The very first hint of any reservations I may have about the film version, and everything I've ever said in support of it--which is a LOT--flies out the window and I am suddenly an over-invested, silly fanboy and movie basher. Not to mention, clueless about film and theatre being vastly different, and I apparently don't know what an adaptation is. Great.
Believe it or not, as frustrating as it can be to be called those things after everything I've said, I'm not surprised and I expect it all the time. Of course people will only look on the surface. Nobody is invested enough to really care about what I did or didn't say, and that's alright. And trust me, saying I'm ridiculously invested is a given, and nice of you for having noticed. Thanks! XD
Yeah, at any rate, check out my longish rants in the "The Les Mis Film Has Started Filming" thread, where I entertain such thoughts as it being totally cool that even my beloved original orchestrations get adapted for film in parts that could use it. And not referring to the expected expansion of the orchestra and orchestrations as most film versions do, I'm referring to complete rewrites, even new stuff. I'm pretty tight assed about orchestrations, so if I give the green light on messing with them for the film version, then I'm what you'd call someone flexible, understanding, and open minded. I hate tooting my own horn, but sometimes people around here have a way of making me feel good about myself.
Btw, another thing I've supported is the adaptation of acting styles typical of live theatre into more film-appropriate styles and approaches. I've been quite vocal about that one, and in the spirit of people who only glance on the surface of things, my recent thoughts have been assumed to be complaints about the adaptation of anything. Nevermind my pointing out that I am speaking out of concern. CONCERN. Not disappointment just yet, but concern that they will incorporate one of the lamer approaches at reinvention utilized on the current new tour, where the bulk of an actor's effort doesn't lie in telling a musical story but instead doing everything they possibly can to "shake things up," every second, every word, gesture, and intonation. It came off too self-conscious, often awkward, very cartoony and embarrassingly melodramatic. Some moments of the trailer hinted at that being a possible approach throughout.
Everyone is speaking about mediums, styles, and adaptation and I completely agree with everything being said about that.
But that's not what I'm talking about. My worries are more regarding the quantitative rather than qualitative, meaning there's nothing wrong or bad about the styles and approaches seen in the trailer because they are perfectly appropriate for the medium, but I hope they don't get ridiculous and infuse the film with too much of a good thing like the tour did. It comes off pretentious and it makes the musical aspect of musicals really choppy to the point you wonder why they're singing at all, considering the overwhelming effort placed on being naturalistic and as ordinary, mundane and about as expressive as the limited spoken word is known to be.
The approach and style is fine. But please spare us this stupid over-pensiveness, allusions of something profound being said all the time, and speak singing should be strategically incorporated at key moments, not added to undermine the musical storytelling aspect of musicals.
Like I said in another thread, not losing sleep over this. Much less, my temper. It's a typical concern we invested fanboys hyperventilate over all the time. Nothing new here.
Recreation of original John Cameron orchestration to "On My Own" by yours truly. Click player below to hear.
