Last night I am very glad to say that I went to see Les Miserables at the Queen's Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue. Before this I hadn't seen any stage or film production of it, but I had read the book. As with every adaptation of a book there are bound to be differences; characters changed, scenes missing and the like. I mean how do you turn a book that's almost a thousand pages long into a show that's short enough to expect people to sit through?
Now obviously, as with all reviews, this is hugely subjective. But I thought they did a terrific job. The amount they had to cut out didn't detract from the story, it just gave more information on the background of a few people, most notably the link between Marius and Thernardier. This is just added depth to the brilliant work of Victor Hugo, but is far from essential.
Again, with two different versions you will always get different interpretations of characters. This is exaggerated in my view for Eponine. When I read the book I saw her as a little bit hopeless, hardly saying anything, but the musical had her as a much stronger person. Its also hard to be so quiet in a musical! I like her a lot more in this version, and she had one of my favourite songs in On My Own. Marius I found to be a smaller character in the stage show, although I did still really like him. I just would've liked to see more of him at the barricade as that was my favourite scene of his in the book.
I'm also ashamed to say that I found Gavroche to be just a bit too annoying in the show. I know he's an arrogant little kid so I should be annoyed by him, but it was worse than I thought. On the contrary I much preferred Jaevert in the show. Which is impressive as I really liked him in the book too. Probably my favourite character in the show version.
The biggest change of all is the in Monsieur Thernardier. He and his wife provide light relief in the show, which is kinda needed, but in the book he is much more evil and threatening to the happiness of Jean Valjean and Cosette. Again this is just added depth to the story, but I thought it was useful in adding to the menacing air of it. But that is something that the rest of the show does enough, and it needs some comic moments, which he delivers with aplomb.
Finally, I can't finish without discussing the staging. The rotating section made it really easy to convey the thoughts of two sides of a divider, be it the garden fence or the barricade. And the staging for the barricade was just fantastic, I remember seeing it come on stage for the first time and saying that it was just cool.
Brilliant show. Now can't wait to finally let myself see the film.
Thursday, 15 August 2013
Sunday, 21 July 2013
British Sport Revisited
Just about two years ago, I wrote about the state of British sport. I argued that despite what people were saying we were doing very well for a country of our size. Right now I feel vindicated.
This summer is still mid way through the sporting season, but if we look back at it and last year we see some great performances and results. Wiggins. Froome. Cavendish. Murray. Rose. Donald. Westwood. McIllroy. Clarke. Ryder Cup. Lions. Ashes. Button. Hamilton The Olympians and Paralympians. The list of winners goes on and on. Last year was a great year for British sport, and this year is carrying that on.
Let's start with the Tour de France, as this year's Tour finishes today it's a topical subject. Having gone 99 years without a British winner for the general classification, in fact no one even on the podium, we look to be set for a second winner in a row. Last year Wiggins blew everyone away on the time trials, while showing that he can climb as well, with the help of his lieutenant Froome. This year it's Froome showing what he can do, leaving his rivals on the climbs. And in case we forget in the excitement of the Maillot Jaune, Mark Cavendish has moved up to joint 3rd on the all time list of stage victories, the highest placed sprinter. And he'll be looking to make that his own on the Champs Elysees going for a sensational 5 victories in a row there.
Next let's have a look at tennis. Two years ago I was defending Murray as a world class player who had done exceptionally well, even if he hadn't won any majors. Well now times have changed. He's moved from 4th to 2nd in the world rankings. Has Olympic gold and two majors, beating Federer and Djokovic in finals. If you're going to break into the elite club of major winners, you have to beat some good players, and he has done more than that, beating some of the most successful players in history. Djokovic's unbeaten run is something I never thought I'd see, and Federer's record speaks for itself. The depth isn't there in the men's game to back him up, and in the women's Robson and Watson are coming through nicely, but not quite at the level they can be yet. Of course they are still young, and this is hugely promising. Robson especially looks like she could become a major feature on the LTA tour.
