“Billy Elliot” has gotten glowing reviews, and will no doubt hang around Broadway for a good while, making lots of people (producers) very happy. But as I watched it (all three schmaltzy, sentimental hours of it), I had the same thought I often have when I’m in the Theater District: artistically, contemporary mainstream musicals are the weak link in the performance chain (though storybook ballet rehashes are right up there). And they’re populated, too often, by people who are o.k. at lots of things (singing, tap dancing, acting) but great at nothing.
“Billy Elliot” has some charming moments. It’s got strong production values. And it flies out of your head as fast as it enters. Below are a few other things that flew in during the show (did I mention it’s three hours?) What can I say, The mind of even the most diligent audience member wanders…
1. It’s the same old story: all of the girls get ignored when the boy wanders into ballet class. Helloo, glass escalator.
2. Stephen Hanna must have been really, really dissatisfied at New York City Ballet.
3. I wish I were watching real Billy Elliots. Here are some New York City Ballet dancers looking back:
4. I’ve seen more life in Maggie Thatcher’s knickers! (o.k., I stole that one - the writing wasn’t all bad)
5. How does that overweight girl feel being made fun of before a laughing crowd day after day?
6. The male dancers who broadcast, loudly, how masculine and definitely-not-gay they are are the ballet equivalent of Barack Obama’s people protesting that he isn’t Muslim. You understand why they do it, but wish they would say “So what if I am?”
7. Oh Elton, Elton, Elton. “Hakuna matata,” my friend. For your sake and ours, please stay away from musicals.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Oh no, that’s too bad, although I can’t say that I didn’t see it coming. That reminds me, I have a draft partially written deep in my blog archives regarding a clip I saw of the three Billys on the Today show. They’re magnetic performers, and so so polished. In a way, it takes away from the sincere charm that I loved about Billy in the movie, which I adore.
I hope Greg Jbara (who plays Billy’s father) was good, he’s an old favorite of mine. The overweight girl reminds me of a character in Legally Blonde, where this one character was the target of fat ugly lesbian jokes the entire show. That’s too bad, but it seems like especially in this economy, brainless thoughtless entertainment that relies on stereotypes is the safe financial decision (isn’t it always??).
November 26th, 2008 at 12:15 am
This is exactly why I can’t stand musicals. Sounds awful.
I mean, I can imagine Stephen Hanna thought this would lead to more fame, and I think he’d be right, but it’s too bad that’s so.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
OMG, yes.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Your criticisms are all well-placed but I don’t think you give Billy Elliot enough credit. What can I say, I’m a sentimental fool: as I watched the show, when I wasn’t a smiling goof, I had tears running down my face, and in a good way. I saw the London production and I did not think the children’s dancing was polished at all. It seemed real, just the way little kids would dance in dance class. The songs continue to stay in my head long after I saw the play. Electricity gave me chills– it spoke to the way I feel when I dance. I also thought Billy’s story was nicely balanced with the historical context of the miners’ strike.
The way I look at Broadway musicals is as pure escapism. So what if it’s not entirely realistic or the way we would like things to be in real life. The point is to give the audience a break from their lives. The 3 hours of the show absolutely flew by for me. But as I said, I’m a sentimental fool :).
December 23rd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Well, if you’re a sentimental fool for Billy, you’re certainly in good company - and lord knows I’m a fool for lots of other things.
But I think the key to our disagreement is in your enjoyment of musicals as pure escapism. I can’t get into live art in that way at all - sometimes with outlandish fantasy/sci-fi movies (I have a bad habit), yes, but not with theater. I tend to get really itchy and bored and sad when I don’t see complexities rendered on stage, whereas I am more than happy to sink into “The Matrix,” and not just the first one but the whole triology (if my fellow art.cult blogger Nathan Lee is reading this - Nathan, just don’t say anything).
December 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
That does explain the difference. In fact, I’ve been known to fall fast asleep on the couch halfway through perfectly good movies. I’m curious if you dance or perform in any way (or did in the past). I write about dance because I love the way dance makes me feel and think and it compels me to write. I’ve always gotten a huge adrenaline rush out of performing; before I discovered dance, I was a musician. I think this enhances my experience of live performance– when I can tell that a performer is giving something their all, the emotion is infectious. I’ve dabbled in criticism on my blog but am afraid I’m not very good at it. I find myself judging energy levels and my own emotional response rather than being able to analyze something at arm’s length. Like I said, your criticisms were well-placed, but those things simply didn’t bother me at all because the whole experience of seeing the show was so emotional and joyous for me.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’ve never danced with professional aspirations - in fact, I’ve done a lot more since becoming a dance critic, just in terms of taking classes so that I could get a feel for certain types of movement. Writing has always been my rush.
I think that you just need to give yourself time; the road from fan to critic takes a little while, if you start out firmly in the performer camp - in the same way that it takes a critic awhile to work her way into a form if she is coming from the observer vantage point. There are lots of great examples to look to on either side of the aisle.