Billy Elliot London vs. Billy Elliot New York

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 3:36am

I was just wondering how different these 2 versions of Billy Elliot are, is the show spoken with British accent in NYC?
Has anyone seen the 2 versions?

Thanks!

[alterego]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 9:53am

And then there's BILLY ELLIOT Melbourne.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:34am

I saw London and Broadway, and the major difference I saw was energy. The London production had it. The NYC one just didn't. My parents and sister are usually willing to give a show a second chance if they like it if it seems one or two people were having a bad night. None of them have any desire to see it again because EVERYONE seemed to be sleepwalking through their performances. Even the orchestra didn't have energy.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:49am

That's ridiculous.

[Geridith]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:55am

I must again completely and respectfully disagree. I have seen both the London and New York shows and was equally moved by both. I've seen the NYC show quite a few times, and have always left wanting to go back again. All four Billys have given knockout performances. Were some performances better than others? Of course, actors are human.

As far as differences go, there are a few script changes, such as Billy's audition scene, but for the most part its very similar. I've also heard that they lightened the accent a little for US audiences, but its definitely still there. I haven't seen the Australian production, but from what I understand, its most like the US production, though the Angry Dance has completely different music.

[DRSisLove]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:59am

From a friend who has seen both the London and New York productions, she has said the show is almost entirely different.
Her exact words were "the plot is the same, but how they get there is not."

[Taryn]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 12:37pm

There are significant differences. I enjoyed the London production a lot more.

The major improvement the Broadway production has is the scene surrounding "He Could Be a Star" (which is renamed for the Broadway production, because that lyric doesn't appear anymore). It's the weakest song in the show either way, though, but the Broadway production improves the book scene around it.

There are certain changes that I really didn't care for, though. I don't like the revisions to "Merry Christmas, Maggie Thatcher." There also looked to be cuts to "Angry Dance," which is sad, because it was my favorite moment in the London production.

Also, the London cast when I saw it (very early January) was significantly better than the current Broadway cast (particularly Gregory Jbara, who plays the comedy as way too much of a buffoon).

[bythesword84]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 7:16pm

I'm continually baffled by the people who say there's no energy in the NY production. Every single time I've seen it the energy has been there and been breathtaking.

[sgv123]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 7:20pm

Agreed....I have only seen the NY production, but the 7 times that I have seen the show it has been very energetic.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 7:42pm

I'm continually baffled by the people who say there's no energy in the NY production.

Not "people." Just jordangirl, and she's an idiot.

[Wanna Be A Foster]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 7:45pm

jordangirl, with all due respect, you used to RAVE about BILLY ELLIOT. Then all of a sudden, you find out NEXT TO NORMAL is going to open on Broadway this season. It opens. You go back to see BILLY ELLIOT. And suddenly BILLY ELLIOT is bad. Hmm...

[jordangirl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 9:22pm

No. I LOVED Billy Elliot in London. LOVED it. I wanted to love it here. I had not had an opportunity to see it here yet because whenever I could go the rear mezz seats were gone. This was my first opportunity to see it. I had NEVER raved about the production here because I had never seen it here.

My parents and sister are completely unbiased ~ if anything my enthusiasm for next to normal should have DAMPENED theirs for it ~ I encouraged them to see Billy Elliot to the point of getting my dad on the phone the night it opened to book tickets. We ALL wanted to love it. THEY commented on the lack of energy before I did. I couldn't even speak to them when we walked out of the theatre because I felt so bad for encouraging them to see it. They assured me that they did not hold me responsible. They had wanted to see it too because they stayed in a B&B owned by he parents of someone either in the ensemble or who made it to final callbacks. They were excited about seeing it and were disappointed.

I'm glad so many others have never felt a lack of energy, but even if you want to claim I'm biased, my family isn't and THEY didn't like it either. Thank everyone SO much for saying that we ALL experienced a figment of our imaginations.

I can say with certainty that my dad was watching with a neutral eye because he had been asked to report back to the person at TPAC who heads up the tour stuff as to what his thoughts were on what he saw...and sadly for Billy it is NOT going to be good.

Updated On: 4/19/09 at 09:22 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:27pm

Does anyone have the slightest idea what she is prattling on about?

