Two Short Reviews: Scandinavian Trip

Last December, I left for a short trip to Copenhagen and Malmö to enjoy some musical theatre. At long long last, it's review time...

You wouldn't think I'd travel to see this one. I once listed all the problems in Love Never Dies and wrote a short story to contradict the newspaper critic who dared to call it good. If you ask me how I ended up sitting in the front row of Det Ny Teater's auditorium with my friend, waiting for the Phantom sequel to begin... I still don't know, and I've had some months to think about it.

But I do know that I haven't regretted the trip for a second.

If you've read my thoughts on the West End version, you know I think LND's music is okay but the story is beyond stupid. But when you mix it with talented actors, absolutely gorgeous visuals, plus a language I don't understand so I can't be bothered about the lyrics... It took me by surprise how much I enjoyed the show. I was pulled into its world and felt invested in the characters' journeys instead of internally mocking them.

The cast was good. Christian Berg as the always drunk and brooding Comte de Chagny was my favourite, Bo Kristian Jensen as the Phantom made his character quite believable, and Louise Fribo's rendition of the title song (that I usually find boring) was gorgeous. A shoutout to Carl-Emil Lohmann as Gustave, such a beautiful voice!

But for me, what made the Copenhagen Love Never Dies so enjoyable were the visuals. The show looked much better than how I remember the West End production. Here's a production that doesn't pale in comparison to the original Phantom! The sets, the costumes, the acrobatics and pyrotechnics, the subtle nods towards the original's designs, all seen in great detail from the front row... I don't remember when I last was so amazed by the sheer beauty of a theatrical production.

Love Never Dies has been rewritten since the release of the London cast recording. The chances are for the better. Too bad nothing's been done to make the last fifteen minutes of the show more sensible. The last scene was like a slap in the face: I awoke from the dream and realised I'm watching a silly story with a stupid ending. No matter how talented the cast, no matter how pretty the sets, I wish the show would've ended after the title song. (In Phantom III, I wish to see Raoul and the Phantom raising Gustave together, while still hating each others' guts.)

Overall – I still think Phantom fans have every right to be upset about Love Never Dies and its sad excuse of a plot, but I'm glad I saw this. I recommend it for all in need of some eye and ear candy!

Next day, it was time for a trip that's becoming an annual tradition, seeing Malmö Opera's musical of the fall. This time, it was something I've been wanting to see live for a while: Evita. Musical theatre is a funny hobby. I've actually learned something about the life and times of the spiritual leader of Argentina, just because I once thought Don't Cry for Me, Argentina was kind of pretty and wanted to hear more...

Having seen the movie and listened to a couple of CDs, I looked forward seeing Lindy Larsson as Che the most. Well, I knew nothing of Larsson himself beforehand, but I love Che's songs and character. My expectations were through the roof. Even then, Larsson blew me away. He sung the part perfectly, I liked him better than anyone I've heard in the role so far. And his sarcasm, his stage presence... Ugh, I'm risking having a complete fangirl meltdown here. Moving on.

I wasn't quite so into Charlotte Perrelli in the title role. Her vocals were quite strong and her tone vaguely reminded me of Patti LuPone's and Elena Roger's powerhouse portrayals, but I'm afraid the charisma necessary for the part was missing. Probably thanks to Linus Tunström's direction, it seemed the character was never on the top of her game. Eva was always unsure, always frightened. Even Don't Cry for Me, Argentina seemed less than confident. Evita's downfall didn't have much of an effect when she never seemed to be rainbow high at all.

Fred Johanson, then, did a good job in all those two scenes where the character of Perón has some emotion to display. Johanson has a wonderful voice, and seeing him as Javert in 2011 convinced me that he can also act, but this is not a show where he can prove it. Perón simply doesn't have much material to work with. Oh well, I was glad to see Johanson nevertheless.

The staging in this production was quite plain and the lights were harsh. The focus was mostly on the acrobat onstage, Christel Elisabeth Stjernebjerg. Dressed identically to Eva, the acrobat shadowed what the title character was going through: climbing the social ladder, flying, falling. I like the idea, and during some scenes, I understood exactly what the director was going for – but during other scenes, I had no idea what the acrobat was supposed to signify.

Actually, that applies to the whole show. Some scenes worked perfectly, but during some, it seemed the director didn't understand the source material at all. Eva felt quite lost in her own story, even during the moments where extreme confidence is written in the script.

But thanks to Lindy Larsson, I'm happy I saw this.

