Arty Farty Friday ~ Émile-Antoine Bayard & Cosette

Born this day, in 1837: Émile-Antoine Bayard (November 2, 1837 – 6 December 1891). He was a French illustrator born in La Ferté-sous-Jouarre, Seine-et-Marne. A student of Léon Cogniet, and is now best remembered for his illustration of Cosette from Les Misérables by Victor Hugo. He died in Cairo. (Wikipedia).

Young Cosette sweeping: 1862 drawing for Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. The illustration has been used in promotional art for various versions of the musical adaptation of the novel. Bayard drew many other scenes from the novel too - no doubt used as guides by the producers and directors of stage and film adaptations.

Bayard illustrated several other famous books, notably Around the Moon by Jules Verne (1870). See illustrations and information at The Public domain Review HERE. This was years before H.G. Wells brought science fiction to the masses in the 1890s, possibly these are some of the first sci-fi related illustrations ever.

There are other oddities among his many illustrations, for instance a duel between two women, and a sequel - their reconciliation! (Click on illustrations for clearer views.)

Astrologically, Émile-Antoine Bayard had Sun in Scorpio, his natal chart is at Astrotheme HERE. His Scorpio Sun is at 10 degrees and in harmonious trine with Uranus at 4 degrees of Pisces, close to midheaven. If time of birth at Astrotheme is near correct, Cancer was rising at 10 degrees - forming a Grand Trine (harmonious circuit)in the astrological Water element. I suspect this is the root source of the intuition and imagination used in his memorable illustrations, with Venus, planet of the arts in Sagittarius, ensuring that his work was widely published.

Arty Farty Friday~ Delacroix ~ Liberty Leading the People

Today, 26 April in 1798 French painter of the Romantic school, Eugène Delacroix was born. One of his best known paintings, now almost iconic having been used on French postage stamps and paper currency is Liberty Leading the People. Romantic style painters focus on emotionality - the full spectrum of human emotion. Look at any of Delacroix's paintings and at the heart of it will be depiction of an emotion - anger, courage, despair, love, fear.......

Liberty Leading the People was painted a few months after the Paris uprising of July 27 - 29 1830, that same uprising described in Victor Hugo's novel Les Misérables and its various adaptations to stage and film. The figure of a youth, to the right of Lady Liberty, is said to have been inspiration for the character of Gavroche in Victor Hugo's famous novel.

The 1830 rebellion and political upheaval overthrew reigning monarch, Charles X (brother of the beheaded Louis XVI) who had been planning to reinstate systems of pre-Revolutionary France. After pledging one billion francs to the aristocracy in reparations for property lost during the Revolution, he abolished free press and the legislature, and curtailed suffrage rights.




There's symbolism in the painting - in the detail as well as in the general feel of it. In this uprising the middle class - the bourgeoisie - joined with the working classes to oppose the ruling aristocracy. The two figures on the left of the painting symbolise this, one wearing a top hat, vest and jacket, the other in working gear of a labourer.

The dead man on the left in the painting's foreground is wearing a nightshirt - indicating he had been dragged from his bed by royalist soldiers - a reference to the despised practice of royal troops who spread terror by murdering suspected revolutionary sympathizers in their beds and then dragging the bodies into the streets as a warning. The dead man on the right appears to be a royalist soldier.

Dominating figure is Liberty, the personification of freedom, aka Marianne in France. She rushes forward from a pile of bodies and debris of the barricades, bare-footed and bare-breasted, carrying the Tricolore and a musket. She wears a Phrygian cap, widely recognized symbol of liberty during the original French Revolution.


The painting was first exhibited in 1831 but was not met with plaudits. Critics disliked the way Delacroix had depicted Liberty who, they said looked like a working class woman, a fishwife, or perhaps even a harlot. But this was Liberty actually "on the job" and not the "at ease" version represented by the Statue of Liberty presented by the people of France to the USA in 1886. Naturally enough, in 1831 the potential for such dramatic proletarian power must have seemed highly dangerous, so dangerous in fact that Delacroix's masterpiece was not put on view to the public until 1855. Photo (right) is included to give some idea of the size of the painting.

