Although the first “Wicked” reactions touted a film that can rack up both Oscar nominations and box office, the fact the full review/score embargo still won’t be lifted until November 19th – 48 hours before the first public screenings – is a curious red flag. In a year where the Best Picture bubble is mostly full of films like “Blitz,” “September 5,” “The Room Next Door,” “The Piano Lesson” and “Saturday Night” that only have high six/low seven average scores on Rotten Tomatoes and around 70 or worse on Metacritic, “Wicked” would be automatically locked in if it scores a rung or two above that.
Yet with Universal keeping its scores under lock and key until it absolutely must release them, like a typical Disney/MCU blockbuster destined for declining reviews or worse, it could point to “Wicked” ending up as just another averagely scored film on the bubble. However, it wouldn’t be the first Universal musical based on a massive Broadway show to overcome such reviews.
If there is a model “Wicked” can follow in Oscar season, it isn’t musicals like Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story” or this season’s “Emilia Pérez” – but the one “Les Misérables” set in 2012. Twelve years ago, that highly anticipated holiday film based on one of the biggest, most beloved, and longest-running Broadway shows of all time landed with massive anticipation, decorated figures in front of and behind the camera, and a major box office haul that sealed its place in Best Picture. And yet, for all that noise and hype, it wasn’t exactly a critical darling.
Twelve years later, “Les Misérables” has a 70% Rotten Tomatoes score, a mere 6.9 average rating, and a mere 63 on Metacritic. Granted, it got those scores at a time when we didn’t analyze Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to that kind of obsessive degree and a time when online Oscar punditry and fury were still in their early stages. Nonetheless, while it likely benefited from skating by a little easier in 2012, it stands out today as one of the lowest-reviewed Best Picture nominees of the modern era. And by that measure, its numbers are the absolute lowest “Wicked” can afford to have once critics are finally allowed to score it.
By this year’s less than daunting standards, if “Wicked” got the same 7.0 or slightly higher Rotten Tomatoes rating and high 60s/low 70s MetaCritic score “Blitz,” “September 5,” “Saturday Night,” “The Room Next Door,” and “The Piano Lesson” have – and which fellow review score embargoed blockbuster “Gladiator II” will probably top out at too – reaching that low bar might still be enough to keep it in. But if it dips below even that average standard, the box office will have to do all the heavy lifting.
Box office helped do the same for “Les Misérables” as it made $149 million domestically during the holiday season. Given that “Wicked” may make close to that by the time Thanksgiving rolls around at this rate, there should be nothing to worry about there. Yet it wasn’t just the box office that made voters ignore “Les Misérables” most prominent critics.
The biggest advantage that the movie had was that it had an above-the-line Oscar victory guaranteed, from note one of Anne Hathaway’s “I Dreamed a Dream” numbers. Between that, Hathaway already being an Oscar nominee four years earlier for “Rachel Getting Married,” a breakthrough in 2012 that also included stealing “The Dark Knight Rises” that summer and a narrative of a former Disney/box office star turned serious Oscar contender, it was a perfect storm for her – at least while she was sweeping Best Supporting Actress. Once “Les Misérables” had that significant win in the bag, a Best Picture nomination was much easier, no matter what critics said about the last two acts without Hathaway.
As it stands, “Wicked” may well have its own Hathaway-esq weapon in the form of Ariana Grande as Galinda. No matter how trustworthy or not the early reactions are, they all cite Grande as the standout, even above co-star and actual lead Cynthia Erivo. Between that, Grande’s own celebrity, her narrative of a pop star stealing her first big screen vehicle – like Lady Gaga before her six years ago – and a Best Supporting Actress field that still has a few slots wide open, it might not be so laughable anymore that she can get in. And if “Wicked” has her as an above-the-line nominee, maybe its path to Best Picture becomes easier, too.
