24601derful: Drury Lane Oakbrook Stages a Fully Masterful 'Les Misérables' -- Chicago Theater Review

Theater Review

Les Misérables
Drury Lane Oakbrook
Thru June 8
@@@@@

"It's as good as Broadway," was the first thing I heard when the lights came up at Intermission, from the woman sitting next to me, although she was actually speaking to her two companions.

So I turned to her and said, "I saw it last year in London and this is every bit as good."

When I returned to my seat for the start of Act 2, the man sitting on the other side of me asked, "Did you say you saw it in London and this is just as good?"

To which I explained that there was something really cool about seeing Les Misérables in London, where the original production has been running since 1985, and that there--as on Broadway and in downtown Chicago theaters on multiple tours--it can be presented on a considerably grander scale.

But without being able to recall with any exactitude the vocal timbre or acting quality from character to character, I don't think that had I seen the Oakbrook performance in London I would have loved it any less--or vice-versa any more.

And it--my pick for the best musical of all-time, but my second favorite (behind The Producers)--was absolutely fantastic in London, as well the last time I saw it in Chicago, in a revamped, slightly smaller version for the 25th Anniversary U.S. Tour. I have also seen the show on Broadway and several other times in Chicago.

So it is really saying something to note how thoroughly terrific it is at the Drury Lane Oakbrook.

Not this should sound all that surprising to those--including a large subscriber base--who have patronized (in a good way) the venerable venue now in its 30th year in operation, or those who know that Drury Lane Theatres have been part of the Chicagoland scene since 1949.

Although DRO has a smaller proscenium stage than at large Broadway, West End or Chicago theaters, it has a capacity around 950, which is more than several official Broadway theaters and within 150 seats of many others. All the seats for Les Miz looked filled on Sunday evening, and extrapolated over 80 performances, that's up to 76,000 people who may see this show, many more than a typical 2-week downtown run of a non-blockbuster Broadway tour reels in.

So the stellar work regularly being presented at Drury Lane Oakbrook under the auspices of Kyle DeSantis, who took over after his legendary grandfather Tony passed away in 2007, shouldn't shock those who have paid attention.

Over the past few seasons, I have seen sublime, world-class renditions of Ragtime, Cabaret, Singin' in the Rain, Sweeney Todd, Hairspray, The Sound of Music and Next To Normal, and I no longer live 15 minutes away, as I did when I first went to DRO in 2001.

Yet something about the suburban location, the theater being housed within a multi-use banquet facility and the reasonable ticket prices may prompt some incredulity about Drury Lane staging Broadway-quality productions. (Though prices have increased with the quality of the shows, Les Misérables can be seen for $45 through the DRO box office and considerably less on Goldstar, my option.)

I am sure there are many avid musical theater lovers in Chicago who will go to New York--where Les Miz has been remounted--or London before they even contemplate heading to Oakbrook Terrace.

That's their loss.

And while I hope those attending the four parties simultaneously taking place at Drury Lane--on arriving, I saw many dressed to the nines--had the time of their lives, I feel a bit bad that they were oblivious to the magnificence taking place just a few yards away.

Though spatial restrictions didn't allow the scenery to quite match that of Les Miz in London, on Broadway or on tour, it the best and most elaborate set I've every seen at DRO. The staging didn't need to be quite as inventive as at Marriott Lincolnshire--where I saw a spectacular in-the-round production in 2008--but it's nonetheless rather brilliant.

Rachel Rockwell is probably Chicago's best musical theater director this side of Gary Griffin and she makes several clever choices I don't recall being previously incorporated into Les Misérables, which only adds to the emotional heft of Victor Hugo's famed storyline and Claude-Michel Schonberg's astonishing musical score. (Alain Boublil is credited as the original musical's co-creator, with Herbert Kretzmer writing the English lyrics.)

Though I always innately admire the work of set and lighting designers, here it was so good as for me to make a point of noting and citing Scott Davis and Greg Hoffman, respectively. Video projections to support the set, created by Sage Marie Carter, were also superb, as was the costuming by Erika Senase and Maggie Hoffman.

The 16-member orchestra, under the musical director of Roberta Duchak and conducted by Ben Johnson sounded strong if--likely due to spatial limitations--not as robust as larger ones in bigger venues.

Yet while all the people behind the scenes and in the pit undoubtedly contribute greatly to just how great this production is, it is the cast and their vocal prowess that most acutely renders apt the comparison to London and Broadway.

Ivan Rutherford, who plays Jean Valjean here, has played the role on Broadway, as well as on tour and at other regional theaters, more than 2,000 times in total.

He is terrific, and delivers "Bring Him Home" as well as I can recall.

