To get some of my hype out before seeing Les Mis live in two weeks, and to distract myself from the looming exam week's horrors, I thought about a subject I can't believe I've never properly thought about before.
Why is Les Misérables such a totally awesome musical?
How in the world is it possible I have kept obsessing over it for over a year and it still feels like an interesting subject to think about?
The first thing that springs to my mind is the music.
I just got the new Les Misérables Live! Dream the Dream (will I ever stop mocking that name? I don't think so!) CD with the 25th anniversary tour cast. And when listening to it I realised something:
I get bored, if not extremely easily, pretty fast anyway.
Cats? I destroyed it by overlistening in a couple of months.
The Phantom of the Opera? I'm so bored of it I haven't listened to it for many months.
All of ABBA's music? Did I really like that sometime? Well, yes, I did, but the effects of an overload of Mamma Mia! and iTunes' repeat feature will still take a while to wear off...
But Les Mis?
When I got to listen to the new CD the music felt so fresh and new, even though I've probably listened to it more times than Cats, PoTO, Wicked and Chicago combined.
Sure, if I listen to it a couple of times in two days, like I already did with the new CD, it can start to feel a bit old.
But after a little while, often less than a week, it feels fresh and new again.
I'm not a music expert, but I'm certain that's a sign of a perfect score.
The other things that keeps Les Mis so interesting is the scope of the story.
It spans over two decades and mentions about every feeling and theme possible - live, death, love, hate, forgiving, ideals, reality, poverty, revolution, sacrifice... By squishing the giant book into a three-hour musical the show makes sure to has no boring moments.
What I find so great about Les Mis is that even when everybody dies and everything goes wrong the watcher still leaves the theatre feeling happy. One of my biggest favourite moments of the show is when Thénardiers come to sing Beggars at the Feast and the audience, desperate for a laugh after following the failing revolution and dying for the last hour, doesn't need but to see them before giggling out loud.
And the finale with the Do You Hear the People Sing reprise... Talk about uplifting!
Also: there are so many characters to care about. This is true with a lot of musicals, like RENT and Cats, but I think it's especially true with Les Mis.
There's the main character, Valjean, of course. But if you don't like him, no worries!
Fangirls can decide if they want to drool over Javert or Enjolras, both really interesting - not to add hot - guys. There's Eponine to identify with and Fantine to feel bad for, Marius and Cosette's love story to bring some saccharine in the show and Thénardiers to laugh with. And let's not forget the cute factor of Gavroche!
It's not like the show would have three characters for you to pick your favourite of. There are so many different people to identify with, care about and even hate with passion.
And if you don't care about any of them, no worries - they're probably dead by the end of the second act anyway.
Besides... If you're a Les Mis fan long enough you inevitably reach the level of fandom where a production with Javert with no sideburns will feel like a huge deal.
And by that point every day will feel like a little Les Mis adventure.
And your friends will finally take you to see the doctor.
Thinking about this text, there is probably nothing a Les Mis fan hasn't thought about already.
But I wasted a good hour of studying time and got all the stress about French and Swedish out of my system for a while by writing it. Maybe it deserves to be released just for those reasons.
I'd end this with a YouTube clip of John Owen-Jones and Earl Carpenter singing The Confrontation better than any people I've heard before, but I can't find a proper one.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Where They Play Jazz
I just saw a version of Chicago in Tampere with a friend of mine who also loves musical theatre.
I'm a rational person and usually think things through with sense and order. I love paying attention to differences between productions and can watch the same show many times just to see all the details.
My friend, Sara, is quite different. She lives with the show, laughs and cries. If the show is good, it's easy for her to forget everything going on around her and just focus on feeling for the characters. I'm also about a dozen times more critical than Sara. We both saw the current West End Grease. I thought it was bad with its too small stage, not-so-ambitious sets and costumes, boring and too loud musical arrangements and weird acting choices. But Sara thought the music was groovy and the feeling good and enjoyed the show.
So, when we left the theatre playing Chicago and her first words were "it let a lot to hope for"... It certainly was not just me who thought there was something wrong with the show.
Part of my mood might have to do with the fact that when I had walked halfway to the train station in the morning I realised I had forgotten my aspirin at home. Of course I got a headache in the theatre. But it was not really bad, luckily. I was very much able to focus on the show. So, let's see...
The show started weirdly. If you've ever seen Chicago on Broadway – and I suppose this goes for West End, too? – you know it begins with one of the dancers walking to the centre of the stage and telling the audience they're about to see a show about all the things dear to us, like cheating, murder etc.
But here the show began with the overture. During it the actors played a little scene of how Velma murdered her sister. It was followed by a man welcoming the audience, saying the lines the show usually begins with and starting to sing All That Jazz.
I felt very confused at this point.
Usually I'm all for non-replica productions. The really different Finnish Cats started my interest in musical theatre, Finnish Mary Poppins worked greatly as a non-replica and Wicked wasn't bad, neither. And even if the adaptation doesn't quite work I still appreciate the director trying something different and showing their own vision. But messing with the script of the show from the first minute? I think this form of adaptating might be a little bit too liberal for me...
To my relief Velma came in to do the rest of the song. However, I thought there wasn't something quite right with her. I don't like critiquing people like this, but I feel this review won't be quite complete if I leave this unsaid. In my opinion, Velma is supposed to be sexy, sassy and charismatic. Even if she's not quite a teenager anymore, she's supposed to be a believable, energetic cabaret dancer.
Unfortunately Sari Siikander's Velma wasn't all of these things. This is of course just my opinion, but I just didn't feel the character through Siikander's performance, I don't think she fit the part. The horrible red hairstyle and the little bit too uncomfortably revealing and tight costumes didn't really help, looks-wise... Putting that aside, she had an alright voice, even if her dancing might had left something to hope for.
But then again, I thought Eriikka Väliahde's Roxie was great and had a lovely voice, as did Billy Flynn – whoever it might have been that played the role today since there are three opinions in the cast list and I had hard time spotting any "in the roles tonight" signs. Mama Morton and Amos weren't bad, neither.
