#Les Brigandes

[derring-do]

Marcel Beekman (and friends) in Les Brigands (Paris Opera, 2024) Photo: Agathe Poupeney

[lesmisscraper]

The End of the Brigand. Volume 3, Book 3, Chapter 4.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

[jaimelire-france]

Le Brigand Hongre est un roman de l'écrivain et poétesse française Renée Dunan.

[fluentisonus]

something I've been sort of contemplating wrt jvj not being willing to tell cosette about his identity & his past, in addition to the more obvious reasons that get covered more explicitly, is this scene:

[Javert] stared intently at Fantine, and added, once more taking into his grasp Jean Valjean’s cravat, shirt and collar:— “I tell you that there is no Monsieur Madeleine and that there is no Monsieur le Maire. There is a thief, a brigand, a convict named Jean Valjean! And I have him in my grasp! That’s what there is!” Fantine raised herself in bed with a bound, supporting herself on her stiffened arms and on both hands: she gazed at Jean Valjean, she gazed at Javert, she gazed at the nun, she opened her mouth as though to speak; a rattle proceeded from the depths of her throat, her teeth chattered; she stretched out her arms in her agony, opening her hands convulsively, and fumbling about her like a drowning person; then suddenly fell back on her pillow. Her head struck the head-board of the bed and fell forwards on her breast, with gaping mouth and staring, sightless eyes. She was dead. Jean Valjean laid his hand upon the detaining hand of Javert, and opened it as he would have opened the hand of a baby; then he said to Javert:— “You have murdered that woman.”

he does (correctly) identify that it's javert who's done this & lay the blame on him, but I think there's something really awful about Javert having done this at least partially by revealing valjean's identity, like this idea that the sudden reveal of his real identity & past was horrible & shocking enough to help kill fantine I think must have left a strong impression. and probably only reinforced this idea of his 'true' self being something fearful & repulsive & in and of itself almost dangerous

& then this taken with cosette's response to seeing the chain gang:

But when Cosette was leaving him in the evening, to betake herself to bed, he heard her say in a low voice, and as though talking to herself: “It seems to me, that if I were to find one of those men in my pathway, oh, my God, I should die merely from the sight of him close at hand.”

which obviously I don't think he would have taken this literally at all but like. do you think he thought of fantine here. and we know the whole chain gang situation is one that stuck with him enough for him to cite it to marius as a reason he can never tell cosette:

“... But she, she does not know what it is, it would terrify her. What, a convict! we should be obliged to explain matters to her, to say to her: ‘He is a man who has been in the galleys.’ She saw the chain-gang pass by one day. Oh! My God!” . . . He dropped into an armchair and hid his face in his hands.

idk. a lot of this is his perspective of himself & obviously not some objective 'truth' but the way this to his view just seemingly gets reinforced & reconfirmed over and over over the years is so.

[theoutcastrogue]

That’s a great video! But will you call me a spoilsport if I point out that this is not at all how brigandage works? It works by surprise and numbers, you don’t duel at dawn one on one. And if we’re in High/Late Medieval Germany, the brigands are mostly other knights.

Watch "knight vs. brigand - Harnischfechten | Der Brigand" on YouTube

Knight Vs Brigand.

Considering the huge Buhurt falchion the Brigand uses here, I feel it's only right to tag @wearebarbarian.

[amateurvoltaire]

I went to Puy du Fou (1) and watched  'Le Dernier Panache' (2), and needless to say, I've got a few things on my mind. But before I gather my thoughts into something coherent, there’s one pressing issue I need to address: there was NO “extermination” policy in the Vendée.

Is it clear enough for everyone? I sincerely hope so because yesterday, I was among an audience of about 5000 who were shown a scene depicting Robespierre (in yellow), Saint-Just (in turquoise), and Barère (in purple) arguing for the complete destruction of the Vendée… for reasons…

In plain terms, were they advocating for genocide (3)  in the Vendée.

This didn’t happen. In 1793, the idea of a distinct Vendéen identity wasn’t a real thing. The Vendéens were not recognized as a specific regional or ethnic group, not by themselves or anyone else.

Do you know what was real? Brigands rebelling against the first French Republic. What were the policies of extermination targeted towards? Those Brigands. What do you call that? Civil War.

On 1st August 1793, Barère delivered an inflamatory speech (4) that many use to argue the Committee of Public Safety's alleged genocidal intent. His words were indeed unhinged, typical of the era’s rhetoric.

Barère did say, "No more Vendée, no more royalty; no more Vendée, no more aristocracy; no more Vendée, and the enemies of the republic have disappeared," but this infamous line follows a crucial preamble: "We will have peace the day the interior is peaceful, that the rebels are subdued, that the brigands are exterminated. (5)" It’s disingenuous to interpret this as a call to wipe out an entire region (6).

Moreover, this speech was followed by the "Décret relatif aux mesures à prendre contre les rebelles de Vendée", which includes an article (the 8th) stating: "Women, children, and the elderly will be taken inland. Provisions will be made for their subsistence and safety, with all the consideration due to humanity" This directive was actually enforced as evidenced by the 20,000 to 40,000 refugees who the government supported in cities like Poitiers, Orléans, and La Rochelle.