Nonetheless, there are some notable differences. While Hathaway was an established star and was becoming an increasingly formidable actress by 2012, Grande hardly has such an acting resume – which mainly consists of Nickelodeon shows as a teenager, her “Don’t Look Up” song with Kid Cudi, her “Saturday Night Live” guest appearances and numerous impressions. In addition, when Hathaway got in for “Les Misérables,” she was the favorite from the beginning, but the nomination would be for Grande’s award. Though if presumed Best Supporting Actress favorite Zoe Saldana slips due to “Emilia Pérez” backlash, fellow presumed contenders Danielle Deadwyler and Saoirse Ronan don’t get their films in Best Picture, and if “The Brutalist” doesn’t need a Felicity Jones win for its Best Picture campaign, some pundit will go viral at some point suggesting a Grande win can happen. Either way, if “Les Misérables” could drown out mixed reviews at the box office and a Best Supporting Actress nominee, that could be the best strategy for “Wicked” as well. Then again, “Les Misérables” had a few other extra advantages besides that.
For one thing, “Les Misérables” also got a second acting nomination for Hugh Jackman in Best Actor, although he never stood a chance to win. With “Wicked,” it is presumed Erivo will not have that kind of luck – whether it’s because the Best Actress field is more challenging to break into than Best Supporting Actress, because Grande has bigger show-stoppers before Erivo’s massive “Defying Gravity” finale, or because of other questionable reasons. If Erivo still defies those doubts and breaks in, “Wicked” should be locked into Best Picture and then some, but that appears to remain a long shot right now.
Also, “Les Misérables” had the added credibility of being directed by Tom Hooper – back when Hooper directing a holiday musical for Universal wasn’t a historic disaster. But in the long ago days before “Cats,” Hooper was just coming off a Best Director and Best Picture win for “The King’s Speech,” whether critics and pundits liked it or not. Regardless, as the first movie from Hooper since that Oscar sweep, voters were much more inclined to take “Les Misérables” seriously from the beginning.
With “Wicked,” it isn’t directed by an Oscar winner, let alone someone with poorly aged wins. Jon M. Chu did direct “Crazy Rich Asians” to the big box office and brief awards consideration in 2018 and might have also done so in 2021 if anyone saw “In The Heights” in theaters or HBO Max. Either way, Chu does not have his foot in the door with the Academy like Hooper did in 2012, and he can’t use any residual goodwill from voters like he did.
But even if “Les Misérables” didn’t have someone like Hooper directing it, audiences and voters might have still given it the benefit of the doubt anyway. It is a musical that deals with revolution, redemption, spiritual salvation, obsession, tragic death, the tyranny of the law, and the backdrop of true-life civil unrest. Automatically, those themes are likely more accessible for the average voter – even one that isn’t a musical fan – to go along with than something more fantastical, comedic, candy-coated, colorful, and female-driven like “Wicked.”
“Wicked” is still a musical that deals with prejudice, the misleading labels of good and evil, friendship that can almost conquer all, and even resonant political subtext as scheming leaders/wizards use “a real good enemy” to manipulate the masses. Nonetheless, its glossier surface level will not make sure voters take it as seriously as something like “Les Misérables.”
Regardless, the legacy of “Les Misérables” and “Wicked” are otherwise not that dissimilar. Both musicals have some of the most legendary songs and box office runs in Broadway history, yet both are more popular with mass audiences than most critics. In that vein, it wasn’t too surprising when “Les Misérables” the movie hit much bigger with audiences and select Oscar voters than with critics, and it won’t be surprising if “Wicked” the movie possibly meets the same fate, regardless of how the first social reactions sound like.
Yet “Les Misérables” had just about the lowest review scores a big-budget, populist, box office hit musical could get away with and still reach Best Picture. By that standard, a 70%/mid-60s score count is the absolute least “Wicked” can get away with when its scores are finally tallied – and anything higher will probably seal the deal right there. Then again, the proof’s not in yet that there’ll be that kind of consensus, no matter how the few unrated raves look right now.
So what do you think? How high do you think “Wicked” will fly on its way to the 97th Academy Awards? Will it be nominated for Best Picture? Please let us know in the comments below or on Next Best Picture’s X account, and be sure to check out Next Best Picture’s latest Oscar predictions here.
You can follow Robert and hear more of his thoughts on the Oscars & Film on X @Robertdoc1984
