Les Miserables film with good singing- Page 2

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 1/10/14 at 10:59pm

I agree with you Jimmy, all the way!

[sephyr]

Posted: 1/10/14 at 11:27pm

I still haven't seen the film yet, but from your clip, the dubbed vocals following the ones from the movie are indeed much better. I mean like night and day much better. I can see your point. I've heard bad things about the vocals in the movie and that's why I haven't really rushed to see it yet but I will give it a chance :)

Updated On: 1/11/14 at 11:27 PM

[PattyO'Furniture]

Posted: 1/10/14 at 11:34pm

This issue is more than simple. The LES MISERABLES film is actor-centered. It made the actors experience each moment with their own personal authenticity. This strategy is used all of the time; in fact, on the way to the restroom a few moment ago, I believe I bellowed a few bars of "Think of Me", and it worked just swell.

This actor-centered approach is only a problem if the performance is slated for an audience (I'll have you know my bassett hound did not even slightly stir, hence why it worked for me). It, however, did not work for LES MIS. It just didn't. The actors seemed to be feeling "it". Problem was, I did not; I mean, did you? This "live singing" thing was no more than a gimmick, one that did not work.

We ALL sing live, and we all THINK it sounds good in the moment. Record it, and initiate playback? Not so much.

This "live singing" gimmick was not the way to go. Give me CHICAGO (the film) any day in place of this clunker.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 1/10/14 at 11:56pm

My problem with that is that if it was not the way to go then it would not have made money and audiences would have stayed away. For this film, at that time, it was the way to go. It worked. It brought people in, likely more than once. The film was a success. Just because it did not work, does not mean it didn't work in general and that it wasn't the way to go.
I found the results to be fairly mixed, personally. But given the circumstances, I can't say the choice was a mistake. It wasn't. The world wide box office was over 440 million dollars. It worked. Will the film hold up over time? Probably. There is a built in legacy and the nomination count favors a life beyond the now. I think that the masses will continue to appreciate it, even if we theatre snobs remain apprehensive or refuse to embrace it.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 1:12am

Screw LES MISERABLES. I still need to know why Dave19 is a "Rebecca" on his YouTube account. Please respond, Dave19.

[SweetLips]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 1:32am

My 2 bits worth--I think Les Mis would have been the success it was with the singing either way.I am sure a huge percentage of people couldn't have cared less-or known-though the 'live' singing promotion was relentless before its release.

[devonian.t]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 3:02am

What seems odd here is that those people who are defending the movie seem to be citing its box office performance- nobody seems to be saying they really love Russell Crowe's singing. Those people who are attacking the OP- is it because you love the film or hate Dave19?

Do we only know it's a good film because it made lots of money?

I guess Avatar and Titanic really are the best movies ever made in that case.

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 3:18am

"nobody seems to be saying they really love Russell Crowe's singing."

Does anybody think sticking him in a recording studio would have produced a better vocal performance?

[chinto1984]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 3:26am

Russell Crowe did not have the best voice. I thought Amanda's worse. I did like Russell's portrayal. I thought he actually did act it well and brought more depth to the character. I enjoyed watching him and wished the whole time why couldn't he just be in a nonmusical les mis.

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 7:26am

"We have seen what worked best for this film"

No, we now see what actually works better. The visuals stay the same only better audio takes it to a higher level emotionally.

Patty and Devonian, great points!

Liza, it's my sisters yt account.


"Does anybody think sticking him in a recording studio would have produced a better vocal performance?"

Yes I do. And if that still doesn't give the required quality, dubbing by others is an option. It worked for captain von trapp in TSOM and many other films and it works in the clip. It's about the final product, not about actor's ego's.


Updated On: 1/11/14 at 07:26 AM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 9:57am

Just give it up already. You didn't get your way and the movie came out a little over a year ago. It's done. So stop whining.

[david_fick]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 10:06am

What a lot of fuss over a very mediocre film!

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 10:20am

"Does anybody think sticking him in a recording studio would have produced a better vocal performance?"

He sounds about 10 times better here than he does in the scene in the actual film.

Did they wait til after the shoot to teach him proper breath control and comfortable placement of the voice?
Hugh & Russell - The Confrontation (live)

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:12am

I love the debates on bbw in which some posit that creative success of a work depends (or is corresponding) on how many people see it and how much money it makes, or that anyone, like me, who dares to look objectively at something apart from its success with money and awards, is a 'snob."

Great works can make money and win awards.

Horrible works can make money and win awards.

(and everything in between can make money and win awards)

That's apples and oranges.

Or are we to simply be automatons who have to agree with the marketplace and award machine/trends and not have our own opinions?

