Top 5: Favourite Musical Scenes (of this moment)

Tonight, I'll tell you about my current top five musical theatre scenes. They'll chance tomorrow, I'm sure, but here's today's top five.
I know it's a really broad range to choose from. By saying "scenes", I can feature just about whatever: solos, duets, counterpoints, dance, dialogue... I may do specified lists later on (if you've an interesting top five list in mind, do comment and I shall consider!), but let's start with simply scenes. I'm going to be purely feeling-based and, instead of featuring stuff that's grand or looks stunning, feature moments I always enjoy watching.


#5: A Weekend in the Country from A Little Night Music

What can I even say about this?
A Little Night Music is, in my opinion, an excellent musical, as those who read my review some months back might remember. And this scene has it all. I love counterpoint, so I'm pretty much quaranteed to like the song just because of that... And, acting-wise, it has moments for every actor to show their chops. It's a good song and a hilarious scene, all in one.
I don't have much more to say, actually, besides repeating that I adore this moment. One of the greatest first-act finales of all time, leaving the audience really excited to see the events unfold in the second half.


#4: Le Val d'Amour from Notre Dame de Paris

 You probably don't want to watch this one with your boss/parents/little kids around - it's nothing too graphic, but blunt enough to get uncomfortable.

I'd like to open this explanation by confessing something.
I don't like watching the Notre Dame de Paris DVD performance one bit.
I know the performers are talented. I know the story is amazing, I think the book by Victor Hugo is really touching. I know the music is beautiful, I simply love the CD! But I can't get into the DVD. It, quite simply, bores me. I sometimes watch it for the music, but I always have a sketchpad and some pencils at hand because I can't help dozing off when trying to concentrate on the show itself. I can't understand why I can't like it!

The notable exception is this scene.
I don't like it because of the risque dance moves, and even the song, even though it's really good, is not the best of the show. But I think this scene the best showcases the biggest reason I think the DVD is worth checking out: Bruno Pelletier as Gringoire.
Gringoire, as you may know, is a bit of a creep in the novel. He's an unlucky, moneyless poet who, at first, is into Esmeralda like every other guy in the book - so far, so good. But as the story progresses, he loses his interest towards her and instead starts obsessing about her goat instead, to the point where he can't decide whether Esmeralda or the animal is more worth rescuing. If I recall correctly, he chooses the goat and leaves the young lady in the hands of a potential murderer-rapist. Um. Yeah.
But the musical's Gringoire is something else. He has style. I think a Youtube commentor has it down pretty nicely: "I love this guy too-Bruno -the voice, the attitude, the looks, the movements, the presence, the artistic.... WOW!!!!!"

Take a look and see for yourself.


#3: Tonight Quintet from West Side Story

This song has an example of every aspect of musical music I adore the most. Let's count... A big group number. Counterpoint. Fast tempo. Male choirs. Getting bigger and bigger towards the end. Intense emotions. Fun to belt along. Yep, this has it all. This is the moment I look forward to whenever seeing West Side Story, it's all downhill from here...
As with A Weekend in the Country, I've a hard time expanding my opinion much further, it's too feeling-based. This scene is so good it doesn't much need explaining. It works exactly as it should in the context of the show, and - when done right! I don't think I'll ever understand why the production of WSS I last saw had cut the male choirs to only Riff and Bernardo! - it looks and sounds nothing short of pure awesome.


#2: Hot Honey Rag from Chicago

Start at around 4:00!

Besides being my second favourite musical scene, this moment is the reason I'm unable of forgiving the current Finnish production of Chicago its minor mistakes. I don't mind messing with the script a bit, but removing Hot Honey Rag is quite unexcusable to me...
In all seriousness, though, I've always had a bit of a hard time understanding dancing as an art form. I don't mean I don't appreciate it - I took jazz dance lessons for years as a kid (though I always was the clumsiest student in the class), so I've some faint firsthand experience about how hard a thing to master dancing really must be...
But still, I often feel a little awkward when seeing dance numbers. I don't know why. I think I just need training to learn to really "see" the things the dance tries to convey to me. Before that realisation, expect me to keep staring at dancers with an adoring but yet confused look on my face.

That being said, Hot Honey Rag is a dance scene, and a great one at that.
First of all, I love the piece of music that goes along with it. It's just full of joy and lust for life, and, currently, it's the number one most played song in my iTunes. I can't get enough of it.
And then, of course, there's the dance itself, and for once I don't feel I'm not understanding something. With talented performers, it's simply a joy to watch. Like the song, it's amazing, really fun and energetic, so I don't think I'll get bored of the choreography anytime soon. You really believe the whole Chicago would rush to see these ladies perform!


And my number one favourite musical scene is...
#1: The Audition Scene/Haben Sie Gehört Das Deutche Band? from The Producers

Now, this is a silly one.
I've never seen The Producers live. I kind of faintly wish to, and there's going to be a production about 250 kilometers from where I live, but I'm not sure at all if the trip is worth the trouble. While I do like the original movie the musical is based on, I don't enjoy the movie of the musical. Well, sure, some parts are good, but, in general, it's quite unpleasant. The music isn't catchy in the least, and, for the most part, it's simply not that funny.
Maybe seeing it live would chance my mind, but as far as musical movies go, The Producers isn't among my favourites.

The one expection is the Audition Scene.
It's simply the most hilarious scene I've ever seen. In a musical full of pretty bored jokes and bland tunes, it's got both real, laugh-out-loud good comedy and a really, really catchy tune. It showcases everything that's good and funny about The Producers in five minutes, with a clever joke after another. It's yet to fail to make me laugh.

