Rosie on NEXT TO NORMAL and Alice...- Page 3

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 12:33am

Well I don't claim to be an expert on the show. I've only seen it once, and it was way back in like October or November. But each of those characters plays a vital part in Billy's journey and each is in turn affected (or effected?) by him. My problem with the Doctor is that he's just there. He really doesn't ... do? anything. I'm not faulting the actor, or anything of that nature. I'm faulting the book writer. I mean, you have all these other characters who are very well fleshed out, but then you have this Doctor who for all purposes could not be in the show and the show wouldn't loose anything. I think if they had just added a line at the end like when the Doctor is talking to Dan like, " I did that when my wife left me" or something like that (I know that's an awful line), but something like that to give us something a bit more, than that would have been made the show SO much more.

And adamgreer, my problem isn't with you liking or disliking the show, but using the word "deserves." What makes one show deserve it more than the other? Neither were sure fire hits.

[Harpz2006]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 12:48am

I think the idea is that the doctor seems kind of detached and generic, like he represents the whole profession.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 12:52am

Oh no, I totally understand that, but it just bugs me since the rest of the show is so realistic and all the other characters are so fleshed out. I would expect, and accept, the Doctor character, say, in a Eugene Ionesco play, but not in a "realistic, gritty" musical.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 12:55am

You're not supposed to know much about either doctor, though. That's the point. They remain very clinical and separated from the action. Diana actually sings about this, when she talks about how he knows her deepest secrets, while she "knows his name."
Updated On: 6/4/09 at 12:55 AM

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 12:57am

Nope, I totally get that. Just saying it bugs me about the show because of all the other elements. I'm not saying its right or wrong, just not something I like about it. But, I also wish Henry had a song too, so whateves!

[Harpz2006]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 1:01am

I personally didn't love the parallels between Henry/Nat and Dan/Diana- the parallels seemed kind of forced, as the older couple had much more reason to be so tragic... I agree about some of the lyrics being predictable/weird (how can you get BACK to better than before?), but overall, the show was so moving and gave me such a heightened living experience... I can't complain, haha.

[scott68]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 1:37am

I agree that the Dan/Diana vs Henry/Natalie parallels are incredibly forced and pretty much entirely done for the sake of better harmonies in the score.

And Henry and the Doctor are definitely underdeveloped characters. Whether or not that's intentional is questionable, but either way, they seem more "types" than characters.

But at the same time, I don't think that the fact that the characters are affected by Billy or have an effect on Billy makes them somehow more worthy of being in the show. The little gay friend teaches him about being himself because... his dad wears dresses too? He's a naturally self-assured individual? The dance teacher is a jaded bitch who notices his talent... and at the end of the show is a somewhat less jaded bitch who appreciates his talent? And the grandma above all is who I have problems with. Yes, she gives the show some comic relief. But aside from that, what dramatic purpose does she serve? She doesn't advance the plot. Her song, passably funny as it eventually becomes, has no relation to Billy's storyline. The role is completely unrelated to the plot of the show.

[srg129]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 2:51am

I wholeheartedly agree Scott. Maybe not so much with the Next to Normal forced relationship argument. I'm sure you enjoyed Billy Elliot more than I did, but when I saw Billy Elliot I just felt the entire array of characters were one dimensional completely undeveloped stereotypes directed to appeal to a tourist's appreciation of exactly what to expect.

Grandma (Carole Shelley) was fiesty just to get laughs, but we never felt the hurt and regret of her having endured a long history of abuse and wishing for a better life through Billy. The father (Gregory Jbara) did nothing but bellow his way through the show and act confused and stereotypical (once again for comic effect) when the lightbulb in his brain went on that he might be able to get through his prejudices about his kid being a ballet dancer. And Hadyn Gywnne was so far detached from her character that you never felt she was truly fighting for Billy. For some odd reason, she came across as a high paid call girl who missed her chance at a dance break. There was no sense of desperation that this was one of her students who could really make it and bring her some personal glory. I'm not going to address the child actors because they are still kids and have a lot to learn.

It was all so formulaic and rather boring. I won't even talk about the cardboard cutout of a brother who ran the gamut of stereotypes from A to A. Just so much different from the movie. I just thought it was a really substandard and disappoining adaptation for a musical with a wealth of source material.

