#actually you guys might not know how much i love hadley fraser

[bereft-of-frogs]

ok I think the problem with the Phantom of the Opera adaptations that I’ve seen is they just...they just don’t quite capture how silly and young and stupid Raoul is.

like they always try to make him a serious romantic foil to Erik when in the book he is a painfully exuberant 20 year old trailing after his brother to the opera and occasionally just bursting into tears.

I mean I’m always in favor of more men crying in fiction, but this case especially. More dumb baby-faced Raoul.

- - -

Evidence

Introduction:

“The shyness of the sailor-lad - I was almost saying his innocence - was remarkable. He seemed to have just left the women’s apron-strings. As a matter of fact, petted as he was by his two sisters and his aunt, he had retained from this purely feminine education manners that were almost candid and stamped with a charm that nothing had yet been able to sully. He was a little over twenty-one years of age and looked eighteen. He had a small, fair moustache, beautiful blue eyes and a complexion like a girl’s.” (22)

The ‘meet-cute’:

“’Monsieur,’ she said, in a voice not much above a whisper, ‘who are you?’

‘Mademoiselle,’ replied the young man, kneeling on one knee and pressing a fervent kiss on the diva’s hand, ‘I am the little boy who went into the sea to rescue your scarf.’

Christine again looked at the doctor and the maid; and all three began to laugh.

Raoul turned very red and stood up.” (25)

At the masquerade (after Christine has stopped him from going after the Red Death/Erik and has a literal ‘you shall not pass’ moment, that’s literally the line in this translation):

“...And, in accents of childish hatred, he said:

‘You lie, madam, for you do not love me and you have never loved me! What a poor fellow I must be to let you mock and flout me as you have done! Why did you give me every reason for hope, at Perros...for honest hope, madam, for I am an honest man and I believed you to be an honest woman, when your only intention was to deceive me! Alas, you have deceived us all! You have taken a shameful advantage of the candid affection of your benefactress herself, who continues to believe in your sincerity while you go about the Opera ball with Red Death!...I despise you!...’

And he burst into tears.” (95)

In conclusion: cast more baby-faced and over-emotional Raouls. Make Raoul and Christine’s love story just so pure and innocent stop trying to turn this into an actual love triangle-

(okay like...I’ll admit that sometimes the drama of the actual love triangle is fun. and you all know how much I love Hadley Fraser, but I just also would love an adaptation that takes more of the book characterizations, where like Erik and Christine are having this very serious Gothic horror narrative and Raoul is just Not Emotionally Equipped for this. it’s the contrast that’s really fun. instead of making them both brooding rivals, like...dialing up the innocence. I think it would be fun.)

[sophiethetheatregirl]

Les Miserables (2018) Review/Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, let’s get this straight: I don’t hate this series. It’s just that a lot of things really annoy me. First, let’s just quickly talk about the positives before unpacking...everything else. 

It was really nice to see plot points adhering a little closer to the book, such as Waterloo, Valjean robbing Petit Gervais, Fantine’s relationship with Felix, etc. 

The cast is also quite good - then again, it’s the BBC, they usually get pretty competent actors. Still a little salty that it seems Fantine will always have brown hair in adaptations, but I’ve kind of become resigned to that. Lily Collins isn’t my ultimate Fantine, but she did well with what she was given with. Despite the decisions made for her character, Erin Kellyman was also a great Eponine (when she died, I saw the bullethole on her hand, kudos for details). In a better adaptation, I’m sure she would have been straight up amazing. Also I’m glad they showed you that Fantine was being tricked by the Thenardiers, whereas in the musical you didn’t see that at all. Enjolras and Grantaire’s deaths sadly didn’t involve the “Do you permit it” line, but I thought it was still rather beautiful. 

And Derek Jacobi was a great Bishop. He can do no wrong. 

Okay, onto the bad. *cracks knuckles*

I find it incredible how even though Andrew Davies stated the series would be closer to the novel, he got many characterizations way off, especially Valjean. You know you have a problem when your main character is doing stuff even fans who’ve only seen the musical know he’d never do. Like, why the hell did he have to be the one who fired Fantine? Valjean is far too understanding, too kind to kick out a person for having a secret kid. It’s ridiculous. Making it even worse, his relationship with adult Cosette is awful. He’s overprotective for sure, but the series makes him look utterly possessive, and that’s just gross. 

