#476
Posted: 11/4/12 at 11:31am
Don't forget the sad "Home for Purim" debacle. 
Les Mis Filming Has Started — Page 20
#477
Posted: 11/4/12 at 11:32am
"Dreamgirls" and "Nine" had Oscars written all over them too... until people actually saw the films
#478
Posted: 11/4/12 at 11:42am
Yeah, I think those two are more apt comparisons than Phantom or Rent, which had a low-rent whiff about them from the start. That is, if you're really intent on thinking out how things can go terribly wrong. :)
(I get that impulse! I really do. But all in all I'd rather stay hopeful until given good evidence that this movie's a bomb.)
(I get that impulse! I really do. But all in all I'd rather stay hopeful until given good evidence that this movie's a bomb.)
#479
Posted: 11/4/12 at 12:55pm
But it's not even just musicals! Certain movies due give the impression of being Oscar-bait, and it's been that way since they started giving awards to motion pictures.
And Dreamgirls didn't live up to its pre-release Oscar buzz (because it turned out to be a serviceable but rather unexceptional translation of the source material), but people were pretty much saying to award Jennifer Hudson the award the day she shot "And I Am Telling You" and that turned out just like the buzz predicted and that performance was all smoke and mirrors.
And Dreamgirls didn't live up to its pre-release Oscar buzz (because it turned out to be a serviceable but rather unexceptional translation of the source material), but people were pretty much saying to award Jennifer Hudson the award the day she shot "And I Am Telling You" and that turned out just like the buzz predicted and that performance was all smoke and mirrors.
Updated On: 11/4/12 at 12:55 PM
#480
Posted: 11/4/12 at 1:01pm
I hope this movie lives up to the OVER-zealousness and HYPER-bole that is preceding it.
#481
Posted: 11/7/12 at 1:38am
Surprised this video hasn't been posted - but this video is from an Australian morning tv show that includes behind the scenes filming of "Who Am I", "Epilogue", and "Red And Black" - all songs that have yet to be seen anywhere else (at least I think).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI0E9JwwbnA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI0E9JwwbnA
#482
Posted: 11/7/12 at 1:50am
^That video made the rounds a few weeks ago. Glad to see it again, though :-P
#483
Posted: 11/8/12 at 4:23pm
New trailer including "one day more".
http://levi-jadetaylor.tumblr.com/
If it doesn't show immediately, click on "fire".
I think it looks beautiful. It seems they took another take of Anne's singing in "I dreamd a dream". A MUCH better take.
Her "so different now from what it seemed" is actually very good now! I hope this one stays in the film.
There are 2 things I'm really worried about. The singing voices of Amanda Seyfried and Russel Crowe. The "Cosette lines" in "One day more", are almost embarrassing. Very robotic/uncontrolled and sheepish. Those parts should be lyrical and crystal clear, that would have taken the film to a much higher level. Missed opportunity. I think they underestimate the power of good singing. The lines by Samantha Barks immediately sweep me off my feet. That is what makes or breaks a musical film. Russel Crowe's singing feels very uncomfortable too. No way people are going to believe his story. They will only see a man struggling with singing.
I truly hope, from the bottom of my heart that they will take EXCELLENT SINGERS for the Miss Saigon movie. Above all, excellent singers.
http://levi-jadetaylor.tumblr.com/
If it doesn't show immediately, click on "fire".
I think it looks beautiful. It seems they took another take of Anne's singing in "I dreamd a dream". A MUCH better take.
Her "so different now from what it seemed" is actually very good now! I hope this one stays in the film.
There are 2 things I'm really worried about. The singing voices of Amanda Seyfried and Russel Crowe. The "Cosette lines" in "One day more", are almost embarrassing. Very robotic/uncontrolled and sheepish. Those parts should be lyrical and crystal clear, that would have taken the film to a much higher level. Missed opportunity. I think they underestimate the power of good singing. The lines by Samantha Barks immediately sweep me off my feet. That is what makes or breaks a musical film. Russel Crowe's singing feels very uncomfortable too. No way people are going to believe his story. They will only see a man struggling with singing.
I truly hope, from the bottom of my heart that they will take EXCELLENT SINGERS for the Miss Saigon movie. Above all, excellent singers.