Only devout Les Miz lovers may truly get this, but a large part of how I perceive any production of the show--from Broadway to high schools, where I've also seen it--is in how well the spotlight numbers are delivered.

And every one at Drury Lane is excellent, including Jennie Sophia (Fantine) singing "I Dreamed a Dream," Mark David Kaplan and Sharon Sachs (the Thernadiers) on "Master of the House," Quentin Earl Darrington's (Javert) "Stars," Skyler Adams and Emily Rohm (Marius and Cosette) dueting on "In My Life/A Heart Full of Love" and Christina Nieves (Eponine) emoting "On My Own."

This doesn't even include the best voice of the whole bunch, Travis Taylor as Enjolras, who spearheads the trio of great choral numbers at the end of Act I. Though I've only seen Taylor in supporting roles around Chicago--Sweeney Todd at DRO, Now and Forever, an Andrew Lloyd Webber revue at the Marriott Lincolnshire--each time he has demonstrably stood out enough for me to remember his name and wonder why he isn't a leading man on Broadway.

The child actors rotate performances, but the ones I saw--Charlie Babbo as Gavroche, Ava Morse as Young Cosette--were also splendid.

I'm running out of unused adjectives, but I think I've made my point.

Les Misérables is one of the greatest artistic works of both the 19th and 20th century--the 2012 movie is also wonderful--and while I suspect the musical will play grand opera houses in years to come, it is now being licensed to regional theaters.

It cannot be an easy musical to do justice, but the Drury Lane Oakbrook more than does.

If you love Les Miz, it is well-worth the $36 (incl. fees) I paid to see how well it translates here.

And if you've never seen the show--like the guy next to me, who loved it but wondered if he was seeing it in representative form--this is a truly marvelous introduction.

Either way, you'd be folly to "Miz" it. 

For "at the end of the day," culture and community are what will save us from artifice and avarice. Les Misérables not only promotes this notion, but when staged terrifically--as here--best exemplifies it.

Manning the Barricades on Behalf of Les Misérables

Les Misérables, the movie based on the hit musical, was released in America on Christmas. I saw the second showing of the day at a local theater, with family and friends, electing to see Les Miz rather than Django Unchained, which I saw later that week.

I went into Les Miserables with great expectations—coincidentally referencing another classic work of 19th century literature, published just a year before the Victor Hugo tome dropped in 1862—as the stage musical is one of my all-time favorites (officially #2 on this list) and, IMHO, the best piece of musical theater ever created.

But I also entered the movie with a good bit of wariness.

Having in November seen a sensationally well-sung touring version of the musical, which I’ve taken in numerous times, I was skeptical about the vocal chops of the movie’s stars, particularly Russell Crowe, but also to varying degrees, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter and others.

Also, while advance buzz for the movie seemed to generally be strong, not only had recent stage-to-screen adaptations of cherished musicals like The Producers and Rent been relatively disappointing, but some critics—including Michael Phillips in my local Chicago Tribune—had truly trashed Les Miserables.

In giving the film 1-1/2 stars out of 4, Phillips wrote “Too little in this frenzied mess of a film registers because [Director Tom] Hooper is trying to make everything register at the same nutty pitch.”

But I went to the movie on Christmas and I loved it. To the point of ranking it #6 on my list of Best New Movies I Saw in 2012.

This isn’t to say that I thought everything about it—particularly the singing—was absolutely exquisite. For pure vocal prowess, the recent DVD of the 25th Anniversary Concert of Les Miserables or a touring production or the one playing in London is likely a good step greater.

Crowe actually sang a bit better than I expected, but a bit short of phenomenally, while Jackman—who has solid stage musical credits—sounded a bit thinner of voice than I would’ve thought. Hathaway was very good—she, like Jackman, has now earned an Oscar nomination—but perhaps over-emoted a touch, while Seyfried's singing was solid if not quite sensational.

But while this may sound like I’m being hypercritical, or even negative, in truth the slightly-below-pristine movie star singing did very little to detract from my tremendous overall enjoyment of Les Miserables on screen.

Over nearly 2 hours and 40 minutes that for me never dragged, Hugo’s classic storyline, the score by Claude-Michel Schönberg and the adaptation and lyrics by Alain Boublil and Herbert Kretzmer all retained their power to glorious effect. And whatever quibbles some critics had about not only the singing, but Hooper’s camerawork and editing choices, were for me rendered inconsequential.

When I walked out of the theater, I was already looking forward to Les Miserables being released on DVD so I could add it to my collection and watch it again.

But while the Les Miz movie has certainly seemed to have its fair share of champions among friends, the public and the press—it garnered a Best Picture Oscar nom—over the past few weeks, I became aware of a good number of people who truly hated it.

In Time magazine, Richard Corliss wrote, “This is a bad movie.”

