'I liked everything about Wicked except the way it looks.'

Last Saturday, I walked into my local cinema, choc top in hand, ready to take the lyrics of 'Defying Gravity' and really hold space with that. And I did! I cried several times and (although it was a little long) had a great time.

Before we get into it, allow me to offer a little context. I've never seen Wicked the musical, but I like musicals! Chicago is one of my favourite Best Picture winners of all time, and I've watched all 96 Best Picture winners, so that's saying something. I had seen the trailers for Wicked and suspected that the rant to come would be my main issue with it, but I wanted to remain optimistic and open-minded. After all, I like the cast, and the early reviews were great! I hoped that my suspicions were unfounded.

But while Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande delivered great performances with stellar vocals, my fears were proven correct: this film looks like s**t.

Oz desaturated.

Here's the thing: Wicked is not a gritty war film, so riddle me this: why did they decide to desaturate the colour grading to the point where Oz, the frickin' EMERALD CITY, looks so… blah? Why put all that effort into the incredible costuming and production design to showcase it in such a dull, muted way?

Watch the trailer for Wicked. Article continues below.

Of course, I'm not the only one who feels this way (I fear I have never had an original thought in my life, actually). Many people commented on the colour grading when the first trailers were released, and now that the film is out, Wicked director John M. Chu has addressed the criticism.

When a reporter from The Globe and Mail noted that the film looked "a little desaturated" Chu responded:

"I mean, there's colour all over it. I think what we wanted to do was immerse people into Oz, to make it a real place."

He continued, "Because if it was a fake place, if it was a dream in someone's mind, then the real relationships and the stakes that these two girls are going through wouldn't feel real."

To this, I would say, "Bro, HUH?!"

I'm not buying it.

First, let's be so for real: this is a film about two witches in their 30s who are first-year students at a place called 'Shiz University', where one of their teachers is a talking goat and everyone bursts into song on the reg — with Broadway vocals, no less. They quite literally do not exist in a "real place", and although I am not fully immersed in the Wicked fandom, I would assume that the majority of the musical's fanbase was not walking into the cinema hoping to see some kind of gritty, realist version of Oz? Who asked for that?! Like, 'Oh, I hope they don't use too much colour in this movie adaptation of Wicked, that would really take me out of it'. Again, HUH?!

Secondly, here's the thing: Personally — and this is just me!!! — I actually feel like I would have been more immersed in the film, in any film, if it looked vibrant, colourful, lush, rich, textured, because that is what the real world looks like??? The real world is quite famously not flat, desaturated, and devoid of texture.

Even more perplexing, however, is Cho's completely baffling decision to backlight many of Wicked's key scenes, to the point where it creates a lens flare effect that's comparable to driving at night with an astigmatism. In fact, I've got time today. Let's compare the pair!

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande in Wicked. Image: Universal Pictures.

Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande in Wicked. Image: Universal Pictures.

Driving at night with an astigmatism. Image: Getty.

To quote Pam Beesly in The Office, "They're the same picture".

And okay, maybe I'm being a tad hyperbolic — I've been accused of as much in the past!

But please, look at this clip from 'Dancing Through Life' and tell me in earnest that backlighting this number — to the point where you literally cannot see Ariana Grande's face at points, no less — was the correct choice? You can't do it! Maybe it doesn't bother you as much as it bothers me, but it is a baffling decision on the part of everyone involved.

@wickedthesoundtrack

We’re Dancing Through Life this whole week because of WickedTheSoundtrack, are you? 💚💖🎧

♬ original sound - Wicked The Soundtrack

Please don't get me wrong, because I'm really not trying to be a hater just for the sake of it. There were so many things I liked about Wicked, but that's not what I'm here to talk about today.

The thing is, it's not like we don't have the technology to make films look incredible, so why did I leave the cinema wishing for the return of Technicolor, thinking 'The Wizard of Oz looked better than that'?

Hollywood and the death of cinema lighting.

There are a few reasons I've been ranting and raving about Wicked's colour grading and backlighting to anyone who'd listen (and a few who wouldn't) for the last week. The truth is, it's actually way less about Wicked as an individual film, and more about the fact that movies looking like s**t is a growing trend in Hollywood at the moment, and once you see it, you really can't unsee it.

For me, it all began when I saw a now-deleted tweet comparing a scene from the original Halloween movie to a scene from 2022's Halloween Ends (absolutely dreadful film, but that's a separate issue).

The now-deleted account, Universal Horror, tweeted the images below with the caption: "These two images were taken 44 years apart. Can you spot the difference?"

The 2022 scene is an obvious homage to the original 1978 film, but when the images are placed together, the issue is immediately clear.

Or as one X (formerly Twitter) user put it: "yeah the f**ken death of the art of film lighting lol".

Top: Halloween (1978). Bottom: Halloween Ends (2022). Images: Sony Pictures, Universal Pictures.

"Why bury Myers' body in thick inky shadows so his face appears from the void as though he's a spectre[,] when you could simply show him standing outside the door looking like he's about to tell mom he frew up," replied X user Kevin.

This exchange has stuck with me, and since then, I've noticed more and more frequently that modern films just look weird and bad a lot of the time now. And it's not just the lighting.

In Steve McQueen's Blitz, aka Saoirse Ronan's new film, there are shots of London that look as though someone typed "I'm making a film about London being bombed in WW2. Can you generate me 12 seconds of footage panning over the city after the bombs land, please?" into ChatGPT. The free version.

The end result is this uncanny valley depiction of World War II London that forces the viewer to work really hard to not be taken completely out of the story. It's not as though McQueen doesn't know how to make a film — 12 Years a Slave was nominated for nine Oscars and won three, including Best Picture???

Blitz. Image: Apple.

Another example? Let's talk about Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, which has this surreal, glossy finish to it that makes it look like they ran it through several TikTok filters before sending it to cinemas.

To make matters worse, the film relies so heavily on CGI and digital effects that the end result is a film that looks less like a movie and more like a video game based on Indiana Jones. For a franchise that was once known for its impressive set pieces and action-packed stunt work, it's a huge letdown for fans.

Wicked fans, and movie fans, deserve better.

I guess what I'm saying here is that movie lovers deserve better. I shouldn't be watching YouTube videos with better lighting set ups than a blockbuster film like Wicked — which had a 145 million USD budget, by the way! Would it be so much to ask for them to move some of the lights in front of the cast, so that we could, you know, see what was happening?

Thankfully, Wicked's lacklustre visuals are propped up by the rest of the film. Erivo and Grande deliver performances and vocals that transcend over the backlighting and desaturation with ease.

But they shouldn't have to. Wicked deserves a film as vibrant and rich as its passionate fanbase, as dynamic and exciting as the crescendo of 'Defying Gravity'. Let's hold space for that.

Feature image: Universal Pictures/NBC