In golf we have a flood of success. In recent years Rose Clarke McIllroy and McDowell have all won majors. McIllroy Donald and Westwood have all held the top spot in the world rankings. Westwood is placed ominously two clear going into the final round of this year's open, hoping to break his duck after so many near misses. And then there's the Ryder cup, admittedly Europe not Britain, but winning of 5 of the last 6 is huge.
England have faltered in recent years in their bid to be the best cricket team in the world. Even saying that they are narrowly 3rd in both test and ODI rankings, 5th in T20 and are very well placed in the 2nd Ashes test having won the 1st. Australia aren't the force they once were, but the ashes is always special, and matters so much to both teams. Anderson is one of the premier pace bowlers in the world, Swann the equivalent for spin, and Cook and Trott some of the best, most consistent batsmen.
The recent Lions tour gave a lot of people renewed hope in the team. For something straight out of the amateur era, it is going to struggle to make the transition to professionalism where the relations and understanding of the players is so important. Having lost the previous three series they needed to show that they still should exist, with players able to cope after a long hard season. And I'm so glad to say that they did, winning the final test in some style, and George North getting one of the great Lions tries in the first test.
Then we come to the Olympics and Paralympics. 65 and 120 medals respectively, with 29 and 34 of them gold. 3rd in both medal tables, and in a combined one we would be sat in the same place. But it wasn't just the quantity of medals, it was the manner that they were won, and the way the whole country got excited. A lot of world class performances rewarded justly.
We're only a small nation. But we have some great sportsmen. We should be proud of what they have achieved and hope that they can carry it on for a long time to come.
This summer is still mid way through the sporting season, but if we look back at it and last year we see some great performances and results. Wiggins. Froome. Cavendish. Murray. Rose. Donald. Westwood. McIllroy. Clarke. Ryder Cup. Lions. Ashes. Button. Hamilton The Olympians and Paralympians. The list of winners goes on and on. Last year was a great year for British sport, and this year is carrying that on.
Let's start with the Tour de France, as this year's Tour finishes today it's a topical subject. Having gone 99 years without a British winner for the general classification, in fact no one even on the podium, we look to be set for a second winner in a row. Last year Wiggins blew everyone away on the time trials, while showing that he can climb as well, with the help of his lieutenant Froome. This year it's Froome showing what he can do, leaving his rivals on the climbs. And in case we forget in the excitement of the Maillot Jaune, Mark Cavendish has moved up to joint 3rd on the all time list of stage victories, the highest placed sprinter. And he'll be looking to make that his own on the Champs Elysees going for a sensational 5 victories in a row there.
Next let's have a look at tennis. Two years ago I was defending Murray as a world class player who had done exceptionally well, even if he hadn't won any majors. Well now times have changed. He's moved from 4th to 2nd in the world rankings. Has Olympic gold and two majors, beating Federer and Djokovic in finals. If you're going to break into the elite club of major winners, you have to beat some good players, and he has done more than that, beating some of the most successful players in history. Djokovic's unbeaten run is something I never thought I'd see, and Federer's record speaks for itself. The depth isn't there in the men's game to back him up, and in the women's Robson and Watson are coming through nicely, but not quite at the level they can be yet. Of course they are still young, and this is hugely promising. Robson especially looks like she could become a major feature on the LTA tour.
In golf we have a flood of success. In recent years Rose Clarke McIllroy and McDowell have all won majors. McIllroy Donald and Westwood have all held the top spot in the world rankings. Westwood is placed ominously two clear going into the final round of this year's open, hoping to break his duck after so many near misses. And then there's the Ryder cup, admittedly Europe not Britain, but winning of 5 of the last 6 is huge.
England have faltered in recent years in their bid to be the best cricket team in the world. Even saying that they are narrowly 3rd in both test and ODI rankings, 5th in T20 and are very well placed in the 2nd Ashes test having won the 1st. Australia aren't the force they once were, but the ashes is always special, and matters so much to both teams. Anderson is one of the premier pace bowlers in the world, Swann the equivalent for spin, and Cook and Trott some of the best, most consistent batsmen.