The first performance I've chosen to feature, up there, is from a high school production. Not a trace of the awkwardness that too often, understandably, characterises high school shows - this performance by Summit High School in New Jersey is much better than the many versions by professional actors I've seen in Youtube. Amazing energy.

And what's the last amazing thing with this scene is how it allows different, hilarious interpretations. Again, many productions do what the movie did, and so does the featured performance, to some extent... But there are non-replica jewels here and there. Just check out the following version of the No No Nietzsche guy!

Dancing Vampires

Last Saturday I left for one of the most awaited musical trips of the year: I boarded a train to Seinäjoki, over 300 kilometers from where I live, to see the Finnish version of Tanz der Vampire.

I'm, by no means, an expert on the subject.

I know Tanz is wildly popular in some countries and has a strong fanbase, I know it's based on a movie from the 60's, I know it had a horrible Broadway adaptation that ran for a really short time a few years back, and... Well, that's all. I don't think I'm the best person to lecture the reader about the history of this show.

However, knowing that Tanz is loved by many, I was really excited about the Finnish version. I knew the same theatre had done, with the same director (Olli-Matti Oinonen), a very popular version of The Rocky Horror Show in the 90's - so popular that it was even recorded, a really rare event in Finland. Also, even though I often try to avoid reviews before seeing the shows myself, I had caught glimpses of a couple posivite fan comments beforehand.

So, despite Seinäjoki being a pretty small town (around 60 000 inhabitants) and sometimes described, by us who live near Helsinki and think we're indefinitely more awesome than the rest of the country, as a boring trap situated handily in the middle of nowhere... I was very hopeful. As usual, I tried to keep my expectations down, but I don't remember feeling this positive about a production I've never seen before in a while.

What I wondered, though, was the theatre's decision to name the show Dance of the Vampires instead of using the original Tanz der Vampire or a native translation, Vampyyrien tanssi in Finnish, as all other productions seemed to have done. While Vampyyrien tanssi is used at some places, it's mostly known as Dance - I can't see why, using English seems a bit pretentious to me. But you can't judge anything by its name alone, so moving on.

I don't remember being this entertained by a piece of musical theatre in a long while.

The piece is almost perfect: it's got an amazing mix of humor and more serious moments to keep a full grip of the watcher's attention. No song stuck in my head in an earworm-ish way after the show, but the score is definitely very good. I've no problem understanding why so many people like this musical, it has everything needed for a great night at theatre.

Plot-wise, it's The Phantom of the Opera in a little different setting. You have the beautiful girl; the cute, sincere young man who'd do anything for her; the menacing, dark, sexy creature of the night... But what, in my opinion, makes this even better than The Phantom is the usage of humor. Tanz has a perfect balance: it doesn't take itself seriously but doesn't slip into too campy territory either. Unlike Phantom, Tanz lets you laugh. It has the exciting moments between the girl and the mysterious older man, it has the cute love duets between the girl and her young admirer... and it has scenes so funny you can't breathe in between your fits of laughter.

Also, what pleased me greatly about the piece was the usage of music. I love sung-through pieces, so Tanz is perfect for my tastes, and I really enjoyed the underscored moments too. There are scenes that had action but no dialogue, and the action was set to a background music. This is of course often seen with dance scenes in musicals, but here some slapstick moments also have underscore, which I hadn't really seen done before but enjoyed a lot.

And it's not just the source material that's good. It's a really unconventional choice for a small theatre, I think, and I'm really glad Seinäjoki City Theatre had the courage to do it. They do the show beautiful justice.

We saw the show only a week from the premiere, so there's reason to suspect the performances will only get more refined in the future, but that's not to say they weren't really good already. I think I enjoyed Esa Ahonen as the Professor and Ville Salonen as Alfred the most - the former was simply hilarious (and his first song really amazed the audience, me included), and the latter was the epitome of the word adorable. If I have to say something negative, I think Heikki Vainionpää's Chagal was a bit too over-acted for my tastes. Then again, the part seemed to be written in an over-the-top way anyway, so it didn't bother me too much.

As a whole, the whole cast's energy really radiated to the auditorium. Everyone seemed to be giving their best and enjoying what they were doing.

I bought a CD of the show while I was in Berlin this summer, and, having finally listened to it, I have to say I honestly prefer the Finnish voices. If there ever was a Finnish show worth a cast recording, this is it. Pretty please! I especially enjoyed Jyri Lahtinen's (the Count) voice - one of the best I've heard in Finnish theatre.

Also, contributing to the quality of the songs, Marika Hakola's Finnish translation was, no doubt, the best one I've ever heard. There wasn't one awkward moment, but every song sounded as natural as if the libretto was originally written in Finnish. I was truely impressed.

Finally, the sets and costumes were nothing short of beautiful, and the choreography was just as good. If I've had some prejudice towards small theatres previously, this production really blows them away. The show looked and sounded so good I doubt any of the biggest theatres of Finland could've done any better job, and I've actually even seen a West End musical looking way worse than this.

In a nutshell, I recommend this musical to everyone, everywhere.

If you, by any means, can get to Seinäjoki, do it. I doubt you'll be disappointed. Personally, I'm planning of seeing the show at least once more (in ten days, to be exact. I don't think I could wait for any longer), though I'm sure that's not going to be enough. Too bad the distance is stopping me from seeing this every weekend!

Photos by Ari Ijäs, Seinäjoen kaupunginteatteri.

Production Photos

For the briefest moment this fall, there'll be two Swedish-speaking (or singing) productions of Les Misérables competing for the affection of the Nordic public. One, my beloved dear domestic production, continues in Åbo Svenska Teater, Finland, and the other is premiering these days in Malmö Opera, Sweden.
I'm incredibly lucky and will see the both in less than two months' time.

Also, the first pictures of the latter have just been released.

One Day More

As we can see, the Malmö production will be a modern take of a period piece.

Not taking the period the show is set in literally is not a new idea by any means, for example Spring Awakening had similar concept right from the beginning. It's a concept rarely associated with Les Misérables, though - this regional production of Les Mis is the only other one that comes to mind.

I'm not sure if I'm a fan of treatment like this, considering that I haven't seen a show that does so live. I can imagine it going two ways: either the modern design will be a lovely breath of fresh air often much needed with classics, or it will make getting emotionally involved in the history-based story virtually impossible. I shall see.

But, whatever I shall think about this production, I think it's absolutely thrilling to see Les Mis with a new twist like this. Having seen the original London and the dissimilar but still period-accurate Åbo production, it'll be fun seeing a radically different spin of my favourite musical for a change.

I don't want to speculate too much, it never ends up anywhere near truth, but let's see the photos anyway.

 Valjean Arrested

So, 25601. Thanks to syllable-related problems, Valjean's number is a bit modified in the Swedish translation. Amazing moustache you've got there, Guard #1!

Master of the House or Beggars at the Feast - with the bare stage, it could go either way

These Thénardiers creep me out the biggest time. They look like the cast of Oliver! gone very, very, very wrong. But, considering we're talking about the Thénardiers, that's all good.

Lovely Ladies

Also, the creepiest Lovely Ladies I've ever seen. Whatever this production will be, too calm and non-threatening won't be a thing associated with it!

Javert's Soliloquy, I guess

So, the Malmö Javert is bald. Wow, quite a change to the traditional ponytail-and-sideburns-all-over types! I think I like his looks quite a lot.

 The Runaway Cart

The ensemble is doing their best to remind me of Mozart, L'opéra rock...

Valjean's Confession

Seeing the first photos of the ÅST production last year, I speculated whether Alexander Lycke would play the first beardless professional Valjean ever. But nope, he had a fine beard going by the premiere. Wonder if Dan Ekborg will really go for this radical style with no last-minute chances of facial hair? I sure hope so!

So, after seeing these pictures, what do I think?
Well, for the most part, I've no problems with anything. This production won't have visually boring moments, that's for sure! Still, I've no idea if the modern style will distract from the historical piece, but I'll be wiser in a few weeks.
If I have to complain about something, it's that angel statue hanging in the background. I've seen it only in these pictures, being lit white or red according to the mood of the scene, and I'm already a bit bored by the obvious symbolism. But maybe there are more innovative uses that really surprise me.

To be completely honest, though, there's the deal with the two simultaneous Swedish productions I mentioned in the beginning. Sadly, I'm really, really biased towards the ÅST production. 

Since I first saw it soon a year ago, I've been a huge fan of it - as the readers of my blog surely know. I know I don't, in reality, have anything to do with it except for sitting in the audience in steady intervals, but I call it my production in my mind. It's so dear to me, and, due to the lack of Les Mis fans in Finland (let me know if you're one of us. We need to unionize and form a One Day More flashmob before the final show. Or something), I can freely praise the production everywhere along my online adventures, and there's usually no one to question my opinions.

So, what if this new Swedish production beats the one I have adored so much in overall amazingness, during the older show's final month of performances? To me, it'd equal my favourite ice hockey team losing in the finals. I know it's insane to talk like this about theatre productions (what's next? The fans of Helsinki City Theatre meeting the admirers of The National Theatre at the square to brawl?), but I've a hard time shaking the feeling...

Despite it, though, these pictures have made me really curious and I can't wait to see what the Malmö Opera does with my favourite musical.

Finally... There's one solid reason for me to wish the Malmö production won't be too much awesome. 

If it's really amazing, I'll be competely out of money before the end of this year due to frequent visits to the neighbouring country!

A post about the woes of being an obsessed Mizzie coming up.

I think I've put the Les Mis album comparison to permanent hiatus. After getting three and a half new cast recordings during this summer, I see no point continuing. If it was your favourite thing here, speak up now and I may continue, otherwise I'll let it be.

 The pictures are by Malin Arnesson, from Malmö Opera's website.

Superstar

Sorry about the delay with the last Three Days of West End story. For a reason or another, talking about The Phantom of the Opera doesn't inspire me, even though I adore the show. Maybe another time, maybe not, we'll see. But now...

Jesus Christ Superstar with Lahti Symphony Orchestra in Sibelius Hall, Lahti, 27.8.2011.

JCS is one of those shows I have wanted to see for ages.
The premise is so weird - a musical about the life and death of Jesus Christ? Wow. And I've loved the music ever since I first heard it, some of my favourite musical theatre songs of all time are from it. Of course I was excited when I heard it was being done and rushed to get the tickets.
Still, I didn't get my hopes really high when the day approached. I had read bad reviews about some of the actors, and, for a reason I can't really articulate, I just didn't feel all that extatic. Either school pressure or the bored pessimist in me taking charge, I guess. Or both.