But what I wonder the most about the casting is the addition of an MC. He started the show with his rendition of All That Jazz and he, in his clown type makeup and suit, kept popping up in various places in the show. He did all the announcements, acted as Billy Flynn's and Mama Morton's assistant and played the doctor in the beginning of the second act. He also sung more parts of other characters' songs, like the beginning of I Can't Do It Alone. It was a bit of a weird choice to me, but I think I can see what they were trying to achieve and appreciate them for that.
That wasn't the only change, though. There were other weird alternations around.
Firstly, Billy's speech about what kinds of love he cares about had been modified: the punchline about physical love not being so bad either had been left out. All That Jazz also seemed different to me: the murder scene had been somehow expanded and some lines, like Roxie's "I gotta pee", had been left out. Mama Morton's supposed lesbianism wasn't mentioned once: the "let them in, butch" line was out, for example. The mormon refrence in Cell Block Tango was cut, too.
Secondly, Mary Sunshine really was a woman. This annoyed me. I liked the character on Broadway with that gorgeous falsetto and the surprising scene in the end where he gets unmasked. But now A Little Bit of Good somewhat lost its point, even though they had inserted a dance scene featuring "the boys of the press club."
Thirdly, there wasn't any performance to Hunyak's hanging. She stood on the orchestra stand with a projection of a noose, the lights went off and it was announced she was hanged.
Fourthly, the girls didn't dance their Hot Honey Rag in the end. The scene dissolved straight from the duet part of Nowadays to the reprise of All That Jazz.
The first one of these examples could still be accepted as mistakes in the translation – if you suspend your disbelief for a bit. But the latter things make me think... If you don't have the talents necessary to do this musical, like a male singer with a good falsetto or two ladies who are able to both sing, act and dance their garters off, are you sure Chicago is the right choice for you? I really don't like the thought of making cuts because the cast isn't able to perform the show correctly. In a high school play it's okay, but with professional theatre...
The director Tiina Puumalainen's vision of this musical was another thing that didn't really make me dance with joy. Mostly because it seemed like the director of Chicago the movie's vision transformed on stage rather than her own.
During When You're Good to Mama on I realised what was going on. When I noticed they had swipped The Cell Block Tango's and Mama's song's places just like they do on the movie, and when Mama entered in a glamorous long dress accompanied by handsome men I sighed a little... It seems the director of this version loves the movie's concept where every song happens in Roxie's imagination. She tried to bring the fantasy aspect on stage, too, rather than reaching the show from the vaudeville show point of view like on Broadway.
But, in my opinion, the movie kept showing a bit too strongly in this production.
In some ways, trying to be like the movie improved the show. The sets, for example, were definitely more innovative and good-looking than their pretty much non-existant Broadway counterparts. The Cell Block Tango looked fantastic with cells in three levels and pole dancers inside them.
But on the downside... When they did They Both Reached For the Gun as a replica of the movie scene, with Roxie's really exaggerated doll-like look and a puppet stage with the journalists as marionettes – all dressed in period costumes – I just wanted to grunt. I don't love replica productions, but I'd surely rather see a replica than something trying to replicate a different form or art. Transitions from silver screen to stage don't always work that prettily! Instead, they often feel quite lazy.
A lot of the costumes reminded me strongly of the movie. Just the idea of them ripping their prison clothing off to reveal glamorous glittering costumes... Roxie's little silver dress for the song Roxie and her blue trial dress were straight from the movie. The idea of having something red in all the murderesses' costumes, except for Hunyak, seemed very movie-inspired. All He Cares About Is Love had showgirls in pink feathery costumes. The girl's white costumes and wall of light bulbs in the back of them in the finale... If they could've made it possible to make the light bulbs flash the text "Roxie and Velma" I've no doubt they would've done it.
To be fair, though, this version of Chicago had its fair share of great moments.
The Finnish Roxie was a great singer, and her speech in the beginning of the song Roxie was just hilarious - you should've seen her demonstrating Amos making love to her... I also loved the trial, especially Billy Flynn cheering the jury to make waves and whoops and his simply hilarious last scene where he left the stage dancing along the exit music and showing victory signs with both his hands.
I Can't Do It Alone, with Velma dancing along a shadow projection of her sister, was really clever.
The dancers weren't bad, neither. My only complaint with them is that there seemed to be a little too few of them and the stage seemed a bit empty at some points. But the Cell Block Tango scene was easily the greatest-looking scene of the show and it really showed off the cast's talents.
But somehow this musical left me feeling left down.
Maybe it's to do with the musical arrangements – Sara deemed the music foggy and some parts left me desiring more, too. When You're Good to Mama seemed way too clean, for example – or maybe with the too striking recemblance to the movie, but this version of Chicago didn't leave me feeling happy or humming the tunes, like the movie and the Broadway version did.
Luckily it's only three weeks left before I'll see a Finnish version of Les Misérables, my favourite musical.
If it's good it'll help me to forget a dozen of bad adaptations.
If it's bad it's my faith in Finnish theatres and possibly in humanity will get crushed.
No pressure, Åbo Svenska Teater! No pressure!
Pictures by Petri Kovalainen /
I'm a rational person and usually think things through with sense and order. I love paying attention to differences between productions and can watch the same show many times just to see all the details.
My friend, Sara, is quite different. She lives with the show, laughs and cries. If the show is good, it's easy for her to forget everything going on around her and just focus on feeling for the characters. I'm also about a dozen times more critical than Sara. We both saw the current West End Grease. I thought it was bad with its too small stage, not-so-ambitious sets and costumes, boring and too loud musical arrangements and weird acting choices. But Sara thought the music was groovy and the feeling good and enjoyed the show.
So, when we left the theatre playing Chicago and her first words were "it let a lot to hope for"... It certainly was not just me who thought there was something wrong with the show.
Part of my mood might have to do with the fact that when I had walked halfway to the train station in the morning I realised I had forgotten my aspirin at home. Of course I got a headache in the theatre. But it was not really bad, luckily. I was very much able to focus on the show. So, let's see...
The show started weirdly. If you've ever seen Chicago on Broadway – and I suppose this goes for West End, too? – you know it begins with one of the dancers walking to the centre of the stage and telling the audience they're about to see a show about all the things dear to us, like cheating, murder etc.
But here the show began with the overture. During it the actors played a little scene of how Velma murdered her sister. It was followed by a man welcoming the audience, saying the lines the show usually begins with and starting to sing All That Jazz.
