Quote: ROBINSON "Not often, I'd say.
Les Miserables is hardly a 'big' production, is it? There are hardly any props, and apart from the barricades there's hardly any scenery. All the visuals are achieved by damn good acting and clever use of a revolving stage.'"
It had a sense of massiveness when I saw it – the use of such a vast space (which itself demands a pretty large cast (big opera house level), and the story itself is epic (to say the least!).
I would just note that my problems with it are not the complaint that was prevalent when it opened – that classic literature shouldn't be made into musicalsMiss Saigon[/i with the helicopter (echoed more recently by having a flying car on stage in [iChitty Chitty Bang Bang[/i)
And the entire trend for thru-sung shows – started by a combination of Schönberg & Boublil, and LW – with epic storylines and big sets was repeated as though it guaranteed success. It was almost as though the musical had to become like the opera. The likes of Stephen Schwarz, whose small-scale show, [iThe Baker's Wife[/i, is a pleasure if not the greatest work of the musical theatre, next produced the utterly ridiculous [iChildren of Eden[/i, of which the least said the better.
[iMoby Dick[/i was ... well, let's not go there. There was one about Robin Hood (can't remember the name) that I walked out of at half-time and wrote probably my most negative review ever – there is a place for amateur dramaBuddy[/i was fun, as was [iFive Guys Named Moe[/i – but how many of them?!