So, I'm glad to tell you this concert surpassed the little expectations I had and ranked itself among my favourite productions of all time.

Sibelius Hall

I had never visited Sibelius Hall before, and I have to say, it's pretty fancy. It's, to all you non-Finnish readers out there, named after maybe the most appreciated Finnish composer and situated next to a lake, with lots of wooden details. I think "the epitome of all things Finnish" was the architect's inspiration...

Me and my friend had amazing seats: second row, right in the middle, and by a stroke of luck no one sat in front of us. At first, I was afraid it was too close, but actually, it was perfect. I've a somewhat eccentric Finnish teacher who once told us he likes to sit in the very front in theatre because "you'll get the best vibes there". I'm starting to agree.

The show sounded great with the whole symphony orchestra and a big choir. I'm afraid we were a little too close for perfect acoustics, since it sometimes felt the voices and sounds blurred into each other a bit (even though the hall's acoustics are sometimes mentioned among the world's best), but since we got to watch the performers so closely - and the blurring was still much milder than in many other shows I've seen - it didn't matter much at all.

As for the performances... 

The only disappointment of the night was Sami Hintsanen's Judas. His voice suited the part very well, but I didn't really get the feeling his character felt much anything. He more sung the part than acted it, and even though it's in a concert form, it's still a piece of theatre... Also, some of his mannerisms really started to bug me after a while.

But everyone else, in my opinion, did a beautiful job. Maria Ylipää was lovely - as always! - as Maria Magdalene, but it was Hannu Lepola's Jesus that really did it for me. He was perfect. His voice was gorgeous, and his expression was, indeed, of "the haunting, hunted kind". His was maybe the best Gethsemane I've ever heard, it was gorgeous and warranted a huge applause. A beautiful, strong performance.

Not to say the smaller parts were any worse! I really liked them all, they had huge energy and did justice to their roles, but my favourite was perhaps Anssi Valikainen's Pilate. You really felt for the character when watching him; you saw the character's inner struggle when he was facing the difficult decisions he has to face. Great, great job.

I think Jesus Christ Superstar is one of those shows that work with really little staging, so the concert setting didn't bother me at all. The piece is, without any doubt, strong enough to hold on its own without fancy sets or big dance scenes.

The weirdest fact of the night was that the whole piece was sung in English, since usually musicals are translated into Finnish around here. However, I understand their decision. Opera isn't translated either, and having a look at the Finnish lyrics that ran above the stage as subtitles confirmed what I've heard said before: the Finnish translation is a bad one. It had a couple of clever moments, but it also had at least five awkward wordings per every smart line. If you're translating Jesus Christ Superstar, I feel you should be extra careful with those bits that have biblical references. "It is finished" has a little different feeling than the translation's "It's over now!"...

The applause after the show was rather huge. For the first time, though, I realised what the person who once spoke about applause being distruptive here in my blog's comments meant. JCS is such a strong story - I think I would have needed a minute's silence before applause to get my train of thought back to everyday world again.

All in all, an amazing night.

The picture is not mine.

Three Days of West End: Love Never Dies

Here it is. The big one, the one everybody loves to hate.
Siiri reviews Andrew Lloyd Webber's Love Never Dies.

If I'm so sure no one likes Love Never Dies, what was I doing, seeing it? Well...

• I felt I can't really badmouth LND properly before I really see it - and, who knows, maybe I'd like it live after all?
• I loved Ramin Karimloo in The Phantom of the Opera and in the Les Misérables 25th Anniversary Concert, so I really wanted to see him again.
• David Thaxton as Raoul. As I've noticed, around the Les Mis fandom talking about Thaxton may result in some quite heated exchange of opinions, but I'll still confess something: I had seen Thaxton two times before Love Never Dies, both times as Enjolras, back when I was a brand-new Les Mis fan. And I don't remember anything about his performance. Sacrilegious, huh? So, I wanted to see Thaxton in something, if only for the reason I could say I remember seeing him...

If you want to read about my opinions based on the CD alone before diving into the full stage experience, take a look at here. And, mind you, I really like the original Phantom. I try to stay as respectful as I can, but if you love Love Never Dies with all your heart, you might want to close this window now...

First, I'll analyse the characters. Because this is a sequel, the way the characters have developed is of course an interesting aspect to observe. Let's begin with the Phantom.

 

In some ways, The Phantom is still the same guy he was ten years before. He's just as obsessed about Christine as before. You'd suspect he's going to die without her after the original, but if that doesn't happen, him setting up a new lair and mourning his lost love is the second-best guess.

But otherwise... Don't you think this Phantom is a bit, well, too high-functioning, compared to the original character? In The Phantom of the Opera, the title character had severe difficulties with interacting with the rest of the world. He had spent decades hiding, obsessing about his own appearance to an unhealthy degree. By the end of the show, we've found out he is a blackmailer, a kidnapper and a murderer. He mopes about the world abandoning him, but doesn't try very hard to gain its appreciation.

In Love Never Dies, the Phantom - still with no proper name given - is a successful businessman with his own amusement park. He has become more social, and at one point he even confronts Raoul without his mask on. You'd think that situation would rip open a dozen scars and make him feel really vulnerable, but he goes through the whole incident with a smile on his face. By the end, he's making speeches of inner beauty and trying to rescue damsels in distress, not causing the distress in the first place.

People change, sure, but to me such huge changes as these seem very unlikely.

Christine, then again, has a little more believable character arch.

