Matilda is OBVIOUSLY winning best musical....- Page 4

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 9:35pm

I'm confused by what "well-tread originality" would look like...

And, of course, joking aside, you raise the excellent consideration that not everything is in opposition to everything else. All tastes coexist simultaneously, and happily should prevail so that all who want to partake may have the chance. It's just that Tony's, like all awards, arbitrarily decide that BESTs are in order, and so tempers flare.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 9:39pm

If something "original" and "ambitious" is less well-crafted than its competitors, I don't think it deserves to win purely because of its originality. If the most well-crafted show is something people consider "well-tread" and too "fun", I still think that's what should be rewarded.

But that's my subjective take on it and years have taught me the Tony voters and nominators either don't share my view of craft or disagree with my theory entirely.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 9:51pm

"kids are perfectly capable of being represented as complexly as adults"

HUH?? What characters in MATILDA are in any way "complex"? They all seemed very one dimensional.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 10:19pm

I would absolutely agree with you Kelly, in any circumstance except that where two shows that I'm comparing are of otherwise equal or near-equal quality. Lord knows ambition is not required for a great musical, nor is originality. But, as I wrote, if Matilda and KB are this year's two finalists and both seem to be good if not quite good, my scales would be tipped by what (and again, I haven't seen KB so my perception of it is what I was working with) perceived to me the more ambitious and original of the two, similarly to how I felt last year when the both-great Once and Newsies paired off atop the Tony list and I fell for Once's beautiful ambition and originality just a smidgeon more than Newsies' exceptionally well-honed traditional exuberance. I am not firmly in one camp or the other, and certainly do not disregard relative quality otherwise, I just use it as a tie-break when comparing shows (such as when considering who to "root" for in an Awards situation or what to prioritize when I'm considering what shows to see).

As for the complexities of characters like Matilda, consider the lyrics in "Quiet," in which she discusses the philosophy of color perception and relativity at the speed of light, proceeds to apologize for not being able to articulate her state of mind to the degree she'd like to (a moment of particularly wonderful introspection, rare in any character in a musical, child or adult) and then manages to evoke her state of mind with an achingly beautiful series of simple but precise analogues. Or the way that her literary prodigiousness allows her to subvert the disappointments of her life in her continuing stories to her librarian. I agree that the supporting characters are drawn quite two-dimensionally (especially her family, with the concession that her brother isn't even two-dimensional, which ends up being a fun recurring bit) but Matilda herself is a fascinating character, and Minchin and Kelly (to me) did a great job transferring her from Dahl's page to the stage in all three-dimensional presentation.

[uncageg]

Posted: 4/6/13 at 10:27pm

I will add that Quiet took my breath away in Matilda. The show had its moments.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 7:59am

The character of Matilda is one dimensional because she represents "good" and that is it. The characters of the Headmistress and Matilda's parents are one dimensional because they represent "evil" and "stoopid" and that is it. The character of Miss Honey is one dimensional because she represents "weakness" and that is it. All the characters are just representative of certain adjectives, just like the kids in Dahl's "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (Charlie is good, Veruka is "spoilt" etc.). There are no "arcs" for these characters, they just "are". They don't learn, or change. They simply exist. They are the same at the end of the story as they are at the beginning. And that is why the show is so boring.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 9:53am

>> There are no "arcs" for these characters, they just "are". They don't learn, or change. They simply exist. They are the same at the end of the story as they are at the beginning. And that is why the show is so boring.

Yes, you're right - there are no "arcs", etc... but I think you're using an inappropriate set of evaluation criteria for the material. It's like evaluating children's literature using the same criteria you'd use to evaluate an adult novel. IMO, they're the wrong tools for the job.

Would you look for character arcs in children's books like "Where the Wild Things Are" or "Green Eggs and Ham"? You could, but are the character arcs the most interesting or important aspects of the books?

Matilda, the musical wasn't adapted for the stage from adult material that set a high value on well-developed character arcs. The musical does, however, recreate the imagination and perspectives of a "slice of life" (if we absolutely have to use adult criteria) novel, from a child's perspective; akin to Easton-Ellis' "Less Than Zero". Those characters don't go on much of a "growth/change/learning" arc either, but still a great read.

Eeeek... totally wrong and creepy to compare "Less Than Zero" with "Matilda" ---- but that's really my point. Wrong tools for the job. Matilda the musical is filled with many other elements (including a very well written score, IMO) that are much more relevant to evaluate than character arcs.

Updated On: 4/7/13 at 09:53 AM

[broadway guy]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 10:25am

I listened to the full cast recording last night and it really pains me to see this win best musical. The score is mediocre, the only songs that touched me were "Miracle" and "when i grow up". The rest is just bland....

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 10:57am

"It's like evaluating children's literature using the same criteria you'd use to evaluate an adult novel."

