BEFORE: Well, I got busy at the Barclay's Center - I know that the attention is on MSG right now because the New York Knicks have somehow managed to make the NBA Finals, which means that there are days coming up where I'll have to avoid Manhattan, or, you know what, maybe not leave the house at all. There's no telling what Knicks fans will do if their team wins a game next week at MSG.
Then on Thursday night I went out to an animation show, right here in my neighborhood in Queens, free screening and I went to see if I knew anyone there, besides the woman who runs the event. Plus they had sandwiches. And brownies. So really, what else do I need?
But I had to use another one of my skip days, and really, I needed to save those for June, I'm going to get very busy with the Tribeca Film Festival - so I'm going to do a DOUBLE-feature of the "Wicked" movies today, which is madness, because I said I was going to let the birthdays drive the bus if the situation presented itself - but let me state that these films are PROBABLY not my bag, really I was saving them to get myself out of a linking jam, and well, getting me to Father's Day this year probably counts, because my whole plan for June and therefore July might fall apart if I don't get there in a short number of steps, which is what burning off the "Wicked" films is buying me here.
James Dryden carries over from "Matilda: The Musical". And now that I've delayed the review until May 30, we can issue a grand Birthday SHOUT-out to Idina Menzel, born 5/30/71. She's got a cameo here, but I hear she might have had something to do with the (un-) original Broadway production of "Wicked". Let me state for the record that I have NOT seen the Broadway play this is based on, so all of my reactions are going to be unfiltered, from someone who read the original books and also watched that weird sequel a few years ago with James Franco as the Wizard.
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Oz the Great and Powerful" (Movie #1,625)
THE PLOT: Elphaba, a young woman ridiculed for her green skin, and Galinda, a popular girl, become friends at Shiz University in the Land of Oz. After an encounter with the Wonderful Wizard of Oz, their friendship reaches a crossroads.
AFTER: The linking is still kind of telling me I should have watched "Goodbye June" - both James Dryden and Andrea Riseborough would have had their third film this year that way, and they would have clinched spots in the year-end countdown. Tough luck, because I re-classified that film as a Christmas film, and I'm only watching Christmas movies by accident right now. Like, what if were to watch "Goodbye June" and then fall short by ONE slot in December, and then I have to leave out a Christmas film? Nope, that would be bad, I can't take the chance. I mean, it could still happen, there's no way to predict December slot availability now, but if I have the chance to err on the side of caution, I'll do that. Now let me go add five more documentaries to the Doc Block....
But going from "Matilda: the Musical" to here also allows me to have a theme week, and the theme is "Movies based on Broadway Musicals that are Also Themselves Based on Previous Movies" - essentially, we're dealing with remakes of remakes, but ones that have been re-interpreted and changed around for more modern audiences. Let's face facts, Roald Dahl and L. Frank Baum were victims of the 18th and 19th century, they only saw things their way and they were soaking in outdated patriarchal and racial and social concepts that got squashed at some point, rightfully so. If they re-made "Huckleberry Finn" today, it would look a lot more like "12 Years a Slave", and that SHOULD be considered progress, all things considered.
So I put this one off for a long time, pretty much as long as I could, kind of like I did with "Barbie", at some point a film like that becomes SO BIG, so much a part of the zeitgeist, that I just have to watch it and figure out what all the pop culture madness is really about. I tried to wait until the film was no longer available on Peacock, because Netflix is a cable channel for me now, that's SO much easier, and my computer browsers allow me to access simply EVERY OTHER streaming service, except for Peacock. So I had to watch "Wicked" on my phone, holding it just inches from my face, with bad sound, and come on, you really don't want me to review a film I watched like that. I'm not going to be happy if the screening conditions were like that, movies are meant to be watched on the biggest screen possible, if I can't watch it in the theater (which is like 99% of the time, despite the fact I work in a movie theater) then AT LEAST on my giant TV screen and if even that's not possible, then AT LEAST on my semi-large computer screen. The phone is the LEAST preferable option, like I know the kids are all watching movies on their phones, but I'm just not a kid. I need a big screen, I need captions, I need a big glass of water and a smaller glass of Mountain Dew, snack optional but certainly preferred. I need the sound up and the lights down, on a recliner if possible.
