Changes to BE NYC to remove profanity

[andrewcraig]

In a long article about the difficulties of all shows on Broadway, the following comment was made

And the team behind the hit “Billy Elliot,” which began turning a profit in 2010, is hoping that creative changes, including the elimination of some profanity, will help draw more families and school groups.

It is a very interesting article

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/theat ... ted=1&_r=1

[ERinVA]

This has already been posted here: http://www.billyelliottheforum.me.uk/fo ... 985#p60985

[BEtourfan]

From New York Times article:

Eric Fellner, a lead producer of “Billy Elliot,” said the creative team would be making some changes to the dialogue of the musical that might serve to broaden its appeal and encourage more bulk sales, which make up an important part of any show’s income. He said that some profanity would be cut and that other language would be tweaked to “make scenes easier to comprehend and perhaps make the show even easier to sell to groups.”

The creative team had already made these changes to the touring production.

[Billy Whiz]

I think it deserves a separate thread as it is a very interesting development.

For what it's worth I think it is a bad move. It will be interesting to see if it makes any difference to the falling attendances.

[BEtourfan]

Think I understand what's meant by cutting the "profanity," but wonder if Eric Fellner's comment about tweaking other language to "make scenes easier to comprehend" and "even easier to sell" might actually touch on some of the more complex or mature themes in the show.

[ERinVA]

For what it's worth I think it is a bad move. It will be interesting to see if it makes any difference to the falling attendances.

I also think it will be interesting to see. However, as producers, it's their job to do what's necessary to increase sales in order to keep the show open. If this works, then I support the decision. The touring and Toronto productions have certainly shown that the show can work fine without so much profanity, so if taking it down to those levels would improve ticket sales for the Broadway show, then I say do it. As for other creative changes, well, they have been doing those all along, as we all know. But there is a point where they need to keep hands off. I just don't want them to remove the show's guts.

[ERinVA]

Here's an article from Broadway World: http://broadwayworld.com/article/BILLY- ... s-20110902

[kport]

Think I understand what's meant by cutting the "profanity," but wonder if Eric Fellner's comment about tweaking other language to "make scenes easier to comprehend" and "even easier to sell" might actually touch on some of the more complex or mature themes in the show.

This is the conundrum this show presents. Is it based on a subject or theme designed for adults, although centered on children (such as 'Lord of the Flies'); or is it a show for all ages to enjoy? The problem is that it focuses on themes that are complex, yet the show can be - and is - enjoyed at face value by kids. So if American audiences require toning it down a bit for the kids, then the 'adult' themes will still be evident for those who see beyond the pure entertainment factor.

Secondly, working class UK is more prone to using harsh language in daily workabout life; society is less offended and its use in the play is a reflection of life there. Billy would certainly say "How the fook would I know?". However, it jars American sensibilities in a way that can detract from the story, while adding little to it - in America, where it is out of context in 'polite' society -e.g. families and schools. Another reason to judiciously edit it - if it brings in more punters.

One or two terms can and should remain: 'poof' being a case in point. It is not part of day to day parlance in America; therefore it does not jar in a way that the US school yard misuse of its equivalent, 'gay', would in its place ("those shoes are soo gay") The latter term is a real issue in schools and is best avoided. 'Poof' gets the message across and should stay. And, of course, we cannot lose the 'William Elliot Is Queer' joke, either.

So, it is a case of applying judicial alteration to make it work for the paying audience, without whom BETM would not exist. I trust the producers on this issue.

[cainmac]

I've said this before in the tour thread, but I believe it bears repeating here.

I prefer the original language, and I do believe that it is an integral part of the production. However, if toning the language down will encourage more parents to bring their children, then I am all for it.

[BEtourfan]

I've said this before in the tour thread, but I believe it bears repeating here.
I prefer the original language, and I do believe that it is an integral part of the production. However, if toning the language down will encourage more parents to bring their children, then I am all for it.

I agree with kport and cainmac. Though I was somewhat taken aback by the language change from the Broadway show to the Tour, I adjusted to it. Also, toning down the language may bring in more adults as well as children. Surprisingly, though, there were a number of negative reviews by theatergoers who were unhappy with even the toned-down language of the Tour.