The night of the premiere of "Les Miserables" came to an end. After the performance, the thunderous applause of the audience lasted for fifteen minutes, and the crew members took the stage for five curtain calls, but they still failed to meet the expectations and excitement of the audience.

A true interpretation of endurance. It's a glorious sight not seen in the West End for many years.

In the 21st century, the West End has been mired in the mire of only two productions in the past 12 years, the 2008 musical "Jumping Out of My World" and the 2010 musical "Matilda", both of which are mainly child-focused productions.

But even these two productions, their success is still far behind that of fifteen or twenty years ago—they can't reach the pinnacle of "Miss Saigon" and "The Phantom of the Opera", and they can only barely reach the industry average of that year.

Tonight, the Almeida Theatre's "Les Misérables" has regained its glory, even if compared to the "Les Misérables" of the Queen's Theatre at its peak. What's more, it was a six-hour play, such a lengthy experimental work that was daunting, but it turned out to be the most successful audience response in the 21st century.

Five curtain calls, 15 minutes of applause, thunderous applause, and at the height of the 70s and 80s, this was the first performance feedback that caused a sensation for everyone.

Of course, this is just the premiere, this is just the audience. The reason why the Queen's version of "Les Miserables" is called glorious, and the reason why "Out of My World" and "Matilda" are considered to have failed to reach the peak of performance, the difference is naturally not in the glory of the opening night, but in the subsequent performances and the longevity of the box office.

Take "Jumping Out of My World" as an example.

This play officially debuted in 2008 and has been staged until now, and has never been offline, after the first version of Tom Holland's appearance, the young cast has changed several batches, and there is still no crisis of withdrawal in the short term. Their attendance is so stable that it's not a hit, but they've always been able to stay profitable and attract new audiences.

With such achievements, there is indeed a gap between the popular repertoire at its peak and the peak.

The opening night at the Almeida Theatre was a recreation of 25 years ago, but it was only the first step, and it was the real test of how well the show was released as a whole, how well it was received at the box office, and how attractive it was to audiences after the cast was replaced.

Until the test of the future comes, the caustic critic is the first hurdle that the new version of "Les Miserables" must pass.

In the film industry, the opinion of film critics is one of the important reference criteria, but it is not the key to determining the direction of the box office.

For example, the word-of-mouth of popcorn movies often faces more challenges to critics, such as the "Twilight" series and the "Transformers" series, which are the more fiercely criticized by film critics and the better the box office performance.

At the end of the day, a movie is a commodity. This one product, as long as it caters to the preferences of its own audience, can achieve good results. Film critics are just one part of the audience.

But the drama is different. The critic's point of view is the key factor in determining the outcome of the show.

Although both the West End and Broadway have a lot of amateur audiences, whether they are tourists or onlookers, it is a difficult problem for them to choose a play, so they often choose the most popular play, or the promotion of close friends, or the recommendation of an authoritative person.

In other words, the audience of drama is very narrow, that is, those who have a deep love and study of art, literature, and performance. This art form is relatively niche and special, and can be compared to literary films and independent films.

Therefore, professional audiences or senior enthusiasts, in fact, they are the same audience as drama critics. The only difference is that drama critics make a living from it, they are more professional, more authoritative, more profound, and their opinions can often provide first-hand reference materials to the audience, and the audience will buy it.

It is precisely because of this that works admired by critics are often able to achieve a correspondingly good market response, and even those experimental works with high and low levels can occupy a place in London's West End as long as they are genuine.

On the other hand, the bad comments of drama critics will quickly evolve into a flood of negative feedback, and some audiences may enter the theater to watch it out of curiosity or research, but often the performance time cannot last.

Industry insiders always say: The pen of a drama critic is enough to ruin a play.

In the creation of films and plays, similar plots even appear. Theater managers beg critics to be merciful, even if they delay a few days of negative reviews, they are willing to pay a high price, or they may have a personal vendetta with an actor, such as love and hate, and then deliberately write bad reviews to ruin the actor's future.

