Billy Elliott- Page 2

[Dave19]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 5:13am

Mikey2573, I completely agree.

 

Jane2, the pride that was so expertly shown in the father is actually even better portrayed in the musical, after "Electricity". When Billy has left the room and his father walks back on stage to point to the audition pannel and his son with a tear in his eye saying "He's mine...., that's my son" and walks away uncomfortable and proud. That is a much more appropriate moment instead of at the end of the film where Billy supposedly "made it", which doesn't add anything, because if he wouldn't have "made it" it would have made no difference for the story, the heart would have been the same.

This in combination with the change in mindset of the father a bit earlier, also strenghtens the scenes like when they go down at the end into the mine, and it shows that "success" is not the main reason for the father to become proud, and like I said, it is so much more powerful when we see Billy as a vulnerable kid starting his journey into the world, going to miss his friend, who I think has a crush on him, who knows what their fate might be? It's just beautiful.

 

 

 

Updated On: 5/27/15 at 05:13 AM

[kdogg36]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 6:29am

When I saw Billy Elliott (the musical) in the movie theater last fall, which is probably the third time I've seen the show in some form, I had a thought about the "fantasy scene" where young Billy is dancing on stage with his older self. Does the fantasy we're seeing actually belong to Billy's father, who is imagining what Billy might become as he watches his young son dance? The father is not visible on stage during that scene, but the scene immediately after that suggests that he was watching Billy the whole time.

What do you think of this? I'm afraid it may either be far-fetched, or so obvious that I should be embarrassed not to have noticed it before. :)

[Jane2]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 8:35am

" it shows that "success" is not the main reason for the father to become proud"

The father would be proud of his son no matter what, success or not. It makes for a great story though, that Billy realizes his dream.

Anyway, art is subjective, and we all have our opinions. My experience with the show was not the same as yours. 

Thanks for an interesting discussion, Mikey and Dave.

[Lovinbroadway2]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 10:00am

I caught it on tour, and no doubt that the show has flaws (perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I didn't really love the sore) but it was a wonderful show. I especially loved the inventive staging... 

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 10:08am

I remember really liking it at the time, but as the years have worn on, I must tell you that I can't remember a single thing about the show.

It was a well-crafted show with excellent performances, but the parts have always been greater than the sum for me.

The entire show, particularly John's score, is forgettable.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 10:11pm

" but the parts have always been greater than the sum for me."

 

That is interesting because I always thought the exact opposite.  Take the score for example.  BILLY ELLIOT is one of my favorite shows but I almost never listen to the cast recording because the score just does not work unless it is part of the musical.  Once you put it up there on stage with the staging and the book, the score is absolute perfection. But take the songs out of the whole and they just don't stand up quite that well. My argument re: BILLY ELLIOT has always been the sum is greater than the parts.

 

Regarding the other response about Billy being about dance.  It could have been anything that gave Billy the key out of that dying community.  He could have been a great painter, or piano player, or boxer, or Karate fighter, or runner, or singer.  It just happened to be dance.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/27/15 at 11:16pm

I definitely understand your perspective.  

I think that I find John's score particularly forgettable because, like you said, it worked so very well within the context of the show that -- to me -- the cast recording is borderline unlistenable.

They're doing it this summer at the North Shore Music Theatre in MA.  I'm thinking of checking it out.

[hork]

Posted: 7/4/15 at 12:05pm

I saw it on Broadway and loved it. When Billy did his first pirouette, I just burst into tears, and I don't think I stopped crying until intermission. I'll probably see it again in London next year.

That said, I do think the show is flawed. The second act is weak compared to the first -- it just kind of summarizes the movie and throws in a song here and there -- and Lee Hall is not exactly the greatest lyricist. And it has too much of that "Oh, look how adorable and precocious these children are!" comedy that seemingly every musical with a lot of kids has (I couldn't stand Matilda, mostly for that reason). And I agree that the songs, for the most part, don't stand up well on their own -- there are two great, stirring anthems ("The Stars Look Down" and "Solidarity") that I can listen to over and over again, but the rest are mostly fluff.

I'm surprised some people prefer the movie. I saw it, thought it was just okay, then watched it again after seeing the musical and didn't like it at all. Although, I do prefer the ending of the movie (and yet, at the same time, I see and sort of agree with the points made by those who prefer the musical's ending.

[promisespromises2]

Posted: 7/4/15 at 1:24pm

The first and only time I've ever seen it was when I took my first trip to Europe and saw it on the West End.

 

I ugly sobbed. And I'm not exaggerating.  My friend was embarrassed and I'm sure the really old people sitting all around me were thinking very strangely of me but I was moved beyond words.  And now I can never listen to the cast recording because tears just come and I can't fricken control it!

The Angry Dance is what really gets me.  Too personal, so beautiful and passionate and just... Ugh.

I love it.

