573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 8, 2016 16:57:50 GMT
This is what a youtuber said:
"this is crazy good. crazy good. JH sang this with a power that can tear down the walls, much like Jennifer Holliday did before her, but Amber Riley brings a fragility that is hard to believe possible in a song like this. She hits those first highs with such delicacy, this is some elegant singing right there, going that high and making it so tender is mind bogglingly difficult."
I thought it was very well said.
This is what makes Effie more real to me.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Oct 8, 2016 11:23:18 GMT
I love Amber's performance! It is the first time in my life I ever felt emotional during that song. Yes it is clearer, cleaner, maybe less screamy and whale-ish. But because of these reasons it feels very intimate and close to herself. This song should always be this pure. It's about feelings, not about screaming and vocal gymnastics. For the first time, i saw a real Effie, who lived the lyrics from within instead of from the outside. Very emotional.
I love the way she is more polished and is one of the first Effies who also sings the soft notes beautifully, which is quite important as that is more than half of the time. She can even go even smaller at times in my opinion. Use the whole palette instead of just being loud and noisy. It also makes it more believable as a whole that she could actually be part of a girlgroup as a real person with nuances.
It makes the story more interesting and believable.
Painting with a small brush creates magic to me, but for others it might just be constantly shooting a paintball with a cannon (Jhud).
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Sept 25, 2016 20:37:10 GMT
I'm loving this thread ...but I'm not taking it too seriously. Are any casting directors reading this and crossing Hugh Jackman off their 'hot' lists? Doubt it ...but they might be smiling and wishing they could post anonymously on here. They can
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Sept 21, 2016 12:41:39 GMT
Hugh Jackman. Everything he does sounds like a parody, extremely unnatural, like he is imitating what he thinks Broadway should sound like, and taking the piss. Every note that is supposed to be soft, or with finesse, or filmic, or real/truthful, is a loud disingenuous trainwreck with him. Reaching for the backrow, even if there isn't one. Combined with very poor technique and abysmal timing of words and syllables. And last but not least, too long and fake vibrato on the exact wrong syllables, constantly, makes him the person this thread is about.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Sept 18, 2016 18:49:14 GMT
Yes, I think it is fantastic promotion for the show. I feel like they have been "hiding" this show for the last 10 years, so a whole generation has no idea what this show is.
It's like they have to start all over again to introduce this show to the world (at least to the new generation), while shows like Phantom or Les Mis have several dvd's, movies and many more recordings out there, which make the show more legendary. It's all about exposure and promotion. If you have seen the Phantom 25th show on dvd, there is no reason not to visit the show in the West End anymore, because it's a different venue, different time and different cast. If anything, I think that that dvd only boosted the West End ticket sales. Same goes for the Les Mis 10th anniversay and 25 Anniversay dvd's. Considering how very well these shows are running at the moment.
People like to see something they are fond of or something they know that they love. I also think that general audiences don't buy dvd's, they just buy tickets for what is well known and well promoted, and "out there"/"in their face" if you will, and the fans who do buy it will get even more excited about the show.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Sept 7, 2016 12:27:10 GMT
JOJ was the best Valjean in my opinion. Pure perfection in every way. I wish he was in the film version. That would have been a highlight in the history of musical-filmmaking. I feel that JOJ has a very filmic finesse, which focuses on the small details. Hugh Jackman was way too theatrical and loud.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 30, 2016 16:28:39 GMT
"A possible stalker scenario".
I really don't see this. We are talking about understudies here, who are present at the theatre every day, just in different roles. If a person would like to see that actor in a leading role, he/she can buy a ticket and sit in the audience, but I would not consider that stalking. Waiting at stage door or following them or whatever stalkers do, they can do it every day with any castmember.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 21, 2016 12:50:49 GMT
I think she has one of the best voices in the world. But I am very picky when it comes to Christine voices.
I think Claire is not really a Christine. She shines more in the role of Ellen for example, which requires a different style of singing. She's perfect in that.
She has this silky and strong sound, and certainly knows how to blend head and chest, but I would say the chest is the stronger part of the 2 with her. While I think a Christine should have a very smooth headvoice as the strongest part. A different color. More like water instead of sand, if you know what I mean. Smoother perhaps. She's more like Karen Carpenter or a Judy Kuhn, while Christine should be more like a Julie Andrews or a Joke de Kruijf, who I think is the best Christine ever:
I don't think Judy Kuhn is suitable for Cosette either for example.
