Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:31am
In Matilda, all the kids (10 or so?) in Matilda's class are played by children. Some young adult chorus members (8 or so?) play upper classmen at the school, who are probably meant to be 16 or so, but it's never specified.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:43am
My enthusiasm for this was at a neutral level and an announcement about casting that clearly hinges on a concept for a production I have not yet seen enough of to understand certainly can't change it.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:48am
Yay Emily Padgett! I hope this doesn't mean she can't continue on with "Sweet Charity" if/when it transfers.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:52am
curel1 said: "How bout y'all wait till you see it (or at least clips) before making judgements?
"
Because tickets will be quite expensive. If choices are made and publicized and those choices sound like they were poorly made, then people are going to judge whether or not to see a show based on those publicized choices. If this were a movie that people can see for $10 or less, this would be a more valid argument.
It is likely that people do not feel a need to see clips because they have already seen how well it works with actual children in the roles. We are, after all, talking about a show that was already a hit on the West End. People want to see that hit recreated. The choice of using adult actors to play the child roles is a huge divergence from the production that we expected to see. Whether intended or not, it will add layers that were not originally there in the West End production.
When we are talking about hundreds of dollars being spent to see a transfer of a much buzzed about production, there is nothing wrong with making judgments when it is announced that changes are being made.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 11:54am
I was already probably gonna see it, because of Christian Borle. But Emily Padgett makes it a must-see for me!
Posted: 12/19/16 at 12:08pm
This all sounds very weird, but Jackie Hoffman back on Broadway is always reason to celebrate.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 12:24pm
jimmycurry01 said: "We are, after all, talking about a show that was already a hit on the West End. People want to see that hit recreated."
Except the producers clearly did not want to see that version recreated, seeing as how they brought in a new creative team and have put out the money to workshop major changes to the book and score. You can debate about whether or not it would have been more expensive or not to use children, but it certainly would have been cheaper to import the show as is and not do any additional workshops over here. So clearly they were worried about how the show that opened in London would play to American audiences.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 12:48pm
Agreed. Just because it was a "hit" doesn't mean it was any good.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:01pm
People won't be seeing this because it was a hit in London.
They'll be seeing it because they want to hear "Pure Imagination" and see oompa loompas.
Updated On: 12/19/16 at 01:01 PM
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:04pm
darquegk said: "We had a mix of children and adults as children in the British production of MATILDA, didn't we? They used more kids in the Broadway- I just remember the almost Brian Blessed-like voice of one of the "kids" during "School Song" on the OLC.
"
Both productions have an equal amount of kids and adults as the school children.
I thought it was clear ages ago about there being adults playing the kids in Charlie... either way I'm not optimistic about it
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:06pm
Kad said: "People won't be seeing this because it was a hit in London.
They'll be seeing it because they want to hear "Pure Imagination" and see oompa loompas."
THIS.
Also, Jackie must be ecstatic to not have to work with more than two kids. I wonder if she'll get the same dressing room she had in Addams Family.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:25pm
And once again this casting notice just reflects the same old ensemble members who hop from show to show like it's nothing and get cast by productions because they have credits and it's a safe choice. I wish casting directors would take a risk and not recycle the same damn people every season. Mic drop. Done.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:29pm
I saw it in London and it WAS pretty bad...so hopefully they are improving it all with the changes and realized what needed fixing.
The kids all didn't really work in the London production (not that the kids weren't talented but their direction and characters really didn't work as written)..had I not known the movies well, I would have had no idea what they were all about. The Bubblegum kid had one pink balloon.....
I would have preferred kids here as well in an "improved" vision, but I'm open to either way if it works. (and I am sure that Jackie would be fine with adults or kids as long as it was working out). Nice to see some Lunt repeats - Emma P played Wendy in Finding Neverland - I can see her as a kid here as well. Nice also to have Paul Slade Smith and Kristi Cates back as well.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:31pm
JVJ93 said: "Mic drop. Done."
