Les Miserables

[Garrette]

Just saw it again yesterday. That makes five times, I think, the second locally. Have also seen it in London, Boston and New York.

I think it has to be considered as one of the top few theatrical pieces ever. I find it a complete package with no discernible flaws in writing or composition. Add top notch production and excellent performances and it floors you.

Note: The Louisville productions are very good but do not compare with London, Boston or New York, at least in the performance quality. Still worth seeing, though.

I've never understood why Phantom of the Opera is more popular.

[RSLancastr]

I can't say that I care for it much.

I've seen it twice, both times with the original Los Angeles cast.

The first time, I was up in nosebleed territory, and you could not tell who was singing what. Since I was not familiar with the show, this made for a poor theatrical experience, to say the least.

I saw it the second time from third row center. I went back because an acquaintance of mine (we did plays together back in college) was understudying Javert (sp?), and had the role for that performance.

I was able to tell who was singing what, but overall, I still don't care for the show (and I love musical theatre).

Some reasons:

1. It contains singing children. I'm not terribly fond of child actors on stage, and in a musical, they are particularly annoying. The character of the "feisty little rebel/orphan boy" was particularly nauseating.

2. Often, the meter of the lyrics does not match that of the music. Possibly a result of it being translated from French. Sorry, I remember so little of the show, I cannot give you any examples.

3. The couple that is supposed to provide comic relief, doesn't. The characters are written so ham-fistedly, they end up being carcicatures of caricatures of caricatures.

4. The plot was, to someone who hadn't read the book, difficult (if not impossible) to follow. Too many characters, most of whom were easily mistaken for each other.

5. They had so much plot to get in, in so short a time, that it became (unintentionally) comical to me. Like one of those "Romeo & Juliet in One Minute" types of skits. Some moments were evidently supposed to be very emotional, but whooshed by so fast that they had no chance to have an impact on me.

Of the entire show, there are very few moments which I enjoyed enough to still remember. I remember particularly liking the song "Bring Him Home" (I believe that's the title), and some of the staging was effective.

Oh, and the set was pretty cool.

[Garrette]

I shall refrain from calling you heathen, RSL....though it pains me.

I'm not really trying to change your mind or anyone else's as I realize it is hugely subjective.

But I would like to address at least some of your points, though I may do it with the same response.

It's in the quality of performance which is reliant upon the quality of direction.

The "feisty boy" (Gavroche) and the "comic relief" couple (Thenardier and his wife) are both written in a very difficult manner. One of their purposes is to provide relief from the heaviness of the remainder of the show, but they also have depth to them, though much less so for Gavroche than for Thenardier & Wife.

Thenardier & Wife are in fact, very dark and dangerous characters; while they do have comic bits they are few and widely spaced and, if you will allow the literature-professor side of me to come out, they're not really comic. The characters use a "false comedy" when they are on the verge of being discovered as the villains they are.

The problem is that too many directors take the easy out and allow their actors to do the same. Instead of making the roles dark with a comic edge, they make them comic with a dark edge. The result is like you must have seen in LA.

The Gavroche character is not multi-dimensional in that aspect but when handled well can demonstrate the tragedy of growing up poor in Paris then: 1) Growing up too soon followed by 2) The tragic consequences of being forced to do so.

In Louisville yesterday, the Gavroche character was cardboard. Nothing to him at all; probably the weakest part of the show.

Thenardier & Wife, on the other hand, were portrayed very well with a couple of short lapses. The biggest complaint I had with them was the wife's make-up which was almost a caricature of the old witch in the forest.

In Boston, the cast was impeccable and the Gavroche nearly stole the show with a dirty but proud portrayal of a too-grown-lad-dying-pointlessly.

I'll try a flawed analogy: Imagine the most beautiful Olympic Platform Dive you can think of and Greg Louganis executing it marvelously.

Now imagine a second tier Olympian attempting the same dive and doing it not quite as well. Because the dive itself is so difficult, the errors and shortcomings are magnified, but that does not lessen the fact that the dive itself is a beautiful thing.

Les Miserables is a difficult show. Perhaps it should only be performed on Broadway and in London.

P.S. Your spelling is correct: Javert

P.P.S. Your memory is also correct: The song is Bring Him Home and is probably the most beautiful of the several beautiful songs.

[Garrette]

Just to add: I've not read the book either and while I remember some difficulty following the plot, I don't remember it being too great. Then again, the programs usually have the scene synopsis.

I don't recall the meter of the lyrics not matching the music. I would suggest, again, that this may be a performance issue.

[RSLancastr]

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of "Phantom of the Opera" either.

And perhaps it will give you a better idea of my taste in musical theatre to know that my favorite musical of all time is "A Little Night Music," followed closely by "The Fantasticks."

