Les Miserables

I got a lot to say about this movie. But first, I have to admit I was a bit confused by the revolution. Did anyone understand this?

• Step 1: Block streets with furniture.
• Step 2: ?
• Step 3: Freedom!

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice. 

that makes me dislike the movie a bit. IMO, when doing a movie based on a stage musical,  you should try to get as close to the original stage production as possible.   I hate it when Hollywood makes unnecessary changes to stage musicals.   Why fix what isn't broken?   The stage musical was a hit with the song it's original spot, no need to movie.   I think one the objectives when bringing a stage  musical to the movie screen is to preserve the original stage production for future generations.   

Other think that always irks me is how the movie cast is almost always inferior to the stage cast.   Les Miserables seems to be no exception to this rule.    The movie should have been made years ago, staring Colm Wilkinson as Jean Valjean.     

Warbler said:

that makes me dislike the movie a bit. IMO, when doing a movie based on a stage musical,  you should try to get as close to the original stage production as possible.   I hate it when Hollywood makes unnecessary changes to stage musicals.  

TheBoost said:

 

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice.

 

I'm not someone who's familiar with the stage version at all, but the placement of that song in the film makes so much more sense, in my mind, than its apparent placement in the stage musical.

Also, what's the point of doing a movie if it's going to be exactly the same as the stage show? 

Also, stage acting and film acting are very different. 

DominicCobb said:

Also, what's the point of doing a movie if it's going to be exactly the same as the stage show? 

to preserve the show for future generations.  To make it more accessible.   If it put into movie form,  it means one can buy it when it is released on blu-ray and watch it whenever one wants.   One does not need to try to find a stage production someone and buy what could be an expensive ticket.  

DominicCobb said:

Also, stage acting and film acting are very different. 

Sorry,  I have never been able to buy this,  at least when we are talking about bringing a stage production to the big screen.    You can not possibly tell me that Colm Wilkinson would not do well staring as Jean Valjean in movie version of the musical.     He was great in the role on the stage and he'd be singing the same songs, saying the same lines,  doing the same things, as he did on stage.   Why could he not do on the screen what he did on the stage?

There are many examples of the same actor reprising a role on the big screen that he did on the stage and doing with success.    Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady.   Yul Brynner in the King and I.    William Daniels in 1776.    There are many examples of a Broadway stage actor/actress moving to movies with big success.   Julie Andrews anyone?     

I seen it work before,  just almost the entire cast of the movie version of 1776 were from the Broadway show.   It worked there,  I would bet all my money that Colm Wilkinson would work in the movie version of Les Miserables.

TheBoost said:

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice. 

Hmm, I probably sound like a whining purist, but that is annoying that they moved it around. It served well for the millions of people who have seen the stage performance over the years.

DominicCobb said:

Also, what's the point of doing a movie if it's going to be exactly the same as the stage show? 

Because a lot of people don't get the opportunity to go see live musicals. I mean, you are adapting the musical, why not leave it in its original form?

Wow!!  for once I find myself in complete agreement with CP3S!!!   The World must be coming to an end!!!!

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

TheBoost said:

So, the movie moved Anne Hathaway's song "I'm So Damn Sad, Dear God I'm Sad" from after she looses her job (which would make me sad) where it is in the stage musical,  until...

SPOILERS ALERT

...after she becomes a bald toothless prostitute (which would make me sadder). Seems a solid dramatic choice. 

Kinda weird that Ann would sing a song about being so darn sad in a story called Les Miserables. ;)

Honestly, that sounds like a better position for the song to me.

It seems to me there's a fundamentally different way we experience film vs a stage show. For example, the camera. 

Russell Crowe's singing wasn't great, but because he could express he character in close-ups, like he was singing right at us from three feet away, it was far more acceptable than it would have been in a stage show, where he could never get away singing that softly. 

Also, movies are experiences as a series of scenes, when a stage musical is a series of musical numbers. IIRC, in the stage Les Miz, the young students sing the rousing anthem "Red and Black" followed almost immediately by the rousing anthem "Angry Men." 

On stage it's two big numbers.

On a screen it's one really really long scene.