The conservative right in France has been peddling this genocide narrative since the mid-1980s, but no amount of dramatic cursive text with melancholic violin strains will convert fiction into fact.

What happened in the Vendée was horrific. Were there war crimes? Numerous. Was the region scarred by the violence? Undoubtedly. Should we acknowledge that? Of course!  But pushing a theory that is not true detracts from recognising the violence, learning from it and ensuring it will never happen again.

It also cheapens the heroic acts and sacrifices of those who fought not for the narrow political agendas of the 21st century but for causes they truly believed in. The counter-revolutionaries in the Vendée and throughout France were driven by a deep commitment to protect their communities, faith, and way of life. They were not merely victims of a systematic extermination effort but active participants in a struggle to defend their political and religious beliefs (7). Admittedly, I'm not an expert on Charette, but I suspect he would be disturbed to see his legacy so grossly misrepresented…

Notes

(1) Puy du Fou is a historical theme park in the Vendée known for its elaborate live shows that recreate historical events. It has faced criticism for potentially exploiting history and is managed by the Puy du Fou Foundation, linked to its founder, Philippe de Villiers, a French politician noted for his conservative and nationalist views.

(2) This particular show focuses on François Athanase Charette de La Contrie, a Vendean general.

(3) Genocide is defined by the United Nations in the "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", adopted on December 9, 1948, as acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.

(4) The conflict in the Vendée began in March 1793, prior to Robespierre's association with the Committee of Public Safety. Danton was the one who was instrumental in shaping the initial response to the uprising and was the president of the Convention during Barère’s speech. Weirdly enough, Danton is nowhere on that stage…

(5) The full qoute is "Nous aurons la paix le jour que l'intérieur sera paisible, que les rebelles seront soumis, que les brigands seront exterminés. Les conquêtes et les perfidies des puissances étrangères seront nulles le jour que le département de la Vendée aura perdu son infâme dénomination et sa population parricide et coupable. Plus de Vendée, plus de royauté ; plus de Vendée, plus d'aristocratie ; plus de Vendée, et les ennemis de la république ont disparu. "

(6) This type of rhetoric was not unique to the Vendée but was also directed at other counter-revolutionary hotspots across France like Brittany, Lyon, Marseille, Avignon, etc.

(7) I'm not a particular fan of those beliefs but I can respect the courage to stand up in defence of a lost cause.

[beatricecenci]

Louis Léopold Robert (Swiss, 1794-1835)

Femme de brigand veillant sur le sommeil de son mari

[anotherhumaninthisworld]

i'd like to know how bi (bisexual or biromantic) paul barras could be said to be.

The best evidence of Barras being attracted to men I’ve found in the hostile pamphlet Les Brigands démasqués, ou Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du temps présent, etc (1796) by Auguste Danican. On page 103 of said pamphlet we can read the following:

[Before the revolution] Barras, finding himself without resources, joined all the Greeks, and was himself an excellent Greek (although he understood neither Homer nor Lucian). He was seen a lot at the Hôtel d'Anglais, the usual meeting place for a crowd of swindlers; he lived modestly on a fourth floor, rue Champ-Fleury; went from time to time to core two imperial écus, and found himself in terrible distress.

The work Sodome à Paris: protohistoire de l’homosexualité masculine fin XVIIIe - milieu XIXe siècle (2009) by Thierry Pastorello, besides bringing up Danican, also mentions that ”Talleyrand tells the story of the drowning of Raymond Valz on July 15 1797, Raymond was Barras’ young lover. Raymond drowned himself under the eyes of Barras who would have shown signs of pain so big that one said he had just lost his mistress.” However, checking what Talleyrand actually writes about this incident in his memoirs, at least I have a hard time reading this as evidence Barras was romantically attracted to Valz, nor can I find the exact formulation that Barras mourned him like a mistress:

Whilst I was engaged in reading I don’t recollect what work, two young men came in to ascertain the time by the drawing-room clock, and seeing that it was only half-past three, they said to each other: ”We have to go for a swim.” They had not been gone twenty minutes, when one of them returned asking for help; I ran, with all the persons of the house, to the riverside. Facing the garden, between the high road and the island, the Seine forms a kind of whirlpool in which one of the young men had disappeared. The watermen of the neighbourhood soon rowed to the spot, and two of them most courageously dived to the bottom. However, with all the efforts they made to save the unfortunate fellow proved vain. I went back to the house. The corpse of the young man was only found the next day caught in weeds, at a spot distant more than six hundred yards from the place where he disappeared. The drowned was named Raymond, Lodève was his birthplace. Barras was very fond of him; he had brought him up and, since he had been appointed a Director, he had made him his aide-de-champ. I was alone in the drawing-room, not knowing exactly what to do. Who was to tell Barras the misfortune that had just befallen him? I had never seen the Director. My position was really unpleasant. A carriage drove up. On opening the door, the gardener said: ”M. Raymond has just been drowned, yes Citizen Director, he has just been drowned.” Barras crossed the front yard, and rushed upstairs to his room, crying out aloud. After waiting some little time, one of his servants told him I was in the drawing-room. He sent word to excuse his not coming down, and requesting me to sit down to dinner at once. The secretary who accompanied him remained upstairs. Thus, I was alone at Barras’ table. A quarter of an hour having elapsed, a servant came to request me to go up to the Director’s room. I felt thankful for his supposing that, under the circumstances, the dinner served to me could have no attraction. I felt quite upset. As I entered his room, he took hold of both my hands and embraced me; he was weeping.