Delacroix died in 1863, aged 65.

VARIOUS

I was interested to read (SEE HERE) that the late Hugo Chavez was a great fan of the writings of Victor Hugo, especially of his famous novel, Les Misérables. I'm almost halfway through that huge tome myself, enjoying it a lot.

From above link

As Daphnée Denis wrote the other day on Slate:

"[Chávez] spent a great deal of time quoting and analyzing Hugo's social novel, the story of the wretched of France -- Cosette, the orphan, Fantine, the prostitute, Jean Valjean, the well-intended convict -- at the beginning of the 19th century... He often evoked the book to defend his policies, reminding the public that his government was devoted to the lower classes, "those who spent much of their life in total misery, as Victor Hugo would say."

Senator Rand Paul can be hailed as be a hero for his stand (but for this stand only) : the anti-drone filibuster. His motives were dubious however. Democrats, even the best of 'em, all except Ron Wyden are war criminals for following in the blood-stained steps of our President.





Some DNA ancestry services akin to 'genetic astrology'
piece by by Pallab Ghosh Science correspondent, BBC News. "Some customers want to find Viking ancestry, but almost every Briton has some, say researchers....." - and Roman too! We knew that already though, didn't we?


Scientists have described some services provided by companies tracing ancestry using DNA as akin to astrology.Huh? Not sure I get that drift.






Another "Talking Picture" and caption from the husband's vintage collection:



Caption and a comment:

Halderman Seldom knew where he was.
Whenever Halderman spotted someone with a camera, he always managed to get into the picture. Here, while Myra and her mother, Philo and her Aunt Cadbury, posed on the steps of the family summer home, Halderman quietly slipped into the frame. He always smiled so no one ever objected. Someone at the Seldom household next door always came to get him and return him to his lawn-chair lookout position.

Comment: from ed ed (64 months ago): Myra's eyes are cast down. Aunt Cadbury looks stern. Myra's mother chortles. I am wondering if there is a rip in the seat of Halderman's pants?

anyjazz65 (64 months ago, in reply): Oh dear. Do you suppose? There was always the rumor that Halderman had no pockets either.

During my early teenage years, in a small English market town , I would regularly haunt the local library. It was there that I discovered a few books by some American writers whose style I admired greatly - enough to start dreaming of emulating them, and becoming a journalist or newspaper reporter myself. "Dream on" was the message of my headmistress (paraphrased) at a brief career interview. I guess she was right, for opportunities were few and far between.

Those writers who had so impressed me had something in common, something which I discovered later when looking more deeply into astrology. They were all born with Pluto in Gemini.

Sinclair Lewis 7 Feb. 1885 Sauk Center, Minnesota
Dorothy Parker 22 Aug. 1893 West End, New Jersey
James Thurber 8 Dec. 1894 Columbus, Ohio
Ogden Nash 19 Aug. 1902 Rye, New York
S.J. Perelman 1 Feb. 1904 Brooklyn New York
H. Allen Smith 19 Dec 1907 McLeansboro, Illinois.

Gemini and its ruler Mercury represent communication in all its forms. In writers it links to an abstract curiosity, seeking to form a picture of the world and to share perceptions with others. Pluto's transit through Gemini (1883-1912) brought a long period of intense energy to those engaged in this area. I'm tempted to go on about Gemini being basically lighthearted, carefree, but must not forget who else was born into the same generation: Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Ayatollah Khomeini. These men too were communicators, but of a far darker persuasion. Not all writers born with Pluto in Gemini leaned towards light humour and satire either : T.S. Eliot, J.R.R.Tolkein, Ernest Hemingway, George Orwell, John Steinbeck all were of this same generation. Excellence in writing was a definite feature throughout Pluto's visit to Gemini, these authors were fortunate to have been born under what could be described as "a writer's sky".

Gemini connects also to transportation and other forms of communication as well as writing. During Pluto's transit of Gemini there were many fantastic achievements. The first subway was built in London, the first automatic telephone switchboard was introduced, Marconi invented radio telegraphy, and Zeppelin built his airship.

