BLOGGER'S NOTE: To avoid confusion, I'll be using "Maguire!Wicked" (and other similar terms) as a catch-all for the novels and "Universal!Wicked" for the stage musical and films.
Wicked: For Good has been out for over two months now, and if its shutout from Oscar nominations is any indication, its reception hasn't gotten any less polarizing. Depending on who you ask, it's either an emotional and gratifying conclusion to "the untold story of the witches of Oz", or a major step-down from the bombastic and much-beloved Part One. Even after seeing it twice in theaters, I'm still unsure what to make of this movie, so I figured sitting down and gathering my thoughts could offer some perspective to those discouraged by the discourse.
However, the more I let For Good sit with me, the more apparent it flaws become, and the longer my list of things I wished it did and didn't do grows. So, taking a page from the film crew in needing a bigger canvas to tell their story, I'll be dedicating my next couple of posts to my critique.
Let me start by saying that my knowledge of Wicked comes exclusively from these movies, word-of-mouth from those who've seen the musical, and above all else, Gregory Maguire's novel. Going into the second half of the story, I wouldn't say I lowered my expectations — For Good was filmed back-to-back with Part One, so it didn't seem fair to expect much of a drop-off quality-wise — but I did brace myself. It's been common knowledge for years that the second act of Wicked is notoriously weaker than the first, and I couldn't fall back on my experience reading the novel like I could with Part One, since I knew much of it had been removed or reworked in the transition to stage. After watching For Good, while I still enjoyed it and don't think it's as bad as others think, its story and general plot trajectory leaves a LOT to be desired. I feel confident enough in saying For Good needed to be just as long (if not longer) than Part One, and that this movie is where the crew should've borrowed more from the novel's second half rather than expand on what was in the musical.
I know it's unfair of me to compare what happens in a book to what happens in the second part of a movie based on an abridged adaptation of said book, but considering the musical only exists because of multiple attempts to bring Maguire's novel to screen, why not leverage this being a full circle moment? Besides, for as risque and bleak Maguire's narrative is, he provides much needed depth to the characters' motivations and relationships post-Shiz that For Good fails to do. That's why I loved Part One so much; even if it wasn't a direct translation of the text, the time spent familiarizing audiences with these re-imagined figures and hallmarks of the Land of Oz felt necessary, even if you were someone going into Wicked with no clue of what happens further down the yellow brick road. And that's on top of Part One maintaining a consistent, engaging tone all throghout its nearly three-hour runtime.
For Good takes place a year after Part One (a change from the novel's multiple timeskips and the musical's ambiguous gap between acts — I always assumed it was a 4- to- 5-year jump), but with its shorter runtime and tighter pacing, I barely felt settled into the new status quo, nor did I think the characters' new priorities and outlooks received the attention they should've. Again, Elphaba, Glinda, and (to a slightly lesser extent) Fiyero are the only ones whose payoff makes sense when connected to their development in Part One, but there are still plenty of issues among the trio which I'll elaborate on in my next posts. I'll be starting with Glinda, since her depictions in the book and movies have left a sour taste in my mouth for similar, yet opposing reasons.