Billy vs. Matilda Tony

[Call_me_jorge]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 9:43pm

Didn't know how to to title this thread.

Okay, so was the reason why the Billy's in Billy Elliot were nominated, then won, for the tony, because they performed for the certain amount of performances you have to perform in order to be nominated? Because Billy Elliot opened in october/november while matilda opened in april which is/was the deadline to be considered tony eligible. This probably does not make sense.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 10:05pm

Edit - my bad, but no, you're not making a whole lot of sense. I don't know why they were not eligible. They got their special honor for excellence, though.

Updated On: 3/21/15 at 10:05 PM

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 10:18pm

I think you're confused about what they mean when they say "number of performances." It's true the Matilda girls were deemed ineligible for nomination because of the number of performances that each of them did, but they don't mean the total number of performances they each did over the course of the run. They mean the percentage of performances that each girl did. There were 4 girls, so each of them did 1/4 of all the performances. There were 3 Billys, so each boy did 1/3 of all the performances. The Tony committee felt that doing only 1/4 of the performances wasn't bearing enough of the weight to consider any one of them a leading actress. A normal alternate usually does 2 performances, and they are ineligible, so I guess they figured the same logic would apply to all 4 of the girls.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 10:20pm

The MATILDAS did not deserve to win a Tony, even a special non-competitive Tony was pushing it. Matilda is not an overly demanding role (like Billy Elliot). I would put playing Matilda on Broadway in the same "exertion" quotient as playing Mary Lennox in THE SECRET GARDEN. And Daisy Eagan only had one other actress who I believe did two shows a week for her. So why did they need FOUR actresses to cover the role of Matilda? BILLY ELLIOT only started out with the three Tony winning Billys, before Tommy Batchelor got upgraded to an alternate.
The fact that the 4 Matildas won a special Tony the year that the kids from A CHRISTMAS STORY stormed Broadway really ticks me off. Johnny Rabe belted like a trooper and he had EXPERT comic timing. Not to mention little Luke Spring, who stopped that show nightly and was mentioned in almost every review. Only Rabe had an alternate who played two shows a week, and his role was just as demanding (if not more so) than Matilda. The kids from A CHRISTMAS STORY should have won a special Tony, if one was to be given out that year.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 10:28pm

I'm a huge fan of Matilda, and I thought that the Matilda girls did a great job, but yeah I have to agree with Mikey on this one. Giving them a special award was weird. I think the reason they did it was just a question of timing. I seem to recall that the ineligibility ruling for the Matildas was around the same time as the ruling to decide who got the special award. I'm guessing the committee felt pressure to appreciate the Matilda actresses somehow, and decided to give them the special award.

However, out of the context of the Tonys, I think their decision to use 4 actresses was reasonable. Maybe they could have done it with fewer actresses, but they decided to use 4 because the girls are younger than most children on Broadway, and they didn't want any of them to be overwhelmed. They felt it was best to do that, and it's no skin off of any of our backs. Updated On: 3/21/15 at 10:28 PM

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 11:47pm

...Not to mention Daisy Egan has said many times that while she loved her Secret Garden experience, it was extremely difficult for her to go from kid "STAR" to a regular performer...where she was so in demand and then she grew up and not in demand at all. She would say she was a wreck for many years...

The Matilda people got smart..they treat the girls like girls, not stars, they have them as part of a team of 4 - so they have 3 other girls who have their backs at all times. The cast can't talk to them about their careers - and in less than a year, they go back to their lives. Using 4 Matilda's is a great plan if you are thinking of the girls...especially because some are as young as 8...which was not the case with either Daisy or the Billys.

I don't want to say if they deserved their Tony or not...I think it was more that there was a load of criticism when the 3 Billy's won by people who felt only 1 person can be best actor and they weren't about to do it again with 4 Matilda's for best actress. And so it got them off the hook to give them the special Tony, ignoring the kids from Christmas Story and Annie. It was weird..

