Musical & Stage Show Reviews / Recommendations Discussion (Non-Pxxn)(Compiled)

[oralb]

[Les Misérables] – As if the director trying to compensate those who went for the musical and had to settled for a far view, the movie gave endless scenes of the characters’ closed-up. The make-up, the pores and the freckles were all seen all too clearly in the digital screen.

I never did like the book from Victor Hugo, it was simply too depressing, too dry and humor-less, not something that was easily to read. The musical, on the other hand, was a good lyrical interpretation of the book that is widely considered one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century. For that, the musical becomes one of the most well-known musical ever staged.

Hence it was rather regrettable that the 2012 film focused on bringing the musical to the big screen, instead of the theatrical version of the book. The pace was rather uneven; the beginning was almost on fast forward, going from one musical number to another. I would prefer to see the nicer setup of the emotion to the songs instead of being treated like watching MTV channel with different songs played one after another.

The movie was also extremely realistic so much that it gave the surrealistic feel of the before revolution France. Personally I would like to see a little more theater representation in the movie, for example having the shadows of his past comrades on the wall while Marius lamenting on the loss of his friends and his sprit. Then again, this is director Tom Hooper’s vision to create a realistic world, including the frequent closed-up takes to bring the manner of intimacy and emotion to the audiences.

In addition, the performance by the leads was the saving grace of this film, Hugh Jackman showed the conflict and dilemma faced by Jean Valjean, Anne Hathaway as the destitute Fantine brought tears to the audiences’ eyes. The 2 solo performances by Anne Hathaway and Samantha Banks as the sacrificial Eponine were done in one non-stop take that should garner them praises.

Typically, the soundtrack for a movie musical is recorded several months in advance and the actors mime to playback during filming. However, on this film, every single song was recorded live on set to capture the spontaneity of the performances ; something no director has ever done before.. That kinda explained Russell Crowe’s less than perfect performance while Anne Hathaway was simply outstanding in her rendition of “I Dream a Dream” .

Another unique part of this movie: “The actors wore ear pieces which fed the sound of a live piano being played off-stage, to keep their singing in key. The main novelty here is, there's no count-in or predetermined tempo and the piano is following the pacing of the actor, not the other way around - a first for a filmed musical. Orchestral music was added post-production.”

[oralb]

[luke84]

well, trying very hard not to say any spoilers:

the first hour is very emotional with waves and waves of emotional impacts hitting at me.

and for the ending of Russell Crowe...I can feel the helplessness when one's world collapse, one's belief fall and in order to salvage it.. he chooses to end it in such a impact-ful way..

it is definitely a nice show..

heard the cast sang live and the male cast sang reasonably well.. but Anne hathaway was amazing haha!

love her singing since Ella Enchanted!

Edited December 29, 2012 by luke84

[MobyDick]

I agree on Anne Hathaway's performance and hope she will win the best supporting actress. I love the younger cosette's (Isabelle Allen) performance.

Edited December 29, 2012 by MobyDick

[gstc82]

Anne"s I dream a Dream and Samantha Barks" On My Own are worth the admission ticket. These two scenes are my fAv, simple, raw, no distractions. Perfect. Anne"s rendition of I Dream A Dream destroyed Susan Boyle"s inspiring version forever, its heart wrenching, emotionally depressing n draining. Simply perfect. Mind you, it correctly shown Paris in the 1800s as it was.

Edited December 29, 2012 by gstc82

[jeeves]

Visual masterpiece. Love all the beautiful scenes.

The spirituality story itself is quite good, but not the major attraction.

I actually watched it twice, on 2D and 3D. Despite all the hype, it's still better watched on 2D, because the rich details of the scenic views become less focused when you put on 3D glasses.

The key of the story is to believe what you want to believe in.

The second story is the more logical of the two, which is akin to our understanding of life (or science, by extension). But of course our explanation of life is as limited as it can be, constraint within the capabilities and imaginations of human's brain.

The first story, however, gives the character more peace of mind, akin to the presence of God. Be it the presence of God to rescue you in his own magical way (if the whole story is the real one) or as a construct of your own mind's creation to free you from guilt (if the second story of him having to kill the Frenchman is the real one).

Ahhh ok!

[Guest stbrianud]

Anne Hathaway was the main reason I wanted to watch it. I loved her since princess diaries and she was amazing in batman. Anyways she as expected, was amazing~ totally unbelievable. I'm probably gonna watch it again soon.

[bodybuildMLY]

Unfortunately, the movie pales to relive the real live musical theatre when it was performed on stage. Sorry to those who love Hathaway, but her singing can't capture the soul of the song, in comparison to the theaterical version. A bit short on each line, when her voice needs to lengthen at the appropriate point. Some of the scenes were pretty abrupt. Just like what my friend has recommended, watch the movie with e lens of a movie, not a musical. But those who have caught the musical, the movie may disappoints you...:-(

Edited December 29, 2012 by bodybuildMLY

[Guest Guest]

This article from SFGate sums it up pretty well:

Les Misérables

Musical drama. Starring

Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne. Directed by Tom Hooper. (PG-13. 157 minutes.)

