573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 24, 2016 0:27:53 GMT
Glenn Close's singing has never satisfied me, she sounds struggling when she does it and that makes the acting unbelievable.
Now clearly many people are very impressed with the fact that she is famous, but what can you expect from someone who does not master the fine craft of singing and acting through it? If the basis is not there, not much is needed for someone to not be able to go on. There is nothing for her to fall back on.
So I think it is silly to expect so much from an incapable person. And I think it is silly to pay so much money for the fact that she is a name, instead of quality. I have heard people say that when they saw Ria, for the first time the songs came alive. That is what you should want to pay for.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 23, 2016 9:54:30 GMT
I think this is a case of "name tunnelvision", almost being blind for the real talent of people.
I have never been intimidated or impressed by "names". I purely look at the singing and the performance. I think that Ria has so much finesse in her performance, she just completely combines the singing with the acting, every note is craftmanship. To a level where she completely outshines Glenn. Ria is Norma.
This is a case of wonderful, true craftmanship versus an actress struggling with the material, the notes, the singing and this artform in general. That will never have the same impact as someone who completely masters the craft in every detail.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 22, 2016 23:44:28 GMT
Ria is a much better singer so she takes the material to a higher level than Glenn.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 21, 2016 21:28:25 GMT
Ok thanks, yes, I see the sets are different too.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 21, 2016 14:43:28 GMT
I found this clip of the US tour today, seems like a great production.
I love all the lyric changes in the London revival, but in this particular scene I wish they had kept: "It's done, it's planned, the girl is smart, she'll understand". It sounds so much more painful than "Kim is smart". Also, "we will do what is right, right for him, right for us, right for Kim", instead of the new version. I also kind of love the original intro of the confrontation more, the way the scene starts feels more natural this way.
This scene is also very well done in the Manila version:
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 17, 2016 20:21:29 GMT
(I posted this in another thread but I wanted it to place it here too, because it is about Miss Saigon and the discussion about the film will probably continue in this thread.)
I am really looking forward to a Miss Saigon film, but only if they go all the way with great singers and great actors and not the "toned down, constantly switching between acting and singing in 1 sentence, Les Mis film" way. Because that makes it silly. It is too literal for this material.
This artform is per definition not literal, it is a triumph of the fantasy. Treating it as such creates raw emotion. We should see and hear things that aren't really there, because at many points in this story they are singing about something that is in their mind. ("This is the hour" after Kim shot Thuy, is a moment of complete horror/bewilderment in Kim's mind. Show it. I can see her standing in a undefinable space with a huge choir of ghosts singing. The nightmare, last night of the world, etc) I can imagine wonderful elaborate cinematography, special effects, ghost faces singing, smoke that turns into an image, moving camera's, big black spaces, romantic scenes that look better than life, etc. Last night of the world feels like a dream for them. Show it. Make it theatrical, big and muggy, also with the sets. Create a bigger than life sub-reality to make the essence of this material work. Realize that certain softly sung notes or soaring notes work as emotion evokers/actors themselves. Use them, act through them instead of trying to act in spite of them. Speaking 4 words and vibrate on the 5th is not the solution.
Also, we don't have to see the person mouthing all the words into the camera at every occasion, certain songs can be, in parts used as a kind of soundtrack/voice-over. I can imagine during the pre-recorded "I still believe", we see scenes of Kim and Chris that we know have happened, but haven't seen before, this is their thoughts being sung. They could also use very creative cinematography in the transition to Ellen in the USA in that song. Or in the nightmare scene.
I feel that there is a way of musical film-making that has not been done yet. A way that uses fantastic singing in a very filmic and theatrical way. A way that has been done in animation, but not in live action yet.
I feel the only films that came close to this approach were Evita, Moulin Rouge and Chicago, but still not quite there and the singing in those was mediocre. Imagine if both things are outstanding. That would be epic.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 17, 2016 12:26:20 GMT
I am really looking forward to a Miss Saigon film, but only if they go all the way with great singers and great actors and not the "toned down, constantly switching between acting and singing in 1 sentence, Les Mis film" way. Because that makes it silly. It is too literal for this material.