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/21/15 at 11:53pm

"ignoring the kids from Christmas Story and Annie"

But for the other kids it was different. Lilla Crawford and Johnny Rabe WERE eligible to be nominated, and the recipient(s) for the special award was decided before nominations came out, so they wouldn't have considered giving them a special award before voting for nominations began. True they didn't get nominated, but they were snubbed in the same way that any other leading actor/actress would have been snubbed; they just didn't get enough votes.

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 12:19am

That's true...^^ which doesn't really answer if they deserved a special Tony or not. I wouldn't want them to feel badly for people thinking they didn't deserve it...they are kids.

But I didn't really mean to compare it that way. I was just thinking they made this special accommodation because they were kids - I doubt they would have given any 4 adults sharing a role a special Tony.

But they didn't accommodate the young age of the leads of Christmas Story or Annie...it was more there were older more deserving actors to nominate.

It's tough..how DO you compare adults to children in awards? Someone who has studied & worked for years or a youngster who hasn't been alive long enough to do so. Yeah so how do you compare a new adult actor to an actor with years of experience... I am rambling...please disregard..LOL

Updated On: 3/22/15 at 12:19 AM

[rcwr]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 12:29am

Separate from Tony issues, I approve of the show's choice to use four Matildas. It's connected to other choices they made for the benefit of the girls' lives -- things like not letting them stagedoor and insisting that all four were present for any and all interviews and photo shoots.

[adamgreer]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 12:39am

The decision to give the Matildas a special Tony has always felt to me to be a tacit acknowledgement that they screwed up in not doing that with the Billy Elliot boys in the first place, who didn't deserve to win over either J. Robert Spencer or Brian D'Arcy James that year.

[Broadway61004]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 12:51am

"I was just thinking they made this special accommodation because they were kids - I doubt they would have given any 4 adults sharing a role a special Tony. "

I see your point, but not entirely accurate--remember when they gave the whole principal cast of "La Boheme" a special Tony? (Although, to be fair, they all did 1/3 of the performances instead of 1/4).

Like it was said above, I really think this was more of them realizing how stupid it was to nominate the 3 Billys together a few years prior and trying not to make the same mistake again.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 1:13am

But honestly, Billy is a harder role than Matilda. The dancing, the singing, and the acting are all much more demanding, and from a nominator's standpoint, their performances were hard to ignore. I didn't see any of the original Billys, but having seen the show on tour twice (with 2 different Billys), it seems to me that, in order to play that role, you can't just be "good, for a kid," you have to be REALLY good. In my opinion, they deserved to win over Creel, Maroulis and d'Arcy James. Spencer? Maybe, maybe not.

[mikey2573]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 10:12am

I did see all three original Billys (in addition to Tommy Batchelor) and I can state without hesitation that each one was exceptional and yet each had a very unique interpretation of the role. The fact that they are onstage for almost the entire three hours (there's about 8 minutes in Act 2 where they are off stage and the very beginning of Act 1 --other than that, they are on stage the rest of the show), in addition to the physical requirements of the part really made it impossible to have one or two actors in the role.

I think the La Mirada THeater in CA learned this the hard way when their Billy (Noah Parets from the national tour and Ogunquit productions) ended up breaking his arm during a rehearsal one week before the show opened. Luckily, Mitchell Tobin, also from the tour, had just returned to the states after playing the role in London. And, the Broadway production had its share of Billy injuries throughout the run, resulting in them flying a London Billy over to help out. I don't think there is another role in musical theater where a child is given so much to do.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 10:32am

Well, of course, no one will ever agree. I saw all three of the boys, and all the other noms that year. Either Creel or Spence deserved the win, IMO.

All the boys rocked the dancing, no doubt, and had a huge responsibility on their shoulders. However, none of were a triple threat -- as their acting and singing were not outstanding. My biggest issue with them awarding the boys? How can all three of them be equally deserving? Think how rare a tie is, yet alone a three way!

As for the "special" Tony, I think, while sweet for those girls, I found it pretty insensitive to all the other kids on b'way that year - who were not given any sort of special consideration. I believe that the Tony Committee might end up making a governing ruling: that any role that is covered by more than two (Actor and alternate) will not be eligible for Tony consideration (or something along those lines.) I do believe that people get more sentimental when kids are involved.

