Life Upon the “Wicked” Stage
by Larry O'ConnorWicked, the smash international stage hit, is a phenomenon and triumph of luck, pluck and virtue for it’s primary creator: composer/lyricist Stephen Schwartz. Schwartz made a revolutionary cultural impact on American Theatre with his 1971 Off-Broadway hit Godspell. He followed quickly with his Broadway debut Pippin which was known primarily for the over-powering staging and choreography of Bob Fosse, but over the years, his score has gained new-found respect. A revival of Pippin debuts this week at Los Angeles’ Mark Taper Forum. Then came his next musical The Magic Show with 70’s magician Doug Henning and with those three hits running simultaneously it seemed Stephen Schwartz was on track to be the next great American Composer.
But, even though he continued to write quality work, including scores for animated features like Prince of Egypt and lyrics for Pocahontas and Hunchback of Notre Dame, his Broadway bona fides faded away in memory as a relic of the 70’s. Those inside the industry know that Schwartz continued to be active and involved in the industry and tirelessly encouraged the development of new writers and new musicals through his work with ASCAP. He traveled the country and selflessly helped young composers with their dreams. He is a true hero of the American Theatre and you have to really search far and wide to find anyone who would say anything bad about him. Stephen Schwartz is a “mensch” and he deserves the success he is now enjoying with the mega-hit that is Wicked.
As a piece of theatrical entertainment and as an introduction to the world of musical theatre for a pre-teen girl Wicked is fantastic. But, make no mistake, Wicked is a political story and carries strong political messages and it is frustrating for a lover of musical theatre to have to sit through morality tales that take me out of the fantasy world on stage and force me to reflexively defend my own beliefs in my head while watching the play. But, that’s what I found myself doing.
My previous posts on Rent and Andrew Lloyd Webber have elicited debates about the artistic worth of the plays in question and although I never intended “Stage Right” to be any kind of critical or artistic analyst, I now feel compelled to give my professional opinions on pieces that I’m discussing as well as their political and cultural ramifications.
I think it’s instructive to look at some of the reasons why Wicked is so successful musically. In any musical, the music is what drives the success of a piece and this is certainly true in the case of Wicked. Ironically, this show is probably the most derivative of an Andrew Lloyd Webber or “London Spectacle Musical” like Les Mis or Miss Saigon, than anything Schwartz had written to date. Do you ever wonder why, when you see a show like Evita, all of the songs seem so “hummable” and melodic… like you’ve already heard them? Well, you have! You hear “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina” about five times during the 1st act before you hear the actual song at the top of the second act. Wicked is Schwartz’ first show to use motifs in such a broad way, and it seems to have worked out well! For further explanation of Stephen Schwartz’ use of motifs, read this.
I don’t think it’s a spoiler to loosely describe the plot in this way: Wicked takes a different look at the inhabitants of Oz directly before and during Dorothy’s famous arrival and exodus journey. The plot focuses on the relationship between Galinda (later called Glinda, the Good) and Elphaba, the green skinned girl with amazing sorcery powers. Although the two girls loathe each other in the beginning of the play, they eventually become best friends despite their differences. Throw in a love triangle and a struggle for power in the Emerald City and you’ve got a nice short outline of the show. But, make no mistake, the audience must root for the “Wicked Witch of the West” or the show will not work on any emotional level.
Because of the heavy-handed political message, Wicked tends to fall apart in the second act. The first act is primarily about the development of the two characters, Glinda and Elphaba and how they develop and grow as individuals and how their friendship grows despite the peer-pressure and stereotypes people are trying to hold them to. But, the second act is all about Elphaba’s political fight against the establishment and Glinda’s conformity with the status quo. They go to great pains to twist the “Wicked Witch’s” actions into justifiable reactions to her being grossly mis-understood. Because it’s not a very easy feat, it’s no surprise that the second act comes across as contrived and emotionally lacking.
One other major criticism: This show has no strong, likable or believable male characters. All of the men are rather despicable or shallow, and the one man who actually grows as a human being only does so as a result of siding with Elphaba. Apparently in the world of Wicked, you’re either with Elphaba or against her.
