January 2011 – My Little Notepad

Belle

from nopo_11 on Photobucket There’s a scene in Moulin Rouge which is possibly in my top ten film scenes ever – The Emergency Rehearsal. Christian (Ewan MacGregor)is unexpectedly pitching the show they need finance for to The Duke, and he says it’s about love. The Duke sneers until Harold hastily adds more licentious details. Well, excuse me, M. le Duc, but I’m with Christian when he says “Love is a many-splendoured thing, love lifts us up where we belong, all you need is love.” I reckon some of the most powerful stories in the world are love stories, and some of the most beautiful songs in the world are love songs. Not the watered-down number 1’s produced by cloned boy bands but real, moving songs. Which, funnily enough, can often be found in musicals.

Take “Love Changes Everything” – it talks of the contradictory way you feel when you’re in love, the way it transforms you for ever, and the song just soars and takes you with it. I think I want it played at my funeral – obviously the Michael Ball version (is there another?).

Obviously there’s the whole range of love – romantic love, parental love, love of country or a cause… all of these have been covered spectacularly in musicals. Off the top of my head, Love Changes Everything from Aspects of Love, I’d Give My Life for You from Miss Saigon and Do You Hear the People Sing? from Les Misérables respectively. What I’m really looking at in this post is different ways romantic love manifests itself, as demonstrated spectacularly in Notre Dame de Paris by Richard Cocciante and Luc Plamondon. I don’t think it’s widely known in England although it did have a run in London with Dannii Minogue, and was featured on the Royal Variety Show one year. It’s not one of the blockbusters anyway, although it deserves to be – it’s stirring, powerful and has a modern edge whilst retaining the atmosphere of the time in which it’s set. (Quick disclaimer – to my shame I haven’t yet read Victor Hugo’s original book, so all references to story and characters here are entirely based on the musical).

The story features Esmeralda the gypsy and the three men who love her in their different, yet ultimately destructive, ways. Quasimodo, the hunchbacked bellringer, who loves her the most unselfishly and tries to protect her; Frollo the priest, whose lust overcomes his morals and eventually leads to Esmeralda’s execution; and Phoebus, the Captain of the King’s Archers who selfishly pursues her and takes advantage of her love for him despite being betrothed to another girl, and who betrays Esmeralda when she needs him even though she has risked her life to love him. These three men show the different facets of their love in the song Belle, in which they variously turn their back on the Church that has sheltered them, their priestly vocation and vows and their vows of fidelity to another woman. It’s the first time you get to know exactly how each of them feel about Esmeralda, whilst I have an image of her flitting just out of reach. It shows the power a woman could have over men even in an age dominated by man – each man is completely enthralled by her and breaks the rules they have set themselves in an effort to claim her.

Quasimodo alone recognises her free spirit – “A bird stretching out its wings to fly” is how he describes her at one point. His is the ultimate unrequited love, and he actually does die of a broken heart. He is the only one who wants what’s best for her even though he longs for her so much, to the extent that he murders the man who has raised him, the only one who has ever shown concern for him until now. His love for Esmeralda overcomes the love he has for Frollo, who he loves “more than any dog ever loved its master”. I think if you really want a heartbreaking love song, you could do worse than listen to Quasimodo’s Dieu Que Le Monde Est Injuste (God You Made the World All Wrong in the english version) – on YouTube here (ignore that the title says Vivre). Garou’s voice is perfectly imperfect as he mourns his own hopeless situation, the contrast between his ugliness and poverty, Esmeralda’s beauty and Phoebus’ wealth and handsomeness.

Frollo is the Bad Guy. In Belle he blames Esmeralda for inciting his own lustful thoughts. He basically admits that he wants to break his celibacy vows, he knows how wrong it is, yet it is Esmeralda who “is the devil incarnate” and who carries the weight of original sin. Belle is a foreshadow of Tu Vas Me Detruire where he sings of being torn apart by his obsession, of how he thought himself as hard and cold but consumed by lust and haunted by the gypsy’s eyes. And again he he blames Esmeralda and curses her. In the end, of course, he does destroy himself, and Esmeralda and Quasimodo alongside him. If Quasimodo’s is the ultimate unrequited love, Frollo’s is the ultimate destructive love.