The recent Lions tour gave a lot of people renewed hope in the team. For something straight out of the amateur era, it is going to struggle to make the transition to professionalism where the relations and understanding of the players is so important. Having lost the previous three series they needed to show that they still should exist, with players able to cope after a long hard season. And I'm so glad to say that they did, winning the final test in some style, and George North getting one of the great Lions tries in the first test.
Then we come to the Olympics and Paralympics. 65 and 120 medals respectively, with 29 and 34 of them gold. 3rd in both medal tables, and in a combined one we would be sat in the same place. But it wasn't just the quantity of medals, it was the manner that they were won, and the way the whole country got excited. A lot of world class performances rewarded justly.
We're only a small nation. But we have some great sportsmen. We should be proud of what they have achieved and hope that they can carry it on for a long time to come.
Saturday, 20 July 2013
summer or winter?
Earlier today I saw this tweet:
@timlovejoy: Don't get too angry with me, but is Summer sport better than Winter sport?
Case for: you do get more variety and we do win lots of stuff... Now
This got me thinking, because its an interesting question. What do I prefer and what are we best at?
Trying to split into different disciplines is difficult to start with. Football and rugby union are winter sports but they have big summer components too. Lions tours, world cups, euro championships and then transfer window. These are possibly my personal highlights of the two sports, despite how much I enjoy them normally, with the lions to the fore. After those we have sports that are year round, but get a bit more focus during summer months. I'm thinking golf and tennis, with more majors in the summer and more coverage. And there's the reverse of football and rugby - cricket is summer but there are winter tours too..
To make it simpler I'm going to split sports this way.
Winter: football, rugby, hockey, cross country
Summer: cricket, cycling, track athletics, tennis, golf
I feel bad splitting it like this. I play hockey, and rugby us my favourite s msport to watch. But out of the sports that have components in both seasons I prefer their summer components. Winter sports, but their summer season. Tricky, and that holds for tennis and golf too.
This is before we even start talking about the big events. Olympics and commonwealth games are both summer only. Yes there are winter Olympics, but both myself and the country as a whole are much more interested in the summer version. I feel bad about that hut skiing as a sport to watch just isn't a big deal in the uk. Ski Sunday was nice to have, but didn't get the views.
However winter does have it's plus side. The football and rugby seasons have the excitement that comes with matches every week, and have the highest viewing figures because of that. Football is the national sport and with all the matches in winter it keeps people talking about what happened and what's coming for 9 months.
One factor that I've not covered yet is gender. I feel bad for the incoming stereotyping and apologise if I offend anyone. Out of the sports I listed the only ones that have decent women's coverage are athletics (both winter and summer) and tennis. And the tennis coverage is mainly in the summer. Coupled with Olympics and commenwealths being the dominant coverage for athletics, summer is a lot better for following female sport.
For me everything points to summer sport. Which I find a bit odd as I always assumed that winter sport was the main season. The things you realise when you sit and think about things!
@timlovejoy: Don't get too angry with me, but is Summer sport better than Winter sport?
Case for: you do get more variety and we do win lots of stuff... Now
This got me thinking, because its an interesting question. What do I prefer and what are we best at?
Trying to split into different disciplines is difficult to start with. Football and rugby union are winter sports but they have big summer components too. Lions tours, world cups, euro championships and then transfer window. These are possibly my personal highlights of the two sports, despite how much I enjoy them normally, with the lions to the fore. After those we have sports that are year round, but get a bit more focus during summer months. I'm thinking golf and tennis, with more majors in the summer and more coverage. And there's the reverse of football and rugby - cricket is summer but there are winter tours too..
To make it simpler I'm going to split sports this way.
Winter: football, rugby, hockey, cross country
Summer: cricket, cycling, track athletics, tennis, golf
I feel bad splitting it like this. I play hockey, and rugby us my favourite s msport to watch. But out of the sports that have components in both seasons I prefer their summer components. Winter sports, but their summer season. Tricky, and that holds for tennis and golf too.
