Original Production of LES MISERABLES in London Will Take Hiatus and Re-Open With New Staging- Page 4

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 1/12/19 at 6:28am

I know for sure

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 1/12/19 at 8:24am

I have seen the new production on tour and when it was at the Imperial. It is a clunky mess of epic proportions. The set is cheap looking, the scenic transitions are unwieldy and "jerky", and the lighting is oftentimes so dark that you cannot see anything. Also, the action is super constricted by the narrow proscenium which also creates some horrible sight line issues. 

The original staging is iconic, epic, and sweeping. I love seeing new productions of shows to see what new light and creativity can be brought to a piece, but this production is just a disgrace when compared to the original. It's such a shame that this is happening.

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 1/16/19 at 12:50pm

The Stage reports today that royalty negotiation talks have started between the RSC and Mackintosh (https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/rsc-begins-crunch-talks-cameron-mackintosh-les-miserables-royalties/). To quote from it, "RSC chief executive Catherine Mallyon confirmed to The Stage that negotiations with Mackintosh were ongoing in light of the changes. 'As part of the conversation we will be discussing the level of change around the royalties for the two productions,' she said. She added that the company was 'sad to see the groundbreaking original production leave the West End'."

It's just such a shame that the grandeur of the original production has to end like this. It's almost like a divorce settlement between the RSC and Mackintosh, like Mackintosh figuratively had an affair with another creative production team, filed for divorce from the RSC and gets to keep the house and redecorate it charge people to look around like it was always his own. The way Mackintosh has conducted this process, from the conception of the 25th Anniversary touring staging that left Trevor Nunn in the dark, to the current situation in the West End, leaves a bitter taste.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 1/16/19 at 1:47pm

It is objective proof that he is a disrespectful philistine.  

I hope it really irritates him that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a lord, whilst he is only Sir Cameron, because he actions are FAR from noble!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/16/19 at 4:43pm

Luckily, I booked to see it again in March before it's gone.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 1/16/19 at 5:19pm

devonian.t said: "It is objective proof that he is a disrespectful philistine.

I hope it really irritates him that Andrew Lloyd Webber is a lord, whilst he is only Sir Cameron, because he actions are FAR from noble!"

Let's not pretend like Andrew Lloyd Webber and Trevor Nunn didn't similarly degrade and disrespect Gillian Lynne and her original choreography with this past revival of Cats.

[Fosse76]

Posted: 1/16/19 at 5:36pm

CATSNYrevival said: "Let's not pretend like Andrew Lloyd Webber and Trevor Nunn didn't similarly degrade and disrespect Gillian Lynne and her original choreography with this past revival of Cats."

Especially considering that it was still mostly her choreography with minuscule and unnecessary changes.

[Chowd95]

Posted: 1/20/19 at 8:04pm

bwayphreak234 said: "I have seen the new production on tour and when it was at the Imperial. It is a clunky mess of epic proportions. The set is cheap looking, the scenic transitions are unwieldy and "jerky", and the lighting is oftentimesso dark that you cannot see anything.Also,the action is super constricted by the narrow proscenium which also creates some horrible sight line issues.

The original staging is iconic, epic, and sweeping. I love seeing new productions of shows to see what new light and creativity can be brought to a piece, but this production is just a disgrace when compared to the original. It's such a shame that this is happening."

I agree with most of this. I've seen the original probably six or seven times and the new version twice. The stage is so tiny and the lighting is so dim it's hard to know what to focus on. Also, the show has been trimmed down and the tempos sped up to make sure it runs under three hours.

That being said, it's still Les Mis. The talent they are able to draw is absolutely top notch and the show still sells out everywhere it goes. As much as I hate the decision to scrap the iconic original I don't think this will have any effect on the box office in London.

[Broadwaydah]

Posted: 1/21/19 at 5:41am

I think we first lost something when they trimmed the show from 3 hours 15 minutes to under 3 hours to avoid paying Overtime costs. That is where some tempo changes started and some cuts from the original were made. You can still listen to the complete symphonic version to enjoy most of the reduced components like from start of Master Of The House and Little People. I think this change might have even been pre 911.

