573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 12, 2016 21:14:57 GMT
Not out of context anyway.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 12, 2016 20:33:01 GMT
I know the days of show tunes becoming chart hits is long over, but I'm surprised nothing from Hamilton has been covered. I can imagine a song like Helpless being popular outside of the show. Especially with all the current Hamilton fever* in the U.S. (*My favourite bit of Hamilton fever being the zoo that named its baby camel "Alexander Camelton") That's probably because there are no proper songs in the show, just some affected posturing and talking in a dramatic way, preferably every sentence a bit higher than the one before and in an overly dramatic voice that sounds like the speaker is about to cry. And of course the cool look and pose at the end of a "song" is important, preferably with a head flip on the final chord. That would not work well on radio.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 3, 2016 22:23:31 GMT
I found this audio clip today. I don't even know the orchestra or what kind of cd this is, but from 00:19 it really sounds like what I imagine for the end titles in a future movie:
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 29, 2016 9:46:18 GMT
I agree that it is a great recording, but can't get on with Eponine's soul girl 'On My Own'. It reminded me of when Partridge ruined 'Bui Doi' on the first 'Miss Saigon' tour. Feel free to interpret, but don't reinvent! I love the recording too, but the Eponine ruins it for me too. She is totally miscast.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 29, 2016 9:30:00 GMT
If a girl has low self esteem, she would go for Phantom. If she has self-worth, she would go for Raoul.
It's all about her insecurities. Does she need a psycho, bad boy because she has a desparate need to be worshipped in a shallow sexual way, and needs that conformation to feel right, then she needs to work on herself first, before starting any relation. Just like many teenage girls do.
A proper relationship goes far beyond that.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 27, 2016 0:53:51 GMT
I think Tanya Manalang would be a great choice for Kim too, she is an outstanding actress and a good match for Jeremy Jordan on screen.
Here are some other ideas:
B.D Wong (Engineer):
Nicole Scherzinger (Gigi):
Lady Gaga (Ellen):
Jeremy Jordan (Chris):
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 27, 2016 0:47:54 GMT
"Film version also still in talks, Danny Boyle may be interested in casting Eva."
Has he said that?
That would be a hopeful approach. I hope he casts Jeremy Jordan as Chris, who is an extremely strong singer and actor, who can create pure magic with the material on screen by going all the way. Soaring notes, grab the audience and take them to another world with the language of singing their thoughts. Singing everything from your soul instead of speaking 4 words: "john.......is that you.....buddy......listen.....(and then turn from speaking to singing) to meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee (and then use a 10 second vibrato only on the syllable "me") like they did in the Les Mis film. That does not cut it. You either go all the way or don't sing at all. The constant switching takes the audience out of it. Embrace this language. That is the key to raw emotions. Constant switching is the key to making it silly.
Now, if they go for this approach, they would need a very strong singing Kim too, and then Eva would be a great choice. Because so many scenes in this piece should not be realistic because they are their thoughts being sung (Last night of the world, this is the hour, I still believe, nightmare, I still taste your kisses, movie in my mind, etc) I can see those scenes being approached as some kind of "triumph of the fantasy". Better than life, more romantic, more scary, a choir of ghost faces singing, smoke, a muggy, dreamy atmosphere in last night of the world. Not real. More like the approach of a music video clip. I think that is essential for this musical on film. Some parts can even be used as a kind of "voice over" of a scene. Pre-recorded, like a soundtrack. An approach that is not literal, as the material is per definition not literal.
People should come out of the cinema saying, wow, I have never heard or seen anything like this. I do think that Jeremy and Eva have this ability. They understand this language.
