My Photo
Name:
Location: Argentina Neuquén Mission, Argentina

Saturday, February 2, 2008

Wicked

And thus endeth my Chicago adventure. Having told Languatron that I’d be seeing Wicked last night, I expected to hear tales of a knife-wielding lunatic being dragged out of the theatre lobby, screaming “I’ll get you, Glen Larson! And your little Moore, too!” Thankfully, reports of such a scene remain unconfirmed.

Yesterday was a lot of fun. We toured all three for-profit theatres in Chicago and caught snippets of understudy rehearsals for Wicked and My Fair Lady. Seeing professional actors mark through their numbers in their street clothes while accompanied by a simple piano was heartening, a reminder that my own theatre experiences really aren’t that far removed from what the big boys do. Every time I get into proximity with good theatre, there’s a piece of my insides that starts to itch for what might have been had I pursued my own career further. And at the same time, there’s another piece of me that says, “been there, done that, moving on.” Seeing the Wicked cast without the lights and the glamour helped to tap down my latent actor pangs.

The theatres themselves were, in many ways, the real show, anyway. They’re funky old movie houses with ornate detail work that has all but vanished from today’s architecture. They just don’t make ‘em like they used to. They’re also not going to make them this way in Sandy City, which made me wonder what the point was. I’m not complaining, though. The food was great. Although I found out after I started eating that they put wine in my soup at lunch. Being the teetotaler that I am, I expected to be sloshed for the tour, but to my surprise, I hold my liquor fairly well.

Anyway, the big deal was the production of Wicked we saw last night, and, although I was in the next-to-last row of the almost 3,000-seat theatre, I could see and hear everything, and I had a wonderful time. I knew all of the songs from having my daughters play the soundtrack ad infinitum, and I knew the basic story as well, so there were no big surprises. It was fun, though, to see the whole thing live on stage. It was also fun to see Utah actor Summer Naomi Smart playing Nessarose. (I know her, but not well. She was in the production of Guys and Dolls at Tuacahn that I directed in 2004 in a chorus role and as the understudy to Sarah Brown. She’s extraordinarily talented, and she did very well in the role last night.)

So, the short version of my Wicked review is: it was a whole lot of fun.

If you want the long version, beware of spoilers, as I’m going to delve deep into the elements of the plot that I found particularly frustrating, which may ruin the show if you want to go in with no preconceptions.

Still here? I warned you.

The plot, at first glance, seems like a tightly-crafted and clever prequel to The Wizard of Oz, but it’s actually pretty sloppy and collapses instantly under the slightest scrutiny.

Simply put, the Wizard-as-Villain’s motivation makes absolutely no sense.

Consider: It seems that the Wizard blew into Oz and was instantly adored as a wonderful savior, so he proceeds to demonize animals and prevent them from speaking. How does he do this, you may ask? Good question, particularly since it’s firmly established that the Wizard is a fraud with no magical power. The better question, though, is why does he do it, and the only answer the show offers is that “the people need an enemy.” In short, the Wizard is only there to provide a ham-handed indictment of George W. Bush’s war policy dressed up as an arbitrary plot gimmick.

You may think I exaggerate, but what else to make of jarringly contemporary references to “regime change” and leaders being either “traitors” or “liberators” based on “what label is able to persist?” The author just assumes that the political purity of the anti-war message compensates for its lack of coherence. It’s a shoddy intellectual shortcut that dates the show needlessly while, at the same time, robbing it of a significant amount of dramatic weight.

And since we’re on the subject of stupid political asides, what are we to make of the lyric in the otherwise cheerful pop confection “Popular,” in which an airheaded Glinda makes the case for popularity over smarts:

Think of Celebrated heads of state
or 'specially great communicators
Did they have brains or knowledge
Don't make me laugh
They were popular

Anyone know any head of state other than Ronald Reagan who was labeled “the Great Communicator?” Anybody else wonder what a gratuitous slap at Reagan is doing in the middle of a fantasy piece written almost two decades after his presidency? A veiled Lewinsky joke would be annoying but would make more sense, given the Wizard’s own adulterous proclivities. Better to leave the politics out of it altogether.

Ironically, these stupid political insertions are so clumsy that they’re easy to overlook, and the show moves quickly enough that you don’t have time to linger on the wafer-thin foundation for the plot.

Also, if you’re looking for it to fit with what we already know about The Wizard of Oz, prepare to be disappointed. You’re supposed to assume that everything in Wicked is going on behind the scenes while the original Oz story is taking place, so you're left wondering why the Scarecrow and Tin Man bother going down the Yellow Brick Road with Dorothy; you’re left puzzling why the witch’s sister is termed the Wicked Witch of the East when she was, instead, a respected governor of Munchkinland, and, most of all, you have no idea why Elphaba is so consumed with getting the stupid ruby slippers back. (One of the big laugh lines in the show is Glinda’s rejoinder to her green friend: “They’re just shoes! Let it go!” It gets a laugh precisely because the reasons for her behavior are so ludicrous.)

