Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Rather OT....but been discussed before here...

I went and saw the opening of the Les Miserables movie yesterday. I was a little disappointed. It was good. But not as good as I thought it would be.
I am very happy that I finally saw the show. The story itself. Instead of just listening to the music on my own. Makes me want to read the book. Which will be a great undertaking.

I'm disappointed in Cameron. I thought he would have made it less of an opera. In places where Hugh and Russel sang. I thought it should have been more of a talking conflict. Those two were always a conflict.
Heck...they did this with songs. Where one would actually talk and work into singing. Made the songs much more real. I thought this would carry through more in the movie.
I thought Cameron allowed the timing to be off a little. Not quite the art I thought it would be. One could blame the director for this.
I think Samantha Barks deserves much more credit and talk of her performance. Somehow she deserves an academy award. Kudo's to Samantha! Better than I thought she would be.
Amanda Seyfried was better than I thought she would be. She did great.
Kate was great. I need to see the movie again. They...I repeat "they" somehow seemed to have timing off...again. Maybe I was just distracted by all the people in the movie. I don't know. It as all there. I need to see it again.
Russel.... They should have done better in casting his part. He isn't bad. I don't think he drags it down. But it could have easily been better.
Hugh...He did real good. Again...I need to see it again.

It seemed to me that the production, editing, etc. were hurried out. Not the care I expected Cameron to demand. I did expect better. A masterpiece of art. Again...maybe I was just too distracted by all the people in the audience. I don't go to movies much. I'd rather see this in my own environment to criticise. My own environment being at 4am when I enjoy my music of the night. When it's quiet. They're all asleep. I can live outside my mind. It is my piano time. My music time. A time I enjoy more than any other part of the day.

Thing that gets me is: Doing these songs like in the movie, has been going through my mind for over a year. Writing songs with the original intent of the book's writer has been in my mind for a long time. I've never read the book. Didn't know the story. Have never seen the play. Been infatuated with these songs for over a year. I now just have to read the book. I want to see a live stage performance. The most impressed I've been is watching recordings of the 25th anniversary concert of this.

EDIT: In short. This was a great movie. But it is not the great masterpiece I was expecting. It is not a Michael Angelo, or Picaso. I need to have a long talk with Mr. Schonberg and Mr. Boubill.
I do think Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter did a fantastic job. Seemed to turn those two from comical, into funny but hateful characters. Excellent!
Eddie Redmayne surprised me. Well done.

I haven't watched the movie but I have a vague recollection of reading the book a long time ago. Maybe more useful - I took one fascinating course toward my degree way back when: comparing literature and film versions of the same thing. I think my paper was on the Hunchback of Notre Dame and a movie, both in French. As I recall:

A lot of the books we read written in that period were about ideas, personal growth of the characters, and the thoughts of the characters. Movies have images, sounds, actions, and words. The book can state the idea directly in a narrator's paragraphs. The ideas and thoughts can also be written in paragraphs. You can't do that in a movie. Some of the old movies will show, for example, a guy driving in his car with scenery going by while a narrator says his thoughts, "It was another typical spring day, and I was thinking......" They were still trying to capture the essence of books. But a movie is not a book. So a movie will have to emphasize different things. If it's historical, then you can see the costumes, mannerisms, and you can guess some of the ideas through hints. But if a book is about ideas, that can't come across nearly as deeply. I'm thinking that what makes a book great may be lost in the movie.

For the Hunchback, as I recall, a great deal of the book was lost or watered down. But new things were emphasized in the movie, which made it enjoyable, like a different thing from the original. It was more about emotion and action, relationships between characters that could be brought out in dialogue and interaction.

I believe that the motivation behind the creation of the movie and the motivation behind the creation of the book were entirely different.

It seems like you had many expectations before you went to the movie.
This will allways put you in a frame of mind that may not be as receptive as if (a.) you didnt know the story, (b.) hadnt seen the stage play (c) hadnt read the book, (d) hadnt read critics reports (e) hadnt read reviews in the daily rags., etc etc etc.