 

 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 7/4/15 at 2:25pm

Don't know how I missed chiming in on this thread when it first appeared.

Full disclosure, BILLY ELLIOTT is my absolute favorite show of the 21st century, bar none. And nonsensically I hold this view despite feeling that the score on its own is just a middle-tier work. But the totality of the story, the staging, the design, the balance of comedy and tragedy, the focus on dance and gayness and family in all its definitions, all combine WITH the score to create a feeling onstage I've only rarely encountered in decades of theater-going.

My jaw dropped around the point when the cops interlaced their steps with the young girls during "Solidarity" and never let up till intermission. Tears streamed down my face during "The Letter", AND during Billy's pirouette lesson, AND during his airborne duet with Adult Billy, and on and on. There was so much innate knowledge about how a musical is supposed to work on that stage, so much attention to emotional truth, so many ways surrealism and abstract dance and basic vaudeville were all brought to bear on the story. The result was a night I'll never forget.

I'll also posit that those who saw the West End show first had a significantly different and richer experience than those who got the Broadway version or its roadshows first. (I was lucky enough to see the West End show twice, followed by the B'way show, and then once more on the West End.) Maybe it was something in the water, but the NY production was just an imitation without the soul the show innately has at the Victoria Palace Theater.

 

[hork]

Posted: 7/4/15 at 3:44pm

My jaw dropped around the point when the cops interlaced their steps with the young girls during "Solidarity" and never let up till intermission.

Absolutely. That's one of my favorite numbers of any musical, ever. The harmony between the cops/miners and the girls is just magical and brilliant.

 

[Dave13]

Posted: 7/5/15 at 7:39am

"Don't know how I missed chiming in on this thread when it first appeared.
Full disclosure, BILLY ELLIOTT is my absolute favorite show of the 21st century, bar none. And nonsensically I hold this view despite feeling that the score on its own is just a middle-tier work. But the totality of the story, the staging, the design, the balance of comedy and tragedy, the focus on dance and gayness and family in all its definitions, all combine WITH the score to create a feeling onstage I've only rarely encountered in decades of theater-going.
My jaw dropped around the point when the cops interlaced their steps with the young girls during "Solidarity" and never let up till intermission. Tears streamed down my face during "The Letter", AND during Billy's pirouette lesson, AND during his airborne duet with Adult Billy, and on and on. There was so much innate knowledge about how a musical is supposed to work on that stage, so much attention to emotional truth, so many ways surrealism and abstract dance and basic vaudeville were all brought to bear on the story. The result was a night I'll never forget.
I'll also posit that those who saw the West End show first had a significantly different and richer experience than those who got the Broadway version or its roadshows first. (I was lucky enough to see the West End show twice, followed by the B'way show, and then once more on the West End.) Maybe it was something in the water, but the NY production was just an imitation without the soul the show innately has at the Victoria Palace Theater.
 "

 I agree with this 100%. Solidarity is by far one of the best scenes I have seen in a musical.  Loved how they interlaced the ballet class with the strike. Very powerful.  

Also Angry Dance with the police line and their shields was Powerful!!!  

Glad I saw the production in London   There is no other way to see it!!

 

 

[KC91WFU]

Posted: 7/5/15 at 9:03am

I agree that Solidarity is one of the best production numbers to drive a complicated plot that I have ever seen.  I also did not like some of the choices that they made with regard to Michael. Although I know it is there to lighten the mood for a moment, the whole dancing dresses thing did not resonate with me. I kept seeing Elton John in the duck suit in my mind. I also did not care for that goofy scene with Jackie and the Posh Dad at the Royal Ballet Theater. The second half is slow, and that scene does nothing to help it. I think part of the reason (in addition to the tremendous cost of the production) that Billy Elliot didn't run longer in the US was the casting of Emily Skinner as Mrs. Wilkinson when the original left.  She had zero rapport with the children and even less with the actor that played Mr. Braithwaite.  Lines that were previously funny or poignant were suddenly flat.  She used an eastern european accent. I really don't have a problem with her in general as an actress, but Mrs. Wilkinson and her relationship with Billy and Mr. B is integral to the show working.  There was no chemistry. The one exception was the scene where she busts in to get Billy to take him to the audition. She was really effective in that. I also agree that Next to Normal probably should have won best musical that year, but Billy Elliot is one of my very favorite shows ever. There are some good productions out there, but if you haven't seen it yet and can see it in London that is the way to do it!

[Megan Hilty Wannabe]

Posted: 7/5/15 at 8:51pm

"I don't remember the musical that well, but I thought that the movie was much more enjoyable and the show cheapened a lot of essential moments from the film."

 I actually felt it was a big copy and paste job. just add dance

[Marway44]

Posted: 7/6/15 at 6:46am

If anyone wants to see it again, just look up the Gateway Playhouse in Long Island.  It starts on July 22nd.