January 05, 2006

On adaptations

Last night I saw Wicked at the Kennedy Center and found it to be very enjoyable. The performers all had good singing voices; the two leads were fantastic. I wasn't blown away by the music. Part of that is that I think something was off with the sound levels--the orchestra frequently was easier to hear than the singers (particularly in ensemble numbers). Only a few songs were really memorable, and even those keep warping into other songs in my mind ("Popular" keeps becoming either "Impossible" from Cinderella or "Dressing Them Up" from Kiss of the Spider Woman). But still, it was funny, even if the ending did mess with Oz canon.

One of my rules for movies is that if I haven't read the book it's based on before the movie comes out, I'm not allowed to read it until I've seen the movie. If I read the book first, I just spend the entire time comparing the two and the movie almost always comes off looking the worse of the two. I find it a lot easier to accept changes in movies if I read the book second. (Prime example: Circle of Friends. I loved the movie, read the book, and still like both.) I'm more forgiving of some movies than others, but that's my general rule.

Theater is no exception, apparently. The book Wicked and the musical Wicked are completely different. It has a number of similar elements and loose plot outline, but the vast majority of the specifics are different. Noticing the differences--and I knew that the musical was a lot different from the book--just makes it that much harder to become involved in the story.

Anyway, I recommend Wicked. I enjoyed it more than The Producers, at any rate. (Not that I didn't like The Producers, but it was kind of a letdown. Besides, Brooks's music didn't impress me much. See July 19, 2004 for full recap.)

Current song in my head:
"Dressing Them Up" from Kiss of the Spider Woman

Posted by Barb at January 5, 2006 09:41 AM | TrackBack
Comments

I'm hedging on seeing Wicked in the theater, partly because I can't see how the story would translate to stage, and partly because I developed a real attachment to the characters in the book, and I don't want the play to shatter that.
Thanks for the review.
I wonder, tho, if your seeming slant toward musicals puts you at a bias? I liked the dark, seamy world of Wicked the book. Tell me that the musical version doesn't have Elphaba square-dancing with Munchkinlanders or the Animals as a horde of Magical Mr.Mistoffeleeses, and I'll be more convinced to give it a try.

Posted by: lv at January 5, 2006 11:28 AM

Wicked on stage definitely isn't the Wicked of the book. To put it generally, the musical is the story of the friendship between Elphaba and G(a)linda. It has a lot more humor than the book, and a lot of pointed political commentary. If you're attached to the darkness of the book, do NOT see the musical.

I do love musicals--both frothy and dark. But my favorite ones aren't the frothy ones; Les Mis and Ragtime are my #1 and #2.

Posted by: Barb at January 5, 2006 01:04 PM

rad--
i suppose you read the city paper review that came out yesterday? i admit i started to, but was thwarted by raging crowds at the dupont whole foods.

Posted by: lv at January 6, 2006 03:22 PM
Post a comment












Remember personal info?