Les Miserables: Even the thread will make you cry - Part 2

[narrows101]

How about this explanation from Hooper (I've lost the link but kept this part):

"Everyone had to go through auditions and they were quite extensive -- at least three hours. We did have some actors, like Russell Crowe, who you usually have to offer a role to, you don't get to audition, but it was because I was determined to do it live and needed them to prove they could handle that and, also, I wasn't just looking for great singing and great acting. I was looking for people who could act through the medium of song. And instinctively know the necessary shift from singing in a big room -- much bigger than this -- compared to singing to a camera in close up. There is a necessary minimalism in film acting, which they needed to combine with the requirements of serving the song musically. That's what I was really looking for and all of those actors proved in the audition that they could do that."

 

[danoyse]

It's like the "I'm Jean Valjean!" line. He sings that line into the rafters when he sings it into the theater. In the movie, from the clip we saw, he's in a small room trying to figure out what he should do - and he wouldn't be shouting out his name (especially since it's the name of a wanted criminal!) where he was in that moment. He's so conflicted and terrified in that clip, it's fantastic. But people are fixating on it not being the same as it's been done before.

 

[CGHulk]

The movie could be that big, but it certainly doesn't need to be.

See I think this is some of the greatest music ever written, I wish that it could be presented on screen as loud and amazing like the old Hollywood musicals deservedly did so, long ago.

 

[danoyse]

See I think this is some of the greatest music ever written, I wish that it could be presented on screen as loud and amazing like the old Hollywood musicals deservedly did so, long ago.

And the fact that we've spent nearly a year hearing how the songs were going to performed live and differently from the way movie musicals are usually done didn't prepare you for the songs to sound the way they are now?

It sounds like you're just listening to the volume and not paying attention the lyrics or what's happening in the scene.

 

[RayB]

The more I watch these clips, the more I like them. Especially the At the End of the Day one. The acting looks pretty great by everybody IMO.

 

[CaptainCanada]

The style of old Hollywood musicals hasn't aged very well (and they were mostly musical comedies, rather than musical dramas, anyway).

 

[danoyse]

I just noticed how much Hugh is sweating in the "Who Am I?" clip. In the novel, Valjean was so terrified about confessing and being sent back to prison that his hair turned completely white on the way to the courtroom. He looks just about as scared in that clip.

 

[Anita18]

See I think this is some of the greatest music ever written, I wish that it could be presented on screen as loud and amazing like the old Hollywood musicals deservedly did so, long ago.

IMO the only song that deserves a huge chorus standing up on stage singing together at the audience is "Do You Hear The People Sing?" And in real life, the barricade was manned by a fairly small group of students so it's hard to say how big they'll make it on screen.

I don't agree that such a treatment is deserved for the firing of a factory girl. Heck, the setting of "Look Down" is way more cinematic than the stage could ever hope for.

Making a chorus big for the sake of being big can backfire. My boss saw the movie adaptation of Rent (he'd never seen the musical) and thought that all the protagonists were spoiled a-holes because the entire block just up and refused to pay their rent in "Rent." I had to explain to him that in the musical, it's only a trio of friends who refused to pay their rent, because they were renting from an old friend who PROMISED they could stay there rent-free. And he was breaking his promise to them. In making the song unnecessarily big, they did a grave disservice to the story and characters. Even when I was watching the movie myself, I was like, "Just what the heck are they doing??"

 

[danoyse]

Making a chorus big for the sake of being big can backfire. My boss saw the movie adaptation of Rent (he'd never seen the musical) and thought that all the protagonists were spoiled a-holes because the entire block just up and refused to pay their rent in "Rent." I had to explain to him that in the musical, it's only a trio of friends who refused to pay their rent, because they were renting from an old friend who PROMISED they could stay there rent-free. And he was breaking his promise to them. In making the song unnecessarily big, they did a grave disservice to the story and characters.

Or that Mark acted like a whiner because he thought getting a job meant that he was selling out, when in the musical it was explained that it was a sleazy tabloid show and that he hated the actual job, not having a job.

