Les Miserables - The Musical Movie

[Green Monstah]

I'll add this: I think that based on appearance Jackman would make a better Javert and Crowe a better Valjean. But no way Crowe could sing Valjean's part.

Based on the preview above, I'm not sure Jackman has the goods. Luckily, there's all sorts of ways to make them sound better digitally, I'm sure.

[Green Monstah]

Not Bring him home, but here's Who Am I?

[YOUTUBE]xx7K42uyrts[/YOUTUBE]

I love this song, but that was pretty awful.

[creekster]

Based on the preview above, I'm not sure Jackman has the goods. Luckily, there's all sorts of ways to make them sound better digitally, I'm sure.

At the risk of sounding too caught up in this I actually think the clip sounds fine. Jackman is a pretty good singer. In that scene he is not trying to be a singer, he is being an actor. And remember that they recorded the actors singing live in the scene; they are not dubbed in afterwards. I just don't think jackman cuts a valjeanesque figure. I have a hard time seeing him convincingly lifting a wagon axle, for example. But I suspect he will be fine.

I think the story is so compelling and the music is so beautiful and well-suited to the story that the film will almost certainly be worth seeing. I do wonder if it might not have been better if cast somewhat differently. But it will still be good.

[Mrs. Funk]

I love this song, but that was pretty awful.

It's definitely the Rex Harrison-esque speak-singing, which Rex Harrison did because he couldn't really sing. I'm not saying Jackman can't sing, although I think die-hard fans of the Broadway production are going to have a hard time with the vocals.

I'm looking forward to the movie. I'm just hoping the hype doesn't overinflate my expectations.

[Moliere]

Based on the preview above, I'm not sure Jackman has the goods. Luckily, there's all sorts of ways to make them sound better digitally, I'm sure.

It seemed fine to me except at the end. You have to belt out "jean valjean!"

I'm not worried about Jackman. The dude has the goods. I do think, like mentioned above, people will find this much different than the musical. I think the acting should fit the singing and I think it will. With the musical, there really is no acting, just singing. The two will be different and I think this will be good.

Hathaway seems to nail her stuff pretty well. The scene in the factory (on YouTube) was great.

[Flystripper]

It's definitely the Rex Harrison-esque speak-singing, which Rex Harrison did because he couldn't really sing. I'm not saying Jackman can't sing, although I think die-hard fans of the Broadway production are going to have a hard time with the vocals.

This is by intention. The director wanted each song to be more of emotional dialogue/monologue blending into song. It is a much different approach for a movie musical and I am excited to the the product.

[Green Monstah]

It seemed fine to me except at the end. You have to belt out "jean valjean!"

I'm not worried about Jackman. The dude has the goods. I do think, like mentioned above, people will find this much different than the musical. I think the acting should fit the singing and I think it will. With the musical, there really is no acting, just singing. The two will be different and I think this will be good.

Hathaway seems to nail her stuff pretty well. The scene in the factory (on YouTube) was great.

Yeah, that's the best part of the song; but all in all, I don't think he captures the essence of the song. It's not merely the struggle of trying to make the right decision, but the loud voices within your own head who quickly pull you to and fro, leading to indecision and then the almost impulsive decision to do the right thing and confess--because you're a good person and you realize it's what God wants (acc. to the "bargain" you've struck). At least, that's how I interpret the song. Jackman sort of mumbles through it.

I'm still stoked, but my expectations are definitely tempered.

Re: Hathaway; I actually like how she sings "I dreamed a dream." On the broadway soundtrack it almost sounds too noble (although I've never seen the play). I dont know if the play captures all the details of the book, but here's a lady who has lost it all: her posessions, her employment, her teeth, her hair, her child, her dignity; belting it out just doesn't seem to fit the circumstances. Yes, I realize that it appears I'm contradicting myself from above, but I'm not.

[Mrs. Funk]

This is by intention. The director wanted each song to be more of emotional dialogue/monologue blending into song. It is a much different approach for a movie musical and I am excited to the the product.