Pastorello’s work also brings up historian Oliver Blanc, who in L’amour à Paris au temps de Louis XVI(2002) apparently notes ”that in 1793, Barras, finding himself in Draguignan, meets a young barber that he finds to his liking, Victor Grand.” Here we can again return to the original source, which is Barras’ memoirs (though do enlighten me if there’s more info on Grand and Valz) and see what he writes about, as he calls him, his aide-de-camp. This is the only interaction described between them that I’ve been able to find:

[After escaping from prison] Victor Grand came in haste to throw his arms about me; it was with pleasure that I once more beheld this young man, who had already won my entire confidence, and was one of the few who never ceased to be worthy of it. 

Other than that, Pastorello only cites more historians that claim Barras was attracted to men — Michel Larivière who in Homosexuels et bisexuels célèbres (1997) ”notes that Barras has the reputation of loving boys,” Michel Missofile who in Le cœur secret de Talleyrand (1956) notes ”that Barras lived in absence of any female presence with his man of trust François Roland, his piqueur Louis Copillon and his aide-de-camp Raymond Valz” and claims he was ”this seducer without a mistress, this husband without a home.” On Barras’ wikipedia we can also read that historian Jacques-Olivier Boudon apparently qualifies Barras as ”one of the best-known homosexuals of the time” whose “interest in young men was common knowledge at the time” in his Le sexe sous l'Empire (2019). I don’t have access to any of these books, so I unfortunately can’t check if these people use any more primary sources to argue their case.

In this post @tierseta does however bring attention to a part in Fouché’s memoirs, where he writes Barras had both ”courtiers (a masculine word) and mistresses”:

The exaggerated disparagement of his behavior and moral principles was precisely what attracted to him a court of swarming schemers (intrigants et intrigantes) and vampires. He was then in rivalry with Carnot, and maintained a favorable public opinion only by the idea that, if need be, he would be seen on horseback, defying, as on the 13th of Vendémiaire, any hostile attempt; as a matter of fact, he contrasted with [his image of] the Prince of the Republic, occasionally going hunting, having trained dog packs, courtiers and mistresses.

Finally, according to this anon, Barras had sex with and raped both women and men but only felt affection towards the latter group, and also got raped by his father on several occasions as a child. As the best source for this is given Barras’ biographer Henry Monteagle, whose work unfortunately has never gotten published and is extremely hard to obtain, but Barras apparently also talks about his attraction to men and abuse committed by his father in his memoirs. I have to admit I failed to find anything when searching for the word ”father” in the version of the memoirs linked within the post, and I don’t have time to read the entire memoirs to check if he says anything about his relation to other men in them (and I’m probably not the best person to do either since I’m pretty bad at reading subtext), but there might be something in there…

[chansondefortunio]

LOL i loved reading this omg! The 1951 review made me laugh out loud.

You are truly the lord of Les Contes d'Hoffmann, i bow down to our immense knowledge

(and sacrifice after going through the Brussels 2019, the Madrid 2014, and ESPECIALLY the Genève 2008 [those are my personal bottom-tier ones, the Genève 2008 holds a very special and personal place of hatred in my heart])

I request a detailed tier list of all the Hoffmann productions you've ever seen 🥺

okay BUCKLE UP

from Best to Worst my absolutely objective ranking of all 48 productions of this opera I've seen. and I am only just now realizing what an insane number of productions I have seen of this opera.

the best

#1. 2009/2015 Metropolitan Opera production (designed & directed by Bartlet Sher my beloved) Hands-down the best. Great vibe, great atmosphere, great casts in both productions, great amounts of gay, and costumes/sets that evoke such a fantastical feel it's like we've actually fallen into some kind of creepy fantasy from ETA Hoffmann's universe! A must see for anyone who loves this opera and a great first production.

#2. 1995 La Scala. The cast is to die for, the costumes and pleasingly straightforward, the sets go smoothly from wacky to eerie at the appropriate times. But most importantly it contains hands-down the absolutely bonkers fantastic amazing GAYEST Hoffmann/Nicklausse team EVER--Neil Shicoff and Susanne Menzter. I lost my fucking mind the first time I watched this one and continue to do so every time I rewatch.

 #3. Munich 2013. Fun and wacky all over with a great cast and excellent amounts of gay. Delightful all the way. Diana Damrau positively slays as the ladies. Rest of the cast is excellent too, no complaints.

#4. Brussels 1985. Surprisingly gay for being so old. A lovely production overall and, as far as I know, the first recorded production of this opera containing the Violin Aria (so possibly the first recorded Oeser edit?) which makes it extra special.

