CreatureKitchen said: "Ensemble1671566276 said: "I don't know, I'm sure that seeing it would elevate the whole thing, but I get such a tangible sense of character from this recording already. I'm completely flummoxed by some comments here. Like, were Joel Grey and Barry Dennan going for "pretty" voices? No, but I liked listening to them more than Cumming, because I can hear the characterisation in their vocal work."
And I'm genuinely glad you got a tangible sense of character! But I don't see how my differing opinion is flummoxing: I'm not entirely alone in a vacuum here. TimeOut's review states that: "In the past, [Redmayne's] attracted flak for playing trans and disabled characters. At the heart of this, I’m sure, is his desire to throw himself into transformative, taxing roles, which is clearly what he’s gone for here...he’s hunched over, his limbs twisted and awkward, with a strange tremor to his voice…frankly it kind of feels like he’s ‘cripping up’ again (perhaps as a polio victim?)"In his vocal performance, this is exactly what I get. He sounds contorted and strained almost to the point of aping disability. Is that a characterization? Sure, but to what end? What am I supposed to take away from that, except that Eddie Redmayne wants to show off how hard he's working? It is fascinating, and it is brave, because of what a big swing he's taking and how much tangible effort he's exerting. But I am lost as to what those choices are meant to tell me about the Emcee, or how they serve the story as a whole. It feels like the theatrical equivalent of Oscar-bait method acting: make the most extreme, difficult choices so the audience doesn't forget how much acting you're doing. And it actively distracted from the narrative at times (I know my comment about him sounding like Kermit was flippant, but I did literally have to stop myself from giggling during "IDCM" because of how cartoony his voice sounded). Even glowing reviews stated that his performance is "love it or hate it". Is it so odd I'm in the latter camp?
Since you bring up Cumming, I'll bite. I find his characterization pretty simple, even blunt. He's the sleazy, hypersexual ringleader of a seedy queer club. For me, Cumming's voice communicates that pretty straightforwardly. If you dislike that interpretation or feel it's poorly done, power to you. But to say you can't hear who Cumming's Emcee is in his voice-work just seems disingenuous. I feel like I could play Cumming's "Willkommen" to just about anyone and they could give me a pretty solid description of that character. I can certainly give you some adjectives to describe Redmayne's Emcee, but I don't have a coherent picture. And I don't know who was talking about "pretty" voices? Fwiw, Redmayne's voice is much "prettier" than Cumming or Dennan's voices. Even under the layers of affectation, it's still apparent that Redmayne has a clear, classically appealing tenor voice. Prettiness is not my issue at all.
"
Why do you feel the need to take things this personally? And just like you said, bringing up other people's reviews, to back up your point or whatever, when I don't even reference you, does not negate my view that I feel something in contrast, does it? (And I went and read the whole review, clearly the reviewer recognises that there's a purpose and guiding principle to the whole performance, even if it's not his preference). I can still be confused by others having a wildly different reaction to mine. That's the essence of having a personal reaction to something, being confused as to why others didn't feel the same. It's not that deep and is a manner of speaking. I mention that I didn't get a sense of the same degree of characterisation from Cumming, so you write out that you do, doing the same thing your whole post is supposed to counter? What? Why does it seem disingenuous to you if I say that? I feel if I hadn't seen him perform first, I won't get it from the recording alone. Inuendo is built into the writing of the character, but beyond that?
And because you don't feel his choices don't tell you enough about the Emcee, you want to take the least charitable interpretation of his motivations and intentions, and that's entirely your will. I don't feel the same. Maybe whatever sense I get won't be the same one if I actually get to see him perform, but that hardly matters. I like people taking extreme swings, and like Nic Cage says, I don't see why naturalism is proclaimed as the highest level of command over the craft of acting. Stylized performances are are not attempted by enough people, when so much variety abounds in approaches in all other art forms. I see Michelle Williams and Mark Rylance also catch flak from corners this season for even attempting slightly stylized performance and I'm tired of it. I feel like Redmayne presents an Emcee that draws on absurdism and expressionism, and might have fit in with the artists caricaturing that time, and that excites me. I'll wait for the rest of the album to release, but I'm excited and it doesn't matter even if I leave a little confused by choices, (or even if his intention was to exhibit his effort) as long as they hold my attention and leave me with something to chew over.
.jpg?format=auto&width=300)