The whole show is slightly disjointed, with the overall feel of a rock concert. The songs are hardly traditional Tin Pan Alley ditties – they’re solid pop numbers, most of which would sound right at home on any episode of American Idol. Most of them don’t move the story forward, so the flimsy book has to do that with very little time, and the whole thing feels unnecessarily rushed.

And yet I had a great time. I loved the music; the production design was gorgeous, and the friendship between Glinda and Elphaba felt authentic and was genuinely moving. Glinda did a fine Kristen Chenoweth impression, although it would be nice if it were possible for someone to make that role their own.

Reading this over, it sounds like I didn’t like it. And I did like it. Immensely. A good new musical with hummable tunes doesn’t come down the pike very often. You probably won’t notice the politics or the clumsy plotting as you hum “Defying Gravity” on your way home.

Don't read the book, though. I tried, and it's a tedious, self-important Freudian piece of sludge. The musical is much, much better.

20 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi there: I will elaborate more later as I am in a rush but I am so put off by your review of Wicked that I had to say something immediately. I've seen it three, soon to be four times, twice in Chicago. I don't think Erin Mackey is an imitation of Kristen for starters. Also, the last comment about the book Wicked was offensive. It was an awesome book and I read it before seeing it. I identify so much with Elphaba in many ways that go way beyond the surface. The shoes were important because the father always favored Nessa over her in the musical. In the book it was to keep them out of the wizard's power. I don't care if it matches the Wizard of Oz, the kiddy show. I have always felt the Witch of the West got a raw deal and that Dorothy was a little simpering goody-goody. Just my opinion. I love Wicked; it has increased my self-awareness and self-esteem, and no, I am no teenager, very far from it.

February 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM  
Blogger The Wiz said...

I love Wicked, but when I found out the plot, it didn't make much sense to me, so I would ask people who had actually seen it to clarify.

They couldn't. It was hilarious. Like, several different people. It makes me think that basically the show is about the music and not about plot, and I'm OK with that.

SPOILER:
If anyone can tell me why Elphaba has powers because she's the "child of both worlds" I would love to know. See, the way I figure it, she's a child of one non magical person (her mother) and another non-magical person (the wizard). Essentially, the wizard and her mom are from the SAME world, so why.....???? Please explain, if it can be done.

February 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

Ms. Elphie, no one accused you of being a teenager. I don't understand why a difference of opinion ought to offend you, though. You liked the book? Bully for you. I thought it blew. We agree to disagree.

I don't know Erin Mackey, although I enjoyed her in the role. My point was that Chenoweth defined the role so distinctly that everyone sort of has to tailor their performance to meet those expectations. I wasn't trying to slam the very capable actress who performed last night.

February 2, 2008 at 5:20 PM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

And yes, Wiz, the "child of both worlds" thing is asinine. Still a very fun show, though.

February 2, 2008 at 5:21 PM  
Blogger Papa D said...

Great review. I never understood how the book could be made into a successful play, but I'm glad it happened.

February 2, 2008 at 5:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Useless trivia, Ringworld’s (Niven) plot and character’s are exceedingly similar to the Wizard of Oz.

February 2, 2008 at 6:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wiz: The Wizard wasn't from Oz but Elhaba's mohter was. He was just blown in from someplace that was never explained. It was the same in the original movie. He was going to take Dorothy to Kansas when he left Oz. I guess that made Elphie the child of both worlds. It is a fantasy story and doesn't really have to make logical sense. Stallion, do you mind if I ask what it is you hate about the book. Your description doesn't say much about it. Have you read Son of a Witch? That is good too but not as good as Wicked.

February 2, 2008 at 8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOVED the musical. HATED the book. I gave it as a gift once before reading it and it was literally given back to me with an , "Umm, did you read this? It's pretty awful, but thanks anyway." OS, of course I had to read it. The book was crude and disturbing while the musical was lighthearted and touching. I know a bunch of people who were hesitant about the musical because they thought the book was so awful. But I adore the musical. Defying Gravity is probably my favorite number, but I love the entire soundtrack and the plot holes are no problem - especially when you've read the book and realize what you could've gotten.

February 2, 2008 at 9:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hear they are going to make HBO's OZ into a musical. The working title is "A funny thing happened to me on the way to the showers."

February 2, 2008 at 9:44 PM  
Blogger Elder Samuel Bennett said...

