I may like Les Mis parodies a little too much. That being said I really love this skit.Follow thehunchblog
This was a suggestion from Lola (see here )
Amanda Seyfried has already been in one adaptation of an adaption of a Victor Hugo novel, she played Cosette in the movie musical version of Les MisÃ©rables based on the 1980’s Broadway musical based on the novel. So why not cast her as another romantic foil who gets the guy over the tragic brunette, hmmm Hugo sure has his tropes. But would Seyfried make a good Fleur de Lys?
Fleur de Lys’ cross adaptations don’t really differ that much. Sure, some are fleshed out a bit more than others but really she acts as foil to Esmeralda. So just so we are all operating on some page let’s consider her for a movie verion of the French musical but in English, How would Seyfried be as that Fleur de Lys?
Seyfried is a decent actress. She may have never been in a movie that really pushed her acting ability but she definitely competent. I mean she has already played one mean girl, even though she was the dumb one in Mean Girls. Given the right director, she could really make a great conflicted Fleur de Lys. Or that sexually manipulative Fleur de Lys that musical seems to go for.
Seyfried is also a very good singer. Les MisÃ©rables was weird movie to base actual singing skills on since the idea is that they were singing like emotional sing-song rather than the art form and as Cosette she had a weird vibrato that sounds like she was echoing in a windstorm. It wasn’t bad but just off putting. She was better as Sophie in Mamma Mia. Personally I could see her singing La Monture a.k.a “My Heart if You Swear” as it’s called in English, really well.
As for looks, I mean she has the right look. Since Fleur de Lys is the foil to Esmeralda’s sultry dark looks, Fleur de Lys has nearly always been portrayed as a fair beauty with blonde hair and blue eyes, more or less. She doesn’t always have blue eyes but blonde in mostly there. Seyfried fits this type perfectly. Even for just straight-up book version of Fleur de Lys she is on point.
If Seyfried was cast as Fleur de Lys in either musical version or a regular non-singing version she would be fine. Personally I would prefer to see her as Fleur de Lys in a musical version than straight up film adaptation. It would be really cool to see her play Fleur de Lys against Samantha Barks playing Esmeralda. I suppose you could make Eddie Redmayne as Phoebus though that seems a weird casting choice, he seems more suited to Quasimodo. Who from 2012 Les MisÃ©rables would make a good Phoebus? Got it, Aaron Tveit. That’s not bad casting actually. Hey Hollywood, make me a casting agent!
Would Hugh Jackman make a good Frollo? I’d say yes but the Troll part of me wants to say Russell Crowe from Frollo.
Anyway what do you think of Amanda Seyfried as Fleur de Lys? Yay or Nay?
This was a suggestion by Marni, click here to see the suggestion. Hans Matheson is one of those super versatile actors that you don’t even know you have seen in movies or television. He’s a bit like Rufus Sewell in that regard. Matheson literally just becomes the character so much that you don’t really notice him as the actor. I don’t mean that in a bad way, he’s just a type of actor where his acting precede himself. But how would Matheson be as Frollo?
As previously mentioned, Matheson is great actor. I have no doubt he could play Frollo as the script and movie’s direction would portray the character. Frollo as a judge or as a priest Matheson has the skill set to play Frollo effectivly.
The only real issue with Matheson as Frollo is a purely superficial one, his looks. Matheson is conventionally attractive with square jawline. These are not bad traits but they do work against Frollo’s ugly austere looks as described by Hugo. Looks are really a minor issue with casting ultimately because with make-up you can change everything about a person, so he could be made to look like Frollo if really needed.
Matheson is great actor who could pull off the conflicted, tortured inner workings of Frollo even though he resembles Phoebus more. But what do you think? Matheson for Frollo?
Fun Fact – Matheson was in another Victor Hugo adaptation as Marius in the 1998 version of Les Miserables.
A movie version of Notre Dame de Paris is a compelling idea. It has an artistic representational quality with a gritty style that could be really fun as movie but who could you get for the roles of such a movie? Oddly, one can just look to the last big budget Victor Hugo movie for a candidate for Esmeralda, one British actress Samantha Barks.
