3,307 posts
|
Post by david on Jul 17, 2019 18:31:25 GMT
If you could rummage through it all, which single prop would you appropriate from the iconic original Les Miserables? I’d want the revolve. It would make a great dining table. |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jul 17, 2019 18:49:45 GMT
If you could rummage through it all, which single prop would you appropriate from the iconic original Les Miserables? I’d want the revolve. It would make a great dining table. Lazy Susan! |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 17, 2019 18:50:17 GMT
Has anyone notice this is now being branded as "Les Miserables - for the 21st century". Cringe. Perhaps they should all be crawling round the barricade taking selfies and doing that weird pose with one leg cocked out. Bizarre marketing. To what century did the past 19 years belong in Cameron's mind? |
|
38 posts
|
Post by mjr on Jul 17, 2019 19:18:51 GMT
In terms of set/props, how much actually made it to the Queen's from the Palace? I am assuming the original barricade was too big for the Queen's!
|
|
|
|
Post by lem on Jul 17, 2019 20:12:22 GMT
In terms of set/props, how much actually made it to the Queen's from the Palace? I am assuming the original barricade was too big for the Queen's! I remember the Palace barricades as being much more substantial- but then I wondered if that was just memory playing tricks as everything looks bigger when you are smaller! |
|
1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Jul 18, 2019 16:25:57 GMT
Perhaps they should all be crawling round the barricade taking selfies and doing that weird pose with one leg cocked out. "On this Ipad, I email my last confession." Surely "in this tweet I write my last confession" |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 16:38:40 GMT
After Saturday's performance I have gone back to listen to the OLCR. Yikes. After listening to other recordings over the years, the original sounds SO slow! It's like when British people try to explain something to people of other nationalities... they do it really slowly in the hope they might suddenly understand....
Also some of Colm Wilkinson's mannerisms are laughable.
Still there are some bits that I miss after the various cuts and changes, like the love montage, I Saw Him Once and the original beginning to On My Own.
|
|
1,736 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Jul 18, 2019 18:11:20 GMT
Surely "in this tweet I write my last confession" Yes, but that then doesn't allow the show to end on a rousing "Do You Hear The People Tweet," does it. "do you hear the people Skype?" "there is a castle in 'the cloud'" I think forbidden Broadway already have "on my phone" |
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Jul 19, 2019 3:48:16 GMT
Sorry but I cannot agree with this. There is nothing cheap about the new production, it’s one of the most stunning things I’ve seen on stage and looks BETTER than the original and is better than many if not most West End musicals that I’ve seen. If people prefer the revolve and the nostalgia factor of the original then fine, but to say the new one is cheap is misrepresenting the facts. I don't think it's necessarily about the sets being more or less expensive (though they are cheaper for Cameron, because he doesn't have to pay royalties to John Napier - he tried to buy the intellectual property to the Napier set so he wouldn't have to keep doing that, but Napier refused). It's cheaper in the sense that they have hired two not-so-great and far cheaper assistants to 'direct' the show, and they have no vision. They've merely copied and pasted a lot of the blocking and when that hasn't been copied, it's a bit of mess. The level of attention to the background characters and the lack of knowledge of the novel (knowledge which Nunn and Caird had in spades) is really evident. And while it may not look cheaper, it certainly sounds it - the new orchestrations pale in comparison to what was heard in the original production (until they shoved the new orchestrations into the Queens). The tours of the restaged version have benefited from very strong casting. It will be interesting as to whether the show will really hold up when, inevitably, not so great casts (like the most recent one in London) are put into the production. Time will tell as to whether this will last, or whether, as on Broadway, the restaged one will have a very limited shelf life. In the case of the restaged Phantom, though, that is cheap as hell and doesn't hold a candle to the original. Connor's comment in the souvenir brochure for the 2012 tour that the production was 'every bit as opulent' as the Prince/Björnson/Bridge original was laughable. It's no wonder they've ditched it and are returning to the original for the tour next year. Agree much of that. I think there's some advantage in the new production where the visuals are more convincing - although not so much in Javerts fall which still looks odd. Some scenes like at the gate to no 55, look marginally better. Using the young cosette and Eponine more also is an improvement - it makes the population look more realistic and they seem to enjoy it, The galley slave bit is more with the book, and the current generation have never heard of hard labour - and may think it means being deprived of a phone - so don't understand rock breaking - as older British audiences did. The barricade now looks a bigger to me, but it lacks the majesty of the old behemoth.
Where the new production gains is, indeed, mostly where the casting makes it great. Killian is great and has now upgraded from excellent to commandingly so . Katie Hall is the best Fantine i have seen and produces a great piece of acting as she credibly falls apart, conveys the emotions Fantine feels , and changes her appearance to match. Nic Greenshields is getting the best response i have heard for his Javert and gets a chance to show some humanity over Gavroche , while Martin Ball masters comic menace. And Tegan Bannister is one of the few Eponines who has mastered being credibly street with being likeable enough to care about too. Add on a strong Marius and Enjolras and a great sounding ensemble and you have a winner.
