This revolutionizes movie musicals, and I completely drank the kool-aid: this will make it so much more believable. There is more artistic integrity and flexibility with this method. Then I started reading the reactions from others. They all make valid points: amusicology asking who will get credit for the musical director's role. And kellimarshall taking offense to the "pretty version" comment. I agree that there are faults in relying too heavily upon the actor's musical sensibilities as well as questions of editing and the overlay of orchestral tracks in post-production.
But what I took away from this was the implications of the immense changes in perception of musical function. Yes, sadly many people today do feel that musicals like The Sound of Music or even recent adaptations like Chicago are unnatural. For many, the formulaic "bursting into song" is a huge turn off. Besides that it does not help that the actors are stiffly required to fit their movements into prerecorded tracks. There is more rigidity inherently with this technique. And yes I realize, as with all musicals, there must be suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience.
Notice, though, that many musicals written today are trying to integrate the music by having it function in different ways (see, for example, Spring Awakening). As part of this Zeitgeist of realism in musical theatre, Glee tried to do away with some of the "unnatural" detractors by ensuring all of their songs function within the plot (choir competitions, jamming with friends, singing to themselves, etc etc). You can't change the way the songs function in the drama of a beloved musical theatre work, however, and I think Les Mis directors are doing the next best thing.
I am sure in the case of "Master of the House" or "Lovely Ladies" that we'll still see characters burst into song on the screen. But in other moments, like Hugh Jackman alluded to in the video, there is a sort of ease that can be taken with singing. The songs are still in place, the tempo, notes, and rhythms are still present. What this "live" performing allows for is less of the the overacting that is so frequently done by classically trained singers (who were taught to be operatic, which is not a bad thing). Anne Hathaway has a point: Fantine is at her lowest moment during "I Dreamed a Dream"; it does not make sense for her to suddenly belt out an enormous ballad. The fragility, yes, may be due in part that Hathaway's voice cannot compare to previous Fantine's performances. But one cannot deny the power she commands in her performance.
These actors can turn inward and more subtly sing the songs as if they were not addressing an audience but thinking to themselves. In doing so, the music becomes a more natural outgrowth of human emotion, and thereby changes the way the music and plot in general is perceived. It does become more "realistic" because suddenly the music functions as part of the drama. In a society that demands crime shows nightly and "reality" television, this is one way to soothe the masses and reach a wider audience.
So after drinking the kool-aid and a bit of a buzz kill with others' reactions, I'm not completely back to the jubilation I once had.Nevertheless, this new direction is exciting, and I am very much looking forward to not only seeing this musical, but the musicals that will be filmed in the future. The aforementioned Spring Awakening is forever in talks to be made into a movie, as is Wicked. It will be interesting to see if future directors take this new leap in musical production.
No comments:
Post a Comment