#5. Orange 2000. Two words: Angelika Kirchschlager (okay, four words: The Hair). Production's a bit odd and it is the cursed short edit but it is quite gay and, well, Angelika Kirchschlager. Outdoor stage lends a great atmosphere to the creepy parts. Natalie Dessay reigns supreme as Olympia again.

#6. Hamburg 2021. Very fun (though fairly, and somewhat distractingly, odd at times) production with another to-die-for cast. Very gay. Brower and Bernheim quickly made it to my top 10 (possibly top 5) Hoffmann/Nicklausse pairs. Olga Peretyatko gives fantastic, wonderfully multi-faceted portrayals of all the ladies and Luca Pisaroni is iconic as the villains.

#7. Paris 2002. Not as much a fan of the production, but it makes my top 10 simply because we get Shicoff and Mentzer in these roles again, and you simply cannot beat them. you just can't.

#8. 1970 German film. The costumes and sets for this are very detailed and evocative of the story and the special effects are amazing. There’s a decent amount of added dialogue, especially at the end with the Muse’s speech, so a few story-related liberties taken, though some of them draw from the original play which is interesting. All-around good cast with another dynamic Hoffmann/Nicklausse duo (the way Hoffmann runs offstage calling Nicklausse’s name over and over at the end of the Giulietta act…oh. my. god.)

#9 Zurich 2021. A bit too dark lighting-wise at times (could give Vienna a run for its money) but another fun and eccentric production. No big names but a good cast overall and another wonderfully gay lead pair but the ending has MUCH to be desired. They straight-ified it. Makes no sense. (does not compel me.)

#10. Royal Opera House 1981/2016. A classic. Very gay despite being the abbreviated version. Luscious sets and costumes. Some unfortunate casting in the tenor role but beyond that quite good, and my first production so it’s got a special place in my heart.

the good stuff

#11. Metropolitan Opera 1988. Featuring Adorable Baby Shicoff in yet another delightfully gay performance with an extra sassy (and impeccably dressed) Nicklausse. Olympia’s phenomenal. Some odd bits but a mostly great cast and fun staging make up for it.

#12. Barcelona 2013. Phenomenal cast somewhat dampened by a strange production—does a good job emphasizing the darker parts of the opera, which is a relatively rare (so interesting) take, but a few directorial choices don’t vibe with me at all. Quite gay though and great acting/singing overall.

#13. Vienna 2000. Unfortunately this exists as a highlights-only reel with absolutely terrible image/sound quality but we get Shicoff yet again paired with an equally adorable Kirchschlager in one of the gayest performances on the planet (making their 2005 performance all the more bizarre, but more on that later).

#14. Toronto City Opera 2019. Hoffmann and Nicklausse are such a dynamic duo in this one in the most adorable way. It’s abbreviated even by Choudens standards which is obnoxious but it’s such a cute and fun production it still makes my top 20.

#15. Paris 2016. Same production as the 2002 one so that in and of itself is not my cup of tea but we get a good cast which carries it pretty well.

#16. Las Palmas (?date?) This one is about as close to full-on Oeser as anyone’s tried (except maybe the Genève 2008 one) so it’s remarkable for that. The production is equal parts campy and cool and the cast overall is very good, especially the villains and especially Dapertutto. Chemistry between Hoffmann and the ladies is pretty great. Decently gay. I need Nicklausse’s Act 1 costume immediately.

#17. Macerata 2005. A low-key production with an even mixture of fun and strange. Nicklausse is adorable and off-the-charts gay. Relatively unremarkable besides that.

#18. Orlando 2015. Why, oh why do we not have a full recording of this production?? It currently exists only as a youtube playlist with videos of some of the most important parts and it just looks SO GOOD it makes my top 20 without even having seen the entire thing.

#19. Regina Opera (NYC) 2011. Straightforward and fun and lots of ingenuity for a tiny space. Olympia and Antonia are particularly good. Hoffmann winds up in Nicklausse’s lap at the end. Nuff said.

#20. St. Petersburg (Florida) 2017. Another highlights-only reel but it looks really good and I’m mad we don’t get the rest of it. Refreshingly straightforward sets/costumes and engaging performance.

#21. 1951 film. This movie is so extra. There’s really no other way to describe it. Everyone is gay. The sets are gay. The room is gay. The air is gay. Ironically though Hoffmann and Nicklausse don’t get much gay time together. A lot of Nicklausse’s stuff is cut and I don’t like how they do the ending. The final trio in the Antonia act is fire though (pun intended—watch it and you’ll see).

#22 Miami 2017. Another highlight playlist on youtube. I like the “pour conjurer le danger” in particular. Nothing else terribly exciting though.

#23. Las Palmas 2022: WHY, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2022, ARE WE STILL USING THE CHOUDENS EDIT FOR THIS OPERA?? At least Nicklausse is adorable and Hoffmann has good chemistry with him and the ladies (especially Antonia), but this fun and quirky production is absolutely wasted on the abbreviated edit. Come onnnnnnnn. (Especially after already attempting the Oeser one a few years back???)

decent

#24.  Skanderbeg 2005. Production doesn’t do much for me—looks like it came out of a bad sci-fi movie—and most of the acting isn’t great but it’s got a really cute Hoffmann/Nicklausse dynamic that made it worth the watch. Antonia was pretty good too.

