Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Without Public Arts Funding, We Wouldn't Have Les Misérables
The Nation ^ | 01/07/2013 | Michelle Dean

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 ...


TOPICS: Music/Entertainment; Society; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: lesmiserables; publicfunding; thearts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last
To: SeekAndFind

It would have been a good thing to NOT have had this piece of nonsense


41 posted on 01/07/2013 11:29:20 AM PST by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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 !


42 posted on 01/07/2013 11:30:39 AM PST by Mopp4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N. Theknow

bttt


43 posted on 01/07/2013 11:33:05 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Wouldn’t have Les Miz.

Or Al Franken soiling his senate seat.


44 posted on 01/07/2013 11:49:55 AM PST by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
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.

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.

45 posted on 01/07/2013 12:04:19 PM PST by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I prefer the Andrew Lloyd Webber musicals which are better and privately funded.


46 posted on 01/07/2013 12:20:25 PM PST by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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...


47 posted on 01/07/2013 12:20:35 PM PST by Veristhorne (Just the Facts M'am, just the Facts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

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.


48 posted on 01/07/2013 1:28:41 PM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


49 posted on 01/07/2013 1:35:31 PM PST by napscoordinator (GOP Candidate 2020 - "Bloomberg 2020 - We vote for whatever crap the GOP puts in front of us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


50 posted on 01/07/2013 2:33:11 PM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

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.


51 posted on 01/07/2013 3:00:02 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Exactly. I read the book and it cost the taxpayer nothing.


52 posted on 01/07/2013 4:23:00 PM PST by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
So, it is a huge leap to conclude that if there were no public sponsorship, great art or music would never be available.

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.

53 posted on 01/07/2013 6:12:24 PM PST by Moltke ("I am Dr. Sonderborg," he said, "and I don't want any nonsense.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Moltke

RE: A leap, with all due respect, that I did not make.

And with all due respect, I never insinuated that you did.


54 posted on 01/07/2013 6:49:17 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; a fool in paradise

Without Public Arts Funding, there would be Less Misérables among us!


55 posted on 01/07/2013 6:54:00 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!; Slings and Arrows

So funding the NEA means the misery index goes up?!!


56 posted on 01/08/2013 9:19:38 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

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.


57 posted on 01/08/2013 9:29:03 AM PST by a fool in paradise (America 2013 - STUCK ON STUPID)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana
Maybe we should go back to having Caesars, or is it too late?

We've already got a Caligula, thanks.

58 posted on 01/08/2013 9:34:07 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dainbramaged

We had to read it in 9th grade English, around 1966 and I hated it...Did 007 come out of it OK? Jus’ aksin’.


59 posted on 01/08/2013 9:36:44 AM PST by Safetgiver ( Islam makes barbarism look genteel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Me too! ROFL! I was wondering what public funding Victor Hugo had received!! This article is a crock!


60 posted on 01/08/2013 9:40:08 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-66 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson