When "Matilda" comes to Broadway, WATCH OUT- Page 2

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 11:35am

Bonnie and Clyde for children? i'm going to guess you have never seen it.

[Katurian2]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 12:23pm

I didn't see Bonnie & Clyde at La Jolla, if that's what you're asking. But I've obviously seen the movie many times and am well aware of what it's about.

I'm fine with channeling child-like sensibility- one of my favorite shows of last season was 'Peter and the Starcatcher,' which was all about that sort of energy and nostalgia, only it did an amazing job of greatly improving its source material and making a unique style of presentation that legitimized it as well. The final tone of the show's ending left it with a very adult note, while at the same time the few children I saw in the audience loved it. On the other hand, you have things like 'Addams Family' and 'Little Mermaid' that are so lazily simplistic, they work against any progression of musicals.

Children want to see complex shows as well, and adults don't have to begrudge dragging them to them. 'Into the Woods' is a show many kids love but with adult themes overlaying. Plenty of kids loved 'RENT,' and that obviously had adult themes to it. One or two kids shows on Broadway- fine. But now we have: "Mary Poppins," "Lion King," "Addams Family" (for now), "Wicked," "Spider-Man," "Sister Act," "Billy Elliot" (though I'll give that has adult themes as well) and "Godspell." What adult-geared musicals do we have? "Follies" and "Book of Mormon." That's it.
Porgy and Bess" if it ever shows up, too. Yes, Disney-fication is an old argument, but it's getting worse than ever and the fact that the argument is so old only shows what a stasis Broadway is still in. Even if a children's show is quality, as Matilda may well be, it's unfortunate that we're still stuck in this unambitious state of existence.

And on Wildhorn: I'm not arguing only that the themes of his show aren't 'adult.' But shoot-ups and murders don't make a show 'adult.' His scores are so ridiculously simplistic and without layer, it's horrid. Wildhorn was one of the first composers I learned how to play on piano? Why? Because there is no depth or complication to any of his songs. There's no challenge in playing OR listening to them, which is why, despite all the blood and guts he may throw up there, they are juvenile.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 1:02pm

His scores are so ridiculously simplistic and without layer, it's horrid.

Again...completely disagree. When I Look at You is one of the most beautiful ballads written for the theatre I've heard in the last 20 years. Do I like all his songs? No. But I don't like ALL the songs of any single composer. And rarely do I like ALL the songs of any given score. I thought Spring Awakening was the second worst musical I've seen on Broadway, but I'll admit I liked a couple of songs, though I found much of the score and the show itself to be annoyingly pretentious. Whether it progressed musical theatre or not is debatable, but also completely irrelevent to me because any musical should have the same opportunity to be produced as any other musical for any reason. Period.

Wildhorn was one of the first composers I learned how to play on piano? Why? Because there is no depth or complication to any of his songs.

The first composer I learned to play on piano was Richard Rodgers. Does that mean his music lacks depth or complication? Actually, some of it does, but I doubt you would agree because he's considered legendary (though he's responsible for penning several flops as well).

On the other hand, you have things like 'Addams Family' and 'Little Mermaid' that are so lazily simplistic, they work against any progression of musicals.

Little Mermaid closed and Addams Family is closing. I didn't like either of them, but I certainly don't begrudge their being produced mainly because it's none of my business what gets produced on Broadway and I'm not at all interested in censoring musical theatre to adhere to my personal tastes. But again, there is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for any musical to be written for the "progession" of musical theatre. Some shows are and some shows aren't and there have always been hits and flops on both sides of the fence. The audiences decide.

But now we have: "Mary Poppins," "Lion King," "Addams Family" (for now), "Wicked," "Spider-Man," "Sister Act," "Billy Elliot" (though I'll give that has adult themes as well) and "Godspell." What adult-geared musicals do we have? "Follies" and "Book of Mormon."

And as always, the fate and runs of musicals on Broadway are temporary. And you forgot to mention Anything Goes, Chicago, How to Succeed, Phantom of the Opera, Jersey Boys, Mamma Mia, Memphis, Priscilla, and Rock of Ages. Besides Bonnie and Clyde, Porgy and Bess, Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar, other shows opening include Lysistrata Jones, Evita, Ghost, Nice Work if You Can Get It, On a Clear Day and Rebecca.

Shows for kids, shows for adults, shows for art, shows for entertainment, shows for tourists, shows for pop culture enthusiasts, shows for families...it's all there and still happening. And that's not even getting into the plays.

