I've never actually posted here, mostly because many people here are just so snarky and mean to each other, and I just don't like to get involved with that kind of thing. But, srg, your post needs to be corrected, as some of your arguments are just plain invalid.
You write: "I guess in the current state of the economy the producers and director did a great job in pandering to the lowest common denominator."
How can this be when the musical was created in 2005 in London? The catch phrase "current state of the economy" simply didn't apply back then. And no, the musical hasn't changed significantly since then, as far as plot, dance scenes, etc. The wire, the dancing dresses, the finale were there back then as they are now.
You also write: "Go back four or five years in time and Billy Elliot would be taking home the only trophy it truly deserves--choreography."
Go back four or five years, and the same musical won England's equivalent of the Tony Award for Best Musical, the award for Best Actor in a Musical (shared by all three boys, mind you) , in addition to the award for Peter Darling's amazing choreography.
Look, I'm sure if the show was not popular, many of the same people that bash Billy here would actually root for it. Sadly, it's just not the "cool" thing to do to root for the popular musical--if it's popular it MUST be bad, right? Funny thing is, I bet when the show was still in previews in London over 4 years ago, many Billy-bashers probably thought it was the best thing since sliced bread. Now that it's popular, the only right thing to do is hate it, right?
And with regards to Stephen Daldry and whether he deserves a Tony: I wholeheartedly believe that the man is brilliant. He's worked in British theatre his entire professional life. He's done three movies in the meantime: Billy Elliot, The Hours, and The Reader--all three for which he was nominated for an Academy Award as Best Director. He has batted 1000. In my eyes, Mr. Daldry is a genius.
I actually don't think the show is schmaltzy in the least. In Ben Brantley's original Billy Elliot review, he wrote something to the effect that "even the dancing dresses seem to grow organically out of coal dust." I definitely agree with that statement. Billy Elliot would not be great if it weren't for the fact that Billy's story is completely rooted in sadness and reality.
Furthermore, I believe that each of Stephen Daldry's directing choices has some type of significance, whether to British coal-mining communities, British theatre, or ballet in general. I'm sure you don't know the entire history of British theatre, nor do I, but just because you don't see the significance of something (besides what you call pandering to tourists), doesn't mean its not there. Heck, Shakespeare's words sound very pretty and appeal to many, but do you understand every single word he writes or symbol he uses? For example, the Swan Lake pas de deux that everyone complains "panders to the public" was actually addressed by a recent article about choreography in the New York Times: "dancers on wires were an important element of the Romantic ballet of the 19th century," which could indicate a possible reason Stephen Daldry and Peter Darling chose to utilize wire work with Billy.
And Elton's music?? it is definitely apropros to the period and the circumstances. It does exactly what it is supposed to do. Billy is not in 2009 United States- he is in 1984 Northeast England amidst coal dust, gruff miners, and a little boy who is able to use his imagination to lift him out of his dire circumstances. Doesn't sound too unbelievable to me.
Updated On: 6/4/09 at 04:10 AM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
