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

[cws8998]

Sean,

Went the same route you did...BluRay...Amazon here in the states...large screen TV...simply loved the film for all it's worth; good heavens, it's 12 years old...but in real time on stage, I simply found it provided me an emotional lift somewhat beyond that of the film.

Most apparent to me from the film, however, was the absolute magical acting performance of Jamie Bell, only about 15 years old at production time. Purely a personal opinion, but I'm not sure I've seen a comprable performance like it from a young teen in film in my life time. Just felt he was astonishing in the role...for me, unforgettable.

Also, I found Michael's role in the film to be quite melancholy, in contrast to the exuberent and charismatic Michaels we see on stage. Frankly, I enjoyed both interpretations. Anyway!!!

Regards, Colin

[Todd]

Also, I found Michael's role in the film to be quite melancholy, in contrast to the exuberent and charismatic Michaels we see on stage. Frankly, I enjoyed both interpretations. Anyway!!!

Yes, this was probably the biggest surprise for me the first time I saw the musical. I loved it the moment I saw it, but my only initial criticism was that they'd tried to make too many parts funny which should have been serious - with Michael being the main change in this area. But after seeing how Ryan Longbottom practically stole the show, I decided they might be onto something by making Michael more of a "comic relief" character.

[LiamM]

For me, the biggest surprise, which I didn't notice until going back to see the film again, was a subtle one: In the film, the miner's raise enough money to send Billy to the audition. In the musical, he relies on the money from the scab. That changes the story in that it deepens the failure of the strike.

[StevenKing]

For me, the biggest surprise, which I didn't notice until going back to see the film again, was a subtle one: In the film, the miner's raise enough money to send Billy to the audition. In the musical, he relies on the money from the scab. That changes the story in that it deepens the failure of the strike.

Um no they don't...Dad has to pawn his wife's jewelry, very moving scene.

[Yorkie]

iirc, the scab and his money is a deleted scene in the film (it's one of the extras on the special edition disc) but it was edited out of the final cut.

[angelenroute]

It seemed like the musical needed just one device to make a big impact and keep the story moving, so though they mention money from the punchbag and from the miners, the scab's money puts them over the top.

In the film, the same exact thing happens, except the pawned jewelry is what puts them over the top.

I did enjoy seeing the deleted scab scene on the Blu-Ray where the scab gives the money to Tony. It would have been an asset to the film, but I'm grateful it was preserved in the special features.

[Yorkie]

Wow, never seen that before. Thanks Brian, a very powerful review; it certainly explains the depth of feeling for scabs that exists to this day.

[angelenroute]

We cannot understand the inclusion of this scene, which seems to be someone’s afterthought, since it was not in the original film version and jars sharply against the real experience of the strike. Clearly it fails to recognise the depth of utter hatred strikers feel for strikebreakers and the cheapness of their surrender, the selling of a whole community, a whole value system, and a struggle for our right to exist as a social force.

You can't argue with something as genuinely felt as this. So I'll just say that I believe the movie and the musical both accurately capture the hatred felt toward the scabs. All we see in both are a single scab doing a really nice thing. You cannot argue with that. You can still hate a scab like that all you like (and they do), but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's still a genuinely good deed.

[accessmenj]

I believe that both Billy Elliot The Musical and the film are about the world not being just black and white. Both the scab and Jackie Elliot are neither all good or all bad when they choose to break the strike. Mrs. W. is both a caring adult for Billy and an insensitive adult for her daughter. Tony is neither all bad or all good as a brother. The ballet girls are both rude and supporting towards Billy. The miners have both good and bad qualities. Only Maggie Thatcher is presented one dimensionally, and that is overplayed for humor in the Christmas play.

The scab helping Billy("It's for the bairn") makes the play more true to real life where all of us have good and bad. It should not have been cut from the film.

[accessmenj]

I know that some of you are saying "Oh no, not this discussion again!", but I have a different twist. Is the current tour better than the previous tours and even Broadway? If the quote that I read is true, Lee Hall seems to think that the current tour is the way the show was supposed to be. I tend to agree.

Not to put down other presentations, but the current cast has lived together for so long that they are becoming a family. There was some bonding on the other tours and Broadway, but it did not seem this close. The fact that everyone has to be involved in the entire production and act as stagehands comes across as a large family or small town putting on the show, much like MCMT. The actors replace the stagehands and the hydraulics.

The Billys and Michaels in London live together, so the extra closeness may be obvious there. But the rest of the cast go their separate ways between the shows. I have never seen the London show, so maybe someone else can comment.

But I think that Billy Elliot The Musical on the second tour, after the hiatus, is my favorite of the North American productions.