Yes, I believe children's literature should be evaluated using the same criteria you would use to evaluate an adult novel! To think that children's literature is devoid of character arcs, interesting plots, themes etc, is a huge miscalculation. I suggest you read some of the truly GREAT children's literature like Jane Yolen's GREYLING (a picture book), or Beverly Cleary's DEAR MR HENSHAW, or BUD, NOT BUDDY. The idea that children's literature (even for younger kids) has to be in the "Dahl" mode of caricatures instead of characters, of silly and asinine plot developments (the Russian Mafia in MATILDA) is insulting to the genre.

"The musical does, however, recreate the imagination and perspectives of a "slice of life" (if we absolutely have to use adult criteria) novel, from a child's perspective"

What?? What aspect of MATILDA would categorize it as a "slice of life" musical, even from a child's perspective?

As to MATILDA's score, I did like some of the songs (Quiet, Revolting Children, When I Grow Up) but some of the songs were simply uninteresting ("Open the door Jenny..", ).
The bottom line is that a good musical must have more than a good design, interesting choreography and a few good songs. Characters who have motivations and arcs, plots that are interesting are both standard requirements for a good musical.

[caadian_turtle]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 11:03am

Has anyone here seen both the West End production and the Broadway one? I saw the West End one when it just opened and it blew me away; the staging, songs, actors. And everyone I spoke to loved it to bits so I wonder if things have change that makes people connect with it less now?

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 11:37am

Characters who have motivations and arcs

You appear unfamiliar with MATILDA, then. Matilda, as a little girl in a loveless family that treats her like a stain on the rug, has the deep desire (as all children should) to be loved and in a loving and encouraging family unit, like she's read about in so many books. So, recognizing that her life does not resemble the stories she'd like to be playing a part in and identifying the kind of story she's actually living in, she is motivated to try and change her story from within it. Maybe you stepped out to the bathroom during "Naughty," which pretty neatly encapsulates this point.

As for arcs, I certainly wouldn't dare tell you that you're wrong, that arcs are beneficial, but "required" might prove arbitrarily troublesome. What, may I ask you, would you consider the arc of Dorothy in THE WIZARD OF OZ to be? Both are children's stories, both are basically quest narratives, where the heroine has a very simple but deeply-felt motivation, and everything they do bends the world around them to achieve that goal. The "arc" of the show itself is, from a bad situation into a good situation, through much effort.

Perhaps you would respond that Dorothy had to realize that she always knew how to go home, gaining the inner confidence to recognize the power of her agency. And then I would say to you, exactly my point.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 6:14pm

" So, recognizing that her life does not resemble the stories she'd like to be playing a part in and identifying the kind of story she's actually living in, she is motivated to try and change her story from within it."

I remember NAUGHTY, but I don't remember her actually DOING something to "change her story". She plays tricks on her dad and family for revenge I guess. But I am not sure how she actually took control of any situation and changed her story. You might say the "magical powers" but those were introduced so late in the musical and were done in such a lame, uninteresting way, that they barely registered as plot developments. I guess show writes a message on the board and then the Headmistress runs away (what an odd end for such an evil character, she just "runs away"??), but the powers just seemed like a foolish plot development.

As for Dorothy in TWOO I assume you are talking about the movie, where the character takes a journey to discover that you must treasure what you have before it is gone. "If I ever go looking for my heart's desire again, I won't look any further than my own backyard, because if it isn't there, I never really lost it to begin with."
Of course, they added this for the movie as that theme is really not in the novel. Just like they added themes to WILLY WONKA when the first made that film. Perhaps the folks who wrote the book for MATILDA would have been wise to flesh out the characters in that story too. It might have made a better musical.

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 6:29pm

I've always found Trunchbull running away to be one of the most dramatically unsatisfying pieces of the end of the show. I actually did "enjoy" the show, in that I had a good time, enjoyed some of the musical numbers, and was very impressed by the performances (Margerhita and Carvel mostly). But when I saw the critical and audience response, I was very surprised. I thought the show had a lot of flaws in the writing and though it was enjoyable, it was clearly imperfect. I agree with the criticism that none of the characters undergoes and significant enough transformation or takes enough decisive actions to change themselves to make me really feel they earned a happy ending.

[JMenstro]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 6:57pm

Kelly2 did we see the same show ????? I did not think there was any BAD writing in it. Or lack of character arch .

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 7:48pm

The reason I keep responding, mikey, to your posts is because, unlike Kelly2 (whose criticisms of the show I can see and mostly agree with -- the resolution of Trunchbull running away nearly gave me whiplash it happened so quickly), I simply remain unaware of what show you're talking when you describe MATILDA.