I felt very confused at this point.
Usually I'm all for non-replica productions. The really different Finnish Cats started my interest in musical theatre, Finnish Mary Poppins worked greatly as a non-replica and Wicked wasn't bad, neither. And even if the adaptation doesn't quite work I still appreciate the director trying something different and showing their own vision. But messing with the script of the show from the first minute? I think this form of adaptating might be a little bit too liberal for me...
To my relief Velma came in to do the rest of the song. However, I thought there wasn't something quite right with her. I don't like critiquing people like this, but I feel this review won't be quite complete if I leave this unsaid. In my opinion, Velma is supposed to be sexy, sassy and charismatic. Even if she's not quite a teenager anymore, she's supposed to be a believable, energetic cabaret dancer.
Unfortunately Sari Siikander's Velma wasn't all of these things. This is of course just my opinion, but I just didn't feel the character through Siikander's performance, I don't think she fit the part. The horrible red hairstyle and the little bit too uncomfortably revealing and tight costumes didn't really help, looks-wise... Putting that aside, she had an alright voice, even if her dancing might had left something to hope for.
But then again, I thought Eriikka Väliahde's Roxie was great and had a lovely voice, as did Billy Flynn – whoever it might have been that played the role today since there are three opinions in the cast list and I had hard time spotting any "in the roles tonight" signs. Mama Morton and Amos weren't bad, neither.
But what I wonder the most about the casting is the addition of an MC. He started the show with his rendition of All That Jazz and he, in his clown type makeup and suit, kept popping up in various places in the show. He did all the announcements, acted as Billy Flynn's and Mama Morton's assistant and played the doctor in the beginning of the second act. He also sung more parts of other characters' songs, like the beginning of I Can't Do It Alone. It was a bit of a weird choice to me, but I think I can see what they were trying to achieve and appreciate them for that.
That wasn't the only change, though. There were other weird alternations around.
Firstly, Billy's speech about what kinds of love he cares about had been modified: the punchline about physical love not being so bad either had been left out. All That Jazz also seemed different to me: the murder scene had been somehow expanded and some lines, like Roxie's "I gotta pee", had been left out. Mama Morton's supposed lesbianism wasn't mentioned once: the "let them in, butch" line was out, for example. The mormon refrence in Cell Block Tango was cut, too.
Secondly, Mary Sunshine really was a woman. This annoyed me. I liked the character on Broadway with that gorgeous falsetto and the surprising scene in the end where he gets unmasked. But now A Little Bit of Good somewhat lost its point, even though they had inserted a dance scene featuring "the boys of the press club."
Thirdly, there wasn't any performance to Hunyak's hanging. She stood on the orchestra stand with a projection of a noose, the lights went off and it was announced she was hanged.
Fourthly, the girls didn't dance their Hot Honey Rag in the end. The scene dissolved straight from the duet part of Nowadays to the reprise of All That Jazz.
The first one of these examples could still be accepted as mistakes in the translation – if you suspend your disbelief for a bit. But the latter things make me think... If you don't have the talents necessary to do this musical, like a male singer with a good falsetto or two ladies who are able to both sing, act and dance their garters off, are you sure Chicago is the right choice for you? I really don't like the thought of making cuts because the cast isn't able to perform the show correctly. In a high school play it's okay, but with professional theatre...
The director Tiina Puumalainen's vision of this musical was another thing that didn't really make me dance with joy. Mostly because it seemed like the director of Chicago the movie's vision transformed on stage rather than her own.
During When You're Good to Mama on I realised what was going on. When I noticed they had swipped The Cell Block Tango's and Mama's song's places just like they do on the movie, and when Mama entered in a glamorous long dress accompanied by handsome men I sighed a little... It seems the director of this version loves the movie's concept where every song happens in Roxie's imagination. She tried to bring the fantasy aspect on stage, too, rather than reaching the show from the vaudeville show point of view like on Broadway.
But, in my opinion, the movie kept showing a bit too strongly in this production.
In some ways, trying to be like the movie improved the show. The sets, for example, were definitely more innovative and good-looking than their pretty much non-existant Broadway counterparts. The Cell Block Tango looked fantastic with cells in three levels and pole dancers inside them.
But on the downside... When they did They Both Reached For the Gun as a replica of the movie scene, with Roxie's really exaggerated doll-like look and a puppet stage with the journalists as marionettes – all dressed in period costumes – I just wanted to grunt. I don't love replica productions, but I'd surely rather see a replica than something trying to replicate a different form or art. Transitions from silver screen to stage don't always work that prettily! Instead, they often feel quite lazy.
A lot of the costumes reminded me strongly of the movie. Just the idea of them ripping their prison clothing off to reveal glamorous glittering costumes... Roxie's little silver dress for the song Roxie and her blue trial dress were straight from the movie. The idea of having something red in all the murderesses' costumes, except for Hunyak, seemed very movie-inspired. All He Cares About Is Love had showgirls in pink feathery costumes. The girl's white costumes and wall of light bulbs in the back of them in the finale... If they could've made it possible to make the light bulbs flash the text "Roxie and Velma" I've no doubt they would've done it.
To be fair, though, this version of Chicago had its fair share of great moments.
The Finnish Roxie was a great singer, and her speech in the beginning of the song Roxie was just hilarious - you should've seen her demonstrating Amos making love to her... I also loved the trial, especially Billy Flynn cheering the jury to make waves and whoops and his simply hilarious last scene where he left the stage dancing along the exit music and showing victory signs with both his hands.
I Can't Do It Alone, with Velma dancing along a shadow projection of her sister, was really clever.
The dancers weren't bad, neither. My only complaint with them is that there seemed to be a little too few of them and the stage seemed a bit empty at some points. But the Cell Block Tango scene was easily the greatest-looking scene of the show and it really showed off the cast's talents.
But somehow this musical left me feeling left down.
Maybe it's to do with the musical arrangements – Sara deemed the music foggy and some parts left me desiring more, too. When You're Good to Mama seemed way too clean, for example – or maybe with the too striking recemblance to the movie, but this version of Chicago didn't leave me feeling happy or humming the tunes, like the movie and the Broadway version did.
Luckily it's only three weeks left before I'll see a Finnish version of Les Misérables, my favourite musical.