Seems like a very low bar for mic dropping... heh.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:32pm
JVJ93 said: "And once again this casting notice just reflects the same old ensemble members who hop from show to show like it's nothing and get cast by productions because they have credits and it's a safe choice. I wish casting directors would take a risk and not recycle the same damn people every season. Mic drop. Done. "
Somebody's angry they didn't book Charlie.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:37pm
KathyNYC2 said: "I saw it in London and it WAS pretty bad...so hopefully they are improving it all with the changes and realized what needed fixing.
The kids all didn't really work in the London production (not that the kids weren't talented but their direction and characters really didn't work as written)..had I not known the movies well, I would have had no idea what they were all about. The Bubblegum kid had one pink balloon....."
This. We also saw it in London, and my then 12 year old did not enjoy it very much. She thought it was barely "ok" and she declined to recommend it to others. I thought it was less than "ok".
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:43pm
neonlightsxo said: "Agreed. Just because it was a "hit" doesn't mean it was any good.
"
It doesn't have to be good, it just has to make money.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:52pm
...If they didn't want it to be of better quality than the West End production, they wouldn't have put so much time, money, and energy into revising it. Your logic doesn't flow.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 1:59pm
Maybe the adults as kids concept will make the children's songs discernible ... if the kids' individual intro songs are still in the show.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 2:08pm
This one was a must see when I first made my list of shows for this May. But in the end I dropped it off the list. Sounds like maybe I made one good decision with my show selections! :) Now fingers crossed groundhog day doesn't get the same response....
Posted: 12/19/16 at 2:27pm
Considering it's the same logo, I'm not sure they're recreating a ton...
Posted: 12/19/16 at 2:27pm
Jackie Hoffman doing Carol Burnett-again ! is a good reason to avoid.
I love Blood Brothers but the adults playing the young boys never sat well with me-just hope they don't try children-speak [in Charlie].
Posted: 12/19/16 at 3:33pm
With Warner Bros. producing, I highly doubt that casting adults instead of children was for an economic reason. Rather, it's more likely to do with the creatives' concept for this production. I'm interested to see why they chose to cast children instead of adults. I imagine it's because Dahl always created grotesque/over the top characters to serve as foes against child protagonists. His young protagonists were usually more childlike and had an everyman feel to them, while his secondary characters were larger and more abstract.
Posted: 12/19/16 at 3:46pm
KathyNYC2 said: "I saw it in London and it WAS pretty bad...so hopefully they are improving it all with the changes and realized what needed fixing.
The kids all didn't really work in the London production (not that the kids weren't talented but their direction and characters really didn't work as written)..had I not known the movies well, I would have had no idea what they were all about. The Bubblegum kid had one pink balloon.....
I would have preferred kids here as well in an "improved" vision, but I'm open to either way if it works. (and I am sure that Jackie would be fine with adults or kids as long as it was working out). Nice to see some Lunt repeats - Emma P played Wendy in Finding Neverland - I can see her as a kid here as well. Nice also to have Paul Slade Smith and Kristi Cates back as well.
Kathy's observation that one of the actresses playing a girl in this show also played Wendy in Finding Neverland is making me imagine (some people on) this board's reaction to the original casting notice for Peter Pan. "Adults playing Peter, Wendy, John and Michael?!?! Ugh. Cross this show off my list. It'll never work."
Posted: 12/19/16 at 4:19pm
And then there's You're a Good Man, Charlie Brown that apparently had a recent production with kids (which was discussed on here) and many here didn't like that idea.
Personally I'm willing to give it a look regardless.... if it is a musical I decide I really want to see anyway. Still on the fence. But not so much because of the casting.
I prefer the idea of kids in this one only because I still have those visions of the kids from the movie and thought they were pretty funny. But this could work too.
I will say that I've heard quite a few people say they weren't overly impressed when they saw it in London, including Kathy on this board. And when you consider it's been in London for quite some time I guess that proves that something can be a "hit," but not necessarily considered "good" by all people. Which was also pointed out by another poster.
I found it interesting that gersten noted that his/her child really didn't like it. That seems pretty telling. And leads me to think it might not be something I'm all that interested in after all. Again, not because of the casting, but because of the play itself.