At the heart of the "Les Misérables" movie was a good idea that just didn't work out this time. The idea was that the actors should sing their songs live on camera.

In almost every other musical you've ever seen, the actors lip-sync to a recorded track, but singing live offers the possibility for more risk and excitement, along with spontaneous acting moments that simply can't happen if an actor has to think about moving his lips a certain way. To some degree, director Tom Hooper ("

The King's Speech") got what he was looking for. Anne Hathaway's version of "I Dreamed a Dream," for example, is very in-the-moment, with an emotional freshness you rarely see in musicals.

But with every gain, there is a loss. Most of the songs in "Les Misérables" are contemplative - internal monologues that, translated to film, lend themselves to close-up. In close-up the actors sing as they would speak to someone close by, quietly and naturalistically. In the case of Hathaway, the close scrutiny takes the grandeur out of her big song, and though the quality of her acting is indisputable, she sobs through half of it. You know what they say on Broadway: When there are tears on the stage, there are dry eyes in the house.

Yet Hathaway thrives compared with Hugh Jackman, on whose performance as

Jean Valjean the entire film turns. As anyone who has ever heard him knows, Jackman, when he sings in full voice, has a high, pinging, pleasing tenor that's a precision instrument. It's a voice that can thrill an audience. But for most of "Les Misérables," he is in half voice, singing in close-up, and in half-voice Jackman is a disaster. His voice quavers and wobbles in and out of tune. There are times in "Les Misérables" where you might think the music is an experiment in atonal composition. But no, that's Jackman.

One measure of just how unmanned Jackman is by this restraint is that Russell Crowe, as Valjean's nemesis Inspector Javert, often sounds no worse than Jackman does, and Crowe can't sing to save his life. Crowe can act, however, and he can treat "Les Misérables" as though it were just another dramatic film, albeit with singing, which it is. That's a problem.

An adaptation of the stage musical, which was in turn adapted from the eponymous

Victor Hugo novel, "Les Misérables" tells the story of Valjean, who is released from prison having done time for stealing a loaf of bread. After he breaks the law again, he spends the rest of his life on the run, living under an assumed name and trying to escape the reach of Javert, who isn't cruel so much as infuriatingly unimaginative. His plodding, dogmatic adherence to the law is contrasted with Valjean's impulsive compassion, with Valjean emerging as the true (unconscious) Christian and Javert as the true (unconscious) monster.

Such a metaphysical story cries out for a heightened atmosphere, one that you might find in a stage musical. Unfortunately, the transplanting of material from one medium to another is always a delicate procedure, and sometimes the patient dies. In the case of "Les Misérables," film literalizes the story and makes maudlin or ridiculous that which might have seemed poetic on the stage. The notion of Valjean's having served time for stealing bread loses its metaphorical significance and seems more like a hard luck story that Valjean just won't stop harping on. Likewise, the young revolutionaries in Act II - hiding behind barricades and fighting the entire French army - don't seem like heroes so much as idiots getting themselves slaughtered for no good reason.

The cast is more than adequate - Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried as the young lovers,

Samantha Barks as the forlorn Eponine - but they're trapped within a design in which the characters seem to care more about their problems than the audience. Likewise, we might say nice things about Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as lowdown cockney innkeepers, but the real conversation we should be having is whether those characters should have been included in the movie at all.

We also might want to ask why all these French characters not only have English accents but are presented as stock British types. The French and the English are not exactly interchangeable, as we all know from the Middle Ages.

When

Bob Fosse made "Cabaret," he completely reimagined it for the screen. He threw out songs and added a song - "Maybe This Time" - and the result was a classic film. Hooper, by contrast, essentially blows out the stage "Les Misérables" into a big gorgeous blockbuster, but it's a straight conversion, such that you can still see the act break. He doesn't account for inconvenient details, for example that on screen, it's not wise to play the same scene over and over (e.g., Javert shows up, Valjean escapes). Nor is it a good idea to have three ballads in a row.

Fans of "Les Misérables" wouldn't have minded if the movie were different, but better, or just as effective. The screen version demanded some reconception, some vision to make sense of its existence. Instead, we're left with a film that is conscientious in all its particulars and yet strangely and mysteriously dead.

Read more:

http://www.sfgate.co...p#ixzz2GVxKBqRR

[bodybuildMLY]

This article from SFGate sums it up pretty well:

Read more: http://www.sfgate.co...p#ixzz2GVxKBqRR

Bravo to Guest. The article really sounds my experience and feelings towards the movie. As I mentioned this to my friend, I feel miserable after watching Les Miserables.