Updated On: 11/8/12 at 04:23 PM
#484
Posted: 11/8/12 at 8:29pm
Sorry to disagree - but I think the acting/singing choice for the Javert part during ONE DAY MORE is very dramatic. It is an excellent directorial choice! Javert is briefing his troops, with military-like precision and decisiveness, that the enemy is out there! This is very unlike stage Javerts, who come out of the wings, and like a cameo part in a movie, starts belting out his lines ( to the audience)!
#485
Posted: 11/9/12 at 12:29am
There seems to be (so far with the exception of Eponine's bits) a convention choice to make the singing conversational when it is dialogue and conversation, to play it as a play in music, rather than as a pop operetta.
#486
Posted: 11/9/12 at 6:38am
There is one issue that needs to be addressed.
It seems that filmmakers have a wrong prejudice when it comes to making movie musicals. They seem to feel some kind of separation between talents in the musical theatre world and the film world. That musical theatre people would care more for the singing than the acting etc. There are a few things I've learned over the years. First thing, the singing and music in a movie musical makes or breaks the film, that's why the Sound of Music is a success and the Phantom of the Opera is not. That's why Julie Andrews works in a musical film and Emmy Rossum does not. That's why Samantha Barks works well in the trailer and Amanda Seyfried does not. The filmmakers do not seem to understand this. Acting is extremely important. But in this genre, musical, conveying emotions through singing is what is most important, the actor should master that craft first in order to be able to convey emotions through singing. In this genre, acting is part of the singing, not the other way around. The audience will immediately see if someone is just trying to hide the fact he/she can't really sing behind the acting, or if someone masters the art that well that every note, placement, emotion that is created by this, goes right into your soul.
Being a great actor is not good enough for a musical film. You will look like a great actor that is struggling with singing. Only being a great vocalist is good enough. Singing IS acting through song.
There are plenty examples of this. Philip Quast's Javerts Suicide in the 10th Anniversary concert for example. Brilliant acting that comes naturally from the magnificent singing. Every note and tremble gives you goosebumps. He masters the art. Someone like that should have played a role like that in a film like that. That would be epic and stand the test of time. In 100 years people would still be impressed by such a performance.
It seems that filmmakers have a wrong prejudice when it comes to making movie musicals. They seem to feel some kind of separation between talents in the musical theatre world and the film world. That musical theatre people would care more for the singing than the acting etc. There are a few things I've learned over the years. First thing, the singing and music in a movie musical makes or breaks the film, that's why the Sound of Music is a success and the Phantom of the Opera is not. That's why Julie Andrews works in a musical film and Emmy Rossum does not. That's why Samantha Barks works well in the trailer and Amanda Seyfried does not. The filmmakers do not seem to understand this. Acting is extremely important. But in this genre, musical, conveying emotions through singing is what is most important, the actor should master that craft first in order to be able to convey emotions through singing. In this genre, acting is part of the singing, not the other way around. The audience will immediately see if someone is just trying to hide the fact he/she can't really sing behind the acting, or if someone masters the art that well that every note, placement, emotion that is created by this, goes right into your soul.
Being a great actor is not good enough for a musical film. You will look like a great actor that is struggling with singing. Only being a great vocalist is good enough. Singing IS acting through song.
There are plenty examples of this. Philip Quast's Javerts Suicide in the 10th Anniversary concert for example. Brilliant acting that comes naturally from the magnificent singing. Every note and tremble gives you goosebumps. He masters the art. Someone like that should have played a role like that in a film like that. That would be epic and stand the test of time. In 100 years people would still be impressed by such a performance.
Updated On: 11/9/12 at 06:38 AM
#487
Posted: 11/9/12 at 6:56am
This isn't about "actors" vs. "singers."
This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood film.
The Sound of Music example you cite is a rare one, but necessity was the driving force in the casting, and we're all the better for it.
Julie Andrews was not a film star when she was cast as Maria. in fact, her debut performance in Mary Poppins hadn't even been released, so she was "merely" a Broadway star with "big buzz" happening around Hollywood about her first film. She was also well known on TV. Her "Cinderella" performance was the most watched TV special in history to that point.
Still, I'm sure Fox would have preferred a big name as Maria or at least as the Captain. They actually fought Robert Wise on the casting of Plummer. And the reason Wise got the gig was because, aside from being a reputable Oscar-winning director, he was known for bringing movies in on time and under budget.
Fox made The Sound of Music on the cheap, relatively speaking. They put all of their money into the location shoots, and kept costs as low as possible, because they were just one short step away from shutting down the whole studio for good (after Cleopatra). The Sound of Music was a film they were "banking on," in the truest sense.
