dianec42

As you know, it is a halachic tradition to see a movie on Christmas Day, followed by Chinese Food. We arranged the Chinese Food through our synagogue’s brotherhood, but it was up to us to pick the movies. Normally, we’re live theatre folks: If you follow my blog at all, you know that we see live theatre or other forms of live performance almost every week (on average). But movies, in a movie theater? That’s reserved for the week around Christmas. I also don’t feel the need for full writeups (as I do with stage shows) for movies, especially given the size of the production team compared to live theatre production teams. That’s why IMDB exists. So here are some thoughts about the movies we saw this holiday season.

Wicked: For Good

GIven that last year’s holiday movie was “Wicked: Part 1“,  it is probably no surprise that this year’s pair of holiday movies started out with “Wicked: For Good” on Erev Christmas. Before we get started on the movie itself, a small bitch about the titles: I get that the producers changed their mind on the title after the first movie was released, but the fact that there’s a Part 1 without a Part 2 just gnaws at my brain. If an autauer as great as George Lucas can retitle “Star Wars” to “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope” after its release, then you can fix the title mismatch. Rename one of the parts of make things consistent. Ideally, the solution would be something along the lines of: “Wicked (Act 1): Defying Gravity” and “Wicked (Act 2): For Good”. With that off my chest…

This is a movie. This means that much of the audience was unfamiliar with the original musical by Winnie Holzman and Stephen Schwartz, let alone the original books by Gregory Maguire. This also means that they went into the movie expecting a continuation of the lightness and humor of the first movie. They didn’t get it. I felt bad for the family sharing our row at the theatre who brought their smalls (under 10 years old) with them. They were scared by the darkness, and bored by the love story, and as a result, were crying and couldn’t sit still. Folks: Act 2 of “Wicked” is dark. It was extremely dark in the original book, and just a bit lighter in the stage production, but is dark none-the-less. Folks should expect this, even given the MGM film. The focus of the story, the “Wicked Witch”, dies in the end. This can’t be a light story where the two girlfriends go skipping down the path together.

Gregory Maguire wrote his original book (which was the first of four in the series) as a political allegory during the Clinton administration. According to Wikipedia, while living in London in the early 1990s, he noticed that while the problem of evil had been explored from many different perspectives, those perspectives were seldom synthesized together. He wondered whether calling a person evil might be enough to cause a self-fulfilling prophecy. He decided to use the milieu of Oz to explore the story: hence, “Wicked”. His politics got more pointed in the later books: In particular, his second book in the series “Son of a Witch”, explores the political torture of the second Bush administration. The musical changed the story quite a bit (especially the ending), but kept the political themes, and the Act 2 movie leaned into that even more.

I mention this all because this really shows the adaptability of Oz. L. Frank Baum wrote the original story (before he started the rest of the children book series) as a political allegory about the McKinley administration and the silver standard (hence the silver shoes). Maguire wrote his first story exploring what makes people evil, as well as the nature of the power of propaganda and attacks on class. Yet viewing the story today, it is a wonderful commentary on the Trump administration, the administration’s manipulation of “truth”, and of the harnessing of hatred of a particular subclass of citizens to gain and retain power. The Wizard’s song “Wonderful” exposes this well, and is perhaps the political heart of the story (the emotional heart, as always, is the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda). I’m sure that much of the audience was unaware of this political message going in: Hopefully, they will learn from it. We are still dealing with the Carney who is running a government based on carnival flim-flam alone (and no real skills, other than charm), who is making up and selling a story, and who is abusing contributing citizens to gain and retain power. Children’s stories are often used to teach adult lessons in disguise.

The performances in the movie were outstanding. Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande were great, and bought distinct personalities and exceptionally strong singing voices to the role. I always love Ethan Slater (who I’ll always think of a Spongebob from the Spongebob Musical), and Jonathan Bailey made a great Fiyero.

The movie made a number of changes to the original story (for example, Elphaba’s father was originally an itinerant preacher). The movie also expanded a number of parts of the story, and made many aspects of the connection to the 1939 movie a lot more explicit (certainly more explicit than in the musical). The transformations of the Tin Man and Scarecrow were particularly strong. I did like how the ending ties well to the original story and map of Oz (and that’s all I’ll say).

Lastly, as I noted in my original comment on Facebook, it is amazing how many people it takes to make a movie, especially when compared to a stage production. The production team for the stage consists of perhaps 20 to 30 people, with perhaps another 20 in the costume and scenery shops. The Wicked movies listed at least 200 people, I’d guess.

One article I read noted that this movie was key for Universal, which viewed the movie as a tentpole franchise. Unlike their action movie or animation franchises, this movie appeals to women and brings them into the theaters. Hence, the intense and almost overwhelming marketing blitz for the pair of movies, which continues unabated. I’ve already heard rumors that there will be more movies in this franchise, although it is unclear in what direction they will go. It is hard to imagine them continuing with Maguire’s remaining 3 books (“Son of a Witch”, “A Lion Among Men”, and “Out of Oz”), simply because of their darkness, political intrigue, and work required to musicalize them. More likely would be Oz-adjacent stories set in the Maguire/Holzman universe, with new music. I’m not sure those will succeed, but given the desire of the audience, they probably will. Get ready for “Wicked: The Sparkly and the Furious”.

