Okay, I'm back from seeing the SAG/Directors/Writers Guilds screening and still collecting my thoughts. This is LOOOOONG!
What I didn't know was that the director, Tom Hooper, and some of the cast of the film, (Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried (Cosette), Eddie Redmayne (Marius), & Samantha Barks (Eponine), were going to do a Question & Answer session
after the film.
I've never really been to one of these award nomination screenings before. I did see
Lincoln &
Flight with my friend who got on the SAG Nominating Committee, but those were smaller screenings and they didn't have a Q&A session afterwards, and no one special was in the audience of those.
This time I realized tonight was going to be different as I was waiting at the corner to cross the street to get to the theatre and I heard this woman standing behind me and say to her friends something about what Fantine does in the movie.
I turned around at that point to nod at her
and I realized I was staring at Frances McDormand and her husband, (director) Joel Coen.
When we all get across the street, they didn't know which theatre to go to, (we were at Lincoln Center,) and I told them Les Mis is at Alice Tully Hall, and then went off to find my friend, so they didn't think they suddenly got a hanger-on, joining them.
Tom Hooper, the director came out to introduce the film. He said we are first audience to see the world premiere of the film. So he was getting our reaction to the finished film for the first time (as well as the cast who'd be watching with all of us.)
Alice Tully Hall is rather large as it's really a concert hall. It seats about 1000 people and unfortunately we were about 2/3s of the way back. I'm not used to seeing films or (Les Mis) that far back. The farthest back I ever sat to see Les Mis, on Broadway was about 20 rows back. Films usually about the same. So I think that kind of skewed some of my reaction to seeing this movie for me. I wasn't in it, engrossed as much in the film as I normally am. But, it could also be because I know the play & the music so well and I was expecting certain things. I will have to go back and see it a lot closer, the way I usually see movies. And to go back, now that I do know how the movie was done, to see if my second reaction will be different
because I'm no longer expecting to see & hear things from the live musical & PBS 25th Anniversary version.
Anne Hathaway said afterward, that there just might be some
Les Mis "purists" out there who will prefer the original Broadway Cast recording or the 25th Anniversary version over the movie version, and that that she hopes the movie version will just be viewed as another interpretation and a different exploration and way to do the book/musical: as a film.
So, at this point, I'm to sure what to say about what I think. This is odd for me. I'm used to seeing things at the same time as everyone else on a thread and we collectively talk about it together and
share thoughts & reactions. I am mindful of what Deb in IA said about not giving spoilers, and also, as you guys have to wait a whole month before you can see it, I don't want to say something that may make you feel disappointed or less enthusiastic about seeing the film.
I don't want to do that to you. I think many/most of you will LOVE Les Mis, the movie. Many of the audience at the Q&A said how much they loved the film. A few men openly admitted they cried during the film. There are parts that are special.
But, I personally have mixed feelings & thoughts about the film. And I realized it is because I have seen the Broadway show 4 times, twice with Colm Wilkinson & the original cast. And also have seen the 25th Anniversary production on PBS countless times. Tom Hooper, the director, referred to the musical as a "singing-through" musical. Meaning they sing throughout the whole musical and very little to no dialogue.
Sweeney Todd is the same way.
JC Superstar is the same way. So
to me, a musical that is carried totally by song & music means the singing has to be exceptional.
. . . And that's where I personally have a problem with the film version and one actor's choices in particular. I've heard the original cast album & the 25th Anniversary version far too much and am probably more of a Les Mis "purist" as Anne Hathaway said, than even I realized. And I think my reaction is going to be different than 87% of everyone else who will see the film. So, i don't want my feelings to influence your anticipation of seeing it.
Tom Hooper also said live theatre, not just Broadway, is actually an urban-centric thing. Many people around the world, and indeed, even in the sticks of the U.S. do not have live (community) theatre the way we do in the big cities. So again, I am struck by how my reaction will be different from many.
I think many of you who have not seen the Broadway version, or a touring company/community theatre version and have nothing to compare the movie with will love the film. It's big, splashy, epic. Those who have not seen Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe sing Valjean, and love Hugh Jackman will love Hugh Jackman.
There are some wonderful, surprising performances. It was actually great sitting in a closed film industry audience (plus guests.) For me, this is about as close to sitting in the SAG Awards audience as I will ever get.
We actually applauded after certain songs as we knew the real cast members were there. It was just like sitting for a live show. When Helena Bonham Carter first appeared on screen, we all had a wonderful reaction to just seeing her. She's such a hoot!
(She & the director did
The King's Speech, together.)
Sacha Baron Cohen was surprisingly delightful. I usually hate the Thénardiers.
But they truly were funny and played off of each other well. Sasha can actually sing!
The kid who sang as Gavroche was great. He will be a star someday.
We all knew Amanda Seyfried can sing, from seeing her in
Mama Mia. Marius was just as great of a singer. He matched her well.
Samantha Barks, who sang in the 25th Anniversary PBS production gave a stellar performance as usual. She said this was her first film role, and she pulled it off brilliantly. On another current Les Mis thread, someone questioned bringing Broadway level actors to sing the movie roles, saying that they'd be too much over the top for the masses. Samantha proved, NO, you bring in a brilliant performer/singer and she'd be perfect for the role.
In fact the whole rest of the non-star ensemble cast was truly a very tight, very talented singing ensemble. All the women wh*res & all the men in the revolution were of Broadway singing calibre.
I almost wanted to stand up and sing, "Do yo hear the people sing? It is the song of angry men," with them.
So then we get down to the three stars:
Anne Hathaway, I was ready to hate her. I had seen the previews and wasn't sure she could pull off Fantine. She kept pausing so much. But, I was pleasantly surprised. She could sing and she acted the role well. In context, what looked choppy in the previews all fit together.