Yes, she plays pranks on her father, played mostly for comic effect, but she also gradually transforms the entire environment of her school through her steadfast resolution to restoring right and wrong to the world she wants to live in. Her actions (not fearing Trunchbull, cleverly inventing the narcolepsy story to save Bruce, in turn inspiring her fellow students to turn Spartacus after knocking Trunchbull down a peg and turning the tides against her/it, sparing her unloving family from the Russian Mafia at the end despite being handed on a silver plate the ultimate and perfect opportunity to be rid of them, which is of course ridiculous, and the one element of the show that felt even too ridiculous to me compared to normal Dahl-level ridiculous) represent all kinds of efforts manifesting from her motivation to change the story in which she's living. Here's a simple litmus test for "Does Matilda DO anything to change her story?" Is the story the same at the end as it was in the beginning? Yes. What changes come about through the motivations of a character OTHER than Matilda? Some, principally the children's Spartacus moment (but arguably this sprang forth from the sense of solidarity fostered from Matilda's earlier rebellions as well as her leading the cheering-on of Bruce's cake episode), but mostly every significant change to the story originates with something Matilda does.

Criticize the show for it's structural/pacing issues; for the supporting characters' lack of three-dimensionality (though I'd argue that, as a children's story or parable, this is not detrimental); for the density of the lyrics that leave many lines going unheard on first viewing (this is not uncommon, however, and I also argue is not a detriment when the lyrics, on later listen, are so wondrous) -- these are all criticisms I'll agree with. Or, criticize the score, the performances of the children or adult actors, the design, what have you -- all criticisms I couldn't fathom but at least would consider reasonable if well-argued. But criticize whether the lead character, from whom all elements of the plot of the show originate and respond to, has any agency in the story? I am literally unaware if we are talking about the same show. I cannot comprehend what you are talking about. I do not mean this to be mean-spirited, I would like to emphasize; I would like to consider your points about the show in a discussion of its merits, because I personally think it's a good-but-not-great musical (I'd give it a B+ or so) and as an artist find all pieces of theatre to be opportunities to ponder and learn about what works and what doesn't in a given circumstance. However, either your point is not coming across clearly-enough to register, or your point is so far removed from the material that I cannot recognize it.

[JMenstro]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 7:50pm

goldenboy Matilda was terrific

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 8:44pm

So, did we ever decide if Matilda was lemon pepper?

[broadway guy]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 9:01pm

I can't believe this thread is still going strong hahaha jesus people.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/7/13 at 9:56pm

Sorry, but I simply did not see Matilda doing much to "change her story". She sort of just stood around and watched things happen. I did not see "Matilda" encouraging Bruce to eat the cake (another silly set piece), ALL of the children were; listen to the London cast recording, BRUCE is an ensemble number. I certainly never made any connection between the (insignificant) actions of Matilda and the "Spartacus" actions of the other children. It all seemed very disconnected. I am not sure if "not fearing Trunchbull" is an action. How did she "save" Bruce? He had to eat the entire cake and then was sent to the "Chokey". And isn't it odd that MATILDA's big 11 o'clock number is a song called REVOLTING CHILDREN, a song that the character Matilda takes no part in; she leaves the stage with Miss Honey. Odd that an 11 o'clock number does not include the main character of the story.

Interesting that you can agree with Kelly2 despite the fact that Kelly2 agrees with me that "that none of the characters undergoes and significant enough transformation or takes enough decisive actions to change themselves to make me really feel they earned a happy ending."

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 6:35am

Caugtht this on Saturday's matinee. I liked it. I didn't love it -- not even close. Out of my 100 people, I would say "maybe" 20% loved it.

I thought the sets were dazzling and inventive -- but the set (like in Spiderman) should never be the best thing of any production.

I was highly impressed with the children, those kids worked that stage like a pro. Were all of them great actors? No, but neither were the Tony award winning Billy Elliot boys. This large group of children didn't bug the crap out of me as masses of children on stage usually do.

I thought many of the performances were quite lovely, to be honest, but the book and songs just sat there, waiting for something wonderful to happen to them.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 7:26am

I have to say this may be Broadway's "Year of the Child". So many shows with children where the children aren't precocious little showbiz snots. A CHRISTMAS STORY had a terrific group of little performers, the two main leads (Johnny Rabe and Zac Ballard were naturals) and then a wonderful little ensemble with the amazing Luke Spring stealing (and stopping) the show. The kids in MATILDA were also terrific (and some of them were so TINY they didn't look more than 7 or 8 --but of course they were). I even liked the more "showbizzy" kids over at ANNIE. All in all, it has been a great year for kids on Broadway.

