Posted on 01/07/2013 9:34:05 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Here is a thing it is difficult to remember in the midst of its box office tidal wave: Les Misérables owes its birth to a debate over public arts funding. We think of blockbusters as antithetical to the high arts that public funding might typically support, but in Les Miz’s case at least, the relationship was symbiotic. Some might say parasitic, of course, but the story reveals that we don’t quite know who was leeching off of who.
Les Misérables was originally staged, in 1985, under the auspices of the Royal Shakespeare Company, a large portion of whose budget was provided by the English Arts Council. It wasn’t the RSC’s idea to develop it, mind you. Cameron Mackintosh, a private producer coming off a wave of success with 1981’s Cats, had been looking to put on an English version of the musical, which was developed and staged in Paris in French. And he wanted a good director for it, and found himself knocking on Trevor Nunn’s door, then the RSC’s co-artistic director.
Nunn and his co-director, John Caird (then an RSC Associate Director), substantially overhauled the plot and the script. They also gave the production what was, until the emaciated cheekbones of Anne Hathaway entered our collective consciousness, the musical’s signature image: the revolving stage. In other words, the look and content of the show was developed not just with public money, but by people who had made their careers in a publicly-supported arts environment.
Blockbusters, onstage and onscreen, are typically seen as ego projects. Production notes present a narrative of the great director who wants to implement his vision. Nunn, however, clearly had his eye on another prize altogether.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenation.com ...
It would have been a good thing to NOT have had this piece of nonsense
Watch the 1935 movie with Fredric March and Charles Laughton. It’s a great story and it works just fine as a NON-MUSICAL MOVIE !
bttt
Wouldn’t have Les Miz.
Or Al Franken soiling his senate seat.
Nunn and his co-director, John Caird (then an RSC Associate Director), substantially overhauled the plot and the script. They also gave the production what was, until the emaciated cheekbones of Anne Hathaway entered our collective consciousness, the musical’s signature image: the revolving stage.
Sounds to me as if a couple of guys familiar with raising either public or private funds were pretty determined to do this production, and would have done so with private funds had public funds not been available.
I prefer the Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals which are better and privately funded.
I loved the songs, but Les Mis always made me uneasy with all the glorification of “manning the barricades”...I expected them to burst out singing the “Internationale” any moment.
Victor Hugo was a die hard political activist who promoted class struggle, writing some 40-50 years after the French revolution. His writings were often paired with those of Chas Darwin to come up with the stupid idea of the evolution of society through “class struggle.”
Josef Djugashivili (Stalin) credits Darwin and Hugo as the reasons he became a socialist/atheist and left Gori seminary to become a revolutionary.
A more interesting question would be if PBS produced a Broadway musical based on the life of Ludwig von Mises...
Never seen it and don’t care.
A lot of people like it...however, why should you pay to have this made? I think they should make it, but I think arts should be from personal donations ONLY. Absolutely not a dime from taxes should go to the arts AT ALL.
And everyone’s beloved Downton Abbey. Why that has to be paid through government funding, I don’t see why another network can’t show it ESPECIALLY since it was made in England and won’t cost a dime to show it...although they STILL want to use the government network...makes no sense.
Just for perspective...without aristocratic patronage (the de facto ‘public sponsorship’ back in the day) we would not be able to enjoy the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven...and quite a bit of classical literature, paintings etc. today.
That said, I believe a few centuries from now people will still enjoy the works of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al. ‘Piss Christ’ etc...not so much. There exists such a thing as absolute quality.
RE: Just for perspective...without aristocratic patronage (the de facto ‘public sponsorship’ back in the day) we would not be able to enjoy the music of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven...and quite a bit of classical literature, paintings etc. today.
I have often wondered though... what if the Europe of that time were ran more like free enterprise systems instead of ‘public sponsorships’, would there not be any PRIVATE wealthy patrons to support a Bach, Mozart or Beethoven? My guess is ‘YES’.
Think about it, the great Frederic Chopin had wealthy patrons (PRIVATE). Tchaikovsky’s patron was a wealth business woman, Nadezhda Filaretovna von Meck who supported him for 13 years so that he could work on compositions FULL TIME. Savva Mamontov, a famous Russian industrialist and patron of the arts, supported Sergei Rachmaninoff. Johannes Brahms never had to have a patron to support him financially; he was able to take care of himself by giving piano lessons, conducting, composing and having his music printed. I could go on and on and on.
America had her Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers and Hammerstein, etc. were they sponsored by the public?
Van Gogh’s main patron was his own brother.
So, it is a huge leap to conclude that if there were no public sponsorship, great art or music would never be available.
Exactly. I read the book and it cost the taxpayer nothing.
A leap, with all due respect, that I did not make.
I just named some examples that came to mind. Would they have managed to be extraordinary artists even without the patronage? Who can tell after the fact?
The point being - in the course of history public patronage (as I defined it previously) was not neccessarily a bad thing. Above and beyond that, 'fortune is a fickle mistress'...
Had Bach never had the chance to write his cello sonatas, I could not possibly miss them. But as he did have the chance to do so, I would hardly be without them. Thus I am grateful for the patronage he received.
RE: A leap, with all due respect, that I did not make.
And with all due respect, I never insinuated that you did.
Without Public Arts Funding, there would be Less Misérables among us!
So funding the NEA means the misery index goes up?!!
Don’t modern operas all lose money?
And while Spielberg and Lucas were singing the praises of Akira Kurosowa in the 1980s, if I recall properly, neither of them bothered to sponsor his film productions (he had trouble raising much money for his final film).
Look to “government” because liberals can never be counted on living the lifestyle they seek to impose on others.
We've already got a Caligula, thanks.
We had to read it in 9th grade English, around 1966 and I hated it...Did 007 come out of it OK? Jus’ aksin’.
Me too! ROFL! I was wondering what public funding Victor Hugo had received!! This article is a crock!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.