I wasn't actually criticizing, only making the comparison and finding it interesting that they were doing something similar to what was employed for someone who wasn't much of a singer. Hopefully it works out in the film. Should be interesting.

I'm looking forward to the movie for what it is, which will naturally be much different than a live performance of the production. I think people get too hung up on "purity" of the adaptation in many contexts, whether that's a film adaptation of a book or whatever.

[MarkGrace]

Why is that true?

It's not universally true, just generally. Stage acting and screen acting just require different skills, and it's not an easy crossover. On stage you have to project, so the movements and actions are big and over-exaggerated and really pronounced. With stage trained actors this is pretty ingrained, and it's difficult to shed that when they move to screen. There are a lot of examples of this, but recently think of Rachel and Mr. Schuester on Glee. They come across as over-acting and obnoxious in their movements and expressions because they've been trained in that stage style.

You take a bunch of people from Broadway and are likely to end up with an end product where the acting on the whole just doesn't translate. It's great that they would be more technical singers, but the rest of the execution of the film would likely suffer, and the acting in any film -- even a musical -- is more important than just having a technically good singer. Just being able to sing isn't going to make these characters come alive on screen. This film version of Les Mis is not an attempt to get all the best possible singers together -- that's been done before. If people want Broadway quality voices, go see it on Broadway or grab a CD with a Broadway cast. The film isn't trying to be that.

[creekster]

It's not universally true, just generally. Stage acting and screen acting just require different skills, and it's not an easy crossover. On stage you have to project, so the movements and actions are big and over-exaggerated and really pronounced. With stage trained actors this is pretty ingrained, and it's difficult to shed that when they move to screen. There are a lot of examples of this, but recently think of Rachel and Mr. Schuester on Glee. They come across as over-acting and obnoxious in their movements and expressions because they've been trained in that stage style.

You take a bunch of people from Broadway and are likely to end up with an end product where the acting on the whole just doesn't translate. It's great that they would be more technical singers, but the rest of the execution of the film would likely suffer, and the acting in any film -- even a musical -- is more important than just having a technically good singer. Just being able to sing isn't going to make these characters come alive on screen. This film version of Les Mis is not an attempt to get all the best possible singers together -- that's been done before. If people want Broadway quality voices, go see it on Broadway or grab a CD with a Broadway cast. The film isn't trying to be that.

Hmmmm. Maybe, but isn't that what casting supervisors and directors are for? The beauty of making a movie is that they can reshoot a scene if necessary. Moreover, this isn't a movie of the book, which was done not too long ago with Liam Neeson, but a movie of the musical. And not just a musical but almost an opera. So singing becomes not an appendage but the focus of the presentation of the ideas in the movie as well as of the thoughts that advance the narrative.

Additionally, this is perhaps one of the more melodramatic plot lines of all time. It is hard to imagine how a few grand gestures by a stage-trained actor (especially after they were subject to competent direction) would result in a crappy film. Instead, overacting is rewarded in this story. That's the beauty of this story. If you sit down and outline the plot it looks ridiculous on paper. Really silly. But it works in the book because of the human elements and the moral glue that hold it together. The musical works so well, IMO because the story is so compelling and the songs are beautiful. So, to me, making sure you have skilled singers is very important. I realize, of course, that it is a movie that is meant to make money, so they do want box office appeal, and certainly a skinny Anne Hathaway with coarsely shorn hair and tears streaming down her dirty cheeks while she sings of her lost child helps with box office more than a skinny unknown doing the same. Thus, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the producers becasue they appear to have put together a well-funded effort that looks gorgeous. Now I just hope that the actors pull it off so the result is great and not just good. That said, I think that solid broadway singers could have made an excellent film.

I will also point out that it isn't just the quality of the singing that matters. Even though Russell Crowe might be a good singer (I have no idea, I am just hopeful) there is no way he is the sort of resonant bass for which the melodies of justice/javert are writtenl. Even so, he is a good actor so I remain hopeful the overall result will be great. Time will tell. I hope we all return and report in the new year, if not before.