This artform is per definition not literal, it is a triumph of the fantasy. Treating it as such creates raw emotion. We should see and hear things that aren't really there, because at many points in this story they are singing about something that is in their mind. ("This is the hour" after Kim shot Thuy, is a moment of complete horror/bewilderment in Kim's mind. Show it. I can see her standing in a undefinable space with a huge choir of ghosts singing. The nightmare, last night of the world, etc) I can imagine wonderful elaborate cinematorgraphy, special effects, ghost faces singing, smoke that turns into an image, moving camera's, big black spaces, romantic scenes that look better than life, etc. Last night of the world feels like a dream for them. Show it. Make it theatrical, big and muggy, also with the sets. Create a bigger than life sub-reality to make the essence of this material work. Realize that certain softly sung notes or soaring notes work as emotion evokers/actors themselves. Use them, act through them instead of acting in spite of them. Same goes for cinematography.
Also, we don't have to see the person mouthing all the words into the camera at every occasion, certain songs can be, in parts used as a kind of soundtrack/voice-over. I can imagine during the pre-recorded "I still believe", we see scenes of Kim and Chris that we know have happened, but haven't seen before, this is their thoughts being sung. They could also use very creative cinematography in the transition to Ellen in the USA in that song. Or in the nightmare scene.
I feel that there is a way of musical film-making that has not been done yet. A way that uses fantastic singing in a very filmic and theatrical way. A way that has been done in animation, but not in live action yet.
I feel the only films that came close to this approach were Evita, Moulin Rouge and Chicago, but still not quite there and the singing in those was mediocre. Imagine if both things are outstanding. That would be epic.
About the casting,
Nicole Scherzinger could play Gigi:
Jeremy Jordan could play Chris, I am talking about that kind of singing and acting talent:
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 11, 2016 12:35:44 GMT
I don't deny that obviously many people like it, but I try to understand where it comes from. I think it has a lot to do with the kind of brainwashing of the last 10 years, a whole generation does not know who the world's greatest singers are, they only know who Nicki Minaj, Eminem and Kanye West are. They grew up with that, it's their vision of entertainment and music. A whole generation might also not be familiar with musical theatre or the artform of acting through song, of what singing or notes can do. This artform has evolved immensely, and it usually is only school- or amateurproductions where you see all this simple cliche's, such as the funny end poses, the childish way of storytelling and the notes that fail all the time because the singers are not really capable of singing (with a rare exception). The monotone speaking-rapping with that posturing sound, like every word is placed as if the performer is about to cry or almost looks and sounds disabled, really gets on my nerves.
I always see the leads in professional productions as some kind of "super humans", I like being impressed by their immense talent of acting through song, it takes me to another world. This approach (Hamilton) is just too plain and simple for me and they are avoiding everything that matters to me.
So my point is, it is probably true that some people don't see or feel this flaws, but that doesn't necessarily say anything about the material, more about the state and time we live in.
Edit: I have seen many, many poor quality clips of things that stayed great because of the actual peformance.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 11, 2016 12:16:16 GMT
A few thoughts: 1. This spliced-together B-roll footage is a very poor representation for how the directing, staging, and choreography feels in the actual, coherent show. So how is the direction, staging and choreography different? I think it's exactly how it is and what we see. If you try to say that certain flaws feel less obvious when you sit in the theatre because the audience is screaming etc, that is possible but it does not change the material.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 11, 2016 12:10:47 GMT
No, but the overly dramatic intonation of the rap and the poses does not match with the funny parody approach of the material. Maybe because it's not supposed to be a funny parody? It certainly doesn't take itself 100% seriously the whole time, but it does when appropriate. Is the end of the opening song meant to be serious? Because to me it's not.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 22:12:52 GMT
No, but the overly dramatic intonation of the rap and the poses does not match with the funny parody approach of the material. Maybe because it's not supposed to be a funny parody? It certainly doesn't take itself 100% seriously the whole time, but it does when appropriate. I think the clash (I described) is very obvious in for example, the opening song. I see it is intended to be dramatic, but it really is not, it is kind of funny. Or maybe there are people who do take it seriously, there might be, but I can't. The poses etc, are just too parody-like. I can sit through it for 2 songs, but it gets really boring and tiresome.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 20:52:01 GMT
No, but the overly dramatic intonation of the rap and the poses does not match with the funny parody approach of the material.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 20:35:07 GMT
That's also why I don't understand Hugh Jackman in the Les Mis film at all. All stage Valjeans sang "Now come on ladies, settle down", and they kept the word "down" short. Very natural and filmic. Jackman, speaks 4 words, and then switches to singing on the last syllable and vibrates for 10 seconds on the word "dooooooown".