If it's good it'll help me to forget a dozen of bad adaptations.
If it's bad it's my faith in Finnish theatres and possibly in humanity will get crushed.
No pressure, Åbo Svenska Teater! No pressure!
Pictures by Petri Kovalainen /
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Critics Gonna Criticize
I went to see the Finnish version of Wicked two days ago and had lots of fun. The music was, as usual, very grand and catchy with big orchestrations and talented singers, and the visuals amazed me more than once. Not a boring moment!
Today Helsingin Sanomat, Finland's biggest newspaper, released their critic Suna Vuori's review of the show.
As I guessed when picking the paper from the mailbox, the critique hardly found anything good with the show.
The story is a "quickly forgettable mess", the themes of the piece are "the most ordinary", the music is "unmoving and disposable", the dancing is "fast food, self-evident filler", the political references "slip to the state of incomprehensibleness", the moral is "unclear from the beginning", there are "dead moments" all along the show and even the characters lose all their charm during second act. At least, and as her only positive words, Vuori mentions how the leading ladies did a great job and how the visuals save some of the dead scenes.
In her comment she adds that it's odd how Elphaba doesn't mourn and Nessa's death and how even her 11 years old kid got bored in the theatre.
This review made my blood pressure go up by several notches.
Sure! The story of Wicked might not be on the same level as the classics like Jesus Christ Superstar or Les Misérables!
Sure! The music of Wicked doesn't quite live up to Stephen Sondheim's Sweeney Todd!
Sure! The dancing is worse than in freaking Swan Lake!
But seriously, I hope there's never enough cynicism and hate towards life in me to become a newspaper critic.
Firstly, Wicked's target group is teenage girls, not middle aged women. I went to the premiere with my friend, who, just like me, happens to be a 17 years old girl. She had never seen the show or heard the songs before. Let's see what she has to say about the show:
"The singers had strong and emotionally rich voices - especially Elphaba's voice was lovely. There was great dancing with smooth movements, beautiful costumes and sets and epic music! Also, I thought the story wasn't predictable. As a whole, the show inspired me!"
Secondly, let's take a closer look at Vuori's opinions and try to anwer to them, one by one.
The story was a quickly forgettable mess.
I admit I can see Vuori's point here, even though I don't compeletly agree. Especially considering The Wizard of Oz isn't a tale every kid is familiar with in Finland, the story can seem a bit difficult to Finns. As I've noticed before, the whole Animal rights subplot seemed rushed to me.
Despite that, I really wouldn't claim the story forgettable! Am I wrong, or aren't there thousands of people who have indentified with Elphaba and found her story touching?
The themes of the piece are the most ordinary.
As the themes, Vuori mentions good, evil, being different and friendship.
Let's think about some other classic pieces of musical theatre. West Side Story: being different. Sweeney Todd: evil. Les Misérables: good, evil. The Phantom of the Opera: being different. RENT: being different, friendship.
Yep. Wicked's themes seem to be the most ordinary. But if we start hating these themes we also have to start hating about every musical out there! In my opinion, this thought could be turned upside down: it's admirable how Wicked manages to be entertaining and feel fresh when tackling with such common - or actually, not common, but universal - issues.
The music is unmoving and disposable.
CD Universe all time sales rank for Wicked's original Broadway cast recording: #19.
Amazon.com bestsellers rank: #60 in all music, #5 in Broadway Vocalists.
Amazon.co.uk bestsellers rank: #158 in all music, #2 in Musicals.
Tower.com sales rank: #40 in all music, #6 in soundtrack.
Maybe this tiny peek at the CD sales tell something about how unmoving and disposable people think the music is.
And as my own opinion, I can say Defying Gravity is one of the about four songs that have ever made me cry, and hearing Maria Ylipää's "The Wizard and I" live two days ago made shivers run down my spine. Maybe the music isn't all perfect, but I think it's wrong to claim it unmoving. In my opinion, it's packed with strong feelings!
The dancing is fast food, self-evident filler.
Both me and my friend missed Elphaba's entrance to the Ozdust Ballroom because we were enchanted by Fiyero's (Tuukka Leppänen) dancing.
The political references slip to the state of incomprehensibleness.
For this version of Wicked, I pretty much have to agree here. First, I feel so embarrassed that until reading Vuori's review I didn't realise the Finnish Wizard is meant to be a Stalin look-a-like (see a picture here) - now, when looking at the picture, it's so obvious!
But yes, if you look at "Wonderful" as Stalin singing about his wonderfulness, I can see you can get confused, offended and annoyed. I think the allegory between the Wizard and Stalin doesn't work that well. I don't know if I would put it as harshly as Vuori did, claiming "the director Hans Berndtsson's vision of history stuns me with its stupidity", though...
However, I think this will fly over the heads of a lot of the audience, at least the youngest part of it.
The moral is unclear from the beginning.
Granted, the Animals subplot could be more visible, but it's not the only part of the story's moral Vuori critiques. She also doesn't get "what moral is included into good's transformation to evil and evil's transformation to good". "Is the messy story's moral, perhaps, that people will transform into what others think they are", she questions. "Or that it's dangerous to get all you want?"
Let me tell you: yes, the moral of the story has to do with becoming what others think you are. You could argue that's the main point of the story, Elphaba becoming evil because everybody keeps going on about how wicked she is. Glad you got it, even though it seemed so unclear to you!
There are dead moments.
Where? I didn't notice any, I thought they were all well alive and kicking.
The characters lose all their charm during second act.
Vuori thinks "Elphaba's bitterness and isolation makes her boring and grumpy, while Glinda's character loses its shine and becomes a cardboard cutout". If so, it has to do with Baum's original book, since the second act brings the characters closer to the originals.
I think especially Glinda doesn't become boring: she shows she can be a strong leader and probably feels secretly sad for the rest of her life because of Elphaba's death and Fiyero's disappearance, even though she can never show that to anyone. I think that's far from cardboard! And as for Elphaba, she sure becomes angrier - but that's kind of the point of being a bad witch, huh?
And maybe the weird obsession about the shoes was Elphaba's way to mourn? Nessa is one of the people she mentions in No Good Deed, motivating her decision to stop trying to do good. I'm sure Elphaba did mourn her - but adding a scene with her crying about it wouldn't have added enough to the plot, so it was better left undone.
