russell crowe

[Kad]

It's just too advanced for me.

[bryan2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSDgXERsPDA

[My Oh My]

They seem to be using mostly John Cameron's original orchestration, which is great, and have slipped in bits of the new crap, which I will never be able to wrap my mind around the rationale of choosing any part of it over the far richer original.

But I'm willing to compromise and am happy most of it in those clips so far (a good 85%) are the original orchestrations. Sad that they cut the beautiful original violin;viola;cello;and double bass string section from "On My Own" and have a single cello and viola in its place.

I actually like the funky little woodwind thing they added to "At the End of the Day." I'm almost certain they will use the new orchs for "Master of the House," one of the most badly reorchestrated songs in the show.

[Joviedamian]

Does anyone know the male actor's name that sings to Fantine and later throws her out? I feel like I have seen him before!

[westcoast_wannabe]

Michael Jibson

[Dave19]

Kad, is it too advanced for you too, to understand that people can cry after watching the clips of Anne Hathaway?

[Kad]

That isn't even what I was talking about. I was talking about your ridiculous analysis of the performance of actors in a film you have not even seen. Based on some short clips and trailer material. Given how you've managed to turn every sung word over and over, I don't think there is any way you'll actually enjoy this film. You've already made up your mind.

If your bar for the success of these performance is "Can they evoke tears in an out-of-context clip?", I'd say don't even bother going.

[Plum]

And there's why I'm trying very hard to resist looking at the clips. Songs in movie musicals - okay, musicals in general - often work because they're greater than the sum of their parts. Like, "Pretty Women" in the Sweeney Todd movie? I enjoyed the hell out of that number in the movie theater. Once I listened to it on the OST, though, it became a disappointment. Context and visuals were needed to make it beautiful.

Now, the "Pretty Women" in the OBC of Sweeney stands up perfectly well without visuals for me, and is better overall. But that doesn't mean that the movie version should be totally dismissed as crap. It worked in its context. So basically, I'm trying to resist my usual urge to gather any and all information and spoilers I can get my paws on, because I don't want to preemptively be disappointed in musical numbers presented on a tiny YouTube screen and laptop speakers with no context coming before.

Or at least that's what I tell myself so I can stop from clicking those links for another 23 days. :P

(My WAG, for what it's worth - which isn't much - is that Les Mis will end up being maybe a half-step above Sweeney quality. Which I mean as a compliment! I haven't been entirely satisfied by any movie musical of the post-Chicago era, but that one probably came closest, in large part because it wasn't ashamed or self-consciously po-mo about what it was. Les Mis looks similarly confident in its way, and I appreciate that.)

[jasonf]

I have to say that I watched the clips on my computer and was taken aback a bit by how "actory" they seemed. I realized though that they were just that - clips - so it's hard to judge. I was at a friends' house last night who has a HUGE Apple TV with a killer sound system. We put on the "At the End of the Day" clip and the problems I had on the small screen were gone. It looked like a MOVIE. I really think showing clips like this does a disservice to the material. Wait for the movie - I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised.

[jimmycurry01]

Kad, you are correct, Dave19 made up his mind about this film several moths ago when he first saw the trailer recorded by cell phone on someone's computer screen. He will never enjoy this film, and should probably steer clear of it altogether. He seems to constantly fail to understand the difference between screen acting and stage acing, despite constantly claiming the opposite.

Chances are he is a high school kid, or a young theatre student with a highly idealized view of what acting should be. His opinions seem to be largely inexperienced and misguided since they are based on minute long clips, but they are his opinions none the less. I just wish I was able to push a block button so that I quit reading them by accident.

[Dave19]

Kad, I'm not talking about clips that should move people to tears, but I'm talking about the "tension arc" created by believability. And that believability in this format happens to depend on the craft: acting through singing.

So if 2 out of 4 scentences in a scene do feel fake/acted/disconnected from emotion, because the singing feels like a tric, that's a shame and yes, that can be seen in a few scenes.

[Dave19]

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.

[nasty_khakis]

It very well could be these aren't the FINAL mixes. After hearing Hooper talk about the intricate process of recording the live vocals and adding the orchestra later it's possible it isn't all done and finalized yet. These do sound thin for the 80-100 pieces I read about them using. Throw on top that Hooper claims he just finished editing the night before the first screening I can bet this isn't the final sound mix.