And Jimcurry, this is not about the difference between stage and film acting. In both mediums believability is important.
Is Samantha Barks giving a stage performance on film? No, it's about believability and being able to build that tension arc in your performance to take the audience on an emotional journey.
If anything, Hughs performance is extremely stage-like, with the long vibratos that feel very fake, but that is not the problem. Believable actor/singers (Samantha Barks) do that too, only it has to feel real, the singing has to always feel like an extension of speech, and that does not necessarily mean speak/singing, that can also be done in loud/full singing. If someone belts and acts out a song in a believable way on stage (Philip Quast) it suddenly becomes film-like. Because it feels real.
Hugh Jackman belts out notes in a more theatre way of singing than John owen Jones, a great stage Valjean. So the stage/film thing is not the problem, the believability of the singer is.
And I am 30 years old and work as a professional actor/singer for almost 15 years now. I've always been intrigued by various ways of acting and in finding out what works and what does not. My focus has always been on "acting as real as possible", and I also teach that to youngsters.
I have a passion for music and am always thinking about songs and singers, why certain singers make me believe their story and others don't. Then I came to the conclusion that people with voices that are a direct extension of speech (Whitney Houston, Lea Salonga, Karen Carpenter, to name a few), feel much more real than people that sing with a vibrato that feels like a trick/pose/learned. In some way too disconnected from their real voice/emotion.
So I guess I could also say; I've seen many people giving a film performance on stage and it made the audience cry. So please stop using this as an argument.
Updated On: 12/2/12 at 04:40 PM