Several new HQ clips - Who Am I, On My Own, Look Down...

I'm sort of speechless right now, but I loved it.

---

Hearing more of Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfreid makes me less confident in their singing. But the rest of it looks great.

I think what makes Crowe's voice a bit jarring is it sounds kind of unnatural. What I mean is it sounds as if he is consciously (or maybe subconsciously) trying to deepen his voice. The result comes off as amateurish.

I will say that, even so, I'm not all that disappointed based on what I've heard of him so far. It's one of those things that I'm sure I'll get used to enough that it won't bother me half way through the film.

But, as is usually the case with me, my mind is relentlessly detail obsessed and nit picky, so of course I've got a theory, hehehe.

And the following is just that, a subjective theory. I am in no way claiming it is a fact.

Why might he be deepening his voice? The same reason all those American Idol rejects embarrassingly have the tendency to imitate the original artists of their chosen song, but they imitate them badly, of course, and with emphasis on only the few characteristics that are more a unique part of the original singer rather than characteristics of an artistic interpretation. This is usually done subconsciously (like 99.9% of Idol rejects), and it happens when a mind can't refer to any natural, inherent talents. Of course, if one is determined to be a star, they cling onto any recourse available and thus the mind assumes if they can sound as much like the original artist as possible, then that = a GREAT singer, because, hey, you sound just like someone famous!! Never mind whether or not that famous person really possesses a spectacular singing voice, just emulating a person who happens to be famous is enough. When a no-talent decides to compete in a singing competition, they are going on purely what they hear through their heads and if it matches in some way to a famous singer, that must mean they are gifted singers. Case in point:

https://youtu.be/6ijx-oe0o64?t=40s

Dude honestly thought he was awesome because his mind had tricked him into believing just that. He actually successfully emulates some of Madonna's unique inflection, but that's not interpretation, it's Madonna! So copying her is trying to sound like a woman, a woman with a very high pitched voice, and it's trying to be someone you're not, lol. Throw in no talent and you've got a BAD imitation, a caricature of Madonna.

An artist interprets and creates. Emulating and attempting to carbon copy is the mark of an amateur. Unless, of course, you are an impersonator and have talent and thus are good at impersonating. Imitation, reproduction, and impersonation are certainly valid artistically as well, but what distinguishes them from what an amateur does is one's inherent good taste and natural talent regulates all those fine details and turns in a winning performance. An amateur approaches it without any intention of copying consciously, they sincerely think that reproducing only one or two distinct traits of a famous singer means they've arrived and they are GREAT.

So if a performance feels iffy (emphasis on "feels" because it can technically sound good, be on key, and not have obvious flaws but can also still have a jarring quality to it) it's more often than not due to misguidedness on the part of the singer.

Now, I'd never be so mean as to place Crowe in that category and he certainly has many diverse talents that he applies effectively to his craft, but he might be guilty of either intentionally or unintentionally morphing his voice in a way he perceives a Javert should sound like, based on the many men who have played him onstage. To his credit, it isn't over-the-top or ridiculous but I get the distinct impression one gets when witnessing a singer trying to be an *idea* of a singer and character rather than an artist crafting an interpretation of a character.

I probably typed all of this for nothing because I realized before even typing it that it's certainly possible Crowe's singing voice simply has that quality--a quality that comes across as what I wrote above, but isn't actually borne out of that and is inherent. I've never heard the man sing before and knew I could be very wrong. But I decided to type this without even first checking some of his earlier singing work, because the point isn't that I think I'm right or want to be right. Nor did I post this to school anyone on anything.

I'm a fan and this is the kind of sh*t fans do! LOL. I just turn it up a few hundred notches...thanks to my uber nit-pickiness, roflmao. People always assume I go through all this trouble. Trouble? I produce this crap in minutes. Not like I sit here half the day writing stuff about amateurs, ha! I do this and don't even post it sometimes, and just save it for myself.

And the length helps weed out those who can't care less about the things I care about, which is always a nifty bonus.

---

People often seem unnatural in short clips from movies even when they are not singing. A moment of performance in a vacuum with no sense of what preceded or stimulated it can be jarringly unpersuasive.

Henrik, like I said, I'm likely completely off here and this doesn't at all apply to Crowe. I am not suggesting he's a no-talent either. All of that was a sort of background that explains where I derived the theory. I stated at the top of my post that, even if Crowe so far gives me the distinct impression of someone misguidedly fixing their voice to mimic an idea of what Javert should sound like, it's negligible enough that I'll eventually forget about it, hopefully, with more exposure to his portrayal.