We don't really know that much about her character, based on the original. She misses her late father, has musical talents and finds herself in a difficult situation between two men. Still, her inner world remains a bit of a mystery to us. Does she get engaged to Raoul because she loves him or because she needs protection from the danger the Phantom represents? Despite her fears, she does see something in the Phantom - so is there something more than pity behind her decision to kiss him? 

We don't know, and that's why Christine's still a believable character in Love Never Dies. Of course, it's rather cruel of her to sleep with the Phantom the night before her wedding, but I think it's very well possible she might regret choosing to marry Raoul.

Speaking about Raoul... His character actually made me laugh a little. 

Maybe he was a bit of a stereotype, being the young, cute, love-struck hero in the original, but here he hasn't so much developed as turned into another stereotype: the drinking, gambling, possibly wife-and-kid-beating jerk. And so angry at that it's almost funny. It's not the actor's fault, but the way the character is written... This is unacceptable, do you hear me! Must you make that racket!! Heh. Poor guy. 

The last characters transported from the original are the Girys, Madame and Meg.

Meg is another character I can see developing to this direction. She didn't seem too keen on the ballet in the original, and we know very little about her. Therefore we can't really claim she didn't wish to be a vaudeville performer the whole time.

But Madame Giry... She is a bit of a showbiz mother in the original, teaching Meg the ballet, sure, but I don't see her abandoning the opera. Ballet seems to mean so much to her in the original, and the way she acts as a link between the Phantom and rest of the world doesn't mean she isn't afraid of him, nor that she would want to help him to set up an amusement park on another continent. I just don't see it happening.

To the story!

I think the show's first act is a bit of a mess. I like some of the music a lot, but the act itself - all the issues with characterisations aside - doesn't feel whole to me. Not every part seems to belong. It's probably a result of the extensive rewrites the show went through, though I'm ready to admit many of them were for the better.

So, as you may know, nowadays the show begins with 'Til I Hear You Sing. I love this song. Whatever is said about Love Never Dies, 'Til I Hear You Sing is a showtune of the first class and Ramin Karimloo sung it really, really beautifully.

Unfortunately, the messiness of the first act kicked in right after the brilliant first song. After the amazing starter, the plot disappears somewhere for a good while, leaving the audience to watch a cavalcade of projections and circus acts. Neat. Then we get some exposition and some more exposition in the form of Madame Giry and Meg. Finally, after quite a while - though the wait wasn't quite as long as on the CD - we see Christine and Raoul and the plot accelerates again.

After meeting the main characters from the original again, I found myself enjoying some scenes. For example, the big ensemble song, Dear Old Friend, and Christine and Phantom's first love duet, Beneath a Moonless Sky, were to my tastes. Even though the latter's lyrics sound like a middle schooler's draft at vaguely erotic poetry, it's a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine. I just like the tune. 

Nevertheless, couldn't they have remove the second love duet when they were rearranging the show? From my point of view, two in a row feel rather tedious, even though the second song comes back in the finale of the show.

The act wraps up with The Beauty Underneath, a duet between Phantom and Christine's ten-year-old son. Like the title song of the original, it doesn't quite match the tone of the rest of the score. Fine. Except for that the song, in my opinion, is absolutely creepy. 

Maybe this is hopelessly immature of me... But listen to it, imagine an adult woman sings the boy soprano's part and, then, tell me about the situation you imagine this song accompanies. "Don't you feel amazing things?/Things you know you can't confess/Things you thirst for, nonetheless." Um.

When seeing the action onstage, the piece doesn't sound quite so weird, but I think the lyrics should've been thought out a little more carefully.

The second act feels a little more whole to me, maybe because it hasn't undergone so many changes. Again, there are some songs I enjoy quite a lot, most notably the Entr'acte and the both versions of Devil Take the Hindmost (I'm a big sucker for counterpoints). The big Phantom of the Opera reprise moment is a favourite of mine, too, even if it doesn't leave quite so big an impact anymore than on the CD - there are maybe too many hints to the original in the current version.

Sadly, again, there are problems.

My biggest peeve with this act was how it set up the main dilemma from the original Phantom once again. Will Christine sing or not? Which one of these two men will she choose? Been there, seen that, yawn. It's even more boring because the solution is so obvious this time: would you rather go with a constantly angry moron who has gambled away all your money and hates your kid, or with a rich amusement-park owner who is extremely in love with you, and, despite a minor flaw in is facial complexion, is also quite sexy? Hmm. I truely wonder.

And while I'm at it... Why Christine only has two choices, anyway? Isn't walking away without either of these men an option at all? Christine doesn't set up a great example of an independent woman. I'm certain she could've earned a living on her own, with her obvious musical talent, but unfortunately the show doesn't set that as an option.

Finally, the ending of the show - spoilers ahoy! - almost made me fall asleep. With the Phantom's heroic speech about Meg being beautiful inside and whatnot, the Finale feels almost like a joke to me. This is a man who has been so embarrassed of himself that he has spent half of his life hiding, and now he lectures about inner beauty. Yep. The ridiculousness of the plot, which has been kept in a decent check for most of the time, really flourishes during the ending.

I mean... How long does it take for a person to die from a gunshot? If you think A Little Fall of Rain in Les Mis is stretching it, try to sit through Christine dueting with the Phantom without getting a sudden urge to scream "die already!" And, again, after she finally draws her last breath, and Raoul comes back to observe the body... I felt like laughing. I could almost hear Raoul speaking: "Man... I leave my wife with you for two minutes and this is the result? Geez..." Not the reaction the scene was going for.