Anne said at the Q&A that she decided NOT to listen to Patti LuPone's version of Fantine, until after she finished filming. She said she knew there was no way she could sing as well as Patti and others who have sung Fantine. That Patti had set a standard that was extremely high and that she couldn't match it. She only hoped she could do it differently.
It should also be noted, as the director shot them singing LIVE, almost all the singing performances were shot in one long continuous takes. Very little cutting & splicing together from different takes. The singers were singing live with an ear prompter in their ear, with a piano in another room
following the singer's lead. Tom said, he realized in the editing room as different takes were sung in different tempos or different acting choices made, that he couldn't really cut different takes together. So most of all the songs in the film were in one take.
Then there's Russell Crowe. . . umm. . .
. . . well. . .
. . . Russell looks great as the part. . . We know he can play tough & strong. [/I]Heck, he's been known in real life to trash hotel rooms & throw hotel phones at bellhops. So we know he has a rage that goes deep. . . Unfortunately, he doesn't have the voice to match his looks - or the role.
He's the friggin Antagonist! Anyone who has studied literature knows that the Antagonist is supposed to be dark & tough and deep. He is the underbelly in the book/play/movie. He constantly goads & clashes with the Protagonist/Hero. You'd think he'd have a dark & tough &
deep voice to match.
But, no, there's Russell with a high, nasal, weak voice.
Russell LOOKS great as the character. Could
act the role. But his voice doesn't match his looks. Russell doesn't have a strong, deep cahones voice to match his other cahones.
Every time he sang I just shook my head.
At first, I thought, why don't they lower the key of his songs to match where Russell can sing. His songs should be lower for him. It's obvious the songs are too high & weak for him. He sounds like he is straining at his upper range and he doesn't have the training for it. Then I realized most of his songs are sung with Hugh Jackman, and they sing the songs to showcase Hugh's range, not Russell. Makes me wonder if when Russell auditioned, if he auditioned, if he had sung a great song in his baritone/bass range. But, it wasn't until he & Hugh rehearsed & sang together that they realized Russell couldn't really sing in the same key as Hugh. But they didn't recast him.
So, if you haven't seen the live musical at all you can end the review right here. You'll be happy seeing the film and will love it.
. . . But, if you have seen Colm Wilkinson/Alfie Boe, have worn through your cassette of Les Mis and had to buy a new copy and think you might be one of the 13% of the Les Mis "purists" or even 25% who are borderline in that direction, then here is my review of Hugh Jackman:
Hugh, great actor. Great award show host. It was evident he put his whole heart & soul into the role of Jean Valjean. The hair & makeup was great. During the Q&A someone even remarked how in the first 7 minutes of the film we are all looking for Hugh Jackman, and can't find him on screen, as he doesn't look like "Hugh Jackman."
Unfortunately, what I wrote earlier that Anne Hathaway said, "That Patti had set a standard that was extremely high and that she couldn't match it. She only hoped she could do it differently." I think Hugh felt the same way. There was no way he could match the power & beauty & standard of Colm Wilkinson or Alfie Boe's singing, so he did it differently: He sang/spoke most of his solo songs. When I say sang/spoke, I mean like how Rex Harrison sang/spoke his songs in
My Fair Lady. Hugh
acted the songs instead. In fact, he tried so hard, he kind of seemed to be pushing and over-acting a little at times to make up for not singing. "Here I'm speaking the role, as I'm
acting it."
It might have worked except for a couple things. While he was talking the lyrics, unfortunately, the
orchestra was still PLAYING THE MELODY!!!
So those of us who know the melody forward and backwards, are still hearing the real melody, while Hugh is speaking it and pausing instead. They should have just played a single, long chord and let him do what he wanted. But when the still play the melody, he sounds out of sync. It kept throwing me out of the song, (along with sitting too far back.) Instinctively, you want to hum or sing the real song as you full well know it. It's like when famous singers sing the Star Spangled Banner and put their own spin on it. After the fourth song of Hugh doing this, I almost said out loud, "Oh, will you effing sing the friggin song already!"
Vajean has two very important songs that are the heart & soul of Jean Valjean, and if these songs do not catch the audience right, then people are basically sitting there for a long 2 1/2 hours as one doesn't quite connect with Valjean. They also highlight the star's singing. They are "Who Am I?" in which he didn't even sing his own name at the end! And "Bring Him Home." This is the
first time in 25 years of listening to that song that I didn't cry. Sometimes I listen to that song over and over, and cry each time. Hugh actually did sing "Bring Him Home," but by that point, I just wasn't into it enough. I was watching as an observer. If anything
because he finally did sing that song, he only highlighted that he doesn't have Colm or Alfie's voice. Had he just been singing straight away, the whole two hours before, I might have gotten used to listening to Hugh's singing the whole time.
Also, Colm Wilkinson was in the movie. I heard him before I recognized him. His voice is unmistakeable as one graced by God. He even toned it down for the performance. But, even a diamond in the dark will flash brilliantly if a glint of light catches it. And it only highlighted the difference in his voice from Hugh's, and why Hugh probably made the speaking choices he made.
Secondly, it doesn't work that Hugh is pretty much the only one singing/speaking as every. other. singer. SANG. their. whole. songs. Even Anne Hathaway's song, she SANG - haltingly - fading away - but she SANG the MELODY. She didn't speak while fading away. She sang. Hugh pretty much only sang throughout when he was singing duets or trios with the other singers. Kind of because they were
singing, so he sang all the way through too.
So while I think this was a great, ambitious production, and a lot to like. But, because in
my opinion, that the two lead characters are rather weak in performance in various ways, if I personally had to choose which I prefer, I would choose the 25th Anniversary show or listen to the Original Broadway cast album.
Off to work. Will answer any posts much later.
