May 23, 2004

And Not In A Good Way

So last night, on my fifth attempt (Thanks for the good karma, Matt!), I finally got into Wicked, the big splashy new musical at the Gershwin Theatre. Mine was the very last card pulled and I was stunned. It was to be a harbinger of things to come.

And how ironic is it that I was saw musicals in both of Broadway's huge, soul-less barns in the same day? I've come to realize that it may not be the buildings themselves, both of which do have their odd charms, but rather that it takes an especially innovative director to make them work, not unlike the Gershwin's neighbour, the Circle in the Square Theatre. You can't just throw up any piece with any director in one of these places.

Back to Wicked, though...

I purposely avoided the press on this show as much as possible, so that I'd go into it as unbiased as possible. Nor have I listened to the cast recording. Until last night, I was Wicked ignorant, as they might say in Boston.

Oh, boy. The show turned out to be poorly written and ineptly directed, and the evening was salvaged (barely) by some terrific performances from a game cast.

Again, I was stunned. I spent much time in this space awhile back praising Joe Mantello's direction of the Assassins revival at Studio 54. Wicked seems to be directed only for those audience members sitting in the center of the auditorium, a huge mistake since the box office charges money for the seats of the sides as well. In just about every scene, the leads at center stage are partially obscured by members of the ensemble just populating the stage and/or set pieces that have rolled out for the occasion. Mantello should have brought more of the action downstage or made sure that the ensemble stayed more upstage. This tendency of Mantello's to ignore the sides of the auditorium is something that I hadn't noticed before in his work, but which was one of my few criticisms of his Assassins direction.

But Mantello isn't the prime offender here. Wicked's writing, both book and score, by Winnie Holzman and Stephen Schwartz, is probably as poor as any major musical I've seen. And, yes, I've seen Aida. There isn't really a single memorable song in the score. And the book has no idea what it wants to be.

When you are creating a musical that is tangentially connected to a classic movie that everyone has seen many many times that creates its own visual world and vocabulary, you either embrace that pre-established world with absolute fidelity or you go in a separate direction and create your own world in which to tell your story.

Wicked does neither. Or rather, it tries to do both. At one point it sort of becomes a neo-Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead for the Wizard of Oz set. We see scenes that are supposed to be going on parallel to those in the film, but what we see on the stage contradicts what is seen in the film or vice versa. The character of the Wizard is alternately presented as the country gentleman of the film and a power-mad fascist whose despotic reign in Oz resembles nothing less than the Third Reich.

And some of the events of the film are presented out of sequence, which struck me as the oddest thing of all.

There are even moments when the show morphs ever so briefly into other shows. There's an Aida moment, an Evita moment, and a whole Beauty and the Beast song.

Anyway, Wicked is based on a novel by Gregory Maguire, which purports to tell the backstory of the Wicked Witch of the West and how she came to be wicked and despised. Along we way, we discover that Elphaba (the Wicked Witch's actual name) was the college roommate of Glinda, the future Good Witch of the North, and faced much derision from classmates due to her green skin. Also, in the class are Nessa Rose, Elphaba's crippled sister, the future Wicked Witch of the East, Fiyero, the class golden boy who only has eyes for Glinda, and Boq, another Glinda acolyte who is loved by Nessa Rose.

Through the course of the show, we watch as Elphaba turns from outcast student to political activist to domestic terrorist. And we're asked to root for her all the way, another weird viewpoint from a weird show. This aspect of the musical is almost presented as an a rationale for terrorism.

Idina Menzel is Elphaba and she brilliantly executes the strange journey her character takes over the course of the show. Strangely enough for such a strong belter in such a belty role in a ballad-heavy show like this, Menzel is strongest in Elphaba's quieter moments. As odd as it does sound, Menzel does make the audience root for her domestic terrorist character and that is quite a feat in 21st Century New York.

