Rediscovering Les Miserables

[DickDeadeye]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 3:08pm

A chorus I sing with recently did a salute to Broadway concert, which was a huge success. I was fortunate to get two solos, including one for "Do You Hear The People Sing?". It was this concert that led me to rediscover Les Mis, a show I had forgotten about for years, and never really got the appeal of.

This was probably because I was too young when I first heard the original cast recording. A lot of the more adult material just flew over my head. In fact, I'm surprised my parents let me listen to it in the first place! Especially with all the prostitutes and smatterings of foul language.

Anyway, I've since bought 3 different recordings on Itunes and Amazon, with my runaway favorite being the 10th anniversary concert at the Royal Albert Hall. To me, there has never been a better Jean Valjean than Colm Wilkinson, though Alfie Boe came pretty close. Anyone who likewise plays Javert has to do a lot to make me forget about Philip Quast (Once again though, Norm Lewis is a close second for me).

What I like most about this show, is that its story is ultimately a hopeful one. Yes, there's a lot of death and despair, and sad songs abound, but what Les Mis does is show us all the true power of love, forgiveness, and the giving of one's self to another. At the same time, it also brutally shows us the futility of war, and the emptiness of hatred, even hatred with good intentions. It also doesn't hurt in my case that I'm a spiritual person, and it talks to me on that level too (I'm an assisting minister at my church).

I don't know if it's true, but I heard that Colm Wilkinson is playing the bishop in a future production, if not already. That would be very fitting indeed. ^_^

As for the upcoming movie...I'm not so sure about that one.

Updated On: 7/12/12 at 03:08 PM

[Musicaldudepeter]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 3:09pm

Wilkinson is playing the Bishop in the upcoming film version.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 4:06pm

DickDeadEye - Personally I always cringe when I hear they are making a movie out of a Broadway hit musical. I hope this one turns out well but can't imagine it will have the same impact of seeing this show live on stage. Saw it for the first time in London a couple of months ago and loved it.

[Paris At 21]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 4:22pm

I just finished plowing my way through the book. English lit. degree and all, it was tough but it was worth it. But finding treasure you didn't recognize in the form of a show is golden. You end up loving the material that much more because it's rediscovered, seen and heard afresh.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 4:33pm

I have yet to get all the way through the novel.

I look at that book, which is page after page of drudgery and sadness and think: HOW did they ever thing to one: dramatize this, but who said...yeah, I think it should be a MUSICAL? And then make it uplifting!?

I know this isn't a popular opinion on these boards, but I adore Les Miserable. I have to admit, my favorite was my own production of it, well, I was choreographer. (We were among the first high schools to produce this.) The group of kids with which we did this were amazing and incredibly dedicated -- the only way this could posssibly work.

I look forward to another revival in my lifetime.

[michellek45]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:22pm

Even the book is uplifting in its own way, I think. At least by the time you get to the end of it.

[PapaGe]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 6:27pm

I made my way through the book once and doubt I'll ever do so again. (It was worth it for the experience, but not particularly pleasant.) I, too, am impressed with how they adapted it into a musical that never fails to inspire and move me.

I am iffy about the movie, but hope to be pleasantly surprised. Five months to go!

Posted: 7/12/12 at 7:19pm

I generally am excited for (new) movie musicals and then let down. I saw this preview last night, and I have to say it looks pretty spectacular . Here's hoping!

[broadwaydevil]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 8:34pm

The book is certainly uplifting!! (If you can make it to the end.)

Hugo is a brilliant though verbose writer.

[BwayEqs]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 8:39pm

DickDeadEye - Personally I always cringe when I hear they are making a movie out of a Broadway hit musical.

Really? I always love to see how a live stage show is adapted and transformed for film. I am especially excited for the WICKED movie being released in 2014.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 8:50pm

I want to read the book, but I do not think I could get through it. I could not even get through Gone With the Wind.

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 8:54pm

The uplifting thing about the ending of the Les Misèrables novel is the fact that you got there in the first place.

[fosca3]

Posted: 7/12/12 at 10:36pm

Les Miserables is one of my 3 favourite books in the world

Besides reading it thru 3 or 4 times, I have a copy at work and a copy at home that I can just pick up, open, and start reading wherever it falls. And instantly be drawn into the story and the beautiful characters -- every one so real

My reading copies are falling apart

I can't imagine not loving this book

It can break your heart a hundred times over

I love the musical, and I've seen it 39 times, but the book blows it away

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 7:28am

I also love the book. It's very near my Top 5 and easily in my Top 10 on any given day. I remember the first 80 pages requiring some steeling and feeling a little bogged down in the Waterloo passages, but I flew through the last 500 pages more quickly than any book I'd read before or have read since. It was thrilling and a real heartbreaker when it was done.

