Theatre singing vs Film singing - Same rules

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/3/15 at 5:38pm

Or basically, what feels real and what does not. This seems to be a difficult topic and many people have misconceptions about this. Especially because when you film on a stage, it suddenly becomes a filmset, so is there a difference? Here is a video with some interesting examples and contradictions:

 Theatre singing vs Film singing

 

Updated On: 4/3/15 at 05:38 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:23am

Here is another example:

Sung without feeling, too much vibrato:

Elisabeth 1

Same song, but more spoken:

Elisabeth 2

To me, both things don't work. I have a feeling that very few people understand this or are able to do this. In the first clip I don't feel anything because it's just emotion-less singing. In the second clip I wonder why the hell she is singing, and not just speaking.

There is a way of singing that's sincere, and combines great singing and acting (as in the first clip I posted, like done in Miss Saigon at the moment). It's important that when you tell a story through song, that both things, singing and acting are very good and not choose one of these 2 extremes, because both things distract. I know this quality is rare and requires a very elaborate casting process.

What basically happens in these 2 Elisabeth clips is that the first lady tries to get away with the material by vibrating and the second lady tries to get away with it by speaking and moaning. I would say "getting away" with it is something very different than actually using the notes to enhance your performance, the whole point of singing in the first place.

For the record, in the first clip I posted you can see that Hugh Jackman does both things off and on to try to get away with it.

 

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 08:23 AM

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:25am

Didn't we already discuss this a few weeks ago?

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:29am

Not with good examples.

Most people still had the misunderstanding that theatre is always full on-legit singing and film is not.

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:32am

Oh. Well film definitely has legit singing in it. Anna Kendrick in ITW comes to mind. She Broadway belted that song like a champ. Along with countless many other examples.

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:44am

I think Anna Kendrick's singing is always very technical and she doesn't know quite how to combine emotion with great singing (which isn't great in the first place). So basically, she falls in the first category for me. With her, it distracts from the acting.

When I speak about "legit", I mean the style they are doing in Miss Saigon at the moment, where both things are good. Which is very rare and almost always absent in musical films from the last 20 years.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 08:44 AM

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 8:55am

Weird I thought she nailed it. She doesn't have a typical Broadway voice but you might be confusing the absence of legit singing with just the direction the actors were told to take. I would say Hathaway and Jackman had "legit" singing in Les Mis. Catherine Zeta Jones in Chicago definitely also had a legit broadway style voice in Chicago. Even Ewan McGregor in Moulin Rouge had a legit voice, I would say.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 08:55 AM

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 9:10am

I have a completely different opinion about this. 

Jackman is the king of distraction. Half of his scenes speaking or moaning, and the other half of his scenes forced-vibrating like crazy at the most unnecessary places.

That makes both the acting and the singing not legit. Worst of both worlds.

Hathaway did get away with the moaning and crying, as that emotion tends to be forgivable. 

I have to say that Ewan McGregor is a good example of how to make it work, very good actor and also a good singer and most importantly knows how to act through notes and using them. However, I do feel that many other people can even bring more nuances to acting through notes, as Ewan tends to go for loud straight notes a little too much. Another musicalfim might make him look like a one trick pony. 

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 9:24am

"Hathaway did get away with the moaning and crying, as that emotion tends to be forgivable"

 

I disagree. She did much more than that. Her fantine's arrest song was beautiful and definitely of Broadway caliber, in my opinion.

 

I'm not really sure how you can say legit singing has been avoided in musical films when we have films like Hairspray and Into The woods. Streep's Last midnight was definitely broadway caliber vocally. She sounded just like Donna Murphy (perhaps even better). Lila Crawford's I know things now was exceptional also. Even "Agony" was great cause the actors nailed it cause they sung very well and were acting while singing. It was very funny. I didn't care for The Into the woods film, but it definitely was not lacking in the vocal department (except for Johnny Depp). Same with Chicago, Zeta Jones SLAYED her songs. Latifah, Richard, Rene and John c Reilly were all very strong and told the story through music. If that's not Broadway caliber, I don't really know what is. I would even say the Rock of ages, the singers were wonderful for the most part. But that's just my opinion.

 

 

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 09:24 AM

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 9:53am

 

Uh, where'd my post go?

Anyway, I'm not a singer, but there seems to be some incorrect conflation of the terms "legit" and "Broadway-caliber" here.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 12:48pm

I think the big difference is in film you have to act first and foremost, whether you have a trained or untrained voice, or a vibrato, or a big sound.

