From Stage to Screen

Christmas day hosted the premier of one of the most anticipated films of the year, Les Miserables. I have to say that I was a little afraid to see this film as I adore the stage production. I saw the show on tour more than 20 years ago, and I immediately went out and bought the Broadway soundtrack. I have listened to the music over and over again. Clips that had been prematurely released on Youtube had not impressed me, and I wanted to love this movie as much as I loved the stage production. My girls and I went to the 10:30 PM showing on Christmas night. I LOVED IT! I was totally wrapped up the entire 2 1/2 hours. I wept several times. I have to say, even though I love the stage show, I have never been as moved as I was by the film, and there's a reason for that. That reason is stage and film are different, and that is what people are failing to see. You cannot watch this film and try to compare it to the stage show. There is no comparison because they are two totally different animals.
Back in 1998 I was given the opportunity to play a co-starring role in an independent feature film called When Love Walks In. I had never acted on camera before. All of my acting experience was on the stage. The first day of shooting was like learning to act all over again. I blew the sound man's eardrums with my projection. I was constantly moving out of the shot with my larger than life gestures. Luckily the director and producers were extremely patient with me, and by the end of shooting, I learned how to be a film actress. I also ended up winning an award for my acting. I shared that story to point out the fact that if I had judged film acting after my first day on set, I would have hated it because I was comparing it to acting on stage. Again, there is no comparison. They are two different breeds. There are qualities I appreciate in both.  And that is the same way I feel about Les Miserables. To be sure, there is nothing like sitting in the theater as the house lights go down and hearing the opening strains of the overture. The power, the energy that charges the room as you hear the prisoners sing, "Look down. Look down. Don't look 'em in the eye..." and you are swept into the production. The music is beautiful! The voices are amazing, but there is still a distance. By the very nature of most theatrical productions, especially epic ones like Les Miserables, there is no intimacy. There can't be. Many times you are so far away from the stage you can barely make out the actor's facial expressions let alone see a tear fall slowly down their cheek, but that is the nature of the stage.
Make no mistake, the film is different. It is epic! But it is film. I get the feeling from reading posts on Facebook and some reviews that people expected to see the play on film. That's impossible! You have to watch the film and appreciate it for the art form it is. I defy anyone to watch Anne Hathaway sing "I Dreamed a Dream" and see the desperation in her eyes and how defeated she is and not be moved, and if you can keep a dry eye after you watch Eddie Redmayne sing "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" in tribute to his friends who "meet no more", you are stronger than I. Ironically, "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" has never been one of my favorite songs from the musical, but I could watch the film version over and over again.     This post is not a review of the film. I just got sick of seeing people trashing the film because it's not the play. It can't be, and if you can grasp that concept, I think you can enjoy the film and embrace the differences. I loved it, and I want to see it again, and for this hypercritical person, that's saying something.

What Ever Happened to Class?

Really, ABC, Really?

Last night the 83rd Annual Academy Awards aired on ABC. I watched it from beginning to end. I always do, even the years when I haven't seen any of the movies that are nominated. It's Hollywood's big night, and we, by the magic of television, get to attend the party. It's a fancy party! Everyone's dressed to the nines, and it's all very glamorous and elegant, and until last night, most years I have seen it, it had class. Enter ABC's "brilliant" idea to make the Oscars younger and hipper by picking two young actor's to host, Anne Hathaway, the Princess of Princess Diaries and James Franco, friend to Peter Parker/enemy of Spiderman. I should have known it would be a disaster the way ABC kept hyping both of them as the hosts of the telecast as soon as they were announced with cutesy little commercials of their witty repartee and adorable banter. However they fell painfully short during the live telecast as they were neither witty or adorable. James Franco was in one word, BORING! He never changed his expression, and he wasn't even that great to look at. The faded gray tuxedo they had him in about midway looked dirty. Maybe he was searching in the dusty archives for some personality from one of his Oscar host predecessors. Anne Hathaway looked beautiful. I will give her that, but as boring as James Franco was, she was way over the top acting like a giddy, starstruck schoolgirl. She would introduce a star, and then yell, "WHOO HOO!" like she was at some High School pep rally. After she introduced Steven Spielberg to present the "Best Picture" Oscar and yelled "Whoo Hoo," I half expected her to run over an high-five him. The lowest point of the evening was when they sent James Franco out in drag as Marilyn Monroe in her famous pink "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" ensemble. At this point I felt like I was watching a bad variety show that goes for cheap laughs. I still watched it because it's the Oscars, and I wanted to see who wins, but I was embarrassed for how incredibly bad it was. What ever happened to class, decorum, elegance? Whoever was in charge of last night's fiasco lost sight of all of those. I pray they find their way back before next year's telecast or we may hear the announcer saying, "Please welcome your hosts for the 84th Annual Academy Awards, Snooki and the cast of "The Real Housewives of New Jersey"