The Movie “Wicked”: Making a Real Person of the Witch of the West
by Rachel MacNair
Act 1 of Wicked is now out in theaters, but instead of a 15-minute intermission as happens in the Broadway play, we get a year of intermission. Act 2 comes out November 21, 2025.
The play is a musical based on the book by Gregory Maguire. The movie is mainly based on the play, but fleshes out the story more (as can be seen by taking more than double the time), mainly by adding back in content from the book.
It’s a prequel to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum, published in 1900. That was explicitly stated to be for children, but there’s been some thought of political allegory of the 1890s. Baum was also the son-in-law of Matilda Joslyn Gage, a prominent activist in the women’s movement of the time, and for those who know this, it shows.
As a side note, Gage had the common attitude of feminists of the time period on feticide. For a short quotation: “But the crime of abortion is not one in which the guilt lies solely or chiefly with the woman . . . Husbands do not consult with their wives upon this subject of deepest and most vital interest.”
There have been numerous film adaptations (and at least one other prequel). The most famous is the 1939 version starring Judy Garland as Dorothy, which also serves as inspiration for the Maguire book. And it offers an illustration of war mentality that Wicked counters.
War Hysteria
I delve in greater depth on this in a post comparing the psychology of war hysteria to post-Dobbs reaction, and also a bit in our newsletter on the carnival atmosphere with the killing of Osama bin Laden. It comes from the theory of Lawrence LeShan, in his book The Psychology of War: Comprehending Its Mystique and Its Madness.
In a nutshell: we have the ordinary world we normally operate in, in which good and evil have shades of gray, people can have a variety of views, we can talk things out, etc. Then there’s a more fairy-tale world, sort of a cartoon mentality, which LeShan calls “mythic mode.” There’s good and there’s evil, you’re on one side or the other, evil can’t be negotiated with, etc.
One of the best instances in well-known stories to illustrate the difference is The Wonderful Wizard of Oz movie of 1939. That there are two different modes of mind is starkly shown: the real world in Kansas is in black and white, and the fantasy world of Oz is in color. In Kansas, the villain is Miss Gulch. In Oz, it’s the unnamed Witch of the West. They’re psychologically connected, played by the same actress.
Dorothy’s house drops on the Witch of the East, who’s been designated as evil, and it’s therefore OK to dance and sing about her demise. When Dorothy later splashes water on the Witch of the West, who’s also been designated as evil (even by herself), and that kills her, that’s time for another celebration.
But what if Dorothy had killed Miss Gulch?
There’s the difference. Miss Gulch may have been nasty, but she lived in the real world. We can cheer when Auntie Em tells her off, because that fits the offense. But with killing, the story could never be a children’s tale. Dorothy would be far too sinister.
That’s the difference between killing in war with a war mindset over killing in ordinary life.
Changing What “Wicked” Means
Wicked gives the future witch of the west a name: Elphaba. That’s a take-off on L. Frank Baum. It gives a bit on her birth and childhood, but Act 1 mainly follows her through the college where she meets Glinda. They dislike each other at first, but then they become friends. Yes, friends.
Her motivations become clear. Elphaba is a real person. Having her be killed becomes something the audience doesn’t want to see.
Gregory Maguire based his imagination on the politics of the time, that being the 1990s – a century later than the original book. He also moves the focus away from Dorothy and focuses instead on the life story of the Witch of the West.
The 1990s was the time of the first American war in Iraq, which Maguire opposed. There’s a line in the second act of the play when Elphaba is asking Glinda about the death of her sister, whether it was an accident, and Glinda refers to it as “regime change.” The audience of the time roared at what was then the well-known euphemism for that particular war.
But further: Elphaba stands up for the marginalized – in this case, the talking animals who are being oppressed by the government. A talking goat had been a professor at the school, and was fired and arrested. A talking bear had been who raised Elphaba when she was otherwise rejected by her parents. A lion cub was held in a cage – and she freed him. Her anger, which helped her magic, was justified anger.
At the end, she was designated as “wicked” to the population by the oppressive government entities she had stood up to.
Bigotry
The anti-racist message was also clear in this movie. Elphaba is constantly put down for the color of her skin – that color being green. Standing up for herself when people are bigoted against her is part of what makes her an admirable character.
The play and movie don’t portray this, but the Maguire book turns this lethal. Due to her green skin, there’s a threat of infanticide against her by the midwives when she’s born.
At the end of Act 1, she realizes that the Wizard she had admired so and wanted so badly to work with was actually a charlatan. He was the one responsible for oppressing the talking animals. She needed to get her flying broomstick in order and get out of there.
Conclusion
A lot of my work has dealt with being a peace advocate among people who don’t want to hear it. It’s also involved being a pro-lifer who’s poking at the bubble that many peace activists inhabit on this issue. As a consistent lifer, I’ve had to face intense hostility in a variety of ways in a variety of venues. Having the charge of being “wicked” hurled, when what was actually happening was standing up for the marginalized, is something I can relate to.
======================
The quotation from Matilda Joslyn Gage is on page 57 of ProLife Feminism: Yesterday and Today, as are many full articles from pro-life feminists of yesteryear. (“Is Woman Her Own? The Revolution, April 9, 1868)
For some more of our posts on movie reviews, see:
Jasmine, Aladdin, and the Power of Nonviolence
Justice Littered with Injustice: Viewing Just Mercy in a Charged Moment
Movies with Racism Themes: “Gosnell” and “The Hate U Give”
The Darkest Hour: “Glorifying” War?
The Message of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook
It’s interesting that in the Judy Garland film, the world where the “black & white” war ethos prevails is the one that appears in color, while the nuanced real world with the more human antagonist is in black & white. This contrast also flips the script on the arguments that war mentality, with its assertions of the necessity of killing, is the more realistic mindset, whereas nonviolence (says war mentality) is mere idealized fantasy. And yet the real world is not made of heroes and villains who all fall indelibly into one category or the other, but of flawed, redeemable, morally conflicted and thoroughly human characters, capable of great self-justification and great remorse.
I would add another nuance to the contrast between the two worlds: not simply that one world is morally black & white while the other is all shades of gray, but more as a difference between where the areas of clarity and ambiguity are. The presumption against killing is an area of moral clarity that gets lost in the transition from reality to fantasy. The mythic war mentality of the fantasy world moves the (morally correct) distinction between good and evil acts to one between good and evil characters. So the problem isn’t necessarily having clear moral contrasts, but putting the contrast in the wrong place.