I think the whole story, and score, of Love Never Dies, is hit-and-miss. Score mostly hit, but story mostly miss. If Lloyd Webber had used this music with an original tale, I'd surely enjoyed the result more, but sadly Love Never Dies can't survive comparisons with the original.

A word about the scenery: I think the sets and costumes are beautiful. However, as said, the original is always in the watcher's mind, and I don't think they quite match it. Then again, not many shows will, sequels or not. On their own, the sets are very nice, even incredible sometimes. The skeleton lady in the Phantom's lair, for example, was simply amazing! I also loved the lights surrounding the balconies - in my opinion they could've been even more blingy.

Lastly, the cast. As said, I saw the show with Ramin Karimloo and David Thaxton, with Celia Graham as Christine. 

They did the best they could, I'm certain of that, and I really enjoyed their performances and voices. But, no matter how talented the cast, this show remains a mess to me. I'm not surprised it's closing soon. It's not for my tastes, and I don't think I'll be buying the upcoming DVD anytime soon.

The photos aren't mine. 

The photo with the Phantom and Christine by Joel Ryan, the one with Meg by Jonathan Hordle.

Differences

As I mentioned in my reviews so far, I'm a bit emotional about West End. Tears-all-over-my-face-just-by-the-sound-of-the-overture emotional. But even so, I still love Finnish theatre just as much.
Because you're reading my blog, you'll probably squee in joy when I tell you I'm going to explain my opinion with a longer-than-life-itself comparison of the theatre etiquettes of Finland and West End. I wish to amuse, educate and/or ramble until you fall asleep.
Let's begin.

The tickets
You can get print tickets easily in Finland, but I almost always buy my tickets from a supermarket in my town - a habit that stuck with me from the time I didn't have an online bank account. The market has a combined desk for a tickets agency and a betting agency. The shop assistants change every time I go there and none of them can use the ticket machine, so there's always a long line of angry gamblers squeezing their lottery coupons behind me. Still, I take my time. Plenty of it, because I usually have to repeat "Helsinki City Theatre", "it's not in Turku", "no, two o'clock" and "no, it's not in Turku" a few times during the process.
When going to London, I usually buy tickets to the shows I really want to see online. I know that I'd get them cheaper if I bought them after arriving London, but I'm a bit paranoid and want to make sure I won't miss something special. I visit tkts, too, it all depends on my obsession about the show in question...
So, I search all over the internet for cheapest tickets and wonder what's the deal with the rule of the ticket-selling websites that requires the owner of the credit card to pick up the tickets themselves. Not every box office checks this, of course, but for example in Ghost they actually wanted to see my friend's credit card the tickets were bought with. Why? If the person has printed e-mail confirmation and brought it with them, isn't it a clear enough sign that they own the tickets? I wish more West End theatres would adopt the print ticket system, it'd make everything easier...
As for prices: in Finland you can usually get stalls seats cheaper than West End, but then again, the worst balcony seats can be more expensive. So, though West End is more pricey in general, Finland isn't cheap either. Not counting the trips to there and back of course!

The dress code
I'm not a girly girl by any account. I don't use makeup, I haven't had long hair in years, I never wear dresses and only own one pair of heels. My formal attire consists of a pretty masculine jacket or two, some nice trousers and the huge amount of amazing, pretty knitwear my godmother makes for me.
So, in Finland, dressing for theatre is not a huge problem. Well, my mother does not approve of me going to theatre in Converse All Stars, but if I'm going by train and am supposed to take a couple kilometers' walk from the station to the theatre, most often in the rain, snow or slush, I don't really want to ruin my good shoes. But as for my other clothing, I'll throw on some nice knitwear and don't really look radically different from the rest of the audience.
In the other hand, when visiting West End or Broadway, I always have problems. I like to pack light, both because the prices most airlines charge for extra luggage are insane and because I think I've much better things to do with my life than spend what feels like an eternity waiting for my bags to appear into the luggage hall. Also, much to my mother's dismay, I definitely won't be taking the heels on holiday - I tend to have a nicer time with all toenails intact.
As a result, in winter I don't usually bother with the knitwear but wear an ugly but warm and practical fleece jacket, especially if I go to the theatre straight from the city without popping in the hotel first. Then I feel horrible in the theatre, even in the Tourist Balcony I always find myself sitting in, because everybody else seems to wear something nicer than me. That's why I, last winter on Broadway, tried to get a grip of my wardrobe and dressed sharply with a necklace, a nice shirt and all... I felt mortified again: everybody around seemed to be wearing their fleece jackets. Maybe it's psychological, but I always seem to be doing the wrong thing.
In the summer I've a bit more space in my bag and try a tad harder, but it's still a thin line between too casual and too formal, and I haven't quite learned to balance on that line yet. It doesn't help that I've a tendency of spilling various sauces and blood on my fancy clothes and have to rely on mundane shirt-shorts-and-sandals combinations from time to time. I've kind of solved my problems by wearing the t-shirt of the musical in question to it whenever possible. Maybe it's not really according the dress code to wear a t-shirt at all, but you can't really fight the logic of honouring Les Misérables with a Les Mis t-shirt, right?