Les Misérables - eventually!

At last we got to see Les Misérables, on Sunday afternoon. The movie had actually reached our local cinema (stands back in amazement) over a week ago. As our shared coughing virus has thankfully subsided to an occasional expanded "ahem" or two, we braved the outer world first time in what seemed like ages. There were only around 25 people at the afternoon showing, and three of 'em left around 20 minutes in and didn't return.

Neither the husband nor I have seen Les Miz the stage musical, I have seen DVD and tapes of the main parts of it, and we've both seen several variations of the straight film adaptation of the novel - over the years there have been many. I began reading Victor Hugo's 1,400 page novel (English translation) at New Year, my resolution is to read it all the way through. I've just finished Part One (covering the first 275 pages), and enjoying it, finding it so far an easy and comfortable read due in part, I guess, to Norman Denny's translation style.

My overall comment about this new film, as we left the cinema was: "I'm not sure whether I liked that or not....I'm glad to have seen it though. It wasn't bad, but there was something missing." Husband thought it was superbly made, with some great shots and angles, and some obvious difficulties which had to be overcome.

The film maker was able to show us scenes from strange angles and perspectives a stage presentation could never have approached. I enjoyed that part of the movie. There was an attempt at realism in the way the songs were sung live to camera, no lip-syncing or pre-recording, yet because of that I missed the grandeur of some of the show's famous "set piece" songs which seemed to be almost thrown away. That was a disappointment. I really didn't enjoy the "sung through" style: no straight dialogue at all. If the film maker had wanted to strive for realism it would have been better to make a straightforward, non-musical film of the novel - a better one than has ever yet been seen on screen, with all the new technological help, the best possible A-list actors in each key part, loyal to the descriptions in the novel, and who had no need to be able to carry a tune. Some of the musical's main themes could have been used in the background of certain scenes, as a nod to a relative.

Hugh Jackman wasn't my idea of Jean Valjean, far too good looking and he didn't age sufficiently during the movie; but he can sing a bit, which is obviously what got him the part. Russell Crowe looked more Jean Valjean-ish for me, but he can't sing - did his best with Javert though. Anne Hathaway as Fantine should've been blonde, much is made of her beautiful golden locks in the novel. Also, she should have sold her two front teeth according to Hugo, not two back teeth well out of camera's searching lens.

As it stands in this new film the best of the musical version is lost, and much nuance of the story itself is lost - in my opinion.

I guess one has to look on the four entities involved as completely separate and only loosely related: the novel, the film adaptation, the stage musical adaptation, and the film musical adaptation. There's something of value in each, and something lacking in each.

Every viewer or reader will identify some point of reference which, for them, is the key to the story. For some it might be the classic sin/mercy/suffering/redemption motif, closely linked to the teachings of the Christian church. For others "the terrible lot of a poor woman's life" motif, or the "love at first sight" motif, or the "ill-treated children" and "unfailing love of a father" motif, the "doggedly obsessed man of conscience, a policeman determined to catch a thief" motif or - and in my own case: the political theme: "downtrodden masses kept in poverty, suffering and need will at last rebel against the tyranny of the wealthy" motif.

Yes, my heart always beats a little faster when I hear:

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing a song of angry men?
It is the music of a people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

I don't know how many of the 20 or so people in the cinema with us were weeping at any point during the movie. I wept more than once. Why? I knew the story, I knew the ending, there were no surprises. The music and lyrics, derided by several snobbish critics, do put a strong pull on the emotions, especially in tandem with the sufferings of those depicted in close detail on the big screen - their squalor and their pain, their striving to do the best they can in the face of it all, while constantly being kicked back.

Below: a favourite scene from the anniversary DVD when all the actors who have played Jean Valjean in countries around the world came together on stage for a Grand Finale. I love this - it encourages me think that because Victor Hugo's story has survived, still fresh, and loved by people all around the world, there is still hope for us all.

Les Miserables - A Detail and A Resolve

We still haven't made it to the movies to see Les Miserables. Freezing winter weather and minor aches and pains, on the far edge of something flu-like dampened our enthusiasm for the 32 mile journey to the nearest cinema showing the film. We do intend making a try for an afternoon show this week though.