The role of Glinda has been tailored to Broadway golden girl Kristin Chenoweth and it's a mixed bag. The material isn't all that challenging for her, but she's giving it her all and nearly succeeds in stealing the show away from Menzel. The most interesting part of her performance was that Chenoweth hasn't had an opportunity to play such a right bitch since A New Brain's Nancy D., The Thin Nurse, and Steel Pier's Precious McGuire. And she's perfect for it. Her Glinda isn't sweet or even especially nice, and thank goodness for that. She's the campus beauty who willingly becomes a political tool of the corrupt right wing administration of the Wizard. Chenoweth is a trouper, but I no longer question her "early" departure from the show in July. I'm sure she wants to use her currency from this success to get herself a more challenging role in a better show.

The other cast members are equally successful at working within the confines of their script. Joel Grey as the Wizard, Carole Shelley as the mysterious Madame Morrible, and especially Norbert Leo Butz as golden boy Fiyero all work hard to fill in the dots with likability that haven't been filled in by the writing.

And the set design by Eugene Lee is as weird and unexplained as the rest of the show. The motif is giant interlocking gears and I have no idea why. There are no references to anything like this in the show. There is a huge moving metal dragon atop the proscenium for reasons known only to the production staff; there are no dragons, metal or otherwise, mentioned in the show.

The choreographer is Wayne Cilento who has provided the same generic steps here as he did for the Elton John/Tim Rice Aida. Eh.

The costumes by Susan Hilferty are lovely and go the furthest toward creating the world of the show. I give the ensemble a lot of credit for keeping the complicated getups together through all their entrances, exits, and gyrations on stage.

Have I made it clear how disappointed I was by this show? I can't remember wanting to like a show so much and being so let down. But I was distinctly in the minority...the audience was eating the show up and cheering every bit of it. Okay...whatever...

So, those of you who love this show, please leave me comments below and tell me why.

Posted by Jere at May 23, 2004 09:59 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Jere -- I can shed some light on the sets and mechanical dragon... they're vestiges of the more complex plot of the original book by Maguire; i.e. there was a giant dragon-shaped clock that played an integral part in Elphaba's birth. But since they have nothing to do with Winnie Holzman's adaptation, it really should have been cut.

I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the show more. I remember it as one of the more brainlessly enjoyable nights I've spent in the theatre since moving to NY. And though I too didn't care for the score at the time, I've since become a huge fan thanks to the recording. Eh, different tastes.

Posted by: Matt at May 24, 2004 12:54 AM

i hope you now see why I hated the show on first listen and read with the script and cd. Simply awful. No amount of directing and design can fix a bad show.

Posted by: jon collins at May 24, 2004 09:50 AM

So, you didn't like it? ;)

Posted by: David Cerda at May 24, 2004 05:46 PM

I will not sign my name, but I will say -- and proudly, albeit anonymously -- that I thought WICKED was actually a lot of fun.

It shouldn't be the talk of the town, perhaps, but it's still well-performed and entertaining.

And, given the state of Broadway nowadays, I don't think we should look down on something that happens to be making money and entertaining a lot of people -- even if some of those people are Bridge-and-Tunneling it to the matinees hoping for a glimpse of Kristen C.

So, sign me, a WICKED fan (who still isn't going to broadcast his name on your site)

Posted by: No chance at May 24, 2004 11:54 PM

No Chance, we seem to agree that the show is well performed. I don't dispute that, which I stated rather clearly. And I certainly do not look down on any show just because it's making money or attracting the bridge and tunnel crowd.

I just don't understand why. And that is what you don't explain in your comment. Why do you think WICKED is so much fun? I gave many reasons why I thought it was terrible, so help me out here.

If you'd prefer, you are welcome to e-mail me privately and I can then post (or not) a longer missive containing your thoughts.

And, for the record, I'm all for difference of opinion. If I wasn't, I certainly wouldn't have posted a decidedly minority report on this show and solicited opposing viewpoints.

So, don't be afraid to use your real name. It's all the spirit of debate.