The theatres
Here are some West End theatres:

Here are some Finnish theatres:

See what I'm trying to say?
There are expections to this rule in both places - not every West End theatre is gorgeous, and some Finnish theatres, like Åbo Svenska Teater and National Theatre, have a lovely old-fashioned look. But, as a whole, Finnish theatres are built during that unfortunate period of the latter part of the last century when the cool thing, architechturally, was to lay boxes of different sizes and materials on top of each other.
Even so, I'm ready to admit Finnish playhouses are usually more practical than their West End counterparts. They've more leg room in the auditorium - in West End I often get the feeling I'm sitting in a plane, in economy class -, they have big, proper cloakrooms, their restrooms have more than two stalls each, the foyers are less crowded... Finnish theatres may not be pretty, but they do their job beautifully.

The customs
When I first went to see a West End show (that first one being Grease) I was thoroughly confused by the people drinking beer and eating ice cream in the auditorium. Around here, you don't. If you want to sip something during the intermission, you go to the bar in the foyer and get your overpriced champagne, but you simply don't bring drinks with you to the auditorium. Let alone ice cream. Couch drops might be okay.
I'm not sure which version I like better. The Finnish way makes going to theatre a bit more solemn and sophisticated, but then again, should going to theatre always be solemn and sophisticated? Why can't you have an ice cream while watching the events unfold onstage if you want to? (Well, if you're me, the answer's simple actually: because I'd spill it on my nice sweater.)
Unfortunately, in West End the jerks who check their cellphones during the show are more plentiful than in Finland. I'm strict with this - using your phone during the show is not okay. Your friends can wait. Your family can wait. Your dying grandma... What are you doing in the theatre again if that's the case? You simply don't use your cell during the show. Besides of wasting your own money by getting a ticket and not watching what's happening, you're annoying a whole auditorium full of other people, you selfish person. Also, putting the sound off of your various gadgets is not as hard as so many seem to think.
I don't go much into the wonders of the Finnish curtain calls (I already did at here), I just want to say that the West End and Broadway version feels a tad too short for me, a bit too harsh move into cold, solid reality after a night full of magic. By the time the audience is leaving in London, the main actor has just taken their first bow around here...

The experience
I love the both theatre-going experiences, the West End one and the Finnish one. The Finnish is what I usually have, so West End is a bit more exotic to me, but that's neither a pro or a con, just a fact. Both are amazing in their own ways.
I have to say, though... In West End my intermission hobby of people-staring is funnier than at home. That's partly because West End shows have so international and interesting audiences and partly because you can see some young people at West End. Finnish theatre seats are filled by silver-haired gentlemen and ladies: societies of seniors often invade the stalls on their weekend trips. I'm serious. The positive side is that I know what kind of society I'll join when I retire...

The theatre pictures are from various sources: Wikipedia, Finnish towns' home sites, Google Images... I own nothing.

Three Days of West End: Les Mis

I don't think I'll review the musicals I saw in chronological order - Ghost was a short review, but Les Mis and Love Never Dies are quaranteed to make me rant, so I'll write them out of the way and finish with a little more neutral The Phantom of the Opera.

It's been a while since I saw Les Misérables in London the last time. So, the beginning was another emotional moment for me, tears all over once again when the Overture started. Sniff. I sat in the Grand Circle as always, so the the stage was a bit far away, but it was okay. One day, mind you, I'll get the best seats to every performance. One day.
Oh well.
I think I'll do this review character by character, it makes the most sense that way - you don't really have to hear what I think of the show itself anymore, so I'll skip to the interesting parts!

Jean Valjean - Jonathan Williams
At first I was the tiniest bit sad when I found out I wouldn't get to see Alfie Boe as Valjean - I had really liked his voice in the DVD. But a couple of people told me not to worry, since the alternate Valjean is really amazing.
Now I agree with them, one hundred percent.
As I might've mentioned, Valjean is a character I don't feel for easily. Williams's Valjean, then again... He wasn't so much an actor playing Valjean to me, like everyone I've seen before has been to some extent (well, everyone I remember seeing - the first two times I saw Les Mis in London are a bit blurry around the details), he actually was Valjean. The character felt more real to me than ever before. And his voice was so good, too: his was one of the best Bring Him Homes I can remember. I especially enjoyed his moments with little Cosette, they definitely were the cutest little Cosette and Valjean pair I've ever seen!
I really didn't regret that I didn't see Alfie Boe one minute. I doubt he could've been any better than Williams.

Javert - Hadley Fraser
Hadley Fraser plays Grantaire in the 25th anniversary concert, so I was of course very curious to see his Javert. Sadly, I can't say I would've liked his performance that much.
First of all, despite all the makeup he looked a bit too young to be Javert. He's 31 years old, but the role could easily be given to someone twenty years older... That's not my main problem with Fraser's Javert, though. Just as white Thénardiers can have a black kid in Les Mis, it just needs a little suspension of disbelief to accept a young Javert.
The real problem is that Fraser's Javert was constantly really! really! really! angry! I mean really, unreasonably angry, and I mean all the time. There wasn't a scene he didn't seem irritated at the very least, even his Stars was a bit mad somehow. He almost made me laugh when he chased the people off the stage before Stars with a huge "RAWR"... And, as you can guess, the turmoil in his mind during Soliloquy didn't have a big impact since we hadn't seen him calm and collected at all.
I think this is at least as much the fault of the director's as it is of the actor's, though. I've a hard time believing a performance like this would've made it all the way to onstage if the director had paid proper attention to Fraser. Maybe the celebrity stars, Alfie Boe and Matt Lucas, took too much of the director's time and attention?
But yep, I'm afraid I have to say I missed home and Sören Lillkung a tiny bit during Javert's parts here.