[kookiedough]

Happen to read this article, and it seems quite apt! http://poachedmag.com/2012/12/27/movie-review-les-miserables/

Plus all the jokes about being miserable has to stop.

[bodybuildMLY]

Happen to read this article, and it seems quite apt! http://poachedmag.co...les-miserables/

Plus all the jokes about being miserable has to stop.

Well, there are a few points to note:

(a) The whole movie was spoken in terms of songs and musical. Hence, for those who have watched Les Miserables in the theatre, they will already expect a certain level of musical standard, which the movie fails to depict,

(b) No doubt, Anne Hathaway acted very well in her role in the movie, but unfortunately it can be an arduous task to listen to the way she sang her lines due to the inability to have a good "feel" of the songs similar to the theatrical version.

Justapoxing the two reviews from the two website, both agree that the songs are not that great and poorly depicted in the movie. The former website of course, is against the movie as it is comparing between the theatrical version and the movie version. This is where I am coming from, and majority of those who have appreciated the theatrical version.

Whereas the latter website, it is for the movie version as the actors have so-called compensate the poorly sung tunes with the acting. Therefore, based on this review, it would be better if the movie version has normal conversation, hence no one will begin to compare one with the other.

Believe me, those who love the theatrical version will find the movie version to be a disappointment, and ending up as miserable as me. :(

Also, at the same time, I do not know whether this Guo Wei has watched the theatrical version. He has not done a comparison between both versions and drawing most of his critique from the movie itself...hmmmmm....

Edited December 30, 2012 by bodybuildMLY

[bodybuildMLY]

http://poachedmag.com/2012/12/27/movie-review-les-miserables/

Musicals are staged on the assumption that the audience draws their own inferences from the sets that maximise the effect of optical illusions and staging, due to the limitations of a physical stage. In addition, musical theatre in all its emotive glory, is still unable to translate intimacy and the depth of emotion to the audience due to the sheer distance from the stage. Hence, the onus is on the actors’ ringing voices and to a lesser extent, body language and exaggerated movements, to express their pain, joy, anger or sorrow.

Oh my, any theatrical student / professional will slam Guo Wei down with this. This is where a stage actor / actress really shows his / her talent on a stage through delivering emotions to the audience.

[MobyDick]

I guess it's all about expectations.. The movie pales in comparison to the musical but let's not forget they aren't professional stage actors. Imagine Susan Boyle as the role of Fantine. There are also audiences who expected more dialogue in this movie rather than 90% singing.

Singing raw/ live in a movie isn't easy as the mood differs from a musical..and you can't expect any NGs in the scene when Fantine cut her hair.

[bodybuildMLY]

I guess it's all about expectations.. The movie pales in comparison to the musical but let's not forget they aren't professional stage actors. Imagine Susan Boyle as the role of Fantine. There are also audiences who expected more dialogue in this movie rather than 90% singing.

Singing raw/ live in a movie isn't easy as the mood differs from a musical..and you can't expect any NGs in the scene when Fantine cut her hair.

Yeah, agree. 95% of the time it is singing. I think if it is a real movie, rather than a musical rendition, it will turn out great with those casts in them. Sadly, the musical really kills their ability to promote their acting skills in the movie. It just irritates me to figure if Hugh Jackman is talking, or singing at some points in the movie, and Anne Hathaway stopping short at certain points when she sings Dreamed A Dream. A real movie will definitely have a more positive review from me.

[blueb]

I guess it's a pretty ambitious task to translate this heavy piece of content into screen play, especially having been successfully known for its massive achievements done in the muscials. I agree with oralb, that it was be much more exciting to watch a theatrical version of the story, but I won't fault the director for trying to maintain the charms of its musical version with a twist by recording the actors live. Critically speaking, the transition could have been better, it seems rushed for this case in the first few parts, and it is rather mundane to hear the characters sing every scene.

Nonetheless, though Anne Hathaway is slightly too young and glamorous for the distraught role of Fantine, but her emotions definitely strung the chord with my tear ducts, for capturing something so raw and impactful. Having read that she did it all in one non-stop take, truly made me adore her even more.

[blueb]

just thought of sharing this, since it's related to the actors..

[Guest Pp]

I just don't understand why people like to compare this film version of Les Miz with the stages musical.

If you watched the theatre version of SPIDERMAN on broadway stage, do you also compare the special effects with what you can expect from the movies?

Please go into the cinema and enjoy the movie Les Miz. If you don't, too bad.

[gstc82]

I just don't understand why people like to compare this film version of Les Miz with the stages musical.

If you watched the theatre version of SPIDERMAN on beroadway stage, do you also compare the special effects with what you can expect from the movies?

Please go into the cinema and enjoy the movie Les Miz. If you don't, too bad.

well said! I enjoyed this movie very much.

[Guest Rong]

The sound is unbalanced all over the place. The opening act should have been much louder and really, it could have been better if there was a set orchestral pace. The free flowing orchestra is good for singular pieces, but as with One Day More and other multi-set pieces, it just suffers from it.

