I really don't like this (with apologies to Herbert Kretzmer) "here a little nip, there a little tuck" method of freshening long-running shows that Cameron Mackintosh has got going. All these little changes in LES MISERABLES seem to be for the worse, to the point that even if one sees the Trevor Nunn/John Caird staging, so many elements worked in conjunction with that staging have been altered in some way or another that the whole thing is a watered down experience of what it used to be. The trend continues with this half-new UK tour of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA that uses a new staging and scenery designs with the old costumes.
I think it's fine to want to breath new life into a show, but (a) what's the point if, as in the case of PHANTOM, the original production is still running, and (b) what integrity could a half-revised production that rests on the laurels of its predecessor have? Either revive the old staging or do something completely conceptualised from the ground up. This half-and-half approach achieves nothing.
Completely agree.
All in all the 'new' tour of
Les Mis is a lot more successful than the 'new'
Phantom. Probably that's because the former nicked a lot more things from the original production (essentially the staging was more or less identical with a few changes), although that of course (rightly) upset Sir Trevor Nunn, who fell out with Cameron Mackintosh over the whole thing. Hilariously John Caird said to Cameron on radio, when the latter defended the new tour saying a new creative team was needed, that perhaps the show should get a new producer (ouch!).
The new
Phantom tour, however, is a complete, lamentable mess. They advertise that Maria Björnson's costumes have been retained, but they've actually been butchered beyond belief, some to the point where they are no longer recognisable or have been replaced completely. IMHO it's completely unethical, especially as Björnson's estate agreed to let the new production use her costumes on condition that they would be unchanged. The direction *is* for the most part different from Hal Prince's original (Cameron had to make an agreement with Hal Prince to let the tour happen, so I assume one of the conditions stipulated by Hal was that his direction could not be cannibalised in the same way Nunn's was on the
Les Mis tour), but it's pathetically weak, confused and amateurish. The show survives on its strong cast. Take them out and you're left with a pretty poor show. I can't see the new tour being well-received in the States, where the original toured for nearly two decades.
But then I knew not to expect too much. The director for these reconceived 'lite' tours, Laurence Connor, is basically just an ex-
Miz actor who was also a resident director of the London show and of the London production of
Phantom for a while. I don't think he really understands anything about what makes either show tick, but it's clear Cameron hires him and not a first-rate, world-class director like Michael Grandage, Jamie Lloyd, Matthew Warchus, Rupert Goold etc because he's a) cheaper; b) easier to boss around.
Updated On: 6/6/12 at 07:48 AM
