Pepperdine University's "Wicked" review

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 1:57pm

http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/ane/2006/2006-09-07-column.htm

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 2:03pm

>> Are people just running out of ideas or are they merely looking for some entertainment that can well, simply entertain?

Her punctuation errors aside, I think I love this reviwer.

[luvliza89]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 2:05pm

I liked and agree with this one:

"People seem to believe that musicals like “Wicked” are the best, but I wonder if they have seen anything but “Wicked” to be so convinced that it really is above anything that anyone has ever seen."

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 2:11pm

ha! I love it. a nearly perfect review. I would have, however, chose some shows with a little more integrity to compare to the drab Wicked. Phantom and Aida are not entirely honorable pieces of musical theatre, although, certainly better then Wicked.

Posted: 9/13/06 at 2:48pm

HA! I can't believe they let her into the theatre dragging that huge ax she came to grind.

It's one thing to dislike Wicked, but to dislike it because it can't compare to AIDA? At first I assumed that she was talking about the OPERA Aida but I actually think she means the Elton John Musical!
And to criticise Wicked because it is un-original? Is the reviewer unaware of the Opera Aida, upon which the musical is based?
Updated On: 9/13/06 at 02:48 PM

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 5:16pm

Or that The Phantom of the Opera is based on a book and to an extent other versions of the story as well?

[Fosse76]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 5:19pm

"The poignant rhythms of “Phantom of the Opera” and the emotional ballads of “Les Miserables” come to mind. Does no one remember the alluring and haunting sounds of “Phantom of the Opera” or the sweet melody of “Think of Me?”"

This paragraph alone is enough to dismiss the reviewer as biased. I wonder if this is a "phan" who is pissed that Phantom is no longer the "it" show (and hasn't been for quite some time).

[MissElphie]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 5:24pm

One of the reasons I like Wicked so much is the fact that it isn't deep, and is just a fun harmless show. I love shows like Les Mis and Phantom, too. But sometimes I just want to sit back and enjoy a show that requires little effort for my brain and just gives me happy feelings. I don't completely see what is wrong with that.

Then again, I thoroughly enjoyed "Snakes on a Plane"...

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 5:34pm

To me, Wicked is just a piece of fun fluff centered around this creative premise of "Let's tell the story from another point of view." That's why I love it. But for anyone who sees it as more than that, that's where you get the misunderstandings of thinking that Wicked is some amazing piece of amazingness.

To reiterate:

Wicked is fluff. For those who think it's anything more, get out of our town.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 6:18pm

>> For those who think it's anything more, get out of our town.

I trust you've told the librettist this? There *are* serious issues underneath all the eye candy: the price of conformity, the marginalization of those who are superficially "different", the ways career politicians will use whatever they can to get and maintain control.

If you consider such things "fluff", then maybe *you* should "get out of our town".

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 7:05pm

It barely touches on those subjects and doesn't even try to really delve deeply into them. It would actually be one of the most respected pieces of the theatre if they tried to delve more deeply into its darkness.

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 7:22pm

Ironically, thanks, ThankstoPhantom. That's what I would say in response.

Wicked definitely has the potential to delve into these issues, but I can only assume that it sacrificed such possibility for making it more family-oriented. Taking out one vulgar word from a movie can shave a movie from PG-13 to PG. I see Wicked as being a possible PG-13 movie that should have stayed that way, or could have been written that way, but instead was written to not dive so deep into issues.

There's a difference between learning about oppression and racism, and learning that "everyone is special in their own way!" It's all in how you look at it.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 7:37pm

But for anyone who sees it as more than that, that's where you get the misunderstandings of thinking that Wicked is some amazing piece of amazingness.

I honestly rarely participate in discussions about something that art has gone through forever - the most popular must the best.
It is just so painful to see statements like these. I think this discourages more crafted pieces for the stage to be produced and developed, and would keep the art form progressing.

If the novel was so well received as a complex and witty tale, why settle for a simple crowd-pleasing adaptation of it?

[zzannahk]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 7:42pm

If the novel was so well received as a complex and witty tale, why settle for a simple crowd-pleasing adaptation of it?

Because generally people are dumb and there is only so much story you can tell and have them "get" in what 2+ hours?