An excellent movie, well worth seeing. I predict that this pair of movies will continue to be shown and reshown on your television screens for a long time, just like the ubiquitous “Back to the Future”.

Song Sung Blue

When I first heard about the movie “Song Sung Blue” and saw advertising for it, I was afraid it would be another Neil Diamond bio-pic. This didn’t interest me at all, as I had recently seen the excellent “A Beautiful Noise” at the Pantages. I also had no interest in seeing Jackman, whose musical star was tainted by the mess with Sutton Foster (who I think is a wonderful Broadway artist). But when my daughter was in town last week, she suggested that we go see “Song Sung Blue”, indicating that my concerns were misplaced. In particular, it was NOT a Neil Diamond bio-pic; rather, it was a story about two real Neil Diamond interpreters and was based on real life.

In parallel, I started reading some stories in the NY Times about Kate Hudson’s performance,  and how it was particularly strong.  As that article starts:

She’s a middle-aged, blue-collar amputee who sings backup in a kitschy Neil Diamond cover band. “I don’t want to be a hairdresser,” she says with a heavy Wisconsin accent. “I want to sing and dance.”

It’s not exactly a role that shouts Oscar. At first glance, it reads more like Razzie bait.

But the right actress in the right part: As played by Kate Hudson in the musical bio-dramedy “Song Sung Blue,” arriving in theaters on Christmas Day, the character, Claire, transcends her movie-of-the-week attributes — so much so that Hudson could land in the best actress race at the Academy Awards.

This sounded intriguing. I could overlook Hugh Jackman for that. So we booked tickets for this movie as our Christmas Day movie. I’m really glad we did.

This movie tells the story of Mike and Claire Sardina, who became famous as Lightning and Thunder, a group that interpreted Neil Diamond music at state fairs in the midwest, going so far as to open for Pearl Jam (yes, that’s true). Mike was a down-on-his-luck cover impersonation artist. He meets Claire, another such artist, and falls for her professionally and emotionally. The movie explores their ups and downs, and how music was the heart of their relationship. It is based mostly on real life, although there were a few changes from the real story of the Sardina’s. I found the story compelling, although the way the director presented the story there was almost too much foreshadowing. Some of the plot beats were predictable from the telegraphing alone (unlike real life). The movie would almost have been stronger without them (although it does make me curious to see the original 2008 documentary).

Hugh Jackman’s performance was good, and he makes a credible Neil Diamond impersonator. However (and this is especially true listening to the soundtrack of the movie in isolation), his Australian accent comes slightly through (e.g., at times I thought I was listening to Peter Allen singing Neil Diamond). If you don’t get that reference, Hugh Jackman burst onto the stage as a singer through the musical “A Boy from Oz“, which tells the story of Peter Allen). I don’t recall that accent coming through in “The Greatest Showman”, but now I’ll listen for it. His acting was very strong. For those that know him only from Wolverine, this might be a shock. For those that know him from stage or Showman, it is less of a surprise. He does bring quite a bit of depth to the role.

Kate Hudson is remarkable. I had no idea she was that strong of singer: she handles both the Neil Diamond and the Patsy Cline numbers with aplomb. Her performance, as the Times noted, was Oscar-worthy. She becomes Claire Sardina — and unlike a lot of actresses, is unafraid to do scenes sans makeup and showing her real age and vulnerability. She brings the character alive through performance alone. In some ways, this is unsurprising given her parents. But it also shows that she has been underestimated by the Hollywood machine. Hopefully, this will open more doors for her and a wider range of options.

Other performances were equally strong: I didn’t realize until the credits that Jim Belushi was involved. I was also particularly taken by Ella Anderson as Rachel (Claire’s daughter) and King Princess (as Angelina, Mike’s daughter) and their relationship to their parents. Hudson Hensley was also strong as Dana, Claire’s other child. Dana’s status is quietly male in the movie: In the articles I’ve seen about the real-life Dayna, I’ve seen all sorts of pronouns being used. Again, this is a movie that will play to middle-America, perhaps making a statement about acceptance they don’t realize they are getting.

Again, this is a movie I strongly recommend.

And thus, our two movies for 2025 are achieved. We now return you to your regularly posted theatre reviews.

This entry was originally posted on Observations Along the Road as Holiday Traditions: Wickedness and Music | "Wicked: For Good" and "Song Sung Blue" by cahwyguy. Although you can comment on DW, please make comments on original post at the Wordpress blog using the link to the left. You can sign in with your LJ, DW, FB, or a myriad of other accounts. Note: Subsequent changes made to the post on the blog are not propagated by the SNAP Crossposter; please visit the original post to see the latest version. P.S.: If you see share buttons above, note that they do not work outside of the Wordpress blog.