In defense of Matilda: I liked it an awful lot, but something stopped me just short of loving it as much as Mormon, Spring Awakening, or Hairspray. Maybe I wanted a bit more heart, a few more belly laughs...or to leave with one of the songs stuck in my head. Pippin did just a bit more for me this season.
In defense of critics: They're not Nazis, After Eight! They're paid for their opinions, they gotta give 'em.
In defense of children: every little kid sitting near me in Annie, Cinderella, and Matilda--and for that matter, the young children that turned up in the audience of Much Ado About Nothing which was a bit surprising--was seriously well-behaved. I wouldn't want to get my seat kicked, but it is heartening to see parents exposing their kids to theater early. It's the way I got hooked
No, you're not the only one who didn't like MATILDA. I saw it in London about 1,5 years ago and I didn't like it much. Thought it was boring. Bertie Carvel was great, but the score was a snooze-fest and other characters were so over-the-top (except the Ms. Whoevershewas, the teacher) that it wasn't even funny - though it was clearly supposed to be. I just thought it was soooo overrated. Much ado about nothing.
I am inclined to see it after the rave reviews, but the creative team came across as pompous and stupid in their NYTimes piece. They blabbered about how they had considered dumbing the show down for Americans, but had decided against it.
Casting blanket aspersions at one's potential audience didn't strike me as a hallmark of intelligence or good manners.
I am half hoping that in the preshow announcements a pompous British gas bag comes on and says, "Dear stupid Americans. Thanks for buying tickets to this show. We consider you far too stupid to appreciate our sophistication. Oh yes. And there are t-shirts for sale in the lobby because you also wear tacky clothes."
By the way, while there certainly are some wonderful Brits, they have their fair share of blockheads over there as well-- just consider where the inspiration for the source material came from in the first place.
My vocal coach, who adores Tim Minchin, was totally disappointed in this show. I've dragged my feet over going to this, but after the reviews, and knowing now that there's no stopping it from Tony-dom, I drank the poison and bought 2 tickets to see it next month. My husband continues to express total disinterest. I'm keeping my expectations very low...
"Casting blanket aspersions at one's potential audience didn't strike me as a hallmark of intelligence or good manners. "
Actually, making snotty, condescending, derogatory comments about one's audience will more likely than not endear them to critics, award givers, and directors of prestigious reperatory companies, who'll cheer them on and sing their praises. (cf, The Flick).
When I read the Village Voice review I couldn't help but say "Thank God someone feels the same as I do...this is the review I would have written." I'm not saying that I hated it or that it was tragic in any way. On the contrary... there were a lot of gorgeous things about it including the set, some of the performances were really interesting and fun, and a few of the songs I think are lovely (MY HOUSE, WHEN I GROW UP, NAUGHTY). But the runaway raves it's gotten blow my mind... I feel like it's a joke no one has let me in on and I'm sitting there looking dumbfounded while everyone else is laughing.
I really do hope it runs a long time and makes a lot of money. I'm glad it got nice reviews. But the level of reviews it has gotten... and I'm usually a good barometer on what people like. Not this time.
Interestingly, though, I don't hear people talking about going to it again and again like I've heard talk of for a couple of other popular shows this season. We will see what happens, but I'm glad I'm not the only one...
"People have their opinions and that doesn't mean that their opinions are wrong or right. I just take it with a grain of salt because opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one".
-Felicia Finley-
Yay-- there are more of us nay-sayers than you'd think. We found a lot in the show that was dazzling and sophisticated ("When We Grow Up" was a lovely respite), but overall we felt assaulted from beginning to end. "Spring Awakenings" sung by 8-year-olds, played at a decibel of 11.
As for the set, I admired the designer's fidelity to one blessed idea from beginning to end, but lordy, was that set difficult to look at for 2 plus hours. My eyes so craved seeing the characters against a clean cyc after scene after scene of scrabble tiles. (One brilliant coup, however, was the matching of each letter of the alphabet seen in set form to the lyrics we were hearing-- one of the sophisticated ideas scattered through the show.)
So yes, a lot of moments to admire, but oh, the show we had to sit through to get to those moments.
Thanks for the warning. I have a friend who saw it Saturday and said, "Why does everyone scream in this show and on broadway in general." The answer? Sound design and mics and singers of less true talent carried by electronics - please you know it is true. 90 percent of these performers today on broadway would not be in leads without microphones. The electronic inventions do have their drawbacks.
I know you believe your own hypothesis to be true, but I don't. You can have legit singers with crappy sound design. And weak singers are nothing new to Broadway. The advent of microphones had more to do with the evolution of orchestrations than with singing quality.
"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian
The thing that I am suprized nobody has mentioned the fact that the source material is about a girl with telekenetic powers ( Carrie-lite), and yet in the musical it is treached like a deaus ex machina, appearing in the last 20minutes, as a way to create a solution to a problem that we found out existed 5 minutes after she discovers her abilities.
But they don't NEED to be without microphones....they will be used regardless. Scores now are not written that any performer could do 8 shows a week without them.
If we're not having fun, then why are we doing it?
These are DISCUSSION boards, not mutual admiration boards. Discussion only occurs when we are willing to hear what others are thinking, regardless of whether it is alignment to our own thoughts.
Bravo to Feingold,(a very smart reviewer who really knows theater) who did not cave in to being PC in liking this show and wrote what he really felt. I am sure, because it received accolades in London, that many reviewers were intimidated into giving it raves, as they did with Billy Elliot. The Brits cannot do musicals. Period. All of the flaws are masked behind sets, lights and sound. And perhaps because Mormon was embraced over there, they thought they would return the favor- who knows. But I felt the reviews were way over the top in praise of this show.
In what way were the positve reviews of Matilda "being PC"? That doesn't even make any sense.
I am a firm believer in serendipity- all the random pieces coming together in one wonderful moment, when suddenly you see what their purpose was all along.
I think my main issue with the show was the score. I didn't hate the show and I'll totally recommend it to families in town who are looking for something new to see, but it's certainly not a cast recording I'll be rushing to get. And yes, the sound design for the show is atrocious.