While I can't deny that Claire can definitely sing the role of Christine, it feels like it is not really natural for her. This "smooth sand-like quality" which is beautiful, is very evident when she sings lower things. I think a Christine should have this "smooth water-like quality" always, even when she sings lower things:
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 19, 2016 12:29:10 GMT
Thanks! That's really interesting. Quite a challenge.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 19, 2016 11:36:14 GMT
Does anyone know if Sierra Boggess will be singing in French in the Paris production?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 8, 2016 12:43:50 GMT
Talkstageytome, thanks for your post!
Yes, they are truths of the time, so I think it is not something where the word "accept" should come in at all. I think it's beautiful to see stories of all times of all truths.
Edit: The comparison you make with Hamilton is a bit off, because that is purely about only hiring a certain race, completely aside from the story because they think this is a good way to "take back land" in the casting business, or have some idea that certain music styles are only allowed to be performed by certain colors. A bit like "If somebody robs me, I just rob someone else and then everything is good". That has nothing to do with a discussion about a story of a show.
The way you treat people in real life or business can be racist. A true story can never be racist. It can be about racism, but that is no reason not to tell it.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 8, 2016 0:31:42 GMT
I know that these attributes are a result of the setting of Miss Saigon in a nightclub, and of course it's not directly enforcing these stereotypes, but it's not denying them either.) - 'white saviour' stereotype - etc. I'm sure people will add more... Of course it's the setting of the story. Why should people deny anything when a story like this is told? And what the heck about "white saviour"? The only hero in this story is Kim, and every character is a victim of circumstance. There are no saviours in this story. The character of Kim earns much more respect than the character of Chris. If points like that make a show racist in your opinion then we have such a different view on truthfulness about a show like this and what it really is, that we should stop the discussion right here.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 7, 2016 0:38:32 GMT
so that the story of how the United States came to be can be told by what the United States looks like today What does the US look like today? 95% POC? And how on earth could you be offended by caucasian actors playing caucasians? There is no music style exclusively for a certain skin color. In your logic, would you be offended by a black Christine in Phantom? Because a swedish, operatic singing ballet dancer, daughter from a Swedish violinist, from that era is naturally not black? Or actually, because that singing style did not originate in that race? It makes me sad that people are offended by that. And focus on race difference constantly. Making sure the race gap grows bigger and stays.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 6, 2016 22:09:42 GMT
Nothing is guaranteed. For anyone.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 6, 2016 22:05:42 GMT
It also gives people of colour guaranteed roles in an industry where they are often overlooked for their white counterparts. There are far more casting calls specifying caucasian actors than POC. There are also far more caucasian actors than POC. I don't want to turn this into a Hamilton disussion, but I think it is important to be said. No minority group should be "guaranteed" roles because of their minority characteristics. The whole point of equality is that we should look past these characteristics and learn to be neutral. You can't live by double standards. You either embrace casting on race, or you reject it. "Taking back land" by doing the exact same thing you have a problem with is by no means the solution. Thinking in race is a choice.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 6, 2016 21:45:29 GMT
I am still waiting for the first person that can explain their accusation with proper support.
But you are right, people can be offended by anything, even their own reflection. But that does not mean the subject of matter is flawed in any way.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 6, 2016 21:40:00 GMT
Because there is nothing to be offended about. That in itself is rude.
If anything, the Asian characters are portrayed as hero's.
About Hamilton: Deliberately casting a certain race while it's not necessary story-wise, is focussing on race too much and for the wrong reasons. So that could be debatable. It's a 2 way street.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 6, 2016 21:22:36 GMT
I am Asian and I do think it's racist. It used to be one of my favorite shows, but I came around, realized it was full of cliches (both lyrical and otherwise) and supports a lot of stereotypes. So let's start with Kim, one of the strongest female heroine roles out there and basically the role that carries the show. A determined character with a heart of gold, a lioness that fights for her son, loyal, trustworthy, determined and respectful. A beautifully written role and well developed character. Do you have any problem with that? I think that people (like you) who call this show racist just love to play the victim role, or for some reason can't handle reality and history. Because it seems that you can't accept any characteristic in any role that you personally have a negative association with, even though things exist and happened. We are telling a story here. If you want equality you have to accept Asian characters that are portrayed in a negative way too. What do you want? Every asian character in the show working as a respectable accountant at a bank? Because that is what you would like to see? So many aspects of race, the way people treated eachother during the war, the social system, are important and beautiful to be told and actually need to be told in this show. Do you think the tv show Mad Men is discriminating? Because we get an idea of how men treated women in the 50's? You should realize what was real at the time and that it's a story they are telling. If you can't handle this you should learn to get over that first before you watch any show. With that said, I don't think there are cliche's in this show. Edit: Could you please tell me which part of history in this show you would like to see erased and why, and how you would like to see it resolved or portrayed?
