I can see how it was great for you and I'm glad it was. Dream the dream! :S
The current tour is a crowd pleaser and fans have reported enjoying it. Unfortunately, it ranks as one of the biggest disappointments I have ever experienced in the theatre. I won't go into much detail because I've ranted about it ad nauseum, but it boosted my love for the original production ten-fold. It seems they took every theatrical element that helped make the original so thrilling and dumped it in favor of far less effective techniques that are said to be massive improvements over the drab, dated, and boring original. Yes, they've used those adjectives in describing something they were supposed to be honoring for its 25th ann. Instead, it was used as a selling point for the new tour, obviously in the hopes to attract curiosity. As a fan of the original for the incredibly effective staging that has held me intrigued and passionate for over 25 years, it stings...a lil' bit.
A recent sample of the original production:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M_a5cWts_w&feature=player_embedded Drab, dated? I just don't see it. It remains one of the most effective, creative works ever mounted on the stage for me. Talking down about it is excessively harsh and a strange way to sell a new tour of it, much less honor it.
I will say the cast I saw when the 25th ann. tour stopped by in L.A. was excellent and got a standing ovation by me. Can't say the same about the manner in which some of them were obviously instructed to "flesh-out" their characters. And the new orchs still used keyboards that made ugly, metallic noises which were supposed to be acoustic improvements over the so-called dated original keyboard sounds that gave the show loads of atmosphere and character. But that really was a minor point compared to the overall re-orchestration that ripped the heart from the show. The sets were aiight, but the impressionistic paintings by Hugo were not only over-hyped and under-used, they meant to make the show, and I quote the designer, "more intellectual." How about more pretentious? For the first time ever, I left a performance completely cold.
As for the revolve, I will always be puzzled as to why that is such an issue. There was never a doubt in my mind the show could be successfully staged without it. Any show limited only to a revolve has got to suck, but Les Mis works with and without one. Using the revolve in the new tour wouldn't make sense because the revolve was a creatively used tool that infused the show with an unlimited sense of movement and space. It belongs to Nunn and Caird's vision and not someone else's. I'm glad they didn't [mis] use it in the new production.
To even fans of musicals, it is a good overall production that satisfies a lot of people's preconceived perceptions that were normally debunked after seeing the original production...cheesily passionate, teary, and happily miserable, just to name a few. Not being sarcastic and it's cool that people enjoy the new production. I speak only for myself and use only personal experiences in relaying mine.
*Sigh...*
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
Updated On: 2/20/12 at 12:35 AM