Cutting Halloween and the reprise of Goodbye Love made no sense whatsover. Neither did taking the sung dialogue and turning it into spoken dialogue without making any changes to the dialogue, making it sound ridiculous. Or moving the year back to 1989, while leaving in a Thelma & Louise reference. God, that movie...

I have it on DVD just for the documentary (a few of my friends are in it).

 

[DACrowe]

See I think this is some of the greatest music ever written, I wish that it could be presented on screen as loud and amazing like the old Hollywood musicals deservedly did so, long ago.

Depends. I think it worked for some (Seven Brides, My Fair Lady, Singin' in the Rain), but sometimes, they fall flat despite being theatre royalty--Oklahoma! immediately springs to mind--and it doesn't quite work.

I think Sondheim said it best when he praised Burton's adaptation of Sweeney Todd, "He didn't make a movie based on the stage production, but a great movie based on the written musical material."

It's a fine line, but it can be walked. And it is why for me ST could work so well and POTO or The Producers fell so flat. I think they are walking that line, but going for something bigger than Burton, with Les Mis. And they should, as the story is an epic. But they are keeping in mind that it is a movie that should not be beholden to the stage show. At least, that is what it looks like they are going for.

 

[DACrowe]

Or that Mark acted like a whiner because he thought getting a job meant that he was selling out, when in the musical it was explained that it was a sleazy tabloid show and that he hated the actual job, not having a job.

Cutting Halloween and the reprise of Goodbye Love made no sense whatsover. Neither did taking the sung dialogue and turning it into spoken dialogue without making any changes to the dialogue, making it sound ridiculous. Or moving the year back to 1989, while leaving in a Thelma & Louise reference. God, that movie...

I have it on DVD just for the documentary (a few of my friends are in it).

I agree they should have left in "Goodbye Love's" reprise. It would OK, for me, the fact that they didn't let Mark and Roger sing up to that point, because they were skirting around their real feelings until "Goodbye Love." Instead, it disservices their characters. "Halloween," while a great song, didn't fit the pace of a film, so I can see why that was cut. It is a random character aside between two major songs that would feel awkward with its own scene on screen.

As for setting it in 1989? Eh. Ignoring the lyric, it is certainly a pre-Gulliani set story. At least, I always thought so.

 

[danoyse]

I agree they should have left in "Goodbye Love's" reprise. It would OK, for me, the fact that they didn't let Mark and Roger sing up to that point, because they were skirting around their real feelings until "Goodbye Love." Instead, it disservices their characters. "Halloween," while a great song, didn't fit the pace of a film, so I can see why that was cut. It is a random character aside between two major songs that would feel awkward with its own scene on screen.

As for setting it in 1989? Eh. Ignoring the lyric, it is certainly a pre-Gulliani set story. At least, I always thought so.

I didn't have a problem with it being set in 1989, it's just that they did it without realizing that one of the songs made a reference to a film that came out in the 90s. It's like from what we've seen of Les Miz so far, they've tweaked the lyrics to fit the setting, and Rent didn't bother to do that.

I love Halloween, but I get why it was cut. But Goodbye Love's cut, I agree, did a complete disservice to the story and the characters. It burns me more that the scene was actually filmed, and it's great (I'd post it here, but there's some language). It's never made sense that it was cut.

 

[narrows101]

I just noticed how much Hugh is sweating in the "Who Am I?" clip. In the novel, Valjean was so terrified about confessing and being sent back to prison that his hair turned completely white on the way to the courtroom. He looks just about as scared in that clip.

I noticed that too! And from an account of an extra,

Spoiler

when he enters the courtroom, he belts out 24601!!!

You can totally see the anguish in his face!!!

 

[CGHulk]

And the fact that we've spent nearly a year hearing how the songs were going to performed live and differently from the way movie musicals are usually done didn't prepare you for the songs to sound the way they are now?

It sounds like you're just listening to the volume and not paying attention the lyrics or what's happening in the scene.

