered that Ariana Grande left her husband for a Munchkin and broke the internet. This was many months ago, and it feels like “Wicked” has been in the making for an eternity.

There’s been drama about the casting and drama about a fan poster (yes, seriously). There’s even been drama about the film being two parts — nobody seemed to realize this fact until now. I imagine the marketing team was as beleaguered as the fans of the play or even the general public by the time this thing was finally released — “Wicked” would have to be very good to fly off the ground with all that baggage.

If you’re not in the know, part one is a film adaptation of “Wicked,” which is a Broadway adaptation of a book called “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West,” which a is spinoff of another film, “The Wizard of Oz,” which is an adaptation of a novel, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.” Universeception achieved. I was curious to see the film, having never seen any of these iterations other than the classic “Wizard of Oz” film from the 1930s. A story had to have staying power, something meaningful to say, to be adapted and reinterpreted that many times, and I wanted to know why.

The story is powerful indeed. It provides far more context to the traditional story of Oz that most of us have heard, the story of fairytale-like good against fairytale-like bad. I myself played the Wicked Witch of the West at Severn School over a decade ago, and the role involved a lot of cackling, scheming and commanding of helpless servants. My character was not even given a proper name, like the good witch — she was a 2D silhouette of evil.

The “Wicked” franchise asks us to question, albeit simplistically and allegorically, whether narratives we have been told or even acted out a thousand times are actually true, or whether they have elements of propaganda and spin. It gives the Wicked Witch her name — Elphaba — and tells her story: How she was outcast and mistreated by everyone, including the so-called “good” witch Galinda — but changed her fortunes and reclaimed power she always had inside of her.

You might groan that you’ve seen this type of sympathetic villain treatment before - but “Wicked” was one of the first popular stories to do this before it got Thanosed into the mainstream.

Not only is the basic plot material compelling — this movie is well adapted by obvious professionals and is good on its own merit. I’m not a massive fan of musicals, but I found myself enjoying it just as I enjoyed “Wonka” last year. In much the same way, it brought whimsy and color to the big screen, though on a far grander scale. I actually could remember and was humming a few of the songs on the way home, despite hearing them only once — it has some real earworms. Nearly everyone can sing well — even Jeff Goldblum, to my surprise.

While there was the aforementioned drama over the casting (of Ariana in particular) it’s clear the majority of the cast has a strong theater background and deserved their places — including Ariana. In a way, the drama almost enhanced her performance. You are prepared to view her character as unsympathetic, vain and entitled, which Galinda very much is. But over time, she has redeeming moments, and you can’t help but come to root for her just as you do for Elphaba. The chemistry between the two, and between most of the leads in general, is convincing.

“Wicked” is gratuitous, campy and over the top, but in all the best ways — it made me understand what the appeal of musicals might be to some people. It feels like a buffet for the eyes and the ears with seemingly every inch of the screen filled with vibrant and beautifully costumed dancers.

The movie adds its own flair as well. There’s clearly a use of practical sets over garbage CGI where possible. The camera is always whirring and waltzing around the room, making you feel like you’re part of the action. This is why I don’t mind the longer runtime — the film didn’t feel padded out and it hasn’t taken the “Mission Impossible” or “Hunger Games” route. Besides, films take longer to establish scenes and often require slower pacing than plays, so the length is understandable.

The story also has some element of resolution. You’re intrigued for a sequel but don’t leave the theater feeling like there was a massive cliffhanger. You could easily watch “Wicked” as a self-contained film and never see the second, though I very much would like to!