Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

rolotomasi99 wrote:If they do not dub the singing, how will anyone know what is going on since the entire plot is sung?

Subtitles?

I feel very lucky because Portugal might Be the only country in europe where movies are not dubbed

This question is for all of our non-U.S. members (or anyone who knows the answer): Will LES MISERABLES be dubbed in the native language of all the countries it is released in? I know from my travels through Europe foreign language films are dubbed, but unlike the horrible dubbing we mock in the U.S. the dubbing is actually high quality. However, do they also dub singing? When MAMMA MIA became an international hit, were all the Abba songs dubbed into various languages? If they do not dub the singing, how will anyone know what is going on since the entire plot is sung?

Obviously if they dub all the singing, they will be able to fix any vocal problems. However, Tom Hooper said it was impossible to match the emotions captured through live singing. Will it just be a bunch of overwrought faces with emotionless (but pitch-perfect) voices?

Thank you to anyone who can report back on how they are handling this issue. The film has only opened in a handful of foreign markets, but is already a big hit. I was just curious how they were handle the dubbing since the live singing is what is so exciting/frustrating about this film.

A quote from New York Magazine

“I am quite aware of everything that’s ‘wrong’ with the film version of Les Misérables and with the musical itself, and I really don’t care. Repeat: I don’t care. Take the nitpicks somewhere else. Sorry! There are a few precedents for this sort of filmed musical—Peter Bogdanovich’s At Long Last Love was one—but modern technology allows Les Mis to pull it off with greater control and expressiveness. The result is necessarily rough but compensates with in-the-moment vocal modulations and a few marvelous flourishes, such as Jackman’s Jean Valjean choking off the word “brother” or Anne Hathaway’s Fantine dividing the word “apart” (nice!) with a very slight catch in her voice. And man, this cast acts the hell out of the roles, probably going overboard in some closeups but nailing others. Russell Crowe is not up the technical challenges of singing Javert, but who gives a damn? He’s perfectly cast as a humorless, self-hating authority figure, the kind of guy who’d rather destroy himself than admit affinity for the man he’s chasing, and wow, does he throw himself into the role; his last number really moved me because, guys, it’s Russell Crowe, the scowling Australian bruiser, and he’s SINGING HIS ASS OFF. As if his life depended on moving you. The film does have a bit of a live theater vibe, and when certain effects don’t quite come off, you definitely notice, but again — the spontaneity! Lots of numbers are done in a handful of spliced-together long takes, and one is done with no cuts at all, and if you allow yourself to become invested in the movie—rather than sitting there with arms folded and mentally listing every presumed “failure” of the movie—they’re thrilling. Gigantic as the production is, there’s something slapped-together about it—the handheld camerawork is a bit much, and I wish there’d been more camera choreography in the battle sequences—but on the other hand, I’d rather see a somewhat jumbled and chaotic Les Mis than one that’s buffed to death, or worse, glitzed up and Auto-Tuned until it turns into the French Revolution version of ‘Glee.’ I underestimated Tom Hooper. He knows what he’s doing, and he’d rather make a movie that’s risky and special than perfect and airless. I hope he takes on ‘Company’ next, preferably with Eddie Redmayne as Bobby.”
~ Matt Zoller Seitz On Les Mis

Since I've been on this board, I've agreed with Oscar only three times, or maybe I should say Oscar has agreed with me only three times.

1998 - My choice, before Damien joined the board and before Bill Condon peeked in, was Gods and Monsters which was nominated by the PGA but no other major group. The Oscar went to Shakespeare in Love which I liked but not as much as Gods or Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, which I agreed was the year's best directed film. I did like it much better, though, than that year's Hollywoodized version of Les Miserables which dumps major characters and completely misses Hugo's meaning, giving it a ridiculous happy ending.

1999 - My choice was the winner American Beauty in a toss-up with The Talented Mr. Ripley which I thought was the year's best directed film.

2000 - My choice was Yi Yi from Chinese director Edward Yang who died way too young. The film was ineligible for consideration due to the filmmakers not filing the correct paperwork with the Academy, not that it would have won over the retrograde Gladiator anyway. Best nominated films: Traffic and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.

2001 - My choice was Mulholland Drive in a toss-up with Gosford Park, the year's best nominated film. I wouldn't have even nominated the historically inaccurate A Beautiful Mind, but apparently the Academy was moved by the film's false sentimentality a lot more than I was.

2002 - My choice was Alfonso Cuaron's Y Tu Mama Tambien, which being a Mexican film, even if it were nominated would not have won. Actual winner Chicago was my choice among the nominees.

2003 - My choice was Jim Sheridan's In America, which the Academy failed to nominate for Best Picture. The winner, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was at least the best of the nominees.

2004 - My choice was the winner, Million Dollar Baby in a toss-up with Sideways.

2005 - My choice was Brokeback Mountain. I was saddened by the vitriol hurled against it by some in Hollywood and its loss to the confused mess that was Crash.