To take L. Frank Baum’s classic tale of good and evil and turn it sideways and beg the audience to take a different perspective on the characters and see that the green chick was only acting out as a result of those who had wronged her is one thing. But the additional levels of political commentary on the Wizard’s regime and his totalitarian tendencies is something else. The Gregory Maguire novel which the musical is based on is actually much more strident and political and, frankly, disturbing, and the creators of the show have done a great job in hacking a lot of the ugliness of the novel out. But, in Schwartz’ own words:
I would argue that the show is still basically political in its content.
Among the specifics that changed: Oz in the book is essentially a totalitarian state, and the Wizard rules by fear, aided by his secret police force. In the show, the Wizard is more manipulative, pretending to be doing things for the good of Oz and to be subjugating the Animals for the greater good, but it becomes clear through the course of the evening that he is doing these things only to remain in power, and that his scapegoating of the Animals (pun intended) is because “one sure way to bring people together is to give them a really good enemy”. In fact, it may be argued that the Wizard in Gregory’s book is somewhat like Hitler, whereas the Wizard in the show has resemblances to George W. Bush and other American politicians. This doesn’t make the show less political; it merely makes it different in its political targets.
Oh, well that makes me feel better… instead of going after a Hitler character like they do in the novel, we’ve made the villain look more like George W. Bush and other American politicians. Enjoy the show, America, that’ll be $100 please!!!!
An element of the show is the oppression of Animals as second class citizens in Oz. Animals spelled with a capital “A” can speak and dress like humans distinguishing them from animals with a lower case “a”. The Wizard has set up various laws restricting the rights of the Animals so as to better consolidate his power because, (from the show): “one sure way to bring people together is to give them a really good enemy”. And, as Schwartz says:
Oz in the show is still a place where one “race”, the Animals, is being systematically deprived of its rights; the Animal story in the show still has strong elements of Jews in Nazi Germany or minority races in the United States.
Yeah, same difference.
In reading about the adaptation of the book to the musical you will find that one very challenging aspect was how to incorporate the sub-plot of the Animal opression which is very strong in the novel. It seems that they couldn’t escape this aspect of the story because it acts as the main motivation for Elphaba to do the things she does which then get characterized as “Wicked”. And, there-in lies the trouble with today’s musical theatre story-telling. A witch can’t just be a witch. Bad can’t just be bad. The enemy can’t just be the enemy. We MUST take a walk a mile in their shoes to understand their feelings… we have to understand the rage of the rioters in Los Angeles, we have to realize that Osama Bin Laden built daycare facilities and hospitals in Afghanistan. In other words, we have to be a leftist!
Unlike Les Miserables, where authority is questioned but true justice and compassion is measured by actions and loyalty and adherence to a universal code of ethics, Wicked is drawn in the gray shades of moral ambiguity and relativism. I long for the shows where good guys are good guys and bad guys are bad guys and we get to root for the right side. And, the biggest problem with Wicked is that the forced political references to George W. Bush’s America are so clumsy and jarring that they completely undo the fantasy world that the actors and designers have worked so hard to create. Any subtle allegory that was intended by the writers is completely undermined when they throw around terms like “regime change” in a show so rooted in fantasy and imagination. It is jarring to the audience, a majority of whom will reflexively be annoyed and defensive upon hearing the show’s villains equated with a man they voted for.
I like Wicked. I enjoyed it. I took my girls to see it. I’d see it again, but only because I can check my politics at the door and just appreciate it on a very surface level. But please, oh please… What would Godspell have been like if we had to understand Judas’ point of view?
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
19 Comments
Thanks for this. I never saw the stage version, but I have the soundtrack, and I do enjoy (most) of the songs. “Defying Gravity” is a great power song. But I have read the novel, and I felt much the same way you did, plus a little nausea. The Animal/animal rights’ aspect was so blatant and in-your-face, there were no really likable or relatable characters…it was so obviously written for the purpose of relaying a message, not entertaining through fiction. There’s even a study/discussion guide in the back of the book! It’s a shame such good music has to be tainted by such lame characters and plot lines.