Samantha Barks played Eponine in the 2012 version of Les Miserables which rumor has it she beat Taylor Swift for. Prior to that Barks was part of reality show where the winner got to play Nancy in Oliver, called I’d Do Anything (appropriate name for a reality show) and played Eponine on stage. Since Les Mis (and at the time I’m writing this post) she has been in two other movies, Christmas Candle, and a minor role in Jack And The Cuckoo-Clock Heart. However Barks is in a few upcoming movies, so we’ll see how her career goes.
On an acting front, Barks seems to be fine. Her depiction of Eponine was heartfelt but I don’t think the role of a tragic girl doomed to the friend zone isn’t all the hard to convey effectively. And her role is The Christmas Candle, it was was okay, though to be honest I really couldn’t get in that movie at all maybe because watching a Christmas movie in April doesn’t have the same impact, also it was beyond sappy, like chokingly saccharine. And I didn’t see the Jack And The Cuckoo-Clock Heart movie. However I think she could pull off Esmeralda on acting and singing end as Barks does have a lovely voice.
But how is she on the looks? Much like Esmeralda, Barks has the dark eyes and the dark hair that Hugo described Esmeralda has having, though Notre Dame de Paris does seem to like Esmeralda with red hair, though I think Barks might look ok with a touch of red but that it not a necessity to the role. Barks also has an earthy, natural quality about her which I think for a Notre Dame de paris Esmeralda is a good thing. The musical Esmeralda never seem to be the innocent celestial creature that Hugo described but a beautiful, free-spirited dancer who loves life.
Samantha Barks has everything that a good Esmeralda should have, now we just need someone to make the movie and cast her in it. I would love to hear her sing Live for the One I Love, plus how fun would it be if Taylor Swift were to play Fleur de Lys off Samantha Barks’ Esmeralda? Fun might be the wrong word.
Anyway what you guys think of Samantha Barks for Esmeralda in a movie version of Notre Dame de Paris or just in Hunchback in general because she could just pull of the role in a straight adaptation though I see her more as Notre Dame de Paris Esmeralda.Follow thehunchblog
I have decided to do another blog series on reading a book and since this blog is on The Hunchback of Notre Dame it is only fitting that it should be by Victor Hugo. I was thinking of reading Les Mis since it’s Hugo’s masterwork but I’m not really ready to tackle that book, saying it’s massive is putting it lightly so instead we’re going to look at The Man Who Laughs.
I have never read it nor have I seen any of the film versions, so it will be all new for me. Once I finish I may look at the film versions, of which there is like five including one from 2012 staring Gerald Dippty Do erm I mean GÃ©rard Depardieu.
Technically I own two copies of this book but one is part of a 1 in 3 book of Victor Hugo’s works which includes Les Mis and Hunchback so the book is big and heavy, so I will be reading it on my new Kindle Fire HD that I got for Christmas.
So for the every Monday for a while Enjoy The Man who Laughs with me!Follow thehunchblog
I have been a little busy and I haven’t had the time to work on the 1982 costume review post. So today here is a special treat, A let’s play video of the Les Miserable Fighting Game a.k.a Arm Joe!
Can you believe this actually exist?
you can get it here, http://www.vector.co.jp/download/file/win95/game/fh392218.html
Les Miserables and Notre Dame de Paris are both originally by Victor Hugo, both have been given the popular musical treatment and they have very similar endings. Both endings deal with death and dying But which one is more tragic or dare I say “Miserable?”
If you want to get all technical, it’s Les Miz because they tote the name but when I first saw it I thought, “Dear god, this ending is pretty uplifting!” So at the end Jean Valjean is dying and he seems pretty cool with it. Cossette doesn’t want him to die but Fantine, who is a like a vision, is all like Jean you have been awesome now come to Heaven it’s awesome here. Sure Jean is dying but he’s not sad, in fact this musical makes death look pretty nice. Everyone who is died seems pretty happy and they’re super hopeful. I guess the Miserable people are still alive? This musical promised me Miserable people and you don’t really get it at the end. Don’t misunderstand, I love the ending and it’s great but miserable it is not.
Now if we compare it to the Notre Dame de Paris ending proper, Le Miz is even more upbeat. Esmeralda has just been executed and Quasimodo is mourning her while asking her to dance once again and heavily implies his own impending death. This ending is so sad that after the curtain call the tradition is to have the cast reprise the opening song while smiling so that audience is totally bummed.