Very rarely indeed is a film better than the book that it was "based upon", there are exceptions to this and I am sure folk will cite examples, However the point here is the actual words "based upon"

How can any film that for example is an hour and a half long, be as true to a book that took a week to read? ( or a few days or many hours)


As a further example, take the harry potter (franchise?) books, folk had read them before the films were made (obviously)

The readers of these books got their own personal pictures in their own minds of what the characters looked like, spoke like, and what the surroundings conjured up in terms of scenery, ect ect...

once that has taken place in your mind and you have your personal mental images, how can a hollywood movie hope to impress when its battling your own personal preconceptions?

many folk i have talked to that had read the harry potter books, detested the films...

Of course there must be examples of terrible books that have made good films??

Ron - there is a very good chance that if you had seen a performance of the live stage version of this great musical you would be more than "a little disappointed" with the movie - a very good chance, but I don't really know for certain because I haven't seen the movie myself yet and won't until next week (probably on New Year's Day)...

But, I'm extremely wary of going to see it and I have much trepidation about doing so - I've seen the live stage performance of it 6 times in 6 different theaters with 6 different casts (since the early 90s) and have come away overwhelmed by the power and beauty of the music and the deep seated humanity of the story every time - and I'm afraid the movie will never be able to come close to matching those live, in person experiences...

I'm particularly worried about the casting - Hollywood is once again up to it's usual tricks of going with "names" and "star power" at the expense of the real, extraordinary talent of almost all of those who have been /currently are cast in the roles on the stage worldwide. In this regard, I've never forgiven Hollywood for casting Audrey Hepburn in the movie version of "My Fair Lady" instead of the lesser known but much more talented Julie Andrews (who starred in the show on Broadway)!

I'll let you know more next week, but I'm not expecting much...except perhaps a lot of disappointment and anger.


Trap

Gee Trapper... I wasn't old enough to care who they cast in; My Fair Lady. I was old enough to have a crush on Audrey Hepburn. That was easy to do, all the way to the day she died. Julie always had so much talent, it wasn't even funny.
I'm rationalizing from what you said on the plays that; These people do this so much. It's kinda like they're perfecting a masterpiece in their performance. If it's very well worth going to watch their personal masterpieces?
My sister in law's father spends his vacations going to Broadway to see shows. I now understand why he does. There is a big reason why these shows sell out years in advance.
All I had to go on in the movie was sneak peeks on youtube. I thought they would present this as a masterpiece, taking full advantage of what can be done on film. I thought they would stick to getting the very best they could for each part. I fear the movie still gave in too much to Hollywood's ways. Biggest problem being editing. Gee....these three guys putting on all the plays and this movie...They're filthy rich. They can do it. I'm rationalizing there was just too much childish arguing about; It has to be done like this and this and...
I'd like to see them redo it...but this time...go through Andrew Lloyd Weber's; Really Useful Group. I think they would show the care needed. And Andrew would love to do work with these guys.

Oh Rossy Rossy Rossy.... that about says it. Thanks for posting.

Oh the book. I understand this is really a story of relationships. An exploration of differing types of love. Of people who are rich on the inside, versus those poor, wretched, and naked on the inside. It used the revolution as a backdrop for these relationships.

On books in general. The only book I ever read in one day was: Seabiscuit. It was like a seven course meal of fine food. The movie was like a McDonald's happy meal. I still can't believe I actually read that book in one day.

All and all in the Les Mis movie. I do think that Anne and Hugh put forth trying to create a masterpiece. They did put that much into it. It showed. I still can't belive there isn't more talk about Samantha's performance. I was hoping for the whole movie to be up to Samantha's level.

I wasn't familiar with Samantha - here's the movie trailer featuring her - looks really good...





But, here's what she has to live up to (from the 10th Aniversary concert version in London):

Watching those two videos: musically the concert wins hands down. The movie looks really interesting but I wouldn't watch it for the singing. LOL

[quote=TrapperJohn]I wasn't familiar with Samantha - But, here's what she has to live up to ...