Love Never Dies photo by Miklos Szabo.
Evita photo by Malin Arnesson.

Laulu mielet kiihdyttää

Dear international readers: my apologies for writing this blog entry only in Finnish. This won't become a habit, I will still write mainly in English – but today's subject, the Finnish translation of Les Misérables, is very hard to discuss in any other language than Finnish. I'll return to English texts soon!

Les Misérables, ennakkonäytös. Pimenevä sali. Elokuvayhtiöiden logot valkokankaalla. Mahtipontiset ensimmäiset nuotit, kameran laajat kaaret. Ensimmäiset lauletut säkeet, silmien eteen lävähtävät suomenkieliset tekstit.

"Oot näin, oot näin

sä lopun elämää"

Jukka Virtanen vääntää kerran Les Misérablesiin täysin tolkuttoman, läpikotaisin epäonnistuneen suomennoksen. Eikä siitä päästä eroon ikinä.

Käännös tehtiin Helsingin kaupunginteatterin vuosien 1999–2000 tuotantoon. Sen jälkeen se on nähty tekstityksenä Åbo Svenska Teaterissa, 25-vuotiskonsertin dvd:llä – ja nyt vuosikausia odotetussa, laajasti mainostetussa elokuvassa. Pian se kuullaan myös Tampereen Teatterissa, laulettuna.

Aloitan sanomalla, että en ymmärrä, miksi musikaalielokuvan tekstityksen täytyy istua musiikkiin. Elokuvateatterissa ei ole sopivaa laulaa karaokea. Miksi siis riimit ja rytmit teksteissä? Seuraisin paljon mieluummin tekstityksiä, jotka tiivistävät selkeästi alkuperäisten säkeiden ajatuksen, mutta eivät sovi tavun tarkkuudella musiikkiin. Eriäviä mielipiteitä saa esittää. Ehkäpä leffatekstit voisivat myös rimmata, kunhan riimeistä ymmärtäisi alkutekstin ytimen.

Virtasen teksteistä ei ymmärrä.

En tunne kääntämistä tieteenlajina. En myöskään muista Virtasen käännöstä ulkoa – yritänhän parhaani mukaan katsoa pois, kun se häälyy lavan yllä tai ruudun alalaidassa. Mutta sen perusteella, mitä siitä on jäänyt mieleen, ja arkijärjellä arvostellen... Käännös on täysin käsittämätön, siinä ei ole sen enempää jatkumoa kuin tyylitajuakaan. Maailman suosituin musikaali on mukiloitu suomennettaessa sellaiseen muotoon, että sitä tuskin tunnistaa.

Tuntuu, kuin Virtanen ei ymmärtäisi hahmojen luonteita ollenkaan. Musikaalissa sanatarkka käännös on mahdoton, kyse on vahvasti tulkinnasta. Siksi hahmojen luonteenpiirteisiin soisi kiinnitettävän kääntäessä erityistä huomiota. Sanat muuttuvat mutta persoona jää – teatterin ystävien unelmissa. Virtasen hahmot eivät ole Victor Hugon, Alain Boublilin tai Herbert Kretzmerin hahmojen kaltaisia. Virtasen Fantine puhuu suorin sanoin neitsyytensä menettämisestä ja hurmion hetkistä. Virtasen Grantairen suurin huolenaihe on se, että hänet unohdetaan hänen kuolemansa jälkeen. Virtasen Jean Valjean komentaa Jumalaa.

Virtasen käännös ei ymmärrä myöskään teoksen perusluonnetta. Les Misérables -musikaali ottaa itsensä täysin vakavasti. Ohjaaja voi halutessaan nauraa musikaalin paatokselle hitusen, ja kyyninen katsoja saattaa pyöritellä silmiään hahmojen kaatuessa oikealla ja vasemmalla, mutta musikaali itse suhtautuu itseensä täysin vailla pilkettä silmäkulmassa. Virtasen käännös ei ymmärrä tätä. Huumoria on käytetty sopimattomissa kohdissa. Paatokselliset säkeet kääntyvät toisinaan puhtaaksi parodiaksi: "Surun sielustani löydän / tuska mieltä ahdistaa."

