#halfthealphabet

ok the first thing you need to know is i hate movie adaptations of musicals as a concept. i think a piece of media is created within a medium for a reason, and there have been so few occasions where adapting it into a different medium has not only been a good idea but also had some sort of value to add to the art itself. and with musicals it's more evident to me than with anything else, because to me an essential part of any musical is some fucking whimsy. musicals are at least somewhat camp, by virtue of being musicals. and with stuff like the les mis musical—which is very serious in every way except the fact that it is a musical—you can't really adapt it into a movie without either making it seem ridiculous or stripping it off of it's fucking whimsy. aaaand movie directors simply don't seem to get that musicals are the way they are because they're *supposed* to be that way, so the result is usually a movie that feels like it's ashamed of being a musical. the les mis musical is a musical because it *wants* to he a musical, otherwise it would have been something else. and tom hooper my bestie tom hooper. you could have just made a movie adaptation of the book.

ANYWAY. bringing us back to wicked, i think it's so rare to see a movie adaptation of a musical that doesn't seem to want to distract you from the fact that it's a musical. that doesn't seem like it's ashamed of it. that *loves* being a musical.

(in the heights is a good example, but they for some reason felt the need to change the entire plot. chicago is another good one imo)

wicked is THAT. it feels like it was created by people who genuinely love musical theater, and who genuinely love wicked. (and the wizard of oz, and cinema as a medium, and music as a medium). wicked has a heart. almost no movies have hearts nowadays. it leans into being a musical, it leans into being a movie musical, it leans into being an adaptation, and has so much love and respect for every piece of art it builds on. it changes almost nothing about the musical, because it knows that's not its place; it exists to bring this piece that already exists into a new medium, and to examine what that new medium can add to it in a meaningful way.

which is why, as far as i could tell, what makes the movie so much longer than the play is simply the introduction of cinema into the existing material. close ups, interesting angles, establishing shots—things you can do because you're making a movie, rather than meaningless attempts to add material to an already existing narrative. the only new song the film introduces is an addition they wrote into an existing song, and it's not there under the pretense of "adding" anything—it's there as a nod to the original play and a fun moment for the audience.

the acting is good. the singing is mostly good, and i can forgive michelle yeoh because she's a goddess. people say the casting was perfect, and i agree to an extent, but where i think this movie truly excels is the directing. ariana was great, but what made her so great imo is how *glinda* she was, and i think that credit goes to the director. she has clearly done her research on this character, but so has jon m. chu and that is *noticeable*. cynthia erivo is perfection i have nothing to say.

to put it simply, jon m. chu put his whole pussy into wicked. he understood the assignment, and he executed it nearly perfectly. and i do have more to say but i don't want this to get too long and spoilery so i'll leave it at that.