[doncoin]

Look at it this way. You are paying $12 or whatever to watch a show, and actors up closed for what would normally costs $150 at the theatre. Also one of the things that many people forget after years of listening to the Les Miz soundtrack is that when you watch the live performance on stage, the orchestration is actually much smaller and do not sound as rich as you are used to listening to.

Overall, I think the movie brought a level of intimacy that cannot be achieved on a stage version. It is a cinematic take which I think worked well overall. There are just some shows that if it were a direct stage adaption would have looked weird and fail on film.

[Guest Guest]

Meh, the movie was just a decent effort to bring Les Mis to as wide an audience as possible and milking them in the process. Not everyone can afford the premium theatre prices but the 99% sure can afford the movie ticket.

[rawbird]

Samantha Barks" On My Own really brings out my tears... and i must agree Anne Hathaway's solo brings a great impact on me, love the movie

[Guest Pp]

I just don't understand why people like to compare this film version of Les Miz with the stages musical.

If you watched the theatre version of SPIDERMAN on broadway stage, do you also compare the special effects with what you can expect from the movies?

Please go into the cinema and enjoy the movie Les Miz. If you don't, too bad.

Most people like to dig hard and amplify the "bad" of something ... to prove that they "know" (their ego). The "something" can be a movie, a person, a car, a book, a lifestyle etc.

While biting into a pear, they compared it with tasting an apple. Using the "apple" as a standard, everything else about the "uniquely" pear are "bad". Isn't this similar to the Inspector Javert in the story? By his standard, once a criminal is always a criminal and he will hunt you down wherever you're. Isn't this the morale of the Les Miz story?

You are using a microscope to see the "ugly" with one eye, and closed/blinded the other preventing yourself to see the "beauty". Isn't you one of the "Les Miserables" (literally means "The Miserable Ones")?

[bodybuildMLY]

Well, it is everyone's freedom to express their opinions regarding the quality of a movie. For me, the movie really pales out the quality of the musical. In comparison, Burlesque has shown a more outstanding performance both in terms of acting and as a musical theatre. There are other equally good musical movies which are able to strike a good balance both in music and acting. It is not a matter of nit-picking and putting the movie under scrutiny using microscope. A large portion of the movie IS about musical.

When I entered the cinema, I came with a mindset of watching a good musical since almost the whole movie is musical. That is where I am coming from, and being miserable when I left the venue. Acting-wise, no doubt, kudos to the cast! Hence, a mixed feeling of disappointment and tear-jerking moments ends up to irritation. An analogy will be like wearing a nice, clean and crisp pair of trousers with a shabby, unironed pair of shirt. Hence, the image is really incomplete and not very nice.

The acting in Les Miserables movie is good but unfortunately the songs aren't so. Hence, those who are REALLY into musicals will find it painful, but not so for the rest. Therefore, instead of musical, Les Miserables will definitely look better as an action movie on screen rather than a musical. It's a pity indeed, since the cast is a bomb-diggity and a powerful one.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bodybuildMLY

[doncoin]

I think I've seen enough musicals in person to the point where I feel sometimes certain things will definitely work better on some mediums than others given the limitations of the stage and the screen. I.e. The opening scene of Sound of Music where Julie Andrews iconically spins around in the Swiss Alps is forever imprinted in my mind that when I saw the stage version minus the real Swiss Alps it felt a little let down. In Les Miz, the On My Own scene, I felt the film version worked better as Eponine walked alone in the rain as the lyrics referenced to the rain, which would be more challenging to stage.

Spiderman: Turn Off the Dark, is frankly one of the worst shows I've seen, and I saw version 2.0 which was supposed to have been improved. It is like going to a bad U2 concert, albeit, the sets and the acrobatics were pretty amazing; but again, so is Cirque du Soleil. I think as a spectacle, Spiderman would be pretty successful in a venue like Las Vegas versus Broadway, where it is still running. A musical that I would love to see getting made into film would be Book of Mormon, which is still the funniest musical I've ever seen.

Every show should be judge independently of its medium. Les Miz was given the cinematic treatment. It is not a stage to screen adaptation. So love it or hate it or disappointed by it, just enjoy it for what it is.

[bodybuildMLY]

The second version is not EXACTLY the theatrical version of Les Miserables, but rather Samantha singing on stage. The first video has the visual, cinematique effect from the rain, but the second video has a nice voice control and projection. Nicer to listen if we are talking about the song on its own.

Samantha Banks is a singer and actress, which I think is great. If there is any salvation to the movie, I will give the credits to her ability to (a) display the emotions well and (b) her nice well-endowed voice.

[Guest Guest]

Samantha Banks is a singer and actress, which I think is great. If there is any salvation to the movie, I will give the credits to her ability to (a) display the emotions well and (b) her nice well-endowed voice.