[John Adams]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 11:17am

> I can't believe this thread is still going strong hahaha jesus people.
It's become a different (and IMO, more interesting) discussion than your original post. :^O

> Yes, I believe children's literature should be evaluated using the same criteria you would use to evaluate an adult novel!
Thank goodness evaluators of children's books/literature disagree with you! Matilda never would have been voted, "Nation's Favorite Children's Book", and received the "Federation of Children's Book Groups Award" in the UK. The Children's Book Council of Australia never would have given it the "Young Readers Award". Never mind that the book has been popular, read and enjoyed by children for more than 25 years.

mikey, if you want to enjoy the show for what it is, you've gotta let go of this adult "character arc" yardstick for measuring, and come down to a child's level. Matilda acknowledges many children's basic needs, and also appeals to their sensibilities regarding what they enjoy in a story. If you're looking for an "arc" of some kind, look at how Dahl (and the staged version of Dahl's book) addresses two very basic but important needs/emotions:

* That they are powerless among adults
* That the want security, and to feel loved

Both of these emotional needs (which I feel are much more important to focus on, instead of any "character arc") are addressed and resolved within the musical, and Matilda IS changed at the end.

The storytelling in the musical incorporates Dahl's dark sense of humor. In Ben Brantley's review he points out that the musical, "stays true to the tartness of Dahl, who reveled in the sinister and knew that children do too."

IMO, Matilda doesn't need any well-developed character arcs to be appealing. But I'm not a professional writer, so I won't do the book (or the musical) any justice regarding the "why". Take a look at this article, though and see what you think:
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/2013/04/roald_dahl_s_matilda_celebrates_its_25th_anniversary.html

It's my opinion that if you're judging the musical's plot and character development based on what makes sense from an adult perspective, using adult criteria, you'll miss why the show is so appealing. (Of course, it also helps in my case, that I taught first grade for many years, so I can relate to the show's child-like perspective.)

...and Minchin's score is just spot on in matching the themes and the storytelling of Matilda. Great messages for children that speak to their emotional needs, hysterically funny (IMO) satire, and well thought-out characterizations/musical dialog that match Dahl's dark style.

The show's not "genious" when compared to other shows that have won best musical in the past, but going back to the original topic, "the pickin's are kind of slim this year". IMO, Matilda's got a lot more going for it in terms of storytelling, sets, and how its score blends so well with the book and tells the story than say, a show like Kinky Boots. Updated On: 4/8/13 at 11:17 AM

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 12:26pm

Since John Adams spoke so well to many points, I'll address the point directed at me: I can sympathize with Kelly2, mikey, because Kelly is saying it didn't, "make me really feel they earned a happy ending". I see this, can understand it and agree (to a degree, but certainly partly at least.) Your point appears to be "Matilda doesn't DO anything." One is a subjective evaluation of the content of the show and how it affects the audience. It is a personal judgment, and one expressed in a way that makes it clear what is intended. Yours is an objective statement, one that does not resemble the material I saw, and cannot comprehend it.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 12:59pm

I sort of wonder what the expectations are going to see this show. To me, the book was something of a modern mischievous fairy tale. It's just fantasy. Fairy tale heroines are most often victims of circumstance and actually do very little. They rely on others to sympathize with their plight and rescue them. I think Matilda shows a bit more initiative. Classic underdog story. When you think about it, what did Annie do to deserve being adopted by a zillionaire? How did she EARN it? Other than her wardrobe, how did she CHANGE? Sleeping Beauty disobeys instructions, falls asleep, and wakes up a princess. That's it. She does NOTHING ELSE. And we love her and root for her despite the fact that she did nothing to earn her happy ending. Why? Because there is a classic and enduring human attraction to the romanticism of a happy ending for victims of circumstance. Bollywood was built on the idea.

Updated On: 4/8/13 at 12:59 PM

[Kelly2]

Posted: 4/8/13 at 1:07pm

MisterMatt, I don't disagree with you about the conceit inherent in fantastical fairy tale stories, it's just that by putting it onstage, I always hope/expect that through songs we can get more of an emotional arc and a different sort of depth and insight into who a character is than you get through just the written word. I want a musical to flesh out my understanding of a character because the stage has the advantage over the written word of having a real flesh and blood person there in front of you and allows them to express their extreme bursts of emotion and action in a different way. I'm not saying that this is the "right" path or the necessary path and I think there's absolutely a place for a simple fairy tale underdog story on Broadway, and definitely an audience for that, it just wasn't my taste and because of that, I found that there was promise there and room for more to be made of certain arcs and story lines that I wish had been explored. As for Sleeping Beauty, has there ever been a successful musical production of it? I think the reasons you gave for the inaction of her story is why. You can't sustain the momentum required for a musical with a heroine who spends the entire story unconscious. Matilda, however, is awake and a bit of a firestarter and I think that spirit is important to the story.

Also, I think part of it is that many of the reviews I read of the production, both "legit" ones in print from the West End production and those on here seemed to be from people who found it to be more than just a fairy tale, and since I really didn't see how you could take that from it, I was confused. I can't speak to anyone's experience with it besides my own though.