#25.  Parma 1988. Unremarkable but pretty cute and gay.

#26. Avignon 2009. Only the Olympia act is available sadly but from little there is you can tell it’s a really fun and adorable production with good acting and signing all around.

#27. Paris 2000. Same production as the 2003/2016 one but the acting is less compelling except poor Kirchschlager who really does her best but it’s hard to sing to a wall and this Hoffmann is pretty much a wall. Nicklausse does get to slap Hoffmann though which is excellent.

#28. Royal Opera House 2000. Same production as the 1981/2016 one but the acting is overall less captivating.

#29. Beijing 2013. Unremarkable production with okay cast and annoying edit but the chemistry between Hoffmann and Nicklausse?? The Violin Aria blows it out of the park. They practically kiss at the end. It’s glorious.

#30. Buenos Aires 2019. I have a visceral reaction to this one and severe love-hate relationship with it. The edit sucks (no Violin Aria) but the cast is great. The sets are cool but the production/staging is questionable. Individual performances are good but there’s not much chemistry between anyone. And finally, despite the fact that we get next to no chemistry between Hoffmann and Nicklausse (and may I remind you NO VIOLIN ARIA) they decide to have Nicklausse and Hoffmann kiss at the end. I ranted about this for a full day once so I won’t go into any more here. But seriously. Come on.

#31. Met 1973. Super old, terrible sound/picture quality, but iconic thanks to the one, the only Dame Joan Sutherland singing all three heroines (not four, no Giulietta act in this one. It’s a really terrible edit).

questionable

#32. Genève 2008. Weird and downright unpleasant at times. Phenomenally gay but Hoffmann is a total jerk. Villains are quite good but the production takes away from pretty much everything. I’d like the heroines a lot better if it wasn’t for that awful bob cut (and Olympia’s costume…or rather lack thereof…). Giulietta somehow makes the hair work. My favorite edit so far—just wish it had a better production to go with it.

#33 Mexico City 2020. They tried, they really did, to do a Kaye edit but they tripped at the finish line. Also the production is kinda “?” Actors are pretty decent but I can’t get over Dapertutto and Giulietta kidnapping Nicklausse while Hoffmann does nothing. Matching outfits are a win but there’s not much else.

#34 Seoul 2019. Interesting production with good acting. Some really odd directorial choices. Edit is awful.

#35 Monte-Carlo 2018. I hate this one for making Juan Diego Flórez one of my favorite Hoffmanns but giving him a terrible production to work with. We get a nicely devious set of villains and Olga Peretyatko is great as the ladies (thank goodness she gets another shot in the Hamburg one four years later) but I don’t even want to talk about what they do with Nicklausse here.

#36 Lyon 1993. I was hyped for this one, I really was. Reviews kept praising it for the cast (which is great) and the fact it’s the first recording to use the Kaye edit, but…it doesn’t really? The edit is practically unrecognizable; aside from some parts of the orchestration I really couldn’t tell you which edit it was using. The production itself is…wild. Disturbing almost. I have no idea what’s going on, it’s almost like some kind of fever dream.

meh

#37. Moscow 2019. Unremarkable to the point of being forgettable. Odd and not compelling. Stop using Choudens people.

#38. Nagoya 2010. Okay production. Odd at points but Hoffmann is really cute and I do like the Antonia quite a bit.

#39. Hagan 2020. I don’t even know what this is supposed to be. I don’t think the director did either.

awful

#40. Berlin 2015. Edit is atrocious and production is equally bad. Nicklausse is pretty good and some of the Hoffmanns are decent (because, yes, there are multiple performers playing Hoffmann) but it’s just…I don’t even know.

#41. Dutch National Opera 2018. Do you know how much I’d give to see (most of) this cast in a Hoffmann production? One that’s not this one because it’s awful? They try to modernize it but it just doesn’t work at all and they make Nicklausse a girl for the entire show and just. Wow. No thank you. John Osborne and Erwin Schrott deserve so much better.

#42. Madrid 2014. I couldn’t begin to tell you what they are trying to do in this one. Another terrible interpretation of Nicklausse and the rest of the characters don’t seem to know what they are doing. I don’t think anyone working on the show did.

#43. Brussels 2019. You could barely even call this Les contes d’Hoffmann because of all the ridiculous stuff they add to make it something it really is not. The production is just plain confusing. Is it the opera? Is it a movie? Is it them trying to film the movie? There’s no consistent reality. They throw the gay out the window here too with another girl Nicklausse. And Hoffmann is quite a piece of work himself.

#44. Salzburg 2005. Another monstrosity that attempts to un-gay the opera and totally demolishes the Hoffmann/Nicklausse dynamic. I can’t believe this is actually McVicar. Why would a gay opera director decide to direct one of the gayest operas ever only to mutilate it to this extent.

#45. Antwerp 2000. Same production as above so same level of terribleness.