Which ending do you find more Tragic? Clearly, I’m in the NDdP camp.Follow thehunchblog
I finally got around to seeing the movie version of the musical of Les MisÃ©rables. Before I discuss this movie I will admit that I’m not the target audience for it. I was not well acquainted with musical prior to seeing this film and while do like the idea of Musical movies I only really like a few of them. That said I really didn’t care for this movie, I didn’t hate I just didn’t like it. (WARNING; this gets ranty)
Les MisÃ©rables fails as movie. There is a visual language to movies that keep it interesting for a viewer. When a movie just has a actor perform without any camera work or interesting edits for 3 minutes the scene becomes stall. There is no point to filming a movie if you are not going to present the story in way that is visually interesting. I Dreamed a Dream is a prime a example.
Anne Hathaway gives a heartbreaking performance but after 30 seconds I became distracted by lacks of edits. How about a reverse shot? Even if was one take you can still have two camera angels. How about some zooms or pans. How about using the space in your sets? What’s with this stationary medium shot that is off center? It’s dull. The camera moves a bit but it’s really just to keep up with Hathaway’s movement and maintaining the frame. I understand that director Tom Hooper likes the off center placement of the shots and consider it “his thing”. It does promote a feeling of uncomfortableness and it worked well in The King’s Speech but it doesn’t work in Les Miserables. though it works in I Dreamed a Dream but I find it distracting after 30 seconds. Watching Anne Hathaway sing uncut for 3 minutes is not really any different from seeing the musical live but at least at live a performance you feel the energy of the actor. Then again, maybe I’m just heartless.
Then there is the issue that film doesn’t have any establishing shots and doesn’t give any indication of the passage of time. This make the narrative feel confused. But more than that without establishing shots you can’t see the sets. What is the point to having these sets that look like they could be great if you not going to show them to the viewer.
The point of taking a musical and making a film is to give the songs and story a visually interesting telling. The most interesting visual presentation of a song in this movie is Stars. Javert is walking on the edge of a bridge. That is interesting! (Even if Russell Crow was miserable in this movie) Jean Valjean pacing back and forth in a church, dull. Fantine crying about her life because of her crap day and half uncut, didn’t work visually . Epoine walking heart broken in the rain, zzzzzzz (and I like that song). What is the point of adapting this if your not going to be interesting with staging, filming or editing? Was it just to use establish actor is these roles? I think it might have been. Frankly I don’t give crap if the actor are singing live for a more a emotional performance. They played this way too straight. They should have been more artistic. The whole of this movie feels like gimmick to use the live singing and promote it. After all that seems what the film and the director are concern about not the viewer’s experience watching a movie.
However, because the film tries to play with the viewers’ emotions about these people we have to look at the characters to see if the film was successful. Because the film steamrolls over the narrative I can’t feel for any of these characters. It’s like BAM here is a character, BAM here’s their issue, BAM they’re in trouble don’t you feel sad? Answer, Not really. You meet Fantine, I don’t know who this character is so don’t feel that much when she goes through her hellish day and half (without time passage I don’t know how much time pass between her firing and death). How did she die? I know she dies of TB in the book but in the movie it seem it like death by plot….? Sorry Fantine, I wasn’t moved. I didn’t get a sense of your character so meh to you. Epoine same, you like Marius that’s nice he’s not into you….. ok…. oh you’re dead…… oh well. Javert’s obsession? Didn’t see it at all.
Oddly enough the rare lines that are spoken (like 3 lines) were most genuine parts of the movie. I feel like Hathaway and Jackman were trying to win awards. Crow didn’t seem to care very much. Redmayne, Tviet and Barks did seem to try and they were at least successful for the most part. I think Tviet was probably the best as Enjolras.
Do you hear the people sing felt like a movie, with visuals, that were slightly interesting, that kept your attention. Though I could do without the Dutch angles…. a pox on Dutch angles.
I feel like this movie was blatant Oscar bait and considering it was nominated or 8 Academy Awards and won three I guess it was successful. It also won heaps of other awards and earned $437,710,466 at the box office, its budget was $61,000,000, and grossed $376,710,466. So, it was successful at that end of movie making which is the important part for studio. The film however has a polarizing effects on audiences and critically was not much cared for. Had the movie had clear establishing shots, clear passage of time indication, and more interesting presentations of scenes and songs it could have been much better. But for m,e as a viewer, it failed to be visually entertaining and emotional interesting.Follow thehunchblog