So here we go, let's tear apart a classic film, perhaps the classic-est film of all time, and put the pieces back together in a way that completely defines it for modern audiences, literally I know the Broadway musical kind of changed everything in the process of giving the characters back-stories that are different from the ones we thought we knew. I've been through this with "Star Wars", for a long time we had only three movies, and they were great, and we were allowed to imagine what the Clone Wars were and how Darth Vader became Darth Vader, and who was Luke's mother, anyway? Eventually George Lucas decided to tell those stories and he put in a fair amount of twists with Anakin and Padme, so we ideally wouldn't see the end coming, except that we all totally did because that END was also the BEGINNING of the story we already knew. We're kind of in the same narrative boat here, because we've got all the pieces already, somebody is just going to tell us how they all came to fit together to eventually create the start of "The Wizard of Oz".
First question - why aren't Munchkins tiny any more? Isn't that a key point in the original film, that all of the Munchkin actors were played by LP's? I realize that casting a bunch of LP's might be rather problematic, but it would have been faithful to the original, and now we have an inconsistency in the franchise, where Munchkins and Winkies are the same size, and NOBODY is small? Doesn't this take jobs away from smaller actors, how does THAT help? We could have cast a whole bunch of LPs through the LPA and Wow, I bet your film would have qualified for some kind of tax credit that way. Are we so woke now that "munchkin" has become some kind of derogatory term for smaller people, and it's therefore considered perjorative? Or did somebody just want to think about the dance sequences, and how casting LPs would have made them more difficult? Anyway, I think the LPs really could have used the work, imagine casting 50 or 100 of them to populate Munchkinland and how much representation that could have been - and now Munchkinland no longer makes any sense, at least when you go back and watch the original film. Or are they all going to get shrunken in the sequel somehow?
Back in 2014, I applauded the use of real LPs in "Oz the Great and Powerful", because it's a long time between St. Patrick's Day and Christmas, and people have to WORK in-between dressing up like leprechauns and dressing up like Santa's elves. Don't hate the players, hate the game, or complain about why that IS the game, I'm just calling out the game. But now have we gone SO FAR beyond "woke" that if we cast little people to play little people, that would somehow be considered an insult? As if to say, "they're real actors now, they don't need our help" but I bet they WOULD eagerly take the gig, all of them, because it's better to work than to be shut out entirely.
-----------------------------------------
I'm going to quote my own review (2nd time this week) from that other "Oz" film:
Next I come to magicians and politicians - who are both portrayed as liars (OK, I'm with you so far...) and a magician who essentially becomes a politican is a double-liar. I'm fine with the character being who he is, but the film seems to promote a "Fake it 'Til you Make" it mentality. I guess we've all been there, since none of us are born knowing how to do the jobs we'll later have, but again, it's an odd message to put out in a kids' fantasy film. There's a fine line between pretending and lying, after all.
Now, as to the backstory, doesn't this conflict with the plot seen in "Wicked"? (I haven't seen that play, but I'm going to look up the plot now...yep, it sure does) If you've got two different backstories for a character, it makes it seem like no one's in charge of the franchise. I know, they pull this crap in comic books all the time, changing Superman's origin every few years just to keep it current, but I don't have to like it.
I think what we've got here is another severe case of "prequelitis" - we all know where "The Wizard of Oz" begins, so this film has to end in a certain way, one which sets up the 1939 film. But when you try to piece it together, the timeline just doesn't work - if you go back 20 years and bring Oscar Diggs to Oz, then he has to remain there, so he'll be there when Dorothy arrives. But Dorothy visited that psychic, Professor Marvel, in Kansas before the tornado - and he looked exactly like the Wizard. Assuming that was the same guy, how could he be in two places at once? There are other inconsistencies as well, but the main one I won't mention for fear of giving away a plot point.
