MATILDA at the Oliviers- Page 2

[StageManager2]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 4:58pm

"Whomever the Matilda's are, and no matter what job they actually do, they are going to win BECAUSE they are children."

That's why I stopped watching "America's Funniest Home Videos." It always came down to babies/children or animals. Whoever competed against those (no matter how funny) always came in second or third.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 8:08pm

"I adore the score of Matilda and hope it does at least as well as Billy Elliot on Broadway."

I'm with you, Mister Matt. I love the cast recording and have adored what I've seen of the video clips. Friends who have seen it have raved and I can honestly say that this is probably the most I've been looking forward to a show for quite some time.

[vampire killer 91]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:42pm

I wasn't going to see Matilda beacause I thought I knew exactly how they would do it on stage and that it would be very dissapointing compared to the book. I can honestly say it was one of the best shows I have ever seen and I am sure it will be a huge hit over the pond!!! Also Massofmen, I'd be very interested to know if you have ever been to london to see a show before you start attacking our musicals....

[HBP]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:50pm

I remember watching a trailer for the show a few months ago and thinking it looked great!

Regarding the Olivier performance, though, I'll admit that I watched it a few hours ago on YouTube and thought it was alright, but now for the life of me I couldn't tell you what it was about. I just know that there were four of them and they sat on boxes and did some dance moves in unison. I guess it did not have much of an impact.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 9:58pm

Massofmen is an idiot of epic proportions but i will agree that over the past 10 years or so the West End has not really been putting out many musicals. Gone With the Wind died a death, as did Imagine This.

However we have had some great stuff like Zorro, Love Story, Bad Girls etc, whilst the shows may not have been big hits here they were still good shows. The problem is that original musicals are getting lost to the overblown rubbish like Wicked, Rock of Ages etc that have come from Broadway. Now producers are funding shows based on American films to keep the hen party audience happy.

Both countries produce their fair share of crap musicals, we just dont end up sending all ours over there, sadly we get a lot of the rubbish Broadway ones.

Also, i think the UK is far better at producing revivals of classic American musicals where great performances, innovative design, superb direction etc take precedent over big overblown spectacles. And yes, the UK is far better at plays recently though i adore a lot of American works.

America will always be better at musicals, i think the US actually takes more risks with musicals then the UK does, but don't make it sound like the UK does not do musicals anymore, as i say we just don't ship them over in a shiny merchandise driven package.

Matilda is a very strong musical, London Road is also superb, maybe try looking up musicals outside the US Massofmen, there's a whole world out there.

So can the country who gave the world Good Vibrations stop throwing stones at the country who unleashed We Will Rock You, we both suck equal at times, if anything we should be insulting those pesky Australians for giving the world Dirty Dancing and Priscilla (kidding, i love Australians)

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 3:27am

At least WWRY is a commercial hit - and has made talented musicians a lot of money! Good Vibrations... didn't.

Whatever one thinks of the jukebox musical - it's still a subgenre of the musical theatre, and it's one the British have been at the forefront of for a long time (Buddy, Mamma Mia, WWRY).

Alan Menken told me Disney is very, very scared of Matilda... as they're the big family shows in town and they're worried their thunder will be stolen (which it will be)

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:39am

Remind me again ... why do they need FOUR Matildas to do this show? That's only two shows a week for each.

Does it involve heavy dancing or singing for 2+ hours? Does she sing non-stop for the entire show?

[DeNada]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 8:12am

It's not a heavy dancing (or singing) role - it's much more of an acting part than anything, although she does have to carry two complicated solo numbers (Naughty, the number linked in this thread, and Quiet) by herself.

I think it's more because of child licensing laws. I don't know what regulations exist in New York for child performers but not only are the number of hours and days limited for child performers (particularly ones as young as the Matildas, who are all around 10-11) but there always has to be a "second" Matilda in the building as a standby, as with all child performers. There are four Gavroches in Les Mis in London, for instance, for similar reasons - and Matilda is a much more complicated part than Gavroche!