Poor Cosette can never catch a break when it comes to adaptation. I was so hyped up to see a girl who was sassy and clever and kind, but nope! She has even less personality than her musical version, which is saying something. Funny how Andrew Davies said that he didn’t like how weak Victor Hugo’s female characters were (a bullshit statement if he actually read the book), but if he had such a problem with them, he didn’t...you know, make them people with real agency. You’re a writer for god’s sake, Mr. Davies! 

Javert might not be my favourite character, but I do find him very fascinating. It was fingerbitingly irritating to see him focus on nothing but arresting Valjean. The fandom does make jokes about him being like that, but we know there’s more to him than just a desire to arrest a guy who stole a loaf of bread. Also, I just facepalmed when he said he valued arresting Valjean over the revolution in the streets. People are dying, you dolt! I thought you devoted your life to protecting the public. Not to mention him thinking Valjean would be leading the revolution was just really weird. I’m honestly rather sad to see him reduced to that, because I frankly really like David Oyelowo as an actor.      

The Les Amis were almost a complete disappointment. They were just so boring. Which is not something I want to say about a group of revolutionaries! Enjolras doesn’t give a speech until mere hours before his death, so I wasn’t sold on him being a charismatic leader. Also...he was brunette. And had a pornstache. All right, it’s fine if he’s not blond (Ramin Karimloo comes to mind as an awesome not blond Enjolras), but you’d think if they were going to be loyal to the book, they’d make sure to add the detail that Enjolras is basically Apollo with how many times Victor Hugo mentioned him being blond. Also, they cut the group completely in half. I missed my precious Joly and Combeferre (sob). At least Courfeyrac was adorable as he always is. Grantaire is okay - at least there was a hint he loved Enjolras. I still say George Blagden and Hadley Fraser are the quintessential Grantaires, though. 

Marius. It was so uncomfortable seeing him acting so smooth. Marius Pontmercy is a quirky and awkward Napoleonic Democrat and that’s how I like him. That’s why I loved Eddie Redmayne so much - his singing voice wasn’t Tony material, but he was perfectly awkward and adorably heartsick. Also that freaking wet dream sequence - what the flying fuck was that?! Marius is a romantic idiot, not a horny one. 

And finally, my biggest problem of all, Andrew Davies himself. I really don’t understand why his writing was so lame here when he also wrote for the 1995 Pride and Prejudice, which I thought was really good. Even War and Peace, despite its flaws, had genuinely beautiful moments. Also, like everybody else, I was pretty annoyed when he called the musical a “travesty” and his version was going to “save” Hugo’s novel. Yeah, shit over the millions of people who were introduced to the story through the musical (like me). The show is nearly forty years old, of course people are going to compare the series to the musical. 

And speaking of the musical...does anyone else find it really odd that many shots looked like they were straight up ripped off from the 2012 film, which was of course a musical? Talk about ironic. Wonder what Tom Hooper would say about that.

The last shot to end the series also pissed me off for some reason, showing Gavroche’s little brothers sitting on the street without him begging to passerby, who ignore them. Les Miserables is a story about hope for Pete’s sake, you’d think it’d end on a better high than that. Essentially, it’s like they’re giving a giant middle finger to everyone watching. I know this was also in the Brick and Victor Hugo meant to send a different message, but the one we got looked irritatingly cynical. The message the series tells us is that the revolution failed, and nothing is going to get better - a message that directly contradicts what Victor Hugo was trying to say with the whole damn story. (This scene also serves as a lesson to anyone not familiar with the adaptation process: Just because it works on the page doesn’t mean it can work onscreen.)

Come on BBC, you make amazing shows. You can do better than this. 

[artistjojo1228]

Rambling Reviews: Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall (2011)

*I’ve seen this so many times, I lost count in the first two weeks of October, 2014*

I don’t believe there was ever any doubt that when the 1986 musical, Phantom of the Opera, turned 25, there would be a huge celebration. Fittingly, like its counterpart, Les Miserables, the subsequent performance was recorded and later sold on DVD. Now, I’m warning you now, this was the very first version of Phantom of the Opera I ever saw, so, naturally, I might be blinded by my nostalgia for this.

