Dave28282 said: "bwaylvsong, thanks for your reply.
The point is that anyone who tells a story through song (so both"actors who sing" and "singing actors" ) shouldbe able to embrace and use the notes to act instead of acting in spite of them. If the person does not master this, the performance feels insincere. Then the performance is merely an obstacle course, avoiding notes, hiding behind masks, writing it off as emotion. But I'm not fooled.Then there is no point in singing. This only works in situations where the person is crying through the song or doing something incredibly funny, because these are the situations where they can (slightly)get away with it.
Also, this applies to any style or medium, the rules stay the same.
What Hugh Jackman does is the worst of both worlds. Exaggerating the exact wrong notes in a Broadway parody styleand then switching to speaking the only notesthat should be naturally sung. To make doubly sure the performance has no sincerity."
I agree with you about Jackman; his phrasing in Les Miserables is often bizarre despite him being a capable singer.
I do wonder, though, if there are any examples of people who are "actors who sing" (actors first, singers second) who, in your opinion, give successful performances. Because I disagree that Hathaway and (especially) Stritch are guilty of "acting in spite of the song." When I watch Stritch perform, I see a fully realized, lived in, sincere performance. Hathaway, too, seems to understand fully what the song requires and uses the music to elevate her emotion despite the occasional missed note. I don't think you're saying this, but it comes across like you're saying only excellent singers can give a successful performance of a song.