Nick Digilio, a WGN Radio host and avowed movie buff, put it on his list of Worst Movies of 2012, as did Michael Phillips.

David Edelstein of New York Magazine called it “tasteless bombardment.”

In Entertainment Weekly, Lisa Schwarzbaum opined that “this fake-opulent Les Miz made me long for guillotines.”

In her New York Times review, Manohla Dargis referred to Hooper’s directorial approach as being “bludgeoning and deadly.”

And in the most vitriolic harangue I’ve yet encountered, David Denby wrote in the New Yorker, “I had never seen the show or heard the score; I came to the material fresh, without preconception, and throughout the entire hundred and fifty-seven minutes I sat cowering in my seat, lost in shame and chagrin. This movie is not just bad (“bombast,” as Anthony Lane characterized it in a wonderful review in the current issue of the magazine). It’s terrible; it’s dreadful. Overbearing, pretentious, madly repetitive.”

Certainly, I realize and respect that everyone—and especially professional critics—are going to have different viewpoints on things, and if it’s their job (or even just wont) to share them, they should be nothing but candid about their opinions.

And when someone as esteemed as Richard Corliss finds fault with Hooper’s technical approach—writing “…when Hooper pulls back for the big view, his camera style switches from mesmerized single takes to catch-as-catch-can choppiness. The barricade scenes are filled with rapid, indiscriminate vignettes of the protesters; the shots don’t build, they just pile up—I can’t help but appreciate that he’s assessing things with a much more trained eye than I.

Especially as someone who openly espouses my opinions on this blog, with which I imagine and respect that many people may disagree, I generally take a “to each their own” philosophy. Some people hate musicals. Some people hate Springsteen. Some 5547 people have given Citizen Kane a “1” rating (out of 10) on IMDB. We all have our opinions and we’re all entitled to them.

To wit, I recently watched Persona, an Ingmar Bergman film that the British Film Institute ranks as the 17th best film ever. I could see the unique movie's merits, but nowhere to that extent. And though they often tend to be lumped together, I am far less a fan of Phantom of the Opera—or even Boublil and Schönberg ’s Miss Saigon—than I am of Les Misérables.

So it’s not like I don’t get that variances of opinion—and even seeming inconsistencies among our
own—are not just normal, but in many ways valuable, even essential.

Yet while I wouldn’t even say that outright slams are the majority—Metacritic cites only 2 purely negative critics' reviews out of 41 total, though 15 are “mixed” rather than positive—I found myself somewhat puzzled by exactly what had made Denby and the other naysayers so miserable.

So the other day, after work, I went to see Les Miserables again.

And I went specifically looking to be bothered by the camera angles and close-up shots that bounced around and subpar singing and an overload of empty bombast. I was looking for evidence to feel sheepish about my longstanding regard for Les Miz, a musical Denby says “was a killer for girls between the ages of eight and about fourteen,” with music that “is juvenile stuff—tonic-dominant, without harmonic richness or surprise.”

Well, with the caveat that I never purport to know what the hell I’m talking about, in seeing Les Miserables on screen for a second time, with the express purpose to focus on its supposed flaws, I wound up feeling the same way about it as I did the first time.

I loved it.

Sure, I can appreciate where some of the criticisms are coming from. Much of the music is overtly anthemic and tugs at your heartstrings. The score is filled with musical motifs that repeat ad nauseum. It seems somewhat odd that Javert (played by Crowe) seemingly has no other purpose in life than to hunt Valjean (Jackman), and the way the two characters (and others) constantly cross paths across France every few years seems too conveniently coincidental. As noted above, the stars' singing voices are likely a touch below prime Broadway or West End caliber. And yes, at a few points, the camera seemed to jump around more than it may have needed to.

Etc., etc., etc.

Still, there really wasn’t a moment within the 157 minutes that I didn’t like. By and large, the movie follows the book of the musical, which condensed the action of a 1,000+ page epic novel that takes place over about 20 years into a cohesively compelling 3-hour show. Hooper and his editors made a few sequencing alterations, and there are a couple points where you may wonder why so-and-so is suddenly here and then there, but in my estimation, everything holds together much more than it doesn’t.

The performances are good, the songs are luscious and for someone who loves the stage version as much as I do, the movie is every bit as good as I could’ve hoped. Understanding that in show “business,” movies are made to make money, I get—and agree with—why movie stars were employed, rather than perhaps lesser-known Broadway vets with better singing voices.

And if, as it seems Denby would suggest, I am mistaking attractive artifice for true beauty, so be it.

I’ll happily squint if it means deriving as much pleasure (and yes, uplift) as I have from Les Miserables, on stage, and now, on screen.

And if you hate Les Miserables, c’est la vie.

Do you hear the people sing?