Miscast in Movie Musical Adaptations- Page 3

[jo]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 1:29pm

I have just come across a funny anecdote during filming, which unfortunately I have not been able to keep tab of the source.   It seems that when they were filming BRING HIM HOME, the rebel students ( known as the "barricade boys", if you had followed the filming process) stood up and clapped when Hugh first sang BRING HIM HOME when they were supposed to be lying down sleeping!  A very funny sight!

 

I do remember that when a great number of us on IMDB followed the filming we would often share the most interesting tweets and developments we have come across. I distinctly remember how a number of the barricade boys  ( composed of experienced West End actors, some of whom have portrayed Enjolras or Marius or another key rebel student in the London production ) tweeted how they admired Hugh's take of Bring Him Home. One of them was not just an actor but also a vocal coach.  And one of the tweets came from Samantha Barks who was not even supposed to be there but stayed around for the filming.

 

I guess in our discussions, the twain will never meet...

 

Chacun a son gout :)

 

 

Updated On: 1/21/16 at 01:29 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 3:33pm

Yes, the atmosphere on filmsets can be very different than being objective.

[Musical Master]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 4:12pm

Back to the topic on hand: I dearly wish that Judy Garland was available to play Rose instead of Rosalind Russell in Gypsy and must we forget the tragic misfire of casting Lucille Ball in Mame? I wish I could forget it.

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 1/21/16 at 4:18pm

Lol oh twitter being treated as real life does make me laugh. Actors are hardly going to slate the leading man publically. Maybe they did like his performance, maybe they didn't, but in such a suck up world like acting you really can't take what's said on twitter as gospel 

[binau]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 1:41am

Agreed people want to manage how people see them. Also, I definitely agree that Hugh Jackman was challenged by the score. However, given the total package I can't list a single better choice, not a single one. 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 6:35am

Roles like these need a completely different level of talent. They needed to invite each and every actor who can sing the role (who have played the role, which are hundreds) and do work sessions with them and see how they work on screen. This is by no means a role to use for "name casting" and pick from a pool of 10 Hollywood actors. This is not a baritone role either. 

 

Of course we (and they) can't name anyone else if you look at it as shallow as we do and they did. No proper search and castings, you can't just pick a name that comes up and hope that he can get away with the role because you like to have a known actor. 

 

This artform is seriously underestimated by the director. 

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 6:43am

http://www.backstage.com/interview/hugh-jackman-les-miserables/

 

"When director Tom Hooper was looking to cast his Jean Valjean in “Les Misérables,” he quickly realized only one man could pull off the physicality, the dramatics, and the singing. “My shortlist rapidly became one, and that was Hugh Jackman,” Hooper says. “I couldn’t have made this film without him.”..."

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 6:54am

"This is not a baritone role either..."

 

Interesting comment!  I wonder if they had considered transposing the vocal range back to the original range that Boulil and Schonberg had written for the role of Valjean.  If you have listened to the original French concept album  ( which was what attracted Cameron Mackintosh to the project) or have seen scenes from the original staging in Paris via YouTube ( in 1980, way ahead of the Barbican version in 1985), the role was originally written for and performed by a baritone ( Maurice Barrier).  Perhaps the reason for this was because the main character was a  rugged convict ( and prior to that, based on the Victor Hugo novel,  a peasant) at the start and a tenor range was probably not suitable to the character being portrayed?

 

It was when they cast Colm Wilkinson for the Barbican project that the range was transposed from baritone to tenor. Colm was the first to sing BRING HIM HOME,  in his natural tenor range. 

 

But the creative team decided to keep the vocal range instead of transposing it back to its original baritone range for the film adaptation.

 

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 06:54 AM

[The Other One]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:15am

My thought with "Les Miserables" was that they should have gone with film names like Jackman (as Javert) and Hathaway (and I bet they BOTH would have won Oscars in the supporting categories) and hired Ramin Karimloo to play Valjean.  He would not have struggled with the score and the film would have been better for it.  Hooper's insistence on live singing and the resultant close-ups would still have been a problem, so many of us who don't like the film for its static, unimaginative look would still not like it, but at least the score would have been done justice.

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:31am

The main challenge in a film adaptation would be the dramatic acting on a big screen!  Is Karimloo up to that?

Has he ever acted on film?

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 09:31 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:49am

jo said: “My shortlist rapidly became one, and that was Hugh Jackman,” Hooper says. “I couldn’t have made this film without him.”...

 

That's my point. Casting a role as Valjean has nothing to do with "rapid", especially when your "shortlist" always consisted of only 3 names you happen to know.

