In today’s Oscar nominations, the biggest shock was that massive musical sequel Wicked: For Good, starring Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande, earned zero nods – despite its predecessor earning 10. It proved the perils of overstretching your material.
The Oscar nominations had their usual share of snubs and surprises, with no best supporting actor nod for Paul Mescal, the co-star of Hamnet, and two different nods for Norway’s Sentimental Value in the best supporting actress category. The biggest surprise of all, though, is what might be called a multi-snub, or even an omni-snub: there were no nominations at all for Wicked: For Good.
This was a shock for two reasons. The first is that Wicked: For Good is part two of an adaptation of a Broadway show, and part one, which was released a year earlier, racked up a whopping 10 Oscar nominations. The Academy was spellbound, it seemed, by this colourful prequel to The Wizard of Oz. It adored Oz’s two iconic witches, Elphaba and Glinda, and especially the two actresses who played them, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande. How could things go so disastrously wrong that the franchise’s Oscar-nomination total should plummet from 10 to zero?
The other reason why the omni-snub was unexpected was that, at the start of awards season, Wicked: For Good appeared to be a major contender. At the Golden Globes in January, Erivo was nominated for best actress in a comedy or musical; Grande was nominated for best supporting actress; the film as a whole was on the shortlist for cinematic and box office achievement; and it had not one but two nominations for best original song.
Universal PicturesMost commentators assumed that the Oscars would follow suit and honour Wicked: For Good in the best supporting actress and best original song categories, at least. The film was longlisted for seven technical awards, so nominations for hair and make-up, costume design and production design seemed probable. And, with 10 slots available on the best picture list, a nomination there was likely, too. It’s amazing how quickly and completely the magic wore off.
One factor behind this is obvious. Wicked: For Good just wasn’t good enough. The first film scored 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, the reviews round-up site, whereas the second’s score dropped to 66%. And some critics did the equivalent of dropping a house on the film, squashing it flat. Robbie Collin gave it a one-star review in The Telegraph, under a headline proclaiming: “Ariana Grande is painfully wooden in Wicked’s irritating sequel”, while Justin Chang’s review in The New Yorker was entitled “Wicked: For Good is Very, Very Bad”.
