|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 3, 2019 14:26:11 GMT
Anyway, it left me feeling that increasingly Les Mis is a clearer claimant of most successful musical of all time than Phantom. A separate conversation no doubt (maybe I'll start a thread comparing my thoughts on the two - perhaps one already exists), but the buzz it continues to create is extraordinary. I would love to hear more of your thoughts on that. I have also followed Phantom for some time and while it is a beautiful production (sets, music, costumes, etc.) the story does seem more linear and (relatively) one-dimensional, and the pacing not allowing for the many non-scripted interactions that add so much to Les Mis, which in turn lead to much more followings of different character groups, multiplying the overall buzz, etc. Of course I understand we are comparing one intertwined story of a trio spanning a year max, with many parallel storylines taking place over 17 years... |
|
1,325 posts
|
Post by londonmzfitz on Dec 3, 2019 14:47:23 GMT
I love this so much it's now my screensaver. It was a treat to see Craig Mather and Niall Sheehy in this too, both of whom I rate. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 14:50:46 GMT
"I very much enjoyed how this production, through its reduced staging, brought an emphasis on the music, singing and acting, which should always be the biggest "star" of any musical theatre production. To me the actors are a vehicle for the content, and great actors continually evolve their character interpretation, never settle on existing recognition, and work hard to earn their audience's appreciation every performance." 100% this. Couldn't agree more. For musical theatre generally, the music is (well, should) be the star. Not something we see a huge amount of these days. |
|
19,797 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Dec 3, 2019 15:14:45 GMT
Anyway, it left me feeling that increasingly Les Mis is a clearer claimant of most successful musical of all time than Phantom. A separate conversation no doubt ( maybe I'll start a thread comparing my thoughts on the two - perhaps one already exists), but the buzz it continues to create is extraordinary. There is one... theatreboard.co.uk/thread/6797/iconic-phantom-les-mis |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 3, 2019 15:37:44 GMT
Hate to say it, but I believe a lot of acting direction and details that were put to Alfie and Michael last night were lifted from John and Earl's takes on their characters. Having seen all the pairings I've come to recognise some little moves unique to each actor, and that's probably why I felt that some of Alfie and Michael's new acting seemed "added on", inauthentic and unnatural. But of course this wouldn't be an issue for first-timers, just a relatively inconsequential and slightly disappointing observation.
|
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Dec 3, 2019 19:52:29 GMT
The boy as Gavroche in this picture was the one I was lucky enough to see, he was bloody phenomenal!! Does anyone know if he's moving with the show? Imagine he's probably done now as kids have shorter contracts, but I can't remember a gavroche being so amazing at all the material they're given. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 21:40:21 GMT
Hate to say it, but I believe a lot of acting direction and details that were put to Alfie and Michael last night were lifted from John and Earl's takes on their characters. Having seen all the pairings I've come to recognise some little moves unique to each actor, and that's probably why I felt that some of Alfie and Michael's new acting seemed "added on", inauthentic and unnatural. But of course this wouldn't be an issue for first-timers, just a relatively inconsequential and slightly disappointing observation. You do realise Michael Ball was involved in the creation of this musical? Worked closely with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and the original creative team 34 years ago, and saw these characters being developed. I'm not sure you can accuse him of stealing his understudy's moves on his final night. |
|
|
|
Post by 10642 on Dec 3, 2019 21:47:53 GMT
Hate to say it, but I believe a lot of acting direction and details that were put to Alfie and Michael last night were lifted from John and Earl's takes on their characters. Having seen all the pairings I've come to recognise some little moves unique to each actor, and that's probably why I felt that some of Alfie and Michael's new acting seemed "added on", inauthentic and unnatural. But of course this wouldn't be an issue for first-timers, just a relatively inconsequential and slightly disappointing observation. You do realise Michael Ball was involved in the creation of this musical? Worked closely with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and the original creative team 34 years ago, and saw these characters being developed. I'm not sure you can accuse him of stealing his understudy's moves on his final night. Earl’s far more than an understudy... i don’t know wether michael “stole” from earl’s interpretation but from seeing both I would say personally i think earl is a better javert without taking anything away from Michael as a performer. Javert’s just not the role for him, |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2019 22:06:55 GMT
You do realise Michael Ball was involved in the creation of this musical? Worked closely with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and the original creative team 34 years ago, and saw these characters being developed. I'm not sure you can accuse him of stealing his understudy's moves on his final night. Earl’s far more than an understudy... i don’t know wether michael “stole” from earl’s interpretation but from seeing both I would say personally i think earl is a better javert without taking anything away from Michael as a performer. Javert’s just not the role for him, I'm not saying Michael is a better Javert than Earl. I have seen Earl in the role many times and thought he was wonderful. But he was the understudy in this production. I just find some of the comments from JOJ/Earl fans, directed at Alfie/Michael, rather tiresome. But hey-ho, the run has finished now... |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 3, 2019 22:20:07 GMT
I just find some of the comments from JOJ/Earl fans, directed at Alfie/Michael, rather tiresome. But hey-ho, the run has finished now... The difference in quality and craftmanship is so gigantic that it can't be emphasized often enough in my opinion. |
|
227 posts
|
Post by ukpuppetboy on Dec 3, 2019 22:25:55 GMT
The difference in quality and craftmanship is so gigantic that it can't be emphasized often enough in my opinion. I’d say this thread has given it a damned good try though. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 3, 2019 22:28:25 GMT
Yes, and we should continue doing so till we have productions that are about quality and the actual best people for a role.
