Staff Reports
The recent release of “Wicked for Good,” the film adaptation of the popular musical, has stirred a wave of opinions, especially among those familiar with the source material. While the first part of “Wicked” garnered widespread acclaim, the second installment appears to have missed some significant opportunities for improvement. The underlying issues stem from the original musical’s structure, which affects the flow and coherence of the film as well.
To begin with, the storytelling in many musicals often falls victim to the classic structural dilemma of having a robust first act and a lacking second act. “Wicked” exhibits this very problem. First the audience is treated to exhilarating plots and powerful numbers, but by the time the intermission concludes and the second act begins, the pacing stumbles. In a typical play, three acts allow more balanced storytelling, whereas musicals often compress too much into the first half. Consequently, the second act tends to feel like a rushed afterthought filled with unneeded filler—a fate that seems to have befallen “Wicked for Good.”
Critics note that the film’s plot holes and awkward character choices make it difficult to sustain viewer engagement. For example, characters like Elphaba, who possesses immense power, don’t leverage their abilities to effectuate tangible change. Instead of leading a revolution against the corrupt Wizard, she flits around Oz like a distracted butterfly. This contrast between the boldness of act one and the lack of direction in act two detracts from the film’s potential impact, suggesting that more cohesive storytelling could have elevated the material substantially.
Moreover, when adapting a musical to film, the opportunity arises to refine and reshape the narrative. Many successful adaptations, like “West Side Story,” streamline the story to eliminate weak elements. Here, however, “Wicked for Good” remains burdened by its own structure. By deciding to split the content into two lengthy films, significant opportunities to condense the story and make necessary adjustments were lost. This leaves the second film feeling too lengthy and saturated with material that fails to resonate or move the plot forward.
Despite these challenges, the film did not entirely fall flat. Audiences can find moments of brilliance through strong performances. Ariana Grande, for instance, shines with her role, bringing charisma and depth that make her character engaging. However, while her dramatic prowess steals the show, the film’s musical numbers exhibit a noticeable disparity. The emotional highpoints do not compare favorably to the memorable tunes found in the first installment, with only the final number hitting the mark in terms of musical satisfaction.
In conclusion, while “Wicked for Good” provides entertainment value, it also highlights the pitfalls of inadequate adaptation strategies. If the filmmakers had been bold enough to rework the foundation laid by the original musical, they could have captured the magic more effectively. Ultimately, one might find themselves leaving the theater thinking about what could have been rather than what was—a sentiment that tinges this experience with hints of disappointment. However, despite the unresolved narrative confusion, it’s worth remembering that there are valuable lessons that emerge from even imperfect productions. After all, isn’t growth built upon the foundations of missteps?