And that is supposed to make it feel raw and natural? Get out of here. It takes people out of the emotion. It makes it a parody of the material.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 20:31:09 GMT
Take a look at this clip, here you can see exactly what I mean. It is all "outside", every song has the streetdance, every end pose is a "cool one facing the audience", the ensemble is extremely repetitive in shouting words about what happens, and there is very little actual interaction between characters, only in a "mimicking way", and if it tends to go somewhere, the focus quickly turns towards the audience again, or a pose, streetdance or a cool word, that screams "musical parody". If you compare this to something like Miss Saigon (another dramatic show about history), there is only 1 character in the show that turns to the audience, and there is no "posing" at all. It's like the show doesn't take itself seriously at all. Because of this, I can't take it serious either. It creates a vibe that actually makes me laugh at times. Especially when the end pose of a song comes in.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 19:40:32 GMT
I think the show's approach is too "musical parody".
Almost every song is told in a very childish way, very literal, with every word spoken/rapped in a fake/overly dramatic way, it becomes very posturing and annoying. Then he did this, then he did that, and then the people said, oh my god, this kid is insane man, what's your name man, alexander hamilton, my name is alexander hamilton, and then the chorus repeats his name for 40 times, and then after the dancers are done with their mandatory streetdance (in every song), of course, all ensemble and leads stand in a row to face the audience with dramatic faces staring into the audience, and then to top it all off, every song ends with a dramatic head flip on the last chord/dramatic pose facing the audience.
It gets very boring. Much, much more is needed for a good show.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 10, 2016 19:04:52 GMT
Has anyone seen Eva yet? I'm going down next week, looking forward to it. Will put her Oliviers performance down to nerves. On My Own used to be slow and beautiful but current directors obsessed with forcing the actresses into an angrily spitting every other word at 100mph while running around the stage and gesturing with the hat. That goes for the whole show too. Get it over as quickly, and with as much heightened emotion, as you can! They seem to forget that certain (softly) sung notes works as actors themselves too. They are losing the whole essence of this artform. Emotion comes from notes too, instead of just, crying, screaming or speaking them. That does not make it more realistic because they are still singing. If anything, it separates the acting from the singing. "raw emotion" lies in other things with sung through material.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 5, 2016 11:40:41 GMT
I just watched Eva's performance of "On my own" on youtube.