If that doesn't bring in enough money, we must re-educate people.
I mean, it would have been easy to hire the most current pop-cheap-ish "name" for a role like Maria in the West Side Story movie too (almost happened), but luckily there are producers out there who trust the material and quality more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2019 0:22:50 GMT
Yes, and we should continue doing so till we have productions that are about quality and the actual best people for a role. If that doesn't bring in enough money, we must re-educate people. I mean, it would have been easy to hire the most current pop-cheap-ish "name" for a role like Maria in the West Side Story movie too (almost happened), but luckily there are producers out there who trust the material and quality more. re-educate people? You mean until they come around to your way of thinking
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 4, 2019 0:45:40 GMT
You do realise Michael Ball was involved in the creation of this musical? Worked closely with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and the original creative team 34 years ago, and saw these characters being developed. I'm not sure you can accuse him of stealing his understudy's moves on his final night. I was referring to the details that I'm pretty sure came about from Earl's personal acting choices, as I'd never seen Michael do any of those before yesterday. Michael created the role of Marius, sure, and he may very well have had input in how a Javert should act overall, or even how Roger Allam interpreted the role. My issue was not with Michael doing standard Javert acting or Alfie finally doing standard Valjean acting (that's literally their one job), but with them adding certain physical movements or vocal emphases here and there that I only ever recognised coming from the other pair. I don't appreciate you dismissing what I personally observed and understood over the course of multiple shows these few months. Also, I'm not criticising Alfie/Michael for the sake of putting them down- I simply wanted to describe their contrasts in more concrete terms rather than involve myself in the usual "he had a great voice and who are you to say he didn't act" argument. Will you more happily accept it if I used the term "inspired" instead of "lifted"? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery after all and I am glad at least some of the leads have learnt from their understudies and vice versa. I would gladly accept any criticism of John/Earl if you would provide any, instead of empty attacks on what is my personal opinion, or putting down my preferred actors for being simply "understudies" (and therefore no matter how good they are, they aren't the leads, end of discussion). Just because the run has finished doesn't mean we have to stop comparing and analysing. Maybe that's our difference. I enjoy Les Mis as an art form to be praised at times and picked apart at other times, not a one-time spectacle for tweeting about seeing certain stars. Maybe this forum isn't the right place and audience for it but I do think this kind of discussion and constant re-examination is what will keep the show relevant and its acting fresh. This concert production has been a perfect venture for Cammack, I don't doubt it. It's tapped into today's celebrity worship culture and balanced it with an crowdpleaser MT production- who wouldn't flock to see it? But this approach won't last forever. The next time Boe/Ball/Lucas are absent together, there will probably be an actual revolt outside DMT's offices- now wouldn't that be poetic justice. |
|
364 posts
|
Post by tysilio2 on Dec 4, 2019 9:36:14 GMT
Hate to say it, but I believe a lot of acting direction and details that were put to Alfie and Michael last night were lifted from John and Earl's takes on their characters. Having seen all the pairings I've come to recognise some little moves unique to each actor, and that's probably why I felt that some of Alfie and Michael's new acting seemed "added on", inauthentic and unnatural. But of course this wouldn't be an issue for first-timers, just a relatively inconsequential and slightly disappointing observation. Worked closely with Trevor Nunn, John Caird and the original creative team 34 years ago, and saw these characters being developed. I'm not sure you can accuse him of stealing his understudy's moves on his final night. As in he was in the original cast. But as he only left drama school the year or so before (according to Wiki) and had appeared in Godspell and Pirates of Penzance would he really of had that much 'involvement in the creation' particularly of a character he wasn't playing at the time? (Genuine question) |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 4, 2019 12:20:03 GMT