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 5, 2016 12:55:55 GMT
I think Miss Saigon, with glorious music that never feels like a musical parody and has a strong story and sublime singing voices and melodies looks extremely refreshing after Hamilton. I wouldn't compare a racist show like Miss Saigon to Hamilton. Hamilton is a racist show, they deliberately cast on color. There is nothing racist about Miss Saigon. Except that Asian people are portrayed as strong, powerful, determined characters with a heart of gold, and that white Americans are portrayed as weaker and more clueless, but I wouln't call that racism, that just happens to be the story.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 5, 2016 1:38:17 GMT
Quite frankly after shows like Hamilton etc, these revivals just look very sad indeed. I think Miss Saigon, with glorious music that never feels like a musical parody and has a strong story and sublime singing voices and melodies looks extremely refreshing after Hamilton.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 3, 2016 12:16:12 GMT
I'm glad to see Miss Saigon in so many top5's.
Miss Saigon is my favourite show of all time. Not just because of the great music and story and characters, but also the way it's fully sung, and yet you never ask yourself why they are singing. Every note, word, line has a reason and never feels out of place. There is never a moment where it gets towards parody, which I find to be the case in most other shows.
While other shows seem like parodies, have some misplaced dance break (hyena's in Lion king), or just silly things like "I'm just a little bit.....(bar rest)........naughty...end chord (Matilda). Or Hamilton, far fetched dances out of nowhere, or repeating a character's name all the time and end each song with a cool headflip on the last chord, etc.
The only other show that feels fully truthful to me is the Sound of Music, because the way the music is used makes sense as well and never feels forced. Maybe also because a lot of songs there have a purpose, are like performances in a performance. That's why Miss Saigon is so rare in my opinion, because it still feels natural and the only songs that are meant to be "performances" are the prostitutes in Dreamland and the dance in the American Dream which is basically a dream sequence. Everything else feels just as natural.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 3, 2016 11:46:27 GMT
I find as Les Mis is all singing, it had to be done live or it would've been hard to mime every line of the whole film. However as Wicked has dialogue in it too, it will probably be done in the studio If I record a song, and listen to it 3 times, I can mime it perfectly with every detail. That way I can let the singing really soar, as well as the acting on the set. Because then I can focus on that. Les Mis is a showcase of actors struggling with notes and trying to use that struggle to look miserable on screen. Therefore they only get away with it in crying scenes. It's basically a failed musical theatre performance on a pavement. Also, this way the actual director can use the music in more ways and take the cinematography to levels unheard of. That's film.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Aug 3, 2016 11:24:40 GMT
Yep, I think that this movie and the Les Mis movie will be worlds apart. Les Mis is grounded in reality for the most part, and is a pretty gritty story which the live element complimented. Wicked is way more glitzy and fun and will have loads of CGI magic, therefore the live singing element would probably look a little odd and downplayed. I think the language of singing is per definition not realistic and therefore this artform should be fully embraced or left out. In Les Mis they constantly apologized for this artform by speaking 4 words and then use vibrato on the 5th. "Now....come on.....ladies.....settle.....doooooooooooown". It's this constant "switch-over" that makes it embarrassing, silly and not raw and real at all. In this artform, raw emotions lie in other things. In embracing the material instead of apologizing for it. Imagine when a Miss Saigon film is made. Do we really want a Chris that speaks "john.........is that you........ buddy......listen....to......meeeeeeeeeeeeeee" and then use a 5 second vibrato only on the last word? Or do we want a natural actor/singer who just sings the line with real intention and keeps the last word short. People laughed in the cinema when I watched Les Mis. Because it was funny and silly. Not gritty or real. At all. Why do people not understand the importance of this? Only then it will feel real. No switching all the time. Make it a triumph of the fantasy, because that is what this artform is. Especially in sung-through musicals, embrace it and go all the way. A certain note can take the audience on a journey, if sung well. Also, there is so much you can achieve in film with cinematography and smart editing. Some (parts of) songs can even be used as a voice over while we see other scenes or thoughts of a character, flashbacks or other things that happen at the same time. It is all about sung thoughts, we don't have to see the character mouthing all he words all the time. That is way too literal in film. And if you see the characters mouthing, go for it and let them soar. The only musicalfilm that understood this so far was Evita. That really is a triumph of the fantasy in cinematography and the way they use the music in all kinds of different ways. Imagine how great that would have been if they had even better singers/actors. Other films who understand the importance of a certain unnatural world that compliments the singing are Chicago and Moulin Rouge. The sets in Chicago are theatrical too, which would work well for a film like Miss Saigon or Wicked, because it's about thoughts being sung. It's how it is in the character's minds. Not about how it really was (if it was real of course). For example, last night of the world was probably a cold conrete empty room in real life, but in their minds it's glowy, gloomy, spectacular and romantic. Show it. It's their thoughts. Thuy's death was probably in an alley between a trash can and a clothes line, but in Kim's mind it's the end of the world, a black space with a choir of ghosts. Show it. Stay away from the Les Mis approach as far as possible. For a wicked film it's also important to create a non literal world because this artform per definition is not.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 31, 2016 10:51:33 GMT
Of course the singing needs to be recorded in a studio. This is film, not a live theatre performance on a street. Film has much more possibilities.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 28, 2016 23:10:09 GMT
They actually said: "We've got something extra special to share with you all tomorrow..."