The people who comment on the theatre's homepage are backing me up with this: there are already many comments about the too strong and unfair "critiquefying" of Wicked.
It seems Finnish audiences love the show - too bad the newspaper managed to find a hater and paid for her to bring her hate to everybody's breakfast table.
Wicked isn't the deepest or the most thought-provoking show out there. But it's one of the sweetest eye and ear candies in the world of musical theatre, not completely without its share of touching moments! If you haven't swallowed a lemon whole before entering the theatre, I bet you'll have a really fun evening filled with songs you're going to hum along the whole next week!
See my long review of the show at this link. Pictures here
Sunday, August 15, 2010
"A New Musical from an Enchanted Land"
As I predicted, a writer's block struck me almost immediately after writing the last post and I've been cruelly neglecting this little blog for weeks. But today, upon finding out that at least one people has read my writings, I'm full with new hope and confidence! A special thank you for that!
And now, to the actual subject of this post: I'm starting to get very excited about the upcoming Finnish premiere of Wicked. The first non-replica production in the world, I might add!
Wicked's not one of my absolute top favourite musicals, though. I've seen it live once but due to the very sad news I'd heard just before the show I was in a really wrong mood to enjoy it. I like the cast recording, however.
But what really excites me here is the idea of a non-replica production.
I don't particularly like the idea of replica productions.
Of course, I'm biased since I've had the chance to see shows on both Broadway and West End and don't need the opportunity to see copies of them. But something about a show being the same in every place around the globe doesn't appeal to me. Partly because I think directors should get the chance to put their own vision of the material onstage and shouldn't be stuck supervising a new production of someone else's concept. And partly because some replica productions get so expensive no theatre in Finland has the chance to do them. The Phantom of the Opera, for example, isn't likely to get a Finnish version with such a cost.
But this new version of Wicked certainly is interesting! It's got my favourite Finnish actor, Tuukka Leppänen, as Fiyero, and the new designs and costumes seem intriguing.
The theatre doing Wicked hasn't made it possible for other people than reporters to get their press photos, though. I hate when they do that - what harm could be done giving the pictures to everybody so they can blog about your show? I'd still very much like to say a couple of things about what I've got to see so far in their online magazine - it has a realistic page turning gadget that's really fun to play with, I might add.
So, let's click that link and have a look!
First, let's talk about the cover - or actually, let's talk about their photos and marketing strategy in general.
I've been frustrated with a couple of things with this.
Firstly, I don't understand how hard it can be to do the green makeup for the actress playing Elphaba for the photoshoots. Let's take the logo they're using in all their ads for example. It can be seen at here. Talk about horrible photoshopping... Were they consiciously going for the plastic feeling or were they just unfortunate to have some intern do their artwork? Whatever the case, now this photoshop disaster can be seen all around Helsinki, often in gigantic size.
Actually, their marketing is pretty messed altogether. The Wizard of Oz isn't that known in Finland, and I get the feeling they're trying to avoid the subject. Their press release only mentioned Gregory Maguire's Wicked, there wasn't a word about the whole thing being based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz!
The intro on the theatre's homepage isn't better in any way. Well, it does mention Baum's book, but otherwise it's a horribly written mess. It's done by a journalist who was apparently having a really bad day - it's hard to find any facts or even sense in the article. I'm afraid no one who doesn't know about the musical already will have the slightest idea what it's about after reading it.
The tagline, "A new musical from an enchanted world", says nothing about anything.
But back to the pictures. The cover of the web magazine is already a lot better and doesn't scream "Photoshop!" so loudly anymore, if we manage to ignore Elphaba's lips. And, turning to the first page, we get a little sneak peek of As Long As You're Mine. I believe the tattoo on Fiyero's neck is a new idea, and I like it! Also, Elphaba's lips are finally red on stage, not only in posters!
Turning page again we get more photos. At least my gaze went straight to Elphaba's dress. And I think it looks lovely, the red stripes and the slight transparency on the sleeves are interesting details. And the quite heavy-looking boots fits her character perfectly, at least in my opinion! Fiyero's costume, then again, is pretty dull, but that's understandable - we wouldn't want the supporting romantic interest to outshine our heroine!
Higher on the page we see Glinda in her bubble. I've a feeling this one won't blow soap bubbles as it floats around, but I like the design. Much more bubble-like than the original, I think.
Turning the page, we see Glinda in the dress she was wearing in the bubble, apparently. Quite different from the original, there's not such a strong movie influence here. I'm not sure if I like this one or not... The colour isn't one of my favourites, but then again, I should see the whole thing before saying anything.
But what confuses me is that Dorothy seems to be hanging out in the background. What? Have they found a place in the musical for her? Very weird, I can't wait to see what's that about!
Turning page yet again we see Madame Morrible, I guess. Very interesting hairdo, I'd say, but not in a bad way! No more pictures here, though, and that's the end of the Wicked part of the magazine.
Anyway, the text on the Madame Morrible page deserves a mention before I finish my own writing for tonight.
It says that Stephen Schwartz will be attending the Finnish premiere. And guess who is also going to that premiere! Schwartz isn't my favourite composer, but still, I don't think any musical fan can handle the prospect of seeing a famous musical composer/lyricist live without feeling excited!
Of course, it's not too likely I'd really get to meet him in the lobby of the theatre, but I'm already figuring out ways to ask for an autograph...
And now, to the actual subject of this post: I'm starting to get very excited about the upcoming Finnish premiere of Wicked. The first non-replica production in the world, I might add!
Wicked's not one of my absolute top favourite musicals, though. I've seen it live once but due to the very sad news I'd heard just before the show I was in a really wrong mood to enjoy it. I like the cast recording, however.
But what really excites me here is the idea of a non-replica production.
I don't particularly like the idea of replica productions.
Of course, I'm biased since I've had the chance to see shows on both Broadway and West End and don't need the opportunity to see copies of them. But something about a show being the same in every place around the globe doesn't appeal to me. Partly because I think directors should get the chance to put their own vision of the material onstage and shouldn't be stuck supervising a new production of someone else's concept. And partly because some replica productions get so expensive no theatre in Finland has the chance to do them. The Phantom of the Opera, for example, isn't likely to get a Finnish version with such a cost.
