ONE DAY MORE - complete song from film

[baerenjunge]

I'm a big fan of the show yet I knew that I'd have to lower my expectations somewhat given that film actors don't always come into these projects with trained voices. Of what little I've seen (including this clip), here's what I can offer...

The only true weak links to me are Crowe and Seyfried.

Russell Crowe is singing completely from the head with an awkward pressed phonation. There is some chest voice participation, but he's not supporting his breath from anywhere but the head, neck and shoulders...a real NO-NO in singing whether it's musicals OR opera. The diaphragm is key. His vocal coach seems to have tamped down the rock aspect of his voice somewhat, but he could have stood to try singing more lyrical. Hopefully his "Stars" will have more lyrical phrasing.

Amanda Seyfried seems to struggle with range and breathing...and the latter could do *some* good for the former. She clearly isn't breathing from the diaphragm, and there seems to be lots of constriction in the throat (larynx). I've heard rumors that she doesn't quite master the high tessitura of the other parts of the role, and this could be why. Also, it may have just been a character choice (being separated from Marius), but she looks very pained throughout, as if the struggle to sing is registering on her face more than the acting choice.

As for the others...

Hugh Jackman's vocal coach should have been smacked for not encouraging him to have rounder vowels near the top of his range. He's got this habit (not just here, but in other shows) to sing through his nose and not open his mouth enough. The higher declamations of "one day more!!!" suffer from too much engagement of the nasal passages. That's my main beef with him. He seems great otherwise.

For those commenting on Eddie Redmayne's Kermit-the-Frog voice, I think you might be onto something. It sounds as if his larynx is slightly raised, which opera singers refer to as a "Knödel" (german for "dumpling") as if the singer has a dumpling stuck in their throat. I'm not too worried about it though. His upper range is mostly fine.

Samantha (and likely the musical director + director) made the wise choice to cut back on the belting of certain phrases. Aaron is adequate, maybe not as stirring as a stage Enjolras, but this is film and we don't want "Producers" film-style acting, do we? Sacha and Helena are just fine, at least in what little we see.

All of this said, I will try to keep an open mind as much as possible. I want this to be good...but I'm also realistic.

[Joviedamian]

I am starting to feel this is just more of a movie with music in it, rather than a movie musical. Like they say, it's simply a play with music.

[Owen22]

Oh Dave19. I'm guessing you are actually 19 as you misread (purposely?) or misinterpreted what I wrote. Read it again.

As obviously did Henrick. I could give a rat's ass if you are "polite" or not. I don't even really care that much you're such a negative nellie. And if you want to think this is just about my disagreeing with you about a clip I haven't even seen or commented on (!), you go right ahead.

[JP2]

"I am starting to feel this is just more of a movie with music in it, rather than a movie musical. Like they say, it's simply a play with music."

Only it's 99.9% sung through.

[Kad]

Yeah, I'm not getting the people saying this isn't a musical, this isn't an adaptation of the musical, etc.

[Rabekriegerin]

I was afraid to watch this clip after some of the comments here. But I bit the bullet and watched. And you know what? - I loved it. No, it was not the embodiment of perfection by any means, but it was real, it compelled me, it built properly, and nothing made me wince or took me out of the moment.

Fears eased; I am going to enjoy seeing this in theaters. Yes, I am going to enjoy it very much.

[My Oh My]

I'm scared ****less to watch the clip.

So I'm not. And waiting for...for...*dies*

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

I watched the clip tonight and I actually think I like it more than when I first saw it in the movie.

[SporkGoddess]

Amanda Seyfried also isn't opening her mouth enough. You have to really relax the jaw to hit those high notes.

[WestEndAndy]

I think it is superb. I held out for three days against watching it, but curiosity got the better of me. I am glad I did look, as I was starting to worry after some of the negativity on this thread and others.

What the clip shows is that this film is not just a film of the stage show. The numbers have been rethought in cinematic terms. There is more emphasis in telling the story. The song builds from a hushed, dreamy opening to a climax every bit as powerful and epic as the original stage version. The cutaways are edited pretty seamlessly into the master shot, which surprisingly is not Valjean's POV but Javert's. That works. The Thenadiers have a nice laconic cynicism which promises well for the complete movie. It is true that Jackmann sounds vocally strained (tired?) and there are some very iffy vowels. I am not sure that he holds attention peering fretfully from his carriage window, but at least it moves the story on. One Day More is, after all, a travelling song as well as a huge collective 'I want ' from the entire company.

Far from being a mess, the final part is as effective, stirring and satisfying as it could be, given that its purpose is to keep you seated rather than to send you off to the Circle Bar in a state of uplift.

Roll on January 11th, when we in the UK get the chance to see it.

[MrMidwest]

I sort of wish Eddie Redmayne played all of the roles, just so I could watch his lips undulate for 2 1/2 hours.

[daisybeetle]

Amanda is completely drowned out at the end. Couldn't they have given her a stronger mic or something? It's an important voice, at least at all the performances of Les Miz I've seen.

[My Oh My]

Just saw this clip now.

It was the one part I was most nervous about because, trust me, after so many years as a fan, I've dreamt up all sorts of ways to translate this showstopping number to the screen, never really having thought up one way that would totally satisfy me and meet up to these expectations:

"One Day More," London, Queens Theatre, 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M_a5cWts_w

One thing I've always thought essential to the impact this first act finale has on its audience, is the fluid movement and infectious marching. But I also know the marching is always taken to be a bit...dancey, by some and know reproducing the way it is carried out onstage would never work, so I never tried to imagine it the way they did it onstage, in a screen adaptation.

I think the way it turned out under Hooper's direction is the happy medium between that stagey ooomph! and more low-key, reality-based film treatment. The theatre lover in me still wishes they could have at least had everyone marching toward the camera, maybe pump their fists in the air, as they pass it as it continues filming a few seconds. But that would be deemed too choreographed to some, I'm sure.

I like it, and now I see what people meant by it being underwhelming. Of course it's underwhelming compared to the overall impact of the stage version I posted above, but let's make it clear that the stage version is THAT amazing and causes such an impact because it is just that...a staged version, and you can do things on stage that you can't anywhere else. That's why we all LOVE the stage, yes? =)

I say it isn't as overwhelmingly awesome as on stage, but in its adaptation still achieves a great impact. I love the shot of all those people standing behind the cause, with the dilapidated city looking as though it can barely stand. That did it for me. Bravo, senor Hooper!

[My Oh My]

"Far from being a mess, the final part is as effective, stirring and satisfying as it could be, given that its purpose is to keep you seated rather than to send you off to the Circle Bar in a state of uplift."

Didn't get to your post until after I wrote mine above, but I was agreeing with you wholeheartedly until the above quote made me head-scratch. :S

But I'm not one to strike a contorted, confuzzled look and leave it at that, and after reading that last bit again, what I'm getting from you is you're saying the film version flows onto the next scene seamlessly (keep your butt on the seat), in place of providing a showstopping Ooomph! like the stage version does, and does so since it is an act one finale, after which is intermission and then run-to-the-bar-for-a-cocktail time? Correct?

Or did you mean, this isn't the blasted stage version, which is only interested in making you feel uplifted, whereas the movie is interested in telling you a story!!

I think I know which one you meant, but you never know!