 

 

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:55am

It wasn't just Hooper who made the decision.  The renowned casting director Nina Gold was also in the Jackman audition, together with the producers and the composers.

 

www.dailyactor.com/film/casting-director-nina-gold-hugh-jackman-les-miserables-audition/

 

"Even though Les Miserables is enjoying Oscar buzz, the road to making the film wasn’t as glamorous. All of the auditions were conducted in rundown studios.

The casting director for the film, Nina Gold, remembers, “You know, you’ve got Tap Dance 2 in one studio and Jujitsu 3 in the other studio, and Hugh Jackman and me and Tom [Hooper, the director] in the other one. There’s different dingy rooms all over the world, but they were all really, really repulsive.”


The bright part of the process was when Jackman aced his audition. Before hearing him sing, Gold admitted that she and Hooper were worried about finding someone to take on the celebrated role of Jean Valjean for the screen version of the musical.

“We know each other so well that we don’t have any problem talking to each other very, very directly,” Gold said in an interview with The New York Times. “There was no one in the world who could do it—well, there is obviously Hugh Jackman, but he’d never sung in that register before.”

After three hours of auditioning, it was clear the Aussie actor had landed the part. “We had the pianist there, and he said, ‘OK, let’s just mess around with this,’” Gold said. “And he opened his mouth and sang, and literally, you felt like you were going to be blown out the window. It felt like my hair was on fire. Until that moment, you just thought, ‘Is it actually possible to do this?’ ”

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 9:55am

jo said: "The main challenge in a film adaptation would be the dramatic acting on a big screen!  Is Karimloo up to that?

Has he ever acted on film?

"

 

That's what screentests are for.

 

Ramin is just 1 name on a huge list of suitable candidates and he wasn't even seen for the role. Typical case of tunnel vision (which the director likes to call "shortlist from the beginning).

 

I agree, many roles in the film could have been film names, but not Valjean, that role needs more. This film could have been much better with ideas like these.

 

It looks to me like the director and casting directoir had a severe case of tunnel vision. Especially given the fact that many theatre actors or singers, when given the chance, have proven to set the screen on fire. A screentest would be enough. How can they be so sure that no one can do it? That is just extremely unprofessional.

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 09:55 AM

[jo]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 10:04am

The one that is known to have been tested by Tom Hooper was Alfie Boe.

But we can argue ad nauseam about the film adaptation and we are not going anywhere because we have different perspectives on the movie adaptation.

Thanks for the exchange of views!

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 10:10am

I think Alfie Boe (who is not an actor) was the only one invited by Tom Hooper to give his point more strength. Very unprofessional to not want to see all the options.

 

But thanks for your views too. It's always interesting to debate about this.

Edit: I also think that when you create a star, the world is even more eager to see it. Especially when the quality of the performance is outstanding.

 

[hork]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 11:33am

The Other One said:  Hooper's insistence on live singing and the resultant close-ups would still have been a problem,

 

The live singing wasn't the problem. They used live singing in Across the Universe and that worked beautifully. The problem was that it was live singing that sounded like live singing in the real world, the way we casually sing songs to ourselves, which made it unintentionally comical.

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/22/16 at 11:55am

Good point.

 

I think Les Miserables would have actually benefited from a less literal approach because the material is per definition not literal. Playing a bit more with the material, use certain parts as a voiceover, without necessarily mouthing to it, using different editing and cinematography, using pre-recorded parts, etc, to create a certain movie feel. That would make it less comical. Less theatrical. More film-ish. More real.

Updated On: 1/22/16 at 11:55 AM

[The Other One]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 8:35am

jo said: "The main challenge in a film adaptation would be the dramatic acting on a big screen!  Is Karimloo up to that?

Has he ever acted on film? "

 

I guess the answer to your first question is "I don't know", and the answer to your second is "no".

But Jackman's box-office clout owes entirely to his being part of the enormously successful "X-Men" franchise.  He has a long track record of bombs otherwise, so casting him involved its own share of risks.  There are never any guarantees when it comes to casting.

 

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 8:42am

Which ends up in the action hero fans being disappointed and the movie musical fans being disappointed. 

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 8:49am

About the making of a film like this, the more I think about it, the more I believe a less literal approach but much more use of cinematography, editing and pre-recorded tracks is absolutely necessary. It creates the essential filmic magic that is needed. It prevents it from looking like silly singing to yourself or a theatre performance on a pavement.

 

It is also very distracting to see an actor struggling with notes on film, resulting in strange head movements and forced mannerisms.