Virtasen suomennos ei tunnu kokonaisuudelta. Kuunnelkaa esimerkiksi Javertin soolo Tähdet. Mistä laulu kertoo? Joidenkin laulujen aikana vaikuttaa siltä, että Virtanen on kääntänyt ne säe kerrallaan, kiinnittämättä huomiota kokonaisuuteen ja kontekstiin. Monissa kohtauksissa, joissa hyödynnetään toistoa, Virtanen tarjoaa yhdelle fraasille puolen tusinaa eri käännöstä. Sanajärjestykset heittävät toisinaan villiä kuperkeikkaa.

Virtasen käyttämä sanasto ei sovi yhteen alkuperäisen sanoituksen kanssa. Les Misérablesissa käytetään usein melko yksinkertaisia sanoja. Tarina sijoittuu 1800-luvulle, joten loogista olisi, ettei suomennoksessa käytettäisi kovin uusia lainasanoja. Ajaton, yksinkertainen, selkeä kieli sopisi teokseen hyvin. Tässä esimerkki Virtaselta: "Vuosikaudet tulee samat / protestoinnit prosessiin". Sanat eivät myöskään sovi tilanteisiin, joissa hahmot ovat. Käyttäisikö kuolemaansa silmiin katsova mies termiä "hirmuinen"? Entä haaveilisiko 1800-luvun yläluokkainen mies "yhteen muuttamisesta" sydämensä valitun kanssa?

Ihmettelen suuresti, miten jättimäisin julistein mainostettua elokuvaa ei ole tekstitetty ymmärrettävästi. Tajusiko kukaan Finnkinolla edes, että useiden laulujen lyriikoita on muutettu filmiä varten? Eniten harmittaa niiden katsojien puolesta, joiden on vaikea ymmärtää laulettua englantia ja jotka eivät tunne Kurjien tarinaa. He poistunevat teatterista vielä hämmentyneempinä kuin muut Les Mis -ensikertalaiset. Onneksi kielitaitoisten ei ole pakko katsoa tekstejä, ja dvd:llä ne voi napsauttaa kokonaan pois päältä.

Ikävä kyllä kuultua suomen kieltä on täysin mahdotonta lakata ymmärtämästä, kun sen taidon on kerran oppinut. Virtasen tuotannon kruununjalokivi päästään taas kuulemaan laulettuna Tampereen Teatterin syksyllä ensi-iltansa saavassa Les Misérables-tuotannossa.

Elokuvassa alkuperäisteksti on koko ajan katsojan kuultavissa. Sen sijaan suomeksi käännetyssä teatterisovituksessa yleisön on voitava luottaa kääntäjän kykyyn tulkita tekstin kirjoittajan viesti.

En voi ymmärtää, miten Tampereen Teatteri kehtaa käyttää Virtasen käännöstä.

Kaikesta etukäteisrummutuksesta päätellen TT on puuhaamassa Les Misistään jymymenestystä. Miten on mahdollista, että teatteri ei kuitenkaan arvosta yleisöään sen vertaa, että tarjoilisi heille ymmärrettävää suomen kieltä? Kehdattaisiinko samalle yleisölle esittää tunnettu puhenäytelmä, jonka hahmojen repliikit muistuttavat alkuperäistekstiä vain etäisesti ja vääristävät heidän luonteitaan? Miten ihmeessä tällainen käännös on yhtäkkiä hyväksyttävä, kun se on sovitettu musiikkiin?

Miten Tampereen Teatteri saattaa aliarvioida katsojia näin? Miten Suomessa kehdataan jo toista kertaa esittää yleisölle suomennos, joka tekee maailman tunnetuimman musikaalin alkuperäisestä sanoituksesta huonoa pilkkaa?

Milloin tässä maassa opitaan antamaan musikaalikäännöksille niiden ansaitsema arvo?

Kuuntele Jean Valjeanin rukous

Helan går och heja Sverige!

Please note: I saw this play for free on the courtesy of Tampereen Teatteri.

This is one of the moments when writing a blog mostly about Finnish theatre in English feels especially silly. How do I even begin explaining this one to non-Finns?

The stereotypical Finn is jealous of the stereotypical Swede. They have everything better than us. They are happier, they always win the Eurovision song contest, they're not shy and depressed like we are. Unlike us, they discuss their feelings. Their summers are longer and sunnier than ours. We laugh at the Swedish, we tell mean jokes about them, we celebrate in the streets whenever we beat them in ice hockey – and we wish we were them. They even have that nice royal family instead of boring presidents!

