Casting big names in musical films- Page 4

[Marianne2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:00pm

^ I agree there. Some of the stars best12bars also mentioned get used a lot because they are versatile, meaning they don't play a certain type in everything they do. If the casting is right, people will praise it. If it's wrong, they won't. These kinds of things are also very subjective. I haven't seen the movie yet, but when I do, I could say I like anyone or dislike anyone. It doesn't matter who it is.

And I don't see any harm in being interested in projects that a celebrity you like does. Heck, I watched something meant for children recently because Sara Ramirez had a voice in it. Is it my favorite thing she has done? No, but it was another experience and made me happy that she got that job.


Edit because I was agreeing with dramamama11, but others replied before I got a chance to get my response in.

Updated On: 1/1/13 at 05:00 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:00pm

"But YOUR own argument earlier claims that they are losing money BECAUSE of Crowe."

But YOUR own argument earlier claims that they are losing money BECAUSE of Samantha Barks. Because your theory says that it would have been better if Taylor Swift got cast.

I think that people will enoy Barks performances for generations on generations and that it will not happen with Crowe's performance. Star or not.

And dramamama611, can you stop with this "good Javert on paper" nonsense?
You can perfectly tell if an actor is able to act through excellent singing at an audition. If one can't he shouldn't be in this business. It's not like his incompetence to act through song comes as a surprise.

There are better people out there, who do master the craft of acting through song. Take them for the part.

We can all speculate but I think it's safe to say that everybody would enjoy a better performance more. And everyone can think of the consequenses that has for the film. It will only be more positive for the viewer's experience.





Updated On: 1/1/13 at 05:00 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:15pm

I NEVER said that the film would have made more money had Swift been cast. Not once.


And I've seen GADS of people that audition better then their performance ever yields. Not that people like Crowe audition for anyone. But lets pretend that he did: who's to say he didn't kick ass with whatever he auditioned with.

Casting errors do happen, it has little to do with the fact he is a "name". It happens on b'way with "nobodies", it happens in local theatre and it happens in movies.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:24pm

I think the whole point is;
Why do many people/audiences care more for famous names than quality? (One does not have to exclude the other but often it does).
The fact that the producers cast the names is only a result of that. We need to look at the cause.
It's because most people don't know real quality and swallow everything and like to see a person they know, or things they know in general. The majority of people acts like cattle and has tunnel vision. That's all fine, but why is that.
Why do they not know real quality? Why do most people not even realize how much better a Javert could have been? Because we can't blame them for not knowing what has never been shown to them in film. Because a lot of the musicalsfilms were cast like this. They don't know better. So then it becomes the battle between the people who DID pay attention to the source material, the music, the story, the craft, etc, who are often very disappointed, and the people who don't know any better. It's very complicated, but as long as this does not change, filmmakers will feel the urge of staying in this pattern, it's a downward spiral.







Updated On: 1/1/13 at 05:24 PM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:29pm

Oh, please. If anyone disliked someone in a role and thought about that 24/7 how better it could have been, we would never enjoy anything. People can surprise in good and bad ways.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:33pm

A downward spiral that's always been, Dave19. Always.

You've also decided that people want to see "a star," any star. They go because it's a star they like, that they are familiar with.

That's really what fame is. Familiarity.

People like familiar things that they already know they like. That's what a "movie star" is.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:34pm

"Not realizing how bad something is, makes you enjoy it more" yes, definitely, but my point is, how is it possible that so many people don't even realize it, while with just a little bit of interest, you would notice the difference in quality between him and other actors/singers.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:38pm

Best12bars, I think you are right and I think that's very disappointing.

I wish people would have this familiarity with quality, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen as they are never exposed to it.....

Only a handful of people will find out how great the role of Javert could have been and experience the impact that the role can have.(by searching and listening to others, etc). The rest of the people will never know, and never evolve and never learn, and never experience the impact of what could have been, and has been done by many.

Updated On: 1/1/13 at 05:38 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:40pm

Because not everyone sees this as an art form. They just want to be entertained -- and there's nothing wrong with that. It's not an all consuming passion for most people. They LIKE movies, just like they LIKE reality shows. It passes the time -- which is all entertainment needs to be.