On top of that, the film could stage a huge riot in the streets,that couldn't be staged, one that serves as a swell point to sing the "Angry Men" song, so splitting those numbers and moving "Angry Men" to the next day IMHO worked quite well. 

Anyone better with singing words than me can help.

Is Hugh Jackman a baritone, who tried to sing tenor in this movie? His speaking voice is so much deeper than his singing voice.

I've not seen it, so I cannot comment on the film itself. However, my dad is a great singer (not lying when I tell you he was once a part of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir back in the '60s). His speaking voice is certainly deeper than mine, but he can sing higher and more powerfully than I can (and while not of his caliber, I'm a pretty good and somewhat trained singer). So it is reasonable.

I actually learned a great deal of French history trying to figure out what part of France's long miserable Revolution(s) this flick took place during.

darth_ender said:

I've not seen it, so I cannot comment on the film itself. However, my dad is a great singer (not lying when I tell you he was once a part of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir back in the '60s). His speaking voice is certainly deeper than mine, but he can sing higher and more powerfully than I can (and while not of his caliber, I'm a pretty good and somewhat trained singer). So it is reasonable.

I learned a lot about singing by hearing various interviews with fantasy author Tracy Hickman, about his audition process trying to make it in the Tabernacle Choir.

On a side note, I wish someday a horrible fight breaks out there, just so the news headlines would read "Slobberknocker in the Tabernacle!" 

DominicCobb said:

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

I have seen any, and I am certain none exist of the broadway cast.   Yeah, they did those concerts, but that was just them up on stage in costume singing the songs.   They were not actual performances of the show. 

DominicCobb said:

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

Sorry, not buying it.  Give me one instance of someone who was great on stage, who reprized a stage role on the screen that didn't work.     

TheBoost said:

On top of that, the film could stage a huge riot in the streets,that couldn't be staged, one that serves as a swell point to sing the "Angry Men" song, so splitting those numbers and moving "Angry Men" to the next day IMHO worked quite well. 

so they made even more changes.   Who was in charge of this?  George Lucas?   I think this just became a rental for me.   Don't want to give them anymore money than I have to.    Very depressing.  what could have been.

darth_ender said:

I've not seen it, so I cannot comment on the film itself. However, my dad is a great singer (not lying when I tell you he was once a part of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir back in the '60s).

Wow!  you have to be good to do that.    very impressive. 

I know.  It's hard not to brag on my parents, and that's only half the story.  He met my mother during a carpool to practice...because she was in it too.  I swear it's true!

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

I have seen any, and I am certain none exist of the broadway cast.   Yeah, they did those concerts, but that was just them up on stage in costume singing the songs.   They were not actual performances of the show. 

Sorry, I was unaware. Still, I feel the movie is not obligated to show the play exactly as is just because there is no recorded performance of the play itself.

DominicCobb said:

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

Sorry, not buying it.  Give me one instance of someone who was great on stage, who reprized a stage role on the screen that didn't work.     

Not buying what? Stage and screen acting are different and that is a fact. I assume you're not buying that they can't make that switch. Well, unfortunately, I am not well versed in theater history, though I do remember, when I saw this film, actually, my aunt, a huge broadway fan (and a part-time stage actress herself) was talking about someone who wasn't able to make that transition. Yeah, I know, it doesn't really matter because I don't have a name, but I am certain she knew what she was talking about, and that there are others.

Think about silent film actors. I think it's actually a similar situation. It was a different type of acting, and almost none of the silent film stars successfully crossed into talkies.

darth_ender said:

I know.  It's hard not to brag on my parents, and that's only half the story.  He met my mother during a carpool to practice...because she was in it too.  I swear it's true!

