Encores and Standing Ovations: They Must Be Earned

When was the last time you went to a concert and they DIDN'T perform an Encore number? 

I mean seriously?!  Is it even special any more? 

I feel like this is one of those "back when I was young" posts.  I used to think an encore meant something.  It used to mean that the concert was over, but the people were cheering so loud, and kept clapping so long, that the performers couldn't help but give them more.  They had done a great show, an amazing show, and the audience wanted more.  They yearned for more, they yelled and clapped and pleaded for more because the night was too perfect to end - they wanted it to last just a little bit longer.

THAT - is when you play an encore. 

There are very few times that an Encore should be planned.
Sure - you can have some songs prepared  to play as an encore if it's really deserved, but you should only plan on doing an encore ahead of time when you have something in reserve that is REALLY amazing that doesn't fit in the regular performance.

FOR EXAMPLE: I went to see the Les Miserables 25th Anniversary Concert.  (I watched it in a theater in my hometown, I couldn't really afford the money or time to fly to London and see it live in the O2.)
They sang the entire musical of Les Miserables.  It is a set show, with all the songs and roles already set out.  The only people watching the concert are likely to be HUGE fans already.  They're the kind of fans who can tell you who played the lead characters in the original Broadway version, and they know every song by heart. 

THAT is when you are allowed to plan an Encore.  They planned to bring the original 1985 cast on stage and have them sing a huge production number to please the fans who adored the concert:


Then they had 4 different singers perform the most heartfelt and slowest song of the show in perfect harmony:


You can hear the audience cheer the moment they realize what is happening - they can't help it.  They love the music, the singers, the moment.  Their passion and excitement drives them to plead for more.

THAT is the feeling and moment that deserves an Encore.

It is also the feeling and moment that deserves a Standing Ovation.

I have been at far too many concerts where the audience only stood because they felt obliged to do so.  The performance ended, they sat and clapped, some people stood, then the rest of us couldn't see the performers bowing so we leaned forward in our chairs and slowly stood.
Then at least we could see and didn't feel out of place by still sitting. 

Don't get me wrong, lots of shows are good.  They deserve the money you paid for the ticket, and applause at the end.  They even merit waiting around for signatures or pictures.  But do they all merit standing ovations?

Have we cheapened the concert experience by making standing ovations and encores mandatory?

If we treat every performance like it was special, then how do we show the performers the difference when they do something REALLY amazing?  How do we say "I know I stood up and yelled 'encore' the last 16 times you performed - but this time I really mean it!"

It's like the boy who cried 'wolf.'  Eventually people doubt your sincerity, and then when you really want to get your message across, it will fall on deaf ears.

Out of respect for the performers: plan on staying in your seat at the end, and don't expect an encore.  Then when you can't help but stand, and can't help but beg for more - they'll know you mean it.

Why Les Miserables Matters

Les Miserables is about belief, faith, and conversion.  It is about moments of Crisis that test us and try us.

Do you live what you profess?  What would it take to change your mind?  Can people change?  What is worth living for?  What is worth dying for?

These are the themes of Les Miserables.  Each main character must face a moment when their view on life, their professed reason for happiness, is challenged.

THE BISHOP:

The story begins with an old Bishop.  He gives up the large church to make it a hospital, and moves his alter and house into the old small hospital.  He helps the poor, the needy, and never keeps anything nice or expensive for himself, except a nice set of silver dinnerware. 

Along comes a poor convict – fresh out of prison.  The Bishop gives the man dinner on his silver, lets him sleep on a feather bed, and calls him “brother.”
The convict steals all the silverware from the cupboard.  He runs away in the night and is caught by the gendarmes and brought back to the Bishop. 

The bishop has always professed to be a forgiving man of God.  He lives a poor simple life, but has somehow kept this silver all along.  Will he still be forgiving to a man that betrayed his trust and mocked his hospitality?  Will he still keep his little guilty pleasure – the silver, or will he give it up, and forgive the convict?  Where does his happiness lie?  Is it in Justice or Mercy?

THE MOTHER:

She falls in love.  She is in the prime of her youth and can’t imagine a better life.  Then her wealthy boyfriend abandons her one day and she is left alone, pregnant, with no employment.  She passes a woman on the street who had two daughters of her own.  Those two little girls look happy and content.  Her daughter could possibly have a better life living with them for a time.  Will the mother give up her daughter to grant her the chance at a better life?