Other big Broadway movies of that era had at least one (if not more) major film stars in leading roles, and usually several familiar faces in supporting roles. The only way Rex Harrison got to play Higgins in My Fair Lady was because of Audry Hepburn. The only reason Robert Preston got to play Harold Hill was because of Shirley Jones. The only reason Gwen Verdon got to play Lola was because of Tab Hunter, and the only reason John Raitt got Pajama Game was because of Doris Day.
Les Miz is a big, expensive movie ... to make, to promote, and to "sell" to movie-going audiences. It's not about who can sing the best, it's about who can persuade the most people to buy tickets to see a period-piece musical. They've mixed in a few stage actors, which is great, but they are banking on the stars to do the rest.
This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood film.
The Sound of Music example you cite is a rare one, but necessity was the driving force in the casting, and we're all the better for it.
Julie Andrews was not a film star when she was cast as Maria. in fact, her debut performance in Mary Poppins hadn't even been released, so she was "merely" a Broadway star with "big buzz" happening around Hollywood about her first film. She was also well known on TV. Her "Cinderella" performance was the most watched TV special in history to that point.
Still, I'm sure Fox would have preferred a big name as Maria or at least as the Captain. They actually fought Robert Wise on the casting of Plummer. And the reason Wise got the gig was because, aside from being a reputable Oscar-winning director, he was known for bringing movies in on time and under budget.
Fox made The Sound of Music on the cheap, relatively speaking. They put all of their money into the location shoots, and kept costs as low as possible, because they were just one short step away from shutting down the whole studio for good (after Cleopatra). The Sound of Music was a film they were "banking on," in the truest sense.
Other big Broadway movies of that era had at least one (if not more) major film stars in leading roles, and usually several familiar faces in supporting roles. The only way Rex Harrison got to play Higgins in My Fair Lady was because of Audry Hepburn. The only reason Robert Preston got to play Harold Hill was because of Shirley Jones. The only reason Gwen Verdon got to play Lola was because of Tab Hunter, and the only reason John Raitt got Pajama Game was because of Doris Day.
Les Miz is a big, expensive movie ... to make, to promote, and to "sell" to movie-going audiences. It's not about who can sing the best, it's about who can persuade the most people to buy tickets to see a period-piece musical. They've mixed in a few stage actors, which is great, but they are banking on the stars to do the rest.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#488
Posted: 11/9/12 at 8:21am
I get your point, and you are right.
However "This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood film" should be "This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood MUSICAL".
I guess it has always been that way, yes, even in the Julie Andrews/Sound of Music era. We should be lucky that she got the part and not some, at the time, relatively popular actress that would (in the eyes of the filmmakers) sell more tickets, but was not really a singer. In the end, quality speaks for itself.
What it comes down to is this; Do the filmmakers care more about real quality and creating a product that will stand the test of time? Or is it about money, and the fear of creating new stars?
Because let's be honest, in 100 years, 200 years, 300 years people will still watch the movie and will ask themselves, why was Amanda Seyfried such a popular musical film singer/actress? There must have been not much talent around those days.......
Works like these are about music and singing.
However "This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood film" should be "This is about movie stars in key leading roles in a big-budget Hollywood MUSICAL".
I guess it has always been that way, yes, even in the Julie Andrews/Sound of Music era. We should be lucky that she got the part and not some, at the time, relatively popular actress that would (in the eyes of the filmmakers) sell more tickets, but was not really a singer. In the end, quality speaks for itself.
What it comes down to is this; Do the filmmakers care more about real quality and creating a product that will stand the test of time? Or is it about money, and the fear of creating new stars?
Because let's be honest, in 100 years, 200 years, 300 years people will still watch the movie and will ask themselves, why was Amanda Seyfried such a popular musical film singer/actress? There must have been not much talent around those days.......
Works like these are about music and singing.
#489
Posted: 11/9/12 at 9:09am
Well, one of the big differences back then is even if they felt compelled to cast Audrey Hepburn, Natalie Wood, or Deborah Kerr, they weren't afraid to dub their singing voices if necessary (which it was, by Marni Nixon on all three counts).
Today, it seems worse for a movie star if they're dubbed rather than if they sing badly. Although, I can't think of one example of dubbing a film star's singing voice in the past 3 decades, so how would they know?
And there are wonderful examples of movie stars who sung themselves and terribly in Mame, Man of La Mancha, etc.