I've known what this scene is about for 17 years.

 

[danoyse]

I've been listening to the song for 17 years now of course I know what the lyrics are about and the scene.

And the most important part is that there need to be more extras in the scene?

 

[CGHulk]

Now that I think about it more it's the sound of the live recordings that I don't like. Yes I've known about that they were singing the songs live for some time. I was just waiting to hear what it sounded like. If you sing in a small room without proper acoustics the recording sounds like you are in a small room. When the camera is farther from you the microphone is too, you sound differently than a camera close up shot, which explains why there's so many closeup shots in this film. Explains why Hugh sounds differently in the wider shot where he's packing his bag than the close up camera shots. The ladies singing don't sound so good because the ones in the back sound farther from the mic. That's why I like the polished studio recordings. You sound good even if you are singing in a trash can.

 

[Anita18]

So on OhNoTheyDidn't, the girls are also b**ching about the songs not being sung fully through.

BUT OMG THIS COMMENT SLAYED ME.

russell crowe sounds like a bucket hitting the side of a well as it comes up from his fountain of phlegm

 

[narrows101]

So on OhNoTheyDidn't, the girls are also b**ching about the songs not being sung fully through.

BUT OMG THIS COMMENT SLAYED ME.

These people slay me. Wait until they find out some lyrics have been changed, songs shortened and songs moved around.

I loved Russell in that clip - he certainly looks and sounds menacing to me! Look at the way he just got up into JVJ's face with that threatening voice!

 

[danoyse]

These people slay me. Wait until they find out some lyrics have been changed, songs shortened and songs moved around.

I loved Russell in that clip - he certainly looks and sounds menacing to me! Look at the way he just got up into JVJ's face with that threatening voice!

I'm waiting for the ones who complain about Gavroche being Eponine's brother...even though that's what how it was in the book.

 

[Pink Ranger]

I'm waiting for the ones who complain about Gavroche being Eponine's brother...even though that's what how it was in the book.

You mean the novelization of the musical written by some hack named Victor Hugo?

 

[danoyse]

You mean the novelization of the musical written by some hack named Victor Hugo?

That's the one. Who does he think he is, Stephanie Meyer?

 

[narrows101]

Hugh, Russell and Anne on Today Show Australia - a bit of Lovely Ladies, and we hear Hugh belt out 2-4-6-0-1!!!

http://video.au.msn.com/watch/video...tter%2cdest_en-au&src=v5%3ashare%3atwitter%3a

Also, cast on Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood tomorrow.

 

[Angel_Faerie]

Chills!

Hugh has always been the cast member I had pretty much no doubts with whatsoever. I'm still mildly shaky about "Bring Him Home", since it's in such a high key, but everyone who was on set the day it was filmed had nothing but praise on Twitter. Dude's gonna nail it. t:

Russell, however....I mean, he definitely has a strong, threatening presence, and his voice isn't awful, but I'm really worried about "Stars" and "Javert's Soliloquy" aka "Sue's Side" (so nicknamed by Russell)

 

[JP]

Fantastic!

 

[DACrowe]

Now that I think about it more it's the sound of the live recordings that I don't like. Yes I've known about that they were singing the songs live for some time. I was just waiting to hear what it sounded like. If you sing in a small room without proper acoustics the recording sounds like you are in a small room. When the camera is farther from you the microphone is too, you sound differently than a camera close up shot, which explains why there's so many closeup shots in this film. Explains why Hugh sounds differently in the wider shot where he's packing his bag than the close up camera shots. The ladies singing don't sound so good because the ones in the back sound farther from the mic. That's why I like the polished studio recordings. You sound good even if you are singing in a trash can.

I can respect your opinion on preferring studio cuts, but distance from camera has nothing to do with it. Sound is recorded separately from picture and the mics are likely right above the actors (or beneath).

As for the rest of the thread, I'm not going to jump on the loving Russell Crowe's singing wagon. I think he is serviceable in the film and for what Hooper is going for, but it is not a very good voice, in my opinion.