The mother attains work, but is eventually cast out because she has a child and no husband.  She can’t find any good work and must decide between her pride and dignity, and supporting her daughter financially.  Will she sell her locket, her hair, her teeth, her virtue?  What can she sacrifice for the love of her daughter?  Where does her happiness lie?  Is it in her own life, or her daughters?

THE REVOLUTIONARY:

His father left when he was young, and never returned.  His Grandfather is rich and wants to dictate how his grandson lives his life.  Will this young man live a rich privileged life that he is entitled to?  While he live poor?  When he finds out his father was a good honest man, will he follow his footsteps? 

The revolutionary believes in the people of France.  He believes in the cause of freedom.  His life is dedicated to the revolution.  Then he falls in love - completely and absolutely head-over-heels in love.  His love is leaving, going away to England forever.  Will he follow her and find happiness in a life of love and happiness?  Will he stay and fight at the barricades in the cause of freedom?

The revolutionary knows his father’s life was saved by a man named Thernardier.  He swears to his father to help this “Thernardier” if they ever meet.  He swears to help him anyway he can.  When they do meet, Thernardier is a the worst and most vile of men.  The revolutionary watches as his girlfriend and her father are threatened, kidnapped, and held hostage by Thernardier.

Should the Revolutionary save his girlfriend, or the man he swore to serve and protect?  Is his happiness in love, or in honor?

THE OTHER WOMAN:

(this story line is only in the musical, not in the book)

She loves a young man.  He is handsome; he is brave; he is rich but lives like he’s poor.; and… he is in love with someone else. 

She would be his at any moment if he asked, but he sees them as “just friends.”  He asks her to help him court his love.  He asks her to find her, find her address, take him to her, deliver her love notes.

Where does the happiness of ”the other woman” lie?  Is it in being with him, or in making him happy by helping him be with another?

When he breaks her heart over and over again, should she still defend and help him?  When his life is in danger, will she sacrifice her life for his, even though he is in love with someone else?

THE INSPECTOR:

Life is just.  You reap what you sow.  There are no hand-outs.  There are no gray areas.  There is hard work and honest living, and that’s the way to be happy. 
He is just in all things.  He gives people exactly what is required by law.  He has no need to pass judgment because that is for God and the courts.  He enforces.

Men are good, or men are bad.  They choose, and they keep their course.  He has seen it time and time again. 

When Javert wrongly accuses a man, he asks for demotion and reprimand.  He asks that justice be meted out on him as it is on everyone else.

What does he do when a convict, a man who broke his parole and is on the lam, appears to be good? The man helps others and lives a seemingly honest life.   How can this be?

When a man he has hunted, chased, and found has a chance to kill the inspector, the convict instead lets him live.  He lets him go.

When the convict should be running for his life, he stops to help an injured young man, to carry him to safety.

The convict never asks for help for himself, only to be allowed to help others.  He needs an hour, a day, a short time to finish helping someone else, then he’ll turn himself in.  Can he be believed?

The Inspector must decide: Is happiness found in never breaking a single rule?  Is it found in justice?  Is there room for mercy, and if so, how can he reconcile that in his mind? 

THE CONVICT:

He is the main character of the story.  He has many of these moments of Crisis.  When he is shown kindness and love, will he steal and be who he has become in Prison?  Will he steal the silver from the Bishop?
When he is forgiven and given a new lease on life – will he change, will he become a better man?

When another man is accused in his place.  When the convict could have someone else jailed in his place, will he let it happen and live a free man, or will he confess to save this stranger from a lifetime in Prison?

When the convict sees a prostitute being abused and mis-accused, while he stand up for her? 

When he is asked to care for a little child, what will he do for her? 

When she grows up and has become all he cares about in the world, can he let her go when it is her time to move on, marry, and live her own life?

When he is given a chance to exact punishment and vengeance on the officer who had been chasing him his entire adult life, will he take it.? When the officer has done “wrong” and the convict has ”the right” to kill him, will he?

When the convict realizes he is a liability to his daughter, will he exit her life for good, for her good?

This story speaks to us.  It speaks to the very core of why we live.  What makes us happy?  What makes life worth living, and death worth dying?  What is the ultimate goal?  Where is the line between right and wrong, good and bad, justice and mercy?

This is about conversion – do we really believe that which we profess?  When it’s all on the line, who are we?

Who Am I?

(If you want to read an abridged version of the book - here's my version)

Review - Les Miserables Movie

GRADE: B+ 

Of course I enjoyed it - I'm a Les Miserables fanatic.  But it was not perfect.

