"Les Miserables" - directed by David Lampard for the Gilbert & Sullivan Society of South Australia

"Les Miserables" might be a popular musical to stage, but it's a challenge to present something that doesn't revolve around the massive barricade. David Lampard's thrilling production succeeds by flying acres of dirty cloth around the stage to allow emotive intimacy for the solos, then flings them away for the stirring anthems. His strong cast both act and sing their dirty socks off to bring light and shade that just isn't there in the polished West End production: Petra Taylor's queen bitch in the factory hierarchy, Mark Horner's Grantaire steering ably through the conflict between the ABC Cafe students and Tom Millhouse bringing a Gollum/Smeagal personality clash to his final scene as the otherwise simmering Javert. Trish Spence shone as she took us through Fantine's madness to her death and Rod Schultz shows us again his perfect comic timing as a Thenardier who is dark but still fun, yet never as a caricature. The power of "One Day More" prickled the backs of our necks to the point where some in the audience wondered how it could go on from there - but it continued to sweep us along, leaving us breathless after Mark Oates' outstanding "Bring Him Home" and teary with the inspired "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" sung by Andrew Crispe's Marius. Stage-auteur Lampard shows us his complete vision through his intelligent, dynamic staging, Kieslowski colours and tableau presentation of his passionate ensemble cast: the men rouse us with testosterone-charged calls to fight in "Red and Black", whilst the women lament their desperate existence of life through "At the End of the Day" to swell our hearts and eyes with the choked words of "Turning". The audience feels the surge of passion, knows each cry of frustration and aches with every sob of despair - the flight around nineteenth century France connects to us through the immense strength of the visual and aural performances by the entire cast. And it is the ensemble beyond the people that makes this even better: Laraine Wheeler's adroit lighting leads and complements every scene; Ross Curtis paces his orchestra through the full emotional range; and the sound from Matt Curtis balances instruments and voices well. The show is about courage, passion, determination and redemption - and so is the story... :-) it's deservedly standing ovation and entirely sold out, so beg, pickpocket or sell yourself for a ticket. (as the author of this review, I should say that I was involved in some pre-production work for this show and my wife is a member of the ensemble; I have chosen to comment on neither her performance nor my own contributions)

where is this review from?

The review is from this website. People often write reviews specifically for this website, nowhere else.

Reason I ask is that Mwickett is a member of the cast of this production.

Yes, but this review was written by her husband... Funny Mr. P.

Declaring my full involvement in the show, you'll notice the programme lists me as projectionist, which is my credit for the video interludes that I created for this production (though technically, I'm not the projectionist for each show). I don't believe that this disqualifies me from writing a review as a ticket-buying member of the audience and writer in the arts.

But shouldn't there be a disclaimer that wife is in the show if you're writing a review? Hello MediaWatch - www.abc.net.au/mediawatch

You've got to be kidding...? Perhaps you'd care to comment on the show itself - or even address the contents of the review, rather than making such a fuss over the author.

Read point 5 below about possible conflicts of interest: AJA CODE OF ETHICS Respect for truth and the public's right to information are fundamental principles of journalism. Journalists describe society to itself. They convey information, ideas and opinions, a privileged role. They search, disclose, record, question, entertain, suggest and remember. They inform citizens and animate democracy. They give a practical form to freedom of expression. Many journalists work in private enterprise, but all have these public responsibilities. They scrutinise power, but also exercise it, and should be accountable. Accountability engenders trust. Without trust, journalists do not fulfil their public responsibilities. MEAA members engaged in journalism commit themselves to Honesty Fairness Independence Respect for the rights of others 1. Report and interpret honestly, striving for accuracy, fairness and disclosure of all essential facts. Do not suppress relevant available facts, or give distorting emphasis. Do your utmost to give a fair opportunity for reply. 2. Do not place unnecessary emphasis on personal characteristics, including race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, family relationships, religious belief, or physical or intellectual disability. 3. Aim to attribute information to its source. Where a source seeks anonymity, do not agree without first considering the source’s motives and any alternative attributable source. Where confidences are accepted, respect them in all circumstances. 4. Do not allow personal interest, or any belief, commitment, payment, gift or benefit, to undermine your accuracy, fairness or independence. 5. Disclose conflicts of interest that affect, or could be seen to affect, the accuracy, fairness or independence of your journalism. Do not improperly use a journalistic position for personal gain. 6. Do not allow advertising or other commercial considerations to undermine accuracy, fairness or independence. 7. Do your utmost to ensure disclosure of any direct or indirect payment made for interviews, pictures, information or stories. 8. Use fair, responsible and honest means to obtain material. Identify yourself and your employer before obtaining any interview for publication or broadcast. Never exploit a person’s vulnerability or ignorance of media practice. 9. Present pictures and sound which are true and accurate. Any manipulation likely to mislead should be disclosed. 10. Do not plagiarise. 11. Respect private grief and personal privacy. Journalists have the right to resist compulsion to intrude. 12. Do your utmost to achieve fair correction of errors. Guidance Clause Basic values often need interpretation and sometimes come into conflict. Ethical journalism requires conscientious decision-making in context. Only substantial advancement of the public interest or risk of substantial harm to people allows any standard to be overridden.

