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

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.

---

"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.

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

---

>> 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

"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.

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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."

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.

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.

---

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.

---