I think what we've got here is another severe case of "prequelitis" - we all know where "The Wizard of Oz" begins, so this film has to end in a certain way, one which sets up the 1939 film. But when you try to piece it together, the timeline just doesn't work - if you go back 20 years and bring Oscar Diggs to Oz, then he has to remain there, so he'll be there when Dorothy arrives. But Dorothy visited that psychic, Professor Marvel, in Kansas before the tornado - and he looked exactly like the Wizard. Assuming that was the same guy, how could he be in two places at once? There are other inconsistencies as well, but the main one I won't mention for fear of giving away a plot point.
-----------------------------------------
Why is green the new black, so to speak? This is a fantasy world, Oz, it can be whatever you want it to be, and there are people seen in the crowds of all colors, races, backgrounds, so based on that, there should not be racism in this paradise - so why does "Green" still get singled out, like I know Kermit sang that song about how it's not easy being green, but in that case it was a metaphor for just learning to be comfortable with whatever color you are, while also pointing out that it didn't make any sense to wish to be yellow or orange or purple or whatever. So Elphaba gets bullied JUST because she is green, and she's meant to feel "less than" because there is still somehow racism in Oz, but JUST for that color. It makes no sense and seems to serve no purpose. In the old days, we just had green witches in our stories and we didn't question that, we didn't need a "reason" for them to be green, we just assumed it was because their evil turned them that color or maybe it was one of their potions. This kind of reminds me of Emperor Palpatine, who looked one way in Episode II and a different way in Episode VI. It's easy enough to say that using the Dark Side of the Force broke him and twisted him or put some kind of strain on his body and we didn't NEED Mace Windu turning his own force lightning against him, which also didn't make any sense, except that Daddy Lucas needed to dumb it down for us children while also explaining every. little. thing. that would be important later in Episode IV-VI.
Elphaba is green because her mother had an affair - that's a bit weird, again this is supposed to be a fantasy world, so either people are free to love whoever they want, whenever they want, or there should be repercussions for things that are "wrong", but those should fall upon the sinners, not their children. Yes, sure, in a post-Anakin Skywalker world, people are not BORN evil, they become evil over time because somebody broke their heart or betrayed them or something. We've apologized, through movies, for the behavior of everyone from Cruella de Vil to Maleficent, and I kind of miss the days when villains were just plain evil and not all victims of circumstance, and now here we are with the Wicked Witch of the West - I can't wait for the prequel film to "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" where we learn the backstory of the "Child-Catcher" that haunted my childhood dreams. Ooh, ooh, maybe they'll do Sauron next and explain how he was abused as a child and he's not really evil, he's just taking over Middle Earth to get back at the uncle who touched him in a naughty place.
So Elphaba feels that so many things are her fault, even if they aren't. Maybe she knows about her mother's affair, maybe she doesn't, but either way, that's on Mrs. Thropp, right? Or maybe it's all on Governor Thropp, who wasn't enough for Mrs. Thropp somehow, forcing her to cheat on him to get what she needed in a relationship. I don't know, do we blame the cheating spouse or the one who got cheated on, or do we just say, "Well, these things happen" except here there are repercussions, because one daughter was born green so excessive measures were taken to ensure that the second daughter was NOT born green, and Mrs. Thropp paid the price for that. Well, karma's a bitch, what can I say?
Essentially this is all about bullying, just like "Matilda" was all about bullying at first, however Matilda and her fellow students faced a common enemy, a teacher, who was a bigger bully, and that united them and allowed them to fight back. However, once again, Hollywood got bullying wrong, fighting back is not the proper response, neither is NOT fighting back. If you don't fight back, a bully will continue to take advantage of you, as you're an easy target. If you DO fight back, and bully will still hate and disrespect you, however they will probably move on to another, easier target - problem NOT solved. One thing you can do is befriend a bully, or get them the help they need to deal with whatever social issues or personal demons they're facing, which is what's causing them to lash out in the first place. I once bought a bully's entire Star Wars comic book collection for $40 bucks and I never was troubled again. Another time I sucker-punched my bully, that got me pushed up against the lockers, but also I was never troubled by them again. The only other way I know to deal with a bully is outsmart them, like hide drugs in their locker or frame them for a felony crime and get them COMPLETELY taken off the board. I never tried this because the other options were easier and didn't make me guilty of something.