But this new version of Wicked certainly is interesting! It's got my favourite Finnish actor, Tuukka Leppänen, as Fiyero, and the new designs and costumes seem intriguing.
The theatre doing Wicked hasn't made it possible for other people than reporters to get their press photos, though. I hate when they do that - what harm could be done giving the pictures to everybody so they can blog about your show? I'd still very much like to say a couple of things about what I've got to see so far in their online magazine - it has a realistic page turning gadget that's really fun to play with, I might add.
So, let's click that link and have a look!
First, let's talk about the cover - or actually, let's talk about their photos and marketing strategy in general.
I've been frustrated with a couple of things with this.
Firstly, I don't understand how hard it can be to do the green makeup for the actress playing Elphaba for the photoshoots. Let's take the logo they're using in all their ads for example. It can be seen at here. Talk about horrible photoshopping... Were they consiciously going for the plastic feeling or were they just unfortunate to have some intern do their artwork? Whatever the case, now this photoshop disaster can be seen all around Helsinki, often in gigantic size.
Actually, their marketing is pretty messed altogether. The Wizard of Oz isn't that known in Finland, and I get the feeling they're trying to avoid the subject. Their press release only mentioned Gregory Maguire's Wicked, there wasn't a word about the whole thing being based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz!
The intro on the theatre's homepage isn't better in any way. Well, it does mention Baum's book, but otherwise it's a horribly written mess. It's done by a journalist who was apparently having a really bad day - it's hard to find any facts or even sense in the article. I'm afraid no one who doesn't know about the musical already will have the slightest idea what it's about after reading it.
The tagline, "A new musical from an enchanted world", says nothing about anything.
But back to the pictures. The cover of the web magazine is already a lot better and doesn't scream "Photoshop!" so loudly anymore, if we manage to ignore Elphaba's lips. And, turning to the first page, we get a little sneak peek of As Long As You're Mine. I believe the tattoo on Fiyero's neck is a new idea, and I like it! Also, Elphaba's lips are finally red on stage, not only in posters!
Turning page again we get more photos. At least my gaze went straight to Elphaba's dress. And I think it looks lovely, the red stripes and the slight transparency on the sleeves are interesting details. And the quite heavy-looking boots fits her character perfectly, at least in my opinion! Fiyero's costume, then again, is pretty dull, but that's understandable - we wouldn't want the supporting romantic interest to outshine our heroine!
Higher on the page we see Glinda in her bubble. I've a feeling this one won't blow soap bubbles as it floats around, but I like the design. Much more bubble-like than the original, I think.
Turning the page, we see Glinda in the dress she was wearing in the bubble, apparently. Quite different from the original, there's not such a strong movie influence here. I'm not sure if I like this one or not... The colour isn't one of my favourites, but then again, I should see the whole thing before saying anything.
But what confuses me is that Dorothy seems to be hanging out in the background. What? Have they found a place in the musical for her? Very weird, I can't wait to see what's that about!
Turning page yet again we see Madame Morrible, I guess. Very interesting hairdo, I'd say, but not in a bad way! No more pictures here, though, and that's the end of the Wicked part of the magazine.
Anyway, the text on the Madame Morrible page deserves a mention before I finish my own writing for tonight.
It says that Stephen Schwartz will be attending the Finnish premiere. And guess who is also going to that premiere! Schwartz isn't my favourite composer, but still, I don't think any musical fan can handle the prospect of seeing a famous musical composer/lyricist live without feeling excited!
Of course, it's not too likely I'd really get to meet him in the lobby of the theatre, but I'm already figuring out ways to ask for an autograph...
Saturday, July 17, 2010
In Continuation...
...of the subject of the previous post, because I'm a hopeless Les Mis fangirl and can't get enough of it, no matter what. Nearly everyone I know has informed me about their frustration of the mentioned obsession at least once. I promise to write about something else, later!
But now I feel like writing a couple of words about the 1998 Les Mis film adaptation directed by Bille August.
I found the movie from Aalborg, too. It was the kind of store where there are empty cases on the shelves and then they give you the DVD when you go to pay for it. They gave me the wrong DVD but luckily I remembered to check what I'd gotten before leaving the town... And now, back home with my new movie I found the time to actually watch it. Let's see and try to keep it short (even though a bit spoilerish)!
I found the movie's first half very nice. Liam Neeson was a great Valjean. And of course I paid quite a lot of attention to Javert, and Geoffrey Rush didn't disappoint me - even though they'd given him the most unflattering haircut and a hideous hat for the first half of the film.
I have to admit something to you: I've read the book Les Misérables only once, and even then it was an abridged version. Sometimes I toy with the idea of reading the book again but then I remember the last time when it took me a month and a half (and that's not because I'd be a slow reader, I've read all the Harry Potters in less than a month) and don't feel up to starting again anytime soon. There's just too much stuffing between the plot, at least in my opinion... But maybe I'll read it again once with a bit of cheating during the most boring parts, who knows.
Still, the first half of the film seemed to follow what I remembered about the book very closely. I'm not sure how accurate the cute scenes between Valjean and Fantine (Uma Thurman, great too) were, but I somewhat enjoyed them.
But when the movie got to the part where Cosette is grown up and they live in Paris with Valjean it got a bit odd.
Removing Eponine from the story didn't matter to me, but the biggest "what the he-" moment was when I noticed they'd made Marius the leader of the revolution, in other words, combined him with Enjolras. I can see why, if they'd film the whole book it would fill several DVDs... But this seemed a bit weird since Marius' character was hardly anything like himself anymore. And fancy them removing the garden where Marius and Cosette could be all romantic and replacing it with some shoddy bench on the street!
The revolution, too, felt a bit rushed when thinking they used over an hour with the events in the town Valjean was the mayor of. And Valjean admitting Cosette he loved Fantine? Uh, yeah? Maybe you can interpret it like that, maybe...
But the second half wasn't all bad, neither. My favourite part came right before the end credits, and if you haven't seen/read Les Mis and are still reading this for some reason beyond my understanding I have to warn you of spoilers.
