A perplexing review of Wicked

I’ve just read Brett McCracken’s review of Wicked on The Gospel Coalition Website and I have to admit to being just a little bit confused!  McCracken seems desperate in his review to identify a post/anti-Christian plot.  Now, of course, Wicked reflects a non Christian/post-Christian worldview, that’s unsurprising and yes, that does mean that it is not going to offer true hope. However, the concerns seem to fall in all the wrong places and perhaps will reinforce some of the perceptions held by the very people he has in in his sights.

For the uninitiated, Wicked is a kind of re0imagined prequel to the Wizard of Oz. It works on the premise of “let’s suppose that the perceptions on OZ and as a result by Dorothy were wrong.  Suppose that the Wicked witch of the West was not a wicked witch at all.” This led to a stag play/musical in the West-End and on Broadway and now a two part film.

His opening complaint is that:

One of the most noteworthy theological trends in 21st-century pop culture has been the rehabilitation of the “villain.” From Cruella to Maleficent to the Joker and more, iconic villains are now routinely given spinoff movies and sympathetic backstories that complicate our categories of good and evil.

I wonder how unhelpful that actually is.  Surely as Christians we would want to welcome a move that challenges the cartoon dichotomy we see in our culture between monsters/villains and angels/heroes.  The reality is that wickedness/evil is not limited to a few fearsome creatures out there in the dark but is something that affects all of us because we are fallen. Total Depravity is not about how a few people are monsters but about all of us are dead in our sin so that sin  affects all aspects of our lives, identities and characters.  In that respect, these new stories don’t go far enough in addressing the continuing problem of the human heart. In the stage show at least, Elpheba is presented sympathetically but not without her flaws, yet her own need fo redemption is never addressed.

He goes on:

Meanwhile, Elphaba is a marginalized icon of intersectionality: born with green skin, the daughter of an unknown father, ostracized in childhood, prone to quirky dance moves. It’s no doubt intentional that Elphaba is played in the film by a queer black woman (Erivo). 

I wonder why we end up with the term “intersectionality”, a politically loaded concept here.  I am also concerned at the way in which McCracken moves from reviewing and critiquing the film to speculating about casting.  Now, it is pretty obvious that one of the dynamics in the story is the representation of racial prejudice reflected in Elpheba’s green skin pigmentation and I think she has previously been portrayed by black actresses but this is not a prerequisite.  Surely, Eriso’s background should be as irrelevant to the reviewer as to the caster. I also didn’t know that a proneness to quirky dance moves made me part of a marginalised intersectional community!

The main substance of the critique is that whilst wickedness is not found in Elpheba, it is found in the institutions of the powerful.  Yet, whilst being clear that all have sinned, the bibledoes not hold back in observing wickedness expressed through the powers and empires of this world, they are after all portrayed as beasts in Revelation.

Then there is the question of deity. 

“It’s interesting that the Wizard is a God-proxy in the film’s world (characters exclaim things like “Thank Oz!” and “What in the name of Oz?”). This “deity” turns out to be a manipulative, self-serving, untrustworthy villain; religious mythology is exposed as a convenient means of perpetuating human power.”

But get this, the unmasking of the Wizard happens in the origina story not in it s prequel.  The Wizard turns out to be a mere mortal relying on smoke, mirrors and machines.  If he is a god figure then the challenge is to our idolatry when we put human beings onto that pedestal not an assault on the one true God who certainly does not hide behind a curtain.

A further issue on Oz is the decadence of the people.  McCracken contrast that unfavourably with Elphebah’s moral seriousness which he characterises as humourless and woke.

If Elphaba has a flaw in Wicked, it’s that she cares too much. Unlike many in the film who live decadent, thoughtless lives (“dancing through life” rather than “studying strife”), Elphaba can’t turn a blind eye to injustice. Her “wickedness” emerges out of an earnest passion that begins to consume her. Her character is emblematic of the hyperserious, humorless stereotype of the “woke.” How can one smile and make jokes when the world is so cruel and unjust?

