Les Miserables (2012) film adaptation of the musical

I loved the 1998 movie, and this looks really good too. I love the way that trailer ends.

My Christmas film of this year. Hands down.

Double post for for I think you guys are going to interested in this.

Oh Yes. That looks really freaking good. The songs were fantastic, the actors fit perfectly. The costumes and sets all looked very high quality. I am inconceivably excited about this. I really can't beleive it took them this long to film a Les Mis musical, but I am glad they did if it is going to be this good and not like Webbers butchering of Phantom.

My only concern is that in the scene with the prostitutes sticking their heads out of windows, and the shots of the barricade, the set looked a bit too much like a stage set, and not like a full scale Hollywood set. But then on screen they can add effects and background to give the full cinematic feel.

That looked/sounded lovely. Gonna have to remember to bring a box of tissues... I've thoroughly embarrassed myself the couple times I've seen it live.

Also, it's fun hearing different versions of "I Dreamed a Dream". The last one I heard live was very very angry, and it worked, but I like what they're trying for here.

edited 23rd Sep '12 5:54:12 AM by Bur

Hey, look◊! It's the Snatchers!

Well, it's actually Thenardier and Montparnasse, but do they look like they walked out of Harry Potter to anyone else?

Also, holy crap, they're adding the Bishop to the final scene.

EDIT TWO: And they're having Gavroche be Eponine's brother! Go, team, go!

EDIT THE THRID: Gillenormand and Mabeuf. Freaking Gillenormand and Mabeuf. GO, TEAM, GO!

edited 6th Nov '12 8:03:28 AM by HamburgerTime

Gavroche is Eponine's brother.

I know that, but that detail isn't in the stage version. They're re-adding it for the movie, that's why I'm so happy.

A common worry was that the movie would attract flocks of those annoying Eponine fangirls to the Internet, but I'm actually starting to doubt that for two reasons. First, the previews and promotional materials place much more emphasis on Cosette, implying that her role will be the larger of the two (though that could just be because Amanda Seyfried is more famous than Samantha Barks), and second, bits of the script I've seen seem to indicate that some of Eponine's Jerkassier qualities from the book will be retained here.

That plus Mabeuf and Gillenormand (who I think might've last been in an adapted version in the freaking '30s) gives me high hopes over here.

New Trailer

Looking pretty good so far.

More focus on the main plot is a YAY!

It won't be the same if the movie doesn't spend fourty-five minutes showing us the sewers of Paris, fifteen minutes on the habits and nature of the Gamin, two hours at Waterloo, twenty minutes on the foolishness of young lovers, ten minutes of ways to live your life on less than twelve francs a day, and about an hour showing how Paris is the hub of the world, culturally, militarily, economically, in every way, all roads lead to Paris, as Paris goes, so goes the world, this is not just a revolution in Paris, it is a fight for the hub of the world, etc.

Don't forget the underworld slang!

Anyway, more Cosette is always a good thing. She ended up being one of my favorite characters in the book, with a surprising amount of Funny Moments, it's just that, and I actually noticed this while reading the book, many of her better scenes are among the easiest to cut for time, meaning she usually ends up with the short end of the stick in adaptations. But if you thought her courtship with Marius in the musical was abrupt, check out the 1935 film version. "Tomorrow, Marius. "Tomorrow, Marius." Repeat for two minutes and that's all the development they get. Though I suppose if you've always wanted to see John Carradine play an Ax-Crazy Enjolras...

edited 8th Nov '12 7:49:48 PM by HamburgerTime

Yikes at Russell Crowe's singing voice....

I dunno, maybe it won't sound so bad in the actual movie.

Okay, here's a question for folks, because I'm hopelessly lost here. People seem to be kinda ticked off that the cast won't be lip-synching, and I'm wondering why. Not only is it more faithful to the stage show, but I've seen so many movie musicals where the lip synch is just half-a-second off from the song and it pulls me out of the film. I just can't see the flaw, and I'm legitimately wondering why people are angry.

I think it's because they doubt the singing abilities of several actors like Russell Crowe or Anne Hathaway.

But how would lip-synching help that? I mean, it's not particularly common practice (outside of animated films) to have separate singing voices for the actors. (At least I don't think it is.) It'd still be them singing, just into a mic after the fact.

edited 9th Nov '12 1:28:54 PM by Wackd

Well its only my theory, there could be a better reason. I just don't know it.

My only problem with it so far is that, in the trailer at least, there's this weird sort of disconnect from the orchestration and the vocals. "I Dreamed a Dream" in particular sounds really tinny. But I'll withhold judgement until I see the final product.

With lip-synching recording you can do many takes until you actually get the right sound, plus you can take bits and bobs from each performance to create a better performance. The way they seem to have filmed this would make it harder, since each take will probably be more different than takes of a studio recording.

It's only recently that all actors have started doing their own singing in musicals. I'm pretty sure that in the 70s it was still normal for actors (who were not known as singers) to be dubbed.

In the DVD I saw of West Side Story the actors explained how they sang the songs but were later replaced with more professional singers who sang the songs and replaced the originals. There were some clips of the songs with the original and the dub, and in each case I thought there was no difference in quality between them - but the actors all agreed that replacing their performances with those recorded by other people in a better studio was the right thing to do.

It actually is not at all historically uncommon for film musicals to a separate singing voice for their actors, if they really wanted a particular big-name actor or actress who didn't have a good singing voice (or even in some cases where they did, just not the kind of voice the producers wanted). What's really struck me as weird is the few times they've had a pre-pubescent boy provide the singing voice for an adult actress.

I remember finding Eponine a lot more appealing than Cosette in the version of the musical I saw, but that may only be because Eponine was being played by Lea Salonga, who was loads more charismatic than the whoever it was they had playing Cosette at the time.

edited 10th Nov '12 3:48:24 PM by Robbery

Also recording the voice in a controlled environment creates a clearer sound. And also more manipulatable.

In the 1960s dubbing was really overused, to the point where Julie Andrews had to fight not to be dubbed in The Sound Of Music. I'm glad we've left those times behind, but there are some occasions where I really wish that they had just agreed that an actor needed dubbing (Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia immediately comes to mind). I really hope none of the people in Les Mis fit that category.

So, I've just finished book one of the Complete and Unabridged Edition of Les Mis. I should finish the rest sometime within the decade.

I mean, I assumed from the musical, that the Bishop's role before meeting Valjean would be summed up in a paragraph or two, but Hugo gives a fourteen chapter description of the guy.

I'm really enjoying it however. It's beautifully written, and incorporates some truly profound, timeless thoughts.

Has anyone read the book? If so, what'd you think?

edited 12th Nov '12 11:28:07 PM by kalel94