What you can't do on film is sing first and foremost, because it's all about the visual and the expression on your face. Often stage singers look fine from a distance in a theatre when they're belting to the back row or producing a powerhouse legit sound, but if you film them with closeups, they look like Godzilla devouring Tokyo. Eyes roll, teeth gnash, throats wobble and lips quiver and shake.

Not only is it distracting, it totally undermines the moment. Of course most film singing (not all) is prerecorded, but the performers still sing to their own playback, and while the camera rolls, the acting comes first.

In the recording booth, the singing comes first.

I'm also not a big fan of actors with untrained voices and straight tones (no vibrato), but I'll take that over a singer who can't act or stops acting when they sing in order to produce a pleasant sound.

I don't get the big praise for some of the film singing in recent years, when at best it's passable, and in some cases not even passable.

For every Catherine Zeta-Jones, there are two Russell Crowes.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 12:53pm

Another point I didn't mention is that big, legit voices often sound like "too much" when amplified on a film soundtrack, especially when most dialogue is often conversational or even whispered at times.

To suddenly open up and belt at full volume while you're inches away from another person looks crazy on film. Sopranos and Tenors often come off as shrill and wobbly, too.

That's why someone like Marni Nixon was so good at dubbing. Her voice wasn't huge at all, but it had a beautiful, robust tone, and she could sing those songs for film without belting them for a theatre audience. It fit with the dialogue that came before and after it.

That's very tricky to do. It may not take a huge set of pipes, but it takes an enormous amount of vocal control. And Marni was the best.

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 1:55pm

Best12bars,

I'm not sure if I agree with your first post. While I agree that acting is important, first and foremost, I think that when it's in musical (both film or theatre), the acting is a direct result of the truthfulness of the singing. Acting through song. That's what musical is about. 1 note can have many different nuances and emotions, because of the placement, the rising etc. Speak-singing, or moan-singing is not the solution here, it only makes it sound sillier that it's being sung in the first place. If the singer does not use the notes to act, the singing gets in the way of the acting. Have you seen the first clip I posted? It clearly shows, that in theatre as well as on film, legit singing works very well.It also shows the other side, that too much vibrato distracts a performance just as bad as speak-singing. The way you describe "stage" singers, is exactly what Hugh Jackman does in the Les Mis film with his huge vibrato in all unnecessary moments. While all the stage Valjeans I've seen give a very nuanced, filmic performance (see clip). It seems many people still don't get this.

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 2:01pm

"I think the big difference is in film you have to act first and foremost, whether you have a trained or untrained voice, or a vibrato, or a big sound."

This applies to both film and theatre. And the acting through song only works if the person is a great natural singer. Both untrained voices and overly trained vibratos harm this natural quality.

Watch the clip, soft singing and big singing both work perfectly in both theatre and film, as long as it's done right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcS1uIarnME

 

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 02:01 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 2:29pm

Great example:

In Miss Saigon there is the "Dju vuj vay reprise", which Kim sings to Thuy.
Soft, long, heavenly, stretched notes.

This is difficult and requires an excellent singer. The notes embody her thoughts, the wonderful memories she had with Chris.

If this is not sung right, and the notes are wobbly, cut short or spoken, it does not have the same intention. It will sound like an actress struggling with singing. It is written this way for a reason.

[jnb9872]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 3:14pm

"And the acting through song only works if the person is a great natural singer. Both untrained voices and overly trained vibratos harm this natural quality."

This I disagree with. If an actor with an untrained voice is appropriate for a role in a musical (i.e. their character must not necessarily have vocal training or they don't stick out unnecessarily from the training stature of the rest of the cast) then they can be just as effective at acting through a song. In fact, I often find some of my favorite musical performances are given by untrained performers: what sells the spontaneity of a musical moment more than the little flaws and imprecisions of an impassioned performance? 

The problem with Russell Crowe wasn't that he's an untrained singer. As I'm sure we all know, Russell has performed for years in his bands: 30 Odd Foot of Grunt and also The Ordinary Fear Of God. The problem wasn't just his voice. It's more nuanced than that. The problem was his voice was ill-suited for Javert's material, that he stuck out as a sore thumb being the only performer cast who was ill-suited in this exact manner, and that he frankly wasn't able to marry his singing to his acting. All three of these are distinct problems, and none of them imply that an untrained voice alone was his problem.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 4:46pm

The role may not require a singer first, though, so I disagree with Dave19 as well. He says the singing comes first, but Yul Brynner and Rex Harrison won Tonys and Oscars for performances in musicals without having much of a trained singing voice at all.