It's interesting, but unsurprising, to see how conflicting some reviews of the movie have been. Beloved 1,400-page novel condensed over the years, in several versions, to the movie screen; then adapted as a stage musical; then further modified as a movie musical.....Somebody, somewhere, isn't going to like what they've done to it, at any of the stages of the story's (d)evolution, but some will enthuse wildly. Each genre has a different perspective to offer, a different way of portraying the story's essence. A lot depends on how well the source material is known and understood by both those adapting it and those watching the adaptations.

To Scratch an itch at the weekend I fished out an old VHS tape of the 10 year anniversary concert version of Les Miz to watch and refresh my memory. A question kept presenting itself to my annoyingly logical mind, it was one I'd wondered about in the past when watching any of the the various non-musical film versions of Victor Hugo's famous novel. Jean Valjean (seen in the book illustration above) progresses from being a convict on parole, then stealing silver candlesticks, forgiven by their owner and being allowed to keep them; then, as if by magic - and with scant explanation other than the passing of time - he has become the owner of a factory employing many workers. In the past I've rationalised that he must have sold the silver candlesticks, invested the money somehow to increase its value, then had the good chance to come across a run-down business he could afford to buy and improve.

Should've read the book, you see! I will do so, soon as possible. In the meantime, a scoot around the net led me to the real answer which does appear in the novel, no doubt in great detail, in classic Hugo style. The answer? It was a matter of "black beads". Beads and bracelets made from, or imitating jet, the black mineral. I know a little about jet, a north of England coastal town I used to know well, Whitby, is famous for its jet and carved jet jewellery; my mother had a jet bracelet and a couple of carved pins, I recall.

Clip from Les Miserables, Book Fifth – The Descent, found HERE (I suspect it comes from one of the older translations of the novel because of the habit of using initials rather than full names. (M sur M = Montreuil-sur-Mer)

From time immemorial, M. sur M. had had for its special industry the imitation of English jet and the black glass trinkets of Germany. This industry had always vegetated, on account of the high price of the raw material, which reacted on the manufacture. At the moment when Fantine returned to M. sur M., an unheard-of transformation had taken place in the production of “black goods.” Towards the close of 1815 a man, a stranger, had established himself in the town, and had been inspired with the idea of substituting, in this manufacture, gum-lac for resin, and, for bracelets in particular, slides of sheet-iron simply laid together, for slides of soldered sheet-iron.This very small change had effected a revolution.This very small change had, in fact, prodigiously reduced the cost of the raw material, which had rendered it possible in the first place, to raise the price of manufacture, a benefit to the country; in the second place, to improve the workmanship, an advantage to the consumer; in the third place, to sell at a lower price, while trebling the profit, which was a benefit to the manufacturer.Thus three results ensued from one idea.
In less than three years the inventor of this process had become rich, which is good, and had made every one about him rich, which is better. He was a stranger in the Department. Of his origin, nothing was known; of the beginning of his career, very little. It was rumored that he had come to town with very little money, a few hundred francs at the most.

It was from this slender capital, enlisted in the service of an ingenious idea, developed by method and thought, that he had drawn his own fortune, and the fortune of the whole countryside.

Reading the book is an essential now! There must be many other tidbits of detail I've missed completely from non-musical movie versions. Finding the best version of the book, for me, will be quite a trick. Unabridged it has around 1,400 pages, depending on edition, and I balk at a 500-page novel! (Book illustration, left, by Lynd Ward).

The net to the rescue again. Reviewers and commenters mostly advise reading the unabridged version, or at least giving it a try initially; if really stumped by it there are abridged versions available too. Purists will insist on the unabridged edition, but there are considerations: the original was written for publication in episodes (as were most of Charles Dickens' novels) paid, I guess, by the length of each piece and number of episodes needed to conclude the tale. Hence it was in the author's best interest to wax into great detail about historical relevancies, and other matters which might assist the reader to fully appreciate the finer detail.
That was then though - before film, TV, internet and other modern distractions. In that long ago era reading a book, magazine or newspaper occupied a much bigger slice of the average person's day.

