Anyone finding Matilda underwhelming? — Page 2

Put me in the camp that absolutely loves Matilda. It's a rare example of a British musical that can actually rival great American musicals. The score in particular is witty and clever (don't know how someone could hate the rhyming). The lyrics for "The Smell of Rebellion" and "School Song" are so good they borderline needless showing off!

I really think it deserved the Tony for Best Score over Kinky Boots. I enjoyed Kinky Boots, but that is a feel-good musical with a catchy pop score done well. I don't think there is a single song in that score that made me think "oh wow, that's an interesting way to use music or lyrics to tell a story".

Matilda is one of those shows that is very near and dear to my heart. I have seen it eight times, and will be seeing it many times between now and its closing night. It's one of those shows where every single element works in harmony to create a wondrous, joyous, and spectacular theatrical experience.

I few weeks ago I wondered if we would ever have a thread about Matilda without somehow bringing up Kinky Boots at the same time. Sadly, it still seems NO. Enough already...

I absolutely loved the show on tour, despite some sound problems, but I wouldn't say it was underwhelming. I do agree that the superpowers seemed less natural in the musical than in the book. They seemed like a last minute thought, and it didn't really work as well as in the movie or book

Saw it on Broadway and loved every second of it. One of my favorites, actually. I found the score catchy and memorable from my first listen to the London cast recording long before I saw the show. In fact, it's the score I return to most often in the past couple of years. To me, everything from the book, score, staging, direction and choreography were pretty much perfect in style, tone and cohesion. I plan on seeing it again in London.

qolbinau said: "The score in particular is witty and clever (don't know how someone could hate the rhyming)."



"Miracle" and "umbilical" don't rhyme, for starters.

While I enjoyed many aspects of MATILDA, I felt that we were told so much in advance at how wonderful and brilliant the show would be. We were told how MATILDA would be the greatest show to hit the Broadway stage in years. Even the first paragraph of Ben Brantley's review in the NY Times was vomit inducing:

"Rejoice, my theatergoing comrades. The children’s revolution has arrived on these shores, and it is even more glorious than we were promised. Rush now, barricade stormers of culture, to the Shubert Theater, and join the insurrection against tyranny, television, illiteracy, unjust punishment and impoverished imaginations, led by a 5-year-old La Pasionaria with a poker face and an off-the-charts I.Q."



GAG!!!! I felt similar to when the film THE SOCIAL NETWORK came out. Everyone kept saying months before it was released that it was a perfect, brilliant film. While I enjoyed the film, I did not find it to be perfect. I feel like they're setting you up for a loss by telling you how brilliant something is months or years before its release.

It would barely even register as a forced rhyme, something that's been used by well-respected lyricists throughout Broadway history, especially in comedic songs. Porter was particularly fond of them.

Mister Matt said: "It would barely even register as a forced rhyme, something that's been used by well-respected lyricists throughout Broadway history, especially in comedic songs. Porter was particularly fond of them.



"

I don't know if they are explicitly trying to rhyme those two words (though if you ask me, they are pretty close).

For example, here is another section (which I think is clever) where they attempt to rhyme each of the words at the end of the line:

"Specialness" seems de rigueurn.
Above average is average; Go fig-ueur,
Is it is some modern miracle of calculus,
That such frequent miracles don't render each one un-
miraculous

But on the line you refer to, they don't really emphasise on the words to make them rhyme. Also, because of the internal rhyme that happens on "clear" and "peer" by the time we get to the word "miracle" its relationship with "umbilical" is definitely lost.

Ever since the day doc chopped the umbilical cord,
It's been clear there's no peer for a miracle like me!

Updated On: 4/21/16 at 06:37 PM

qolbinau said: "Mister Matt said: "It would barely even register as a forced rhyme, something that's been used by well-respected lyricists throughout Broadway history, especially in comedic songs. Porter was particularly fond of them.



"

I don't know if they are explicitly trying to rhyme those two words (though if you ask me, they are pretty close).

For example, here is another section (which I think is clever) where they attempt to rhyme each of the words at the end of the line:

"Specialness" seems de rigueurn.
Above average is average; Go fig-ueur,
Is it is some modern miracle of calculus,
That such frequent miracles don't render each one un-
miraculous

But on the line you refer to, they don't really emphasise on the words to make them rhyme. Also, because of the internal rhyme that happens on "clear" and "peer" by the time we get to the word "miracle" its relationship with "umbilical" is definitely lost.

Ever since the day doc chopped the umbilical cord,
It's been clear there's no peer for a miracle like me!




"

Clear ... peer and mir-acle all rhyme. As in "Meer-a-cool". It doesn't rhyme on paper, but to the ear it rhymes.

Minchin is playing with words and our expectations of rhyme to get them out. Miracle and Umbilical do rhyme - because they both end in "cool". There's no arguing it.

Updated On: 4/22/16 at 02:55 AM

I do remember reading that there were very few women who could manage to do (for example) the pigtail swing..it's hard enough for a man. But to ultimately answer your question, I really don't know...

Call_me_jorge said: "I thought it was because that's what Dahl based the character off, a guy."



Then why wouldn't he have made the character a headmaster instead?

hannhannham said: "As someone who recently saw Matilda for the first time, I found it underwhelming. It was fine, the kids and set were very impressive, but the book was all over the place for me.

Sorry if this was talked about when Matilda first started, but I was baffled by the choice to have Miss Trunchball played by a man. Is there any reason to it other than for laughs? Not to be that person, but it came off as a little transphobic for me and a little odd to be presenting that notion to kids that it's "funny" when a man is dressed like a woman.

It didn't detract from my enjoyment of the show, just kind of jarring at first. Did anyone else feel the same?



"

6:36

http://youtu.be/UeHy4YEYHeA