Marius and Cosette - Craig Mather and Lisa-Anne Wood 

These two, then again, I liked a lot! They made a cute couple: Wood was a lovely, sweet Cosette, and Mather had that adorable awkwardness down nicely.
But seeing the original Les Mis after two years' break and after being pampered with the Finnish production the whole last year... I was harshly reminded of how bland Cosette's part is in West End. Very, very bland, to be precise.
Contasting to the ÅST version... Around here, Cosette has a colourful dress and a personality: we know she's a bit vain because she models on a new hat in her garden, but we also see that she has a sense of humor when she mocks Marius with the "my name is Marius Pontmercy" part in Every Day, which sadly has been cut from the original. The original Cosette, then again... A dress so black and conservative just her head and collar pop out of the darkness, no chances to establish any character whatsoever.
And, also, Marius and Cosette haven't many chances to really show their chemistry with the original blocking. In Finland, they share a waltz in the garden, and seal their part of One Day More with a passionate kiss. Here, they touch palms. I wish they had a little more moments in the London production, they're great characters and deserve better!

 

Éponine - Alexia Khadime 

Khadime was one of the modern, R'n'B sort of Éponines familiar to us from the 2010 Live! CD. I loved that since, as you know if you've read my album comparisons, I really like the Live! Éponine's voice, and, out of context, the riff in On My Own is to my liking. But I can see this dividing opinions - as someone pointed out last week, the more modern Éponine is, the more the audience, especially the young part of it, will identify with her and dislike Cosette.

But still, I liked Khadime's Éponine. I'm not a huge fan of the character, so it's enough for me On My Own sounds amazing, and hers did!

Fantine - Caroline Sheen

Going to explain my opinion with the good ol' "ÅST does everything better than you, and you can smell the scent of roses in the air there too" card again, but yes, I'm not a huge fan of Sheen's. Her acting was fine, but her voice just doesn't, in my opinion, hold a candle to Finnish Fantine's, Thérèse Karlsson's. This is of course a matter of opinion with not much rationalising behind it, just like my thoughts on Éponine, so you might think quite differently.

The Thénardiers - Matt Lucas and Leanne Rogers or Lucy Garrioch

The Thénardiess was played by an understudy, but I didn't catch her name - feel free to educate me about her identity!

Now I understand the disgust some fans have towards celebrity casting, I admit.

It's not that Lucas would've been totally bad in the role - we get to that in a minute -, it's more the audience's reaction. He got a huge applause when he appeared onstage. I don't like applausing an actor when they appear onstage at all. They haven't done anything yet, what are you cheering for! Maybe, if it's a senior theatre veteran like Angela Lansbury for example, it's a nice to give them a round of applause when they enter. I appreciate your amazing career, it's good to see you performing still, that sort of thing. But applauding an actor because they're familiar from TV or movies? No, I don't see why. Also, Thénardier getting as big an applause as Javert and Valjean? Huh?

But to the point. Lucas really nailed Thénardier's funny parts, making them as disgustingly funny as you could hope. But, in my eyes, he very much failed Dog Eats Dog by making that a comic number too. Why would you do that? It hasn't a single line that's meant as a laugh-out-loud joke, so why make it funny and keep Thénardier an one-sided clown instead of deepening his character?

Mme T. was great though - I'm so sorry I don't know who she was, but she was really good!

Enjolras and posse - Liam Tamne and co.

I've no complaints about any of these guys - Tamne was a nice Enjolras and Adam Linstead was a great Grantaire (in my opinion he looked just like Grantaire should, I think I'm adopting him as my new mental Grantaire!). I can't, sadly, say much about the barricade boys' interactions or adlibs, which are of course crucial to distinguish the good from the amazing, since I was up in the Grand Circle and didn't hear or see that many subtle details, so I'll just leave it at that they were very good.

One request though: couldn't someone train them to say Enjolras some other way than "Enjolr-ass"? I've so immature sense of humor it makes me laugh.

Afterwards

For the first time in my life, I actually stagedoored! My friends, with whom I travelled, weren't exactly keen on the idea, but I went to Les Mis without them. After calling them and finding out they're still in a movie theatre, I gathered my courage and went to the stage door. Thanks to Matt Lucas, there was a huge bunch of people, but I wasn't really interested in his autograph. Instead, I got Hadley Fraser's, Liam Tamne's, and Jonathan Williams's, with whom I'm posing here (look at me, I'm almost smiling! I'm starting to learn how to do this photograph thing).

I gushed like an insane fangirl, of course, but Williams was so nice I didn't feel too embarrassed. Heh, maybe after a couple of dozen of instances like this, I'll learn to behave myself around amazingly talented people, but I'm afraid that day is still far away...

All in All

Okay, here it comes... 

I have to say, even though the grandness and the beauty of the original production blew me away once again, I still like the ÅST production a tiny, tiny bit more. It's simply because the Fennoswedish cast is stronger. There's not a single weak link there. If a couple of them didn't know what they're doing in Åbo, I'd prefer the original production. I adore London's visual parts, the huge ensemble, the beautiful barricade and the big orchestra...

If I only could live near to both!

And hey, congrats once again to the guy whose friends sung Happy Birthday to him before the show started!

The ensemble picture isn't of the cast I saw, the individual pictures are. Neither are mine: the former is from Google images, the latter I've scanned from the souvenir programme I bought. Thanks for the nice girl at the stage door for taking the last picture!