Les Misérables: So, what did you think? — Page 22

Thanks!

I'm sure it's been talked about before in some thread or other, but I wouldn't know where to look.

---

All I see are my stylishly attired feet...?

---

I really enjoyed it, it does feel like a film in terms of scale and there are some great performances from Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne and Anne Hathaway.

I wonder if they intially filmed it with more spoken dialogue than what is in the final cut? The film still has more dialogue though not by much in the film than in the show.

Here is Russell Crowe's studio version of Stars (versus the live version used in the film)
Stars

Because the others were bigger names?

Now I think film is all about the creation of illusion, make it convincing and believable. What you hear and see on screen is all that counts.
If there are 3 people that can create one perfect character together than that's a beautiful thing.

Luckily that happened in the past (even with Carlotta in the Phantom film) but unfortunately nowadays ego's get in the way.

Updated On: 1/23/13 at 07:26 AM

Marni is not denying that one thing sometimes excludes the other, but that there are solutions for this.

For example, dubbing. Why settle for singing that is not good enough?

It's all about the result in the film. If it takes 3 people to create one convincing character, so be it.

I guess you are right, times have changed.

It also has a lot to do with "what do audiences know"?

They loved Beyonce's performance. Now people are hyperventilating over the fact that they found out it was an illusion. Their bubble was burst. But they loved it at the time.

But this illusion is what filmmaking is. I bet that if the world finds out that the whole confrontation is Les Miserables was dubbed too, it would burst their bubble too. I think that dubbing enhances things. In fact, I think that more parts of Les Mis should have been dubbed afterwards. But, of course, that would be done by the same people playing them.

As for roles being dubbed by other people, when was the last time this was openly done (a role dubbed and everyone knew about it).
Was it Carlotta in the Phantom film? In 2005 not many people seemed to have problems with it?

Updated On: 1/23/13 at 11:04 AM

I agree with both of you. Phantom had a long list of problems before you even get to Carlotta's dubbing. I actually liked Minnie Driver in the part. I hated the voice they dubbed her with because she was intentionally bad and hammy. Carlotta should be a Diva, a bore, even comic relief, but she should be able to sing incredibly well, even if Christine is better (or at least more suited for the roles they are in competition for). It makes no sense that a leading soprano with the Paris Opera would sing badly enough to cause the theatre maids to put cotton in their ears. Of course they cast a terrible singer for Christine, who sounded (at best) like an untrained boy soprano, and ages away from the Diva she was supposed to be "in training" for.

To summarize, it sucked.

But Dave19, I completely agree with you about dubbing. I don't mind it any more than I mind a stunt double for an action star, or CGI adding explosions behind an actor when they weren't there (all the endless green-screen work). It's all an illusion.

The trick is to convince audiences that it's real. Easier said than done, but if you can manage it, I couldn't care less knowing that Marni Nixon dubbed Deobrah Kerr in The King and I. It's a seamless performance of two talents, and one I will treasure as an audience member always.

---

Yeah, the whole thing about Carlotta was that she wasn't up to Erik's standards but she was incredibly popular. People not liking her singing made no sense.

I actually think Bollywood uses an interesting approach--they have different singers sing all of the songs, and the requisite actor just lip-synchs. So you don't even have the same singer, but it's supposed to be the same character.

---

-

Updated On: 1/23/13 at 10:02 PM

Sorry if this article has already been posted.
Chicago Sun Times: Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman owe ‘Les Miserables’ voices to Chicago coach

"I'm saying that "superior singing" is not always what's most important in film musicals"

I'd say superior singing is the most important thing in movie musicals. Because this medium is about telling stories through song. Singing is acting.

Sure, scenes with less good singers can be charming, acceptable, but will never be great or amazing. I think you can only get away with this if the songs are funny or seductive, like in the old movies. Not in the serious scenes like "A whole new world" in Aladdin or in films like Les Miserables. Even in those films, usually the funny sidekicks are the ones that cannot sing but the serious characters can.