2006 - My choice was Pan's Labyrinth upon second viewing over Children of Men, but winner The Departed was my favorite among the actual nominees.

2007 - My choice was There Will Be Blood. I thought the winner, No Country for Old Men was the year's second best film but I liked it far less.

2008 - My choice was The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which I still maintain would have won if it weren't for the presumed political correctness associated with recognizing Bollywood's contribution to movies by awarding the Bollywood style Slumdog Millionaire instead.

2009 - My choice was the winner, The Hurt Locker in what was one of the most dismal group of nominees ever. I think what pushed it over the top for Academy members was that next to final scene in which Jeremy Renner is unable to choice a box of cereal.

2010 - My choice was the non-emotional The Social Network which isn't a great film, but was a great film of the moment. Who would have thought the Academy would go for the old-fashioned but emotionally riveting The King's Speech? A lesson to be applied to this year?

2011 - My choice was he Iranian film A Separation. The gimmicky winner, The Artist makes my top ten list but just barely. Has any Oscar winner faded from memory as quickly?

2012 - Of the films I've seen, Les Miserables is my current choice over Lincoln and Argo with Zero Dark Thirty and Amour the only two likely spoilers at the moment. Ironically I had grave doubts about both Les Miserables and Lincoln beforehand. I found the teaser trailer to Les Miz to be extremely tacky and manipulative. It wasn't until I saw the full trailer that I changed my mind and began to see it as the possible successor to The Sound of Music and Titanic in terms of mass appeal and lasting relevance. Indeed, I'll go a step further and say that it could become as popular as Gone With the Wind and Casablanca with the general public. Critics may not agree, but that's another story.

flipp525 wrote:

ITALIANO wrote:It wouldn't be enough, even for the Academy. Still she will win. Because she's young, beautiful and she's been there (in different ways) before. Because her main competitors have already won Oscars (and some say undeservedly, too). And most importantly because, let's face it, Les Miserables HAS to win something. It may be a white elephant, I don't know, but nobody wants to be too unpopular, certainly not the Academy - and the prospect of driving to suicide a good number of this movie's fans will be a good reason to give it at least this consolation prize.

I don't know, Italiano. I feel like Academy members might be a little sick of being told this year that Anne Hathaway Must Win the Oscar (how many months now has it been since the first video of her singing came out? A certain kind of fatigue must have set in by now.)

I hope you are right - but for example I felt the same about Jennifer Hudson a few years ago, and I was wrong. These days - I don't know if it's because of internet - hype, even when it's absolutely undeserved, gets some results. And unfortunately - I repeat: unfortunately - Big Magilla is right: it's very, very difficult that they will give a third Oscar to Sally Field or a second Oscar to Helen Hunt (or even, to be honest, a third Oscar to the probably more respected Maggie Smith). And let's face it, Anne Hathaway may not be Eleonora Duse, and Les Miserables may not be Cabaret, but she isn't a worse actress than some other "beautiful girls" who have won Best Supporting Actress in recent times. Sally Field is certainly suprisingly good in Lincoln (like most Europeans I haven't seen it yet), but even if she had won just one Oscar, age (and looks) would still be her problem.

dws1982 wrote:I also really liked Tamara Tunie in Flight

Thank you for citing this. Tunie gives a really effective performance. Her scene with Washington at the funeral is dynamite.

I would also vote for Sally Field over Anne Hathaway. I don't know if I was expecting Field to be out of practice or what, but her Mary Todd Lincoln was so unexpectedly complex and well-wrought. She is the clear supporting stand-out of Lincoln (alongside Tommy Lee Jones and James Spader).

Big Magilla wrote:I've never seen so much crap written about a film by people who haven't even seen it.

How is this any different from the hosannas you lapped upon the film prior to having seen it?

I have seen people here defend Beatrice Straight's performance in Network. It's far shorter than even Hathaway's (who again is in a large portion of the first part of the film and also at the very end) and serves the same purpose in that film. These are two briefly witnessed characters who perform an admirable, emotion-filled response that explains motivations either for what has come before or what is to come after. You can grouse about screen time all you want (for that matter, Dowd is lead, not support), but it's the importance of that performance within the framework of the film that has an impact and whether you love or hate the film, there's no question Hathaway delivers an emotional, tour-de-force performance.

I would vote for Sally Field without a second thought over Hathaway. Any major scene of Field's--whether it's the scene in Willie's bedroom, her meeting with Tommy Lee Jones at the reception, her confrontation with Lincoln over Robert enlisting, or her buggy ride with Lincoln towards the end--offers more than the whole of Hathaway's performance. Who cares (or remembers) that she has two Oscars? Her work in Lincoln is much more substantial than Hathaway's in Les Miserables, and it doesn't rely on inch-deep sentiment. I also really liked Tamara Tunie in Flight and Emma Watson and Mae Whitman in The Perks of Being a Wallflower (now there's a movie I really think Big Magilla would hate), although I still have most of my 2012 movies left to see.

I've never seen so much crap written about a film by people who haven't even seen it.

