Movie Musicals — Page 2

sueb1863 said: "I think Russell Crowe's performance would have been better if he hadn't had to spend every song trying to focus on hitting the notes.

Hugh Jackman also had obvious trouble with Bring Him Home. He was clearly straining, something that wouldn't have been the case if it had been prerecorded. Hooper never should have had him shouting that song, it was supposed to be a quiet song of prayer."

I completely agree. Emotion in film comes from other things than struggling with/feeling trapped in notes. Looking miserable while doing it is not the solution for every scene.

I would also like to add that nowadays when a big blockbuster film comes out, many people automatically want to go see it. Regardless of the quality. The regular moviegoer goes for the names or the hype and of course the fans of this genre are curious anyway. Les Mis disrespected both groups of the audience, because the regular movie audience walked out of the cinema laughing, having confirmed they don't like musicals after having seen something that did not feel raw and real at all because of the too literal live singing, basically a failed theatre performance on a pavement, but then fake because of the switching (a spoken moan combined with a sporadic note) and the lovers of the artform walked out of the cinema not feeling taken seriously at all.

We live in a world where people see the most beautifully crafted videoclips, artwork, camerawork, best singing everyday. Wouldn't it be great if that quality translated to a musicalfilm? And wouldn't it also be great if we found the right people for it?

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 06:08 AM

Double post.

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 08:00 AM

jo said: "The real challenge is to combine singing and acting talent, before a film camera. How many stage actors/actresses who can sing very well can deliver excellent acting portrayals on screen?"

More than you would realize, I think. I have seen numerous filmed, close up performances of artists singing from their heart, translating to extremely well acted scenes. Using the notes as actors, instead of acting in spite of them, what Jackman does.

Examples that come to mind are Steve Balsamo's Gethsemane in the Musicals in Ahoy registration, or Kwang-Ho Hong in the filmed Miss Saigon. Also, many performances in, for example the 10th Anniversary dvd of les Mis are much better acted than the actual les Mis movie, for example Javert.

I also think you overestimate the difference between mediums. I think the focus should lie on personal talent. For example, the lion share of the Miss Saigon registration was actually filmed as a feature film. Actualy even more like a feauture film than the les Mis movie. They had several separate shooting days and did scene by scene. Both used sets as a stage, but Miss saigon used more editing, elaborate camera work and actually combined difefrent takes. For the rest, the close ups were the same. And most of it was sung live. But this time with actors who really used the notes to act, which makes it organic and natural.

The real challenge is to make people understand this. Because as long as the right people don't get the chance, things will not change.

jo said: "It is very rare to find actors/actresses who suit both mediums very well in all respects. "

Jackman, Crowe, Seyfried's singing is not natural enough for singing in film. Which ruins their acting performance.

jo said: "So, it was not a whimsical decision by the group when the cast was formed."

I still think they looked at the wrong things. That Crowe sang in a band in his youth has nothing to do with how he makes this artform work or not. His scenes are a showcase of a struggle with notes and I see no acting at all.

I also read an interview with Samantha Barks where she said she was asked to speak more, to make it natural. That is a big alarm bell. Speaking sung material and then singing the last note is NOT natural.


jo said: "genre is still considered risky in the movie business. Drama is usually relegated to independents ( including the odd musical like La La Land). Maybe this will change ... who knows when?"

And I'm afraid it will stay that way as long as they don't turn it around, by creating true quality instead of bowing for it. It could also be that Cameron, Boublil and Schonberg are too submissive or too intimidated by the film world and therefore agreed with the ridiculous claims that the speak singing etc would mean "realistic". Hoping the would fit "the mainstream world" then. But the solution lies in the opposite.

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 09:15 AM

Hey, I did see Steve Balsamo in the revival of Jesus Christ Superstar in London and while he did sing a unique GETHSEMANE, I doubt that that kind of singing there would work well on film! I don't remember being a fan of his acting, either.

But as I have said earlier, we may not view things in exactly the same way ... and I will leave it at that.

On Russell Crowe's interpretation of Javert -- if you re-read the passages in the novel on the character of Javert -- Russell's acting out of the role reflects the warring emotions that have always beset this supposed man of the law. I am glad that the film adaptation included that incident where he goes to Monseiur Le Maire to seek atonement for what he thought was his error in judgment in initially accusing the Mayor of being Valjean ( of course he was right but he did not know it then). That was an initial indication ( missed out in the stage adaptation) that he had entertained conflicting emotions even if he was a man of the law. I do think Russell Crowe gave a nuanced and layered portrayal of the character of Javert and did justice to how Victor Hugo envisioned the character to be.

