By Venus Zarris

Chicago is a city of remarkable creative collaborations and adaptations that result in extraordinary theatrical productions. The transcending profundity of Mickle Maher’s writing combined with the incomparable conceptual brilliance of Redmoon Theater has birthed such masterpiece adaptations as Hunchback and The Cabinet. The singularly bizarre writing and beautifully disturbing illustrations of Henry Darger inspired the dramatic funhouse-instillation-adaptation As Told By the Vivian Girls, by Dog and Pony Theatre Company, that was nothing short of miraculous. The Cornservatory combined the noir camp of The Bad Seed with drag camp to create The Bad Seed: The Musical, resulting in sidesplitting laughter. And Harvey Finklestein Productions combined the iconically terrible film Showgirls with sock puppets to create a high-octane, over-the-top parody that played for several months, upgraded to larger venues, and ended up knocking the socks (no pun intended) off of the New York International Fringe Festival.

All of these brilliant aforementioned productions were created with budgets that ranged from small to microscopic and by people who are relatively unknown in the grand scheme of popular culture. How is it then that (1) an adaptation of the remarkably heartwarming film Billy Elliot, with music composed by Sir Elton John, the script written by Lee Hall (writer of the original screenplay), and a multi-million dollar budget can result in something so emotionally artificial and theatrically flat? Even more perplexing, how is that (2) this “emperor’s new clothes” production can be seen as a stroke of theatrical genius?

Answer (1): Big budget “regurgitation of an already successful story” products do not necessarily good theater make. Answer (2): The current escalation and oversaturation of infotainment have created a climate of “star worship” that eradicates critical thought and reasonable judgment.

I went to the theater excited and hopeful that this beloved story and its beloved characters would be reincarnated on the stage in a way that would uniquely convey the depth and charm of the film. I was not expecting the same experience of seeing the movie but rather hoping for a new rendering of the story that would make full use of the organically intimate differences between film and live theater. Instead I witnessed one-dimensional characterizations delivering an emotional abbreviation.

Billy Elliot, one of the most endearing underdog stories ever, is stripped of subtlety and nuance to become a caricature of itself. The cast yells their dialogue like punch lines to jokes told in a noisy bar. Act 1 is over an hour and a half long, but the characters are so superficial that you struggle to muster concern for them. The story moves from scene to scene with little to no connection to what preceded. It is as if they are relying on the idea that we already know the characters and what will happen to them next, so why bother then with establishing them as genuine or creating believable continuity?

In the opening of act 1 we meet Billy’s best friend, Michael, but this encounter is so brief that their relationship is not even remotely established. Halfway through the act, Billy shows up at Michael’s house, and we’re just supposed to know that this is his best friend, for a cross-dressing song-and-dance number. As if this abrupt character introduction isn’t irritating enough, halfway through the dance (which is up until this point the highlight of the first act) giant headless dancing dresses appear… Huh?

Despite the lack of character context we finally get some concrete magic created by the wonderful dancing of Keean Johnson (playing Michael) and Cesar Corrales (playing Billy) and it is shattered by an absurdly ridiculous flashy visual gimmick.

The underlying story of one of Britain’s most profoundly significant coal mining strikes is woven into the musical with varying degrees of effectiveness but the severity of the situation never connects with the circumstances of the storytelling. I overheard a group of adults recapping act 1 outside of the theater at intermission by saying, “There’s some sort of strike or something going on.”

Perhaps the most vitally important and most profoundly absent element of the story is Billy’s passion to dance. Cesar Corrales is an extremely gifted young dancer, but with the exception of his actual dance numbers, we never get the critical notion that dancing is Billy’s redemption and potential salvation.

We are never fully given any of the dramatic themes or builds in this commercially shallow adaptation of a profoundly compelling story. At best we get some wonderful dancing, a few songs that stand out in the less-than-thrilling score as better than average, and we get these paltry creative highlights wrapped in a lot of highly polished spectacle. At worst we get stiff acting, inconsistent accents, artificial story development, and unbelievable characters.

The most compelling reason to see this show is the dancing charmingly choreographed by Peter Darling. For less than the expensive price of this show you can see an entire evening’s worth of brilliant dance by the Jofferey Ballet. (Eclectica runs April 28 through May 9 at the Auditorium Theatre. 800-982-2787)

Save your money and stop encouraging the manufacturing of commercial repackages of successful stories. Your ticket price would be going to pay for the multi-million dollar advertising budget more than a priceless theatrical experience.

My partner asked, “What are they going to ruin next? Whale Rider? I can see it now, ‘Whale Rider, a musical about a girl and her fish brought to you by Star-Kist.’ Or maybe Virgin Suicides: The Musical, or perhaps Bastard Out of Carolina: The Musical.”

1 STAR

(“Billy Elliot the Musical” has an open run at the Oriental Theatre, 24 W. Randolph Street. 800-775-2000)

Billy Elliot the Musical 2010 (Chicago) - Broadway in Chicago

Billy Elliot the Musical production photos by Joan Marcus.

Oriental Theatre marquee image by Venus Zarris.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.