Does BWW MATILDA backlash Have Much to Do with KINKY love? — Page 2

Out of curiosity, have you listened to the cast recording?

---

When I saw Matilda I was paranoid that ageing was adversely affecting my hearing. But even though I sat in the second row and had the advantage of seeing lip movement quite clearly, it was of no help. It wasn't until I listened to the songs on You Tube that I was able to get the lyrics and that was mostly because the poster had added subtitles to what I believe was the London OCR.

It's obviously an issue for many.

Kad-I've listened to the cast recording. It's not any better, IMO.

The lyrics in Matilda are an issue for many in both London and New York because the sound design can't handle them. I don't know whether it's a "bad" sound design or just challenges in the theatres in question that can't be overcome, but it's a problem on both sides of the Atlantic (although thankfully not one I encountered when I saw the show).

I have to cop to wanting Matilda to win without knowing much about Kinky Boots - I want to cheer on a British success story and have friends who work on the show so I'm totally biased. I do, also, however, have a bit of a bias against Kinky Boots because it's not British enough! It's not the fact that the creative team are American - it's the fact that the accents are ropey, and the lyrics don't sound like things we'd say, and the book by all accounts is a travesty of British vernacular.

"I think there's a certain element of "ugly American" when it comes to critiquing Matilda on this Board. Some of the most repeated comments indicate, "I can't understand the accent" and "It copies Spring Awakening" (because of the uniformed, school setting) and in a broader, more generalized tone, "It's too 'British'"."

I find that pretty absurd. I don't know. I saw it both in London and here, and I have to say I found the sound design and acoustics to be better in London, I totally understand the complaints about muddled lyrics and sound here. I didn't have a problem, but I'd also seen it before and knew generally what was going on already, so I'm not the best judge. I think on both sides, there is a lot of dismissing of criticism for various reasons ("Ugly American" is a pretty silly one but there are others) but there are valid criticisms to be made of both shows and no one is "lesser-than" because they prefer one or the other, so long as their reasons for doing so are based in reality and experience with the show and not based on like...I think Tim Minchin has weird hair so I hope he loses.

For me, Matilda was good but lacked dramatic resolution and the score wasn't my taste, I found it a bit mediocre. "Naughty" is the only song I could really sing for you from memory, maybe pieces of "Revolting Children" and "Loud", but the latter only because I loved everything about Lesli Margherita. Kinky, on the other hand, left me singing half the score, I felt the performances on the whole were much stronger (I think Bertie Carvel is wonderful but one-dimensional compared to Billy Porter) and I just left happy and wanting to tell everyone I know to check it out.

Either way, we should be happy we have two good shows that are gonna duke it out, instead of yet another year like Book of Mormon, where the award's already been engraved.

---

I think Matilda is a more difficult show to embrace. It asks for different things than Kinky Boots. It isn't as optimistic, it isn't as familiar, it isn't as feel-good, it isn't as eager to please. I think its messages are relatively unique and subversive in musical theatre- whereas Kinky Boots is more able to, let's face it, preach to a choir very eager to receive its messages.

---

I was wondering about the differences between London and NYC. I saw the show in London (with Carvel) and didn't have a problem with understanding the lyrics. Perhaps it was the fact that the accents were native or that the sound design was pretty spot on. I enjoyed both MATILDA and KINKY BOOTS.

I left BOOTS feeling good. I left MATILDA feeling deeply moved. So I'd check off the box for MATILDA were I a Tony voter.

Loving the source material can be an impediment to enjoying an adaptation; there's always resentment about changes.

But the best adaptations always make big changes to the source; a good musical needs to be more than just the source set on stage with some songs plugged in (although currently, that's what most adaptations seem to be).

John Addams. I agree that listening to a show both before and after is useful and enhances everything. I have cast recordings of most shows (and yes I am one of those people who spend $25 at the theater cause I can't wait until it gets to the store). Certainly I will enjoy the music/show more after hearing it again and again (I have Naughty in my head after just watching the video of Oona on the View).

For me personally, I felt that there is more. I had a really hard time with the dialogue..not just the lyrics.. as well at Matilda and that had nothing to do with knowing about the show ahead of time. I know that Matilda tells stories and I know she was telling a story about the acrobat that kept continuing throughout the show. That said, with the Matilda that I saw, I have NO idea what she was saying. If I got maybe 2 words out of every 10, it was a lot. I just let it go and went with the intent...but I would have liked to follow the words too. So then how can I judge the show fairly?

I honestly did not have that problem at Kinky Boots. I felt they delivered their product better to the audience - and I say that without judging which show is "better". Matilda may indeed be the better show but Kinky Boots for me was a more successful production.

I am just not sure what judges should be judging here..

>> "I find that pretty absurd. I don't know. I saw it both in London and here, and I have to say I found the sound design and acoustics to be better in London, I totally understand the complaints about muddled lyrics and sound here."

Oh, for the love o' Mike...
So do I.

"Kad-I was predisposed to LOVING Matilda. I read the book so many times as a kid that I broke the binding of my book and it had to be fixed. I loved it and understood the messages. "

Agreed. I didn't go in expecting it to feel good, but I did expect more from the narrative and especially from the dramatic momentum in the second act. I wouldn't compare Kinky Boots and Matilda on what made me "feel better", but on which succeeds more at that goal they're trying to achieve. To me, Kinky Boots exceeds what it set out to do, whereas Matilda fell a bit short for me.

---

I too wonder how much response to Matilda has to do with people's expectations. It's brain over heart, and it has a deeply cynical edge. It basically tells us that most people aren't special--including children--and that truly great people are often treated terribly.

And it is, in my opinion, absolutely brilliant. Other disagree, and I understand that, but I'm surprised by people who feel Brantley unfairly overpraised it considering how glowing his Kinky Boots review was.

Then again, I have my own severe bias in that I think Kinky Boots is a thoroughly unimpressive mediocrity that represents the nadir of Harvey's theatrical efforts and shows that many of my favorite musicians should avoid attempting to write for the theater. I know how unpopular these opinions are, but ah well. Diversity is what makes opinions interesting.

For the record, I think Hardbody was the second most notable musical of the season and that when it comes to shows that just went with the formula and stuck the landing, Bring it On and Christmas Story outperformed Kinky Boots by a mile.

Thank you, KathyNYC2 for your patience with me!
I feel like I have a better understanding of why our opinions differ, and even where we agree (apparently the sound system, or sound operators need to be improved no matter WHAT show is in that theater!)

Although you haven't mentioned it, I apologize for singling out your post to comment regarding patterns I've seen in others' posts.