I saw scenes from the original Broadway production of "Les Miserables," as well as scenes from various other productions of the show which were edited together for some anniversary celebration or some such, and played on PBS.

The villainous couple always seemed to be played in the same hamfisted, nearly commedia-del-arte level of mugging. And they always (particularly the wife) had makeup to go with it. Annoying. Overdone. And out of place with the rest of the show.

The Gavroche character always seems to be played in the same community theatre "look at me, ain't I plucky" manner, and the "I wish I was a girl so I could audition for Annie" school of singing.

I'll take your word for it that these characters can and have been done better.

As for the "meter" thing, it is the same on the cast album. I don't think it is a performance issue.

As an odd coincidence, I recently put the cast album (don't recall which cast) on my iPod. I have yet to play it, but I had the iPod on "shuffle" mode in the car a few nights ago, and the song "Stars" came up. I was actually quite surprised at how poorly the actor playing Javert sang. Must have been cast for his acting ability.

I'll try to give it a listen tonight, and see if I can come up with some examples of the meter thing.

[treble_head]

I dunno. maudelin, over righteous, historically misleading piece. The end might has well have had ewoks dancing with the ghosts. I cried when I saw it the first time, (I was 12) and I was kinda feeling cheated the second time. (I was 17).

[Jorghnassen]

I hate musicals, and especially the ones made after 19th century french novels...

[Regnad Kcin]

I've seen the show twice (both in L.A.). Fortunately, as with most entertainment that goes on to achieve blockbuster status, the first time was quite early in the show's life and made for a pleasant discovery.

My affection for the piece comes mostly from its score. Complex, beautiful, rousing, and haunting, the presentation is always ambitious. Sure, it's quite sentimental at times, and the characters are drawn without much in the way of shading, but I'm of the mind that it's much more satisfying than not; again, owed mostly to the music.

And, of course, it's not a musical in the generally accepted modern definition (containing spoken drama interspersed with songs to highlight elements of the story or support character); Les Miserables is more an opera.

[treble_head]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin


My affection for the piece comes mostly from its score.


Yeah. At least it's not an Andrew Lloyd Webber soundtrack (a.k.a. Puccini's greatest hits, reworked)

[Jorghnassen]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Les Miserables is more an opera.

*My head a splode*

[gnome]

My favorite song was the confrontation of Valjean and Javert. I saw it in Tampa and found it a very moving experience. The only video I have is of the PBS special where an all-star cast was performing the music from the show. (Why didn't they just perform the show?... they about did all of it anyway)... the funny thing about that one was they had the actress from Miss Saigon performing as Eponine, and did so well that I could scarcely imagine Marius preferring Cosette. :P I guess that "hot girl that everyone treats like she's frumpy" thing doesn't just happen in teen movies.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by gnome
the funny thing about that one was they had the actress from Miss Saigon performing as Eponine, and did so well that I could scarcely imagine Marius preferring Cosette. Lea Salonga. With the wholehearted approval and endorsement of Mrs. Merc...I have a thing for Lea Salonga. I cannot watch Eponine's dying scene without bawling my eyes out.

I saw Les Mis in Boston...it was good. Not great. Better than any Andrew Lloyd Webber, even though I saw Cats in Toronto with my bro-in-law actually playing principal trumpet, and liked it. Neither hold a candle to Mozart, but The Magic Flute never had Lea Salonga. Have I mentioned that I have a thing for her?

I saw a PBS special once on the selection process for the original cast of Miss Saigon (this would be where Lea Salonga was discovered. Did I mention...?). I taped it. Mrs. Merc. lost it, somehow....

[Foofer]

I saw Les Miserables once. Did absolutely nothing for me.

[hewhocaves]

first post. hi everyone.

My two centines on Les Mis. (I love it.)

The novel (the half I've read of it... good lord it's long!) i more social commentary than actual plot and the musical reflects that well. The plot, when stripped down to nothing is admittedly thin, yet somehow remains very long - it's more like a string of events than a coherent story. Again, for social commentary this is good.
When I went to see it (i've seen it all of once on Broadway and then again on PBS), my gf insisted that I read the libretto. She also forced me to listen to the soundtrack about a week before and sketched out the plot for me. This was all pretty essential to me following along. She also went over the plot with me during the intermission. (btw, We had decent seats, about seven rows back but waaaay over to the right.)

Regarding the characters... four of them are filled out in the musical: Valjean, Javert, Eponine and Thénardier. Everyone else is cardboard. It's a big cast and there's just not enough time to get everyone in there. Having said that, regarding the cardboard you have the almost fleshed out: Fantine and the "i swear you could put in a prop and get the same effect": Cosette. Everyone else is somewhere in between.