It's always going to be a struggle of "art" vs. "commerce." That hasn't changed, and it's not ever likely to.
Today, it seems worse for a movie star if they're dubbed rather than if they sing badly. Although, I can't think of one example of dubbing a film star's singing voice in the past 3 decades, so how would they know?
And there are wonderful examples of movie stars who sung themselves and terribly in Mame, Man of La Mancha, etc.
It's always going to be a struggle of "art" vs. "commerce." That hasn't changed, and it's not ever likely to.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#490
Posted: 11/9/12 at 9:30am
Minnie Driver was dubbed in the PHANTOM film because, although she can sing relatively well, she can't sing opera. She was dubbed by Margaret Preece, an opera singer who later played the Mother Abbess in ALW's SOUND OF MUSIC revival.
I don't think Crowe or Seyfried sound terrible, at least - they can both hold a tune, and Seyfried's real test will be In My Life to see if she still sounds quite so tremulous.
We'll have to see how Sacha Baron Cohen and HB-C end up; while I thought HB-C was marvellous in SWEENEY that had nothing to do with the quality of her vocals...
I don't think Crowe or Seyfried sound terrible, at least - they can both hold a tune, and Seyfried's real test will be In My Life to see if she still sounds quite so tremulous.
We'll have to see how Sacha Baron Cohen and HB-C end up; while I thought HB-C was marvellous in SWEENEY that had nothing to do with the quality of her vocals...
#491
Posted: 11/9/12 at 10:04am
I have no problem with the way each actor sings. They can all sing better than just being able to carry a tune. All of them, have at some point or another, proven their abilities enough to justify their casting in this film.
I am not concerned over Crowe's Javert addressing his men; however, I will say that saying the way that bit was done on stage was somehow lame and amounted to Javert landing on the stage out of nowhere and BELTING at the nosebleeds above, making the film's handling a groundbreaking improvement, is just about as desperate as one can get. Few would argue that "One Day More" was originally staged uncreatively. Even fewer would say anything about it was lacking. It's one of musical theatre's most brilliant and heart-stopping moments, and if people can't deduce that Javert is probably not literally appearing randomly onstage to shout at the audience, and they think all those people are really together marching with a giant cloud of fog really chasing after them, then I'm sure they probably think a bunch of spooks literally appear in Valjean's death chamber at the end to sing a lovely "bye, bye!" to the audience, so as to make them forget about the fact they killed off the main character.
At any rate, I'm not worried about stuff like that. Or singing ability. It's the overdone pausing and general distraction that they think is some groundbreaking approach that corrects musical theatre's inherent lack of acting. Wrong.
I am not concerned over Crowe's Javert addressing his men; however, I will say that saying the way that bit was done on stage was somehow lame and amounted to Javert landing on the stage out of nowhere and BELTING at the nosebleeds above, making the film's handling a groundbreaking improvement, is just about as desperate as one can get. Few would argue that "One Day More" was originally staged uncreatively. Even fewer would say anything about it was lacking. It's one of musical theatre's most brilliant and heart-stopping moments, and if people can't deduce that Javert is probably not literally appearing randomly onstage to shout at the audience, and they think all those people are really together marching with a giant cloud of fog really chasing after them, then I'm sure they probably think a bunch of spooks literally appear in Valjean's death chamber at the end to sing a lovely "bye, bye!" to the audience, so as to make them forget about the fact they killed off the main character.
At any rate, I'm not worried about stuff like that. Or singing ability. It's the overdone pausing and general distraction that they think is some groundbreaking approach that corrects musical theatre's inherent lack of acting. Wrong.
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
#492
Posted: 11/9/12 at 11:02am
DeNada---thanks for reminding me about Minnie Driver! That dubbing didn't bother me in the least, but the choice to have Carlotta be so bufoonish even AS a singer definitely bugged me. I remember those cleaning ladies in the aisles stuffing cotton into their ears when she started singing.
I didn't like that. Carlotta is a Diva and comedic definitely, but she should be able to sing the crap out of the roles she plays or she would be booed off the stage by audiences. The choice to have the "trained singer" (dubber) sound like a seasick whale was unfortunate.
And poor Emmy Rossum, who couldn't give a boy soprano a run for his money, let alone the "star" of a reputable Paris opera company.
Bad musical choices for the story all around.
