WHY BILLY ELLIOT THE MUSICAL IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE FILM

[Yorkie]

All art forms have value. But some art forms have a throw-away-until-we-get-it-right option. Movies, Novels, Poetry, Painting, Recordings, etc. give the creator the ability to discard anything that did not work. A live play can be re-written by the author before publication, but the actors can not re-do the scene. Anything presented live is a more human art form. Live music is better than a recording, a live concert is better than a video, and live stage is better than a film.

In your opinion. Don't want to start a fight but as I said at the beginning of this thread it's apples and oranges.

[ActingDude17]

All art forms have value. But some art forms have a throw-away-until-we-get-it-right option. Movies, Novels, Poetry, Painting, Recordings, etc. give the creator the ability to discard anything that did not work. A live play can be re-written by the author before publication, but the actors can not re-do the scene. Anything presented live is a more human art form. Live music is better than a recording, a live concert is better than a video, and live stage is better than a film.

That's a rather dynamic and radical view. How can you say a painting or a novel is any less valid than a play? Those art forms are different in countless ways and should not be looked at with the same critical eye. What makes a work of art great is often different based on its medium. Its not as simple as live versus recorded, or a stationary picture versus a moving one. With all due respect, that is a rather simple-minded way of thinking. A filmmaker could easily say the same about visual art as you are saying about film. When technology lets us do things we only dream of doing now, the occasional person might be saying the same thing about live, moving people. How would you feel then?

Billy Elliot, as a musical, is not Billy Elliot, the film, onstage. They are the same story told in two different ways. To me, what you have been saying is little different from saying one way to answer a math problem is better than another. The problem-solving process, or in the case of Billy, the storytelling, is fundamentally different and, as a result, incomparable. If your opinion is such, I do think one could say that the film is a poorer film than the musical is a piece of theatre, or vice versa.

[accessmenj]

Of course it's my opinion, and others have different opinions. No need to take other's opinions personally.
I remember, as a child, listening to great storytellers recite ghost stories around a campfire. It is my opinion that the person telling the story was far superior to just giving a book to the kids to read.
I remember, as a child, watching the artists draw charactertures of my friends. Watching the artists draw was more powerful than viewing the final product.
Watching animated films being drawn by people is watching art. Viewing an animated film created by a computer is not. The human factor makes art great.
All of the above is only my opinion.
A live play allows the viewer to watch all the actors be creative. A film forces the viewer to watch only what the director choses. Next time that you view Billy Elliot The Musical, watch the minor characters in any one scene, and it will make for a richer experience.

[Todd]

Live music is better than a recording, a live concert is better than a video, and live stage is better than a film.

Yeah, I don't think these are things that can be proven to be better or worse. Probably a more accurate statement would be to say, "I like live stage better than a film."

Semantics aside, I can see your point about the spontaneous nature of live theater . . .where you never know what surprise might be in store that night. With movies, you know it's going to be exactly the same every time you see it. That being said, I find I tend to enjoy movies more than live shows as a rule. I like how the camera can take you anyplace and you're able to feel like you visited other countries or even other planets right along with the actors. With a stage show, I'm always aware of being in a theater.

Despite "Billy Elliot" the film being one of my all-time favorite movies, I think it does work even better as a musical. For me, it's because you know the youngsters are actually doing the amazing things they're doing because you're seeing it performed live, as opposed to being some special effect or camera trick.

[Yorkie]

Of course it's my opinion, and others have different opinions. No need to take other's opinions personally.

Perhaps it was unwise to use such a pejorative title for the thread if it was not the intention to make it personal. A more reasonable title might have been "Reasons why I Prefer the Musical to the Film"

A large part of the thread has been directed at running the film down as being second rate (at least that's how I interpreted it, I accept it may not have been intended that way). I love that film, watch it often. But I love the Musical also and watch that often too. But to chose between the two is difficult - which of your kids would you rescue from the house fire........

Apples and oranges. Both great but we wouldn't have the show without the film.

[LiamM]

Seeing things live makes them so much more compelling. I'm not a particularly good guitar player. People really enjoy what I do when playing and singing around a campfire or song circle, but I don't think anyone would spend much time with a recording of me.

That being said, cinema definitely have the strength of taking one close to the action. It's a different medium and works well for the different things. Part of what makes BETM so powerful is that all that dancing is happening, for real, right in front of you. On the other hand, part of what make the Spiderman musical so difficult to get right is that the story is fundamentally better suited to comics and film, where anything is possible. It's hard to get the same felling on a stage where one is far more limited by reality.