I have heard it said that one of the goals of the restaged Les miz and Saigon was to make the physical staging to include on stage fighting grittier for younger audiences. No doubt this impact could have been achieved by touching up the original.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 1/21/19 at 11:28am

I thought the new Saigon was a giant bore. Just boring staging and performances. It felt like an uninspired tour. I mean, these shows originally ran for so long, and yet these revivals are fizzing out. Surely that's got to do with the boring staging.

[Tsao5]

Posted: 1/21/19 at 1:41pm

Changes have been going on for years.  Some of them have stayed and some not. Many of the music changes are optional in the score. If a regional company wanted ( in the past at least) to do the 3 hour 15 minute version, I believe they could.  Common cuts in the score that can go back to the original included for example, the Bamatabois/Fantine fight, the attack on the Rue Plumet and Valjean's confession.  All of these had been shortened.

The big writing on the wall for the dreadful news that the FAR SUPERIOR original production was being put out to pasture was that the license of the FAR INFERIOR production we now have was the one being seen around the world.   Once it was clear that all the recent international productions were the new version, it was just a matter of time before the original in London was switched over.  I believe the last international productions of the original version were Berlin and Madrid.

Another sign....maybe a small one among others........was the VALJEAN PRISONER WIG in the beginning. For some reason, maybe about 2 years ago (?) the long crazy hair that had been in all of the Nunn/Caird productions was switched to the Huge Jackman movie version buzz cut.  The new version had the short hair, but for a while the original London production held fast to the original long haired wig we all knew.  When they switched that wig out to the  current one......well, it seemed clear they were going to slowly do away with the entire production.  

Over the years, shows have been downsized (Lion King and Beauty and the Beast for example on Broadway), shows have been altered to some degree (Cats and the first revival of Les Miz on Broadway) and some have been totally reimagined (The Phantom tour.....Yikes!!!!.....and the new version of Les Miz that has now been around for around 10 years)  In every case that I can think of, every case, the original has been far far superior.  The tinkering that has gone on has always diminished the overall effect of the show leaving those who were lucky enough to see the originals with their memories and lamentations that future audiences won't be able to see what those shows were in all their glory.

 

 

[Gizmo6]

Posted: 1/21/19 at 8:50pm

Laurence Connor must have dirt on people or be incredibly cheap because he has destroyed Phantom and Saigon in these new revised versions. I haven't seen his Les Mis but by all accounts it's as poor as Phantom and Saigon. 

[Soaring29]

Posted: 1/22/19 at 12:34am

Are they finally going to get rid of that awful marching in One Day More?

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 1/22/19 at 2:26am

Soaring29 said: "Are they finally going to get rid of that awful marching in One Day More?"

Nope, the new staging has more extreme marching with the students weaving sideways and forward like a zig-zag pattern and it almost looks like they're pushing each other out of the way as each row makes its way forward. The effect can be a bit nauseating since the students march in multiple directions in front of a Paris street projection which moves as though it's shrinking and disappearing behind. Plus they don't lift Gavroche until the final "More!" is sung and he's otherwise lost in the crowd the entire time until the blackout. I'll take the original marching any day.

Updated On: 1/22/19 at 02:26 AM

[Loopin’theloop]

Posted: 1/22/19 at 3:33am

Gizmo6 said: "Laurence Connor must have dirt on people or be incredibly cheap because he has destroyed Phantom and Saigon in these new revised versions. I haven't seen hisLes Mis but by all accounts it's as poor as Phantom and Saigon."

Cheap.

thats the point of these new productions for Cam Mac. He uses in house staff to create them (salaried) and pays far less in royalties. 

[lukeworsham]

Posted: 1/22/19 at 5:23pm

I don't really mind the new Les Mis production. The barricade isn't as stunning and the backdrop projections are a little weird, but I still feel like it stays true to the work. On the other hand, I absolutely despise the new PTO staging. Completely ruins the show.

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 2/5/19 at 10:59pm

There's been news reported about the details of the Gielgud run, this interim "transfer" to the Gielgud will be a 16-week staged concert version: https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Michael-Ball-Alfie-Boe-Will-Reunite-for-Concert-Version-of-LES-MISERABLES-20190205

Is a 16-week concert run sustainable when people can just watch either the 10th or 25th Anniversary DVDs in their own living rooms? Other than the draw of seeing a Alfie Boe/Michael Ball "Confrontation" sung in person, will theatergoers pay for a concert version, if they know that the "new staging" is coming along anyway?  

