Les Miserables

I just note it is just harder on screen than on stage.

I can't really agree with that.

On screen, there are all the options available to the stage performer, plus a host of film tricks like forced perspective, creative editing, re-shoots, etc., not to mention special effects departments & CGI.

I mean, in Liquid Sky, Tom Cruise's character was 6 feet tall!

Orrrrrr...they could just ignore/downplay that aspect of the character, as so often happens.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I can't really agree with that.

On screen, there are all the options available to the stage performer, plus a host of film tricks like forced perspective, creative editing, re-shoots, etc., not to mention special effects departments & CGI.

Yes, and every single one of those takes extra time and effort to set up.

If you think that engaging a CGI company and doing reshoots and clever editing is not more difficult and more work than shrugging and going, "The audience is 30'+ away, nobody will notice," then you have a different notion of "difficulty" than I do. :)
 

well, either way, it's been awhile since I saw Les Mes. I liked the musical.

Never read the book. Frankly, don't care to read it.

As long as the movie is reasonably faithful to the musical stage production, I'll be happy. Movie tickets being cheaper than theatre tickets. At least for the seats I prefer to get.

Plus there's the added benefit of being able to avoid tall yakhole who always sits in front of my short wife when I buy her tickets to Phantom of the Opera, her favorite.

One thing that might be a bit disappointing is that the stage production had a very clever rotating stage with roll-in stage sets and a rising bridge effect to simulate jumping off said bridge. It was very excellently done when I saw it. Hollywierd will have no problem just showing real barricades, bridges and jump-offs, in a way, losing the magic of the stage.
 

Yes, and every single one of those takes extra time and effort to set up.

If you think that engaging a CGI company and doing reshoots and clever editing is not more difficult and more work than shrugging and going, "The audience is 30'+ away, nobody will notice," then you have a different notion of "difficulty" than I do. :)
I think what it is is I'm thinking in terms of achieving a believable final product.

There is only so much that stage wizardry and makeup can do to make an actor seem imposing on stage..say, starting with Andy Dick.

On TV or in a movie, though, there are more options to making Mr. Dick appear to be a powerhouse, and a higher probability of succeeding. Indeed, it may be nigh impossible to archive this goal on stage.

IOW, the difficulty of successfuly achieving the desired effect rather than the actual difficulty of the effort that goes into that success.
 

I'm not a fan of musicals, so I'm not terribly interested in the movie. The cinematography looks wonderful though.

There is only so much that stage wizardry and makeup can do to make an actor seem imposing on stage..say, starting with Andy Dick.

I would not want to meet a knife-wielding coked-up Andy Dick on the streets at night.
 

IOW, the difficulty of successfuly achieving the desired effect rather than the actual difficulty of the effort that goes into that success.

I have to admit, that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. But so be it.

I think, though, you are missing a point: You have fewer things you can do for the stage, but there's less that you have to do for stage. On stage, you don't need to worry about what the character looks like up close. On modern, large stage, big chunks of the audience can't even get a good read on character facial expressions. Exaggerated body language and vocal intonation do most of the work for you.

Which, of course, means that many actors used to film and TV can't pull it off well.

I would not want to meet a knife-wielding coked-up Andy Dick on the streets at night.

I have to admit, I think the only thing I've seen Andy Dick do is the backup Emergency Medical Hologram on ST:Voyager. However, looking at his facial structure - you want to make him imposing, cast him as "Mack the Knife", and if he can act, he'd be imposing.
 

I have to admit, that sentence doesn't make much sense to me. But so be it.

It barely made sense to me. :)

What I'm getting at is that there are things that can be done in tv/film that are literally impossible to do on stage. That means it is easier to achieve those results in tose mediums than on stage, regardless of the actual difficulty of doing so.

Example: it is "easy" to have a character on screen turn into an invisible giant while delivering a soliloquy. That can't really be done on stage. The effort required to do so for tv/film depends on the quality of special effects involved.

I think, though, you are missing a point: You have fewer things you can do for the stage, but there's less that you have to do for stage.

I got that and actually agree.

Exaggerated body language and vocal intonation do most of the work for you.

Which, of course, means that many actors used to film and TV can't pull it off well.
And again, things like this can be easier for tv/film: a role that requires singing on stage can be filmed with an utterly tone-deaf but otherwise talented actor- they just dub in someone else's vocals.
 


I was hoping to get a glimpse of the Thenardiers, but didn't see one in the preview. Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" that runs through that trailer sounded pretty good. I know Cosette doesn't really have any good solos as an adult, but can Amanda Seyfried sing?
 
Last edited:

It doesn't matter- for a film, they can hire someone to sing the songs and just synch them. Actors who can actually sing in a movie with musical parts is just a bonus.
 

Remove ads

Top