Matilda US/London

[Matt1]

Posted: 8/17/13 at 7:00pm

Has anyone seen Matilda in both the US and London? How do they compare in talent and production. Thanks!

Updated On: 8/17/13 at 07:00 PM

[BL5965]

Posted: 8/17/13 at 9:27pm

With regards to talent, they are almost the same. Obviously, if you want to see Bertie/Lauren as the original Trunchbull/Miss Honey, the Broadway production is the one to see ASAP. There's the problem in the Broadway show with everyone (esp the children/Matildas) needing to put on a London accent. While normally it's fine, it could potentially be slightly off-putting if done badly (esp during singing). There's one girl in particular who consistently sounds more Australian than British, unfortunately. General acting/dancing/singing skills are comparable.

With regards to production, I believe the Shubert theatre is quite larger than the Cambridge theatre. Also being the most recent production, the Broadway show has slightly updated minor set pieces, but essentially everything is identical. Other differences include the Broadway show having a curtain and overture, though some changes may eventually transfer to London too.

Opinion: See whichever is more convenient for you to see! They are both great productions of equal standard.

Updated On: 8/17/13 at 09:27 PM

[NotTheComfyChair]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 1:07am

I'd certainly agree that they are comparable. They are both great productions. Production values are pretty equal. Unfortunately, the NY sound is as loud, or maybe louder, than London.
For me, I'd say that the Broadway production has a better level of singing and dancing skill than London, though I wouldn't agree with your views on the accents. Generally, they are excellent (in my opinion).
When compared to another show currently on Broadway that is meant to be British, I feel that Matilda is the height of accent accuracy. I think that, despite some definite slips, the Matildas are doing a remarkable job with their accents, considering how much they are on-stage and that they are aged between 9 and 11! Unlike, and again I reference, "another show currently on Broadway that is meant to be British." And the actors in the 'other show' are adult performers.
With regard to Australian/London, there are now Londoners who can sound Australian (Brits blame the Aussie Soaps that infected the TV airwaves in the Eighties and Nineties) and the newest London "youth" accent has elements of London, the Caribbean and South Asia.
Go figure!

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 1:30am

I will agree when comparing MATILDA with "the other show that is meant to be British." Honestly, I love both shows, but with the latter I sometimes have to remind myself the show is not set in America.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 8:58am

I think the difference for me is that the "other show" doesn't need to be set in England. It is set there but the theme and energy of the show would be the same no matter where it's set.

However, Matilda IS a British show. Yes while many themes of the show are universal, it makes use of young children in British type schools, the idea of using a male actor in a female part is commonplace in English theater history...and it's much more British in terms of language, expression, etc. IMO the British accent is more a necessary part of Matilda...so it's probably judged more harshly.

That said, while not a real fan of Matilda the Musical in terms of the NYC version that I saw, I have to say the accents were totally excellent for me and as much as I had problems with the show and mostly the sound, the accents were not at all my issue. I thought they were spot on.

Updated On: 8/18/13 at 08:58 AM

[gchris11]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 10:35am

Saw them both and dis liked them both.
Too loud, hard to understand.
Didn't care for the story, music or the ending. Wish they had stuck closer to the book.

[Huss417]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 10:49am

@gchris11

Then why did you see it twice?

[FANtomFollies]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 11:10am

just to be clear, it the 'other show' Once?

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 12:53pm

No. Once is Irish.

My guess is the other show is Kinky Boots.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 2:13pm

^ Ding, ding, ding!

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 8:07pm

"Didn't care for the story, music or the ending. Wish they had stuck closer to the book."

The creators of the musical stuck a whole lot closer to the book than the creators of the movie.

[Minadnan]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 8:12pm

I am still sore the other show got the big award.

[gchris11]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 10:40pm

The reason I saw it twice was I went to London in December thought I would enjoy it considering all the awards it won. I did NOT enjoy it. Saw it the second time here, I was leaving a Wednesday matinee of Pippin and they had just started the lottery, so for SH*Ts and Giggles I entered. I won. My Boyfriend had not seen it in London with me so I took the tickets. HE dis-liked it also. I still don't understand all the hype. I also wanted to see if they would Americanize it or keep it British. Well, we all know the answer to that. I want my 5 hours back.

[wickedmonkey33]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 10:56pm

I have seen Matilda twice on Broadway and once on the west end. Whoever said that the Broadway version has an overture and curtain is incorrect. I think these were included in previews but they were cut by the second month of the run. Whoever said it should have stayed true to the book doesn't realize just how similar it is. The only difference is the story that Matilda tells Mrs. Phelps. In London, the entire book is much more British than on Broadway, some of the dancing is different, and a lot of the lighting is different. I found the cast in New York to be twice as good as in the West End, including the adults. The accents are brilliantly done on Broadway compared to the musical the undeservingly won Best Musical this year. Matilda is the best show of this millennium. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't taken the time to realize just how brilliant the creative team is. GO back and listen to the lyrics- they are unbelievably clever.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 11:03pm

"Whoever said that the Broadway version has an overture and curtain is incorrect. I think these were included in previews but they were cut by the second month of the run."

You're a bit turned around there. The curtain and overture (really more of a brief prelude) were added at some point during the summer, probably about a month or so ago now. The theory is that they hadn't gotten their pre-show (which would include fight/stunt calls) down to a time where they could get everything done and open the house at half hour. By adding the curtain they can now keep on working onstage as the audience comes in.

[uncageg]

Posted: 8/18/13 at 11:20pm

Interesting about the curtain. I saw it in preview without. But that makes sense.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 12:30am

"Matilda is the best show of this millennium. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't taken the time to realize just how brilliant the creative team is. GO back and listen to the lyrics- they are unbelievably clever."

I am totally fine if you believe that it's the best show of the millennium. You are in your right and I would not question your opinion as you are entitled to it.

However, I take issue with the idea that the reason I don't agree with you is because I haven't taken the time to realize how brilliant the team is. I have taken the time, I have listened to the lyrics - which ARE often very clever - but I still don't come up with your conclusion for a wide range of reasons. And that's my opinion - which is equally as valid as anyone elses.

[TheatreKid3]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 1:33am

Regardless if "the other show" could or could not be set in England, it IS. Therefore, it should sound like it - consistently. Truth be told, and this is coming from someone who loves that show, it doesn't.

MATILDA losing the Tony will be one gross upset talked about for a long time.

Like I said, I loved both shows (I can't say that enough), but as an award-worthy or effective piece of theatre there is no show this season (in my opinion) that could even hold a candle to MATILDA (new) and PIPPIN (revival).
Updated On: 8/19/13 at 01:33 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 1:59am

Matilda was quite possibly the most stunning and innovative production I have ever seen. The whole show is its own world. I was completely swept away into the world of Roald Dahl upon entering the Shubert. This show is like the eighth wonder of the world in my opinion. It's one of those shows I have not been able to get out of my head.

[gchris11]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 5:00am

Wondering why it never happened in London!!!!!! The curtain and the overture????

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 6:07am

It's something to do with the fact boiling down to unions for backstage people and them not having the show ready on time for when the audience need to come into the theatre.

I am glad we don't have the curtain - the preset is lovely.

There was an overture for a brief time in the early previews in London - it was cut swiftly. Maybe they'll put the BWay one in - but it'd be an expensive decision as the band will have to rehearse it, etc etc.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/19/13 at 10:19am

The Broadway production hardly has an overture. It is more like a 20-30 second interlude as the curtain goes up.