But the direction and staging is decidedly weaker than the original too often. Fantine on a bed at an odd angle makes her job far more difficult. Marius standing means a row of dead students appearing behind him can't be seen from some places in the stalls. Gavroches demise looks silly - as if he's trying to get killed. Enjolras looks like he's doubling as Fiyero in his cart- its vastly less impressive as ends go , than hanging over the barricade. There's a reason why David Thaxton got a standing ovation when the barricade reversed on his last show- no one will get one for appearing in a cart. Equally, the arrival in Paris is far better with cast appearing menacingly all over the front of the stage , than it is with a tight huddle appearing through a door. Master of the house was stronger with its original choreography - the dead parrot is a good addition, the one legged man joke perhaps OTT panto.
There's also , too much ad lib humour, that goes for cheap laughs creeping in elsewhere, Gavroche's extra bits are OTT, and adlibs elsewhere just chuck in humour where none belongs. And where there is a message this directorial team don't always seem to understand it. The film's confusion between catholic and protestant theology seems now to have been corrected - with the Bishop just greeting Valjean , not leading him to salvation at the end. But the final role of Eponine and Fantine just isn't understood. They are there to lead JV to heaven, but thats not who they are most concerned with. The outstretched hands fit the lyrics - to love another person - can't refer to Valjean . The outstretched pointing hands should be to the people they loved, and died for - Coosette and Marius. Eponine doesn't love Valjean.All three get to heaven by loving the two people in front of them.
If you don't get whats going on, its difficult to produce a coherent whole. Change may be necessary, but its often done for change's sake to try and be modern. And. as you suggest. if your new creatives team isn't as good as your brilliant original one , you may end up with the opposite result to that intended.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrismis on Jul 19, 2019 12:00:24 GMT
I agree with every word you've said 'djp'.Thank you, you've managed to summarise all my thoughts and everything that's wrong with the 'New' production. I won't be seeing it again when it comes into London. No point in travelling to see an inferior product.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2019 14:52:45 GMT
So this has probably been asked before, but I'll ask it again as I'm curious.
With the original production no longer playing now, what does it mean in terms of royalties/income for the RSC?
Does it still receive from the material considering it was developed by them (so surely therefore it should receive it from all other forms i.e. the concerts and 2012 film etc.) or did they stop receiving it a while back anyway?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 8:34:43 GMT
So this has probably been asked before, but I'll ask it again as I'm curious. With the original production no longer playing now, what does it mean in terms of royalties/income for the RSC? Does it still receive from the material considering it was developed by them (so surely therefore it should receive it from all other forms i.e. the concerts and 2012 film etc.) or did they stop receiving it a while back anyway? So I don't know is the honest answer. I am sure the original designers won't get anything now. But as for Nunn and John Caird - the TOUR programme says, in the writing credits section, "Adaptation by Trevor Nunn and John Caird." So as they have a WRITING credit, I assume they will still get something. Though also issue will be less than the original which also had the DIRECTION credit. I am guessing though. On a related note, quite often for new productions of old shows, you often see in the credits "originally directed by....." which makes me think some original directors still get royalties from any subsequent productions even if they haven't been involved in the new production." Sure someone will know more about this than me though! |
|
227 posts
|
Post by ukpuppetboy on Aug 5, 2019 1:50:45 GMT
|
|
227 posts
|
Post by ukpuppetboy on Aug 5, 2019 6:45:17 GMT
I seem to remember reading that the RSC were "in negotiations" a while back. Nothing since, though. According to a 2005 Parliamentary Select Committee Paper their royalties, even in the mid-90s amounted to around £1m annually. The number of international productions may have slowed since then but adjusting for inflation and the renewed interest since the movie those will still be relevant figures and quite the loss if their royalty percentage were slashed (which it surely will be). Commons Select Committee Minutes - Funding (3/05) |
|
|
|
Post by scarpia on Sept 8, 2019 11:15:00 GMT
I seem to remember reading that the RSC were "in negotiations" a while back. Nothing since, though. According to a 2005 Parliamentary Select Committee Paper their royalties, even in the mid-90s amounted to around £1m annually. The number of international productions may have slowed since then but adjusting for inflation and the renewed interest since the movie those will still be relevant figures and quite the loss if their royalty percentage were slashed (which it surely will be). Commons Select Committee Minutes - Funding (3/05)The Sunday Times today is reporting that the RSC is let to lose "millions" (as suspected) thanks to this. Here's the link. Frankly, IMHO, this whole debacle is down to Cameron Mackintosh's greed, and nothing else. |
|
19,676 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 9, 2019 15:45:42 GMT
No one involved in the original production could have envisaged that it would be the success it’s turned out to be. Everyone has been immensely fortunate to have been on that gravy train for 35 years and as far as I can see should be grateful for that. Presumably a set of different creatives will be reaping some of the rewards for the next few years so good for them. None of these people would have got the gig if it weren’t for Cameron Mackintosh’s original vision and investment.