In Miikka Nousiainen's book Vadelmavenepakolainen, and now in Tampereen Teatteri's play of the same name, Mikko Virtanen has a problem. On the outside, he is like any other Finnish man, born and raised in the Finnish town of Kouvola. But on the inside, he doesn't just wish he was Swedish. He is Swedish. Virtanen feels he's born to the wrong nationality and is willing to go to desperate measures to reach his impossible goal: to become a native Swede. Soon enough the lines between legal and illegal, moral and inmoral, mean nothing anymore...

An example of an idyllic Swedish family.

The play, directed by Pentti Kotkaniemi, obviously poked fun at the stereotypes we Finns have of Swedes, but also the stereotypes we have of ourselves, and the differences (both imagined and real) of the two nations. It's also a story of a person trying to be something he can't be. What's more, it's hilarious. I mostly watch musicals, the type where you wallow in tears. So, I don't even remember laughing this hard while watching theatre...

Having read Nousiainen's book, I was interested to see how it'd work onstage – and happy to see it worked well. I actually liked the play a bit better than the book.

I thought the book's pace was too slow, but the stage version fixed that. What's more, the main character's creepy and sympathetic sides were balanced better than in the book, the extreme lenghts he went to make his Swedish dream come true felt somewhat more effective onstage. I also liked the vague onstage ending slightly better than the book's more in-your-face grass is always greener elsewhere lesson. The play was, overall, a bit lighter than the book. Since the subject matter is so ridiculous, I think it was a good direction to go.

However, the play had a few moments where it tried too hard to make the audience laugh. I admit, I laughed at some of those bits anyway. But maybe giving the audience some time to breathe with a quiet moment or two wouldn't have felt out of place, even if it's a comedy. Or maybe a two-hour-long joke about Swedes is simply too long to be genuinely funny all the time, no matter how Finnish you are? But for the most part, the outrageous comedy worked. You can't be too serious about a story like this.

The play had around 60 characters and six actors portraying them.  

Miska Kaukonen played the central character of Mikko Virtanen. Since the story is so strongly about this one character and consists largely of his monologues, it's important he's performed well. Luckily, Kaukonen portrayed the part pretty perfectly. You never lost interest in Virtanen's story and even symphatised with and rooted for him – even though his creepy side was also evident... I especially enjoyed the bits during the second act where Virtanen's Finnish background started to show through the Swedish facade.

The rest of the cast (Linda Wiklund, Risto Korhonen, Ville Majamaa, Elisa Piispanen, Kai Bäckström, accompanied by musician Jukka Hänninen / Arto Piispanen) did a good job, too, quickly switching in between dozens of characters. Risto Korhonen was especially memorable in his parts. No matter if he played a Christmas elf or a cat, he never failed to make me laugh. Judging by the audience reactions, I wasn't the only fan of his performances.

All in all... A couple of days after seeing Vadelmavenepakolainen, I burst out laughing while brushing my teeth just because I remembered one of the jokes. So, if you're in need of some laughter, maybe consider seeing this one. Worked for me!

Photos by Harri Hinkka / Tampereen Teatteri.
Joskus sitä ihan tosissaan miettii, että pitäisi vaihtaa kieltä... No, saavatpa ainakin blogiin mahdollisesti eksyvät ruotsalaiset tietää, mille Suomessa nauretaan.

Upcoming in Turku

My yesterday was all about Turku-based musicals. Besides hearing the first sneak peeks of Jekyll & Hyde the musical, I've found out about two other upcoming shows...

Jennie Storbacka and Anna Victoria Eriksson singing In His Eyes

First, I attended the press info and open house events for Turun kaupunginteatteri's spring 2013 season. (The press info was a rather exciting: there was a power outage during it.) Among the premieres is the first Finnish production of Jekyll & Hyde. 

I of course knew J&H is coming to town, but that's about it. I don't know much anything about the musical personally. Everyone knows the basics of the story, of course – but maybe, for the Finnish readers, Laura's article about the previous press info would be a good place to go if you want to learn about the musical adaptation in particular. I don't think it's useful to repeat Laura's text here – the info I attended didn't add much to her article. So maybe check it out first.

Riku Nieminen singing This Is the Moment

In the info, director Tuomas Parkkinen talked a bit about the theme of Jekyll & Hyde. He said it's been startling to work on the piece, remembering the inexplicably cruel crimes that have happened around the world lately. He mentioned how they decided to do the show years ago just because they had the right feeling about it, but how the musical, with its themes of good and evil, has started to feel very current to him now. He also said he thinks the piece handles its central theme of evil well.