But something Someone In a Tree 2 said worries me more than that...that Crowe appears "constipated" for the duration of the film. I had earlier expressed concern they were going for the misguided 25th ann. U.S. tour take on Javert, where most of that sinister essence (that is clearly a part of the music and can't be ignored) is removed and replaced with attempts to "humanize" him. Problem is, he had always been "humanized." Removing that facade makes his second act meltdown less dramatic and there is no contrast. Apparently portraying him as stoic and sinister is portraying a caricature and Javert is an actual human being who feels real emotions.

Yeah, but this is THEATRE and it's traditional in this art form to be broad strategically in order to project a character's essence. All Javerts I've ever seen have been thoroughly satisfying, and while they may have been similar in how they chose to portray the character, it wasn't "wrong." It was very moving to see that once unbending rock suddenly buckle and reveal that very side of his that it is claimed was never explored in the original production: the vulnerable, or "human" side of him.

The 25th ann. take on Javert was ambitious but very ineffective. I had completely forgotten about the character half way through the first act and when he showed up, I felt he had an Eponine complex with the constantly longing and concerned, neutral expressions that seemed to avoid like the plague any semblance of menace. A wimpy Javert is non-threatening and one that always looks worried eventually gives the impression this cop wants Valjean's butt. I admit this way of looking at it probably isn't typical, as many have thrown heaps of praise on that portrayal, but I was surprised that even I wasn't able to make myself like it. As a fan, I'm always interested in enjoying a performance of Les Mis as much as I can, and it's usually 3 hours filled with joy and wonder, but I'm also not a drone and I can't trick myself into liking something that feels wrong and Javert as nice, misunderstood cop who is just doing his job is not only an overblown perspective of the good that Javert has in him, but that sense of threat that makes the chase so riveting is lost his 2nd act meltdown is just another in a collection of many crinklings of the forehead and sad, forlorn expressions. Even Hugo's Javert has a sense of menace and is a real threat. Overblowing the idea he is just doing his job is not only redundant, but completely misses the point of just how adversely this man had affected the life of a largely noble man who made mistakes, but shouldn't be held to them considering what they were. And it's Valjean's story. Making it about Javert and not showing a glimpse of what he meant to Valjean is the worst idea ever.

Hopefully Crowe doesn't go there.

---

I don't typically care too much about how Cosette sounds. The role is so small to begin with. In any case Seyfried cannot sound any worse than Tracy Shayne does on the Complete Symphonic Recording.

"So, now we enter Les Miserables. And now we see what happens when Hooper tries to get clever with his camera. SH*T happens. The guy has no idea how to frame anything, which is baffling if only because the lion's share of the film's shots contain a single actor singing their hearts out in one long take. I don't know how a person of reasonable competence can **** that up, but Hooper ****s that up. Actors get the top of their heads cut off, or they get stuffed into a corner of the frame, and there's no reason for it other than Hooper's ineptitude. His film looks terrible. Apart from composition, the camera hovers and shakes like it's being shot by your drunken uncle at a family reunion, and if he's not doing Extreme Close-Ups, he's doing swooping overhead shots. That's it. That's his whole repertoire. Like I said-- baffling. And that's to say nothing of his aversion to color or his very, very cliche make-up choices. (You can tell a person's social class by their teeth. It's obnoxious.)"

http://www.chud.com/community/t/145942/les-miserables-post-release

Thoughts from people who have seen it?

---

I think she's supposed to be the girl Fantine fights with. I agree, though, that she's a phenomenal actress. Her Lady Macbeth was near definitive.

According to the Universal Pictures press packet, Kate Fleetwood is "Factory Woman 1." Here's the link to the press packet, which has the whole cast listed plus other good stuff.

And there's a press conference going on right now in NY as I type this. There's been a lot of them happening and more to come.



Press Packet

Updated On: 11/30/12 at 02:54 PM

Amanda Seyfried is not even a passable Cosette singing-wise for me. Yes, I am pickier than some, but she is barely even hitting those notes. Acting-wise I'm sure she'll be great, but bad sopranos are like nails on a chalkboard to my ears.

---

Forget Hooper's directorial choices, there is some really terrible CGI scattered throughout the film that's even more distracting!

Random but since we're talking about stage actors who have cameos, I was wondering if Frances Ruffelle cameo made it into the final cut of the movie.

---