I have to say I really like it, it's as if she makes something new/original of the role, refreshing little acting choices etc.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 2, 2016 12:08:37 GMT
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 1, 2016 22:42:41 GMT
In the Disney animated feature The Little Mermaid, I always thought Ariel sings "You want thing-of-aboves? I've got 20" It turns out to be "Thingamabobs". I think mine's better too
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 28, 2016 22:21:13 GMT
I like the idea of Nicole as Gigi. I think Lady Gaga is a bit too edgy for Ellen, who is plain cookie cutter as they come. I would rather "save" Gaga for a Broadway revival of Funny Girl I see your point, but I think she has it in her, she has some kind of a soft, compassionate and sound side that she doesn't show often. The styling could help too, make her very tidy, old fashioned, in a dress and curly hair, etc. I also think she has the dramatic depth for it. She could surprise us. Type-wise I think Amy Adams would be a perfect fit for the role too, but to be honest, I would like to see better singers. Only then it will feel natural.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 28, 2016 22:16:12 GMT
Jeremy Jordan would be brilliant as Chris but maybe they would want to go for a bigger name. I think it kind of benefits the story if Chris and Kim are a bit more "unknown" but very talented singers and actors.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 28, 2016 12:18:39 GMT
Just some ideas:
Tanya Manalang (Kim)
B.D Wong (Engineer):
Nicole Scherzinger (Gigi):
Lady Gaga (Ellen):
Jeremy Jordan (Chris):
Are there any great black young (pop) singers and actors for John?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 22, 2016 13:09:11 GMT
I think it is not about helicopters or chandeliers AT ALL.
The most important thing to me is an interesting story, and good music and a truthful approach of acting through song.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 17, 2016 12:16:55 GMT
Any casting ideas for the film version? Here are some people I think could be suitable (trying to find people who are actually good singers AND actors and the unavoidable mandatory "names", although I think quality should win from names anytime, but I understand that will never happen, so I included names too).
Engineer - Jon Jon Briones/ BD Wong
Kim - Tanya Manalang, she is a truly outstanding actress.
Chris - Aaron Tveit/Jeremy Jordan
Ellen - Amy Adams would be perfect for the role, type and acting wise/Another interesting choice could be Lady Gaga. She has a better singing voice for the material and she could make of Ellen an interesting counterpart in the love triangle.
John - No idea. This is a role that could go to a name. For example a great singing black popstar. Any names?
Thuy - No idea
Gigi - Nicole Scherzinger/Rachelle Ann Go
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 13, 2016 23:30:05 GMT
I agree about Hamilton. The cast recording is just a boring travesty.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 13, 2016 22:59:52 GMT
The new intro of "Last night of the world" in Miss Saigon made me tear up. It is just very gentle and compliments the moment perfectly.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2016 20:34:12 GMT
I guess it's true what they say, "if there is a will, there is a way".
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2016 20:26:59 GMT
Well, every translator will tell you the truth.
So your friends are basically talking rubbish.
You might have to find something else in the show to be offended about now.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2016 20:07:18 GMT
Exactly, absolutely not. I HATE the constant switching between the acting and singing in the les Mis film. Sometimes even multiple times in 1 sentence. 1 word spoken and the next word vibrating.
Movie in my mind could be a wonderful scene, with a turning camera, a tear coming out of her eye when the refrain starts, zooming in on it, edited scenes of a perfect life of Gigi living in the USA, baking an apple pie, having a picknick with her family, when we hear the song as a perfect voice over, until her part ends and we see the horrible reality of her being in the nightclub again. Just some thoughts.
The music can be used in many different ways, we don't always have to see the person mouthing to the sung thoughts. We can see anything with the right cinematography.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Mar 11, 2016 19:53:51 GMT
I think the Les Mis film is too literal because it is basically a 1 take theatre performance on a pavement with people singing in eachothers face. Film needs much more than that, elaborate cinematography and editing.
The big mistake they made is that "toning it down" would be the solution. The truth is, it makes it weird and funny. Like I said, Hugh Jackman spoke 4 words and then vibrated for 10 seconds on 1 word. He completely disconnected the acting from the singing.
Especially with music and sung material, it is all about thoughts being sung, a triumph of the fantasy. "Last night of the world" filmed in an empty dark concrete room in a 1 take shot live singing in eachothers face for 4 minutes is not going to work. It needs over the top fantasy and very extensive cinematography. We want to see what is going on in their minds. Singing is per definition not realistic so you need to go all the way or not sing at all. "raw and real" lies in other things with this material.
Edit: About the casting, I think Chris needs to be a very strong natural singer, maybe Aaron Tveit or Jeremy Jordan. I think the only roles that can go to a celebrity name are Ellen or John. Maybe Lady Gaga as Ellen.
|
|