Now, of course they need some big names too for other roles. But they have to be great singers too.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 24, 2016 9:49:38 GMT
I was very disconcerted by Ewan McGregor's Lumiere accent. Just didn't ring true. It's a talking candle.... So therefore extra important that the voice rings true to make the material actually work.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 24, 2016 9:45:25 GMT
causing people to get upset when Depp burst into 'song'... I agree the visuals look pretty decent - but I was very disconcerted by Ewan McGregor's Lumiere accent. Just didn't ring true. Fingers crossed the rest of his performance helps mask that. I agree, it does not ring true. It feels forced and unnatural. The same goes for singing in a musical film, as long as it does not feel completely natural, like real singing, it does not feel truthful either (Les Mis, speaking 4 words and use vibrato on the5th). Truthful with this material lies in embracing the language of singing. Going all the way.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 22, 2016 12:24:50 GMT
I was expecting for the film, they would go the full Freddy Krueger (silly me) so I was more than a little disappointed at the eventual reveal) I was expecting for the film they would go the full anything. Great make-up, great singing, great acting, all the way. For some reason quality is forbidden in musical films. We all know that toning everything down makes it more raw and real (kidding, of course not, it makes it silly). Maybe they thought the same for leaving out the make up.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 15, 2016 16:31:25 GMT
Easy....At a matinee of The Bakers Wife, a man was sat next to me. It was a super hot day and he was wearing shorts. The friend i was with said something to me and i laughed, prompting a big thick piece of phlegm to fly from my throat... i saw it fly, almost in slow motion, onto the man's bare knee. before he knew what hit him, literally, i dived onto his knee to wipe it off. He must have thought i was a crazy man attacking his leg. My friend laughed about it all through act 1 and still finds it hilarious today. The man in shorts didnt return for the second act. Mortified. I have been laughing about this post all day. I just had dinner and wasn't even online and I started cracking up again when I just thought of it. It's just something I can really see happening, also your impulse to clean it up and your friend's reaction. Brilliant.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 14, 2016 20:41:51 GMT
Will this cinema release only be in the UK? Or all over Europe, like they did with Phantom?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 14, 2016 14:49:28 GMT
But I would like to stick to my first theory about the soundtrack of the anniversary because the orchestra wasn't asked to come back for filming, it was just some of the principles. I like that theory more too Because, overall, the 25th show was great vocally. Even though it means that they could not improve some things either. But if that's true, they would have had to lip-sync to the audio of the 25th, while shooting the additional footage. Which I love, as it gives a very cinematic effect. If you know the details and timing of your vocals, you can still act the hell out of a take, without having to worry about the note, you already sang earlier with perfect intention and acting. It makes it even more intense in a way. I can't wait for this.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 14, 2016 14:29:44 GMT
I thought only Rachelle and Alistair came back for those 3 filming days (for additional footage, close-ups etc). Kwang-Ho was already in another show in his home country.
This is the first time I heard that they filmed the final performance (with cast change) too. They could still use footage of Kim and The Engineer, their solo scenes and their scenes together. Same goes for John.
The thing I don't understand is, if they use the full 25th performance videotaping as the basis of this (which I think is great, because it was a spectacular performance, Eva was in much better shape vocally compared to both the cd version and the final performance and other times I've seen her), then how are they going to fit in the newly filmed material? Because I can't imagine Rachelle and Alistair just walking in after a year and give that same performance vocally as they did on the 25th performance. So could it be that they will use most video footage, but ALL audio from the 25th? And that the actors had to lip-sync to their own vocals, so that the newly filmed video footage can be easily edited in?
Or did they just sing and film the scenes all over again so we might end up with a vocally different performance/energy than the 25th?
If they did the latter, I hope they fixed the wrong melody lines Eva sang. That is easy to fix with a few takes.
