West end Shows vs Broadway Show

Im writing a Paper for my Theatre history class and Im looking at Styles of Musicals

Is there a diffence in Styles from West End Shows Vs Broadway Show?

if your thinking about musicals then i dont think there would be much different, it depends on the cast and production team rather than the country! although its true that with our fringe stuff we are alot more experimental.

I have found that in the UK, musicals are acted (not always that well sung, but nearly always well acted) whereas on Broadway they are performed (well sung and danced, very glossy, but the acting can be variable). I know that this is a gross generalisation, but it's the feeling I've evolved having seen both. British directors don't direct American musicals well because they're not that interested in that 'gloss' so much as the acting and the 'truth' of the piece. Often to its detriment

We have more jukebox shows open because they're cheap and the economics of the West End are more forgiving than Broadway - shows hang on even when they're only half full (or empty depending on your mindset!) I disagree about the spectacle - don't forget that 42nd Street, Beauty & the Beast, Lion King, Ragtime, and Wicked are all recent 'Broadway spectaculars'. In the West End, we're heading towards more scaled down shows such as the new Sweeney Todd, Sunday in the Park..., Guys and Dolls and other Donmar productions, Blood Brothers, Taboo etc

Updated On: 3/7/06 at 10:36 AM

I agree with Eastwickian. The acting in British musicals is usually first rate while the singing is not always up to Broadway standards. The high level of acting that one sees in London musicals simply rarely exists in American musicals. To give you just one example, I was blown away by the high level of acting in Billy Elliot--- the chorus played miners and cops absolutely convincingly. On Broadway cops and miners would be played as caricatures and most of the male chorus would frankly come off as being too "artistic" to be real cops or miners.

---