Wow, you got good singers in your bloodline.   You in any choir?   I was in my church choir for a couple years until our choir director quit, the choir basically ended.  Its a shame,  we a had a great choir.   They even did a record once.   And man, could they do a number on The Hallelujah Chorus.   Unfortunately, that did not make it onto the record.  But the Battle Hymn Of The Republic did.  It almost sounds as good as the Mormon Tabernacle Choir,  almost.   Then sometime it the late 80's the choir began dwindle.  I guess older members began to die out and the younger rock and roll generation didn't want to join.   When I joined, the choir was a mere shadow of its former self, *sigh*  as is the rest of my church.   It used to be a classic traditional church.   All the men dressed in suits and ties, women wore their Sunday best and some even wore hats(and I am not talking about baseball caps), we sang the old hymns, we read out of the KJV version of the Bible, and the congregation was huge(especially on Easter Sunday).    Now you can go there on Sunday in a tee shirt and jeans(I of course never do that),  we the NIV version of the Bible.   We do Christian Rock in the 10:45 AM contemporary service and and traditional songs at what we call the 'traditional'  service at 8:30 AM.   The traditional service in the one I attend, most of the people that go to service are elderly.   Very few young people attend that service.    I have feeling the traditional service won't go on for much longer.   When more of the older members die out, they will probably get rid the traditional service.  Also during the contemporary service they use a movie screen to put the words to song on and such.   It blocks a beautiful old stained glass window we called the Rose Window.  It used to be the symbol of our church.  It is pictured on the album cover of the record I referred to earlier.  The movie screen caused a lot of fights in my church, as did a lot of the changes.  Many long time members left.  Even combined totally of people that show up to both services isn't anywhere near the number of people we had at the church when I was a child.   Like I said, a mere shadow of its former self.  If my family didn't go there, and if this wasn't the church  I grew up in, I might leave as well.   very sad and depressing.   Sorry for going on and on like this.  

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

The reason is because there are recorded performances of the actual musical. 

I have seen any, and I am certain none exist of the broadway cast.   Yeah, they did those concerts, but that was just them up on stage in costume singing the songs.   They were not actual performances of the show. 

Sorry, I was unaware. Still, I feel the movie is not obligated to show the play exactly as is just because there is no recorded performance of the play itself.

couldn't disagree with you more.

DominicCobb said:

DominicCobb said:

And, yeah, some actors can make the change from stage to screen, I'm not saying they can't. But stage and screen acting are fundamentally different. When you're on stage, your acting towards the back of the house. When your on screen, your acting towards the camera that's right in front of you. That's a different type of acting.

Sorry, not buying it.  Give me one instance of someone who was great on stage, who reprized a stage role on the screen that didn't work.     

Not buying what? Stage and screen acting are different and that is a fact. I assume you're not buying that they can't make that switch. Well, unfortunately, I am not well versed in theater history, though I do remember, when I saw this film, actually, my aunt, a huge broadway fan (and a part-time stage actress herself) was talking about someone who wasn't able to make that transition. Yeah, I know, it doesn't really matter because I don't have a name, but I am certain she knew what she was talking about, and that there are others.

Think about silent film actors. I think it's actually a similar situation. It was a different type of acting, and almost none of the silent film stars successfully crossed into talkies.

that is because they didn't have a good voice.   In silent movies you don't have to talk, in regular movies you do.    I think it is altogether different.    Both stage and screen visual and audio.   If a someone was excellent in a role on the stage,  I see no reason why they would be terrible saying the same lines, singing the same sounds, do all the same things, on the screen.   I just don't get and I doubt I ever will.

Tobar said:

*wanders in and grumbles something about Liam Neeson being better*

*wanders out*

*locks the door after Tobar leaves*

I attended a rather musical two year college and was in their concert and dance choirs as well as the men's quartet for a time (not all three at the same time).  I truly enjoyed it and miss those days.  Man I wish someone would upload one of our songs.  Maybe I'll do it myself one of these days.  Frankly, I was disappointed with our quartet, mostly because our lead would always go flat and bring us down in pitch.  I remember we were going to sing a four part arrangement of "This is the Moment" from Jeckyll and Hyde, but we only performed it twice in small settings rather than in the big concerts because we couldn't keep pitch.  I sang the tenor part and had to hit some wonderfully high notes in falsetto.  I loved it, but I could always hear him dragging us down and therefore my notes weren't quite so high.  I was really disappointed.  But we had some decent pieces.

Sorry to hear about your church choir, Warb.  Always sad when those things dwindle.  Traditional choirs are an amazing thing.