Yes, commerce is important, show business is a business. But that doesn't mean one is a snob by having one's own point of view about what one has seen or that one is a snob if one doesn't like everything that is apparently popular (there is of course, an opposite pattern, some people revel in indiscriminately objecting to anything that is popular, but the fact that one doesn't like the movie of Les Mis doesn't mean that one is in that camp). I paid my money and I give my opinion. (the commercial success of the work is based on the fact that people pay to see it, not all people who pay to see it like it).







Updated On: 1/11/14 at 11:12 AM

[Marianne2]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:20am

^ That is totally true.

Oh, and I just remembered the OP thinks that a lot of people don't like Glee because it's too smart and witty for us to understand. Well, I guess that same logic and be used here. Except I liked Les Mis, so I guess if you don't like it, you are the elite here.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:48am

Elite, who cares about that? This is about sharing our opinions and respecting each others (although, of course, we can all get snarky now and then, that's part of the fun).

Frankly, my probs with the movie of Les Mis were mostly directorial and editing. I think, for instance, that Jackman's and Seyfried's performances could have delivered much better if their scenes had been crafted and cut better (much better!); for me it has far less to do with the singing being at its very peak (although I think Dave's experiment is somewhat persuasive). What I wouldn't have wanted, at any cost, would have been synching of another actor's voice for the singing, that's a cop out that has never worked for me (even when watching My Fair Lady, Gigi, West Side Story and King and I, movies which I otherwise enjoy, it bugs me that the actress in the lead role is not singing (or is not always singing)).

I also disagree with Dave that outstanding singers are always required in musicals. It depends on a great many things, including the particular musical role and how much a great voice is demanded of it.

For instance, Renee Z. may not be a great singer or the very best dancer, but, in my opinion, she was a superb Roxie. I also believe, getting back to an earlier discussion, that Chicago was a great movie, and the fact that it was a huge financial hit and an oscar winner is, as I said before, not proof of that, it is just an illustration that sometimes great movies can be big hits and win oscars.



Updated On: 1/11/14 at 11:48 AM

[Kad]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:49am

Henrik-

Except, in the past, this poster has said that Les Mis would have done better, financially, had they taken he route he suggests. Which is A) impossible to know, and B) implying that audiences did NOT turn out to see it. Which they did. And that they did not enjoy it. Which, it seems, most did outside of the echo chamber of BWW.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:53am

Kad, didn't realize that. As is often the case, I'm late to the party and somewhat out of context, responding to just what's in front of me at the particular moment.

[Kad]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 11:58am

That's understandable. He's had a history of railing on about the film, from before its release to now, so it does require a bit of fitting into the overall context of his argument (which has not changed, at all, and most likely never will).

[Dave19]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 2:53pm

Of course we can't know that, but if you see edited clips that actually work better, combined with all the critisism that many performances got, it would be silly to stick your head in the sand and think it can't get better than what happened in the actual film. I always base my opinions on things I have heard and seen, so don't portray me as a person with prejudices please, thank you.

And thanks Henri(k), for your reply.

[Liza's Headband]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 3:41pm

It's not a portrayal. It's a FACT. Kad is relaying important information that puts this ridiculous thread, and that horrible YouTube video, into a proper context. You have railed against this movie from the beginning and I recall reading your preposterous predictions about how it would tank and fail. You were wrong, the movie has already been produced, and it's time to move on. Just like with your obsession of African-American entertainment awards shows. Enough.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 3:58pm

I'm just curious, what made you think of this film again? Is it that it's been all over HBO lately? Or that's coming in March to Broadway? The film was absolute sh*t as far as I'm concerned but I was just wondering.

Updated On: 1/11/14 at 03:58 PM

[Princeton Returns]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 5:11pm

All that video has made me think is that the original vocals, while maybe not as smooth and technically perfect, are infinitely more emotive than the dubbed clips.

If I want to listen to the music/songs then yes I would choose a cast recording CD, however for a movie I want the actors performances with all their impurities which creates a more raw and real experience. Which works on film but wouldn't work on stage where you need to sell it to the balcony

But Dave19 has always made it clear (when talking about Les Mis or a potential Miss Saigon movie) he wants theatre people belting out songs as if on stage. And no amount of arguing is ever going to change his mind.

[darquegk]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 5:51pm

Dave has also implied, especially about Miss Saigon, that more theatrical and evocative sets are more appropriate than realistic sets.

I wonder if he just believes that theatre and film are not entirely compatible at all beyond a certain point.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 1/11/14 at 6:00pm

Christ God, you guys are still on this?!