This is before we even start talking about the big events. Olympics and commonwealth games are both summer only. Yes there are winter Olympics, but both myself and the country as a whole are much more interested in the summer version. I feel bad about that hut skiing as a sport to watch just isn't a big deal in the uk. Ski Sunday was nice to have, but didn't get the views.
However winter does have it's plus side. The football and rugby seasons have the excitement that comes with matches every week, and have the highest viewing figures because of that. Football is the national sport and with all the matches in winter it keeps people talking about what happened and what's coming for 9 months.
One factor that I've not covered yet is gender. I feel bad for the incoming stereotyping and apologise if I offend anyone. Out of the sports I listed the only ones that have decent women's coverage are athletics (both winter and summer) and tennis. And the tennis coverage is mainly in the summer. Coupled with Olympics and commenwealths being the dominant coverage for athletics, summer is a lot better for following female sport.
For me everything points to summer sport. Which I find a bit odd as I always assumed that winter sport was the main season. The things you realise when you sit and think about things!
Saturday, 1 June 2013
I before e except after c
I saw something on BBC breakfast yesterday that I thought was quite interesting. An english professor has said that we shouldn't worry too much about spelling and punctuation as language naturally evolves, and we should let it do so.
Now, I always thought of the written word to be a representation of the spoken word, and it follows from that as the sound changes, so the spelling follows suit. From that point what was said is perfectly valid, and there are words in common use now that would never have been dreamt of just a few years ago. In much the same way words and phrases are fashionable. I remember "random" being in vogue, now it's epic and legendary.
But I disagree with him about spelling and grammar being unimportant.
It has never been easier to spell. Spell checkers are everywhere. Predictive text works. You can even go and use a dictionary. With all these tools, incorrect spelling strikes me as lazy. And learning to spell is useful beyond just spelling. It gets people learning which I think is invaluable. With everything standardised, changing how words are spelt seems wrong. I like that twelfth has an F and phlegm a G.
With grammar I feel the same. You don't have the ease of spell check equivalents (at least good ones) but it's easy to find grammar laws online. I admit I overuse commas, and to a certain extent semicolons, but I think they're great. I don't want to lose them or possessive apostrophes. I actually take joy doing formal writing and using them properly.
One thing that is possibly worth including in this is the use of the right word in certain situations. I can't remember being taught when to use less and when to use fewer, but I learnt and it now bugs me when the wrong one is used. Things like that I feel should be taught, but if enough people use it wrongly, language will evolve and it will become acceptable. That doesn't mean I have to like it though.
Clearly all spelling and grammatical errors here are purely intentional and ironic...
Now, I always thought of the written word to be a representation of the spoken word, and it follows from that as the sound changes, so the spelling follows suit. From that point what was said is perfectly valid, and there are words in common use now that would never have been dreamt of just a few years ago. In much the same way words and phrases are fashionable. I remember "random" being in vogue, now it's epic and legendary.
But I disagree with him about spelling and grammar being unimportant.
It has never been easier to spell. Spell checkers are everywhere. Predictive text works. You can even go and use a dictionary. With all these tools, incorrect spelling strikes me as lazy. And learning to spell is useful beyond just spelling. It gets people learning which I think is invaluable. With everything standardised, changing how words are spelt seems wrong. I like that twelfth has an F and phlegm a G.
With grammar I feel the same. You don't have the ease of spell check equivalents (at least good ones) but it's easy to find grammar laws online. I admit I overuse commas, and to a certain extent semicolons, but I think they're great. I don't want to lose them or possessive apostrophes. I actually take joy doing formal writing and using them properly.
One thing that is possibly worth including in this is the use of the right word in certain situations. I can't remember being taught when to use less and when to use fewer, but I learnt and it now bugs me when the wrong one is used. Things like that I feel should be taught, but if enough people use it wrongly, language will evolve and it will become acceptable. That doesn't mean I have to like it though.