Phoebus is a bit of git, really. I found when listening to first the English then the French, that Phoebus is far more sympathetic and distraught in the English. In the French he is much more calculating, quite determined to have his cake and eat it. His part in Belle sets out his plan to be unfaithful to Fleur de Lys and his fairly slimy nature comes up again and again in the show. In Le Val D’Amour he reveals that he frequently sleeps with prostitutes; in Déchiré he describes himself as ‘torn apart’ to a gang of his soldiers but he’s loving every minute of it. He also shows how little he knows of Esmeralda – despite the fact that she is young and innocent, he sees her as a stereotypical gypsy and mistakes her exotic-ness for loose morals. He shamelessly exploits her love but casts her aside for the wealth and stability of Fleur de Lys, leading to Esmeralda’s death. Phoebus shows the ultimate selfish love; and you just know that it’s not going to end well, however much Esmeralda wants to “live for the one she loves”.

I haven’t touched here on the fraternal love of Clopin or the platonic love of Gringoire the poet. But it’s indisputable that the power of this story is due to the importance of love.

Despite what The Duke thinks.

Here’s Belle. And if that’s a bit intense, let’s finish where we started, with the gorgeous Christian in Moulin Rouge.

Belle on YouTube Elephant Love Medley on YouTube

Shoes

We reached a landmark for Emily a couple of days ago, her first shoes. She’s been standing for ages, cruising round furniture for weeks and trying to push her walker frames for about a fortnight, and her little pram shoes just weren’t giving her the support she needs. So, off we trotted to Clarks.

Now, I remember this was incredibly exciting for us when we got Daniel’s first shoes. We did the whole posing for a Polaroid (which, by the way, have gone very downhill since Daniel was done three years ago. A small sticker with very poor resolution. Anyhoo…), deliberating over choice and choosing the cutest and best fitting pair. Being a boy, the colours were mostly dark blues, browns, etc and all shoes pretty much went with all his outfits.

Oh, how different for a little girl! I had already looked ahead and seen some very pretty shoes in the “Cruising” range; although the ones we really wanted were “Crawlers” and not supportive enough. I wanted them to go with everything she had, to be pretty, not too bubblegum-my, and did I mention pretty? Sadly, because she’s a very young walker, her feet are still quite small and the only two styles that fit in the “Cruising” range were either a plastic-y, trainer-y sort of thing (no thank you, we’re not quite ready to do the Great North Run yet) or the ones we got. They’re in the photo. They’re also in black and white because they are a little bit TOO pink. Candy floss pink, not a nice raspberry or pale rose. Not really what I was after, but they fit. They also have helped her, she’s gained confidence in walking in just a couple of days. So I was silly to be upset, which I was. Just a little.

The thing is, which possibly men (most men; I hesitate to generalise) don’t understand, is that shoes finish a girl off. The right shoes make you feel confident, help you walk taller, complete an outfit, complement your personality. Heck, they can even make you look slimmer (by helping your posture). A girl’s first shoes should be the magical start of a lifelong love affair.

Trying to be so noble about her shoes, bless her...

Sadly, my shoes were never any of those things. I have the most awful feet – long, thin and shallow. I was condemned throughout childhood and adolescence to have sensible shoes, black or navy with laces when I longed for pretty slip-ons or lovely buckles. The closest I came, I have no idea how old I was (9?10?) was a pair from Clarks. They were advertised on tv, with a little girl going through a secret doorway with a magic key, and the shoes had the key in the soles. I adored these, I think I walked on air when I managed to get a pair that fit. Then in no time I outgrew them.

Adulthood has brought the freedom to ruin my feet with shoddily fitting shoes but alas, not the money to buy them with. So I still have to be sensible in my shoeshopping. Luckily, I thought, I now have a daughter. I can live out my shoe-love-life vicariously through her.

So it was a horrible flashback when, in the middle of Clarks, I had to choose between what sensible and pretty shoes again. I’m quite sure a therapist could have a field-day with my overreaction to the whole event, but there you go. On the positive side, Emmy is only 9 months old. We have time, my precioussss…

Book Review: You Choose!

Daniel’s nursery have a book loan scheme and we brought home our first book from this yesterday, chosen by Daniel; I presume based on the fabulously bright and cheerful cover.

It’s not a story book but it could keep a child entranced for hours. On every double page you have to choose what you would like to visit/wear/live in… the list goes on and on. The illustrations are absolutely amazing – incredibly detailed without being fussy or difficult for three year-old-eyes to discern and filled with friendly characters; even Dracula is a very friendly vampire! The choice on every page is vast and there are more every time you look; you certainly won’t see everything the first time through, or even the second.

Another thing I loved about the illustrations is how cleverly they’re done. Nick Sharratt has somehow made it normal for a pirate ship to be sailing past a space rocket or a poodle to be sitting next to a dragon, and the range of things covered in the book is excellent. There’s a double spread covering jobs that people do, my favourite one which is all sorts of food, one for children who love to dress up offering a variety of clothes…again, it just goes on forever. There are clothes, houses, food items etc from all sorts of cultures (even the undead…) giving opportunities to discuss other cultures.