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:30am

The different child labor laws make sense. I could actually see this show being done on Broadway with one main and one alternate Matilda (like Jason in Falsettos, or Mary in Secret Garden).

The only other issue is the age of the character. If I remember correctly (and I killed some brain cells on that trip, so I might be very wrong), but Matilda is supposed to be 5, right? So the girls need to be young enough (or young-looking enough) to pull that off.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:32am

"Alan Menken told me Disney is very, very scared of Matilda... as they're the big family shows in town and they're worried their thunder will be stolen (which it will be)"

It's amusing to me that a corporation as large and successful as Disney is scared of Matilda.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:35am

I also don't believe a word of that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:36am

At least WWRY is a commercial hit - and has made talented musicians a lot of money! Good Vibrations... didn't.

Jersey Boys has. And Rock of Ages has been successful on Broadway and on tour. I don't know how the London production is doing, but the Shaftesbury is way too large for the show. I'm not quite sure how Good Vibrations became the go-to example for American jukebox musicals, but it's not as if Tonight's the Night or Desperately Seeking Susan never happened. And while Our House won the Olivier, it closed in less than a year. I'm quite fond of Our House, though I don't ever see a US production since most Americans are not familiar with Madness other than the title song.

I believe All the Fun of the Fair was a limited season, but I can't recall much praise for the show and the reviews for the tryout of Monkee Business sounded on par with Good Vibrations.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:39am

"The only other issue is the age of the character. If I remember correctly (and I killed some brain cells on that trip, so I might be very wrong), but Matilda is supposed to be 5, right? So the girls need to be young enough (or young-looking enough) to pull that off."

As I recall from the book, yes, she is around 5 or 6. As I recall from the casting notices for the Broadway production they have been looking for girls around 10 or 11, and casting most of the other students with teens and young adults who can still pass for teens. I'm assuming that this is so they can keep Matilda looking and feeling much younger than her peers, which I think is the important aspect of the character, without having to have the show actually rest on the shoulders of a very young child (i.e. a 7 or 8 year old).

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 10:42am

I know that not only are there 4 Matildas, but there's something like three full casts of other children that rotate throughout the week (probably due to the child labor laws in England). I would imagine that there'd be much less triple and quadruple casting here. And the idea to go with a 10 year old and cast older around here is a good one...and shouldn't affect the show all that much.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:00pm

Wow, those are some pretty strict child labor laws! Probably trying to make up for past sins of horrendous conditions with workhouses back in the 1800s and early 1900s.

I think our various American laws (child labor, Coogan, etc.) are good now, but not nearly as intense.

I remember for the national tour of the original "Annie," I saw a nine-year-old play it. At the time, she was the youngest ever to get the part, stepping up from playing Molly. She had a standby and understudies (as did Reid Shelton and Jane Connell), but no alternate. And she was on the road with it, which is not an easy schedule.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:16pm

'Alan Menken told me Disney is very, very scared of Matilda... as they're the big family shows in town and they're worried their thunder will be stolen (which it will be).'

Think the producers of Annie have to be worried about Matilda than Disney, Lion King is essentially bulletproof, Newsies is doing great business and Mary Poppins is safe until a big show is ready for The New Amsterdam.

As for Matilda, the show doesn't have as many children compared to Billy, Oliver or Annie but I imagine the RSC will keep having four Matildas and just double cast the smaller child parts.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:20pm

Honestly...the role is such that two 10 year olds should be able to split the 8 shows a week...with an alternate. It is a large role, but it's well crafted as to not tax a child too hard. Annie is, in many ways, a much more demanding role than Matilda. The score doesn't demand the vocals that Annie does, plus Matilda is very much an observer who only acts when necessary. It's a rather brilliantly paced role for a young actress.

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 12:31pm

It's up to the producers really, Billy Elliot understandly kept the three Billys due to the demands of the role, I think Mary Poppins has six Jane and Michaels whereas in Newsies there's only two actors for Les but Les isn't a big role compared to the other three,

[Scripps2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 1:42pm

I didn't think that Matilda was anywhere near as demanding a role as Billy (E), and that the awarding of the Olivier ("Breathe, Cleo, breathe!") was a vote for cuteness when there were more deserving contenders.