Clearly all spelling and grammatical errors here are purely intentional and ironic...
Tuesday, 16 April 2013
Pray for Boston
There are no words.
What happened yesterday in Boston was utterly terrible. The very worst aspects of mankind was on show and I wanted to apologise for humanity. Two explosions, one incendiary device and a reported 5 others that didn't go off. 8 separate devices. The scale, the disregard for human life is staggering to me. It's just sickening. And targeting the end of a marathon, a great feat of endurance, overcoming what your body thinks is impossible. There are no words.
I think I may have felt this more than some because of the marathon. The people finishing it were around the 4hour mark, when a large chunk of the 27000 would be looking to finish it. I've not run a lot compared to some, and only halves not full marathons, but I felt a kindred with the runners. I know the sweat blood pain and tears they put themselves through. They're very similar to me in many ways and I can't believe they were targeted like this. There are no words.
Another reason why this has disturbed me is because of London. London's marathon is this Sunday. I've been there for the past two years supporting and would have been stood in the equivalent place to the first explosion in Boston about 3:30 into each of the previous races. Had this occurred at either of them I may not be here. I'm lucky, not one of the poor victims who have lost lives and limbs. There are no words.
But in the midst of the tragedy there was stories showing the good side of man. 1000families opened their homes to stranded runners. People ran towards the explosion instead of away in fear because they wanted to help. People gave what they could, from their own blood. It shows what man can do in a crisis and how he can meet it. There are no words.
Pray for Boston
What happened yesterday in Boston was utterly terrible. The very worst aspects of mankind was on show and I wanted to apologise for humanity. Two explosions, one incendiary device and a reported 5 others that didn't go off. 8 separate devices. The scale, the disregard for human life is staggering to me. It's just sickening. And targeting the end of a marathon, a great feat of endurance, overcoming what your body thinks is impossible. There are no words.
I think I may have felt this more than some because of the marathon. The people finishing it were around the 4hour mark, when a large chunk of the 27000 would be looking to finish it. I've not run a lot compared to some, and only halves not full marathons, but I felt a kindred with the runners. I know the sweat blood pain and tears they put themselves through. They're very similar to me in many ways and I can't believe they were targeted like this. There are no words.
Another reason why this has disturbed me is because of London. London's marathon is this Sunday. I've been there for the past two years supporting and would have been stood in the equivalent place to the first explosion in Boston about 3:30 into each of the previous races. Had this occurred at either of them I may not be here. I'm lucky, not one of the poor victims who have lost lives and limbs. There are no words.
But in the midst of the tragedy there was stories showing the good side of man. 1000families opened their homes to stranded runners. People ran towards the explosion instead of away in fear because they wanted to help. People gave what they could, from their own blood. It shows what man can do in a crisis and how he can meet it. There are no words.
Pray for Boston
Friday, 29 March 2013
FC by the FC
I recently watched the French connection and ultimately it left me disappointed. However, looking back on it, I have been a bit harsh. Yes it had some flaws, but I looked at it with over 40 years of cinema advancement. I'm enjoying thinking about it more than I enjoyed it first time round!
First off, I have to address a major flaw ; the soundtrack. Countless times during the film any possible tension was ruined by almost comically bad music telling you it was going to be tense. This isn't something you can blame on age as a lot of older films have fantastic soundtracks. It seems a small thing to talk about, but it ruins many good films. My other complaints are the ending seemed confused. 2 or 3minutes less and it would have been brilliant, but as it was it just got a bit confused. And the other thing was the pacing of the plot in the first half, but this may have been a consequence of it being a true story. It went very slow, then big lump of plot in a single scene.
That apart it was actually better than I gave credit for. Things that seemed cliché weren't when it was new, and I didn't credit this. The chase scene must have been groundbreaking and the interaction with the characters outside the main 2 cops was a lot of fun. A favourite scene was the subway one trying to follow alain, which was a lot of fun.
Overall it is a good film, and I think I will enjoy it more the second time provided I watch it right. If only it had a better sound track...