Riku Nieminen, who plays the main role, was also present in the event. Parkkinen mentioned how he thinks Nieminen is one of the most talented actors of his generation and how he couldn't imagine anyone else in the role of Jekyll and Hyde. Nieminen himself said he feels his first lead role in a musical is, besides a huge challenge, a dream role.

Personally, I've been a bit wary of Nieminen as Jekyll/Hyde. Since I've only seen him do completely different sort of stuff before, I've had some doubts. But the press info calmed me down a bit: Nieminen also sung a bit from the show, and, in my opinion, he was rather good. You can decide for yourselves, though – here's my sad little recording of his rendition of Alkuun / The Way Back:

In the open house event in the evening, they sung more J&H songs. Besides This Is the Moment from Nieminen, I heard the female leads Jennie Storbacka and Anna Victoria Eriksson sung In His Eyes. I think they both sounded fantastic. The Finnish translation, then, seemed inoffensive – not especially good, but I don't feel like sending hate mail to everyone responsible, either. All in all, I'm getting excited about this!

---

But, as mentioned, Jekyll & Hyde wasn't the only big thing yesterday. Here are some pieces of news I also encountered, one after another:

• Jesus Christ Superstar is coming to Åbo Svenska Teater in February 2014 – at least if you believe this job advertisement.
• Rocky Horror Show is coming to Turun kaupunginteatteri in late 2013 – at least if you believe this file that looks like some sort of a city council document or similar.

Wow! I live in Turku at the moment, and it seems I'll be having fun in theatre for the next year or two!

 Firstly, Jesus Christ Superstar. In a Radio Vega's interview back in October, Les Misérables' director Georg Malvius mentioned Åbo Svenska Teater was considering doing JCS instead of Les Mis in 2010. So, I admit I've been wondering, ever since seeing the theatre's newest audition announcement, if it'll be JCS... I even admit I've been ranting to my friends about wanting ÅST to do this very show and who I'd like to see in the cast (let's be extra-honest: I admit these rants have been accompanied with a mad gleam in my eyes).

And yes! They'll really stage one of my favourite musicals! I love Jesus Christ Superstar. It's obvious the story is strong, and the score has some of my absolute favourite musical theatre songs. If I have to mention negatives, I don't like how it's such a sausage fest of a show, with a grand total of one female role – but remembering the source material, that can't really be helped. Well, I'd be more than okay with a female Herod, but I only know of one production where that has happened...

I've only seen the piece in concert form before. Since the brilliant Lahti concerts, I've been wishing to see a staged version of the show. It seems like an easy piece to do very wrong but an amazing one if done right.

So, my hopes are high and I'm feeling positive. I suppose the biggest problem, for me, is not going insane before the announce the cast. ÅST people, if you're reading this: this time, no hiding the cast until there's only a few months to go, like you did with Hair? Pretty please?

And must not forget Rocky Horror Show. I don't have much to say about that one – I've just been wanting to see it live for a while, so this is exciting news too. I doubt it'll become one of my absolute favourite musicals, it seems a bit too crazy for that, but I bet it'll be plenty of fun if watched in the right mood.

I can't but hope they'll go for a new translation, though. You can listen to a sample from the Finnish cast recording here – and if you're fortunate enough to understand Finnish, you'll soon understand why this translation won't do... It might be a crazy show, but the translation could still, ideally, make some slight amount of sense. (Can't help being quite pessimistic about anything happening to it, though.)

I'm actually surprised that three as interesting musicals as these are happening in one town almost at the same time. Sure, both Jesus Christ Superstar and Rocky Horror Show are nostalgia trips to some, but I think young people can also enjoy this repertoire. I'm glad no theatre in Turku is doing a classic in the vein of Fiddler on the Roof just to amuse the little old ladies. At least in the near future.  

Sources: Musikaalit-foorumi, MusikalNet at FB.

Book Versus Musical

This is a companion article to my previous rant about the importance of actors' looks in musical. I swear this applies to other shows than Les Mis. It's just, again, the easiest example for me to use.

I've been thinking about musicals based on something for quite a while. When you've doing a show that's based on a book or a movie, how much do you owe to the original? I discussed the looks of the characters already, but how about the personalities? Should your characters act like the original author wrote them, or do you, as a director or an actor, have the right to twist them to suit what you think serves the musical the best? Can you come up with your own backstory and ignore the source material?

Let's talk about Enjolras.

You know the guy.