Indeed, vice in the world of Wicked isn’t just embodied by powerful people who actively oppress; it’s also evident in those who don’t care enough that this is happening—the privileged who can eat, drink, and merrily dance while nefarious forces ruin the world. Silence is violence. In Wicked’s view of sin and culpability, some individuals are actually heinous and Hitler-esque; but entire classes of people are culpable for their willful ignorance; guilty on account of their naive, comfort-prioritizing “complicity” in an evil system.

Did I read that correctly? Is an Evangelical Christian complaining that a film critiques thoughtless, shallow, hedonistic living.  Is he really bemoaning Elphaba’s failure to “turn a blind eye to injustice.”  Has the reviewer not read the prophets?  Did the circumstances of Noah’s flood pass him by?  Has the book of James dropped out of his canon?

Finally, he groans at the big number “Defying Gravity”.  This song is about Elphebah’s desire to be free from those oppressive and corrupt authorities that have pushed her down.  Of course, coming from a non-Christian worldview it does emphasise her autonomy.  However, there is a loneliness to this and Glinda’s refrain “I hope you’re happy now that you are choosing this” does not have the positive overtones that McCracken reads into it.  He mises the  lyric

“I really hope you get it and you don’t live to regret it.”

Again, as with his speculative analysis of the casting of Elphaba, the reviews concern seems to be not with what the book/play/film intends but with ow it has been taken by the LGBT community.  That’s rather post-modern isn’t it.  Once again, it isn’t the content of the production that is reviewed objectively but subjective perceptions and reactions.  It seems that the film is being drawn into our own culture wars. 

One of the concerns I have expressed about conservative evangelical responses to wokeness is that by lumping concerns for racial justice under a pejorative umbrella term for a liberal agenda and by dismissing the desire for justice and equality as some how idolatrous, the anti-woke have silenced the voices of the racially oppressed.  So, I find this comment concerning.

But gravity is an inescapable law of the universe. It can’t be defied without consequences. Universal laws and limits exist, no matter how forcefully we sing, “Unlimited!” God’s creation has a “grain,” and going against the grain always leaves you with splinters.

If gravity here is a metaphor for oppressive, racist structures, then imagine how it sounds to be reminded that “gravity is an inescapable law of the universe.”  Remember how often injustice has been justified on the basis that it aligns with such laws. I might observe that if you are unable to grasp how a metaphor works in a film, play or story then you shouldn’t throw stones in your glass house, accusing others of being humourless. Also, we might respond to his claim that you can’t defy the laws of gravity with one word … aeroplanes.

Mind you, McCracken’s fundamental mistake here is that he attempts to analyse the philosophy of an incomplete story. For some inexplicable reason, though all too frequent in Hollywood, the story has been chopped in half. Yes, “Defying Gravity is the final number of this film but this is the song that brings the curtain down on the first half not the conclusion to the story. Elphaba may sing that she is “unlimited”. She may seek to pursue her dreams alone and autonomous. However, the story ends not with “Defying Gravity” but the song “For Good.” Note two things. First Elphaba sings:

I’m limited.
Just look at me.
I’m limited.
And just look at you.
You can do all I couldn’t do.
Glinda…
So now it’s up to you,
For both of us.
Now it’s up to you.

Then Glinda responds by singing about how they have been brought into one another’s lives in a way that means they have change each other.

Who can say if I’ve been changed for the better
But because I knew you
I have been changed for good.

Now, there’s more we can say about this uncertain, ambiguous ending and I intend to in a follow up. However, it is clear that the idea of unlimited autonomy is not considered the solution. After all, this would just lead to Elphaba repeating the Wizard’s errors.

The review sadly rushes to make a big theological point that ends up failing to do the job of a review justice.  Furthermore, because it misreads the story and to some extent the prevailing culture it fails to offer a proper Gospel answer.  We expect Hollywood to fall short of Gospel hope but I’m not convinced that TGC gets us any closer on this occasion.