This is a review of the movie for those who know the story, know the musical, and can even name many of the actors.  This review spoils everything, does not review the story at all, but rather the mechanics, the casting, writing, and filming.


Here's what was great: 

1. New Song: "Suddenly" was very needed because it finally gives Valjean a reason to care so deeply for Cosette. Before in the musical, he finds her, takes her away from Thenardiers, and then suddenly loves her like a daughter with no explanation.

 2. Colm Wilkinson as the Bishop: Having the original Valjean in the movie was genius. He sang it well.

3. Adding Marius' Grandfather: It was a needed addition to the story line to show how Marius can have this rich extravagant wedding and care for Cosette well.

4. Gavroche: He was amazing. His face and singing was perfect. The moment with Javert and the pin was very touching. My personal favorite addition was the fact that Gavroche lives in an elephant statue. That is taken directly from the book, and I appreciated it.

 5. The Revolution scenes: They look so real. The war is real, the despair is real, and the outcome is real. Tragic, and real. It was well filmed

6. Javert toe's the line: During "Stars" and "Suicide" he literally toe's the line on the ledge, and the symbolism is deep.

7. Fixing the ending. They finally took Eponine out of the song when Valjean is dying and going to heaven. It never made sense. Replacing her with the Bishop made it a great ending. (I wrote a whole blog post about this before)

 8. Many singers: Marius, Enjolras, Grantaire, Cosette (old and young), Eponine, Gavroche, the Bishop, and Fantine all did an amazing job. Madame Thernardier sang it exactly like the concert version - which was great. Valjean and Mr. Thernardier were good. Javert was fair.

Thing that they messed up: 

1. Russell Crowe. I think they should have cast someone else - but even so - they screwed up worse. They added new lines just for the movie, they were lines that were only going to be sung by one person (Russell Crowe) in one movie. WHY did they write them in a high octave?!?! They made Crowe sound ridiculous by writing him high notes to sing/speak when they could easily have written them in his range. That was dumb.

2. Changing "I have bought your soul for God." They made it "I have saved your soul for God" instead. The book and the original say "bought." Why change it?

3. New lines being sung with odd melodies. Many of the new lines were important, but the music was poor, and they sounded very forced.

4. Bring Him Home - Sorry, but Hugh Jackman couldn't sing it high and soft like it needs to be. He had to belt it out to make it work - which ruined it.

I thought was a very good movie. It tells the story very VERY well. It all makes sense, it is emotional, and it draws you in and makes you weep. I'll buy it. I wasn't perfect, but I recommend it.

To prove how much of a Les Miserables nerd I am:
Here are the prediction I made about the movie back in September

Here is my abridgment of the entire book (500 pages)

Here is my comparison of Valjean with Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof

Les Miserables Predictions:

Yes - I am one of THOSE people.  I love Les Miserables.  I mean REALLY love it.
Due to lack of funds and time I have only been to see the stage musical twice - but here are a few examples of how much I love the story:

I have read the unabridged book 3 times.
I have read 3 abridged versions.
I have abridged my own version because I don't think anyone else "did it right."

I own the 10th Anniversary "In-Concert" DVD
I own the 25th Anniversary "In-Concert" Blu-Ray even though I don't own a blu-ray player. (I refused to buy the DVD because I wanted higher quality)

I watched the 25th Anniversary concert in a movie theater in Reno because I didn't want to wait to buy the blu-ray.  (which I still can't watch)

I can recognize and name everyone from the original cast, the 10th Anniversary cast, and the 25th.

Get the picture?  I'm sure I'm not the biggest fanatic out there - but I might make the short list.

WITH ALL THAT SAID - Here are my predictions:

Prediction #1 - The movie will be a huge success - and not because of people like me.  I see this movie kind of like the JJ Abrams version of Star Trek.  There are fanatical Star Trek fans around the world - but that isn't the reason that Abrams version succeeded.  His version made over $350 million while the last Star Trek movie before his made just $60 million.
Why?
He made it for the masses.  He left enough classic trek material and enough fun inside jokes that trekkers could love it - but even if you had never even heard of Kirk or Spock - you could still love the movie.

That is what Tom Hooper is doing with Les Mis.  He didn't cast Lea Salonga and Alfie Boe, or even Michael Ball (amazing singers from the show) - he cast Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Sacha Baron Cohen, and Helena Bonham Carter.

He cast film actors.