I think Enjolras is one of the best exaples for this. Sometimes it's almost impossible to make the character in the musical to match the character in the source material (case in point: Wicked the musical vs. Wicked the book). But when it comes to Enjolras... There's room for interpretation since there's hardly anything about him in the stage show. We know he leads a revolution, we know he doesn't much care about Marius's lonely soul, and that's about it. The details in between can be done in a multitude of ways. You can take your inspiration from the book or come up with your own version.

There seems to be something of a consensus in the Les Misérables fandom that, when it comes to Enjolrati, David Thaxton is the best. It's been said over and over again how his Enjolras was as close to the guy from the book as possible. Personally, I can't comment – though I saw Thaxton live, I don't remember him, and I'm afraid I don't care quite enough to find out what he was like to watch any shaky bootleg. But I guess I'm lucky the first Enjolras I saw onstage was so well-liked, even though I can't remember details anymore.

Thaxton is by no means the only popular one, each Enjy has his fans. Some judge Enjolrati by qualities like voice and stage presence. But there's also always criticism based on a performance clashing with the book. Ramin Karimloo crossing himself in the 25th Ann. Concert, for example? Heresy! Even though majority of Les Mis fans are open for all sorts of interpretations, there are the people who prefer the stage actors to draw their inspiration from the book only.

An example of Enjolras

I'm not saying wanting to see the book onstage is a bad thing, not at all. But here's something I've been thinking about: how about if someone sees an Enjolras (especially from this point on, feel free to replace the word Enjolras with any musical character that's based on, well, something) that's nothing like the character in the book – and loves the interpretation? What if, to them, Enjolras is the guy they saw onstage and they don't care what the book says? Is their love for the character any less valid if the performance they love deviates from whatever is the source material?

There are two schools of thought when it comes to this, I guess. One would say that the guy giving the non-book-accurate performance should be locked away, since he's making new fans believe Enjolras is something he really isn't. The other would go meh, who cares, to each their own.

Personally, I think that's the beauty of theatre, in a way. On one hand, you have the same characters in each production of the same show. On the other, you get to see a different side of the character each time. Even though it's fantastic to see someone who acts like they leaped straight out of a classic piece of literature, would that be so special if every single performance was like that? And how about if someone can bring something to a role that's not in the book but enriches the musical?

I usually use book-accurate as a positive expression whenever reviewing shows. That's because I think it shows something: the actor cared enough about their role to research it thoroughly. That's not to say I can't love a performance by someone who hasn't read the book or doesn't show it. It just means I tend to respect those who decide to take the extra trouble a little bit more.

Another example of Enjolras

But still, when it comes to the person who loved the non-book-accurate performance – in a way, I think they're richer than a person who has only seen a performance that matches the source material (or a performance that's practically identical to some other actor's, for that matter). Maybe they can check out the source material for themselves and find out about the so-called original version. Then they already know two takes of the same thing. Maybe the different take helps them to understand the original version better, or maybe seeing the original enforces their love for the different?

Back to Enjolras. This all is not to say I enjoy all sorts of Enjolrati personally. (I'm not that fond of the angry ones.) It's not to say anyone should. It's not to say, even, that I have never used the phrase "but you can't like that, it's not book-accurate!"... But nowadays, I think matching the source material isn't the only route to a good performance. Knowing it inside out and showing that in one's performance is a nice easter egg for the fans – but I think the most important thing for a performance is to make sense in the musical's universe. It may result to lovely ah! It can also be done like that! moments. It might even result making the character more interesting.

We're back to the replica musical argument again, so I better shut up before I sound too much like a broken record. As a partially unrelated finale, let's have a minute's silence for all those long-running shows where the new cast members are still required to copy the exact hand movements of the original cast.

Photos by Robert Seger or scanned from programmes.
Other similar rants: non-replica productions, looks.
Book Enjy wouldn't wear the vest.

Looks Versus Personality

This won't be exclusively about Les Mis, I promise. It's just the easiest example.

While counting days to the premiere, and again now when the Les Misérables movie has premiered in most countries (but not all, so shhh, don't spoil us still waiting), a certain theme has popped up in fan discussions.

"Cosette can't be a blonde because the book says so!"
"Javert must have sideburns because the book says so!"
"Fantine isn't a brunette because the book says so!"