Errrr .... I tot her name is Samantha Barks ?! Samantha Jane Barks to be exact.

[bodybuildMLY]

On the contrary, this movie has a better effect compared to the theatrical version when Phantom of the Opera came to Singapore in 2007. Christine is better played in the movie with her beautiful voice, compared when her role was played in The Esplanade. It still possible to do a very good musical movie if the director is more careful in selecting the appropriate cast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKxazFrNvc4

[bodybuildMLY]

To be fair, Anne Hathaway is soprano-trained in TRADITIONAL SETTING. The following video is a testament to her talent.

It is unfortunate she cannot perform the same way in Les Miserables, because she sang the song live. That is why I was wondering why everyone in the movie were breathing heavily, almost to panting, when they sang. It is difficult to sing and take care of acting at the same time! Compare the above video to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wJ-yzL6MFs

She is definitely being short-changed in terms of her singing talent, although from her acting, she shows tremendous emotional display when she sang.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bodybuildMLY

[gstc82]

To be fair, Anne Hathaway is soprano-trained in TRADITIONAL SETTING. The following video is a testament to her talent.

It is unfortunate she cannot perform the same way in Les Miserables, because she sang the song live. That is why I was wondering why everyone in the movie were breathing heavily, almost to panting, when they sang. It is difficult to sing and take care of acting at the same time! Compare the above video to this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wJ-yzL6MFs

She is definitely being short-changed in terms of her singing talent, although from her acting, she shows tremendous emotional display when she sang.

I beg to differ. I found Anne sang with true emotions and anguish. She can't be singing in pitch perfect tone in her situation. She was torn, beaten down n emotionally destroyed. She can't sing perfectly like Elaine page etc. she was shot up close n she displayed true n real emotions, there were many in the theater who felt her pain n wept with her.

[bodybuildMLY]

I beg to differ. I found Anne sang with true emotions and anguish. She can't be singing in pitch perfect tone in her situation. She was torn, beaten down n emotionally destroyed. She can't sing perfectly like Elaine page etc. she was shot up close n she displayed true n real emotions, there were many in the theater who felt her pain n wept with her.

Well, one man's meat is another's poison. We both are looking at different lenses: you are looking as a movie-goer, whereas I am looking as a musical-goer.

[youngdoctor]

I've watched more than enough musicals than I care to tell, and I couldn't help express my amusement over this thread. First and biggest discontent I have with what most people here have subliminally suggested: watching more musicals doesn't make one a good critique. I think I have watched hundreds of movies, don't think I can ever direct one. Haha.

I fully agree with -Pp- that we should extricate ourselves from the preconceived "musical" version. The advantage of a movie lies in its consistency; Anne Hathaway will sing (almost) the same way in every performance (barring individual cinema's acoustic arrangments). It gives us reproducibility, and the ability to reach the masses. It will allow us to revisit the "well done" parts over and over without variation. That is good on most accounts. However, it inevitably also means that we can spot imperfections easier because its always there.

Sometimes, instead of blaming the movie, it might also be worthwhile to look at our state of mind while watching the show. The movie is going to be constant and unchanging across its runs. But the state of mind we held while watching it is not. If we try to be judgemental and condemn the adapatation before its opening title even appears, then it's quite hard to appreciate any parts in true fairness.

Movies also tend to be less forgiving. The threshold for mistakes/imperfections is much lower because it was supposed to be "pre-recorded" and done to perfection. Contrast that to the stage, if an actor/actress' voice breaks because of his/her overwhelming emotions, he/she might even get a standing ovation at the end!

At the end of the day, do we not agree that we should thank Tom Hooper for bringing a theatrical classic to the big screen? Musical-then-movie has always been a precarious attempt (sadly Sweeney Todd springs to mind; despite my admiration for Sondheim, that was a sad piece of screen adaptation). Les Mis was definitely heads and shoulders above the other films in this genre. I am appreciative of Tom Hooper's efforts in offering us a different style of Les Mis. Now it adds to my personal understanding and coloring of Les Mis!

Maybe the musical is better than the movie as a musical. But the movie was never meant to be better than the musical as a musical. It was trying to define its place as a MOVIE, and I dare say it did so with great competence!

[gstc82]

Well, one man's meat is another's poison. We both are looking at different lenses: you are looking as a movie-goer, whereas I am looking as a musical-goer.

[bodybuildMLY]

I've watched more than enough musicals than I care to tell, and I couldn't help express my amusement over this thread. First and biggest discontent I have with what most people here have subliminally suggested: watching more musicals doesn't make one a good critique. I think I have watched hundreds of movies, don't think I can ever direct one. Haha.

I fully agree with -Pp- that we should extricate ourselves from the preconceived "musical" version. The advantage of a movie lies in its consistency; Anne Hathaway will sing (almost) the same way in every performance (barring individual cinema's acoustic arrangments). It gives us reproducibility, and the ability to reach the masses. It will allow us to revisit the "well done" parts over and over without variation. That is good on most accounts. However, it inevitably also means that we can spot imperfections easier because its always there.