None of this situation and saga makes much sense to me.

If the original staging is figuratively being thrown into the sewer, I wish Mr. Mackintosh could wait until the 34th anniversary of the show on October 8th so it would at least meet a valid milestone and the turntable/revolve would literally come full circle. Just the thought of the "new staging" being recognized in October as a 34-year run in the West End is like insult to injury.

Updated On: 2/6/19 at 10:59 PM

[Lot666]

Posted: 2/6/19 at 2:06pm

ArtfulAmy17 said: "There's been news reported about the details of the Gielgud run, this interim"transfer" to the Gielgud will be a 16-week staged concert version:https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Michael-Ball-Alfie-Boe-Will-Reunite-for-Concert-Version-of-LES-MISERABLES-20190205

Is a 16-week concert run sustainable when people can just watch either the 10th or 25th Anniversary DVDs in their own living rooms? Other than the draw of seeing a Alfie Boe/Michael Ball "Confrontation" sung in person, will theatergoers pay for a concert version, if they know that the "new staging" is coming along anyway?"

A concert version? For 16 weeks?!? I can't imagine they'll be selling those performances out.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/6/19 at 2:18pm

I'm glad I got tickets to see it again in March.  I have a very deep and personal emotional connection to this show, so I'll probably be a mess as soon as Fantine makes her ghostly appearance at the end of the second act.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/6/19 at 2:43pm

There's no way they can still say it's the longest running musical in the world right? I mean, to have it morph from old version to concert version to revival version doesn't quite make sense? 

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 2/6/19 at 11:56pm

Lott666 said: "A concert version? For 16 weeks?!? I can't imagine they'll be selling those performances out."

I'm very skeptical too, although the announcement has surprisingly garnered a lot of general enthusiasm in the official "Les Miserables" Facebook page comments. To me, this concert version at the Gielgud just seems like a tacked-on buffer to fill the gap between the staging transitions at the Queen's so that the show can illogically and bogusly somehow retain its "longest running musical" title. I wish I could view it less cynically but the arbitrary scrapping of the original staging by Mackintosh, because it somehow suits him, with no public statement from the man himself, has made every successive announcement of post-original-staging plans all the more painful, including this one. 

 

Mister Matt said: "I'm glad I got tickets to see it again in March.  I have a very deep and personal emotional connection to this show, so I'll probably be a mess as soon as Fantine makes her ghostly appearance at the end of the second act."

I'll be right there with you! I'm in the process of booking a trip to London to see it one last time and I also expect to be an absolute crying mess during the Epilogue (or really, from the overture onwards). Losing the original staging in the US (on Broadway twice and the discontinuation of the Third National Tour) was devastating to me, having grown up with it, and I expected it would last at least another decade or so in London...

 

RippedMan said: "There's no way they can still say it's the longest running musical in the world right? I mean, to have it morph from old version to concert version to revival version doesn't quite make sense?"

I completely agree, it really doesn't make sense to me either. The Stage reported that "Les Miserables" will retain the title (https://www.thestage.co.uk/news/2019/les-miserables-retain-world-record-despite-switching-productions/) which fails to stand to reason. In a very broad sense, really stretching it, yes, there will be a Mackintosh-produced "Les Miserables" of some sort selling tickets in the West End, but in name and logo only. Each of these various renditions, however confusing and crowded under the Mackintosh umbrella as they may be, are all separate productions with different crews and teams and do not and should not combine to count as one thing just because the Mackintosh name is on them, especially when the original staging doesn't survive. 

 

[RippedMan]

Posted: 2/7/19 at 12:34am

I just think there's no merit in saying it's the longest running musical when it's not the original production anymore? 

[ArtfulAmy17]

Posted: 2/7/19 at 12:41am

RippedMan said: "I just think there's no merit in saying it's the longest running musical when it's not the original production anymore?"

Yup, I feel the same way.

[Plannietink08]

Posted: 2/7/19 at 8:13am

A concert version? For 16 weeks?!? I can't imagine they'll be selling those performances out."

 

They already have.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 2/7/19 at 8:51am

RippedMan said: "There's no way they can still say it's the longest running musical in the world right?“

 

Another reminder that they wouldn’t be able to say that anyway, given that the Fantasticks ran for 42 years, not counting their close-following revival staging.