[madbrian]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 8:44am

It looks like this movie is going to integrate parts of the book that the stage musical does not. And even though they can't possibly bring all that much in, I still think it's a very good thing.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 9:08am

Performer after performer of the stage musical who has referred to the novel for inspiration on their characterization has proven time and time again that the novel is an invaluable resource for those doing the musical on stage, on film, or anywhere. Maybe it's Hugo's verbose writing or the richness of his characters but it has a way of bringing out all the necessary elements that make the characters so unforgettable in the novel onstage.

I think it not only gives the actor a lot more background information to work with, it fills in the many enormous gaps that the musical adaptation has understandably had to incorporate if its audience is to make it back home that same evening, hehe. Its 3 hour running time is deceiving, giving the impression that at least most of the Hugo story is intact. The musical is little more than a synopsis, lol. But to its credit, has turned a sprawling novel into an unforgettable night at the theatre; a feat that would have required people who know the story in and out and are emotionally vested in it enough to turn out a good product. We are very lucky the two Frenchmen Alain and Claude-Michel did the unconventional--at least for the French--and turn such an iconic work into a musical theatre piece. The musical theatre tradition was at that time not known too well, nor was it an art form generally embraced by the French, so to have a musical theatre version of Hugo's Les Miserables written by two Frenchmen is a true gift!

The original British creative team gave the piece wings and boy did it soar. No comment on the funny 25th ann. edition.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 9:29am

There was a so-so regional production a couple of summers ago in Pittsburgh, and it was the first time I had seen it in performance in 5 or 6 years. I don't love the show -- though I do think there's a lot of good stuff in it -- but for the first time I was acutely aware of how much it's structured like a Greatest Hits version of the novel.

"Here's Valjean. He does this. Here's Fantine. This happens to her. Here's Javert. Here's Valjean and Javert. Say hi to Cosette. And here's the Thenardiers. Here's Valjean again. Now this happens. Now this happens. Now this happens. Now this happens." Et cetera. The writing is so much action and so little character development -- out of necessity -- that the actors do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of selling the emotional involvement.

I don't think that's so transparent when the show is well-produced and performed, but it does take a little magic to cover that up completely.

To be fair, it's also been a problem with most of the film adaptations.
The 1958 Jean Gabin version does a good job of it, but it is 3 1/2 hours long.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 1:46pm

Ok, you have convinced me to try again. (it has been a while)

Good thing I can get it for free on my kindle!!

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 2:11pm

The book has 365 reasonably short chapters. If you are gonna read it, make it a New Years resolution, start on January first and knock out one chapter per day.

[michellek45]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 3:05pm

The only film adaptation I've ever seen that manages to really incorporate everything is the 1934 French adaptation, but it does a lot of weirdness with Marius knowing Valjean's identity at the end. It also takes some liberties with other plot points, but it manages to get all the themes and characters more right than most of the other adaptations. Then again, it is 4.5 hours long.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 5:17pm

The original French version was even more of a "greatest hits" version of the novel, relying on the trus that the audience knew the basic story (as I'm sure they did)--done as a series of scenes really but not with all that much direct connection between them--so Nunn, Caird, even Kreztmer (whose lyrics I still hate and I wish wasn't the go-to guy for translations of European musicals) had to help re-structure it for audiences who didn't know the novel.

It took me about a year to read the book as a teen (I saw the musical when I was 11 or so). To be fair, I read it in French and while I'm more or less fluent in French speaking and listening wise, I read the language much more slowly. Still, I found it a really moving read, and actually paced myself with the last 100 or so pages because I didn't want the experience to end. But, I admit, when I later read Notre Dame de Paris I just read it in English...

In regards to the novel--I'd love to re-read it (in English...), are there several translations, the way you find with Tolstoy (Anna Karenina is one of my favorite books, but only this past week I decided to tackle War and Peace and the various opinions online about which translation to read--including the ontroversial new one--leave me a bit at a loss), and does anyone recommend one over the other?

And I'm a little surprised nobody, to my knowledge, has attempted to do an epic mini-series adaptation of the piece.

[michellek45]

Posted: 7/13/12 at 11:10pm

Eric- I've read two translations, the Charles Wilbour and the Norman Denny, which are the two most common, I believe, of the unabridged version.

The Denny version is kind of abridged, because it takes the description of the convent and the argot parts and puts them in the back as an appendix. There are a few other cuts here and there, but those are the most substantial. It was translated in the '70s and has a very contemporary style compared to the Wilbour. The main draw of it for me was the translation of the songs/poems, as I don't speak French. It was incredibly frustrating to get to the headstone bit at the end of the Wilbour and have it be in French. But since you are fluent, that won't be a problem.

Wilbour writes much more like I imagine Victor Hugo himself did, and his work is definitely in the style of the time- it was the first American translation, and it came out right after the original. It leaves all the songs/poems in French and everything is in there.

Overall I think the Denny was easier to get through because it took out some of the more archaic language, but the Wilbour is more loyal to the original novel than the Denny.