The acting comes first even if the role demands a better singer.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 5:18pm

Not sure if anyone has noticed, but every time Dave19 has started or participated in a discussion along these lines, he seems to have a different definition of singing in musicals (with regard to all the types of singing he brings up) than the rest of us have. Maybe it would help if he clarified exactly what he meant, because otherwise we're meeting him with our definition in mind wondering why the hell he's still talking about this while he's trying to figure out what we mean.

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 5:59pm

"The problem was his voice was ill-suited for Javert's material"

I think you hit the nail on it's head there. It's certain roles, where the power of the role is largely based on the sung notes (and therefore the acting through them) (Javert, Valjean, Kim, etc), where you just don't get away with it. While there are certain roles (Lumiere, Thenardier) where you can.

And yes, there are more things that can harm a performance, untrained voice, too much vibrato, but indeed, also being unable to act through sung notes.

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 05:59 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 6:03pm

"The acting comes first even if the role demands a better singer."

 It might not be a matter of "what comes first". To me, the problem is it loses believability if both things don't compliment eachother. Because it makes either the acting or the singing feel fake.

 

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 06:03 PM

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 6:20pm

g.d.e.l.g.i., have you seen the clip? Those are the things that bother me. If someone is not bothered by a 5 minute vibrato at the end of "Now come on lady's settle doooooown", in the filmversion, (while that same note has been short in evey theatre version out there) that's fine too and they can explain why they are not bothered by it, or why it adds something for them. If someone likes to hear certain notes spoken instead of being sung, they can explain that too. What works for you?

With that said, I think everyone on here is perfectly capable of explaining why he/she thinks something. And we all react on eachothers visions substantively.

I found out that we all agree that a disconnection between singing and acting is not good for the performance. To me, that disconnect is mostly caused by 2 things. 1. Inadequate voice (not able to sing the material well enough) or untrained, or unpracticed if you will, anyway, not up to the task, which results in an immediate disconnect. 2. Excessive use of vibrato, too much tricks, singing from the outside.

 

Updated On: 4/7/15 at 06:20 PM

[Showface]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 7:05pm

I wrote a wonderfully long post about how actors who aren't trained in singing are just as capable of giving wonderful performances in musical films.

 

But I clicked post, and now it's gone. It's all gone.

 

**sigh**

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 7:27pm

Maybe "trained" is not the right word. If an untrained actress/singer can sing all the beautiful soaring high, long notes in the "Dju vuy vaj" reprise, which are written like a dream than that's fine too. The better word might be "capable". Capable of singing it and therefore acting through song. If the person has difficulties with singing it, than I would take a hell of an actress to get away with it, and then still, getting away with it is not the same as using the notes and the material to take it to a higher level.

 

 

 

[jo]

Posted: 4/7/15 at 9:00pm

During the Oscar awards season, the director and some cast members of Les Miserables were part of a Q&A following a screening of the film before professional colleagues ( actors and probably other creatives) --

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=um-QWNYD0dk

Continuation --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUzUkQ2dKlY


At 14'14" --

"The only way to respect the language of film is to abandon the language of the stage!"

-- from Anne Hathaway, and was noted by the audience in this particular forum ( mostly actors). She talked about how she abandoned " Look, I'm singing!" to one of discovering the human truth of the character she was portraying...And she went on to become a shoo-in winner of various awards ( including the Oscar) for this portrayal.

Insightful take from an actress who has successfully performed on film and on stage!

 

 

 

[Dave19]

Posted: 4/8/15 at 6:00am

"Look, I'm singing!"

Is what I felt troughout the whole film.

Because the singing did not feel natural/real, but forced, and I wondered why they did not just speak.

It felt unnatural and too far away from the artists. More like "****, I have to do a note now, it gets in the way of my acting" instead of "using the notes to enhance the acting".

So where did it go wrong?

Have you seen the clip? Can you (or Anne) explain why Hugh is treating every intimate scene and word as if he is on a huge stage with a forced and big vibrato? So I guess only the stage Valjeans in the clip embraced the language of film?

(which it basically is, we are watching it on film and it works perfectly)

The only language that counts is the one that feels natural. Trying to morph singing into spoken dialogue with a loud vibrating note in the middle is not the solution. Go all the way or don't sing. Or it will sound like "Look, I do a note". Like in Les Mis.

I can't stand that separation and I am astonished that people think "toned down but with a note in the middle" equals "more emotion" when it comes to singing.

Updated On: 4/8/15 at 06:00 AM