That was the point, that was the
The whole human POINT of that book was to
She remembered her childhood because it was *her childhood,* and people are still PEOPLE even when
THAT WAS THE POINT
In general, I do not get angry very easily. But every so often I remember the review of Persepolis that I read, nigh on 20 years ago now, that was like “kind of self-centered to focus on stupid little details like your first cigarette, people were dying,” and the Kill Bill siren goes off in my head
but
Siegfried is the opera version of that children’s book “Are You My Mother?”
I will have to track that down! I’d love to hear what he had to say about it.
So yeah. It's... bad.
And the corollary is that Kretzmer doesn't get NEARLY enough credit. His "I Dreamed a Dream" is full of classic, indelible lines, and it fits the melody so perfectly, you'd swear they're by the same person!
But nope, he came along after the fact. Incredible. /thread
And that brilliant moment at the end where she breaks away? "So different from this hell I'm living," etc.? That! Also! Does! Not! Happen! The music is there. But the lyrics are exactly the lyrics she opened the song with. (So you might almost ask: WHY is the music there?)
Anyway, you know that heartbreaking return to the A section, where she reveals that she's STILL in love with the guy? That! Does! Not! Happen! The verses after the bridge could be swapped for the verses before the bridge, and you'd never notice. Just different words for the same ideas.
I mean maybe it's not fair to criticize any version of Les Mis for making its message heavy handed, but where is the pathos in this? Where is the emotional contrast, even?
The bridge -- the tigers/thunder/sha-a-a-a-ame section -- goes like this:
"I paid, with all my tears,
the ransom for my short happiness,
to a society that disarms the thief, but never the victim."
[Keenen Ivory Wayans, popping out of the background: "Message!"]
It goes on like this. The second stanza is about how she dreamed of finding a great love, but "[her] first Prince Charming/ was the assassin of [her] childhood." This is all set to that incredibly hopeful major key melody!
In the original, the first stanza of the text is:
"I had a dream of another life
but life has killed my dreams
just as one stifles the last cries
of an animal that is being put down"
Remember what I said about how "Now life has killed the dream I dreamed" would seem cheap in any other context?
None of that -- literally none of that!! -- is in the original French version of the song.
And then, finally "Now life has killed the dream I dreamed." As the song fades, we hear her hope die -- it's a line that would be too over the top in almost any other context. But here it feels totally earned.
And then as the strings take over the main theme, Fantine cuts across the rhythm: "I had a dream my life would be/ so different from this hell I'm living." This hits like a ton of bricks, precisely because she breaks away from her original melody and her original sentiment.
And then we're back to the verse, and back in major, and -- and this is the most heartbreaking moment in the lyric -- she's *still* in love with the guy, even though he abandoned her.
So take "I dreamed a dream." Great song. It opens with this beautiful major key melody, and Fantine tells us about the innocent optimism of her youth. After two verses, the turn. Bridge of the song! Minor key! The tigers! The sha-a-a-a-ame!
Kretzmer's lyrics are only in the loosest sense a translation. You could call them a punch-up, maybe? Sometimes you'd just have to call them a contrefact.
And I always wondered if maybe the English translation of the lyrics, by Herbert Kretzmer -- who did not work on most of the other Boublil/Schonberg projects -- was doing some heavy lifting that we didn't really give it credit for?
Today I went and checked, and this is ABSOLUTELY the case.
Something that I had always wondered is why Boublil and Schonberg, the team behind Les Miserables, never quite captured the same magic again. (Miss Saigon is quite good, but it's not AS good, and once you go beyond that...)
FLATS: the *superior* accidental
“Hwæt” is a false cognate for “what,” but it does almost exactly correspond to [Lil Jon voice] “WHAT??”
UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD ✊
I’m legitimately fascinated that they went with dinkety-dink instead of bleep-bloop!
André Rieu, conducting Carmina Burana: “This is a really weird waltz.”
youtu.be/EJC-_j3SnXk
The distracted boyfriend meme - the boyfriend is labeled “the church circa 1409,” his girlfriend is labeled “two rival popes” and the lady in red is labeled “three rival popes”
Dario Argento: okay, so there’s a spooky hallway
Me: ehhhhh
Dario Argento: the hallway is also extremely Red
Me: [sitting bolt upright] go on
And of course it still matters! But only in the way that art matters. Not in the way that activism matters.
The famous part of the Bernstein quote is usually used as a rallying cry — it might be better understood as a diagnosis.
One of the lines Su highlights is “our music will never again be quite the same.” And what strikes me is that Bernstein is not describing a voluntary process.
This isn’t something musicians *elect* to do because it will make a difference. This is… just… what happens, to art in the wake of trauma.
You do need those words, “in their truest forms.” And they have a lot of work to do! But still I believe in it. I don’t know that I could really believe anything else. (Like… it’s not up to us, you know? Belief?)
And there is maybe something similar about the Bernstein quote at the heart of this…