Javert's suicide. Wow. I don't know what it was about that scene, but although I knew how it was going to end I really felt the excitement and my heart was bounding twice the normal speed... Having Javert talk to Valjean before isn't accurate according to the book but it was definitely better choice than having a voiceover, it really built up the suspension. Though, in my point of view, most of the suspense had to do with "oh I'm so certain he's going to shoot himself instead of jumping in the river", not so much with "oh is he going to kill Valjean or not?"
Well, he did jump in the river. I found it a good decision to end the movie with Valjean walking away, relieved, instead of having all that wedding and dying in the end. Gives the story a nice, hopeful ending.
And maybe this is the right place to end this ramble for now, too. Make my day (or my tomorrow, it's bedtime soon), leave a comment!
But now I feel like writing a couple of words about the 1998 Les Mis film adaptation directed by Bille August.
I found the movie from Aalborg, too. It was the kind of store where there are empty cases on the shelves and then they give you the DVD when you go to pay for it. They gave me the wrong DVD but luckily I remembered to check what I'd gotten before leaving the town... And now, back home with my new movie I found the time to actually watch it. Let's see and try to keep it short (even though a bit spoilerish)!
I found the movie's first half very nice. Liam Neeson was a great Valjean. And of course I paid quite a lot of attention to Javert, and Geoffrey Rush didn't disappoint me - even though they'd given him the most unflattering haircut and a hideous hat for the first half of the film.
I have to admit something to you: I've read the book Les Misérables only once, and even then it was an abridged version. Sometimes I toy with the idea of reading the book again but then I remember the last time when it took me a month and a half (and that's not because I'd be a slow reader, I've read all the Harry Potters in less than a month) and don't feel up to starting again anytime soon. There's just too much stuffing between the plot, at least in my opinion... But maybe I'll read it again once with a bit of cheating during the most boring parts, who knows.
Still, the first half of the film seemed to follow what I remembered about the book very closely. I'm not sure how accurate the cute scenes between Valjean and Fantine (Uma Thurman, great too) were, but I somewhat enjoyed them.
But when the movie got to the part where Cosette is grown up and they live in Paris with Valjean it got a bit odd.
Removing Eponine from the story didn't matter to me, but the biggest "what the he-" moment was when I noticed they'd made Marius the leader of the revolution, in other words, combined him with Enjolras. I can see why, if they'd film the whole book it would fill several DVDs... But this seemed a bit weird since Marius' character was hardly anything like himself anymore. And fancy them removing the garden where Marius and Cosette could be all romantic and replacing it with some shoddy bench on the street!
The revolution, too, felt a bit rushed when thinking they used over an hour with the events in the town Valjean was the mayor of. And Valjean admitting Cosette he loved Fantine? Uh, yeah? Maybe you can interpret it like that, maybe...
But the second half wasn't all bad, neither. My favourite part came right before the end credits, and if you haven't seen/read Les Mis and are still reading this for some reason beyond my understanding I have to warn you of spoilers.
Javert's suicide. Wow. I don't know what it was about that scene, but although I knew how it was going to end I really felt the excitement and my heart was bounding twice the normal speed... Having Javert talk to Valjean before isn't accurate according to the book but it was definitely better choice than having a voiceover, it really built up the suspension. Though, in my point of view, most of the suspense had to do with "oh I'm so certain he's going to shoot himself instead of jumping in the river", not so much with "oh is he going to kill Valjean or not?"
Well, he did jump in the river. I found it a good decision to end the movie with Valjean walking away, relieved, instead of having all that wedding and dying in the end. Gives the story a nice, hopeful ending.
And maybe this is the right place to end this ramble for now, too. Make my day (or my tomorrow, it's bedtime soon), leave a comment!
Friday, July 16, 2010
Little Les Misness
I was on a holiday to Denmark last week.
When I returned home Monday I was happy for a lot of reasons, but a couple of them had to do with Les Misérables - a musical I've been obsessed with for over a year now.
First of all, I had found a Danish Les Mis CD from Aalborg. Danish is a language I don't understand one word of, and I got to admit the CD wasn't too special. The orchestrations reminded me of the 1992 Paris revival one. Nothing too much compared to my number one favourite, Dutch 2008 revival, for example... I could also criticise the odd cuts: I wonder why they felt suitable to cut Who Am I but record Javert's Arrival?
But I also got to admit that I was surfing the net so frantically while listening to it that I might've missed some special touches. At least Javert's "no" (or in this case, "ej") during The Prologue made me giggle for some reason (2:49 at here).
The second one made me even happier than having some Danish tunes to listen to.
Åbo Svenska Teater, a Finnish theatre that's putting up a non-replica production of Les Misérables next fall, had released some press photos featuring Marius, Valjean, Cosette and Javert!
I love non-replica productions and find it fascinating to see what different productions can come up with the same characters. So far it seems like they're going to give us a great show - even though they've quite a small stage and will be singing in Swedish. While I study the language at school my understanding of it still lacks more than a little... But then again, I love the Dutch revival and understand about a word of the language.
Now, back to the subject: let's see some Les Mis awesomeness in the form of photographs!
I know they still can change the costumes seen in these pictures before the premiere. But, just for this blog post, let's imagine these are the ones they'll use.
Sweeet.
I love these pictures and especially the one above! It's cute how Valjean is kind of protecting Cosette from the cruel world with it's amorous student boys and obsessed inspectors and all that. Of course, it's somewhat weird how the picture seems to stage Marius as one of the villains - but maybe Marius is just that in Valjean's mind.
I love how Cosette has blond hair here, like in the 25th Anniversary Tour. To me it's always seemed logical to give her blond hair, what with her mother's golden locks. I'm happy they did it here. I'm also happy about how the costume is something new compared to the traditional black one.
I've been told the actress playing Cosette has already played the part eleven years ago, when Les Mis ran in Finland the previous time, so she must be on the limits of being too old for Cosette - but luckily that doesn't really show in the pictures.
What I don't quite buy is Marius. In my opinion he does look a bit too old for a student... And more importantly, his costume seems a bit unimaginative. Black hair, black sunken eyes, black tie, black coat, yawn...
Sure, he's not one for flashy colours in London, neither. Still, his apparel seems somewhat boring, especially when you compare it to Valjean's.
Quite a bit lighter from the London One Day More costume, for example, and I like it! The colour combination of the coat and that violet... bow... thingy... looks very good to me. And he doesn't have a beard! Wonder if that will change before the actual show... Hopefully not, since I really like this look and can't wait to see the rest of his costumes. I'm especially curious about how they'll handle the barricade uniform.