Does anyone have more info about this?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 12, 2016 20:16:55 GMT
Why is a woman playing Frank?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 10, 2016 13:25:53 GMT
While I agree that some stars (Sheridan included at times) and frankly us mere mortals (myself included) should learn when to shut our mouths on twitter etc, I disagree that 'real stars don't need twitter' social media in general can be a great way for actors to interact with people, and even promote good causes close to their hearts. It can also just be a lot of fun for them and their fans-random example, Gillian Anderson currently posts the best/worst of all her bad 90s photo shoots as a 'throwback Thursday'. Or it can give fun insight into production processes etc which fans really enjoy. Or others in theatre like Carrie Hope Fletcher, whose youtube videos with bits of behind the scenes at the theatre are really interesting /fun. It's not necessary by any means but I'd disagree that social media presence is a kind of desperation or only attention seeking....heck even Beyonce uses it (albeit in a hyper controlled PR manner) I agree that those examples (behind the scenes, making of, professional interactions etc) can be fun and useful for fans. Maybe it's just the personal stuff that should be left out. Everyone has negative thoughts about various subjects at times, but once you post them on twitter, this negative vibe will stick to you. I remember Sofia Escobar, a former London Christine getting in a fight with some fan because that person had said that she didn't like her performance. As long as you behave positive and fake you are fine I guess. But that's the whole point of showbizz, in interviews etc. Acting as likeable as possible? I just like to think it should be more about the real talent and roles etc.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 10, 2016 11:03:39 GMT
I think tweeting (personal) comments or emotions will take away from the magic and mystery of a star. If she was only known for her roles and an occasional interview she would be much more interesting, classy and mysterious. Stardom should not come from an online real-life soap. In the end, we want to see the illusion of a star, not their personal sh*t, them falling off a pedestal and see that they are just as crapppy as we are. Unless you like schadenferude of course, but I prefer the illusion. Generally the more I get to know a star personally, the more it takes away from their performance/image/class and the less interested I get in them.
And from a professional point of view, this business is based on make-believe. So you don't want casting directors, directors, producers, etc, being prejudiced in any way. You can be whoever you want to be at an audition for a role.
Real stars don't need twitter.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 7, 2016 11:31:03 GMT
I actually have a physical reaction when he sings that song.
Going all the way with the material really is something special. Fully embracing it. Real acting, real singing, real emotion. The scenes in Miss Saigon can be described as little concerts full of emotion.
There is not 1 instance where I feel he is struggling with notes, in fact, he uses them/turns them into a form of natural acting that feels extremely truthful and emotional. Like god is actually near him in certain notes.
This is what real singers can achieve.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 6, 2016 19:24:43 GMT
The whole language of telling a story through song is meant to be a triumph of the fantasy. Therefore a literal approach turns out silly (Les mis) because this artform is per definition not literal. So I think if they use a lot of green screens and create some kind of triumph of the fantasy (like fantasia) it could work, although I'm not sure how to do that with Cats yet, as it is just a compilation of separate scenes of cats presenting themselves.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 6, 2016 11:14:12 GMT
What??!!??!!
The Les Mis film was one big presentation of the fact that Tom Hooper does not understand the material, the artform and this way of storytelling.
And what can we expect from this? A cat sitting on a pavement, filmed in a 1 take close-up shot, speaking 4 words and vibrate for a minute on the 5th? Thinking " look at me, isn't is extra raw this way if I speak one word and vibrate on the next, don't I look like a good acting cat now"?
And there aren't any crying scenes at all in Cats to get away with that approach.
So, what the hell?
If they make it a triumph of the fantasy, what acting through song per definition is, green screens, pre-recorded music, glorious singing and dancing, they need the opposite of Tom Hooper.
And even if he learned something from the Les Mis travesy, and it will be a triumph of the fantasy somehow, with cgi cats singing for example, he is still too tempted to have hollywood-non-singers attempting "live speaking and vibrating on certain notes" to butcher the music.
But seriously, what is the point if the director does not understand that amazing singing can not be amazing acting?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 6, 2016 1:40:53 GMT
He'd be a great movie Chris. I truly hope they go all the way with glorious singing and acting in this film.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 22:44:24 GMT
Sondheim thinks "Into the woods" is good too. I thought it was horrific.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 21:08:25 GMT
Because I really love the show, the grandeur and the music. I thought all other roles were cast quite well, and loved the orchestra and overall production and still had a fine night, I just think the production deserved a better Norma. I saw someone acting in an unnatural way and struggling, and avoiding every little detail in the role and music that is important to me. The natural thing I described above.