My wife and daughter dragged myself and my son to see Wicked with my liberal sister in law and her boyfriend while we were visiting in Chicago. I had absolutely no idea what it was about, but I prepared myself ahead of time to be bombarded with liberal relativisms and I wasn’t disappointed. You are 100% right about the “jarring” dialogue in the second act. I remember scoffing three times at phrases they spewed, knowing their true meaning. Afterward, while my wife ran to the restroom, I was standing there with my daughter and my sister in law when my daughter asked me if I liked it. I told her it was a really good idea that got way too sidetracked. She asked what I meant and I told her that George Bush isn’t trying to take away the rights of people in America and sometimes evil is just evil, kind of the anti-thesis of the original story. I’ll never forget my sister-in-law turning away from our discussion to pretend she didn’t hear it. Sometimes you have to do remove the reprogramming right away.
Congratulations on your compartmentalization skills, but I no longer find it possible to “check my politics at the door.” It is all of a piece to me now; the constant affronts to my intelligence and moral sensibility from the liberal artistic culture can no longer be parsed, or meliorated by “talent” or style or production value.
I was given tickets as a gift a few years ago and found the play even more pointedly political and the George Bush allusions clumsier than you did. If the play is a triumph at anything it is projection. The world they imagine and the oafish fascism they impute to Bush is their own; it is their view of themselves, and thus the story they’ve chosen to front their self-loathing allegory (isn’t Wizard of Oz kind of our ultimate collective pop cultural fantasy/nightmare) is perfect.
The music was catchy at times but overall flabby and formless — not a triumph. I left depressed.
I saw the show a few years ago and loved it – it was better than Cats! I don’t remember hearing the ‘regime change’ line, and didn’t find anything pointedly anti-Bush in the totalitarian Wizard.
I, too, am unable to check my politics at the door. But the question I keep asking in return when someone asks me why I can’t, is “Why should I?” Here’s the thing, I’ve written something, a fictional novel (unpublished), and I now realize the work put into each word, each syllable, each theme, each piece of subtext. It’s a deliberate statement and it’s there to make a point. To ignore it would be to ignore, potentially, an artist’s whole reason for the piece, something that kind of defeats the purpose of art. And then if I can’t ignore it, then what do I do when someone asks me what I think of it? I judge it by the merits of its meaning. What else is there to judge it by? When BDS crops up, I take note and judge it on its merits, which recently, has been very few.
Addendum: I wish I had this when I wrote the original post… from the New York Times, June 29, 2003: “In ”Wicked,” when Dorothy’s house falls on Elphaba’s glittery-shoed sister, the Wicked Witch of the East, Glinda calls it ”a regime change” — and it is hard not to think of our own life and times. It is hard not to wonder if the witch, a difficult figure transformed by difficult times, isn’t precisely what our stage needs. And perhaps, the show suggests, ”wicked” is what the W stands for. “
Thanks for this clear-headed commentary on “Wicked”. Your bolded statement in the 3rd paragraph encapsulates exactly what I felt when I saw the show, and I went completely unprepared for the political and social propoganda I experienced. The term “regime change” elicited the expected “knowing” chuckles from audience members who wanted to make certain others near them would be sure they got it without actually looking around the theatre to catch the eyes. The show contained a lot of uncomplicated and cleverless referential humor that causes one to chuckle more at the memory of something else or the simplistic upending of a known quantity, in the same way “Avenue Q” required a familiarity with “Sesame Street” to appear funnier than it actually was. An image of Mickey Mouse flipping the bird is slightly, sophomorically humorous in a tee-hee manner only because the real MM would never do so. It’s not even satire. It’s humor that’s never graduated from junior high. I found “Wicked” to be an unveiled swipe at the popular (and toom easily accepted) characterization of caucasians as priggish and uptight, and colored/minority people as cool and hip. Glinda was a dumb blonde, a seemingly innocuous stereotype in and of itself, yet specious when utilized as a representation of whites specifically and America in general. Elphaba was portrayed as a victim, justifying her later turn to wickedness. Why, what other choice did she possibly have when faced with such horrible circumstances but to become wicked? It’s a loud, colorful, energetic excuse for bad behavior, delivered up with popular imagery, a fantastic set and gorgeous staging. It’s a stage-managed microcosm of the power-to-the-victims mentality that has rooted in our society and bludgens critics with the threat of name-calling: “You didn’t like it? What are you? Racist/mean-spririted/uncaring/judgemental/unsympathetic/etc.?” Elphaba does have a choice, but instead of the yellow brick road, she selected the easier and sometimes more seductive highway to hell, much as “Wicked” chose the less challenging pathway of mockery and rote emotionalism.