If you get a good cast for the "big four", you'll have a good show. If any one of them is subpar, it's pretty much ruined. So taking them in order:

Valjean: the musical could have as easily been titled "Valjean" as he is the central thread. His story is basically that of a person who whenever he fulfills a promise, he gets himself into more trouble. Basically, he's you're suffering hero with an overdeveloped sense of conscience.

Javert is Valjean's counterpoint. He did the exact opposite. He suffered as a child (i am from the gutter too) and decided that fulfillment can only come from a literal interpretation of the law. Whereas Valjean is all feelings (he throws away everything for a promise) Javert is all mental. "confrontation", "who am i?" all explore the shortcomings of being all one or the other.

Eponine is unrequited love. Worse than that, the object of her affections, Marius, is a ninny. It's not coincidental that the best thing that happened to Marius dies halfway through the play. Eponine is as selfles as Valjean but has nothing to give besides herself. She's probably the most "Miserable" in the whole story.

Thénardier is amorality. He presages what the world will become in the next 200 years. We laugh at him because he is out of place, but the lines he ends with

We know where the wind is blowing
Money is the stuff we smell
And when we're rich as Croesus
Jesus! Won't we see you all in hell!

could be spoken by any chairman of the board.

Other characters (some)

Cosette: I can't stand the role. I understand that her romance has to be downplayed to keep the focus on Valjean, but their scenes are so wooden. The most I can suggest is that their charcters become less interesting the more "typical" they become.

Marius: Seems to exist solely to have someone for Cosette to marry. Did he ever have feelings for Eponine? Probably. Would he have ever acted on them? No. He's way too wrapped up in his petit bourgeois life to notice anyone whose social standing is beneath him. (i.e. he's not really miserable, so the niserable dont exist to him)

Gavroche: seems to be a cute little kid - metaphor for the political and cultural postion of the poor. They have all the pull of a seven year old. However, Gavroche's lines about the pup (never kick a dog because he's just a pup) really foreshadows the popular movements of hte next two hundred years.

So there is a lot of depth to the play beyond the actual plot. It's teriffically rich in a way that Phantom (as a love story) just cannot be. In this way, it's more like Cats, but not really.

John

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by hewhocaves
...Marius: Seems to exist solely to have someone for Cosette to marry. Did he ever have feelings for Eponine? Probably. Would he have ever acted on them? No. He's way too wrapped up in his petit bourgeois life to notice anyone whose social standing is beneath him. (i.e. he's not really miserable, so the niserable dont exist to him)...I believe you're oversimplifying here. Marius comes to recognize the importance of a cause greater than the self and the need to sacrifice for the same. In this he achieves heroic stature.

Also, Valjean sees that Marius, by way of Cosette, is his future -- in a metephorical sense, that is. (Also a real one, since any future child of his "daughter" will be an extension of himself.) For Valjean to relinquish the one person he wholeheartedly values is no small thing. So there must be someone who is worthy of the gift, as opposed to some stock, pretty boy juvenile.

Of course the story benefits from a romantic lead, but his use as a structural device is enhanced and fleshed out by the above.

ETA: It is terribly sad that Eponine loves Marius. But the depth of her pain is made acute for her, and therefore poignant to us, by his being, again, worth it.

Welcome to the forum.

[treble_head]

Originally posted by Foofer
I saw Les Miserables once. Did absolutely nothing for me.
The Cheat! What's been up?

[hewhocaves]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
I believe you're oversimplifying here. Marius comes to recognize the importance of a cause greater than the self and the need to sacrifice for the same. In this he achieves heroic stature.

ETA: It is terribly sad that Eponine loves Marius. But the depth of her pain is made acute for her, and therefore poignant to us, by his being, again, worth it.


I agree with you that that is the purpose of Marius. however, I still think that, in the play at least, he's badly written. And yes, I was being a bit of a smart a**. I know he's supposed to come off as this young adult who is terribly, terribly conflicted over his cause and his love, but for some reason he just screams "Luke Skywalker" to me. Part of it is that it seems like he's always one step behind the plot. And it IS possible that Eponine's character is too strongly written (what flaws does she have beyond loving unconditionally?) making Marius hard to identify with (I mean if Lea Salonga is massively hitting on you, what are you going to do?)
Lastly, Marius seems to be a follower, not a leader. I'm trying to think of something that he undertakes on his own initiative, but there really isn't. Even Eponine does his work for him to hunt down Cosette.

so that's my gripe with the character. i think he's given a bit more depth in the movie.