#46. Klostenberg 2019. What. Just what. I can’t even.

#47. Bregenzer Festspiele 2015. I’m convinced everyone working on this was high on shrooms while they made it because I can’t think of any other explanation for how bizarre it is.

#48. Mexico City 1987. Didn’t even watch this one because Nicklausse is a tenor which is an unforgiveable sin.

and there you have it! Now I just need to watch two more to make it an even 50!

thank you for letting me rant about this opera yet again:) I never get tired of it!

[lesmisscraper]

The End of the Brigand.

Clips from <Il cuore di Cosette>.

[mswyrr]

This edition rewrites the entire narrative of Carmilla while keeping the vast majority of the text exactly the same. Originally, Le Fanu published the chapters serially in a magazine, then later bound them together with an introduction which claimed that the story came from Doctor Hesselius’s notes. Machado adds another layer. She claims that Le Fanu pulled this story from stolen letters, disguising and censoring the women’s story. Machado claims that the real letters from Veronika (“Laura”) were explicit about her and Carmilla’s romantic and sexual relationship.

In this version, it isn’t queer women who are trying to alter the author’s intention in order to claim Carmilla. Instead, it’s Le Fanu whose heteronormativity has obscured the real story, which can now be unearthed in its true form. This edition also adds a few footnotes and illustrations, though I desperately wanted there to be more of both. The meta-narrative that Machado creates is one in which vampires do exist—and that’s not all. In one footnote, Laura lingers outside of the woods, and the footnote laments, “Lonely as she was, if only Laura knew the potential friends who resided in those woods! Peddlers, mountebanks, roguish-but-decent thieves and brigands, fairies, wolpertingers…” (Another footnote, after a lengthy description, succinctly states, “If this isn’t an orgasm, nothing is.”) And Robert Kraiza’s illustrations are beautiful and compelling.

[lenievi]

ok so what I kind of alluded to in this post the other day

like choices were made with bbc!Javert that's for sure but also he is not unrecognizable

from the beginning, they decided that Javert would have power. He was not just helping in Toulon, he was the guy there. He had no one to answer to, he had no superiors there. He followed the law and the rules of Toulon, cruelly and coldheartedly.

And so they established his character to be like this. Then he became a policeman and got promoted to an inspector and assigned to Montreuil. We were supposed to see him working under Madeleine, but they decided that bbc!Javert would recognize him immediately - there was zero doubt in his mind.

"Good God! it is very easy to be kind; the difficulty lies in being just. Come! if you had been what I thought you, I should not have been kind to you, not I! You would have seen!" (Hapgood)

(the translation I'm reading is using "good" (because the French is using "bon") and not "kind", but I think it doesn't matter much)

So bbc!Javert had no reason to act extremely respectfully and deferentially (in some way, he acted as Javert in the book before Madeleine became the mayor, but bbc!Javert was more forward and open about it. We only got very little from that period in the book; and the most we got was him provoking Madeleine during the cart scene).

And because bbc!Javert always knew, his character needed to be kept consistent and so his characterization would be mainly taken from Fantine's arrest and Valjean's arrest.

Javert doesn't listen to people he deems to be criminals. He doesn't care. Any protestation will make him angry, he will raise his voice. Javert enjoys power and hates when his authority is mocked and threatened.

During Valjean's arrest, Javert is petty, he literally stomps his foot, he even grasps Valjean's coat, cravat and shirt. He is elated, cruel, and uncaring.

“I tell you that there is no Monsieur Madeleine and that there is no Monsieur le Maire. There is a thief, a brigand, a convict named Jean Valjean! And I have him in my grasp! That’s what there is!” (Hapgood)

During the Montreuil era, bbc!Javert is a version of book!Javert that excluded the presence of a superior Javert would respect, i.e. Madeleine, imho. There was only a thief and a criminal present for bbc!Javert, and so he behaved accordingly.

[omglescubes]

adgfhsj imagine Richas was supposed to be sent to the High Class Prestigious School for young royals but ended up at the wrong adress with crazy people and decided to stay because this is so much more fun and exciting. they write letters to his royal parents every semester like "oh yes!! richarlyson is a great student! take it from me, the principal of the fancy school writing to you right now ahahahah

Can someone make a qsmp fantasy au where the kids are like future rulers and the qsmp member need to take care of them until they get to the throne?

[breadvidence]

Another prompt, something you talked about over discord: a Les Mis 2000 Valvert fic. You are the only one who understands (?) this show so you are the only one capable of making it.

Things the fic could include: Blank expressionless stares. Confusing timelines. Nonsensical dialogue. Everyone just kinda Standing There.

The fic no one asked for, til now

Look on my work, ye Mellow, and despair! (For those who have not seen or heard the tea on LM2000, the creators interpreted Jean Valjean as an evil violent criminal, a sexual predator—the politics are bad, bad, bad. The experience of writing this was very strange. The profound ambiguity in Javert's brain over whether this is specifically the convict Valjean might seem strange given Valjean is already the mayor, but LM2000 does not respect timelines and so I will not either.)