So much of the staging was over the top and unnecessary. Why the giant dancing dresses? Why the Peter Pan "I'm Flying" scene? Why the giant Maggie Thatcher puppet from people who are barely scraping by? What's completely odd is that some of the staging, especially for Solidarily and Electricity is absolutely brilliant. Why muck it up with all the other 75% of dreck?

I guess in the current state of the economy the producers and director did a great job in pandering to the lowest common denominator.

And the score is atrocious. It's like Elton wrote the music and lyrics in between tricks. The repetition and monotony in the lyrics is inexcusable for someone with his level of talent. I think that's the reason why there was so little character development for the entire cast.

I guess the production team thought, "we'll just throw tutus on the entire cast at the end of the show and everyone will leave the theater feeling good."

The fact is that Billy Elliot is a dance musical and nothing more. The choreography is brilliant, but so many of the other elements that make a truly great and exciting, "sit on the edge of your seat" musical are simply missing.

It would really be a shame to see Diane Paulus miss out on a Tony award when she has accomplished a much better job in fleshing out fully dimensional and conflicted characters in Hair and creating a production that is so completely in synch with intent with the material she has been given.

Unfortunately the producing voters will band 100% behind Billy Elliot (the show desgined exclusively for the nondiscriminating tourist), particulary with the current state of the economy. Go back four or five years in time and Billy Elliot would be taking home the only trophy it truly deserves--choreography.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 3:23am

I disagree with 99.9% of what you said. I love BILLY...it seems to have some odd kind of backlash on BWW. It's such a fantastic, incredible show with some great performances and it's hardly just a showcase for dancing.

There's an incredible storyline there, some gorgeous performances, and incredibly moving moments.

Honestly, I love N2N. That's not a secret. But secretly, I think I might actually have voted for BILLY for Best Musical if I were a Tony voter. I was thinking about this the last few weeks...I can't really explain why but I just think I would vote for BILLY over N2N, even though I actually enjoyed N2N a bit more than BILLY. It's weird...I can't really explain it.

Would I love to see N2N win Best Musical? Yes! Will it? No.

I think we will see a BILLY sweep...and honestly, as much as I love N2N, I'm perfectly okay with BILLY sweeping. It's a great, great show.

[jillmichael]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 4:10am

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

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 6:13am

I don't actually think most people are saying that BE is a "bad" show. I think most of us "enjoyed" it. Maybe even loved it.

However, I can like, even LOVE, a show and still see it's flaws. Do you have to agree with that? Of course not. Am I right? To an extent...because it's my opinion. If I say a certain show DESERVES or doesn't deserve the Tony, well, obviously that is my opinion. It is MY fact.

Almost all of us agree that BE will probably take home the big trophy on Sunday night. And while we understand why -- popularity, out of town producers, etc. -- it just wouldn't be our pick. I'm not upset that N2N isn't going to win, but I'll be rooting for it just the same.

I was moved by N2N because of the deep rooted emotion and pain the characters are feeling. I was moved by BE, because it is situational, and, therefore, sappy. TOTALLY different. It doesn't matter WHO is playing the roles in BE because they are 2 dimensional and as long as you don't suck, the result will be the same. (And before you yell at me, I'm not saying the current actors suck.) The performances do not REQUIRE finesse or particularly strong acting choices.

Will Sunday night be a travesty when BE takes home many awards? No. Is it a worthy show? Sure. Is it ACTUALLY the BEST show of the season? Not in my opinion. (I guess I don't understand the need to constantly add the words "in my opinion" all the time -- it's pretty understood, or at least should be.)

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 10:42am

You think Greg Jbara is giving a one dimensional performance? Perhaps you were too jaded to see the journey his character went through from being overly judgmental to seeing his son's raw talent and desire to becoming accepting of his son. It's beautiful.

And I'm sorry, but the show is good. It's a good mega-musical. It has heart, it has artistic integrity, and it's got some great moments. I don't think the score is awful. Sure, there are some clunkers, but most of the chorus songs are wonderful, and Billy's solos are kind of beautiful.