John

[gnome]

Originally posted by hewhocaves
I agree with you that that is the purpose of Marius. however, I still think that, in the play at least, he's badly written. And yes, I was being a bit of a smart a**. I know he's supposed to come off as this young adult who is terribly, terribly conflicted over his cause and his love, but for some reason he just screams "Luke Skywalker" to me. Part of it is that it seems like he's always one step behind the plot. And it IS possible that Eponine's character is too strongly written (what flaws does she have beyond loving unconditionally?) making Marius hard to identify with (I mean if Lea Salonga is massively hitting on you, what are you going to do?)
Lastly, Marius seems to be a follower, not a leader. I'm trying to think of something that he undertakes on his own initiative, but there really isn't. Even Eponine does his work for him to hunt down Cosette.

so that's my gripe with the character. i think he's given a bit more depth in the movie.

John

Which movie? If you refer to the Liam Neeson version, I imagine it's because they blended his character with Enjolras. I enjoyed the movie but it disappointed me for that because the parts where they played off each other in the stage presentation really impacted me.

[hewhocaves]

yep. that's the movie. what Qui-Gon did before "Phantom Menace"

i agree that he was melded with Enjoleras, but since the musical is an approximation of the book anyway, i don't see how mixing them together might make it any more of an abomonation.

oh well. still a great play

John

[Foofer]

Originally posted by treble_head
The Cheat! What's been up?

meh meh meh meh meh. meh!

:)

[Tricky]

I love Les Mis, but it's not my favorite. Too long, too many throwaway songs ("Bring Them Home" is a piece of glurge that's pitched high enough to make dogs whine). And the ending is totally anticlimax.

Going to see "Phantom" tonight, which I love, but I think ALW's best musical was Jesus Christ Superstar.

[Brown]

I saw the production on Broadway. There were a few well-known names in the cast, and the singing was superb. The staging was also first rate.

As for the story, well, it struck me a little sour. I happened to see the play a few days after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Oklahoma City bombing involved a group of political rebels using violence against the established government.

At the end of "Les Mis," all the rebels go to heaven, and those who work for the established government go to hell.

Also, I was disappointed that no one "got" the joke I made later: "Why did Javert go into the river? Because he was insane."

[gnome]

Originally posted by Brown
At the end of "Les Mis," all the rebels go to heaven, and those who work for the established government go to hell.

I don't think it's quite true... it didn't happen at the end, but a representative named Lamarque died and it was made clear he was a good person.

Not to mention Valjean was a governor (Mayor) of sorts before he revealed his identity. So it doesn't seem to present the idea that ruling figures are always bad.

I too found the ending somewhat anticlimactic though--after Valjean saved Marius, I stopped being riveted by the story, and instead simply enjoyed the superb vocal performances. Any further emotional moments at that point was clear button-pushing--"Empty Chairs" for example, and ghostly appearances by dead characters. Like how a movie makes you tear up at the end by showing a montage of favorite characters that died during the film.... *coughTheStandcough*

[Brown]

Originally posted by gnome
I don't think it's quite true... it didn't happen at the end, but a representative named Lamarque died and it was made clear he was a good person.Well, in the production that I saw, Fantine (who died early on) came on stage and sang a song (she was portrayed by Paige O'Hara, who voiced the lead in Disney's "Beauty and the Beast") while Valjean prepared his soul for the afterlife. As Valjean died, in the background were all the dead characters from the play--except Javert--singing Valjean to heaven with a rousing pro-liberty/anti-government hymn.

[gnome]

Originally posted by Brown
Well, in the production that I saw, Fantine (who died early on) came on stage and sang a song (she was portrayed by Paige O'Hara, who voiced the lead in Disney's "Beauty and the Beast") while Valjean prepared his soul for the afterlife. As Valjean died, in the background were all the dead characters from the play--except Javert--singing Valjean to heaven with a rousing pro-liberty/anti-government hymn.

I'm not trying to make you like it more-- but it may have been a variation on the version I saw: here's the song I remember...


Do you hear the people sing
Lost in the valley of the night
It is the music of a people
Who are climbing to the light

For the wretched of the earth
There is a flame that never dies
Even the darkest night will end
And the sun will rise.

They will live again in freedom
In the garden of the Lord
They will walk behind the plough-share
They will put away the sword
The chain will be broken
And all men will have their reward!

Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me?
Somewhere beyond the barricade
Is there a world you long to see?
Do you hear the people sing
Say, do you hear the distant drums?
It is the future that they bring
When tomorrow comes!


It sounds to me like a spiritual appeal rather than a political one...

[Wudang]

I enjoyed the show in London some years back. I enjoyed even more this non-musical movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113828/

[Fungrim]

Have anyone seen the alternative staging (hint: two big bovable walls on half the stage) that goes around? If so, what did you think? (Just curious, as I was on stage in the Gothenburg version)