I recently wrote my first article for First Things. Here is a small preview. You can read the rest on their website.
In recent years, Hollywood has produced movies that cast once irredeemable villains, such as Maleficent, Cruella de Vil, and the Joker, in a sympathetic light. The 2003 Broadway musical Wicked, adapted from the 1995 novel, was ahead of the curve in that regard. In this retelling of the Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West, or “Elphaba,” is no evil villain but a misunderstood victim. Last month, the first part of the musical’s cinematic adaptation hit theaters, to critical and box office success; it is now the highest grossing musical adaptation ever. This bodes well for Hollywood, which is sure to capitalize on the film’s success, and fans of the “sympathetic villain” genre. However, it does not bode well for our culture. Hollywood’s tendency to subvert classic villains (and as a consequence, classic heroes), usually in response to the latest progressive agenda, indicates a lack of social moral clarity, which is sure to have detrimental consequences.
Wicked starts in medias res. After the Wicked Witch of the West’s supposed demise at the hands of Dorothy, the people of Munchkinland cheer and celebrate the good news given by Glinda the Good. During the celebration, a little girl asks Glinda: “Why does wickedness happen?” “That’s a good question,” she replies. “Are people born wicked or do they have wickedness thrust upon them?” Cue the flashback.
In many ways, Elphaba fits into a recent archetype of the contemporary female hero: the unappreciated “girl who reads.” Smart, naturally gifted, righteous, she is the type of girl who takes pride in correcting people’s grammar and “speaking up” for the downtrodden—in this case, Oz’s talking animals (the film’s catch-all representation of marginalized peoples). But because of the color of her skin—bright green, a mystery since birth—and her volatile magic, she is ostracized. Her virtue goes unrecognized.
Read the rest at First Things…