Sometimes, instead of blaming the movie, it might also be worthwhile to look at our state of mind while watching the show. The movie is going to be constant and unchanging across its runs. But the state of mind we held while watching it is not. If we try to be judgemental and condemn the adapatation before its opening title even appears, then it's quite hard to appreciate any parts in true fairness.

Movies also tend to be less forgiving. The threshold for mistakes/imperfections is much lower because it was supposed to be "pre-recorded" and done to perfection. Contrast that to the stage, if an actor/actress' voice breaks because of his/her overwhelming emotions, he/she might even get a standing ovation at the end!

At the end of the day, do we not agree that we should thank Tom Hooper for bringing a theatrical classic to the big screen? Musical-then-movie has always been a precarious attempt (sadly Sweeney Todd springs to mind; despite my admiration for Sondheim, that was a sad piece of screen adaptation). Les Mis was definitely heads and shoulders above the other films in this genre. I am appreciative of Tom Hooper's efforts in offering us a different style of Les Mis. Now it adds to my personal understanding and coloring of Les Mis!

Maybe the musical is better than the movie as a musical. But the movie was never meant to be better than the musical as a musical. It was trying to define its place as a MOVIE, and I dare say it did so with great competence!

Well, mr youngdoctor, that is your opinion whether one should remove his mind from the musical version or otherwise. I believe many out there share the same viewpoint as you. Nonetheless, there are some who share the same sentiment as me. So whether one wishes to view the movie as a musical or simply a movie, that is his own personal choice.

What I am trying to bring forward is: whatever lens you put on, you will have a different opinion towards the movie. I have mentioned this again, and again and whosoever read this forum, let them make their own choices in watching the movie. Although I may not agree with you in thanking Hooper, we can always agree to disagree.

On the contrary, there is a film Les Miserables (1998) starring Liam Neeson. It is not a musical, just a normal movie (with a different ending). Perhaps we can draw a parallel between the two and compare the strengths and weaknesses.

Edited December 31, 2012 by bodybuildMLY

[Guest Guest]

Well, mr youngdoctor, that is your opinion whether one should remove his mind from the musical version or otherwise. I believe many out there share the same viewpoint as you. Nonetheless, there are some who share the same sentiment as me. So whether one wishes to view the movie as a musical or simply a movie, that is his own personal choice.

What I am trying to bring forward is: whatever lens you put on, you will have a different opinion towards the movie. I have mentioned this again, and again and whosoever read this forum, let them make their own choices in watching the movie. Although I may not agree with you in thanking Hooper, we can always agree to disagree.

On the contrary, there is a film Les Miserables (1998) starring Liam Neeson. It is not a musical, just a normal movie (with a different ending). Perhaps we can draw a parallel between the two and compare the strengths and weaknesses.

OKOK, you know a lot, you win. Have a Happy New Year ! R.I.P. please.

[youngdoctor]

Well, mr youngdoctor, that is your opinion whether one should remove his mind from the musical version or otherwise. I believe many out there share the same viewpoint as you. Nonetheless, there are some who share the same sentiment as me. So whether one wishes to view the movie as a musical or simply a movie, that is his own personal choice.

What I am trying to bring forward is: whatever lens you put on, you will have a different opinion towards the movie. I have mentioned this again, and again and whosoever read this forum, let them make their own choices in watching the movie. Although I may not agree with you in thanking Hooper, we can always agree to disagree.

On the contrary, there is a film Les Miserables (1998) starring Liam Neeson. It is not a musical, just a normal movie (with a different ending). Perhaps we can draw a parallel between the two and compare the strengths and weaknesses.

Haha I see your point! well elucidated. I hope that will lessen some of the antagonism here.

Its really not about concurring with what i said, but i guess the simple point that im trying to make is that it's really not a bad film la! I would still encourage people to watch!

[rado980d]

Overall, I think the movie brought a level of intimacy that cannot be achieved on a stage version. It is a cinematic take which I think worked well overall. There are just some shows that if it were a direct stage adaption would have looked weird and fail on film.

Well said... I love it and cried bucket.

[Guest Guest]

we have Evita by Madonna and Chicago by Catherine Zeta Jones and Rene Z

[Guest Guest]

Isn't the singing pre-recorded then the actors just lip-synced to them? It all sounds very studio made.

[bodybuildMLY]

Isn't the singing pre-recorded then the actors just lip-synced to them? It all sounds very studio made.

No, they are real-life recording...on the spot.

[derrickguy]

Such lively debate!

I didn't particularly enjoy the movie, but it's not bad either. People should go and watch it!

The actors did a great job with the singing, but for me, they are primarily actors, and that's probably

a good thing for a movie!

