Two giant films poke at our current society. Is it on purpose?

A strongman ruler practices the fine political art of divide and conquer, insisting on loyalty at all costs. As Justin Chang wrote in his New Yorker review of the two movies, “Both are chockablock with political conspiracies, authoritarian abuses and foul-tempered monkeys, none of which adds up to a full-blown phenomenon.” But it does provoke a strange sort of whiplash between fantasy and current events, that sensation of wondering: What did the filmmakers know, and when did they know it? Squint a little when the powers of Oz rail against the distinguished talking animals in their midst and put them in cages and you can almost hear shouts of “Mass deportations now!” “I don’t see why you can’t just teach us history, instead of always harping on the past,” Glinda says to a professor in “Wicked.” When the proudly empty Glinda objects to the lessons proffered by her history teacher, who explains that life in Oz hasn’t always been that peachy for some of its citizens, she responds in a way that would make proponents of campus “divisive concepts” legislation cheer: “I don’t see why you can’t just teach us history, instead of always harping on the past.” First staged more than 20 years ago, during the George W. Bush administration, “Wicked” was obviously written before the current politics of divisiveness, resentment and scape. Movies take forever and a day to develop and produce; even if this weren’t the case, one should always be cautious with the “This is what the filmmakers are trying to say” game. Do films like “Wicked,” starring Cynthia Erivo, and “Gladiator II” tell stories that tackle societal realities in order to meet a need, or do audiences interpret them through the lens they bring into the theater?