On second thought, never mind...

[singtopher]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:44pm

From what I gather, JordanGirl has only seen it once on Broadway. When I saw it a couple weeks back, the energy was fantastic. Perhaps she saw an "off" show, which is unfortunate.

[jordangirl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:51pm

Thank you singtopher. I have only seen it once on Broadway. Based on what I saw in London I was looking forward to it. I was disappointed. I have never said I hated it. But my family and I were all disappointed in it.

[sgv123]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 10:54pm

Yeah, it was probably just an off night. I have never had any problems with the show....amazing every time. I don't think it would hurt to see it again if you can.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 11:06pm

It's just an opinion, there is no need to call anyone "stupid", please!!!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 11:30pm

I didn't say she was stupid. I said she was an idiot.

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 4/19/09 at 11:37pm

Oh, I mean "idiot".

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:11pm

I'm waiting until an American (or Canadian) takes over from Haydn before seeing the Broadway production so I can only comment on having seen the London production and on what I've read about the Broadway production:

I get the impression that the London production sets the show more firmly within its historical context. For me this musical is as much about a turning point in post-war British history as it is about a boy who wants to dance. This comes from the 1940s newsreel footage that begins the London production, talking about "the experiment of socialism in a democracy"; an expeiment which Margaret Thatcher declared a failure in the 1980s and brought to an end. I understand that the opening of the Broadway production has contemporary TV news footage about the miners strike putting the show within an immediate rather than an historical context.

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the strike that was so much more than a strike and there is much assessment of what its failure really meant going on here at the moment. Having grown up in that decade and experienced both the trauma and the astonishment of it undoubtedly created a strong emotional resonance for me when I saw Billy Elliott, and it will therefore be very interesting to see if the Broadway production has the same effect.

[Tom's Cat]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:23pm

I never got the impression that it was about a boy who wanted to dance. What the boy wanted to do was secondary to the fact that he wanted to do SOMETHING that would take him away from the life they were living in that town and that he became more or less a symbol or an agent for all the townspeople in achieving that goal. The scene where they all, despite the obvious poverty resulting from the strike, still were willing to give their last few cents to get him to London. And later, they were all interested and caring in seeing that one of their own was able to break free. It was the relationships between Billy, his dad and the rest of his family, and all the townspeople that became the main story. The world those children lived in at that time is almost unimaginable to us, but the show demonstrated it beautifully (particularly with SOLIDARITY). It didn't really matter if the main child wanted to be a dancer, singer, CPA or Indian chief. It was the way they all threw selfishness away and pulled together at the worst possible time that made the real story.

[Scripps2]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 3:37pm

I agree with you entirely Tom's Cat. I was being economical with my typing (and unintentionally facile) when I wrote "a boy who wants to dance".

And from everything I've read on this board I don't think I'll be disappointed.

[Hank]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 9:04pm

I just saw Billy a couple weeks ago in London, after seeing it twice in NY, an early preview with all the set problems for Kiril, and just after with opening with Trent.
Very similar, but the accents were a bit thicker in London, and I thought the audience was a bit more in tune with what was going on, understandably.
The Vic is a bit off the from the heart of the West End theatre district, close by Buckingham Palace. There's a nice pub right next door, and across the street there's a shop selling Cornish pastys.

[logan0215]

Posted: 4/21/09 at 9:16pm

I saw the London production one year ago, then the NYC production.

I would concur that possibly energy would be the thing missing, but I think "heart" could be equally applicable.

I think that something was lost in having Americans playing citizens of the UK with their accents rather than having citizens of the UK playing citizens of the UK.

It was much more fluid and moving in London. That is about all I can pinpoint.

[alterego]

Posted: 4/22/09 at 8:55am

The Australian production opened a year or so after London but before New York. As I hear it quite a lot of new material went into the show here in order to make it a little more accessible for the Australian, American and future international audiences. During previews here in Oz a lot of the new material was ditched in favour of the original. How much of that newer material found its way to Broadway I don't know but I think an Australian audience would be more in tune with the various British references that maybe a little obscure to you guys. I think it not unlikely that each production is tailored for the country it is playing in.