I didn't like that. Carlotta is a Diva and comedic definitely, but she should be able to sing the crap out of the roles she plays or she would be booed off the stage by audiences. The choice to have the "trained singer" (dubber) sound like a seasick whale was unfortunate.
And poor Emmy Rossum, who couldn't give a boy soprano a run for his money, let alone the "star" of a reputable Paris opera company.
Bad musical choices for the story all around.
"Jaws is the Citizen Kane of movies."
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
#493
Posted: 11/9/12 at 2:18pm
"It's always going to be a struggle of "art" vs. "commerce." That hasn't changed, and it's not ever likely to."
Unfortunately that's true.
But I think "commerce" is overrrated. I think that the film would not sell any less tickets if they had a wonderful Cosette with the lyrical opera voice of an angel and is the right type for the part too. I think the opposite would happen. That would bring the film to a higher level of quality and in the end sell more tickets.
New stars are born easily. Especially when they sing exceptionally well in a musicalfilm.
Unfortunately that's true.
But I think "commerce" is overrrated. I think that the film would not sell any less tickets if they had a wonderful Cosette with the lyrical opera voice of an angel and is the right type for the part too. I think the opposite would happen. That would bring the film to a higher level of quality and in the end sell more tickets.
New stars are born easily. Especially when they sing exceptionally well in a musicalfilm.
#494
Posted: 11/9/12 at 2:28pm
If we're using Amanda Seyfried specifically as an example, yeah, she alone isn't such a big draw box office-wise. But no way this movie gets made without at least B-listers in the adult roles.
#495
Posted: 11/9/12 at 3:14pm
Amanda Seyfried's high note is terrible. To me, she doesn't sound like she's making an artistic decision--she sounds like she actually cannot hit the note properly. She sounds like she's struggling.
I'm worried that this will be Emmy Rossum all over again. I'm not sure what is up with this inability to cast actual good singers in soprano roles. It's either because modern audiences hate properly sung high notes (everyone always talks about how they like the "pure" and "young" sound of Emmy Rossum) or because it's harder for untrained Hollywood actors to sing them. Or maybe some combination thereof.
I'm worried that this will be Emmy Rossum all over again. I'm not sure what is up with this inability to cast actual good singers in soprano roles. It's either because modern audiences hate properly sung high notes (everyone always talks about how they like the "pure" and "young" sound of Emmy Rossum) or because it's harder for untrained Hollywood actors to sing them. Or maybe some combination thereof.
Jimmy, what are you doing here in the middle of the night? It's almost 9 PM!
#496
Posted: 11/9/12 at 4:21pm
On one hand, I'm glad the actors are in tune. On the other hand, I'm disappointed some of them are singing from the throat and not from the diaphragm.
#497
Posted: 11/9/12 at 4:49pm
The difference, spork, is that Emmy Rossum was playing someone who was wowing the opera world. It made the entire premise of the movie ludicrous. I don't think Seyfried will be too damaging to the film.
#498
Posted: 11/10/12 at 12:14am
Haha, I was skimming through my previous posts just now and said to myself, "Holy sh*t, I come off effing angry!" LOL.
Anything but. My excitement for this film hasn't gone, and I still think Hooper will make this a real good film adaptation. That trailer overall was nice but I still can't deny I was underwhelmed by the quality of the orchestra, the mixing, and the orchs they used in part of "One Day More." Not a massive cause for upset though. And like any dedicated fan, of course I'm going to worry about how it might turn out. I just really, really want to like it without the need to convince myself to like it.
I can't believe it's close to mid-November already. Before you know it, Xmas will be here and I'll be going in to see this thing, and would likely be sweating bullets, lol.
Anything but. My excitement for this film hasn't gone, and I still think Hooper will make this a real good film adaptation. That trailer overall was nice but I still can't deny I was underwhelmed by the quality of the orchestra, the mixing, and the orchs they used in part of "One Day More." Not a massive cause for upset though. And like any dedicated fan, of course I'm going to worry about how it might turn out. I just really, really want to like it without the need to convince myself to like it.
I can't believe it's close to mid-November already. Before you know it, Xmas will be here and I'll be going in to see this thing, and would likely be sweating bullets, lol.
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
#500
Posted: 11/21/12 at 2:53pm
"Entertainment Weekly" interviews with Hugh and Anne.
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/21/les-miserables-hugh-jackman-anne-hathaway-2/2/
http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/11/21/les-miserables-hugh-jackman-anne-hathaway-2/2/
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $71
Tickets From $95