[accessmenj]

Please read the first comment when I started this thread. I was not the first person who said that Billy Elliot The Musical was better than the film. It was Stephen Daldry and Lee Hall who said that they only made the musical because they could make it better than the film. These men are pure genius in their fields, and have worked in both films and live stage. Stephen Daldry even said in another interview that the musical was a better medium for the story.

My purpose of this thread was to prove that they did, in fact, improve the film to make a better musical. They dropped the unimaginative, predictable and corny ending and changed Grandma and Michael to upbeat characters. I agree with these creators of both the film and the musical that the musical is better.

The idea that any live presentation of art is better than a recorded presentation is my opinion. I may be wrong, but it also is not my original idea. I was not trying to pick a fight with fans of the cinema. I am sorry for my poor communication skills, but I was not trying to classify the film as "second rate". I enjoyed the film. It is quite good. But the musical is really special.

[dongringo]

Please read the first comment when I started this thread. I was not the first person who said that Billy Elliot The Musical was better than the film. It was Stephen Daldry and Lee Hall who said that they only made the musical because they could make it better than the film. These men are pure genius in their fields, and have worked in both films and live stage. Stephen Daldry even said in another interview that the musical was a better medium for the story.

My purpose of this thread was to prove that they did, in fact, improve the film to make a better musical. They dropped the unimaginative, predictable and corny ending and changed Grandma and Michael to upbeat characters. I agree with these creators of both the film and the musical that the musical is better.

The idea that any live presentation of art is better than a recorded presentation is my opinion. I may be wrong, but it also is not my original idea. I was not trying to pick a fight with fans of the cinema. I am sorry for my poor communication skills, but I was not trying to classify the film as "second rate". I enjoyed the film. It is quite good. But the musical is really special.

I'm down with that.

[Yorkie]

Please read the first comment when I started this thread. I was not the first person who said that Billy Elliot The Musical was better than the film. It was Stephen Daldry and Lee Hall who said that they only made the musical because they could make it better than the film. These men are pure genius in their fields, and have worked in both films and live stage. Stephen Daldry even said in another interview that the musical was a better medium for the story.

My purpose of this thread was to prove that they did, in fact, improve the film to make a better musical. They dropped the unimaginative, predictable and corny ending and changed Grandma and Michael to upbeat characters. I agree with these creators of both the film and the musical that the musical is better.

The idea that any live presentation of art is better than a recorded presentation is my opinion. I may be wrong, but it also is not my original idea. I was not trying to pick a fight with fans of the cinema. I am sorry for my poor communication skills, but I was not trying to classify the film as "second rate". I enjoyed the film. It is quite good. But the musical is really special.

Ok, here are my thoughts on that:

It was Lee and Stephens first venture in to film, they had a limited budget ($5m dollars against $18m for the Broadway show iirc), clearly they have learnt from the experience and they used the knowledge they gained to make the musical better. The backgrounds of both men leans more towards the theatre so I'm not surprised they are happier in that medium (although SD has made some cracking films since to much acclaim). Still an Oscar nomination isn't a bad effort for a first film.

The statement made about the musical being better than the film needs to be put in context - they were selling BETM not the film. Question "I liked the film but why should I see a musical about a dancing boy?" Answer "Why because the musical is so much better, the story suits the stage". They would hardly say when doing promo interviews that you might as well save $100 and watch the movie because it's just as good would they?

Re "They dropped the unimaginative, predictable and corny ending and changed Grandma and Michael to upbeat characters.". That would be the ending that those (few) people who are not won over by the musical say they miss? The ending that some people think would improve the show? I don't find it corny or predictable but I guess it's each to their own. I don't think grandma's character has been greatly changed between the two mediums; to a degree it depends on how a particular actress chooses to play the part. Michael has been changed though and adds more comic relief to the show. The way Michael is played in the musical is right for that show (nearly twice as long as the film an with more politics it needs that balance) but the way he is shown in the film is fine too - apples and oranges, each does what it needs to do. Don't forget though that people that don't like the show often pick out the parts involving Michael (Express) as being the parts they don't like.

So where does that leave me? After defending the film so much, if I was faced with a choice of being able to watch either the film or the show for one last time in my life I would without hesitation pick the musical (from a decent seat). Fortunately, that isn't going to happen (no kids in my burning house ) so I get to have both and enjoy both and appreciate each for what it provides.

[accessmenj]

So where does that leave me? After defending the film so much, if I was faced with a choice of being able to watch either the film or the show for one last time in my life I would without hesitation pick the musical (from a decent seat). Fortunately, that isn't going to happen (no kids in my burning house ) so I get to have both and enjoy both and appreciate each for what it provides.

[/quote]

Ah! So you admit that you do have a favorite child that you would save first.