The ‘Wicked: For Good’ Ending Fails to Meet the Moment | Commentary

“Wicked” has always been burdened with a softball second act. So much so, in fact, that it was a genuine surprise when it was announced that the film adaptation would span two movies, with the first boasting a runtime equivalent to the entire play. Still, director Jon M. Chu made good use of his time in “Wicked,” bringing the more political elements of the book that were broadly absent in the play front and center while also giving more depth to Glinda (Ariana Grande) and Elphaba’s (Cyntia Erivo) story.

The success of the first film and the changes within it led to hope that Chu and screenwriters Stephen Schwartz and Winnie Holzman would deliver a more impactful ending to the story. Unfortunately, “Wicked: For Good” hews far closer to the Broadway musical than Gregory Maguire’s books on which it was based, and is all the worse for it.

The changes made to Act 1 in the first “Wicked” movie elevated the material. But if it’s widely known that Act 2 is the weakest aspect of the stage musical, why spend so much time ensuring that this act is so closely honored?

Gregory Maguire’s book and Holzman and Schwartz’s musical have very few similarities beyond their title characters and the land in which the Ozian spectacle takes place. Maguire’s novel is gritty, political and raw, showcasing the hypocrisy and cruelty of the Wizard’s totalitarian regime and a rebel witch eventually consumed by grief and rage. Holzman and Schwartz’s play is a visual spectacle, packed wall-to-wall with remarkable songs and interesting character work alongside the fluffiest interpretation of Maguire’s work imaginable. I hold space for both, but have always found the play’s ending not just irredeemable but downright irresponsible.

Spoilers for “Wicked” and “Wicked: For Good” follow below.

***

As expected, the novel and the play’s endings are very different. “Wicked: For Good” is almost an exact mirror to the musical, with Elphaba and Fiyero (Jonathan Bailey) skipping off into the proverbial sunset while Glinda stays behind to “nurture” the Oz that the Wizard (Jeff Goldblum) has vacated. Sure, Fiyero’s a scarecrow now, but everyone gets their oh so happy endings. 

The source material features no such joy and, while escapism is critical — especially in moments of history like the one we occupy now — that lack of a Hollywood ending is the point. One that, while not in the musical in any capacity, became more pertinent when the first film explored more of the story’s political themes. 

Maguire’s book “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” has been accused of being a cynical take on L. Frank Baum’s “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz,” but despite its heavier themes, there’s little cynicism to be found in the novel.

Instead, the goal was to look at “evil” through the lens of nature vs. nurture (a theme that is hinted at in the play via the line “are people born wicked, or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?”). Elphaba Thropp was not an evil woman. She was an outcast, loathed for the color of her skin and her “uncleanliness” — Elphaba is, indeed, deathly allergic to water and thus unable to traditionally bathe — who would eventually find herself radicalized by the Wizard and Oz’s cruelty to the animals.

Elphaba’s cause is noble but, by the end, the witch is consumed by loss, grief and rage. Fiyero doesn’t become a scarecrow; he’s murdered. Similarly, Dr. Dillamond only loses his voice in the sense that there is no more air in his lungs to speak. Revenge is ripped away from Elphaba when she tries to confront Madame Morrible, only to find her dead. And then some putz in pigtails murders her sister and makes off with the shoes that were rightfully hers.

Dorothy is then sent by the Wizard to kill Elphie, but instead comes only to apologize for Nessa’s death. Elphaba, consumed by anger, rants at the girl while waving her broom about and accidentally sets herself on fire. Dorothy tries to save her by throwing a bucket of water on her to douse the flames, and the Wicked Witch of the West is no more. The Wizard would flee Oz shortly after, managing to escape just before the coup meant to murder him would take place, leaving Oz in disarray. 

All of the above isn’t relevant because of some loyalty to the source material — though, obviously, I much prefer it to the story of the play — but because Chu’s decision to spend more time on the mistreatment of the animals and the Wizard’s deplorable behavior in the first “Wicked” gave hope that he intended to say something more profound with “Wicked: For Good.” Instead, a liar (the Wizard) was replaced by another liar (Glinda), and, unfortunately, the lie doesn’t become an acceptable one just because the person doing the lying is nice. 

Audiences never would have accepted the complicated grit of the novel’s ending, but surely there was an answer somewhere in between. One that didn’t leave the well-meaning but endlessly self-centered Glinda in charge of all of Oz, or the one who did all the work ostracized for choosing to fight for justice. The meager growth we see from Glinda simply isn’t enough to justify any kind of “feel good” response to the decision. After all, the Wizard insists that he started with good intentions too. 

“Wicked” set up a story that could have been the best of both worlds, making way for Glinda and Elphie’s story to be both messy and fruitful for the Ozians they’ve found themselves charged with. Sure, Elphaba “stole” Glinda’s fiancé, but Glinda also told Morrible to go after Nessarose (Marissa Bode) and ultimately had a hand in the Wicked Witch of the East’s death. There was room for meaningful growth between the characters while also making way for a better future for Oz that didn’t continue to perpetuate the Wizard’s lies.

Even if you remove Elphaba’s fate as a hated outcast, it’s an insult to the audience’s intelligence to expect them to believe that the Ozians’ hate for the animals will simply melt away because a nice witch said so.

The problem here isn’t that Chu and team chose to honor one source over the other. It’s that both films, the play, and the novel all find themselves beholden to “The Wizard of Oz,” which, frankly, feels a bit nonsensical at this point. Mix it up. Make some changes, canon be damned.

Like the play that came before it, the deepest sin of “Wicked: For Good” is its ending. It didn’t have to be this way.

The post The ‘Wicked: For Good’ Ending Fails to Meet the Moment | Commentary appeared first on TheWrap.