⁂

Javert wonders, sometimes, if he has gone mad. The people of Montreuil-sur-Mer love their mayor. He hears as woman call the man a bear, and suffers a moment of excitement, uncomfortable twitch all through his body, almost energetic: thinks that she, too, can see how those hulking shoulders move slow and threatening through a crowd, the menace that is like a red light in eyes under heavy brows, the heavy hands that are paws which would rend apart—but no; she is startled, he is quiet, and she did not know he was present, and she is puzzled as she explains an entirely different metaphorical figure. Accused of some gothic cave in place of a bedroom, he invites women to view it, and when Javert hears of it he shudders with the question of their safety—but they laugh, they twitter, the mayor was merry over it, in his slow booming way, and it was like any man’s bedroom. 

Monsieur Madeleine goes his way, and Javert follows behind, slow and cautious, and tries to tell himself that a rich man’s eccentricities are not his concern. Such things have never been of interest to him. He is a hunter of thieves and poachers, unlicensed whores and counterfeiters, not—this, whatever this is. A threat, and if there’s something about the bulbous nose and broad shoulders that seem familiar, well, his unease is enough already. Then—there’s the whore’s wedding. Loose morals are not his business any more than a rich man’s sins, unless they are expressed in real crime. Still. It troubles him, Madeleine’s strange slanting humor over it. He could be convinced of the value of a woman exchanging a fille publique’s license for the marriage papers. Perhaps. Unless she is still to work, as a married woman? Well, whoever fathers the children, they’ll serve France, he supposes.

⁂

Despairing, he thinks: it ought not have come to this. Why must he roam as he does, and seem to find himself in every place? Madeleine’s hand is at Javert’s throat, but he’s silent. Javert wishes he would speak. 

It starts like this: the café was not one of his usual haunts, a complaint to follow up on, a conversation overheard, slang and filth from the galleys taken up by the mouths of men who had never been there but wished to consummate a crime common to the chained and the desperate and the womanless. He notes their names and makes his way back towards the station house to open a file, itching under the close brick of the ramparts to his left and the house walls to the right. He thinks wistfully of forests and the baying of the bloodhounds. He prefers poachers and brigands for prey, but he goes where his superiors send him. He must pass by the mayor’s house, so disreputably kept in the low town, and is displeased to see him emerge from the front door and come down to the fence. He touches his hat and hopes he may pass by, but Madeleine makes a sign for him to wait.

Javert halts, his chin lifted but his gaze respectfully held at the level of Madeleine’s breast. Waits. God, the man’s silences! He flicks a look up, meets inscrutable eyes, lets himself focus instead on one uneven ear. Is it the consequence of head trauma, he ponders, the kind that cracks and slides the skull about to reform ever so slightly yet grotesquely wrong?

“Inspector,” he says, low, “you look like you are off to a fine meal. You were smiling, slightly. I might want to follow you to see where in town can make Javert look eager.”

“I found a pair of buggers,” he says, offended at the accusation he would spend his wages prodigally on such pettiness as food, then frowns in tired distaste at Madeleine’s guffaw. “Forgive the unfortunate implication, monsieur. I was not smiling, but grimacing. I will file a preliminary report at the station so that myself and your other agents of the police can monitor them.”

“If that is a grimace, then all the world is a frown.” He’s smiling, now, as he leans his thick hands on the fence. “Buggery isn’t a crime.” 

“Indecency. Disturbing of the peace. Obscenity. These are crimes, monsieur. The buggery is merely a revolting mechanic of a perversion that disorders society. If the state’s law does not persecute based on God’s law, then it is because God will handle His business. We handle ours.”

Madeleine opens the gate, and an invitation can be derived from his gaze. Or an order. “If it is a revolt, it comes from what were the galleys.”

“These were not galériens. They were not, that is to say, bagnards, or forçats, or whatever name you want for them. Men who are not convicts will bugger each other.”

“You know so surely? Come in, inspector. You recognized them by the words they used, didn’t you? You are familiar with them. You were a guard. Guards see much, though they stop little.”

The hair prickles on the back of his neck, unease, the bristling of a hound. “I will not take your time with this.”

“You won’t take anything of mine. I’ll take yours—your time, that is. Come in.” 

It is a command. He proceeds with a slow step, his long hair falling over his cheeks. There is a blush there he cannot account for. Shame. There is no fire in the hearth, no ashes. He stares at the naked stone and murmurs, “You do not call dogs fucking in the street obscene. You merely beat them into the kennel, where they do not make an offensive sight for citizens. The bagne is a kennel, of sorts.” 

“Do you know, inspector, your voice has a kind of hypnotic quality. Not unpleasant.” Madeleine seizes him by the upper arm, fingers slipping over the leather of his coat before they clench tight, tight, the seam of the sleeve pressing into skin. “You might say more pleasant of things.” And turns him, roughly. “Look around you. I keep my home a kind of kennel, to remember humbleness.” 

“Dogs do not read so much, I think, or keep silver on the mantle. Forgive the argument, monsieur.” 