First off, I have to address a major flaw ; the soundtrack. Countless times during the film any possible tension was ruined by almost comically bad music telling you it was going to be tense. This isn't something you can blame on age as a lot of older films have fantastic soundtracks. It seems a small thing to talk about, but it ruins many good films. My other complaints are the ending seemed confused. 2 or 3minutes less and it would have been brilliant, but as it was it just got a bit confused. And the other thing was the pacing of the plot in the first half, but this may have been a consequence of it being a true story. It went very slow, then big lump of plot in a single scene.
That apart it was actually better than I gave credit for. Things that seemed cliché weren't when it was new, and I didn't credit this. The chase scene must have been groundbreaking and the interaction with the characters outside the main 2 cops was a lot of fun. A favourite scene was the subway one trying to follow alain, which was a lot of fun.
Overall it is a good film, and I think I will enjoy it more the second time provided I watch it right. If only it had a better sound track...
Friday, 15 March 2013
Backdated 4 - Lions Watch!
Mid 6nations is the classic time to start picking a lions squad. Only it's never that simple. England will be expected to make up a large section of the squad but Gatland will no doubt pick plenty from Wales. Scotland have been better than expected this season and the iris are missing plenty who'd expect to make the plane. So my squad:
Front row
Last tour the Welsh lads made all the headlines, but they've not been In the same format this year. That said you can't discount their class. Dan Cole and cian healey look nailed on, and from scotland I always like Ross ford and euan murray. Dylan Hartley and tom youngs both make a case. For me murray Cole healey jenkins Jones ford Hartley Rees. Youngs unlucky but just too soon. Might bolt
Second row
English and scottish both look strong here. The players missing from ireland and Wales want in too based on class. Launchbury lawes and gray look to be the future, but you ignore hines parling oconnell and wyn Jones at your peril. For me the 3 young guns, oconnell if fit and hines. Tough on parling
Back row
This is interesting. Key for me is balance. I know gatland wants a fetcher to combat pocock, which points to Warburton. I think the best 2 back rowers have both been injured recently - croft and ferris. Robshaw wood heaslip obrien Lydiate and faletau are all good players too but this a lot of players that more look like 6.5s I'd go with croft ferris and faletau, taking wood heaslip obrien and Lydiate. Robshaw too if space allows
Front row
Last tour the Welsh lads made all the headlines, but they've not been In the same format this year. That said you can't discount their class. Dan Cole and cian healey look nailed on, and from scotland I always like Ross ford and euan murray. Dylan Hartley and tom youngs both make a case. For me murray Cole healey jenkins Jones ford Hartley Rees. Youngs unlucky but just too soon. Might bolt
Second row
English and scottish both look strong here. The players missing from ireland and Wales want in too based on class. Launchbury lawes and gray look to be the future, but you ignore hines parling oconnell and wyn Jones at your peril. For me the 3 young guns, oconnell if fit and hines. Tough on parling
Back row
This is interesting. Key for me is balance. I know gatland wants a fetcher to combat pocock, which points to Warburton. I think the best 2 back rowers have both been injured recently - croft and ferris. Robshaw wood heaslip obrien Lydiate and faletau are all good players too but this a lot of players that more look like 6.5s I'd go with croft ferris and faletau, taking wood heaslip obrien and Lydiate. Robshaw too if space allows
9s
Youngs and care. Next10s
Farell and sexton are the favourites. I'd take hook for versatility and would be interested to see if there's any new ones wilkinson
12
Roberts would be favourite but not playing great this year. Barritt will lead the defence, Marshall may find it too soon. No scottish candidates and D'Arcy is not the player he was
13
Old master and young pretender. Odriscoll and tuilagi. Bod possible (probable?) captain. Tough on Davies who is looking better and better.
Back 3
Cuthbert north and bowel will almost definitely make the trip. Ashton needs to up his defence. Halfpenny and kearney are probable and I'd take foden. Hogg and the Scottish wings look nice too. Nice problem to have!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)