LES MISERABLES MOVIE AND THE PROBLEM WITH FILM ACTORS SINGING

Okay, go see this movie.  And bring ALOT of hankies and try not to openly sob.

Yes, even you, manly men.

This is a strange one for fans of musicals. It's never been the strongest book (meaning music and story), which is usually only okay for a "non-dance" musical,  However, what the book lacks for in strong songs and musical themes, it makes up for in story and emotion!

(Again, though, regarding the book in and of itself, the music mostly aids the emotion, not so much story or character.)

And French musicals, generally, seem weak to me.  (Young Girls of Rochefort, and Umbrellas of Cherbourg, for example.  There are no strong songs, no strong solos, no strong and emotive recurring musical themes.) And I am sorry to say that because I love all things French.  But I speak truth.  The French do not "hear" the way we American English speakers do.  You don't hear these songs covered by regular singers a lot.

Learning that the musical began as a French concept album helps.   (Could this also be the origin of Hugh Jackman's incredibly nasal singing and pronunciation?)

However, these are issues I have with the book itself, regardless of how it is performed.  The movie was "off" for me because they let the actors sing.

Other than Hathaway, none of the celebrity performers knew how to really sing.  I don't mean hit the right note and hold it the required beats.  They all did that perfectly.  Just as Richard Gere did in Chicago, and Meryl Streep in Mama Mia.

But consider that Jennifer Holliday also hit the right notes and held them the required beats for "I'm Not Going" from Dreamgirls.  Singing isn't just about notes and melodies and time signatures.

And this is doubly true for musicals.

What no one but the musical fan really seems to understand is that the story is told through the song. 

Moreover, the character comes through in how the performer sings the song.

Holliday owns that song and the character in Dreamgirls. I love you, Jennifer Hudson, and the movie was great, but Holliday defined that song and that character. 


(The best example of this phenomenon is actually not Holliday, and not on the stage, but a film movie, with a real singer: Judy Garland's "Over the Rainbow" in The Wizard of Oz.  Everything you needed to know about that character and Garland's performance of her was in that song.)

Among the big name leads in Les Miserables, only Hathaway seemed to understand that.  Or be able to perform it.  The rest of them seemed to be singing exactly how their vocal coach and the director and musical director told them to.

Which might be the best they could do.

But it just isn't the same.  I never felt cheated that I saw Eden Espinosa doing Elphaba. Of course I would have loved to see Idina Menzel.  But Eden Espinosa's Elphaba was wholly authentic.  I heard her Elphaba quite clearly. She was not just mimicing Menzel.

So when you see a musical in a theatre, live, you see the song and the story come through the "channel" of the performer (perhaps the ultimate example of my theory on music).  The actor becomes the song, and the song becomes the character.

The musical actor doesn't have to have a perfect voice, but s/he needs to have an authentic one.  S/he needs to know how to bring the character life through the song.

People that love musicals buy the soundtrack even if they can't see the show.  Because the soundtrack as sung by the cast will provide the most essential elements of the show, no matter how glitzy.  (And even in the sense of the more dance based ones this is still true- like Chicago-- because the body still remains the instrument.  Gwen Verdon channels Sweet Charity better than Shirley Maclaine, although Maclaine was good.)

In too many movies based on musicals I feel like I am watching a film actor trying to sing a song, and not channel a character.  (Although Hathaway did a good job. Although I still prefer the Patty Lupone or the Broadway cast.  Click on that link, and you will get all weepy just listening, I promise. And holy crap, what a musician she is!)

In a tear jerker like this, Crowe's singing, especially, just wasn't up to par.

Moreover acting for films and musicals is two different things! Either Hooper or Mackintosh understood that, and used it the film's advantage- because it is almost all close-ups. Happy songs the camera is looking up and sad song the camera looks down, but it is close up, or close medium (upper half of the body).  Ensembles are wide shots, with the camera looking up.  

Maybe it wasn't that simple, but it seemed that way.  And actually the unwavering close-ups helped with the singing-- maybe to give us something else to focus on.   And film actors are all about how they look- maybe not their actual features but their "looks", their expressions.

I did just read this review, by Adam Lambert, and it states that Tom Hooper wanted to keep the cast vocals and not "sweeten in the studio".   (Or, maybe have a real singer record it!!! Oh for the studio days when the "ghostest with the mostest" Marni Nixon, could step in for Audrey Hepburn and Natalie Wood!)

Perhaps Hooper was actually trying to retain that truth about musicals, in allowing the actors their own voices. But I wished they'd dubbed it.

(There is a really vast difference between film acting and stage acting, and few straddle it well.  It'd be nice if for more big screen adaptions used those that came from the stage, like the movie of Rent.)

Anyhow, I will end up buying this DVD, although I will stick to the original cast for the soundtrack.  (I really cannot imagine owning the film soundtrack.)

If you can watch the movie without crying you have no heart.  I was just trying to not openly sob in the theatre at the end.

Oh, and regarding that fiscal cliff and austerity, and things that make heads of state go rolling, etc:

Idiot Politicians and and greedy Corporate Pigs, take heed;
http://schoolworkhelper.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/causes_french_revolution.gif 

A great clip from Les Miz 10th http://youtu.be/lC5TqchAbwc