Apologies for mistaking one of you as a person interested in supporting Australian theatre - it seems you have nothing better to do than be cynical about the reviewer. If you'd bothered to actually visit a theatre and see the show, maybe you'd have something useful to contribute. Instead, you are only capable of complaint through the cowardly anonymity of your computer. (edited: deleted request to remove review)

We're interested in fair and unbiased reviews and, if there's potential for someone to perceive there may be unfair bias due to a connection with someone in the cast, then those cards should be laid on the table from the outset. Even if it's "While I know someone in the cast, I wish to provide the following review..." Newspapers often put in disclaimers, such as when there is a cross-media ownership issue (such as with The West Australian and Channel 7).

I agree with your point Gary and accept that I didn't do this initially (the review originally appeared on Facebook, where those readers are fully aware of my connections), but even after I completed my disclosure on how I am connected to this production, I got comments on Mediawatch and huge extracts of journalistic ethics: I appreciate we should work by the same rules, but this was a review for a theatre community website, not The Stage - the subsequent comments demonstrate no interest in the production itself, only in the subjectivity of the author, which is far from my intention, hence the request to withdraw.

I think your confusion is this: Do you, or does the law, define the average person as a journalist, bound by a code of ethics? I think you'll find that most online 'journalism' (ie. blogging) is not necessarily covered by laws or guidelines usually taken by the journalistic industry; simply because the term 'journalist' has lost its definition. Everyone and their dog can now write and publish. While I agree that people should announce their possible conflicts when posting reviews, that doesn't mean to say they're breaking some journalistic standard. It's one thing to be writing a review for a publication (and getting paid for it) and not revealing a conflict: it's another to see a show and post your thoughts on a forum. (Gary Edwards, this point in particular may interest you: this is not a journalistic publication online, this is a discussion site. Most countries are trying to catch up in terms of making their laws match the new, online arena of journalism, freedom of speech, and rules of ethics. After all, how can you force a blogger on the other side of the world to act ethically?) I think contacting Media Watch is a bit over the top. After all, most of our audiences are going to be friends, family and colleagues aren't they? Besides, as covered in another thread ages ago, we discovered that people can be just as unbiased about a review of their friends, as they can be about strangers. Fun puppet patterns to make at home! Puppets to buy at Puppets in Melbourne

So that neatly absolves Na of having to abide by any journalistic principles when posting her reviews on this site. Which shows you how little they're actually worth.

It would be a shame to pull your review off the site, mwickett. It's a good, well constructed and written review that is a pleasure to read. As has been pointed out elsewhere, people make innocent mistakes and, unfortunately, other people seem to take great pleasure in pouncing on them and making big issues out of nothing. I wouldn't want to think you may be discouraged from posting other reviews in future.

Firstly, what journalistic principles am I supposed to be abiding by when posting my reviews? The reviews that I've posted most recently, I have not had any connections with any performers or the crew. If you have an issue with my reviews, post them there - but please don't expect me to defend myself based on some sort of ambiguous idea of journalistic ethics. Secondly, I'm neither supporting nor rejecting the issues discussed above, merely trying to point out that the rules of ethical journalism are murky at best since the rise of internet blogging. If there were clear rules about it, it would make things easier to "abide by". Perhaps we should add a terms and conditions page when people post reviews, asking them to make sure they have revealed any conflicts of interest? Fun puppet patterns to make at home! Puppets to buy at Puppets in Melbourne

That's the most intelligent thing Na's ever said.

The G&S Society of Adelaide has produced a very good production of Les Miserables and is a credit to David Lampard for his unique vision. However, I have to disagree with a few points of M Wickett's review, as there were a number of technical hiccups and some interesting casting choices. Microphone's tended to drop out or not on in some numbers, while a missed place projection revealed the LG logo into a scene! While the general lighting stage washes were effective, the more intimate scenes were over-lit and lacked depth. (I have been subsequently told, that the LX designer spents a few hours trying to fix up issues after the opening performance. The show was not evenly paced, with some numbers a little under tempo and scene changes were clunky at 3 hours and 35 minutes, that made for a long night in the theatre. Maybe an earlier starting time were have been prudent! Overall the cast and ensemble was excellent. MD Ross Curtis certainly produced the goods, with one of the best male ensembles that not only could sing, but also had depth and colour. Mark Oates was the stand-out performer of the night, as Jean Valjean. Les Miserables will certanly be one of the musical highlights this year and a testament to the G&S Society for producing a sell-out season beforeit opened.

I'm the poster who asked where the review was from, and only because, knowing that the poster was involved with the show, assumed that it was from a publication of some sort and was interested in where it had been published.I have no dispute with any individual and was not trying to create an argument. (and to clarify, "But four of the complaining posts appearing under four different names have all come from the same IP address. That's not accident or omission. In my book it counts as deliberate deceit." - this is not me) That said, I do believe that if you are posting a review of a production you are involved in, it is only fair to declare your involvement. I have worked with the G&S Society on many occasions, and know most of the cast and production team for this show. I wish them nothing but success with this production (not that they seem to need the wishes!), and am looking forward to seeing it later this week.

hilarious.