The story is centered on the Opera Populaire (which, funnily enough, translates to “Popular Opera”), an opera house in Paris that is mainly based off the real-life Palais Garnier. It’s here that the Phantom (who went by “Erik” in the original novel), a mad genius who was born deformed, falls in love with a beautiful young soprano, Christine Daae. He teaches her to sing, and she (for a while), only knows and regards him as the “Angel of Music” that her dead father promised to send her on his deathbed. Then, things get extraordinarily complicated when Christine’s childhood friend, Vicomte Raoul de Chagny, comes back into Christine’s life and tries to win over her heart (let’s just say that this doesn’t go over too well with M. le Fantome).

Let’s get this out of the way early, the singing is incredible, and I feel it should be, considering they got quite a few top-notch West End perfomers involved. Ramin Karimloo (for the curious, it’s pronounced “Ra-MEEN”) played the Phantom, and by God, he was incredible on all fronts (singing, acting, mannerisms, etc.). Even to this day, his portrayal of Erik is pretty much a defining portrayal for me (again, blame the whole nostalgia factor). Sierra Boggess was also amazing as Christine for the exact same reasons (particularly with the singing). This was actually Hadley Fraser’s first turn-out in Phantom of the Opera, and I thought that, as Raoul, he was a great singer, but on recent analysis, I’m starting to agree with people who say that he had anger issues as Raoul. However, I do hope that he gets to play Raoul again or maybe someone else in this play, because I hear that, otherwise, he’s a great actor. The supporting cast was equally great, and honorable mentions go out to Wendy Ferguson (Carlotta), Wynne Evans (Piangi), Liz Robertson (Madame Giry), Barry James (Firmin), and Gareth Snook (Andre).

As for the music, I don’t think it’s any surprise that it’s one of the most recognizable aspects of the show. Whilst I admit to preferring the first act to the second, I have to admit that the entire score is amazing. My favorite songs from this musical include the title song, “Music of the Night,” “Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,” “Point of No Return,” “All I Ask of You,” and “Down Once More/Final Lair.” All of these songs were handled quite beautifully in this production, and the orchestrations were magnificent. On a less popular note, though, I felt that the choreography in some places just kind of flailed about. However, I will note that the only place where I found this to be a huge problem was with “Hannibal.” Aside from that, it was fine.

Now, let’s get to what I’m sure is quite divisive, the sets. See, this production was staged in the Royal Albert Hall, and seeing as it’s a concert hall, there was no chandelier crash, and the sets were, for the most part, provided by LED lights. Now, considering that I saw this live between me rewatching this and the time I’m writing this (July 11, 2017), I still say that these are okay. Yeah, it sucks that the chandelier didn’t rise above the audience or crash onto the stage, but I do understand, since they had to work with what space they had. Besides, I don’t think any of that should detract from an otherwise stunning performance.

Lastly, I want to talk about the story itself, and please keep in mind, I’m speaking as someone who hasn’t quite finished the original novel yet. Now, aside for one or two major plot holes that I’ll get to a second, I really liked the story. Yes, I’m sure the original novel was better in this department, but I think that, as a whole, Andrew Lloyd Webber did a pretty good job in adapting the story from page to stage (although, how this same story suffered so much when being adapted again for the 2004 film starring Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum, I’ll most likely never know). As for that plot hole, I think the “Point of No Return” scene doesn’t make that much sense these days. Yes, Erik’s attempting an Italian accent and he’s wearing a hooded cloak, but I think that the characters and in-story audience should have realized that Piangi’s voice had changed and that he lost quite a bit of weight. I mean, I can accept the interpretation that Christine might be going along with it, but there’s still the fact that she’s heard this guy’s voice before. Aside from that, though, I really liked this story.

Overall, this was an amazing production fitting for a play that had recently turned 25. The acting/singing is incredible, the songs are beautifully written, the story still holds up (for the most part), and they did a great job with working with the stage they had chosen. Also, keep in mind that the performers only had two weeks worth of rehersal before this! I’d definitely recommend this for any fan of the musical or just the story in general. In the meantime, can someone please remind me that I can go into just as much detail with something that doesn’t involve having been an obsession of mine?!

95/100 A