He also included enough classic Les Mis to satisfy fans like me.  The original ValJean (Colm Wilkinson) is playing the Bishop.  Samantha Barks is playing Eponine.

Which brings us to...

Prediction #2 - The name that will be on everyone's lips will be Samantha Barks.

Yes - people will say that Anne Hathaway gave a beautiful and heart wrenching performance.  Hugh Jackman held his own as ValJean, no one knew Russell Crowe could sing and he actually did fairly well. 

They will say that Helena Bonham Carter was perfect in her role - the freaky and intimidating but funny Madame Thernardier.  Her husband, Sacha Baron Cohen will also get some good reviews.
Cosette (Amand Seyfried) will be mediocre.

The name that will be talked and talked and talked about - will be Samantha Barks.  Why - because she is amazing, and she is relatively unknown.

She has never been in a movie that wasn't a recording of Les Miserables.  Her T.V. appearances were on a reality show - auditioning for the lead female role in the musical "Oliver!"
She can act, she can sing, she's gorgeous, and she is going to be the best singer in the movie - and people will notice.  This will be her breakthrough to the masses.

Prediction #3 - More musicals will follow suit with the "live recording of songs." Very few musicals use vocal recordings from the set - they're always recorded in a studio and then the actors lip sync on the movie set.  Les Mis is one of the first in a long time to try it - and I think they'll succeed and start a trend.  They'll have to clean up some of the tacks, and some will have studio recordings mixed in (Amanda Seyfried) - but most will be live recordings, and audiences will love the change.

Hugh Jackman explains it here:

Prediction #4 - SPOILER WARNING! The Bishop (Colm Wilkinson) will be in the last scene. 

The musical really screws up one scene - the last one.  In the end, Valjean is dying. 
In the book it goes this way:

"Do you want a priest?"
"I have one," answered Jean Valjean.
And, with his finger, he seemed to designate a point above his head, where, you would have said, he saw some one. It is probable that the Bishop was indeed a witness of this death-agony.

In the musical Fantine and Eponine appear to ValJean  They sing a beautiful duet and take him to heaven.  It's nice, but it doesn't make sense (I've written an entire blog post about why)
In the film this will be fixed for two reasons. 

1. It makes sense.
2. They want Colm Wilkinson to have one last moment at the end of the film - one last goodbye to the role he defined.  He was the original ValJean, and they'll let him end it.

oh - and here is a screen shot from the trailer that shows ValJean and the Bishop - and ValJean is NOT dressed like a convict.  (hint hint)


The film opens Christmas day.  Enjoy.

Eponine Takes Valjean to Heaven?

Les Miserables is my favorite book.  It is also one of my favorite musicals.  The story is deep, and though very complex, the themes are simple.  Regret, Repentence, Love, Forgiveness, Justice, Mercy, etc.

I have read the book 6-7 times and have actually made my own abridged version because I didn't think any of the previous abridgments did it right. (but I digress)

The musical makes one huge mistake in my view.  Eponine comes with Fantine to take Valjean to heaven.

The musical changes parts of the story, and that's fine.  It embellishes Eponine's love story with Marius, but it works, so who cares. (and On My Own is an AMAZING song)

But why does Eponine come get Valjean when he's dying?  She has almost no interaction with him...ever.  In the book, in the musical, they almost never meet, and it's never meaningful.  There is no connection.

Why does she come to take him to heaven then?  Because the music sounded better with a female duet and they needed someone to join Fantine for that song.

Who would be a better choice?

#1 The Bishop.  No one makes more sense.  The Bishop was the one who helped ValJean turn his life around.  The Bishop was the entire crux upon which Valjean changed his life.  Valjean kept those silver candlesticks forever, and looked at them each time he had a moral dilemma.  The Bishop is a man of God, and who would be more natural to be sent to retrieve Val Jean.
Oh - and that's who does it in the Book.  Yes - Victor Hugo wrote the story, and he says the Bishop was with ValJean when he dies.  I think this is the one part of the musical that should be re-written.  I want to hear the duet of the Bishop and Valjean when they are equals, and share in the same sentiment.

#2 Javert.  Wouldn't it be amazing to see that Javert has realized his error, and has not only been forgiven, but is now reconciling with Valjean and they could be friends in heaven?  This wouldn't be as great as the Bishop, but it would be interesting.

If this wasn't esoteric enough - click here to read my comparison of Valjean with Tevye (from Fiddler on the Roof)