GeorgeandDot said: "I think the Les Miserables film is able to really effectively mix two very different art forms. It accepts the fact that it is a musical, but it also doesn't ignore the fact that it's a film and a certain level of realism and intimacy is required."

What do you mean by effectively mix? That Jackman speaks 4 words acting and then uses a completely unbelievable 10 second vibrato on the 5th word? It is the epitome of separation. It apologizes for being a musical and then makes fun of it. This removes all realism and intimacy. Every "bring him home" I have heard is more intimate, filmic and real.

GeorgeandDot said:" I've honestly gotten pretty sick of the lip synching in movie musicals. How are you supposed to give a decent acting performance like that. Movies like Evita and Into the Woods fall dreadfully flat because the actors aren't able to make authentic, spontaneous acting decisions because they're tied to a track that was prerecorded months ahead of filming."

Have you seen the clip I posted? That actor gives more natural acting nuances than can be seen in the whole les Mis movie. Filmmaking is not about giving a dry theatre performance on a pavement. It's about illusion and better than life. That's why you hear violins in the background too. That's why the camera flies around. That's why it's film. There is something very powerful emotionally by hearing the voice as a kind of voice over, singing better than the actor could ever have possibly done live in that moment. That all adds to the emotion of the viewer. Some lines do not even have to be mouthed.

In the les Mis film the actors are completely trapped. I see actors struggling with the material which prevents them from making the acting believable. It's completely undermining the artform and the influence of singing, music and illusion. Therefore nothing in the film feels real or raw. Elaborate cinematography, sung music as an underscore, pre-recorded tracks give them the ability to soar with the material. It's not as if the epilogue scene in La La Land would feel more raw and real when it would have been shot in 1 take, live between a trash can and a concrete wall and had the chorus just standing there and sing live because supposedly "that makes it real". That's not filmmaking. Filmmaking is using the music as a voice over, creating a better than life feel with sung thoughts.



GeorgeandDot said: "cast strong singers, sing live, polish it up later, and back up the camera (I don't need to see the actor's vocal chords flapping in the wind)."

I think someone like Crowe would have much more freedom in acting when it was pre-recorded. Now he was just trapped and stood there struggling with notes in a very amateurish way. So I think: Pre-record, cast very strong singers that have the natural ability to use notes as actors, shoot, use all the freedom in acting, where necessary, re-record some notes, back up the camera and embrace all cinematography and filmic possibilities. Stay away from the literal approach.

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 09:32 AM

jo said: "so until the time Dave gets over the betrayal he felt from the film let's just not bring it up? thanks!



"

D' accord! Merci! "

Never. A Miss Saigon film must be saved from this stupidity and inadequate creators, walking into the same traps over and over again.

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 09:40 AM

Ok, talk about Miss Saigon then. Any ideas?

Nice to reminisce with you once again, SueB

Sorry, but I promised not to discuss the film adaptation until....

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 11:09 AM

Ok, yes, the les mis movie is flawed, but did you really expect them to lip-sinc their way through a sung through musical. It would have felt even more unnatural. And I agree that we should stop arguing about a movie that came out 5 years ago. Dave- stop saying the exact same thing about it in every thread you find. We get it, you hated the movie, move on, we all did.

non-stop26 said: "Ok, yes, the les mis movie is flawed, but did you really expect them to lip-sinc their way through a sung through musical."

Who says the characters need to lip-sync every word? This is film, where everything is possible and the magic and emotions lie in the illusion. There are more possibilities than a face mouthing every line into the camera like a theatre performance on a pavement. But yes, after listening to a well sung audio track with the right intention and nuance twice it's entirely possible to perfect it and have the freedom of acting through it and this illusion creates a special filmic feel of heightened emotion. Like the clip I posted, which could never be achieved by doing it live.

jo said: "Nice to reminisce with you once again, SueB <<

:) Good to see you again too, Jo!

I didn't hate the movie. There is much about it that I'd do differently (no live singing, different director, replace Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, don't chop up some of the songs as much) but I also liked other parts of it (Hugh Jackman's acting, Aaron Tveit, the rebellion stuff, Colm Wilkinson). I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

So, what we have here are people who loathe the film of Les Miz and people who love the film of Les Miz and especially Jo who seems obsessed with all things Les Miz so how could she do anything but love the film of Les Miz, so much so that posting all those grosses and nominations proves something. I didn't care for it all that much, myself, and let me just explain something to all of you - anyone who thinks all the singing in the film was done live knows nothing about filmmaking or post production. Some, yes, all, no. And Anne Hathaway crying incessantly with snot running out of her nose not only doesn't make me feel any emotion, she's basically doing the audiences job for them - never a good idea. And I like her, but I draw the line at snot.