Billy Elliot the Forum

For me, the live stage version trumps the film in that it is live. You become personally invested in Billy, and the other characters, when they are there, in front of you, in flesh and blood. But the film is great, too, with its realism.

Absolutely agree Kport, the performance is far superior on stage. It's a living thing, developing and re-finding itself with each night, in more alternate dimensions than I can count. 1984/5 in 2015, not seen from 2001 or 2014. Although, I wouldn't be without either DVD.

Just as a side note (not to sidetrack the discussion), I saw Les Mis on Broadway this past weekend, and I've got to say, the movie ruined the stage musical. The movie was just SO well done that even with the incredible live singing and beautiful staging, I was left feeling they didn't go as far as they could have. With Billy though, I can watch the stage musical another 50 or more times and the movie another 50 or more times and still love each of them in their own way. That could just be because the Billy movie and stage musical are so different though.

Sean

Borrobil wrote:Absolutely agree Kport, the performance is far superior on stage. It's a living thing, developing and re-finding itself with each night, in more alternate dimensions than I can count. 1984/5 in 2015, not seen from 2001 or 2014. Although, I wouldn't be without either DVD.

I second both of you! I think the stage version is far superior.

Note to your side note, Sean: I thought the movie of Les Mis was dreadful! Russell Crowe cannot sing his way out of a paper bag. I just thought he was terribly miscast in the movie. I also thought the cgi effects were sad. Sorry, just my opinion.

Now back to the topic of Billy Elliot on stage vs Billy Elliot on film.

angelenroute wrote:Just as a side note (not to sidetrack the discussion), I saw Les Mis on Broadway this past weekend, and I've got to say, the movie ruined the stage musical. The movie was just SO well done that even with the incredible live singing and beautiful staging, I was left feeling they didn't go as far as they could have. With Billy though, I can watch the stage musical another 50 or more times and the movie another 50 or more times and still love each of them in their own way. That could just be because the Billy movie and stage musical are so different though.

Sean

I felt the same way with Oliver...the movie was perfection. I oddly though don't agree about Les Mis..movie had its moments and improvements but also some imperfections, mainly some actors not having the range to do songs as they should be done(bring him home for one)

StevenKing wrote: I felt the same way with Oliver...the movie was perfection. I oddly though don't agree about Les Mis..movie had its moments and improvements but also some imperfections, mainly some actors not having the range to do songs as they should be done(bring him home for one)

I prefer the stage version of Oliver! even though I saw the movie before.

I do agree though, as movie musicals go, it is near perfection. I couldn't believe it when I heard all the outdoor locations are studio :O

BETM cant really be compared to the others, its too different in detail to the movie while Les Mis is at least fairly close and Oliver is REALLY close...oddly because its so close its the couple of differences that make me not like Oliver as much on stage, the slight difference in song order and the BIG change in the end for Dodger(done to lighten up the end for the movie). But mainly once you've seen Ron Moody all other productions get ruined. If your going to be fair about it BOTH are lightened up to the nth degree from the book. Billy might actually be rare in that they made parts grittier from the movie. The La Mirada production even ramped that up a bit more.

In most areas, I prefer the musical to the movie. As has been mentioned, the fact that it's happening right in front of you with live actors gives a sense of excitement that the movie can't. Watching the actors' reaction to fan applause or laughter also gives a sense of audience interaction with the show that the movie isn't able to provide. The musical is also more impressive from Billy's perspective, knowing that he has to do all the dancing and singing right the first time, without the luxury of a do-over that film making provides whenever a mistake is made.

The only things I thought were done better in the movie were: 1) the authenticity of the location where it was shot, since the stage has only so much available space to recreate the indoor and outdoor locations 2) the Royal Ballet audition scene where Billy's nervousness is more evident as the judges stare at him and talk about him as he stands before them (the musical's RBS audition scene is played more for laughs), and 3) the movie magic used in the "Angry Dance" scene where Billy dances down the street and kicks the corrugated metal fence, leans back against it, and the very cool effect of the passage of time is shown by snowflakes gently appearing as Billy pulls his coat up - which leads into the Christmas scene.

I think pretty much every musical is better on stage than it is in a movie format. Some rare exceptions would be: "Into The Woods," which I can't imagine could be performed any better on stage than it was presented in the recent movie version. I can't really say for sure, though, since I've never seen it performed on stage ! I also enjoy the movie versions of "Mary Poppins" and "A Christmas Story" more than the musical stage versions. And although it's not a musical, I enjoy the film version of "To Kill A Mockingbird" much better than any stage production I've ever seen of it.

During previews of the musical, the winter scene was much more like in the movie, with Dad walking in on Billy and Micheal dancing. A different part of the music from Swan Lake was used for this "Dance for Dad".

Music from Swan Lake was also used in the first act in a rehearsal dance just before Mrs. W. gives Billy the "You can do this" talk.

Did you see a preview performance, Liam?