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 Mizs case at least, the relationship was symbiotic. Some might say parasitic, of course, but the story reveals that we dont 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 wasnt the RSCs idea to develop it, mind you. Cameron Mackintosh, a private producer coming off a wave of success with 1981s 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 Nunns door, then the RSCs 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 musicals 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 ...
Kill all public funding of arts!!!
i ashcanned music 65 years ago and haven’t been to a movie in 54 years.
Les Mis is a fine play.
It has been produced thousands of times, on all sorts of stages, without massive federal tax subsidies.
(And I agree with everyone else, our tax money should not be paying for entertainments, even plays I like... it is wrong, immoral, and very very “unfair” to steal money from my neighbors to pay for my theatre tickets!)
I didn’t care for the play and probably won’t see the movie.
What nonsense. The book was written without government underwriting. If someone saw profit potential in bringing it to the stage, they could do so (obviously) without government funding. And they could make a lot more money.
RE: . If someone saw profit potential in bringing it to the stage, they could do so (obviously) without government funding. And they could make a lot more money.
Same principle applies to Sesame Street.
Could Big Bird exist without being on the dole? Sure, but by putting some money in the government can hold the bird hostage every time the mean old Republicans talk about budget cuts.
If you can get a government grant at either better terms than a bank would give or even for free with no repayment at all, you get bigger profit than if you got that money from a bank or an investor. Such is the nasty siren song of socialism and fascism.
True, indeed.
Generally, at least in the US, commercial producers do a great deal toward supporting nonprofit theaters by paying them to mount tryouts of their new shows. If the show is a hit, the nonprofit stands to make quite a bit more money, through deals far more favorable to them than the RSC’s. This woman seems completely oblivious to this practice in the US, and yet somehow she offers her opinion as to how government should fund more government-favored arts.
Cameron Mackintosh wasn’t running any sort of charity, but he got good bang for his buck teaming with the RSC.
And mediocrity won’t get you everything, but it will get you pretty far
RE: The book was written without government underwriting.
___________________________________
Yep. And Victor Hugo was not even sure if Les Miserables was going to be a commercial success.
The shortest correspondence in history is said to have been between Hugo and his publisher Hurst and Blackett in 1862.
Hugo was on vacation when Les Misérables was published. He queried the reaction to the work by sending a single-character telegram to his publisher, asking “?”.
The publisher replied with a single “!” to indicate its success.
How ironic that the theme of Victor Hugo’s work deals with a revolt against a tyrant.
Seems were there again!
Were = we’re! Duuhhh
I doubt Les Miz the stage production in the US of A got any arts grant monies and it was fabulous and I saw a stage production twice. Also saw the movie, although with some lesser singers, it was extremely well done in following the story and great scenery that fit the story. I have never read “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo; however, my neighbor who is Haitian read “Les Miserables” in French in HS in Haiti and in college in New York in English. It’s well worth anyone’s time to see the movie.
Nuf said
“When even a writer for Mother Jones cant help but think your attempt at pro-Obama propaganda is problematic, you know youve done something wrong. Such is the case with makers of One Term More, an Obama-themed parody of One Day More, the famously dramatic Act I finale of the iconic Broadway Musical Les Miserables.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/one-term-more-is-this-the-worst-pro-obama-video-yet/
Criticing ths piece of crap...
Les Mis ‘one term more’
http://www.onetermmore.com/video_subtitles.html
If the government didn’t take so much money, people would be able to pay for their own entertainment.
It didn’t. It was a commercial production here.
Right... And without the NEA we wouldn’t have Elmo; making preschoolers incapable of learning their ABC’s. Without the dedicated work of ‘The Count’ America’s youth will be heard saying, “One, another, another, another, another...”
Yes, lacking the never ending taxpayer Christmas PBS would wither away- leaving Dora The Explorer no choice but to consider actually migrating back to Mexico. ‘Austin City Limits’ would end up having to move too. Like, 50’ past the sign and outside of Austin. Or maybe Amarillo, Arlington, or San Angelo.
Worse, PBS wouldn’t have aired ‘The New Yankee Workshow’ and without the cameras Norm would have been less careful and have lost at least 3-4 fingers by now!
“Such is the nasty siren song of socialism and fascism. “
I don’t know, I think the siren call is “safety.”
If it’s someone else’s money, there’s so much less risk, thus, less chances are taken. The arts become far less interesting and much “safer” and I don’t mean “less pornographic,” I just mean more predictable and playing to please a board of directors which gives grants.
If you have a patron, you’re trying to please the patron. If the patron rewards excellence (they all don’t), then, we all benefit. Great art is produced.
If you’re on your own, you either “sell out” for commercial success (which sometimes produces great art) or keep your artistic integrity and remain true to your vision. So great art was often produced, but, I guess, not any more, we have to keep it safe and steal from taxpayers in order to subsidize it.
Agree!...the story of redemption is a powerful one!
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.