Stage Right–I’d argue strongly that Jesus Christ Superstar is Godspell from Judas’ point of view. (remember, ALW gives us no miracles: Judas is exasperated with Jesus) Loved Wicked, even though I thought the messages were a bit clunky (but was never a Bush fan so they didn’t bother me). Great comments, Stage Right, keep posting! Young girls respond to the show because a lot of us feel as out of place as a green girl. (And Fyero is no deeper or shallower a character than a Disney Prince. Unlike most of them, at least he has a name!) I thought the book was terrible and they improved it greatly for the stage. Re: the music/lyrics–definitely more of the ALW school, and they really only worked for me in the context of the show. Except for “Defying Gravity,” I don’t think any will become any sort of standard. Also, side question: wasn’t the issue of speaking animals and their rights a large part of the Narnia books, in which the heroes defended their rights as they were taken away by the evil ruler?
“Also, side question: wasn’t the issue of speaking animals and their rights a large part of the Narnia books, in which the heroes defended their rights as they were taken away by the evil ruler?”
In no way the same. The tenor of the Animal rights in the novel (I can’t speak to the stage version) dealt with the area of bestiality, among other issues like employment and the ability to speak in public period. There’s a huge difference between that and the evil queen in Narnia wanting to enslave all the animals in Narnia when there are only animals in Narnia.
As a comparison case to the issue of book-to-stage adaptation, there is Phantom. I have read Phantom (the English translation, of course, since it was originally a French novel.) And the ALW version is pretty much a completely different animal. In the novel, the Phantom is too evil to be sympathetic, Raul is to effeminate to be a believable hero, and Christine too self-absorbed to be an appealing heroine. ALW took the guts of the plot, changed the personalities of the main characters and made them more palatable, streamlined the timeline and then added some great music. And the stage version is still a hit 20+ years later.
I had similar hopes for Wicked. Apparently, I will be let down. But I still plan on seeing it in the summer when it comes to a nearby city, just so I have the opportunity to sing along in the audience
What would Godspell have been like if we had to understand Judas’ point of view?
Jesus Christ Superstar
Am going to NYC next month with a friend who’s never been there before, and this is the only show she really wanted to see; we have our tickets, so I will finally get to see what all the fuss is about. I read the book back when I was a pre-teen, during the Clinton years, so I don’t really connect the totalitarianism in the story with the Bush years; guess will have to just watch it and see. At the time, I liked the fractured fairytale-ness of it all (I remember reading an article in Newsweek or Time once from the father of a new preteen about Shrek being the impetus for the resurgence in fractures fairytales, and just rolled my eyes; others did it before Shrek, self-absorbed dad, and much better too. But I digress.) I like these kinds of retellings, I just felt that there were things thrown into the novel that detracted from the plot and message; again, will see how the musical does.
It makes me wonder what Gregory Maguire thinks of his message being reconfigured like this for a different political era. I know that when V for Vendetta’s politics skewed away from the original Thatcher-esque regime that Alan Moore imagined, he washed his hands of the project, and Ray Bradbury was always upset that his message in Fahrenheit 451 about the dumbing down of the masses got reinterpreted as government censorship. But I have a feeling that if Maguire is a major liberal and/or hates Bush, he might not mind so much.
My sister is in costumes, and has told me that her dream is to one day have her own Wicked-type show. Meaning, that the royalties she would get for designing the costumes for a successful, long-running Broadway show would set her up for life to pursue the things she wants to do, allow her to only take on the theatre projects she feels passionate about, etc. (You get a cut of the money every night the show runs, including when the show travels around the country. When you hit it big, it is big. But when you don’t. . . ) She also felt that the costumes in the show, while good, weren’t great; I think she felt that the concepts for them relied far too much on the MGM movie and could have been explored in greater detail. Anyone agree or disagree?
Speaking of traveling. . . Wicked is coming to SLC and was a very big deal; the show sold out almost instantly. But even for the nosebleed seats, tickets were over $200! I am seeing it on Broadway for about $100 less a ticket. Is there an actual reason for charging such a high price for a traveling show, other than demand? When similar shows (Spamalot, Phantom, etc.) played here we paid about $80, so I feel like charging over $200 for a similar show is highway robbery. Anyone in the industry know?