You can like whatever you want, that's fine, but my problem is when you say things like something "deserves" something more than the other show. I just want to know why you think it "deserves" it more than the other show. Why? What has Next to Normal gone through that makes it "deserve" the Tony more than Billy Elliot? Both were designed and conceived by professionals in the field. None of them were newbies like say the creative team behind "In The Heights." So why does it deserve it more than Billy?

[adamgreer]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 10:48am

Because ultimately, when you sit down to vote (if you're a viter), you're casting your vote for the show you feel deserves the award. That's what the process is.

And I'll jump on board and agree that Jbara's performance is incredibly one-dimensional. You can predict his "journey" from the minute he walks onstage- he's going to start out gruff and tough, and then eventually become accepting.

I don't think any of Billy's songs are particularly good, especially Electricity. Those lyrics sound like they were written by a high school student in a music composition class.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 10:53am

I'm breezing through these posts honestly and not reading them in full so this point may be completely moot but it's a little difficult to blame BILLY for having "stereotypes" of characters, isn't it? I mean, after all, it is based on a film and while the writers and director were the same, they still had the same plotline and characters to deal with...and I think they did a wonderful job of fleshing them out and making them all much more than one-dimensional.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 11:02am

Which is why I refer to them as TWO-dimensional.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 11:03am

I would consider myself a fan of both Billy Elliot and Next to Normal, but I don't think either one is a "perfect show". that being said, I think the characters in Billy Elliot are more developed in the movie than they are in the show. but, I think some of that is due to the medium of film.

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 11:05am

I wasn't referring to your post, dramamama, I was referring to others in the thread that complained of characters not being fleshed out and being stereotypes.

And yes, I found the character of Dad to have a few developmental problems but Jbara's performance makes it so much more real and believable and much, much less contrived.
Updated On: 6/4/09 at 11:05 AM

[americanboy99]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 2:46pm

BS.

Oh, and WHO CARES?!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 4:24pm

Well, obviously a number of folks or this thread wouldn't be 3 pages long.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 7:03pm

And just to bring this thread full-circle, name change and all...

It was Rosie who called Elton and told him to RUSH to see BILLY ELLIOT, which he did and secured the stage rights soon thereafter.

She has been a big proponent of the show and it was on her site that "electricity" was first released (months before the UK cd came out).

I can gaurentee that this will be the last time I bring up Rosie 'round here!

P

[dramamama611]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 7:10pm

Hm...gee. Could THAT have something to do with her not singing the praises of the only true competition it has (at the Tony's). We don't know...just like we don't know what she was actaully thinking when she posted that single sentence.

Rosie is not the do all and end all for anything. Perhaps at one time, but obviously the rose is off that bloom and has been for a while.

She has her fans, and that's fine....but around here we like to form our own opinions.

Updated On: 6/4/09 at 07:10 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 7:28pm

Well if Rosie said so the show needs to close and Ripley must never work again....i mean she is so talented when it comes to theatre...the work she did on destroying Taboo was great *rolls eyes*

[ZONEACE]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 7:29pm

Again, genre, out problem was not with rosie, it was with you and using rosie's VERY BRIEF comment to launch into a tirade about Alice Ripley and justify the tirade with Rosie's comment when the two were not related. You wanted to express that you thought Alice ruined N2N (a ridiculous statement already) and were trying use Rosie saying Alice was "very good" as proof.


WE don't hate Rosie, we hate idiots.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 7:48pm

And that's why someone attacked Rosie in a message posted roughly 90 seconds before yours, probably in the time it took to post your useless message. What exactly have you contributed to this thread, zoneace, besides justifying everything I said this board epitomizes nearly 24 hours ago? Let it go.

And continue speaking for the whole community, I'm sure they love your erudite wit and effortless elegance so amply evident in your (many,many) multitudes of posts.

I'll proudly take any lumps neccessary to get some fascinating discussions like we've gotten in the last 12 hours or so, without any involvement from you or I.

So, am I Marat or Sade?

P

[LittleBitRacist]

Posted: 6/4/09 at 8:00pm

"And continue speaking for the whole community, I'm sure they love your erudite wit and effortless elegance so amply evident in your (many,many) multitudes of posts. "

Zoneace can speak for me anytime, i agree!