Les Miserable

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I just saw Les Miserable performed in the Queen's Theater here in London. It was amazing. The sets, the singing, the story--all great. I was really surprised, too, as I'm not usually into musicals. I hated Phantom of the Opera, for example. But I loved Les Miserable. It almost bordered on being more of an opera than a musical. I would like to read the book now, too.

[Charles Darnay]

The musical is indeed fantastic. I saw a satisfactory production (while the singing was good, the visuals were really lacking) when it came to Toronto...I've been aching to see a good performance of it.

Anyway, I recommend the book. Even if you know the major plot points from the musical, the characters and particularly Hugo's writing style are well worth it.

[Emil Miller]

I just saw Les Miserable performed in the Queen's Theater here in London. It was amazing. The sets, the singing, the story--all great. I was really surprised, too, as I'm not usually into musicals. I hated Phantom of the Opera, for example. But I loved Les Miserable. It almost bordered on being more of an opera than a musical. I would like to read the book now, too.

I'm glad you enjoyed the show but, as with your avatar, you have missed the final letter 's' from the title. I mention it because it alters the whole meaning from The Wretched Ones to a guy called Les Miserable. :biggrin5:

[Drkshadow03]

It's my favorite show. I've seen it four times on Broadway. The cast really matters, though Each time had a different cast, and some performances were definitely better than others.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm glad you enjoyed the show but, as with your avatar, you have missed the final letter 's' from the title. I mention it because it alters the whole meaning from The Wretched Ones to a guy called Les Miserable. :biggrin5:
:lol: I seem to have a problem with the final 's' on words. I'd fix it, but I can't, unfortunately.

The musical is indeed fantastic. I saw a satisfactory production (while the singing was good, the visuals were really lacking) when it came to Toronto...I've been aching to see a good performance of it.

Anyway, I recommend the book. Even if you know the major plot points from the musical, the characters and particularly Hugo's writing style are well worth it.
I'm planning on reading it. I'm currently reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame and am really enjoying it, though I admit I had to skip over the description of what Paris looked like.

As for the performance you saw, that's a bummer that the visuals were lacking. That was one of the best parts of the performance I saw. I doubt it's going to be as good anywhere out of London, as the stage (and whole theater, really) here is only for Les Mis, and has been made for it only.

There are spoilers ahead.

Since I'm not so tired, I'll say a bit more about the performance. As I said, I really enjoyed it. Musicals are an odd thing for me, as it always takes some time to suspend my disbelief and get into the whole singing-instead-of-talking thing (for some reason, this isn't a problem with opera). I always start a musical disliking it, and Les Mis was no exception. As it went on, though, I started really loving it. The singing was exceptional (especially the lead, Jean Valjean, the main bad guy [I forget his name], and the black girl who end up dead [again, I forget her name]), the dancing and choreography was good and didn't get overly goofy (I'm not a huge dance fan). They did some really cool stuff where they acted like it was in slow motion.

I was surprised at how touched I was at some of the scenes. The scene where the little boy (also wonderfully performed--I'm always impressed when kids can be so good on stage, in voice and acting) died almost brought a tear to my eye, and when the black girl did die, a tear actually did fall, which is rare for me. And this despite (or maybe because of) dozing off several times during the performance; we saw it after quite a long and sleepless flight with a crying baby.

Just a really cool show, and has kind of changed my mind a little bit when it comes to musicals.

[Charles Darnay]

[QUOTE=Mutatis-Mutandi;1079740]: I'm currently reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame and am really enjoying it, though I admit I had to skip over the description of what Paris looked like.

That thing goes on for far too long, beautiful as it is. I also skipped most of it when reading through Hunchback. Then, when I ended up going to Paris, I brought the book along with me and re-read the description of the cathedral and Paris - it makes a big difference when you're there - even if the Paris of 2005(ish) is not the same as 1482.

On the subject of musicals and Hunchback, there is a "sung through musical" of "Notre Dame de Paris" (it's a musical but not an all-out show) - and the music is fantastic. I highly recommend it. Most of it is on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L24vaxNH91

[Big Dante]

That's great, Les Miserables is one of my favourite books. I watched a four part mini series of it recently and instantly went out and bought it but I have never seen the musical. I haven't seen many musicals and my stance towards them sounds very similiar to what yours originally was.

[David Lurie]

Now you can say you are a fan of Schönberg's music :biggrinjester:
Great show, I love musicals and Les Miserables is one of my favourites, many years ago when I saw it for the first time it renewed my interest in Hugo's novel - which I had read in my teens - so I suggest you to read the book now, if you loved the story and the characters you will enjoy the reading.

[Amethyst Gwin]

I've never seen the musical of Les Miserables, I have the soundtrack both in English and French and I will say that it's good, but I do not intend to go and see it on stage. There is a simple reason for it, which, I will point out, also reflects in the necessity of reading all of what Hugo writes although it may be a bit dull in places: Hugo was a social critic. The first page of Les Miserables explains why he wrote it, and if you look deeper - especially into modern introductions (in French) - you will find that the editorial opinion is that all his works were social commentaries at the least. In focussing on the story, the musical loses a large amount of that important aspect of Hugo's work.

The first pages of the book, about 100 I believe, concern the bishop, Monseigneur Bienvenu, and what makes him special: a bishop who swaps his palace with the hospital; who claims travel expenses so they can be distributed to the poor; who wears his robes till they wear out. Very little of which - saving his generosity in giving Jean Valjean the candlesticks - remains in the musical. Yes, the book follows individuals: Jean Valjean, Marius, Cossette, Javert, Gavroche (the boy who dies on the barricade), but it also paints a picture of 19th century Paris. And this is where the importance lies: Les amis de l'ABC; les amis de l'abaissé; the friends of the dispossessed (for want of a better translation), revolutionary they may have been, but the fight that they were trying to fight is still on going.