Hugh Jackman did a fantastic job with Valjean, and his half-speaking-style recitatives/soliloquys are brilliant.

Still if I have to choose, give me Colm Wilkinson anytime. Jackman's "Bring Him Home" didn't work for me, but it could be to due to my familiarity with Wilkinson's version.

Anne Hathaway's "I dreamed a dream" is heart-wrenching. The sobs and wails really add to the pathos and work

perfectly onscreen. But somehow musically, it's not my favourite rendition. Perhaps it's just a tad too on-the-sleeves

for me. Just a tad.

Samantha Barks and Eddie Redmayne are 2 incredible young singers. Barks doesn't feel like Eponine to me, too

feminine, too proper. Not that her acting was bad, it's more her appearance. She nailed "On My Own" but it came across as a tiny wee bit too polished.

Compared to the other singers, her vocal style sounded closest to West End. Redmayne is a refreshing Marius. He brought a strength

to the character that Michael Ball didn't (although I love Michael Ball's voice to death). His "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" is sensitive, yet strong. In the higher registers, his vocal placement sounded a little covered, sort of like what an operatic tenor would do. That change in placement affected the consistency in tone color for me. Unfortunately, "A Little Fall of Rain" felt flat for me. I don't know exactly what's my issue with it. Maybe I'd prefer to hear Barks a little weaker (after all, she's about to die) and Redmayne a little more emotional (hey, this girl just took a bullet for you).

The 2 actors whose singing totally didn't work for me are of course Russell Crowe (Javert) and Amanda Seyfried (Cosette). I don't blame Crowe. To me

it's clearly miscasting in terms of the vocals. It's hard not to constantly yearn for Philip Quast's commanding, steely vocals. Again, this could be

my preconceived notion of how Javert should sound like. For me, the confrontation scenes didn't work very well, and when he leaped off into the Seine, I

almost muttered "thank god!". Seyfried's voice really didn't sound good - shrill and shaky. Surely there must be a better soprano in Hollywood!

The Thernadiers felt kinda extra in the 3 hour long movie. Gavroche is a bit too cute, too chubby, and too sweet for a street urchin! The students of ABC were good!

Actually I don't quite get the hype about the live-recording. OK I know it is sort of a first in the movies, and I can see how it gives the actors more freedom and spontaneity, but isn't it always done on stage? Moreover on stage, you don't get to do retakes! On stage, the singing has to be projected to fill the hall, so musical actors tend to belt out their numbers instead of taking a more intimate approach. That perhaps is the biggest difference that distinguishes singing a musical on stage and onscreen.

I only watched the movie once, I could change my mind with repeated watching and listening. Hope to hear your views too!

[youngdoctor]

@derrickguy: I concur completely. The movie was probably my least favorite version of Les Mis, compared to the two staged ones I've seen, but definitely not "un-enjoyable"! I echo your views on Michael Ball & Philip Quast - I thought poor Russell Crowe had too big shoes to fill. Thankfully, Hugh Jackman remains his charismatic self in the movie, anchoring the central role well! Anne Hathaway was far more than competent, but I am rather partial towards Ruthie Henshall as my favorite Fantine.. Haha

I repeatedly bring up this point about Sweeney Todd the movie, because Helena (as wonderful as she is as an actress) seem to always wreck the singing roles! Luckily her singing was minimized in Les Mis!

[derrickguy]

Reading this thread got me thinking about the differences between a staged musical and a movie musical.

In a theater, due to the sheer distance between the stage and the audience, the actors' facial expressions are not easy to see. Hence, the actors have to make "bigger" expressions on their faces. Because the audience can hear the actors much better than they can see them, the actors' emphasis is typically on the singing. Therefore, as bodybuildMLY pointed out, musical goers typically expect more from the singing.

In a movie, on the other hand, we can see the facial expressions of the actors very clearly, especially with those close-up shots. Therefore the acting takes precedence and rightly so, I think. The sobs, wails and sighs which may sound awkward on stage make a lot more sense when you can see the muscle movements on the actors' faces. There is no longer any need for the actors to exaggerate their facial expressions, and hence their voices need to be toned down accordingly.

So I suppose everyone is right then. In a way, the movie does allow more intimacy because the actors can be more natural in their acting and also they can choose to sing in a more intimate, softer way. But that is not to say the musical theater is incapable of conveying intimacy and emotion, as the reviewer Guo Wei seemed to suggest. It is just perhaps a lot harder to achieve.

However, I have to disagree with bodybuildMLY that the Christine of the movie version of the POTO was well chosen. Emmy Rossum looked stunning but her voice sounded amateurish and school-girlish - unsupported, lack of depth, power, agility and range in the head voice. The new star of the Paris Opera coached by the Phantom himself no less, for goodness' sake! Not convincing at all! I am aware that Andrew Lloyd Weber intended for Christine's voice to represent a new, refreshing kind of soprano, but it cannot be so far off from the trained operatic soprano voice for it to be convincing. Andrew Lloyd Weber apparently had Sarah Brightman's voice in mind when he created that role, and it's that type of "semi-trained" classical voice that I think works best for the role. I did not watch the production at the Esplanade, but i'd be very sad if the casting was worse than the movie's!

