As a disclaimer, I haven't seen the movie. However, the assertions in this seem questionable, being either speculative, overanalysis, or not even backing things up.
The first reason claims that it offers "no moral sense of right and wrong." But it only makes two arguments for it. The first is "Witchcraft, magic and superstition are indifferent subjects without any evil connotations. Thus, the film teaches, normalizes and validates what was once considered evil." But magic being portrayed as being used for both good and evil is something you see all the time in fantasy fiction. Now, perhaps the author has a problem with fantasy fiction in general for this reason, but if so they should specify that. It's worth noting the original book and film did this also, with a character explicitly referred to as a "good witch." The other argument it makes is claim "Indeed, there is no evil, error or sin in this dystopic world." But the only thing it uses to support that is to offer some quotes from people saying that no
character is completely good or completely evil, which is a very different thing.
The second reason claims... actually, it's hard to tell exactly what it does claim. It claims "After declaring there is no absolute good or evil, the movie takes this error one step further by proclaiming that those considered wicked are heroes and those traditionally representing good are villains". No examples are given. More confusingly, it complains:
The oppressor/oppressed narrative is hardcoded into the script on every page. Gerhardt writes that the film invites viewers to “consider the ways that wealthy and powerful people manipulate the masses and uphold corrupt systems that rely on the exploitation or exclusion of some to benefit others.”
This false narrative reads like a Socialist Workers Party manifesto. It clashes with the Western Christian notion that the social classes are meant to harmonize around moral and spiritual values that transcend this gloomy, godless and materialistic perspective.
A Socialist Workers Party manifesto? The fact "wealthy and powerful people manipulate the masses and uphold corrupt systems that rely on the exploitation or exclusion of some to benefit others" is well known. It's something both liberals
and conservatives complain about, even if there's disagreement on the specifics. This complaint makes little sense.
The third reason it offers is complaining it's woke (a term that nowadays is so vague it's practically useless at this point). But how is it woke? It doesn't say. Legitimately, it doesn't say. It quotes one person from a New York Times article as approvingly saying it's woke and supposes that's the end of it. But if one looks at the link offered to see it in context, they simply say "It is a story that champions the marginalized, moralizes about our politics about difference and makes it palatable for the masses." This doesn't seem particularly objectionable to me, and is only woke in a rather vague way.
Interestingly,
this review of the film on National Review (conservative magazine) refers to the same New York Times article... but says the article is wrong and is just people trying to overanalyze it for liberal themes (the National Review review says, "If the creative team behind Wicked had an agenda, it was simply to make an enjoyable movie").
The fourth reason basically assumes the prior ones and then complains about how these problematic elements are made palatable for the masses... but that assumes the prior claims it made are true.
Thus the article is very short on actual examples of these things it's complained about. It
claims things about the movie, but never really attempts to offer evidence outside of grabbing some quote from someone who seems to be saying something different than the article claims (I would not be surprised if the author had never seen the movie and just grabbed a few things people said about it). Now, maybe the things it claims are true--I haven't seen the movie--but if it is true, why is it unable to offer actual support for it?
www.tfp.org
