The forthcoming Wicked movie adaptation has landed itself in the crosshairs of cultural commentary, with a controversial trigger warning issued by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) drawing both ridicule and defense. At the heart of the debate is the BBFC’s decision to flag potential discrimination against green-skinned women—specifically the character Elphaba, the Wicked Witch of the West—and its broader implications for how art engages with sensitive issues.
Piers Morgan, never one to mince words, lambasted the warning on his show, calling it absurd and emblematic of cultural overreach. “Why do we have to endure this crap?” he exclaimed, voicing frustration over warnings that cater to hypothetical green-skinned viewers or anthropomorphic animals. His guests largely agreed, with columnist Esther Krakue speculating that the move was more about generating publicity than genuine concern.
Even Morgan’s typically ideological sparring partner, journalist Ernest Owens, conceded, “There’s no such thing as green-skinned women,” underscoring the surreal nature of the warning.
“Why do we have to endure this cr*p?!”
Piers Morgan reacts to the British Board of Film Classification issuing a trigger warning on Wicked for ‘potential discrimination towards green-skinned women’.
📺 https://t.co/XNfzrtJRMX@piersmorgan | @estherckrakue | @MrErnestOwens pic.twitter.com/yJBs5zqcUh
— Piers Morgan Uncensored (@PiersUncensored) November 29, 2024
The BBFC defended its decision, citing Elphaba’s mistreatment due to her green skin as an allegory for real-world discrimination. The warning, they argued, allows parents to make informed decisions about exposing their children to potentially upsetting content. In addition to Elphaba’s struggles, the BBFC highlighted condescending treatment of a disabled woman and persecution of talking animals in the film’s fantastical setting.
Such warnings align with BBFC guidelines, which permit depictions of discrimination if they are contextually justified and clearly disapproved of. According to research the board conducted in 2021, many parents value these notices as tools to prepare children for real-life issues while shielding them from content deemed too mature.
Critics of the warning have not held back. Writer Simon Evans called the BBFC’s classification process “ridiculous and counter-productive,” accusing it of stripping films of dramatic tension. Similarly, sociology professor Frank Furedi dismissed the focus on “green-skinned people under attack” as evidence of a society losing touch with reality.
Conversely, columnist Stuart Heritage defended the BBFC in The Guardian, arguing that the content warning serves a necessary function, especially for young viewers. He pointed out that Elphaba’s experiences with discrimination are an allegory for racism—a heavy-handed one, perhaps, but a valid one nonetheless. The warning, Heritage suggested, fulfills the BBFC’s moral duty to contextualize sensitive themes for audiences.
The debate over Wicked’s content warning encapsulates a larger cultural tension. Critics argue that such measures stifle creativity and cater to imaginary offenses, while proponents claim they provide valuable guardrails for navigating complex social themes.
Elphaba’s story, rooted in prejudice and misunderstanding, has always been an allegory for larger societal issues, and this allegory is central to the narrative’s emotional impact. However, the BBFC’s attempt to highlight these issues in a literal way—such as warning of discrimination against a green-skinned character—risks drawing attention away from the broader message.
