Movie Musicals- Page 2

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 6:08am

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

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 8:00am

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?  The medium is different and requires  a different kind of talent ( such as emoting with the eyes or conveying other facial expressions as well as impressing with the body language ), to serve the intimacy uniqueness of a film camera.  Even speaking voice quality and ability with accents is important for films (which may be  achieved with straight plays actors but do musical theatre actors have the same vocal agility when speaking?).   Beyond that, does stage presence translate in the same way as big screen chemistry? Some  actors in one medium may not  command the same strong appeal when emoting before a camera.   Beauty of form may not necessarily translate into strong appeal before a film camera  either.  It is very rare to find  actors/actresses who suit both mediums very well in all respects. Also, not every actor/actress suits every film role  in look or acting style.   And let's not even talk of box office draw!

When they cast the major actors for the film adaptation of Les Miserables, the casting committee was composed of Hooper/Mackintosh/Boublil/Schonberg, casting director Nina Gold and maybe a representative of the British producing team of Working Title( which has a subsidiary/other corporate tieup with Universal,  the studio behind the project ). They did spend a lot of time for the auditions. Jackman had to sing practically the entire score attributed to Valjean. Crowe did go back for a second time for the audition  and was competing with another actor for the role of Javert ( Paul Bettany who was in Da Vinci Code).  Hathaway had to compete with quite a number of well-known names ( one of which was Scarlett Johansson who has sung an Oscar-nominated song).  Seyfried had to wait several months to know if she got the part. Redmayne had worked with Hooper on another film project ( and probably knew that he was the lead singer for the ETON chorus) but he did send his own audition tape.  Samantha also competed for the role of Eponine ( one of the most sought parts) and ultimately got it. I can't remember how Tveit was cast ( his casting would have been ideal -- because he was a stage actor who has sung in a number of Broadway shows -- I did see him in Catch Me If You Can --  so why was his Enjolras casting not cited particularly well among the portrayals -- no offense meant but sorry to say that maybe because  his Enjolras missed the Apollo-like appeal of Hugo's rebel leader!).

So, it was not a whimsical decision by the group when the cast was formed. 

Will these actors be cast in other movie musicals?   Jackman is heading an original movie musical The Greatest Showman for release on Christmas Day.  Ironically, it will be the diametric opposite of his critically-acclaimed, with a 93%  rating  on Rotten Tomatoes, and 2017 box office hit  LOGAN ( from the XMen franchise) also for the same studio (FOX). The long-gestating movie musical project has a score by Pasek and Paul and from what has been publicized, it will be a period piece ( Barnum biopic) but with a contemporary beat.  Maybe that is the kind of movie musical form that may appeal to contemporary audiences now?  Part of the casting is Broadway's Keala Settle who plays the unique role of The Bearded Lady but whose singing of the anthemic THIS IS ME is featured in the trailer ( a nod towards acceptance and inclusivity).  Multi-Oscar nominee Michelle Williams ( who was on Broadway for a revival of Cabaret before Emma Stone took over), Zac Efron ( from High School Musical and Hairspray), and Zendaya all have singing and dancing chops. The unknown quantity is the casting of Rebecca Ferguson ( an upcoming strong actress) who actually plays the part of a famous singer) but presumably she has the pipes for it.  It's interesting to note that the project underwent quite a number of readings/workshops ( the first workshop included Aaron Tveit, Sutton Foster and Keala Settle while the final reading before FOX execs included many Broadway names such as Jeremy Jordan, Caroline Bowman, Cynthia Erivo, Allison Luff, Keala, etc.) and it is said that it took almost 8 years to get the movie finally made ( it was announced in 2009).   We'll see how it turns out.

The only other cast member from Les Miserables who will return for a movie musical at the moment, in a sequel/prequel to Mamma Mia!, is Amanda Seyfried who was in the original movie adaptation by Universal Studios.  The others have pursued other roles ( Redmayne won an Oscar for The Theory of Everything, Hathaway unfortunately has not shown as well in any succeeding movies, Crowe has taken many other parts of which one was a project with film auteur Darren Aronofsky ( Noah), and I am not sure if Tveit is still acting on TV.  Samantha Barks lost the lead role on Broadway  to Hamilton's Philipa Soo for a musical which failed to find its audience (Amelie) and seems to concentrate on her singing/recording career.