For those of us that see it AS an art form, PHILOSOPHICALLY we don't actually disagree with you -- but reality isn't going away.

They made a darn good movie...of course it wasn't perfect, but it was damn good and I'm glad to have enjoyed it.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:50pm

I agree with dramarama.

It isn't a contest, it's a movie.

The average person doesn't sit there and "compare" and "tally" and "agonize alternatives" while they're watching a story. They just decide if it's working for them on its own terms without a rate card and a list of other people who might have played the part if they'd only had the chance.

And for most people, Russell Crowe is fine. Great? Maybe not, but he's fine, and not sinking this hit movie. He may even be the reason or at least one of the main reasons they decided to take a chance on a period piece musical where everyone dies.

With "Joe Perfect Singer" in the part, they might have decided to see The Hobbit again instead.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:50pm

Dramamama, that's true.

So I think the reason filmmakers are getting away with castings like this, is because most people just don't care, and find everything "alright".

If that's what they want. Good for them.

[yankeefan7]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:51pm

Dave19 - I think that there are plenty of people out there going to the movie that have seen "Les Miserables" on Broadway or regional theater that have seen a lot better Javert than Crowe.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:55pm

And you have to remmember: that every blockbuster of a movie (good, bad or indifferent) gives the studios money to make a more 'artistic' film or two -- and not worry about whether or not it makes money.


Making a blockbuster, also gives the director more freedom "next time" to take more creative chances.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:55pm

Is this the first movie Dave19 has ever seen?

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 5:56pm

LOL

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:02pm

You could make the same argument for casting big name Broadway stars in shows. People might be more likely to go see a show if, say, Bernadette Peters is in it, or Audra McDonald or whoever.

Sometimes the casting on paper is perfect and doesn't necessarily work (i.e. Katie Finneran in Annie). Like it was said above, Russell Crowe looked great on paper, plus he had the bonus of familiarity and a background of Oscar-winning acting.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:11pm

"Is this the first movie Dave19 has ever seen?"

Is this the first post you read? This is about the tradition of these castings in musicalfilms and the consequences for the public opinion.

Please come back if you have an opinion too ok? :)

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:18pm

"Crowe looked great on paper, plus he had the bonus of familiarity and a background of Oscar-winning acting."

Yes, and that happens to have nothing to do with singing in a musicalfilm/acting through song. Completely different craft.

Acting can only help you out to a certain level.

People need to realize how much different the craft of performing in a musical film is. Is has nothing to do with normal acting.



Updated On: 1/1/13 at 06:18 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:36pm

"while with just a little bit of interest, you would notice the difference in quality between him and other actors/singers."

Where is it written that the quality is poor with him? THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You base everything on what YOU think is right. FYI, I watched the film in a screening room with an audience made up of actors, singers, directors, and members of the academy in other positions in film making. They liked Crowe's performance. I was the only one in the room who didn't.

YOUR opinion is just that. I don't know you other other than these posts, but for me, they reek of unjustified arrogance.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:44pm

Dave, you keep discussing "quality" as if it had a chemical formula that is objectively verifiable. Yet, as dramamama points out, a lot of this is subjective.

In my family we watched the 25th Anniversary production the night before we saw the film. My husband (who used to be a casting director on and off-Broadway, FWIW) liked Russell Crowe better than Norm Lewis.

I don't agree, but that doesn't make me a genius and my husband an idiot. I just like opera and operatic voices more than he does.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:44pm

This is also not specific to musical films.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:46pm

All art is subjective.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:49pm

I'd rather see a phenomenal actor with an average voice, then a phenomenal singer with average acting.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 6:57pm

This is also not specific to musical films.

No, it isn't. But Dave is right to the extent that "musical acting" is a specific skill set. There are great actors who don't do it well.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/1/13 at 7:00pm

While I think Norm Lewis is a better singer than Russell Crowe, I don't prefer operatic voices for Les Miz in general. It makes me cringe, actually, and tune out on the whole story. It's way too "proper" and doesn't work for me at all for the music.

By the same token, I think a non-operatic Christine Daae in Phantom of the Opera is also a terrible idea (see the movie). That didn't work for me at all.

It's all subjective.