While I'm hoping it's an announcement of a movie version, I'm thinking it is something like a trailer for the 25th anniversary screening.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 20, 2016 10:26:24 GMT
Lacks "richness". Sounds a bit reedy in parts I might venture! Go large or go home Amber! no doubt she can sing, but this role needs a richness, something velvety and smooth. She needs to search inside for it, because, for me, this isn't it at all and I'm a little disappointed in all honesty. I think her voice is very smooth. That might not fit the role as we know it, because we are used to a screamer in the role. Amber is much more of a proper, decent, tidy singer. I think that looking for that screaming quality is not the way for her to go. That will not create richness with her vocal type. I think her richness and emotion comes from toning it down and keeping it elegant and softer.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jul 19, 2016 20:51:57 GMT
I actually quite like it. She has a very clear voice and can really sing. I think she can make of Effie something very different than what we are used to.
Her voice is naturally a little soft, straight, clean and clear. Maybe she interprets the role more like that too. Still sassy but in a different way. Not the lame standard way. I am kind of tired of the Effies wailing, screaming and exploding, headrolls, talk to the hand, the louder and uglier the better. Almost like a caricature. That is not what singing is. I need more than that. In fact, I hope she softens it up even more. Her first lines for example can be much more intimate and bell-like, more head voice. It makes Effie more like a real person in my opinion.
With that said, I hope she is a good enough actress, because her acting did not really impress me in Glee.
Edit: After watching it again, I think she would benefit more from an intimate version of the song. It is like she is using a loudness that is not natural for her voice. I hope she looks for her own quality instead of trying to imitate the loudness or aggressiveness of previous Effies.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 15, 2016 23:17:20 GMT
I guess it is all about trying to find the visual language that allows the songs to burst forth - so many films go for the literal approach, assuming that film has to be literal. This. It is unbelievable that directors, producers and filmmakers do not understand this. This artform on screen is not literal but about sung thoughts, a triumph of the fantasy. What they often seem to do now is tone the music and singing down to match the standard literal visuals and approach. Preferably with a lot of switching between speaking and singing in 1 sentence. Which makes a sudden sung note after 4 spoken words extremely awkward and uncomfortable. What they should do is match the visual language to the singing. Let the music lead the story and then paint it in with cinematography.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 14, 2016 10:57:55 GMT
It's a film that seems to be apologizing for being a musical, not celebrating one of the greatest musical ever written. A disaster. True, that is the problem with most adaptations. It is like they are apologizing for being a musical. Which makes it very uncomfortable. I guess it goes wrong from the start by hiring a screenwriter that does not understand the essence of musical on film. How important the singing is and how important it is to adjust the cinematography to that. It should be a triumph of the fantasy. Not a normal film. Sung dialogue can be used in so many more ways than just the uncomfortable "speaking 4 words and use vibrato on the 5th, but at least it feels less uncomfortable for the actor that way with the current standard screenplay" attitude. Because then you create a product that is uncomfortable for the audience. Because it has a style-clash. I don't want to see actors or screenwriters apologizing for singing. I want them to embrace it and to embrace extensive cinematography too. They did not embrace either of these things in Les Mis and Sweeney Todd.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Jun 14, 2016 10:42:01 GMT
Evita!!!
I think this way of storytelling (acting through notes) should not be approached in a literal way because per definition it is not. It is a triumph of the fantasy with sung thoughts, etc. In Evita they use all kinds of filmic cinematography, very clever editing and incorporate the music in many different ways (a choir, sung thoughts, moments of music as a voice over, instead of constantly seeing the person mouthing to it, etc). It's filmic, sweeping, a triumph of the fantasy with the exact right use of the music. Even though madonna is not a good singer.
The worst one is Les Mis. Not only because of the literal approach (singing live in eachothers face in a 1 take dry close up shot)which takes away all the magic and the essence of sung thoughts on screen, but also because of the constant switching between acting and singing. Sometimes in 1 sentence, speaking 4 words and then use vibrato for 10 seconds on the 5th. The bizarre thing is that people like Jackmam thought this constant switching made the given of singing feel raw and real while actually it works better if there is no switching but combining and embracing it.
|
|