MATILDA at the Oliviers

Everyone involved in this should clear their shelves in time for the Tonys next year. Phenomenal work all around, especially by the four very different but equally talented girls.


MATILDA

Updated On: 5/3/12 at 03:45 AM

I disagree. I thought the Billys wholeheartedly deserved the award. That role is more demanding than many people know, with so much preparation involved that most of the boys start rehearsing a year or more in advance for the role. That type of discipline and commitment required for the role is incentive enough, not to mention that all 3 boys gave incredible performances.

They obviously deserved it over Brian D'Arcy James as Skrek and Constantine Maroulis in Rock of Ages.

Say what you want about J. Robert Spencer in N2N, but he was by far not the best part of that show. It was Alice Ripley's star vehicle from the beginning.

The only competition they had was Gavin Creel in Hair, and just for sake of the requirements of the roles and the level to which they were performed, the Billys are the clear winners. Billy is a much more demanding role than Matilda (in terms of skill requirements, especially in dance), so I don't know if the Matilda's would have the same prominence in the community that the Billys were given.

Updated On: 5/3/12 at 05:14 AM

again, name me a british musical in the last 15 years that was a big hit. I don't count billy elliot but you can if you want. I just don't buy it anymore from the Brits.

mamma mia? really? and ALL those other shows you mentioned were bombs in the states. and legally blonde started here.

again..any musical in the last 15 years from London that was a hit? other than Mamma mia and Billy elliot i guess..i mean if those are the 2 we are using as comparison good luck..

Having only seen clips but having listened to it quite a bit and read much of the press about it, I think "Matilda" is head and shoulders above everything that's come in from London in a long while, including "Billy Elliot". I think it's going to be truly wonderful and audiences will respond to it. People who I respect a lot who saw it in London have said it's something really special.

At the very least, stories about magical children in British schools seem to be rather popular these days...

I agree that a lot of things from London were pre-sold as much bigger hits than they turned out to be (I think the "Oklahoma" revival was the first really big example of something that was supposed to blow us all away but kind of fizzled) but I think "Matilda" is going to do well and be very popular. I think it's a lot more accessible than "Billy Elliot".

I also think Tim Minchin's score is far better than most new scores in recent memory, which I think will be very refreshing to audiences who are getting to used to so-so music in new musicals.

I'm totally aware of what was a hit and what bombed, but I have opinions about their other shows as well as their interpretations of American musicals.

Not every American musical is a hit, either. And not every American hit on Broadway is a hit in the West End. It goes both ways. But saying you don't trust British musicals on Broadway because you don't like the last two hits doesn't mean they weren't hits. And why does it even matter? Because all British musicals are the same? Like all American musicals are the same? Other than saying the last British musical you will recognize as a hit on Broadway was Miss Saigon and that means Matilda won't do well? Or something? I'm not getting your point.

---

my point is that i think the American culture knows how to do musicals better than the brits in this country.

I think the brits are very very good at plays and Americans are very very good at musicals. Hence why many british plays do well here and musicals don't. Most, 85% of the musicals brought over from London in the past 15 years have been huge bombs.This is my point :)

Matilda is, arguably, the best British musical in the last two decades... some say the best British musical ever.

Never in my life time has a show won more awards than any other show in British theatre history, got 5 star reviews from every single critic/newspaper, recouped its cost within 2 months, and got rave word of mouth reviews, too.

It's a very important musical for many people - because it's the first big Roald Dahl adaptation that's ever appeared on stage in musical form; and Dahl (especially in the UK) is such an important and huge part of a lot of peoples' youth.

Also - it's different to Annie, because, for New Yorkers, Annie has songs that people know, has spawned two filmusicals of the name, (sequels!) and countless high school productions - so, Matilda (for many) will introduce a seed of curiosity into audiences.

Read any review of Matilda (even Brantley's) and you'll see why it's so important.

---

this is a moot conversation. I think most british musicals are crap, and you think they aren't. thats about it :) lets talk about something else.

i hope it does wonderfully! it would break the cycle of bad british musicals over the past 15 years :)

I enjoyed the number and the performance. I'd, of course, like to see it in the context of the show.

---

Oh I didn't enjoy it because it's not very good, not because it's British.

It didn't appeal to me either, Eric. In fact, I wasn't planning on seeing it during my trip to London last month. But a dear friend insisted, so I went. It really was lovely, magical, fun and tuneful. Best musical ever? Oh no. Best musical in the last decade? Afraid not. But it is something special, and I definitely encourage you to see it.