The genre is still considered risky in the movie business. That is one of the reasons why I am not optimistic that MISS SAIGON, another dramatic musical, will find its filmmakers ( maybe it needs a major studio to support it).  The film business is franchise-oriented and leans towards certain genres and the major studios usually look for tentpoles. Drama is usually relegated to independents ( including the odd musical like La La Land). Maybe this will change ... who knows when?

 

 

 

 

 

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

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 8:00am

Double post.
 

 

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

[GeorgeandDot]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 8:35am

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.  I also really love the orchestrations and the artistic design.  Tom Hooper's films always seem to look very beautiful, but I'm sure that he would back up the camera a bit if he were to do another musical.  All this being said, I'm sure that they have realized that while you can have the actors sing 95% of the score live, you should probably go back and polish up some of the rough parts in a studio.  Also, I think it's clear that Crowe should never do a musical ever again.

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.  After seeing Into the Woods (BTW ALL Sondheim movie musicals should be sung live) I realized that if the directors of movie musicals had any respect for musical theatre, they would have their actors sing live like they're onstage in a musical.  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.  Basically, 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).

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:15am

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

[gypsy101]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:19am

can we as a board please just make a tacit agreement to end discussing the Les Mis film for the foreseeable future? the movie was literally 4.75 years ago and Dave19 can not get over it and will never stop with his endless incessant whining on the subject of Hugh Jackman allegedly singing a word for ten seconds (which never even happened). so until the time Dave gets over the betrayal he felt from the film let's just not bring it up? thanks!

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:29am

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.

 

 

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:30am

gypsy101 said: "can we as a board please just make a tacit agreement to end discussing the Les Mis film for the foreseeable future? the movie was literally 4.75 years ago and Dave19 can not get over it and will never stop with his endless incessant whining on the subject of Hugh Jackman allegedly singing a word for ten seconds (which never even happened). 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!

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:32am

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

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:34am

jo said: "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."

What "kind" of singing? Truthful singing? Why would that not work. I think it's the only way to go.

https://youtu.be/_QozXX7Ndrk?t=4m29s

 

 

Updated On: 8/13/17 at 09:34 AM

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:40am

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

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:42am

No more talking about Les Miserables 

 

Or maybe this guy should do the responding --

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 9:44am

Ok, talk about Miss Saigon then. Any ideas?

[sueb1863]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 10:52am

SueB -- were you the same poster on IMDB who was in a big group monitoring the filming developments of Les Miserables?<<

Yeah, that was me! :) That was fun, following the movie during its development. Too bad the boards are gone now, but it was interesting while it lasted!

Do you remember that someone joined us briefly for discussions and then he eventually turned out to be the Oscar winner for Sound for the movie ( I think his name is Simon Hayes)?<<

I do, sort of! I'm sure people in the business checked out the IMDb boards all the time.

And we did enjoy all those tweets from the Barricade Boys and Samantha Barks ( who shared many insights on the filming -- including how they reacted to the filming of BRING HIM HOME).  Funniest of all were the tweets from Russell Crowe.<<

Yeah, he seemed to be having a good time, anyway! :)

  Most exciting of all was when somone pointed out the link to the downloaded script ( for the awards community) and we found out for the first time how different the movie would be from the stage production?  Of course, as it turned out, the final movie version diverted a little from that script.<<

I remember that too, and yeah, the script was a LOT longer and had a lot more stuff in it than the movie. I'm not sure how much of it was ever even filmed. The ending was totally different, too, they included the 1848 revolution which was filmed but Hooper cut it out. The ending originally had Marius, Cosette and the Thenardiers in the last scene on the big barricade with the 1848 Parisians and the ghosts of the 1832 rebellion, but Hooper changed it, although the dead soldiers and debris from the 1848 battle are still there!

[jo]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 11:09am

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

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 11:31am

Feel free to discuss anything you like Jo. That's what the board is for! Don't let some person without any input himself, saying other's can't talk about something silence you.

 

[non-stop26]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 12:42pm

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.

[hork]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 1:48pm

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.

You mean like Evita? Jesus Christ Superstar? The Umbrellas of Cherbourg?

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.

I agree with you there. Even I'm over it, and I hated it even more than Dave did.

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 4:04pm

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.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 4:07pm

hork said: "I agree with you there. Even I'm over it, and I hated it even more than Dave did."

Interesting. Can you tell me what you would like to see differently in future musical films?

 

[sueb1863]

Posted: 8/13/17 at 8:09pm

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. 

[jo]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 12:03am

Please check your PM, SueB 

[bk]

Posted: 8/14/17 at 2:06am

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.