But I do think massofmen would be ideally cast as Matilda's father.

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:23pm

Many have proclaimed that Matilda is the hardest child role ever created - as there are huge long chunks of speech, Russian dialogue, singing, dancing and other stuff too.

Billy doesn't sing much - but the dancing is obviously the important factor there.

I don't know - just sharing what the creative team of Matida has told me,

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:35pm

Well Nick you have a stiffy for the show as we see all over the West End board so you would think the role was the hardest role ever for a child because you think everything in the show is sensational and brilliant and fabulous lol

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:44pm

Not sure the creative team for Matilda would be the most objective opinion on the subject. But many have proclaimed Leap of Faith is a lock for the Tony.

[best12bars]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 6:57pm

Mastering Russian dialogue doesn't mean you need 3 other Matildas to pull it off.

Maybe Actors' Equity should charge by the vowel.

It's a two-hour show, and unless the poor child never leaves the stage and sings non-stop throughout the evening ala Eva Peron, she wouldn't "max out" at a mere two shows per week.

But the child labor laws in the UK have spoken. Rest assured, kids in the U.S. can work a regular show for 2 hours each night without a fleet of backups.

Maybe that's insensitive, but I don't think it should be a problem. Why is it that adults either neglect children entirely or over-protect them to a fault? How about a little common sense and moderation?

[DeNada]

Posted: 5/4/12 at 7:20pm

Even if Matilda isn't on stage the whole show (and she IS on for a lot of it) it's a pretty taxing role for a kid to play nonetheless. I'm sure you'll have at least 2 on Broadway.

To return to an earlier point in the thread about who should have won the Olivier this year, I thought I'd link people to the other performances by the Best Actress nominees where possible this year - except after a billion years on BWW I still haven't got the hang of links. So I'll just mention them, and you can look them up if you care to do so...

Sarah Lancashire for Betty Blue Eyes - my personal choice for the award, but probably not for the right reasons. Sarah Lancashire is a "beloved" TV actress over here whose last foray into musical theatre ended terribly due to stage fright or something along those lines, but she gave a stonking performance in Betty. The number she sang at the Oliviers (Nobody) is camp of the highest order, but she brought the house down with it - bear in mind it had been a good six months since the show closed when she gave this performance.

Scarlett Strallen for Singing In The Rain - her performance in Good Morning at the awards does her no favours at all (what is WITH that accent?), but Scarlett Strallen is probably the "best" of the Strallens. Think the Redgrave dynasty, but instead of glacially poised classical actresses the Strallen family churns out slightly robotic but very skillful triple threat MT performers.

Kate Fleetwood for London Road - London Road didn't perform on the Oliviers so you can't see Kate Fleetwood's performance - unsurprising, really, given that it's a verbatim musical about murdered prostitutes. I rather saw her nomination as being representative of the whole cast as London Road is/was an ensemble piece. She gave a fantastic performance, though (and it was a truly brilliant show - I can't wait to see it again this summer, and I would actually have given it the Olivier over Matilda).

[temms]

Posted: 5/5/12 at 10:49am

They are looking to cast 4 girls in the US, and I believe 2 each for Lavender and Bruce, the two friends. (I'm peripherally involved in casting, so I often know these random things.) Child labor laws are much different in the US so they could do it with fewer, but I think the creative team likes keeping the children fresh and so having a rotation like that keeps the kids really on their A-game. It's not physically demanding but does take a lot of focus and concentration, especially for a child.

As far as age, they want somebody no taller than 4'4", which eliminates a lot of qualified people right off. All the children need to be 4'10" or under, with Matilda among the smallest. A short-for-her-age 10-year-old would be ideal, as it's really a lot to ask of an 8-year-old (who are usually closer to the right size.) But whoever it is, they want her to be tiny.