Read the note at the beginning, read the letter to M. Daelli; and then think about the world we live in. Les Miserables was written by Hugo to be as far reaching as it is; and I refuse to see adaptations of the books because how can you adapt over 1200 pages and still keep the same fundamental message that pervades it. Yes, it is a romance, as is 'Notre Dame de Paris' (Hunchback of Notre Dame) but both criticise the accepted status quo. Perhaps the Paris of 2005 is far from the Paris of 1482, but that's the surface: what happens when you dig deeper?

As Hugo says, so long as man, woman and child are oppressed by the social status quo, Les Miserables and other books like it have their place in the world. Hugo is not the only person whose works are as relevant today as when they were written: Dickens, Tolstoy (especially War and Peace -I've only read War and Peace and Anna Karenina), Dosteyovsky (Crime and Punishment) are three that I am familiar with. And that's the important point. It is tempting to skip over the descriptions, but without them the books lose their power as they do in the adaptations.

I'll stop there.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What's it matter of the same fundamental message is not in the musical? Does that somehow make it a bad musical? No. It's its own thing. If all his social commentary and deep messages were added, it would be a very boring musical.

Plus, the social commentary remains anyways.

[Lokasenna]

If all his social commentary and deep messages were added, it would be a very boring musical.

It would also have been about 19 hours long...

Sure, the novel probably looses something in 'translation', but any adaptation of any novel into any other form is going to require the loss of some of its character.

I like both the musical and the novel, for different reasons.

[BienvenuJDC]

The first pages of the book, about 100 I believe, concern the bishop, Monseigneur Bienvenu, and what makes him special: a bishop who swaps his palace with the hospital; who claims travel expenses so they can be distributed to the poor; who wears his robes till they wear out. Very little of which - saving his generosity in giving Jean Valjean the candlesticks - remains in the musical.

Yes, I do agree, but you can't get that in a musical. These pages made the deepest impact on me. M. Myriel is the root or the seed for the entire work. Such "excruciating" detail was given that may bore most readers, and it could not possibly even be shown in a play.

[BienvenuJDC]

I just saw Les Miserable performed in the Queen's Theater here in London. It was amazing. The sets, the singing, the story--all great. I was really surprised, too, as I'm not usually into musicals. I hated Phantom of the Opera, for example. But I loved Les Miserable. It almost bordered on being more of an opera than a musical. I would like to read the book now, too.

I'd love to discuss my favorite parts with you. Can I suggest some passages?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know if it's be a fruitful discussion since I haven't read the book, so it'd be hard for me to put the passages in context with the rest of the novel. I plan on reading it someday, but not for a while--I have to psyche myself up for a while before tackling a behemoth like Les Miserables.

[BienvenuJDC]

I don't know if it's be a fruitful discussion since I haven't read the book, so it'd be hard for me to put the passages in context with the rest of the novel. I plan on reading it someday, but not for a while--I have to psyche myself up for a while before tackling a behemoth like Les Miserables.

This is a short passage that doesn't necessarily need to be placed into any part of the book. In fact it kind of defines "the miserables" perspective.

http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hugo/les_miserables/22/

[Litercritic]

I love Les Miserables too. when I saw it with my family when I was eleven, I fell asleep throught the entire show. But after I saw it again, I fell in love with it. Have you seen the the 25th anniversery concert in London? I saw that same production on PBS nine times in a row!

[Litercritic]

I love Les Miserables too. when I saw it with my family when I was eleven, I fell asleep throught the entire show. But after i saw it again, I fell in love with it. Have you seen the the 25th anniversery concert in London? I saw that same production on PBS nine times in a row! Before I ever knew about Les Miz, I fell in love with Miss Saigon and was a fan of it for ten years

[Amethyst Gwin]

What's it matter of the same fundamental message is not in the musical?

It does matter: I understand that one cannot take the details from the book and keep them in the musical, however, if popular opinion of Les Miserables is based solely on what is depicted in the musical then that is not what Hugo intended. As I said before, read the first page or Hugo's letter to the Italian editor and his reasons for spending about 30 years writing a single book are stated explicitly. The danger with the musical is that people think that it's all in the past; that the social problems there were yesterday's.

Moreover, it may be possible that people are less likely to finish the book because they do not appreciate the digressions. They are necessary because they create the political and social background against which the rest of the action happens.

Now I change tack slightly and if you feel I digress then I could point you in the direction of Les Miserables!

I know several things: I first read Anna Karenina when I was about 13 and although I finished it, I did not really remember much or gain much from it. Four years later, I read Les Miserables after I had read two or three of Dicken's novels; I got stuck for about a week (maybe more) at the Battle of Waterloo. Since then I've re-read Les Miserables and Anna Karenina, read a few more of Dickens, several of Scott's Waverly novels and I've also read War and Peace. (You probably get the idea.) Now that's the background: to read Les Miserables requires a certain, shall we say, tenacity and I would also guess familiarity with the general style of 19th century literature, which, I feel the musical can ill-prepare you for.

That said, Les Miserables is possibly the most influential book that I've ever read and I would encourage any one to read it.

[hazelk]

The French mini-series was wonderful, it starred Gerard Depardieu.

http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss74/sjlnechnaia/10092_sjlnechnaia.png