Everyone knows performance alone is not what wins Oscars. Kate Hudson was a second generation actress who seemed on the verge of major stardom but her film was not as loved by the Academy as by the critics. Jennifer Hudson had an iconic role with no real competition. Anne Hathaway has been a major presence on screen since The Princess Diaries. She's been in the conversatoin for Oscar for years now. There is a bit of backlash now not because she's the presumed front-runner but because she's been everywhere telling the same stories about how she sacrificed for her art. The part, though, is more than one song although it is the presentation of that one song that emotionally affects the audience. As dws says, it's presented in a different place in the film than it is on stage. On stage, it's sung after she loses her job at the factory. In the film it's after she's sold her hair and back teeth and becomes a prostitue in desperation all to support her daughter. The song comes after a sexual encounter that is presented as a paid for rape. Believe me, Oscars have been given for less.

The only thing stopping Hathaway would be a killer performance from another supporting actress, but who would it be? Sally Field has two Oscars, they are not likely going to make her the first three tiem winner on three nominations since Walter Brennan. Helen Hunt has a previous disputed wiin and has not had much of a career since. They are not likely to give her another Oscar especially when her co-star, a probable nominee, is probably not not to win his category. Unless they go for Ann Dowd's well publicized back story, the only possible upset I see is Maggie Smith, an actress with a resume that could very well support a third Oscar a la Ingrid Bergman.

ITALIANO wrote:It wouldn't be enough, even for the Academy. Still she will win. Because she's young, beautiful and she's been there (in different ways) before. Because her main competitors have already won Oscars (and some say undeservedly, too). And most importantly because, let's face it, Les Miserables HAS to win something. It may be a white elephant, I don't know, but nobody wants to be too unpopular, certainly not the Academy - and the prospect of driving to suicide a good number of this movie's fans will be a good reason to give it at least this consolation prize.

I don't know, Italiano. I feel like Academy members might be a little sick of being told this year that Anne Hathaway Must Win the Oscar (how many months now has it been since the first video of her singing came out? A certain kind of fatigue must have set in by now.) I'm not totally on board with her clenching this in a runaway. Several will look to other choices when filling out their ballots. Like 2000, when Kate Hudson was proclaimed the winner by one and all right up until the envelope was read, I feel like this category is not as sewn up as some are perceiving it to be.

And, yes, Big Magilla's rapturous reviews almost felt pre-written.

Does Nate Silver do Oscar prognostication?

Precious Doll wrote:One could put up a good argument that Jennifer Hudson won her Oscar one big song.

That's the most obvious precedent. She definitely won for that one big song. Still, to be honest, her role was a major one - so major that she could be considered a co-lead. She didn't play it well, she was clearly inadequate, but in theory - and for those who liked the movie - she had lots of acting to do, lots of emotions to go through. In Hathaway's case, it seems that she really just sings one (famous and probably powerful) song and then dies.

It wouldn't be enough, even for the Academy. Still she will win. Because she's young, beautiful and she's been there (in different ways) before. Because her main competitors have already won Oscars (and some say undeservedly, too). And most importantly because, let's face it, Les Miserables HAS to win something. It may be a white elephant, I don't know, but nobody wants to be too unpopular, certainly not the Academy - and the prospect of driving to suicide a good number of this movie's fans will be a good reason to give it at least this consolation prize.

And Les Miserables has lots, lots of fans. I sometimes check other Oscar sites and even there - actually more than here - you can feel how they still hope that THEIR movie will win Best Picture. Yet, if dws's review is as balanced and fair as it seems to be, I really don't think that fanaticism can lead to that. A Best Picture nomination, yes, definitely - and I'll even say that it would have probably led to a Best Picture nomination even under the five-slots system. But a win for such a badly-directed effort? Very difficult. But they will have to give it someting, that's for sure.

To be fair, Hathaway has one big song and major parts in two other ensemble performances, which are equally good, so like Hudson, I wouldn't say her entire victory is because of one song, but naysayers will ALWAYS say such because it makes them feel better about why a particular person won.

One could put up a good argument that Jennifer Hudson won her Oscar one big song.

dws1982 wrote:8. Anne Hathaway. Yes, "I Dreamed a Dream" is well-delivered, but Hooper's decision to shoot it in a garish close-up is suffocating--give her some room to breathe. The song always felt like it came of nowhere, and it still does here. Fantine quite literally seems to lose her job, sell her hair, sell her teeth, and become a prostitute over the course of one afternoon and evening, and we don't know anything about her beyond the fact that she has (as she incessantly repeats) a daughter who she sends money to. Because Fantine isn't really a character, the effectiveness of "I Dreamed a Dream" tends to depend more on whatever memories and emotions we tend to associate with it than it does on anything else, and I don't find it terribly effective here. I can see--and respect--the emotion that Hathaway puts into it, but Best Supporting Actress? No way.

I'm not too familiar with the dynamics of the character in the story but on paper it sounds absurd that Anne Hathaway is the frontrunner to win an Oscar for singing a song.