To some people, Victor Hugo's descriptions of the characters are of utmost importance – so these arguments appear no matter which production the discussion is about. After the 25th Anniversary Concert, there were complaints that ranged from casting a person of the wrong skin colour as Javert to dying Ramin Karimloo's hair blonde because the book says so!! I wasn't yet old enough to discuss Les Mis at the time of the 10th Anniversary Concert, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear people argued about the importance of having a blonde Enjolras back then, too.

A Javert I like

This can be a problem with other book-based musicals, too, but I think Les Mis is the best example. The other really famous book-based show is of course Phantom of the Opera – but it's obvious you can't remove the Phantom's nose onstage, so you'll accept that the visuals differ from the book. In Les Mis, then, nothing but the designer's vision is stopping them giving sideburns to all Javerts. I guess it's easier to complain about that.

Personally, I have difficulty seeing why a character's looks meeting the book equivalent is so important to some. Let Javert have a beard like Santa Claus if he can act the part! My opinion about character looks is the same as my opinion about non-replica productions: the more different versions the merrier! But I don't mean to say I never get distracted by an actor's looks. This is usually when it comes to age. When I see a way too old or young person cast in some part, I have to suspend my disbelief more than when encountered with a brunette Fantine.

It's easier to make someone look older via theatre magic, so I don't think casting too young people is a really big problem. Sometimes it might be a bit silly. If you have for example a very young Valjean or Javert it might look a bit comical, like boys dressing up in grownup clothes. But it's still less notable than casting people who are too old. Too bad it seems the latter happens around here a bit more often...

A Cosette I like

Usually, I can suspend my disbelief, but it gets harder when the cast's ages clearly clash. Here, I have to use Samuel Harjanne and Tomi Metsäketo as Enjolras and Marius, in the Åbo Svenska Teater and upcoming Tampereen Teatteri productions, as an example. On their own, you can imagine the both playing the parts. Sure, Metsäketo is getting a bit too old for Marius, but you can ignore that. But when you see them onstage together, boom. Suddenly you notice that there's a notable age gap, that they don't seem members of the same group. I think wrong ages are less distracting if everyone in the cast, or at least the roles who interact the most with each other, are casted in a similar manner: everyone's either too young or too old or, preferably, the correct age. However, things like this aren't enough to stop me enjoying any show. They might be jarring, but I've never hated a production because the cast is the wrong age.

And overall, I try my best to ignore the ages. I guess acting is a rather cruel profession since there are so many things you can't change that can stop you getting a part – vocal range, age, even your looks... So if everything else but the age is perfect, if someone knows how to perform the part, I'll certainly rather watch them than someone who's lacking in the acting or singing departments. I could name a dozen performances where I initially thought that wow, they look completely wrong for this, but ended up applausing until my hands hurt.

Not to mention that sometimes it's good to have your pre-existing expectations twisted. Take Tanz der Vampire's Herbert, for example. Before the Finnish production, fans were used to a fairy-like Prince Charming reincarnated as a vampire. We all remember what Seinäjoen kaupunginteatteri gave us.

A Herbert I like, with his lunch

There are people, especially international fans, who had really strong opinions about this. There was some discussion even in this blog's comments. Some fans just weren't able to wrap their heads around this tall, robust guy as Herbert. However, it seems most people who actually saw the Seinäjoki production absolutely loved Jouko Enkelnotko in the role. Some think the chance in the looks made the character even better than the previous versions had been. To think that if hardcore fans had been in charge of the casting, this well-loved performance might not have happened!

So, in the light of this all... Even if it's sometimes jarring, I'm glad looks are sometimes ignored while casting musicals, or people who you initially couldn't imagine in the role looks-wise are chosen. Looks are of course a big part of each character, but if you stick to them too much, you might miss some unexpectedly awesome performances and interesting changes. I guess that's worth having to suspend your disbelief sometimes.

And when it comes to the brunette versus blonde Cosette or whoever thing... If someone's able to explain it to me in the comments how exactly changing the hair colour destroys the character Victor Hugo originally envisioned, or the performance in the musical, go for it. I'm all ears.

Photos by Malin Arnesson, Nana Simelius and Ari Ijäs. 

Two Short Reviews: Violins and Electroshocks

I've seen a handful of shows lately. So, instead of a huge rant about each, it's time for a combination post of short reviews again: Viulunsoittaja katolla / Fiddler on the Roof in Helsingin kaupunginteatteri and Next to Normal in Tampereen Työväen Teatteri.


Viulunsoittaja katolla / Fiddler on the Roof, Helsingin kaupunginteatteri

Riitta Havukainen as Golde, Esko Roine as Tevje.