Do these two look familiar? .... (big big big grin)

[video:youtube] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIjU02gVGNw [video]
EDIT: Well I goofed up the link. But it's still there to click on. At 5:55 into it.... Samantha has had plenty of "practice"... hehe

You know I think the world of Lea.
I do think Samantha did the transition to a film performance perfectly. If she were allowed, she would have stolen the show (movie).
I also think they couldn't get Lea to do anything in the movie. I have seen a statement from Lea saying she is tired of playing other people. She wants to play herself. Not to say there is not plenty of other great stage performers who could have done a great job adding to the movie.

EDIT: One question, Trapper... The person always pictured on the marquee...that is Eponine, right? For the movie it is the young Cosette. That would be another little thing taking away from Samantha.

1+
Excellent points made above. I, too, have seen the live stage performance- both on Broadway and a national touring company and am undecided whether or not to see the film. Anything less than superb quality singing will disappoint.
I think I felt the same way when "Phantom" was released in the theatres, although I do feel Emmy what's-her-name did an excellent job and has a lovely voice (AND it didn't sound over-trained, if you will).

Uhhhh....cough cough...mmmmm ... That's Rossum...
She's another one of my sweeties.
Oh that cemetary scene. Those big huge sad brown eyes. Singing: Wishing you were somehow here again.

Thanks for the video Ron...

piano joy - you're absolutely correct about anything less than superb singing being disappointing...

The most important point is that one MUST see a live stage performance to fully appreciate the power & beauty of this "most beloved" (and most seen worldwide) of all musicals - for those who have the time and desire here is the next best thing - the complete 10th anniversary concert version from 1995 in London:





Enjoy, Trap

Ok Trapper... You can judge from the 25th Anniversary Concert in London...
(forgive my lack of posting videos...forget how)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAugBdMMdM0

Does she live up to expectations?

As you saw earlier. Lea did Fantine in the 25th. Lea did Eponine in the 10th. Lea knows that play well.
Now I do think Samantha is different. Samantha still lives up to any expectations of excellent.

Ok,I'm not Trap, however...

Personally, I think Lea S. wins "hands down".
Of course, musical tastes vary and are subject to one's own opinion.

Now, Samantha does a very good job, I agree. She is about 20 years younger than Lea, so experience may have something to do with it.....I just think Lea's voice is more pleasant, smoother, softer.

The other issue is once someone creates an original role, they almost "own" it and it can be a very difficult act to follow.
For example, Zero Mostel defined the role of "Tevye" in Fiddler on the Roof.
I can hardly bear to watch someone else sing or play that role.

Just my two cents worth.
Now, get out of those hills every so often and go see this LIVE.

I agree fully with pj about Lea and Samantha, and especially for the reason I've emboldened above...Samantha is good but Lea is so remarkably talented and compelling - and she indeed does own this role and song...

I also heartily agree about Mostel and "Fiddler" - I'm currently learning the great song his character of Tevye does in that heart-warming musical, one of the best from any musical ever: "Sunrise, Sunset".

However...Ron...I broke down and saw the movie this afternoon (it beats staying home with crazy boys in the house!) and I must say, Samantha did a very good job, indeed; far better than I had anticipated!
Quite the actress, too.

Painful: Russell Crowe singing.
More painful: Hugh Jackman singing "Bring Him Home".
Ouch!


...was surprised to see Helene Bonham Carter in this...


note to Trap: why doesn't anybody play "Sunrise/sunset" on the piano anymore? It's so well suited for the keyboard!

I just HAVE to post this...



hmmm, I think he may have invented Zumba, unknowingly!

Now that's how to pray!



I only wanted to compare Samantha to the rest of the movie. Not to Lea.

I did get out in November. Was in So. Cal. Wasn't a pleasure trip. Tried though...almost saw Jazzwee performing. Just had too much driving all over. Going anywhere became stress.

I'm much more free now. I really want to see this on stage. I'll see....

This is what I fear most. Here is the gold standard, which absolutely no one will ever match:







Yes it is and I think it has been played, although not a lot lately - however, I'm doing my very small part with a rather simple arrangement to bring it back...