These days many of us are infected with internet-attention-disorder, expect easy-reading, quick hits. This post, for instance, is already longer than most blog readers would tolerate!

It'd do me no harm at all to re-educate myself in the gentle art of real reading.

In the case ofLes Miserables there's also the thorny issue of the most appropriate version of the novel's translation from French into English. Is it better to read one translated near Victor Hugo's own era, or a more modern translation? An older, literal translation, almost word for word French to English, doesn't sound like my cup of tea. There's a 1970s translation by Norman Denny (1901 - 1982) who was English, and whose work seems to be well thought of among commenters, that one sounds to be a likely bet. The most recent translator, an Australian: Julie Rose, could lean too far towards modern idiom to feel authentic .....anachronistic, I suppose is the term; though her version is likely to be an easier read, and well-received by the American market. She discusses her work in a piece here: What Julie Rose Adds to Victor Hugo.

From an interesting blog: The Art of Translation I found this comparison of the way three tranlators of a short piece of the novel approached it:

I'm in danger of becoming geeky here! Will go for Norman Denny's translation.

My New Year resolution for 2013: to read Les Miserables.

PS: An archived brief post about musical Les Miz with notes on composers' and Hugo's astrology is HERE: The Magic in Les Miz.

PPS: While watching the 10-year anniversary concert tape I noticed some lyrics which will appeal to the astrologically-inclined - verses of a song sung by Javert as he vows to track down Jean Valjean. I'm wondering how much of the song is poetic licence by the musical's composers, or whether this is a close adaptation/translation of Victor Hugo's own words? When I've kept my New Year's Resolution, then I'll know the answer!

Stars
In your multitudes
Scarce to be counted
Filling the darkness
With order and light
You are the sentinels
Silent and sure
Keeping watch in the night
Keeping watch in the night

You know your place in the sky
You hold your course and your aim
And each in your season
Returns and returns
And is always the same
And if you fall as Lucifer fell
You fall in flame!

The Magic in "Les Miz"

Les Miserables, the musical version of Victor Hugo's famous novel of the same name, turned out to be one of the 20th century's most popular shows. It has been in the news again during the past few weeks. Two contestants on TV's Britain's Got Talent have sung songs from the show and wowed audiences, not only in the theater and on TV in Britain, but worldwide via video clips.


Susan Boyle, about whom we heard an awful lot a week or so ago, sang "I Dreamed A Dream", from Les Miserables.


Then, last weekend Jamie Pugh, a Welsh contestant got a standing ovation for his rendition of "Bring Him Home", also from Les Miz.

I suspect that there's more at work here than the obvious. Yes, the two singers are exceptionally good, and both have appealing backstories, but had they sung something else, would the reaction of listeners and viewers have been as intense? I doubt it. The heart of the magic lay in the songs they chose to sing.

Victor Hugo's story of revolution and redemption in 19th century France is the core of the musical's success. His natal chart can be seen at Astrodatabank here. He was born 26 February 1802. Sun, Mercury, Venus and Pluto all in Pisces, the Mutable Water sign, sign of the mystical, sensitive, compassionate dreamer.

The music for Les Miserables was written by Claude-Michel Schonberg (below, left) born 6 July 1944 in Vannes, France. He has Sun, Mercury, Venus & Saturn in sensitive, sentimental Cancer - Cardinal Water.

Author of the touching lyrics which bring Shonberg's beautiful music to life was Alain Boublil (below, right), born in Tunis, Tunisia, 5 March 1941. Sun, Mercury and Venus all in Pisces (similar to Victor Hugo's chart).



What a lot of input from the element of Water, both Mutable and Cardinal, in those three charts! It's not at all surprising that the combination of story, music and lyrics, born of such an emotionally sensitive Watery genealogy, would have the power and the magic to open the flood-gates and touch millions of hearts. It happened!

For anyone who hasn't yet seen a video of Jamie Pugh's performance - a link

(Photograph at top of post from the London production of Les Miserables)