|
|
7,061 posts
|
Post by Jon on Sept 9, 2019 16:07:13 GMT
£25m over 35 years doesn't seem great royalties wise, I suspect the RSC has made more from Matilda.
|
|
4,789 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 9, 2019 16:30:22 GMT
£25m over 35 years doesn't seem great royalties wise, I suspect the RSC has made more from Matilda. And i'm sure the hope will be that eventually they will make a fair bit from "Boy in the Dress" |
|
|
|
Post by mrmushnik on Sept 10, 2019 0:25:39 GMT
According to a fan at the stage door of the Gielgud tonight, the new cast is going to be lead by Jon Robyns and Bradley Jayden. I also overheard her say that three of the four female principals doing the Concert will be headlining the new production at the Sondheim. This could all be idle gossip, of course but she seemed pretty certain and mentioned that it had come from someone who works in the casting department at Cameron Mackintosh.
BTW saw the concert again tonight with JOJ and it was fabulous
|
|
|
|
Post by miz on Sept 10, 2019 7:29:10 GMT
According to a fan at the stage door of the Gielgud tonight, the new cast is going to be lead by Jon Robyns and Bradley Jayden. I also overheard her say that three of the four female principals doing the Concert will be headlining the new production at the Sondheim. This could all be idle gossip, of course but she seemed pretty certain and mentioned that it had come from someone who works in the casting department at Cameron Mackintosh. BTW saw the concert again tonight with JOJ and it was fabulous As JVJ and Javert? Jon is very good and handsome but I never thought his voice would suite the role. But he can surprise us. It would be a very young couple as the two leads. Also, how about promoting Mr. Jacobsen as a principal JVJ if they wanted a young JVJ? He is very good and his physic suits the role. Just my thoughts. |
|
879 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Sept 10, 2019 8:12:42 GMT
I can definitely see most of the female leads transferring over. Not keen on the idea of these two leads tbh but I prefer when they cast older.
|
|
396 posts
|
Post by djp on Sept 13, 2019 1:24:09 GMT
According to a fan at the stage door of the Gielgud tonight, the new cast is going to be lead by Jon Robyns and Bradley Jayden. I also overheard her say that three of the four female principals doing the Concert will be headlining the new production at the Sondheim. This could all be idle gossip, of course but she seemed pretty certain and mentioned that it had come from someone who works in the casting department at Cameron Mackintosh. BTW saw the concert again tonight with JOJ and it was fabulous As JVJ and Javert? Jon is very good and handsome but I never thought his voice would suite the role. But he can surprise us. It would be a very young couple as the two leads. Also, how about promoting Mr. Jacobsen as a principal JVJ if they wanted a young JVJ? He is very good and his physic suits the role. Just my thoughts. Given Nic and Katie are staying with the tour and Killian is being replaced by Dean , and the Thenardiers are leaving the tour too, there could just be a straight swap going on . You replace the guest celebrities in the concert like Alfie and Michael and Matt , swap out some people from the tour to cover those roles, and use some of the last Queen's cast and a few newcomers, to fill any holes in both the tour and London. Makes sense - though little else does in the UK at the moment so i wouldn't bet on it. As the tour is heading to Canterbury for a month its going to be easy to see which variant you like. |
|
349 posts
|
Post by kimbahorel on Sept 13, 2019 6:35:41 GMT
I always guessed that sone of the tour would probably be in the new cast. I thought it was likely Shan and Lily stayed largely because they are actually new rather than everone else who has been in the show. I actually at this point would prefer seeing new people in roles.
|
|
879 posts
|
Post by daisy24601 on Sept 13, 2019 9:07:45 GMT
Some people return to play other roles, like Katie played Cosette and now Fantine which makes sense as she's the older character. Has anyone ever gone the other way? I know Bradley played Javert and is now back to Enjolras but the concert is an unusual situation.
|
|
2,041 posts
|
Post by 49thand8th on Sept 13, 2019 14:30:19 GMT
Some people return to play other roles, like Katie played Cosette and now Fantine which makes sense as she's the older character. Has anyone ever gone the other way? I know Bradley played Javert and is now back to Enjolras but the concert is an unusual situation. It's not common. Michele Maika played Eponine on one of the early US tours and then about 10 years ago played Cosette at the Hollywood Bowl. |
|