 

Take a look at this clip, the magic, emotion and rawness actually come from the fact that it is not live:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNVlfy4SWDo

Updated On: 1/23/16 at 08:49 AM

[The Other One]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 9:31am

I couldn't tell that it wasn't live and I didn't care, either, which only proves your point.  

[skies]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 9:51am

 

Richard  Gere in " Chicago".

Shirley McClaine in " Sweet Charity"

 

[jo]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 10:09am

The Other One said: "jo said: "The main challenge in a film adaptation would be the dramatic acting on a big screen!  Is Karimloo up to that?

 

Has he ever acted on film? "

 

 

 

I guess the answer to your first question is "I don't know", and the answer to your second is "no".

 

But Jackman's box-office clout owes entirely to his being part of the enormously successful "X-Men" franchise.  He has a long track record of bombs otherwise, so casting him involved its own share of risks.  There are never any guarantees when it comes to casting.

 

***********************************************************************************************

 

 

 Film Casting is not simply box office draw ( although Jackman has racked up a total of $ 5.6 BILLION in box office receipts for his many films to-date), per Box OfficeMojo.

 

It is primarily to do with his acting talent and whether he is suitable for the role. Hugh has worked with a number of respected film directors and obviously this has been taken into consideration as well.

 

Have you seen the fine dramatic performances he turned in for films like THE PRESTIGE ( directed by Christopher Nolan), THE FOUNTAIN ( directed by Darren Aronofsky), AUSTRALIA ( directed by Baz Luhrmann), PRISONERS ( directed by rising name Denis Villeneuve) and there was an early Australian film called ERSKINEVILLE KINGS ( a drama involving  Sydney's inner city) for which he was awarded  Best Actor honors.  Of course we know that Tom Hooper is an Oscar-winning director ( for his work in THE KING'S SPEECH).  Hugh has also starred in more lighthearted films like KATE AND LEOPOLD for which he won a Golden Globe award ( directed by James Mangold who also helmed Hugh's much-praised THE WOLVERINE) and REAL STEEL  which was a commercial hit ( directed by Shawn Levy and exec-produced by Steven Spielberg), and voiceover work in HAPPY FEET which was a huge hit ( directed by George Miller) and FLUSHED AWAY as well as recent work with directors Neil Blomkamp and Joe Wright.   He does have a fine and diverse portfolio of films and LES MISERABLES has reinforced his reputation for versatility.  In all those films, he has always been praised for his overall portrayals.  Some of the films ( like THE FOUNTAIN and THE PRESTIGE) have become cult favorites and the object of revisits by film buffs now.  Also, he has a reputation for being a complete professional and being very focused  -- which, to a director, is truly a gift when one needs not just the talent but the total commitment of his main actors. Ask any of the directors who have worked with him and you will get very favorable responses.  If you remember, he was never absent in any of his year-long stint on Broadway for  THE BOY FROM OZ...and his three limited engagements  ( A STEADY RAIN, BACK ON BROADWAY, THE RIVER).

 

A film director has a cinematic vision that he wants to pursue and he will cast the roles and direct the movie the way that will fulfill his artistic vision and hopefully will have broad appeal to the " movie-going " public.   It is even more of a challenge when the material is a genre that is not always well-accepted by movie fans.  However, that formula worked for LES MISERABLES because it did garner over $ 500 million in worldwide box office  receipts plus USA DVD sales. It also garnered a Best Picture nod and several awards/nods for the acting and creative teams.

 

As I have also said to Dave19, we have different perspectives on film adaptations of stage musicals/original literary work, so I will not pursue the arguments further.

Btw, you may want to look up on YouTube the versions of Valjean's SOLILOQUY by Ramin Karimloo  ( mainly audio with photo images), by Alfie Boe at the Royal Variety Show, and Jackman's  interpretation in the film adaptation. 

Thanks for the exchange of views.

 

 

 

"

 

POSTSCRIPT:

https://twitter.com/MichaelPaulson

Tweeted by the New York Times reporter who covered BROADWAYCON 2016 --

Michael Paulson ?@MichaelPaulson · 9m9 minutes ago
"We'd like Hugh Jackman to star in everything." Tips from pros at #BroadwayCon theater marketing panel


















Updated On: 1/23/16 at 10:09 AM

[skies]

Posted: 1/23/16 at 5:49pm

I thought Hugh Jackman was horribly miscast.

[MrSweetNAwful]

Posted: 1/28/16 at 2:12pm

skies said: "Richard  Gere in "Chicago".

Shirley McClaine in " Sweet Charity"

"

 

Whoa, what didn't you like about Shirley McClaine in Sweet Charity? Besides running a little long that is one of my favorite stage-to-screen adaptations and McClaine is half the reason I love it so much.