Yes, and we should continue doing so till we have productions that are about quality and the actual best people for a role. If that doesn't bring in enough money, we must re-educate people. I mean, it would have been easy to hire the most current pop-cheap-ish "name" for a role like Maria in the West Side Story movie too (almost happened), but luckily there are producers out there who trust the material and quality more. re-educate people? You mean until they come around to your way of thinking
No, not my way of thinking. This goes beyond that. It's a fact that people form their reference frame based on what they know, have experienced and recognize. This is actually a very interesting subject and I see cause and result of this every day, in many fields in many forms. Some random examples: People may say they hate musicals because all they have seen is the horrendous disconnect between bad singing and acting in recent musical films. Maybe they have never heard other versions of "Bring him home" than Hugh Jackman's, and have no reference frame at all. Maybe they have only listened to Rihanna or Bruce Springsteen and think Hugh Jackman must be the best singer for these type of musicals. I have heard people say that Lea Salonga is not really singing in "a whole new world", because she doesn't belt, the live action version Jasmine supposedly only really sings. The reference frame of these people is often "Frozen", and they believe that what Idina Menzel does in "Let it go" is only real singing. Somehow, somewhere along the way these people have adopted the idea that only shouting is singing. My brother always said he hates musicals. And yet, when he saw "Rocketman" he said it was the best film he has ever seen. His reference frame changed, he learned. He was prejudiced because of previous experiences and what he has known and seen so far. After seeing the les Mis film he thought songs in live action films would mean a disconnect per definition. There are always choices. For example the new West Side Story film. There were 2 girls in the finals for the role of Maria. Camila Cabello and Rachel Zegler. It would have been easy to cast the latest fleeting pop sensation and probably a whole generation wouldn't have even noticed or cared that she couldn't sing the material due to her hoarse and limited range. Because she couldn't, they found out in rehearsals and the audition process. Rachel Zegler, a complete unknown, was perfect for the role, and sings it like an angel. This should be the only right choice, if you respect the material and the artform. And it has huge consequences. Because if Cabello was cast, a whole new generation would learn to think that is somehow how it should be done, it wil be what they know and learn and form their judgement and shapes their reference frame. Now, with Zegler, they will experience what true singing and acting through song is. They will know what notes can do and how delicate the art is. That is an incredible responsibility and task you have as a producer or director in the arts. It actually shapes generations. Don't underestimate that. |
|
4,361 posts
|
Post by shady23 on Dec 4, 2019 12:44:12 GMT
I like to think of it another way, different casting gives opportunities for people to book musicals who would never book otherwise.
We saw this recently at Waitress, when Joe Sugg fans booked to see a show that the majority would not have booked for otherwise. This could begin a love of theatre and lead to them going to see other things.
What was also interesting was the horrendous snobbery from other Waitress fans before he started. That he would spoil the show (Waitress is hardly high brow entertainment?) and how they expected his fans to behave appallingly. Screaming, acting up at stage door etc. In the end he seemed to do a good job and there were no problems with his fans at all. I'd go so far to say the original possessive Waitress fans were more of a problem.
As for Les Mis, this was always marketed as an "all star concert". You can't complain they got stars to be in it.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 4, 2019 14:41:34 GMT
I see your point and it does attract people to (quality) shows for the wrong reasons, which can spark a love for the actual artform, which can indeed teach them how wonderful the arftorm is and so they learn to recognize and love it. Which was my point too, but then it will have to be the other cast members to introduce them to the real quality.
So your (and my)conclusion is still that respect for the art is not there in the first place, and this has a reason. If they learn to love it after seeing it, it means they haven't been properly introduced before. If people would be exposed to the delicate quality from a younger age, I feel these sophism reasons would not be necessary.