This book is so versatile, it can be used in many different ways. I’ve been straight through it with Daniel, just choosing what he would like; we’ve also branched out to choose things for other members of the family; we’ve talked about what jobs his grandparents did, and what he would like to do. It’s a brilliant introduction to asking “What if…?” and thinking in timescales or tenses other than the present or immediate future. It’s a great springboard for the imagination as children can make lots of choices safely – Daniel has no problem with his imagination but I think that if a child is struggling in this area, this is a great way to encourage them to explore. There’s no right or wrong, they can make as many choices as they like, but there’s a guide to help them until they have the confidence to use their imagination on their own, in free play. It also introduces new vocabulary and new concepts without children ever realising it. If your child is a bit younger, don’t bother with the “What if..” use, it’s just a great first word and picture book. If you’re really confident, you could even use it as a primer into other languages. One use which I intend to explore soon is helping Daniel to make his forays into storytelling. He’s three and a half at the minute – I can see this being a favourite for years.

I have to return the book to school this week, but I’ll be straight onto Amazon to buy my own copy. And I can’t recommend it highly enough.

You Choose! – Nick Sharratt & Pippa Goodhart. ISBN 978-0552547086

Available from Amazon.co.uk here.

Beggar at the Feast

So, to continue my current love affair with Les Miserables, I’m borrowing the title of a song for this blog post although the link is extremely tenuous. Towards the end, the villainous Thénardiers gatecrash the wedding of Marius and Cosette and enjoy the experience of being at a posh do.

Ain’t it a laugh? Ain’t it a treat?

Hobnobbing here among the elite?

…Here’s me breaking bread with the upper crust!

I love Twitter. One of the reasons I do is the way you can ‘meet’ so many different people, from all sorts of backgrounds. When I first joined (and still to an extent) one of the big things was to follow Stephen Fry. Throughout the day you could get to know little bits of how a real celebrity spent his day and how he felt about random topics; now, he has so many followers it’s highly unlikely you’d get a reply from him, but many celebrities are using Twitter and do interact. If you follow the lovely Maria Duffy, you can read her blog for Hello! magazine in which she interviews celebrities on that exact topic. Now, pay attention, as it’s my chance to drop a few names. I’ve had replies from Paula Abdul and Hugh Bonneville, Steve Balsamo (who plays Jesus on the most recent recording of Jesus Christ Superstar – now that was a jawdropper. How many people have had private messages from Jesus?!) and some literary celebs like Katie Fforde and Joanne Harris. Once I tweeted about a rejection that particularly stung, and got a lovely encouraging message from Katie Fforde. The next day we were in Waterstones and I spent about ten minutes showing my husband the shelf full of Katie’s books and repeating the tweet I’d received. A couple of days ago I was thrilled to be followed by Joanne Harris and have had a few exchanges with her, especially about Les Miserables. To be honest, this to me is like being the beggar at a feast full of A-list movie stars.

I’m also very happy to have frequent chats with Real Authors. When I say chats, I usually mean trading friendly insults. One of my favourite books is by Gillian Philip, and I love chatting to her, both on Twitter and facebook. You know what though? It’s good for me. Especially Twitter – I’m learning to communicate concisely and (hopefully) wittily with intelligent, witty people, some famous, some not. My confidence is developing by leaps and bounds as a result. Someone said to me the other day that I don’t come across as shy online – I think perhaps a year ago I would have done. I would never have had the confidence to suggest to Joanne Harris that I insult her (I mean, come on! The woman has written a book that’s a Johnny Depp film, for crying out loud) or argue with a Carnegie Medal-shortlisted author about the banking crisis or ask the author of one of my all-time favourite books how her new hamster is settling in. And I’m learning that Real Authors are, like, y’know, normal people with regular lives and highs and lows. And they don’t have two heads. Who knew?

I’ve blogged before about some of the amazingly good friends I’ve made on Twitter – you know who you are, Jane, Nettie, Ciara, et al. But this is an aspect of Twitter that has taken me totally by surprise and I love it. And maybe one day, some complete unknown will be blogging (or whatever, I’m sure technology will have moved on somewhat by then!) about how they’ve had a message from a Real Author, Rebecca Brown.

Not very Misérable

Ok, I’m sorryabout the pun. But I couldn’t really pass up the opportunity.

I decided to buy the DVD of Les Miserables: Live at O2 since I had some birthday money left, and it really is one of all my all-time favourite shows. And I have to say what I think – absolutely blown away.

