one Annie vs. four Matildas?

So I'm sure this has been discussed before (I'm sorry, I couldn't find any of the old threads) but I was wondering why there are four girls playing the role of Matilda, and only one is needed for the role of Annie. Is Matilda that exhausting of a part? The dancing in Billy Elliot was obviously very intense; no one would expect one child to perform that role eight times a week. But with Matilda dancing doesn't seem to be a factor. Is there an equity rule about age and how many shows a child can perform?

Sorry if this is at all confusing; I've been wondering this for a while. While I have yet to see Matilda, I hope the Matildas aren't a shoe in for the Tony since they will only be performing half the shows a week compared to their fellow nominees, which just does not seem fair.

I think it had to do with British child labor laws. In London they HAD to split the role and I think the producers are just carrying that over, especially to reduce the "you have to see THIS girl!"

I could also be wrong, but isn't Matilda supposed to be in kindergarten? Annie is usually 10-13.

It's recognised that Matilda is the most demanding child role ever written, but it's more to do with the UK Labour laws.

---

I saw MATILDA in London, and was sure that the role was going to be split between two actresses here in the States.

I know the UK child labor laws are strict, which is why four actresses are required. But I didn't think the part was overly taxing to the point of needing four actresses.

I think it was a factor with not needing standbys AND having enough to cover the role. So if child labour laws here meant they needed 3 they've stuck with 4 just to always be covered and cut the work of needing the standbys (as there's always one of the regulars in the building on standby)

I haven't seen the show so can't comment on how demanding it is, but I think it is also an age factor, them being younger than the Billy's or Annies.

---

In london we have multiple Debbies, Michaels and Ballet girls to comply with the limit on hours a child can work.

It always stands out more to have multiples of kids because they dont tend to understudy from other roles as adults do.

There's much discussion of labors laws and comparison to Billy Elliot and Annie.
1. There requirement in the US for child performances is more relaxed than UK.
2. The performers in both the aforementioned shows are older.
3. Sadly, they raised the keys for Annie and it was already tough.
4. The girls in Matilda are 10.
5. The score is TOUGH and intense.
6. I'm not sure how any comparison can be made to a show you've never seen...unless you saw it in London...

Mister Matt said: "It's recognised that Matilda is the most demanding child role ever written

Recognized by whom?"



Well, though it is not as demanding as Billy Elliot, Matilda has a lot of lines and as a whole Matilda commands the stage for around 1 hour and 35 minutes. Imagine doing that for two matinees every Saturday and Sunday, while also being nine???

Updated On: 4/5/20 at 07:25 PM

dramamama611 said: "AJ - welcome to the boards, but this thread is over 7 years old."


Thank you! And yeah, I know. I just wanted to put my opinion out there. Sorry for any inconvenience!

And yes, the British child labor laws are different than the United States. When Andrea McArdle played Annie on the West End in 1978 (after Broadway), she alternated the role with Ann-Marie Gwatkin, whereas on Broadway she had the standard adult 8 performances a week schedule.

" AJ - welcome to the boards, but this thread is over 7 years old "

So what, is there a law against revisiting a topic? - wow.

yankeefan7 said: "" AJ - welcome to the boards, but this thread is over 7 years old "

So what, is there a law against revisiting a topic? - wow."

Typically speaking, it is considered poor etiquette to post in a long dead thread. This act is called necroposting. Many boards have policies against it, and some actually make it impossible to do so by archiving the post, thus making it a "read only" entry.

" Typically speaking, it is considered poor etiquette to post in a long dead thread. This act is called necroposting. Many boards have policies against it, and some actually make it impossible to do so by archiving the post, thus making it a "read only" entry. "

If it is poor etiquette like you said than it should be archived and read only. This poster was brand new to the board and right off that bat gets admonished for heaven forbid posting something on thread that still accepts new posts. Other posters had no problem with new post on this long "dead" thread. I will be honest and say I did not know anything about necroposting and I could have made the same "mistake". IMO don't make snarky remark to the poster, make it to the mods of this board.