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 11:35am

Both "Billy Elliot" and "Matilda" are very unique cases in which multiple young performers originated the title role. The Olivier Awards had set a precedent that the Tony Awards followed (first closely then loosely) for both sets of nominations. In 2005 the three original London Billys shared the Olivier Award for Best Actor and in turn the Tony committee decided that a similar nomination should be in place for the three original Broadway Billys in 2009. After the four original London Matildas shared the Olivier Award for Best Actress in 2012, the Tonys, while acknowledging the four original Broadway Matildas with a special award, did not follow suit of the Oliviers with a Best Actress nomination in 2013.

Updated On: 3/22/15 at 11:35 AM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 11:49am

The Australian production of BILLY ELLIOT (which preceded the Broadway production), also set that precedent with their theater awards, The Helpmann.

Best Male Actor in a Musical
Lochlan Denholm, Nick Twiney, Rarmian Newton, & Rhys Kosakowski Billy Elliot the Musical

Though it is interesting to note that no other actor in a musical was nominated that year.

[Phantom of London]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 1:30pm

In the UK it is against there is child protection laws preventing a child working over so many hours, therefore one child cannot perform in a role for eight performances.

It is important that a child doesn't fall behind in their studies and also needs to socialites through play with their peers and rest, so I am surprised that a child is allowed to perform for 8 performances a week in the US, I think this is professional child abuse.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 1:39pm

We DO have child labor laws, and as far as I know, it IS against the rules for a child to perform 8 shows a week. But it's uncommon to have 4 kids sharing one role. I think most of the time it's 2.

[VotePeron]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 1:46pm

I have seen all 12 Broadway Matildas, and I think it is very fair that the original 4 got an award. So much of the role is comprised of these 4, 5 minute long "stories" that they have to narrate/act out, and I think for 8 year olds, that alone is impressive. Then, the singing and dancing is intense as well. With the original 4 girls, they also had to do the acrobatics in "Smell Of Rebellion." Not to mention, they are on stage for the entirety of act 2, except for the 2.5 minutes of "Revolting Children," and now the 1.5 minutes of acro in "Rebellion."

The role is demanding in it's own way, and these girls are much younger then the Billy's were, if I'm not mistaken.

And just an FYI - a decent amount of the children in Christmas Story actually ended up in Matilda

[KathyNYC2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 6:01pm

The original Matilda's were older 10's (except for Sophia - a young 9) - the Billys were 13-14. The newest M's included two 8 year olds.

That said, I do think that Matilda role is very demanding and while certainly not as heavy on dancing, it relies heavy on words and emotions. In a lot of ways, the dancing carries Billy Elliot regardless who is in the part - while for Matilda, the child pretty much carries the show. If the child actress doesn't make Matilda someone you want to root for, there goes the show. My opinion..

My qualm was and always will be for multiple roles is that people are voting for performers they have never seen. If for example, one is not on the same par as the others, he/she gets the Tony anyway. If there are four Matildas, you should see all of them before voting..and we know that's not going to happen.

Yes I know people vote for people they have never seen all the time = but that would be a part of the regular vote. A huge majority of people voting for multiple Billys, Matildas etc. are not seeing a majority of people that they are voted for. That's just weird to me. If it happened to be ONE Matilda, I think it's a performance that would be award worthy.

And yes..Christmas Story (and a Billy Elliot) kids went to Matilda..and to Annie as well.

Updated On: 3/22/15 at 06:01 PM

[ScottyDoesn'tKnow2]

Posted: 3/22/15 at 6:11pm

I thought Matilda was a very demanding role and the show's success is wholly dependent on the actress's acting. She's in almost every scene of the show, and has to deal with a lot of book scenes that require subtle emotional conflict and arcs. I think it is a taxing role for any actor, much less a young child. Yes, I know a lot of adult roles require that (and some also require with dancing), but I don't think one has to diminish what the actress playing Matilda has to do on stage in order to make a point that it wasn't worthy of a special Tony, even if I disagree with that assertion.