[thevolleyballer]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:25pm

Blaxx, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying, as I don't see what your post refers to. I'm refuting the idea that the most popular is the best. I'm simply saying that Wicked had the potential to be as deep and thought-provoking as the novel (which, frankly, I didn't even mention the novel, so I don't know where you got that). The show, however, is NOT as complex as the novel, and is NOT as deep as the novel, and is NOT as beautifully crafted in terms of issues/Elphaba's loneliness and exile. That's why this show can't be considered deep in my book. It's great fun to watch and enjoy, and it's a fabulous piece of craftsmanship and art, but if someone were to say that this is one of the most poignant, thought-provoking shows on Broadway, then I'd say they were quite wrong.

[broadwaystar2b]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:30pm

It's amazing how much time has passed since Wicked first opened and nearly 3 years later, this board still has the same arguments over it

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:39pm

*yawn* what a cliched, boring review. Does Wicked HAVE to be compared to Les Mis or Phantom? Give me a break and someone get that reviewer off their high horse!

[missyrose87]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:53pm

I like Wicked and I have seen other shows. You can't compare Wicked to Phantom- its like comparing apples and oranges. Just because they are both Broadway shows doesn't mean anything.

[missyrose87]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:53pm

I like Wicked and I have seen other shows. You can't compare Wicked to Phantom- its like comparing apples and oranges. Just because they are both Broadway shows doesn't mean anything.

[Caroline-Q-or-TBoo]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 9:56pm

good review, excepting the fact that Aida is just as drippy and awful as Wicked is

[James885]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 10:05pm

I somewhat agree with the people who said that Wicked is fluff. I've only seen the show once and I think once was enough. I enjoyed the show for what it was - a good show, with roughly 2 & 1/2 hours of entertainment.

That being said, I wish the show had stayed more faithful to Gregory Maguire's novel. I realize that characters and sub-plots had to be cut for the sake of time, but I think that if it had been a little darker like the book, the show could have been better. For instance, the whole story with Elphaba becoming a champion for Animal's rights was barely even addressed in the musical. Some issues were sugar-coated, while others were simply cut.

(SPOILER!!!!)
I also think that if Elphaba had really died in the musical like she did in the book, if could have made it much more poignant and meaningful.

Updated On: 9/13/06 at 10:05 PM

[whatever2]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 10:08pm

> It barely touches on those subjects and doesn't even try to really delve deeply into them.

agree somewhat, though, really -- what musical can dive *deeply* into such complex issues (plural)? Les Miz resonnates globally precisely because it is so exceptional in its thought-provoking treatment of universal themes.

what the reviewer misses -- in addition to the play's actual gloss of these issues themselves -- is that the two main characters had to resolve where they stood on the aforementioned weighty matters in order for the plot to resolve. there could be no finale to wicked if glinda hadnt taken her stand, as it were ... true, some exposition would have been nice, but -- hey! a stand's a stand. and for god's sake ... it's a MUSICAL!

ah, to be young and in college again, where the luxury of time allows one to feign depth of thought.

as for the Phantom comparison: c'mon, that show was bubble gum for the brain. not even ALW's most thoughtful work, and he's not exactly stephen hawking ... it's not the right comparitor at all, IMHO. how about a contrast to evita or even -- shudder -- whistle down the wind? both touched deeper themes, and did a much better job of it, frankly.

[loridunn]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 10:21pm

I agree with Miss Elphie. I love to go to the theatre and have a challenging piece of art to delve into. I love thinking all the way through a show and usually have a great satisfaction by the curtain call. Yet every now and then something light and put together may be just what I'm looking for. Of course, just like Miss Elphie I too saw Snakes on a Plane and I loved it. So I guess to this reviewer my opinion doesn't hold as well.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 10:23pm

Well, see, here's the thing. If you read the script to WICKED, it actually *does* deal with these issues in some limited depth (as someone else pointed out, it *is* a musical, after all), but that treatment gets smothered by a thick layer of eye candy. In some respects, I think that's pretty sly of the director, taking some serious topics and making them palatable enough that you dont even notice them -- and yet you wind up having the emotional response anyway.

I'll admit, I'm not a big fan of the show. I think it's way too out of scale for the material; all of the intimate scenes are lost because they're basically cut adrift in that huge (and somewhat irrelevant) set. Maybe a decade from now, someone will hire Mr. Doyle to come in and do one of his a-m miniaturized versions, and we can see something that might give the material a little more presence.

But to dismiss it as just fluff? I dont think that's warranted, sorry. It's far from the best thing on Broadway, but it handles its issues with style.

[blaxx]

Posted: 9/13/06 at 10:25pm

volleyballer, I was trying to say that if the show is not the things you say it is, there is no reason why they couldn't have been, and celebrating it or accepting for what it ended up being is just sad.
But of course, there is no winning with these arguments.