“You often argue. It is unpleasant. Did I not say that you ought to do elsewise?” His hand slides up to his shoulder, too harsh to be a caress, and pauses to dig a moment into the meat of his shoulder. “I think you ought to tell me what you know about buggery. Pleasantly. I think when we are done you will find it isn’t the state’s business, that it is not disordering. You are incapable of causing disorder—isn’t that what you think, inspector? I think you will not be able to hold yourself above others, unless you change your mind on the matter. Then those men you overheard will not be at risk of your report-writing, and they will not go to the bagne, where no-one should go. Though—who knows! Maybe I do them wrong.” He shows his teeth. “They might think the hard labor worth a hard fucking. One of the, at least, who’s looking to play woman. I don’t hazard the minds of the buggered.” He gives him a little shake. “You should explain to me.” 

“If I were to so fall as you suggest,” Javert says, in a last quietly-spoken attempt to save himself, “I would report on them and myself and you, and resign. I am upright, monsieur, in truth, and no hypocrite.” He makes eye contact, and feels hope, in the pause that follows. It hurts, a throbbing in his temples, to threaten a magistrate. He tries to frame it to himself as a warning, as he might warn a man about to step in shit with his fine boots. He feels the strength of the hand on him, and thinks of other strong men he has known. No, no. 

Madeleine’s fingers close around his throat, harsh, the grip exact: Javert will be able to speak, with discomfort. A practiced torture. “Do as I’ve said.”

Javert despairs.

[bakawitch]

Miraculous Mortality Parasite Users

(No particular order of importance, up to change)

*TBR - To Be Revealed

**TBS - To Be Selected

Dove - Marinette/Mireille Qian - l'Œillet/Eyelet

Snail - Adrien/René le Blanc - Helix Vert

Cat - TBR*

Dragonfly - TBR

Wolf - TBR

Rabbit - TBR

Deer - TBR

Fox - TBR

Ferret - TBR

Fungus - TBR

Anglerfish - Ondine/Margot Fontaine - Sirena

Owl - Chloé/Cornelia Neuville - Strixelle

Coyote - Claudia/Jaqueline Ramage - Brigand (OC) @wisteriasymphony

Butterfly - Lívia/Illangó Bíborka - Fair Malison (OC)

Jellyfish - TBR

Black Widow - TBR

White Bat - Felix/Asher Blackvale - Noctule

Snapping Turtle - TBR

Octopus - TBR

Chameleon - Manon/Clarabelle Beaufoy - Princess Blissa

Wild Dog - Ivan/Piers Faucher - Hell Hound

Moth - Juleka/Rose Rock - Mothra

Silk Moth - TK/Kingsley Rucker - Hexerei (YGO)

Lanternfly - Beau/Cleé Malachai - Phthonus (OC)

Albino Peacock - TBR

Black Goat - TBR

Spider - Sabrina/Delancey de la Cour - Agent S

Fly - TBR

Cattle - TBR

Platypus - Inaaya 'Aya' Acharya-Lockwood - Ekaanta (OC) @kissofchrysantheum

Lice - Hyperion Acharya-Lockwood - Ichor (OC) @kissofchrysantheum

Panther -TBR

Snake - Adalheidis 'Alice/Heidi' Exton - Ophedia (OC) @kissofchrysantheum

Hare - Eileithiya 'Thea' Fox - Invidia (OC) @kissofchrysantheum

Mouse - Camilla Higashikata - Cheer (OC) @yukii0nna

Jaguar - TBS**

Hawk - TBR

Dragon - TBR

Possum - TBS

Lionfish - TBS

Rook - TBS

Shark - TBS

Hornet - TBS

Eel - TBS

Mortality Miracle Box

[pureanonofficial]

LES MIS LETTERS IN ADAPTATION - End of the Brigand, LM 3.3.4 (Les Miserables 1925)

By the dim light of the candle, a large tear could be distinguished on the pale and prostrate colonel’s cheek, where it had trickled from his dead eye. The eye was extinguished, but the tear was not yet dry. That tear was his son’s delay. Marius gazed upon that man whom he beheld for the first time, on that venerable and manly face, on those open eyes which saw not, on those white locks, those robust limbs, on which, here and there, brown lines, marking sword-thrusts, and a sort of red stars, which indicated bullet-holes, were visible. He contemplated that gigantic sear which stamped heroism on that countenance upon which God had imprinted goodness. He reflected that this man was his father, and that this man was dead, and a chill ran over him. The sorrow which he felt was the sorrow which he would have felt in the presence of any other man whom he had chanced to behold stretched out in death. Anguish, poignant anguish, was in that chamber. The servant-woman was lamenting in a corner, the curé was praying, and his sobs were audible, the doctor was wiping his eyes; the corpse itself was weeping. The doctor, the priest, and the woman gazed at Marius in the midst of their affliction without uttering a word; he was the stranger there. Marius, who was far too little affected, felt ashamed and embarrassed at his own attitude; he held his hat in his hand; and he dropped it on the floor, in order to produce the impression that grief had deprived him of the strength to hold it. At the same time, he experienced remorse, and he despised himself for behaving in this manner. But was it his fault? He did not love his father? Why should he!