Posted by: Jere at May 25, 2004 01:03 AM

Ugh! The time Dragon was mentioned several times! You just weren't listning hard enough, they metion it at the begining.

The songs where wonderful and very entertaining. How could you hate them? You say you hate all this stuff but you're alwayds vague as to why.

The chorus was never over-shadowing the main characters, ever. It was not bad, at all. The writing was funny, and enjoyable. Kristen, Idina, and the rest all did wonderful jobs to. I think you where too busy being nit-picky to pay attention to the plot at all. Seriously, what was a BAD song? Please, tell me why.

Are you telling me you didn't feel a heart tug after the finale song? Glinda left alone to spread the word, Elphaba with Fiyero in exile?


I nearly cried at the end, when glinda sang the ending words to, "Because I knew you".


So tell me WHY is it so bad?

P.S. It shouldn't matter what part Kristen played, as long as she did good.


PEACE OUT!

Hm, I have the a sensation that I'm lost in a sea of scarey critiques.. >>;

Posted by: I'm 11 XD at July 1, 2005 08:39 AM

Okay, I'm 11 XD, I'm going to start referring to you as "Girl," since I'm guessing you are female and under 18.

Girl, first of all, if you want your thoughts and ideas to be taken seriously, spelling and punctuation count. This is probably one of the most important things you can take away from your educational experience. Spell Check is NOT good enough.

Secondly, this post, about which you are commenting, is over a year old. What took you so long, darlin'? I no longer recall a whole list of specifics since it's been so long since I've seen the show. But I will answer some of your points.

I'm not sure what you mean by "a sea of scary critiques." You obviously haven't spent much time on this site. My critiques are neither scary nor overwhelmingly negative. Do a search and see for yourself.

"So tell me WHY it was so bad?" Aside from this statement not being a question, did you not read the post? It's all about why I thought the show was so subpar.

I never said that the ensemble "overshadowed" the leads. What I said was that oftentimes members of the ensemble stand downstage of and physically block the principals from view. And from my seat on auditourium right, second or third row, one seat off the aisle, this was indeed the case.

I felt the score consisted of too many screaming ballads, none of which were particularly memorable. I don't own the cast album, however, and that was a judgement based on a single listen. If you'd like to send me the album, it's on my Amazon Wish List, linked to this site.

Regarding Chenoweth, nowhere do I criticize her performance. But you, obviously, aren't all that familiar with her work. She's played many more challenging roles and been even more terrific. She could have done this one in her sleep. I've seen almost everything she's done here in New York and you're just going to have to trust me on this one.

The ending that you found "heart-tugging," I found completely false and "Hollywood," in the worst sense of the term. And this was even before I read the novel upon which the show is based.

I'll take your word for the dragon stuff, but I didn't hear a single mention of a dragon anywhere in the show.

Here's what you need to do, Girl. Go see AVENUE Q, DIRTY ROTTEN SCOUNDRELS, THE 25TH ANNUAL PUTNAM COUNTY SPELLING BEE, and THE LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA, and read the novel WICKED. Then come back and talk to me about how WICKED is a great musical.

If I get to see the show again, I will certainly report on it. Actually, I'm very interested in doing so. And if you'd like to subsidize this venture, please be in touch.

Also, don't be afraid to leave your name or email address. It's all in the spirit of debate here.

Posted by: Jere at July 1, 2005 06:01 PM

I thought that Wicked was very good. I enjoyed both the story and the songs. Having read the book first, I also enjoyed the departure from the origional story, as this made it easier to follow. I can't imagine why you didn't like it. Perhaps you're just jaded.

Posted by: Kyte at November 27, 2005 04:49 PM

Kyte, did you not read the post or the attached comments. I thought I explained pretty clearly why I didn't like it. Also, I have no idea why you found the novel difficult to follow; Neither I nor anyone I know who's read it has had any trouble comprehending it.

Posted by: Jere at November 27, 2005 09:14 PM
Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)