[SoCalCoug]

I find her stunningly gorgeous.

She also is playing the same part she played on Broadway.

[SoCalCoug]

I just don't think jackman cuts a valjeanesque figure. I have a hard time seeing him convincingly lifting a wagon axle, for example.

You know you're talking about Wolverine, right?

[OrangeUte]

It's not universally true, just generally. Stage acting and screen acting just require different skills, and it's not an easy crossover. On stage you have to project, so the movements and actions are big and over-exaggerated and really pronounced. With stage trained actors this is pretty ingrained, and it's difficult to shed that when they move to screen. There are a lot of examples of this, but recently think of Rachel and Mr. Schuester on Glee. They come across as over-acting and obnoxious in their movements and expressions because they've been trained in that stage style.

You take a bunch of people from Broadway and are likely to end up with an end product where the acting on the whole just doesn't translate. It's great that they would be more technical singers, but the rest of the execution of the film would likely suffer, and the acting in any film -- even a musical -- is more important than just having a technically good singer. Just being able to sing isn't going to make these characters come alive on screen. This film version of Les Mis is not an attempt to get all the best possible singers together -- that's been done before. If people want Broadway quality voices, go see it on Broadway or grab a CD with a Broadway cast. The film isn't trying to be that.

i saw an interview with anne hathaway where she said essentially that she knew she wasn't able to deliver the soaring and beautiful version of "i dreamed a dream". she wanted to make it very real. i don't think that hugh jackman has any illusions of granduer that he is going to match colm wilkinson.

however, the differences between this production and the stage production are important. for instance, in the clip for "on my own", eponine is walking the streets of paris, and in the film, you hear the rain falling. in the factory scene, you have the up close and personal nature of the mob of women ostracizing fantine.

as for the "jean val jean" line in "who am i", i hope hugh jackman doesn't go soft at the end when he says "24601!". i thought the "jean val jean" he sang was a soft, but it didn't annoy me.

i am excited to see this movie. i don't expect that the voices will be broadway quality, but i have an expectation that the notes will be hit and be strong enough. the clips i have seen of cosette are a little squeaky, but not horribly so. this production is sung live on every single take. i don't really know what that means as far as teh quality of the voices.

i expect to enjoy this movie. i have listened to the soundtrack w/ the original broadway musical probably a hundred times or more. i always compare every new jean val jean to colm wilkinson and fantine to ruthie hensel. nobody is the same. however, i have never seen les mes with "lesser" performers who completely botched the songs that they sung. i have seen different interpretations, including an annoying thenardier who overly emphasized the word "jesus" in the master of the house each time he sang it... even that wasn't a show killer for me. if there are a few songs that are weaker than others or a few actors who don't seem to be up to snuff for me, i will see that as consistent with the times i have seen the play - both on broadway and off.

each of the clips that they have released leave me drooling for more. i can't wait to hear bring him home, stars, javert's suicide, the confrontation, on my own, empty chairs and empty tables, red the blood of angry men (i can't remember the title of that song)...

this show is powerful and the music incredibly beautiful. i can't imagine cameron mcintosh or schoenburg et all permitting their musical to be thrashed by incompetent actors/singers. let's get this to my local theater already!

[SoCalCoug]

I will also point out that it isn't just the quality of the singing that matters. Even though Russell Crowe might be a good singer (I have no idea, I am just hopeful) there is no way he is the sort of resonant bass for which the melodies of justice/javert are writtenl. Even so, he is a good actor so I remain hopeful the overall result will be great. Time will tell. I hope we all return and report in the new year, if not before.

From what I've seen, he's kind of the weak link of the cast voice-wise, but still good enough that it's not going to be a big deal.

[creekster]

You know you're talking about Wolverine, right?

Yes but wolverine is wiry and lean while valjean is more ursine. at least in my mind.