Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Going to take two eldest daughters to the theatre. They are good at sitting still and can do the cinema no problem.


Just wondering on thoughts on shows - I am desperate for them to see Wicked, if not Matilda. Heard a range of thoughts on them! Some say Wicked too scary, others say it's not as bad as Matilda?!?


I've seen Wicked and thought it'd be fine, but not seen Matilda before.


Any theatre veterans able to help?!? Thanks!!

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/155337-theatre-for-6yo-and-4yo-wicked/
Share on other sites

Out of the two I'd go for Matilda. It's what you would expect it to be. Clear story line, you can hear what is being said and sung etc. The flow does sag a tad part way through where there is the risk of a moment of boredom but picks up again quite quickly.

Wicked, well, it's noisy and easy to lose track, for little minds, in what's going on. Found the sound set up unnecessarily way too loud.


Hope this helps... of course just my thoughts and experiences.

Haven't seen Wicked so can't comment on that but Matilda is great and not scary - but at 2 hours 40 mins I think it's a bit long for a 4-year-old, even a very patient one. Also I reckon a fair bit of the humour and plot would be over the head of a very little child. Personally I'd wait a couple of years as they'll get a lot more out of it when they're older and they'll remember it more too. I think my youngest was six when we went and I'd say she was just at the very limit of being old enough to 'get' it and enjoy it properly - my (then) eight-year-old was much more the right age.

I agree with redjam that Matilda might be just too long for a four year old, and it is more aimed at around 8 and above.

However if you are looking at some theatre options, an alternative (more local and cheaper) I can highly recommend the Albany Theatre in Deptford which run many plays aimed at this age group.


http://www.thealbany.org.uk/events/Family


There is also the Little Angel Theatre in Islington (easily reached on the overground)

https://littleangeltheatre.com/category/whats-on/

I think they're both a bit too young. You don't want to spoil it for them or waste your money. Maybe wait until they've both read (and understood) the books?


We go to The Polka theatre in Wimbledon quite a bit. They'll have plays that are age appropriate (and much cheaper than the big shows).

Also look at the Unicorn theatre - similar to Polka theatre as all aimed at children and much cheaper than west end. We've seen a few things there which have all been brilliant.

Agree that 4 is a bit too young for west end as a lot of the shows are quite long and they cost such a lot of money (although I guess if you got kids week tickets would not be too bad.)


I've seen both Wicked and Matilda, thought Matilda was a million times better but the children loved Wicked as well. (I know a few people who've seen it and all said the same, adults thought was a bit crap but children loved it!). Is not really scary although a couple of bits that a young child might find a bit frightening.

I agree Lion King is ideal for all ages - and that's because it's basically a fancy panto so I would recommend that - although the tickets are ruinously expensive.


I also think Wicked would be too full-on for little kids and Matilda is too long for the under sevens.


I took my son to Oliver Twist (aged about 7 - too young and it was a very expensive mistake), to Railway Children (probably around the same age and he was bored, another waste of money, to War Horse - he just about 'got that' as he was bit older aged 10). he liked Matilda but was probably 10 or so.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Morally they should, but we don't actually vote for parties in our electoral system. We vote for a parliamentary (or council) representative. That candidates group together under party unbrellas is irrelevant. We have a 'representative' democracy, not a party political one (if that makes sense). That's where I am on things at the moment. Reform are knocking on the door of the BNP, and using wedge issues to bait emotional rage. The Greens are knocking on the door of the hard left, sweeping up the Corbynista idealists. But it's worth saying that both are only ascending because of the failures of the two main parties and the successive governments they have led. Large parts of the country have been left in economic decline for decades, while city fat cats became uber wealthy. Young people have been screwed over by student loans. Housing is 40 years of commoditisation, removing affordabilty beyond the reach of too many. Decently paid, secure jobs, seem to be a thing of the past. Which of the main parties can people turn to, to fix any of these things, when the main parties are the reason for the mess that has been allowed to evolve? Reform certainly aren't the answer to those things. The Greens may aspire to do something meaningful about some of them, but where will they find the money to pay for it? None of it's easy.
    • Yes, but the context is important and the reason.
    • That messes up Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - democracy being based on citizenship not literacy. There's intentionally no one language that campaign materials have to be in. 
    • TBH if people don't see what is sectarian in the materials linked to above when they read about them, then I don't think me going on about it will help. They speak for themselves.  I don't know how the Greens can justify promising to be a strong voice for one particular religion. Will that pledge hold when it comes to campaigning in East Dulwich (which is majority atheist)? https://censusdata.uk/e02000836-east-dulwich/ts030-religion
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...