Now to deal with this talking animal madness - there's some kind of push within Oz to turn (?) talking animals back into regular ones, or this is happening and nobody knows why or how to stop it. I don't know if this is because there were talking animals in some of the original books, but then they just don't want to deal with it anymore, and everybody looks the other way. So basically we're talking about a genocide of sorts, I assume that everyone within Oz is a vegetarian or something, but we never really get a good look at those weird platters that everyone is eating from in the Shiv University cafeteria. Still, I assume you don't want to eat your teachers or those goats and birds that you just had a conversation with, that wouldn't be right. So what, is there a big plot by the wizard to dumb down all the animals, just so he can have a steak or open a fried chicken franchise or something? There's a suggestion here of some larger idea, but it just gets dropped somewhere in the middle of the movie, surely there must be some follow-up in the sequel film, but still, what gives? Oh, right, this all might have something to do with a talking lion in the future...
Everything from the original 1939 film is totally telegraphed here - like I already know who is going to become the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and other Wicked Witch. Or I'm fairly sure, I doubt there are going to be any huge surprises to come, unless I TOTO-lly read everything wrong. Really the worst movie sin here is in all the excessive dialogue and time spent OVER-explaining everything, as if we're all complete idiots in the audience. Why, yes, he's the Wonderful Wizard because he is a wizard and he is wonderful. "I need to be good." "We hate each other." "I am a talking goat who cannot pronounce a certain name correctly because I have no upper front teeth." JESUS FUCK, shut up already! So much inane blathering! So much expository material. "I am a dancer, which means I dance and I get through my life by dancing." Give me a damn break!"
So, to sum up, this is what you get when Elle Woods and Carrie White attend Hogwarts and an episode of "Glee" breaks out. Little people can't dance and are not employable, racism exists only against green people, adultery causes birth defects, bullying is justified, animals need to be dumb so they can be eaten without guilt, and hate gives you magic powers. OK, these are some REALLY weird principles to defend. What fresh hell is going to await me in the sequel?
Directed by Jon M. Chu (director of "In the Heights" and "Crazy Rich Asians")
Also starring Cynthia Erivo (last seen in "Pinocchio" (2022)), Ariana Grande (last seen in "Nothing Compares"), Jeff Goldblum (last seen in "Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple"), Michelle Yeoh (last heard in "The Tiger's Apprentice"), Jonathan Bailey (last seen in "Jurassic World: Rebirth"), Ethan Slater, Marissa Bode, Andy Nyman (last seen in "Black Death"), Courtney-Mae Briggs, Bowen Yang (last seen in "Please Don't Destroy: The Treasure of Foggy Mountain"), Bronwyn James (last seen in "Mickey 17"), Aaron Teoh, Shaun Prendergast, Keala Settle (last seen in "The Greatest Showman"), Colin Michael Carmichael (last seen in "Hot Fuzz"), Tarik Frimpong (last seen in "Mary Poppins Returns"), Malinda Parris, Noah Prempeh, Hattie Ryan, Kirsty Anne Shaw, Karis Musongole, Cesily Collette Taylor, Adam James (last seen in "A Little Chaos"), Alice Fearn, Clive Kneller, Michael McCorry Rose (last seen in "Disenchanted"), Kristin Chenoweth (last seen in "The Boy Next Door"), Bobby Windebank, Cherida Strallen,
with cameos from Winnie Holzman (last seen in "You People"), Stephen Schwartz (last seen in "Idina Menzel: Which Way to the Stage?"),
and with the voices of Peter Dinklage (last seen in "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes"), Sharon D. Clarke (last seen in "Havoc" (2025)), Jenna Boyd (last seen in "Here"), Tom Kiteley, Elizabeth Dulau, Kim Durham, Jennifer Woodward (last heard in "The Garfield Movie"), Stephen Stanton (last seen in "Joker: Folie a Deux"), David Eigenberg (last seen in "A Perfect Murder")
RATING: 3 out of 10 non-flying monkeys (not yet, anyway)
No comments:
Post a Comment