[Owen]

I enjoyed the show, and understand the story better than just watching the stage performance. Loose ends are now pieced together to form a complete story. Yes, the singing of the 2 male leads is not up to Broadway standards. I believe Anne stole the thunder with her short but endearing dying presence. Angel mah.....

[bodybuildMLY]

However, I have to disagree with bodybuildMLY that the Christine of the movie version of the POTO was well chosen. Emmy Rossum looked stunning but her voice sounded amateurish and school-girlish - unsupported, lack of depth, power, agility and range in the head voice. The new star of the Paris Opera coached by the Phantom himself no less, for goodness' sake! Not convincing at all! I am aware that Andrew Lloyd Weber intended for Christine's voice to represent a new, refreshing kind of soprano, but it cannot be so far off from the trained operatic soprano voice for it to be convincing. Andrew Lloyd Weber apparently had Sarah Brightman's voice in mind when he created that role, and it's that type of "semi-trained" classical voice that I think works best for the role. I did not watch the production at the Esplanade, but i'd be very sad if the casting was worse than the movie's!

I really like the way you put things into perspectives and your first statement really strikes the cord: STAGED musical and MOVIE musical. In many viewers reviews, including my friends and colleagues, they seemed to enjoy watching the movie Les Miserables. And they refer to Anne Hathaway performing brilliantly when she sang I Dreamed a Dream, but many references are made towards (a) her emotions and (b) her acting scene when she sang, but no one ever refer to the song quality. Samantha Barks, without doubt, is the best live singer in the whole movie.

When I made reference to Christine in POTO movie, what I meant was to say that she is, at the very least, within acceptable level if one has the intention to watch the movie musical, even though she may not meet the hallmark yet. She was 18 years old then, hence her best was that level at that point of time. Anne, on the other hand, has the two important qualities: she is able to sing, and good actress. I was pretty disappointed when one of her qualities has been short-changed in the movie, just because the director wants the cast to sing live on the spot. Similarly, Hugh Jackman is no stranger to musical performances. More could be done, so that both musical and movie goers can enjoy the movie! That is where Hooper loses out to Schumacher: the latter had both audiences in mind. Probably because Schumacher worked closely with Andrew Lloyd Webber in POTO.

I was quite upset when I read the comments mentioning "If you don't enjoy the movie, then that is too bad". This shows a simple short-sightedness in viewing all the possible angles towards the movie. Yes, without doubt, movie-goers will enjoy the movie version of Les Miserables. But there are some of us who wish to watch it as a musical. When comments are given by professional critics, hopefully, the director may use it to improve further in the future.

Anyway, all these are to my own personal experience and context. Hopefully, I won't have the phobia of watching another movie musical in the future.

Edited January 3, 2013 by bodybuildMLY

[Ordinary]

Personally, my sentiments are akin to those of bodybuildMLY and derrickGuy.

I watched two musical versions of Les Miserables, the 10th Anniversary and the more recently recorded 25th Anniversary, and the former is still the best. They have the two most entertaining "Thenardiers" too.

Overall, the movie version helped me to understand the story much better but really even the singing of Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway (wonderful their acting as it may be) are a far cry from their stage counterparts.

[subbtmchn73]

Maybe the musical is better than the movie as a musical. But the movie was never meant to be better than the musical as a musical.

Well said. However, i would like to add that there is a distinction between a stage musical and a movie musical.

With regards to comparisons, there are many ways to compare 2 products.

The book to the stage musical to the movie musical. The constant being the story.

Les Mis Movie to Chicago to Sound of Music. The constant being stage musicals made into movie musicals.

Reading the above posts, i think some are personal preferences, some are pointing differences attributed to the media choice or recording performance choice. Singing in a stage requires a lot more projection of the voice and exaggeration of the expression to be seen. If the movie singing were pre-recorded and lip synced during filming, then the acting would have been more even and the singing will be studio quality. The interesting choice of live singing while filming is like a cross of both. It brings imperfection to the singing just like in real live thus making the movie more intimate. I think the idea is to go to the movie to be touched by both the visual and audio. Judging the singing along as if it is a CD playback or a studio recorded song is not doing the full medium justice. I think many art pieces are praised not for its perfection but for it's well placed flaws.

Edited January 4, 2013 by subbtmchn73

[Why?]

Who cares whether is book, stage or move? The real miserables is happening everywhere around us and you are part of the story, that is touching enough.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Why?

[gstc82]

Who cares whether is book, stage or move? The real miserables is happening everywhere around us and you are part of the story, that is touching enough.

lol.