I kept thinking: "how can she get away with this"? Any other person would be invited to the production office immediately. And even weirder was to see the person sitting next to me hyperventilating with joy, at every completely failed note/wasted moment. I thought: "what is this person's reference"?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 20:48:27 GMT
Oh sorry Burly, yes I have and I was not pleased. To say it politely.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 20:37:24 GMT
It's that great you have such knowledge and passion of the voice, and you've demonstrated that knowledge to us all many times, but I personally feel that on this occasion, the examples you are posting are so extreme that whilst the passion is great, the reality is that probably no-one else in the theatre will be sat there asking themselves the same questions. I highly doubt that many in the audience are sat there concerned what Glenn will be doing with her soft palette, where she's placing the notes and how much vibrato she's using. I don't think we will over hear comments of "I thought Glenn was OK, if only she sounded more hopeful when she sang the world 'all'". I would prefer to be slightly ignorant of all of those details and let myself be taken in by what the show has to offer, than being so knowledgeable about something that I can never turn off and enjoy something, always critiquing to the very highest level and nth degree. Surely you understand that many Joe Bloggs' who have booked to see Glenn Close have already made up their minds that she will be incredible, as demonstrated by applauding her very appearance. Then there are others who are taken on the exact same journey by Glenn as you are by the youtube video you posted, and it's simply impossible to tell someone that one is better than the other as that journey belongs to that person and that person only!! You talk about "acting through song" - and I thought Glenn was simply the epitome of that phrase. For you, the magic comes from the intricate details of the vocal workings, and that is 100% your prerogative and the joy that a good vocal performance obviously gives you is fantastic, but it's also OK to prefer Glenn's vocal styling matched with her incredible acting. Out of interest, how do you feel about Judi Dench in Cabaret and A Little Night Music? Thanks for your reply! It's not something to turn off, because with great performances/performers (of which there are too many to mention) I don't even think about it at all. It just feels natural and often I'm taken on a journey because of all the musical details and nuances and emotion it evokes. I don't think about "why does this line make me emotional", I just did that for the post because I wanted to explain the importancy and finesse of the art. The problem is when I see people who don't master it. Within the first moments I am taken out of what they are trying to do. I'm distracted by the inability. I see a person struggling with singing. Nothing takes me out of the acting more than that. I see unnatural choices, a note that should be a bit longer to lift a certain moment because the situation and music ask for it, is suddenly kept short, like a slap in the face, simply because the person isn't up to it. Bam, out of the acting again. Now, someone like Glenn Close could (arguably, I personally think she is too cartoon-esque and drag-queen like) be a fine actress. But I think she should focus on straight plays or movies that require that kind of exaggerated acting). In any case, stay away from singing. Too many moments go to waste because of the lack of mastering this craft. Sure, she has a few good acting moments in spite of the singing, but it's a fight nonetheless. Because fact is that the audience is still exposed to every note, syllable, line, breath and intonation of every word. There is a reason she is singing. I never want to ask myself: why the hell is she singing? After hearing one unnatural, strained note after another. Then just skip the song. This "faking your way through a song" only tends to work in scenes where the character is crying, because then it's easier to get away with it, and crying evokes emotion per definition and some people might mistake the "inability of singing" with "too thwarted by emotions to be able to sing". I still see a person struggling, but with singing. If Glenn is the epitome of one thing, it is "acting in spite of the singing". This is the exact issue why I can't stand most of the Les Mis film and to answer your question, why I find Judi Dench performances you mention (including her other stuff) just sad and irritating. Completely not believable. Almost laughable when she sings. Nothing to be taken seriously. I just sit there with my head shaking from left to right. Lady, what did you get yourself into? One big exhibition of "look how moved I am by myself, I can't even sing one note, isn't it extra raw this way? Don't I look like a good actress now?" No. You don't. Now, clearly there are Joe Bloggs' who have made up their minds that she will be incredible, and have completely different visions about what singing/this artform is etc. But as a counterpart, there are many people who are not satisfied at all, while I think if it was both good, many people would take this artform more seriously. But you are right when you say that there are different people. And you are also right when you say that someone who has only ever heard rap, can be astonished by the melody of a Katy perry song. So to speak. Anyway, feel free to disagree and like what you like.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 12:50:24 GMT