One last thing; sorry this is so long! My mom is reading Wicked in her book club (pretty sure that is why there are reader notes in the back of the book now, for this specific purpose), and she is surprised at how racy and adult it is; it’s actually very cute, my mother being so shocked. How much did they tame it down for the musical? And has there been a problem reconciling the adultness of the book for kids who may want to read it after loving the musical?
Really that’s all. And again, love the theatre talk at BH!
Mr. Stage Right, I have to respectfully disagree with your Stephen Schwartz love. I have no doubt he’s a nice guy who has done a lot of great things for up-and-coming composers and lyricists, but his scores are just terrible. His music has no subtlety (Wicked being the greatest example of this – how many power ballads does one show need?) and his lyrics range from pedestrian to abysmal (my favorite example is from Pocahontas – “You think you own whatever land you land on”). The only reason Godspell and Pippin get revived so often is because they’re easy to stage and have “pop” scores. We’re not going to see a revival of The Magic Show or The Baker’s Wife anytime soon.
As for Wicked, the Maguire book was too weak to support a show by itself, so Schwartz and company took the easy way out. For the teenage girl demographic they played up Elphaba as the outcast, wanting first to fit in and then later to destroy the society that rejected her, and for the theatre snobs they beat the W = Wizard parallel into the ground. Unfortunately it worked like a charm.
Haven’t seen the show, but read the book and had the same objects you do. I was hoping that the play would have been changed enough to allow me to see it, because the concept is a home run. Alas, your review put the kabosh on that – so thanks for saving me a tedious evening.
Do you ever wonder why, when you see a show like Evita, all of the songs seem so “hummable” and melodic… like you’ve already heard them? Well, you have! You hear “Don’t Cry For Me Argentina” about five times during the 1st act before you hear the actual song at the top of the second act.
Hence, the reason Stephen Sondheim tries to avoid reprises that don’t advance the plot.
Hmmm… take another look at Merrily We Roll Along “How did you get there from here, Mr. Shephard??” 700 times….
Damn, I’m spending so much time defending ALW here that I’m coming across anti-Sondheim! I LOVE SONDHEIM! I better go listen to Sunday in the Park while I drift off to sleep… -SR
Poor old L. Frank Baum must be spinning in his grave to see his beautiful, witty, humorous OZ fantasy transformed into a dreary, politcally correct morality tale, and all sorts of horrible things ascribed to his characters. The wizard a dictator? Glenda supporting the establishment? the wicked witch a brave rebel and an oppressed, colorful person of color? (In the original book, the Denslow illustrations depict her as not green, and, in fact, looking something like a pirate. And she’s definitely bad.)
Skip the play, skip the new books (wish the author would come up with his own material, not crib off some other writer), go back to the original OZ, created by Baum.
Nightfly,
I’m pretty sure that’s a myth about Baum writing OZ as a metaphor for the gold standard and progressive politics. Can’t find anything about it on Snopes, but I remember hearing that a teacher somewhere used the Wizard of Oz and a way to describe the progressive era, and some how that morphed into “Baum wrote an allegory.”
Don’t have any evidence either way, but of the two, I’m more inclined to believe that the Wizard of Oz is just a fantasy story.
No Zsuzsa; I distinctly remember having the evil task in my 7th grade history class of writing a paper on what everything in the Wizard of Oz actually meant: yellow brick road, silver shoes, munchkinland, etc. It was horrible, especially since I felt like dissecting all the fun out of a great story was a criminal act. And this was before the days of the internets, so was a monumental chore. I’ve always been good at history and it was one of my fave subjects, but am pretty sure I got a C on that blasted paper. But we can talk about how the educational system destroys learning for children another day. =)
I’m with Zsuzsa–Liz L., ya got taken by your teacher. And TalkinKamel, I think Baum would love Wicked–he wrote his books as fantasy aimed at girls; the musical is that. And he approved of others playing in his sandbox–after his slew of Oz books he allowed others to write more, and he happily saw Oz adapted to the stage and screen during his lifetime. I think he’d smile, wink, and count his money.
Yes, I feel the same way. As an aspiring costume designer and theatre-lover (it's correct either way, one spelling has its roots in german and one in french) I'll just have to bite the bullet and enjoy the other aspects of it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.