It sounds magical, but in the theater world, it's real. The current situation in 2012 still exists, but thanks to the existence of the Internet, the comments of drama critics are no longer the only criterion for judging, and people can also communicate and understand through the Internet, which alleviates the situation of drama critics covering the sky with one hand to a certain extent.

Now, the Almeida Theater's version of "Les Miserables" is facing such a test, what will the critics say?

After the performance, Aristere Smith did not rush home and immediately began to write a review, but walked all the way out of the Almeida Theatre, walking through the cold and lively streets of London at night, without purpose, just using his own feet to explore the night.

By the time the crowd left, the clock had struck midnight, but the faces of all the spectators were filled with excitement and excitement that could not be dispersed for a long time, and the reporters at the entrance of the theater eagerly interviewed the audience's thoughts and tried to piece together the complete outline of today's play.

Aristair said goodbye to his colleagues and strolled alone in midnight London. He needs to calm down and clear his mind. The six-hour repertoire is filled with countless contents, and the huge amount of information is cathartic, and he needs to digest and understand it well, find a clear clue in the chaos of thoughts, and connect everything together.

It is precisely because I like this work that I need to be more cautious.

After walking for more than an hour, I waved down a taxi and returned home. However, when he returned home, Aristere did not rush to write, he opened a bottle of red wine, sat on the sofa, let the sound of the TV come out, savored the red wine, and enjoyed such a beautiful day.

Enjoying the beauty of drama again, and once again getting a glimpse of the essence of drama, which cannot be replaced and eroded by Internet culture in the era of fast food, is also the core of art's long-term inheritance. He admired John Cord's courage and even more so the firmness of Ranley Hall.

It wasn't until about three o'clock in the morning that Aristair, who was full of excitement, was still in a state of distress and began to write.

"I've been trying to find the right language to put the play into account, but I've failed.

Because this is not only a work of art, but also a picture of the times, majestically outlining the era when the people were miserable, the lives were miserable, and the morals collapsed, and then the people who lived at that time were sketched in a free way. Such a work is so grandiose, too beautiful, and so moving that it makes the language lose its color.

Needless to say, this is a masterpiece. Is it perfect? I have reservations, but I would like to give this work a high level of respect and respect. So, perhaps, perfect is an appropriate word.

John Cord really got his hands dirty when it came to playwriting, and both the script and the stage reached the pinnacle of grandeur, starting with a small person and ending with a small person. The little people at the beginning are struggling to move forward with the weight of the times, and the little people at the end break free from the shackles of the times and are reborn.

As Charles Dickens wrote: This is the best of times, this is the worst of times, this is the age of wisdom, this is the age of foolishness, this is the age of faith, this is the age of doubt.

Dickens once sketched the scenes of London and Paris during the industrial period with rich and profound brushstrokes. In the same way, Victor Hugo sketches the Parisian era with his compassionate and delicate brushstrokes.

Now, John Cord has re-presented this era and interpreted the core of what Dickens and Hugo expounded. Needless to say, this time of artistic exploration and adventure, Cord has won a big victory.

This is perhaps the most watchable West End play in the 26 years since the Queen's Theatre's version of 'Les Miserables'.

If the audience still has doubts about the six-hour duration, then I give you a reason that you can't refuse: Lan Li-Hall.

The twenty-two-year-old actor presented the greatest and most moving part of the performance, perfectly combining emotions and characters, characters and stories, stories and times, and injecting soul into the whole play with a smart and delicate, vast and magnificent performance, which truly belongs to the soul of Victor Hugo!

Watching Hall's performance is a real pleasure, like a symphony, soft and majestic, harmonious and agitated, and that dazzling light has become the eternal shining light on the stage of the Almeida Theater. Admittedly, my vocabulary is so barren and stranded that I can't describe even a tenth of what it is to see live, because theatre always belongs to the theatre.

Everyone is welcome to step into the Almeida Theatre and enjoy six hours of this play. Jesus Christ, I discovered for the first time that six hours was too little. ”