Listen to this, very emotional performance. What she does is taking the listener on a journey. I could write 5 pages about what is so great about this, and her notes and acting through them, from the warm round timbre she gives a note when she sings about a longing from the past, to the way she intonates the first "I can make your sad heart sing", to the marvelous transition between "with one look you know, all you need to know", where the word "all" feels very hopeful and "need" gets a touch of melancholy because of her magnificent intonation. Etc, etc, etc. She completely masters the craft.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on May 1, 2016 12:07:59 GMT
I'd much rather have a complete performance like this than powerful vocals for a few songs and ok acting. I'd much rather have both. I would not call this a complete performance at all. The most special and magical moments come from the rising, placement, polishing and perfect finesse, the lifecycle, building up, middle, and end, of a note and all emotional layers and different depths of a note, the whole palette from soft to loud and knowing that even the slightest vibrato can change the course of the emotion the note evokes, because that is exactly what creates magic in this artform. It is the basis of the acting in this artform. This understanding is necessary for a complete performance. Sure, she can make a good face in a moment without song, but all the other moments are not fully used to it's potential because of this inadequacy. It is cute when someone is able to act in spite of singing, but I am talking about a whole different level. Acting through song.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 27, 2016 23:19:08 GMT
What is wrong with hiring someone who sings AND acts the hell out of a role?
Because if one of these 2 things is not sensational, it harms the other.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 27, 2016 15:53:38 GMT
That's what I was afraid of - I would have found that all very uncomfortable and unenjoyable to watch. It really was uncomfortable (for me). Seen her three times and she wasn't the strongest singer to start with but was definitely at her best in week 1. Week 2 was weaker, and last night was a plethora of missed notes and speak singing. Having said that my Dad loved it and thought "that was how it's meant to be sung." And the crowd went wild - they must be huge Glenn fans! "a plethora of missed notes and speak singing." Sounds like a movie version to me.....because the biggest fable of the century is that that makes it feel natural, while it actually makes the singing feel very unnatural. And therefore the acting too. Acting in spite of the notes, instead of acting through them. But anyway, she is clearly not up to it, so she should stay away from the material. How can people go wild over a voice that is all over the place and misses all those notes? It must be embarrassing and uncomfortable to witness. I would ask for a refund or tickets for another day with someone who can sing it.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 24, 2016 9:13:07 GMT
No, we were impressed with her performance. You obviously don't like her which is fine. Personal taste etc. But that doesn't negate the opinions of thousands of people who have seen her (and are yet to see her) and thought it was brilliant. In fairness to Dave25, he didn't say 'everybody' or even 'everybody on here'. He said 'many'. Based on what I saw last Tuesday, the audience's ecstatic reaction was way out of proportion to her croaky singing and inability to hold a long note without wavering. Now, on this forum we're the first people to grumble if we think a particular performer isn't up to scratch. So let's be honest, if any other 69-year-old woman had got up there and sung like that in a lead role in a musical, they'd be laughed off the stage. Ergo, her fame/connection with this role is blinding many audience members to her weaknesses, no? Thanks. I completely agree. If someone has such croaky singing with the inability to hold a note without wavering, then I see a person struggling with the material and there is nothing that takes me out of the acting more than that. You can argue that her "acting in spite of the singing" is somewhat good, which I disagree with per definition, because I see someone having trouble with singing so what is there to believe. So the definition "brilliant" is not really suitable here. That enthusiasm probably comes from the things jeanhunt describes.
|
|