I’ve got the 10th anniversary concert, and I enjoyed that. The cast was great (I mean, Michael Ball, Ruthie Henshall, Lea Salonga, and of course Philip Quast against Colm Wilkinson) and you quickly got used to the concert format, where the actors stood at microphones rather than moving around the stage, and only the principals were costumed, with a huge choir in Les Mis t-shirts behind. I want one of those t-shirts. I’d be willing to swap husband for t-shirt if anyone’s interested; he’s pretty good, more or less housetrained and hardly ever eats the furniture.

The new one, celebrating the 25th anniversary, was on another level. Repeating the concert format, but improving on it by having some props, costume changes and a little background action, it seemed to be fresher and livelier. I think this was helped by the new orchestration (aforementioned husband isn’t keen on that but I love it, brings it a little up to date without changing the power of the music). I also, though don’t quote me on this, think that both orchestra and choir are miles bigger than 15 years ago. Same conductor though, I noticed; I do like him.

So, casting. As I said, 1995 was a pretty good cast. I am still unsure whether anyone can beat Philip Quast as Javert – the power and contained fury are fantastic – but Norm Lewis was excellent. As far as Jean Valjean goes, I’m a bit of a blasphemer; I like Colm Wilkinson, but he’s not my die-hard Valjean. Alfie Boe is a strong contender for that, as here he was mesmerising, excellent focus and a soaring tenor. And I thought his journey was utterly believable, right down to his little headshakes when the Bishop of Digne tells him to become “an honest man” or his falter when he reads Marius’ letter and realises that Cosette has been keeping her own secrets.

The Thénardiers – now this was where I was expecting to grumble. Jenny Galloway is my all-time favourite Mme Thénardier, with brilliant timing, expressions in both face and voice and brutality towards little Cosette, so I was delighted to see her reprise the role. But when I heard that Matt Lucas was going to play her oh-so-charming husband, I was very disappointed, thinking the producers were going for a cheap celebrity shot and that he would just play it Little Britain style (and I’m really not a Little Britain fan I’m sorry to say). I warmed to him after watching a documentary about the production, but watching him actually do it has won me over as a new fan. He was Thénardier to the core – vile, slimy, in his own particular way, and bouncing off Madame perfectly. I would probably rate him now as my favourite in the role, and a real highlight of the show, just as Boubil & Schonberg envisaged all those years ago.

For the women, again I was delighted. Samantha Barks was vulnerable yet feisty as Eponine, and I really wanted to see more of her, and Cosette managed to not be too twee. She had a pretty soprano voice that never shrieked, which I was pleased about. Lea Salonga, who is ALWAYS fantastic, pulled off a minor miracle. Fantine is, in my admittedly limited experience, always played too old, too frumpy, too whiny and her bits are the part where you don’t mind needing to go to the loo. But when Lea Salonga did it, she brought Fantine to life. You could see her being young yet prematurely aged; I believed that men would want to seduce her; I felt pain and longing and memories of a happy youth when she was singing. Major respect to Lea for playing Fantine as she exactly should be played.

My one let down was Marius. Nick Jonas just didn’t seem big enough for the role. He looked far too young for a start, even next to Cosette, and his voice was terribly disappointing. It was very nasal, had no power and both his face and his voice seemed to convey a rather pained concentration without any joy of being in love, youthful idealism at the ABC Café or agony of losing his friends. I’m perfectly willing to believe that with lots more training and maturity he can grow into the role, but he was certainly the weakest link on that performance by far. On the other hand, Ramin Karimloo was a stunning Enjolras. He had the intensity needed, the voice to lead numbers like Red and Black or Do You Hear The People Sing? and was the kind of student every teenage girl dreams about.

Actually, I have two let downs. The second is that I am so greedy, I want more. I know that what was on the DVD is not the entire performance of Les Misérables; what I don’t know is if that is because a redacted version was performed at the event at the O2 and we are actually seeing what the live audience saw, or if clever editing has cut out bits so that to see the whole thing you had to be there. Either way, I would have been over the moon to see the whole 3 hours of Les Mis as I know it on the DVD. It was magical from start to finish. And the buzz I got from seeing the special finale just on DVD was amazing, I can’t imagine the adrenalin of actually being there!

Here’s the link to Amazon if you’ve enjoyed my review; highly, utterly recommended.

As an aside, I’m thinking about doing a regular blog post about musicals. Not always, or even often, a straight review like this, but my tuppence’orth on different aspects of my favourite shows. Whaddya reckon? Comments appreciated, as always.