Then to Javert. I'm a bit of a Javert fangirl, so this is the crucial point...
And I can tell you, I'm already a little bit in love. Even though his sideburns seem to be screaming something about not being really detached of his face, and screaming that pretty loudly. (Has there ever been a Javert without sideburns in any version of Les Misérables? I'd love to know!) But the costume seems great with those... things on the shoulders... - please, someone, educate me about these fashion terms! I'm doing terribly, even though my favourite TV show at the moment is Project Runway! - and he has a great Javert-ish stare going on in the both of the pictures.
Hopefully he has a great voice, too! Since he also played this role eleven years ago I believe (or hope, at least) that they wouldn't have hired him again if he wasn't good.
So... Can't wait for October 2nd!
Photos by Nana Simelius.
When I returned home Monday I was happy for a lot of reasons, but a couple of them had to do with Les Misérables - a musical I've been obsessed with for over a year now.
First of all, I had found a Danish Les Mis CD from Aalborg. Danish is a language I don't understand one word of, and I got to admit the CD wasn't too special. The orchestrations reminded me of the 1992 Paris revival one. Nothing too much compared to my number one favourite, Dutch 2008 revival, for example... I could also criticise the odd cuts: I wonder why they felt suitable to cut Who Am I but record Javert's Arrival?
But I also got to admit that I was surfing the net so frantically while listening to it that I might've missed some special touches. At least Javert's "no" (or in this case, "ej") during The Prologue made me giggle for some reason (2:49 at here).
The second one made me even happier than having some Danish tunes to listen to.
Åbo Svenska Teater, a Finnish theatre that's putting up a non-replica production of Les Misérables next fall, had released some press photos featuring Marius, Valjean, Cosette and Javert!
I love non-replica productions and find it fascinating to see what different productions can come up with the same characters. So far it seems like they're going to give us a great show - even though they've quite a small stage and will be singing in Swedish. While I study the language at school my understanding of it still lacks more than a little... But then again, I love the Dutch revival and understand about a word of the language.
Now, back to the subject: let's see some Les Mis awesomeness in the form of photographs!
Sweeet.
I love these pictures and especially the one above! It's cute how Valjean is kind of protecting Cosette from the cruel world with it's amorous student boys and obsessed inspectors and all that. Of course, it's somewhat weird how the picture seems to stage Marius as one of the villains - but maybe Marius is just that in Valjean's mind.
I've been told the actress playing Cosette has already played the part eleven years ago, when Les Mis ran in Finland the previous time, so she must be on the limits of being too old for Cosette - but luckily that doesn't really show in the pictures.
Sure, he's not one for flashy colours in London, neither. Still, his apparel seems somewhat boring, especially when you compare it to Valjean's.
And I can tell you, I'm already a little bit in love. Even though his sideburns seem to be screaming something about not being really detached of his face, and screaming that pretty loudly. (Has there ever been a Javert without sideburns in any version of Les Misérables? I'd love to know!) But the costume seems great with those... things on the shoulders... - please, someone, educate me about these fashion terms! I'm doing terribly, even though my favourite TV show at the moment is Project Runway! - and he has a great Javert-ish stare going on in the both of the pictures.
Hopefully he has a great voice, too! Since he also played this role eleven years ago I believe (or hope, at least) that they wouldn't have hired him again if he wasn't good.
So... Can't wait for October 2nd!
Photos by Nana Simelius.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Starters
Do you ever have the kind of days when you wake up by the sounds of your neighbour's kids jumping on a trampoline and screaming?
When it's too hot outside and inside to do anything else than lazily play some half-decent computer game?
When none of the songs in your iTunes feels right and you answer to the first notes of your very favourite tunes only with a grumpy "oh no, I don't want to listen to this, shut up!" and a click on the next song button?
When you spend an hour and a half figuring out a name for your new blog?
Maybe it comes as no surprise to you that this day has been a day just like that for me.
There were quite a lot of blog names I rejected during that hour and a half. I almost went for "The Porcupine Cake" but decided the cake looks too stupid to name anything after it. I also thought about "The Locusts! Not My Fault!" and "I Know What Ice Fishing Is" but found them too confusing . "Snow and Monsters" seemed odd during the middle of the summer and "My Essential Opinions" felt a bit too much like stealing the title of The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.
So, Some Superfluous Opinions it is, and that points towards to what I'm going to do with this blog. I'll decorate this space with my opinions and thoughts about whatever I feel like writing about, thoughts that don't always seem to find an avid listener in real life but which I still want to tell someone about. A lot musical nerd talk and some text about movies, I guess, complete with a little bit of random babble here and there.
So, my name is Siiri, I'm a 17-year-old musical-theatre-and-Pixar-movies loving Finnish girl and I'll write another entry as soon as the temperature in this room recedes so that I can think again.
When it's too hot outside and inside to do anything else than lazily play some half-decent computer game?
When none of the songs in your iTunes feels right and you answer to the first notes of your very favourite tunes only with a grumpy "oh no, I don't want to listen to this, shut up!" and a click on the next song button?
When you spend an hour and a half figuring out a name for your new blog?
Maybe it comes as no surprise to you that this day has been a day just like that for me.
There were quite a lot of blog names I rejected during that hour and a half. I almost went for "The Porcupine Cake" but decided the cake looks too stupid to name anything after it. I also thought about "The Locusts! Not My Fault!" and "I Know What Ice Fishing Is" but found them too confusing . "Snow and Monsters" seemed odd during the middle of the summer and "My Essential Opinions" felt a bit too much like stealing the title of The Essential Calvin and Hobbes.
So, Some Superfluous Opinions it is, and that points towards to what I'm going to do with this blog. I'll decorate this space with my opinions and thoughts about whatever I feel like writing about, thoughts that don't always seem to find an avid listener in real life but which I still want to tell someone about. A lot musical nerd talk and some text about movies, I guess, complete with a little bit of random babble here and there.
So, my name is Siiri, I'm a 17-year-old musical-theatre-and-Pixar-movies loving Finnish girl and I'll write another entry as soon as the temperature in this room recedes so that I can think again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)