Saw it in the summer of 2011 in Los Angeles. I recommend it, especially to anyone who hasn't seen any production of it.
The absence of the revolve doesn't ruin the show. This musical works perfectly well without one, and no, that isn't news. There was never any question, even in fan circles, that the musical could work without one. For some reason, some people feel the need to reassure everyone that it works just fine without a revolve, as if the musical ever worked due to the use of one. I'm glad the current tour has no revolve.
The revolve belongs to the Nunn/Caird original, and was never intended to act as a gimmick, which is what it would be if paired alongside a different approach that includes it for the wrong reasons. I did not miss the revolve. At all.
Misguided choices aside, the cast were all excellent, top notch talent. The dedication in their keeping with the director's vision is apparent throughout.
The revised orchestration will sound fresh and pretty to most and it will instill the appropriate response to those eager to feel whatever they think they should feel at Les Mis. The show's "updated" sound, still heavily based on the John Cameron orchestration, does away with the wall of harmony that the complex originals supported the musical storytelling with and rids the piece of a huge portion of its operatic identity, which it can't rid itself of completely, but manages to slide further into its pop roots by asserting much of what it formerly suggested and evoked. The result is it immediately grabs you--more immediately than it already did in its original orchs, just as most pop routinely does in under 4 minute chunks. Also, people seem to get a kick out of being able to identify exactly what instrument they're hearing as the streamlined orchestration allows that to be possible. The number of musicians required has been updated from its original 25 to a modern 14 and world class instruments such as a variety of recorder ups the "glorious" nature of this budding new Mis.
The direction features lots of activity that the original avoided due to that version's vision/concept not requiring it. It is flashier and sometimes shakes things up in its tendency to prove this or that scene CAN be staged differently. This is in response to...um, who knows? But it's real important, I'm sure.
This 2nd revival in less than a couple years after the first 'revival,' which came merely 3 years after the original 16-year run ended, is eager to prove that it CAN do a lot of things, even if nothing was ever in its way, all while not being the original production. A lot of people respond to this in the form of encouragement, great enthusiasm, and they relish the opportunity to experience the 'birth' of a musical they thought required a time machine to experience in its infancy. The promise of improvement has made the desire to experience something so far out of reach as the original when it was a newcomer, easy to abandon and replace with something that is possible. Meanwhile, it assures the public, it is the same musical they love, but with "new" stuff added, the value of which is measured in superlatives.
This version was created to sit comfy alongside the brilliant original, some of the early press releases claimed. "It isn't intended to replace the original," they reassured.
Continue Dreamin' the Dream, y'all.
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