[fingerlakessinger]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 1:27pm

Just because a show is "geared" towards kids does not mean it lacks depth.
I'm gonna go into defense for one of the shows you listed (partially because its one of my all time favorites haha)
but take for instance WICKED.
Yes...it is certainly marketed towards entire families. There is no doubt about that. Its largely due to the fact it is based in Oz and spins the most famous and beloved fairy tale in American history into a whole new perspective.
BUT...to say that it is just one layer and only produced for kids is a bit ridiculous, especially when you look at how successful it is around the world and the fact that ADULTS love it too. Not just typical tourist adults but adults who love theater (my director for instance is a die-hard Sondheim fan, lives and breathes the music he writes however finds WICKED to be brilliant)
It has a facade that kids will love (the costumes, sets, special effects and the high octane belting)
but then there's the underlying layers that adults will pick up on (political unrest, racial discrimination, corruption, animal abuse, ect.) that makes it great for them to sit through. Hence why it is so highly regarded as a show that everyone can find something to love about.
Again, only using that as an example. You are perfectly in line to have your own opinion...but to state your opinion as fact with no hesitation is a bit absurd. Are there musicals on Broadway right now that are all fluff? Yes...but even those have merit because shows are mostly there to provide entertainment. It's nice to have shows that go deeper and provoke inner emotions and I think some shows that you say are pure "fluff" and have no depth are quite the opposite.

[philly03]

Posted: 9/28/11 at 7:36pm

I don't get the hate for Wildhorn's "style." He has never once tried to cover up that he writes pop music for the theatre. His reasoning? Gershwin & Porter wrote songs for the theatre that were pop music too.

I would say WONDERLAND is his only "children" show. The songs, sure, can be accessible to all (what makes songs great is that everyone from a kid to your grandmother likes it), but I don't see the problem in it. The Scarlet Pimpernel, I think, would go over a kids head or bore them to be honest.


Back on topic, I picked up a copy of this and actually was surprised to enjoy it as well!

[ChiChi]

Posted: 10/6/11 at 11:29pm

I just listened to this for the first time and HOLY SH*T!!! How wonderful!

[henryt]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:04am

But now we have: "Mary Poppins," "Lion King," "Addams Family" (for now), "Wicked," "Spider-Man," "Sister Act," "Billy Elliot" (though I'll give that has adult themes as well) and "Godspell." What adult-geared musicals do we have? "Follies" and "Book of Mormon."

None of these shows are "child-geared", to borrow your phrasing. Why? Because any producer worth his paycheck knows that if a show if "child-geared," the house will sit empty Tuesday-Thursday. It's just not financially tenable. What you are trying to say is that these shows are family friendly (and I could argue that Billy Elliot really isn't due to the coarse language). I see nothing wrong with a show being family friendly. Just because it is able to appeal to children, it doesn't mean that it's not also able to appeal to adults.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 12:40am

I mean look at Phantom, Les Mis, CATS, Miss Saigon (Just kidding), Wicked and many others are not exactly children's musicals, but they are appropriate for a family that wants to go to the theatre as a family. But they can still run without children in the audience. Now 13 or Annie may be a different story.

[TheatreFan27]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 4:51pm

I'm very excited to see what changes they have made for the West End production! I would love to see this show transfer to Broadway. The music is infectious, "When I Grow Up" and "Revolting Children" are two of my personal faves.

Also, I can just picture Laura Osnes playing Miss Honey on Broadway!

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 5:30pm

Bringing things back on topic here, MATILDA was a triumph in Stratford - arguably one of the finest British musicals ever (or at least since Billy Elliot).

The music is complex, the lyrics lend a lot to Sondheim ("Discipline" and "The School Song" spring to mind) and the story is dark, funny and intelligent enough to appeal to families - not just kids.

Along with GHOST (minus the score), Matthew Warchus and Co (Paul Kieve, Christ Nightingale, Rob Howell, Hugh Vanstone) will have a lot of tonys on their hands.

The RSC have another Les Mis on their hands; the British have done it again.

[ChiChi]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 8:16pm

I second that.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 10/7/11 at 9:00pm

The staging is also some of the most inventive, compelling, and thrilling I've seen in my short life. As an adaptation, it's excellent. The ways in which it improves and heightens Dahl's wonderful book are constantly surprising. You get the joy of familiarity with seeing the characters presented faithfully, but they're also so much more complex. Even Trunchbull! Dennis Kelly's book is just a triumph. Matilda is one of the only cases I can think of where a great score is still not as good as the book of the same show. The sound design, lighting, set, and all other technical elements are so strong. I've never been so pleasantly surprised. Updated On: 10/7/11 at 09:00 PM

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/8/11 at 6:43am

"the British have done it again."

Tim Minchin is Australian.

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 10/8/11 at 6:47am

Yes - but it's a British production that in no way has been Americanised/Americanized. :)

Tim was born in England, so one could argue. haha.

Regardless - it's a very, very strong show and us Londoners feel very lucky to have it opening soon!

[Scripps2]

Posted: 10/8/11 at 6:49am

"Yes - but it's a British production that in no way has been Americanised/Americanized."

So?

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 10/8/11 at 4:11pm

I hope they don't Americanize it for a Broadway production. Watching the film on TV recently after seeing the musical, I just found the British setting worked better.

[Nickhutson]

Posted: 10/8/11 at 4:23pm

Yep - that's what I meant by my above comment.

The movie (apart from the amazing Pam Ferris) was ... terrible - but this version really makes it seem as if Dahl was seeing over every little bit! Triumph!