|
|
236 posts
|
Post by undeuxtrois on Dec 4, 2019 15:03:10 GMT
I see your point and it does attract people to (quality) shows for the wrong reasons, which can spark a love for the actual artform, which can indeed teach them how wonderful the arftorm is and so they learn to recognize and love it. Which was my point too, but then it will have to be the other cast members to introduce them to the real quality. So your (and my)conclusion is still that respect for the art is not there in the first place, and this has a reason. If they learn to love it after seeing it, it means they haven't been properly introduced before. If people would be exposed to the delicate quality from a younger age, I feel these sophism reasons would not be necessary. Theatre is seen as a snobby, rich people activity and it's not always accessible for working class families. More discounts for under 25s etc and I guess better targeted advertising could help. I only started liking musicals after watching the Chicago film in school, but before that I'd never even considered ever going the theatre. Imagine if theatres started doig reward cards like you get at maccies, like see so many shows, get the 10th one discounted? Putting well-known people in shows can really help spark people's interest on theatre though. |
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 4, 2019 15:10:53 GMT
The boy as Gavroche in this picture was the one I was lucky enough to see, he was bloody phenomenal!! Does anyone know if he's moving with the show? Imagine he's probably done now as kids have shorter contracts, but I can't remember a gavroche being so amazing at all the material they're given. That's Logan and yes you'll be pleased to hear he's going onto the Sondheim production, as well as Ché. Ellie (from the livestream) and Madison are staying on too. www.lesmis.com/london/cast-creatives |
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Dec 4, 2019 16:25:53 GMT
The boy as Gavroche in this picture was the one I was lucky enough to see, he was bloody phenomenal!! Does anyone know if he's moving with the show? Imagine he's probably done now as kids have shorter contracts, but I can't remember a gavroche being so amazing at all the material they're given. That's Logan and yes you'll be pleased to hear he's going onto the Sondheim production, as well as Ché. Ellie (from the livestream) and Madison are staying on too. www.lesmis.com/london/cast-creativesWill deffo try to catch him, a great budding actor. |
|
|
|
Post by miz on Dec 4, 2019 21:09:15 GMT
Genuine question, and honestly no snark intended at all, but why have you seen it 14 times? You don’t seem to rate any of the leads particularly highly? I'm a fan of Les Mis and seen/heard many iterations over more than a decade. I very much enjoyed how this production, through its reduced staging, brought an emphasis on the music, singing and acting, which should always be the biggest "star" of any musical theatre production. To me the actors are a vehicle for the content, and great actors continually evolve their character interpretation, never settle on existing recognition, and work hard to earn their audience's appreciation every performance. It was a privilege to be able to experience this multiple times, and to witness the performance of some great actors, or great actors in the making. I'm saddened I didn't like the principal leads at all, but if you couldn't tell already I rate the alt leads/ensemble/understudies very highly. Many visits during the first 2 months were for JOJ and the ensemble members many of whom I already know and like as performers. Then all of the 2nd to last week for Earl. Obviously they weren’t all JOJ/Earl (which were the best 4 performances I’ve seen overall, with some top understudies) so during the course of my shows I also got to see how the JOJ/Michael, Alfie/Earl and Alfie/Michael chemistry differed- they are no match for my preferred leads, and what leads they are. I rate John and Earl highly not just for their talent and great voices (subjective) but because of the sheer hard work you can tell they put in their craft. John was impressive enough back in Aug, but every few shows I saw after, he had tried and refined something new, giving an even better take on what he had done well enough previously. Earl managed to do the same developing his Javert, but amazingly within a span of only one week! A marked difference from his previous few runs where he was already excellent. Each displayed a real passion to flesh out their character and took risks to trial their interpretations, sometimes executed more brilliantly than other times (live theatre!); and perhaps it is their existing friendship or combined previous experience or both, they rub off on each other very well and it is no surprise their "Confrontation" and both Soliloquies are always my highlight. I went into each JOJ/Earl show knowing they will give it their all but not knowing exactly what they will do- their best scenes are their group scenes where every little interaction differed nightly, adding to my understanding to their interpretation of the character, and not just going through the motions- for me that is the joy of seeing these 2 live, and a pleasure to finally see a Valjean/Javert pairing played as they deserved to be played. John and Earl were brilliant individually when paired with others, but together they bring an extra spark to the whole show and that's what makes their performance particularly memorable, and deserving of the term "legendary". I've said this before but I don't believe the concert staging is an excuse for lazy/reduced acting, and if you'd rather stand still to sing you'd better be able to act through song... That's why I still give Michael credit for trying, though his interpretation is not really my cup of tea and his execution has been a hit/miss. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for Alfie as he played his Valjean the same mediocre way (IMO) every time, last night was the first noticeable time he tried to switch things up but his effort was laughable. Maybe he would've done better had he: 1) took the care to explore his character more beforehand and not use the livestream as his trial run, and 2) been professional enough to train himself up not to miss 1/5th of his shows, so he would've had more practice performing as well as learning the craft from his fellow cast members. Sorry for the long answer but I did give the show and its cast an open mind! (and lots of ££...) Sadly remain unconvinced by Boe & Ball, loved every other aspect of the show, JOJ/Earl are at their best yet and it is a crime Cammack only singled out Boe/Ball/Lucas to thank during his speech last night. Thank you, 141929grm! You could not have put it better. I am in tears reading your comment. |
|
1,582 posts
|
Post by anita on Dec 5, 2019 10:19:49 GMT
Email from MB's fan club confirms DVD early 2020.
|
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Dec 5, 2019 11:14:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by 141920grm on Dec 5, 2019 14:45:34 GMT
miz, thank you (and sorry for the feelings invoked?) Just my very honest review and why I thought the casting priorities (and resulting televised performance) in this production did nothing to add to the legacy of excellence in this timeless musical, when the concert could've been the ultimate opportunity to show the world the best of Les Mis today, especially when one already has proper, seasoned MT performers in the building, some of whom have been refining their art in this particular show over 20 years. Alas, the genuine discussion and thought-provoking counterarguments I was hoping for did not appear, and my comments found "tiresome".
|
|