Ms. Elphie, I didn't finish the book. Couldn't get through it. It's written in this unreadably stilted, academically formal language that bears no resemblance to conversational speech, and from the very outset, it focuses on strange, Freudian sexual motivations for everything. Were people really waiting for a story where the Cowardly Lion wonders aloud if the Wicked Witch of the West is a hermaphrodite?

Haven't read Son of a Witch, either. And I won't.

February 3, 2008 at 7:39 AM  
Blogger The Wiz said...

From what I understand, it's one of those books that you either love or hate. I don't know anyone whose reaction is "eh".

February 3, 2008 at 8:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess you are right about that, Wiz, that the book is one people love or hate and I am one who loved it. Surely, though, HBpraw, you have seen and read worse things than what happens in Wicked. There is all sorts of perverted material I wouldn't go near. I understand your saying the language was a bit difficult to get through, but as far as the characters, what so awful happened? I would just like to have anohter perspective. I won't criticize anyone and sorry for saying I was offended in the first place, Stallion, I guess I just love the story so much, both book and musical that I can't believe anyone hates it enough to call it "sludge." LOL. I mean did people not like it because it depicts the wizard as an evil Hitlerlike individual? Perhaps because it drags down the fairytale image? The Wizard was bad but Elphaba obviously wasn't. She just became a very tormented woman in the end, but who wouldn't with the way things happened in her life? Elphie was no worse than any militant protestors during Viet Nam for instance. She was a person who stood up for her convictions whether or not popular and that is an admirable qualitly in my opinion. Sorry this got so long. LOL.

February 3, 2008 at 10:50 AM  
Blogger foodleking said...

My wife and I have seen the musical twice, and are taking the family this Tuesday as well.

The book is not good. Obtuse, unnecessary, over-the-top sexual references abound. I don't plan on reading Son of a Witch.

Jim... some of the plot questions you raise were dealt with in the book but not translated into the musical (the red shoes, Nessrose's governorship, etc.), probably for time or pacing purposes.

I did not read as much politically into the musical as you did. Yes... Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, but there are other celebrated heads of state and supposed great communicators who lack brains and knowledge (Hugo Chavez, Al Gore, Barbara Streisand, George Clooney).

The Wizard as George Bush concept never occurred to me. The animals were in Oz before the Wizard arrived. The comparison is more akin to slavery, where people who previously had rights and abilities are locked up, dehumanized, and treated like animals. Elphaba began to see herself as an abolitionist, evidenced by her deep interest in Chistery and the other monkeys.

The line about traitors or liberators could relate to many instance in history, or even in Wicked itself. Elphaba continually questions her own motives, and labels are finicky things. How many times has the prevailing opinion about Napolean changed?

February 3, 2008 at 4:12 PM  
Blogger Heather O. said...

Yeah, but have you read the original OZ books? Those make no sense, either.

February 3, 2008 at 7:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh. My. Gosh. Can we not just enjoy that Elpheba and the Scarecrow live happily ever after? Really, people. That's all we need to take home. Oh, and Defy Gravity. That number rocks.

February 3, 2008 at 9:31 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

[satire]

I love Petticoat Junction; it has increased my self-awareness and self-esteem, and no, I am no teenager, very far from it.

Anyone who doesn't worship Petticoat Junction is a lesser life-form and deserves scorn.

[/satire]

February 4, 2008 at 5:09 AM  
Blogger FluffyChicky said...

I have read all the OZ books and both Wicked and Son of a Witch and on Jan 24th I got to go to Wicked in LA and I thought the musical was the best out of the bunch. I thought Megan Hilty was hilarious as Galinda (with a "Ga)/ Glinda (the "Ga" is silent) and Caissie Levy was wonderful as Elphaba. I just find it amusing how people get all up-in-arms over something as trivial as a book/musical review.

February 4, 2008 at 8:20 PM  
Blogger Anonymous_1 said...

I find your inability to get up-in-arms" over something as trivial as a book/musical review disturbing.

I demand...an apology.

February 5, 2008 at 4:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you who describe Wicked as having weird or Freudian sexual references, etc. I want to recommend a book by Dean Koontz called The Bad Place. Now here is one book that has a bunch of over-the-top sick stuff, sexual and otherwise. While I don't see Wicked as out there, just a bit different and dark, it was a kiddy fairy tale compared to this one. The story holds your interest alright but there are too many disgusting graphic descriptions of things such as an owl devouring a small rodent and some other much more disturbing things. Anyone read it?

February 5, 2008 at 5:41 PM  
Blogger foodleking said...

Why would you recommend a book with sick, weird stuff?

And as a follow up for the record... for just moderately-interested-in-musicals husbands like myself, the perfect number of times to see Wicked is TWO, not THREE. I was counting the minutes to intermission and termination tonight. And the Madam Morrible actress had me fondly recalling the screeching voice of the previous incarnation, Carol Kane.

February 6, 2008 at 1:29 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home