One of the unique selling points of this production is the director is supposedly recording the actor’s singing live and not in the studio. No tweaking.
The main reason to cast a big name actor in a role is to have a big name actor in a role. Not because it is impossible to find someone else who can act. I can’t argue with the practice. It is a business. But I can speculate that it makes for a worse movie.
I don’t think there’s a reason they can’t cast each role for the style of singing appropriate to the role. Eponine is a little whiny drama queen (and she’s also my favorite character to sing, so I say that with genuine affection) who isn’t really “broken” the way Fantine is. Fantine was raised with grace and some amount of privilege and “fell” when she slept with the wrong dude and fell further when she crossed the wrong women. Eponine is of hardier stock, and doesn’t miss what she never had - except for the wrong dude.
Makes sense to me that one would have a more delicate demeanor than the other, and that the singing would reflect that.
Even if they are singing on stage/set, the sound still gets recorded and mixed/tweaked/edited/etc. I can’t imagine they just start the tape and fire the sound guy. Also, multiple takes to get it right. I canjust see where it’d be easier to fix the sound flaws of film actors than work around the film inexperience of stage actors or singers.
Yeah, my interpretation of the “recorded live on set” thing is that the raw audio comes from the live takes - probably as much to avoid the distinctive look of lip-synching as to get the “most real” vocal performance. But I’m sure they’ll be splicing audio tracks together from various takes and doing the normal studio manipulation to give everything a unified sound. I just hope they resist the urge to auto-tune.
this, this, a thousand times this. thank you.
i’ve seen the stage musical a few times and i am very, very excited. this is very close to what my dream cast would be for a film version. hugh jackman as valjean? yes please.
I was wondering the same…
That trailer looks good. I wonder why it took them this long to do this.
At least in the trailer, with the hair cutting scene “this hell I’m living” Anne Hathaway looks positively destroyed - like her whole being has given up. I’m sure there are stage acrtresses that could do the same, but it’s something that I like from Hathaway.
And the little kid who plays young Cosette is so freaking cute, I want to give her a bit hug.
I want to find a stage production now and see it before the movie. Doesn’t seem to be anything in Montreal, though. Time to google!
That was my favorite moment of the trailer as well, and nicely illustrates what I was talking about above about film vs stage acting.
Ultimately, there is no “perfect” way to cast a movie like this. If you use the stage cast, you risk making something like the film version of “Rent,” which featured great singing but made it very obvious which of the actors had any previous experience on film and which ones did not. You could also run completely in the opposite direction and cast film actors regardless of their vocal talent, and then dub over the songs in post-production with real singers. But then you usually get somewhat incongruous performances, in which the face and the voice don’t quite communicate the same emotional tone, as well as the visually unappealing “lip synch” look (“It’s incredible how much volume that actor is producing considering that he/she is clearly not exhaling at all!”).
I think this production goes for the best-case middle ground, giving a little bit in both directions (but overall leaning more towards the latter approach) by casting great film actors who also have solid voices. This preserves the vocal fidelity of the singing while ensuring that you’ll get great on-camera acting. And, hopefully, the quality of the singing itself will be strong enough that serious musical fans will be able to enjoy themselves as well.
[QUOTE=mnemosyne]
want to find a stage production now and see it before the movie.
[/QUOTE]
A bit of a hijack (but I started the thread so I’ll allow it ;)): When the 25th anniversary stage show came around recently the tickets were absolutely outrageous. For the weekend shows in Atlanta the cheapest seats were around $115 plus surcharges, which considering I’ve seen the show 3 three times (never paying anything remotely like that) and that it’s going to be a big budget movie that you see many times for that price*, I thought it was ridiculous. Considering it had no name stars and, to my knowledge, no more extravagant special effects than previous versions I’d seen which cost far less (I think I once paid around $75, but those were excellent seats), it also reeked of gouging to me. Of course if it was gouging it worked as most of the seats apparently sold.
For that matter several other road shows seem to have gone up dramatically, far more than just the difference you’d expect from inflation since the '90s/early '00s versus today. Is this anybody else’s observation?
*(Yes, I know the qualitative and exciting differences in a stage show and a movie, but the quantitative difference of over $100 is not a small amount either, especially since it would also require a long drive/parking/ideally a hotel/etc., it just wasn’t worth it)
I haven’t even found any nearby. It looks like plans to bring the show to the Royal Alexandria in Toronto are on hold, and while I’ve got plenty of people I could go visit in Toronto, it’s not really ideal either. Maybe I’ll find a DVD somewhere…
When I saw it in Indianapolis this April, my ticket (first balcony, first row) was about $100 after Ticketmaster fees. I have the ticket stub still from seeing it in Lincoln, Nebraska in 1997 and it says $45 for Row X. I remember it being roughly equal for experience (could make out the actors & costumes; couldn’t pick them out of a line-up by face) and I won’t guess at how supply & demand affects Indianapolis vs. Lincoln. But I sure do see legitimate theater in all the most exotic locations, huh?
Extended first look, with a long discussion of how and why they’re doing live singing on set… and it makes me VERY optimistic (although their technique seems to make a lot more sense for individual songs as opposed to big group numbers).
Thanks! I agree that it’s looking very promising. The music, the singing, the sets and fact that they can zoom in on faces or things rather than have the whole stage before you… I think this is going to be good.
Also, the gods have smiled upon me after my aborted attempt to see the musical in Indianapolis (mentioned upthread). Sixth row for the first weekend in Chicago. 
I saw that trailer the other day, and decided there and then that I won’t be able to watch this movie in the theater.
Not because I don’t love Les Miz, because I do. Not because the trailer looks awful, because it looks absolutely, fabulously awesome.
No, it’s because I can tell already that I’ll be sobbing from beginning to end of the movie, and no one in the theater should have to put up with that.
I wonder how long it’ll be before I can watch it at home.
My wife sent me the link to the extended first look yesterday. She suggested that this year, we might want to have a “Jewish Christmas” - go out for Chinese, then go see this movie!
I’m very very excited, although a little nervous since we still haven’t heard any singing from Mr. Crowe.
I’m sure a good deal of self-awareness was lost on the cutting room floor, but I was amused at how earnestly multiple film actors explain to the camera that singing live allows them to act “in the moment.” Why yes, yes it does.
As my grandfather would say, Oooooh, goody goody gumdrop!
My 16yo daughter and I are planning on seeing it that day. She’s currently rereading the book…
The fact that it opes the same day as The Hobbit is leading to some logistical excitement in our neck of the woods…
According to this story, The Hobbit opens on December 14 in the US. If that’s true, then for us, Christmas will be a double-feature of Les Miserables and Django Unchained.