I swore I wouldn't see this show. My excuse: a friend invited me... And I admit, I was curious about Fiddler. The whole world seems to love it, so maybe there's something to like, even for me?

Indeed, let's start with the good things. I enjoyed Esko Roine as Tevje. Fiddler, to me, seems like a show that will fall flat on its face if the actor playing Tevje isn't up to the task. Luckily, Roine was. His Tevje felt real to me. The problems he faced seemed like something that could've once happened in someone's real life. He wasn't a hero, he made some dubious choices – like a real human being.

I also quite liked the supporting cast. There were some actors whose performances grated on me, but as a whole, the cast did a good job. A special nod to Tuukka Leppänen as Perchik. I felt a tad more awake whenever he was onstage.

Everyone knows Fiddler's music, and it was pretty nice hearing it live. It is rather catchy (read: enjoy listening to If I Were a Rich Man play in your head for the rest of your earthly life).

Then the bad. I think the show was bo-ring. Nothing seemed to happen. I was ready for the intermission about seven times during the first half. The piece also suffered from mood swings: upsetting moments and cheap laughs followed each other with no break in between. Also, the ending felt completely empty to me. Were the villagers even upset?

What's more, the characters, apart from Tevje, were paper-thin. It's more to do with the script than the actors, but it's a problem nevertheless. Tevje's daughters didn't seem to have any defining characteristics. Two out of three suitors had some character, but then there was the last one. It baffled me how one of the daughters made a huge sacrifice for a man who is given three minutes onstage.

While the sets, costumes and choreography served their purpose, I don't think there was anything new or creative in them, nor in Hans Berndtsson's direction as a whole. See how much has changed, visually, since the 60s.

I stand behind what I've said previously: I think Fiddler is a safe and boring choice, perfect for summer outdoor theatres, and I'm disappointed HKT did it. I sure could've lived without this production. However, if a rehash of a fifty-year-old show brings in this enthusiastic audiences (I've never heard people applausing dialogue scenes in a musical before)... I guess the theatre must be happy with their pick.

Raili Raitala as Hodel, Tuukka Leppänen
– as you can recognise from his face – as Perchik.

Next to Normal, Tampereen Työväen Teatteri

Eriikka Väliahde as Diana.

Last time I wrote about Next to Normal, I listed what's wrong with the show. While I came to the conclusion that I might want to see Next again, I soon noticed I didn't actually agree with my own opinion. The mere thought of seeing the show one more time started making me annoyed, for all the reasons listed in the previous review: the black-and-white view of treating mental illnesses, the weak second act, the show forcing its opinions down the audience's throat... I felt that no, I've officially stopped liking this thing, too bad I still have a ticket for the Tampereen Työväen Teatteri version.

Not so bad after all! I left TTT as a N2N fan again. I've now seen three versions of Next to Normal, and TTT's is the best out of them. 

The story has never felt this real to me. I completely forgot about its problems watching this. It's a shame TTT didn't change the family's name to something Finnish, like Wasa Teater did, I think that would've made the show hit even closer to home... But I loved the changes they did make. Most notably, they changed the song Better Than Before into dialogue. The slightly witty tune turned into a proper, much-needed but not out-of-place comic relief. The audience was actually laughing. Overall, TTT managed to turn the dragging second act into something interesting. Tuomas Parkkinen's direction had a couple of moments I could've done without, but as a whole, the show had a nice flow going on.

What's more, two thumbs up for Kristiina Saha's sets! It was refreshing to see them take a different turn from the usual cold and angular Next sets. I especially liked Natalie's cage-like little own space.

The cast (Eriikka Väliahde, Puntti Valtonen, Jukka Nylund, Emmi Kaislakari, Juha-Matti Koskela, Toni Harjajärvi) impressed too. When I saw the Wasa Teater production, I wrote they had managed to make my usual least favourite character Natalie compelling – here, I could almost call her my favourite. Kaislakari made her character alive in a way I could, if not relate to, at least understand. Not to say Natalie's family was any worse. Touching and real are words I could describe both Väliahde's Diana and Valtonen's Dan with. The latter's voice didn't seem suited for the part and therefore didn't really hold a candle to other Dans I've seen (greetings to Sören Lillkung), but that hardly mattered, I liked the overall performance nevertheless.

TTT's Next to Normal has four performances left. I recommend it for everyone.

The neat-o set. And the cast!

Photos by Tapio Vanhatalo and Petri Kovalainen.