MATILDA at the Oliviers

[ABB2357]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 3:45am

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

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 4:18am

I saw the number live...and all I thought was....THAT'S what everyone is raving about?

Now all I think about it: I feel terrible for any women that are nominated in Best Actress in a musical -- just like Billy Elliot, there will be no real contest. Whomever the Matilda's are, and no matter what job they actually do, they are going to win BECAUSE they are children. (I still dont think the Billys deserved to win.) They might BE the best thing, but it won't matter.

That being said, I AM curious about the show and hope the show lives up to the hype.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 5:14am

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

[dramamama611]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 5:24am

The boys were great dancers, no doubt. None of them were great singers or actors -- they were servicable at best. I don't care about the prep or amount of time it took to get ready -- what it takes to get ready is not a consideration (now if they pulled it off in a normal rehearsal period -- THAT would be impressive). These kind of kids are already machines.

Robert Spencer was incredible in his role and held his own against Alice every night. Since when is the award only given if you are the best thing in the show anyway? (Lots of shows have multiple acting awards -- they can't all be "the best thing about the show".)

I really didn't mean to dredge up a years old debate -- but the only competition the girls will truly have come awards time (assuming the show doesn't tank) will be the little girl playing Annie.

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 11:32am

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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 11:53am

Billy Elliot was a pretty decent hit running just over three years as well as extended runs in Chicago and Toronto. While it wasn't a mega-hit of the 80s spectacles, it's definitely the biggest British Broadway musical hit since Miss Saigon and winner of 10 Tony awards.

Oh, and though not having a British score, Mamma Mia originated in the West End and has been a massive worldwide hit. I loved Blood Brothers, Sunset Boulevard, The Witches of Eastwick, Bombay Dreams, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Jerry Springer: The Opera, Zorro and Lord of the Rings. As well as the Cam Mack revivals of My Fair Lady and Oliver. The London revival of La Cage was my favorite production of that musical. And the West End production of Legally Blonde realized the potential of the material and the production to a much higher degree than Broadway. It was perfection. I just hope we can see a US production of London Road.

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

Updated On: 5/3/12 at 11:53 AM

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 11:59am

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..

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:07pm

Billy Elliot was successful but it was just too expensive to become a long runner.

Would Mary Poppins count as it was a West End transfer but it has Disney as a co-producer.

[temms]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:15pm

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.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:16pm

Sunset Blvd. did run for almost three years, and would have returned a profit had it not been for all the lawsuits re: Patti & Faye.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:22pm

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.

[castlestreet]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:23pm

I think Matilda will do very well here

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:25pm

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 :)

[Jonwo]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:26pm

Matilda is a lot more accessible than Billy Elliot in terms of the story, it is dark at times which not that surprising as Roald Dahl books tend to have a element of darkness especially in his later stories.

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:30pm

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.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:40pm

Would Mary Poppins count as it was a West End transfer but it has Disney as a co-producer.

Yes. The production originated in the West End, adapted the book to include more from the original stories than the film did, and enhanced the score with work from a British songwriting team.

My point is that musicals, American and British, have varying degrees of success both on Broadway and in the West End. The success rate of American musicals on Broadway from season to season isn't that great, either. There just aren't as many British transfers. Rather than judging their merits on nationality, I prefer to view each musical as an individual entity regardless where they originate. And whether people like the show or not, Mamma Mia is the biggest British musical hit on Broadway since Les Miserables.

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:49pm

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.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 12:55pm

My guess is that Matilda will do very, very well. Yes. I saw it.

It has a great deal of charm and heart, but is also somewhat bizarre and dark. It has a perfect blend of elements that make the show as appealing to adults as to children. It's rather beautifully staged with a very good (though not great) score. The book is strong and British in a way that is far more accessible than Billy Elliott's book (I loved B.E., by the by). This will be the show to take younger girls to before you take them to WICKED.

[massofmen]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 1:19pm

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

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 1:25pm

massofmen, you come across as someone who is completely bigoted to the core, it would be pointless you seeing 'Matilda' when it comes to Broadway as you will hate it, just because it's not American.

[Kad]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 1:31pm

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

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 1:52pm

I love the promo clips of the production. I'm genuinely excited about this show.
Matilda Promo Clips

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 2:01pm

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

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 3:07pm

I admit Matilda so far doesn't particularly appeal to me, but to use the argument that there's not been a big UK musical hit in the US in 15 years to somehow discount any chance of success for this just boggles the mind. Nevermind that Billy Eliot and especially Mamma Mia, as pointed out, were (whatever you think of them artistically) suffiently long runs that most American shows of the past 15 years would love to have had, and that few musicals from any country have had the massive runs of those four 80s British megamusicals since then... And while I'm no fan, I'd rather watch Mamma Mia than Memphis anyday.

[SonofRobbieJ]

Posted: 5/3/12 at 3:30pm

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.