Sunday, November 22, 2009
Wicked
While in San Francisco I had the chance to see "Wicked" playing at the Orpheum. I came in with an advantage in that I hadn't read the book by Gregory Maguire called "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West". I could enjoy the play on its own strengths rather than concluding "The play is much better/much worse than the book".
The play is a revision of L. Frank Baum's "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". The play starts sometime after the Wicked Witch's death by a deadly pail of water wielded by Dorothy Gale (formerly of Kansas). The Good Witch Glinda arrives in the middle of the celebration and Glinda confirms that yes, the Wicked Witch is dead and the Lollipop Guild can now come out of hiding. (/joke) As Glinda is a figure of renown, everyone wants the chance to ask her questions and someone asks what she knows about the Wicked Witch. Glinda gives a non-committal answer to this question, trying to pretend that she never knew her but at the same time, trying to spark sympathy at such level for the green-skinned outcast.
The rest of the play for the most part is Glinda's reminiscences. As it turned out, Glinda - then known as Galinda (emphasis on the "uh") - was a spoiled princess of a girl going to Shiz University and hoping to major in magic - the only practitioner of the art is Madame Morrible and so Galinda is in full Quinn Morgendorffer mode, trying to prove that she's perfect and popular. Like Quinn, everyone falls in love with Galinda when they lay eyes on her.
However, there is another female in the running for Most Important Girl at Shiz. This girl is Nessarose, the daugther of the governor of Munchkinland. Nessarose is confined to a wheelchair and Nessarose's caretaker is her green-skinned older sister Elphaba, playing the Daria role in our drama. We learn that Elphaba's mother was wined and dined by a mysterious stranger with a bottle of green liquor and the woman's first child turned out a green outcast. When it was time for Nessarose to be born, her paranoid father told the doctors to hurry the birth and Nessarose ended up crippled. Elphaba's (de jure) father wants nothing to do with Elphaba, and Elphaba's role at Shiz is to strictly be caretaker to her younger sister.
Madame Morrible, probably wanting to get in good with the Munchkin governor, decides that she will take care of Nessarose's toiletry needs. This leaves Elphaba without a place, and by accident, Galinda inadvertantly offers Elphaba a place in her private suite of rooms at Shiz. The two - spoiled preppy and bitter cynic - are now stuck together as roommates.
This is the time of The Wizard, who is the High Personage of Oz. Everyone wants to see the Wizard, even Elphaba. From here on out, the story of each of the characters is filled out through song. The story of the rivalry, and eventual friendship, between Galinda and Elphaba. The man each fell in love with and whom only one could have. The reason why Elphaba turned against the Wizard. How Nessarose became the Wicked Witch of the East, and why Elphaba wanted those damned ruby (formerly silver) slippers.
The songs were interesting, although I think the only song that's going to be sung in about 20 years from now is "Popular". The clip below has Kristin Chenowith as Galinda and Idina Menzel as Elphaba, the actors that popularized the roles on Broadway.
(Since this is for the Today show, I don't think Menzel is quite into character.)
My two conclusions about the play:
1) "Wicked" really turns on the waterworks. Almost every song is one of these heart-wrenching cries - Galinda is left to carry all of the upbeat moments and comedy, but the play is really about Elphaba.
2) The play reminds me strongly of "Santa Claus is Comin' To Town", which tries to fill up the back story of Santa Claus. This forces a comparison between both stories, and sadly enough, "Santa Claus is Comin' To Town" does a better job of it than "Wicked".
Compare the legend of Santa Claus with "The Wizard of Oz". Santa Claus's story is a little vague, and you can fill it up however you want to, with magic explaining all of the difficult parts. If you watch the Rankin-Bass animation, it does a pretty good job even though the music doesn't match up to a Broadway production. "The Wizard of Oz" on the other hand, is oddly specific for a two-hour movie, probably because its source was a book by L. Frank Baum, who expanded the initial story into an entire series of books. Adapting it to a Broadway play is going to force decisions - you're adding in all of this extra information about Elphaba, but what gets cut?
Apparently, nothing. The problem with "Wicked" is that "Wicked" tries to explain everything, and provide a connection for everything. Here's why Elphaba wears that pointy hat! Here's where that horrible tornado came from that dragged Dorothy into the Oz dimension! Here's the origin of the Winged Monkeys! After a while, it seems like all of this information is shoe-horned in to the narrative.
But it gets worse. The play wants to make an accounting of everyone who was in the movie/book. (Except for Dorothy and Toto, who simply "dropped in".) Here's who would become the Scarecrow! Here's how the Cowardly Lion got so cowardly! While you're watching the spectacle and listening to poor Elphaba pour her little green heart out in song, every time something in the play is nailed - without subtlety - to the books/movies, you just groan. For goodness sake, why do you have to "explain" the Tin Woodsman or the Cowardly Lion? There's enough freakish shit going on in Oz already - just read some of those other L. Frank Baum books. For goodness sake, why does everything have to be explained?
Another problem with the play is the character of Fiyero. It probably had to do with the actor playing him than the character itself. He simply isn't very compelling, and I don't see why either Galinda or Elphaba is attracted to him.
Then again, there's the other part of the play which might explain the above. Galinda and Elphaba become close friends, and they're all pouring their feelings out so much that there is a massive amount of hoYAY in this play, probably enough to power a dwarf star. Probably because Fiyero is such a failure as a character, you realize that if there's going to be any honest expression of emotion it's going to be between Galinda and Elphaba. Galinda and Elphaba - even on stage - are sharing little intimate moments all the time. (Look up the word "Gelphie" on the internet. There's an entire subculture devoted to Galinda/Elphaba slashing.)
As a side comment, it also shows why the creation of Tom Sloane wasn't enough to quench all the Daria/Jane slash. Tom just isn't compelling enough of a character for someone to say, "Oh, I know why Daria (or Jane) would be so attracted to him.)
Anyway, if you get the chance to watch the play, take it - just don't play a lot of money for it. As for the book, I've encountered it a few times at the bookstore. It seems to be a tough slog of a read, nothing there in a thirty-second flip-through to grab your attention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The reason that Wicked tries to explain everything is that it is what I call "populist fantasy" -- a story operating within the fantasy genre that tries to appeal to a mainstream audience. The problem with that is that populist fantasy writers usually don't trust their readers to be familiar with the usual rules of fantasy, or be able to suspend their disbelief to accept the magical elements; hence their drive to explain everything, not thinking the reader capable of connecting the dots themselves. (That is, when they don't just throw the rules out altogether because they don't think their audience will know the difference - e.g. Twilight.)
The other big problem with much of populist fantasy is also very evident with Wicked. As you pointed out, it's not really a fantasy story; it's a high-school drama with fantasy trappings. In the same way that Twilight is really just another romance novel, there is nothing inherent to the story of Wicked that requires a fantasy setting. The fantasy elements are window dressing, there only because the author wanted to ride the coat-tails of a previous work. Removing the fantasy setting wouldn't inherently change the nature of the story, as there is nothing in the story which requires it to function. And one of the first things I've ever been told in any sci-fi or fantasy workshop I've ever attended is "If your story doesn't have to be sci-fi or fantasy, don't write it as one".
Or maybe this is all nonsense, and I'm just a fantasy snob who doesn't like to see a work in his favorite genre become popular in the mainstream.
Post a Comment