Awards Speculations

[jo]

Maybe we should create a separate thread for articles and discussions on the chances of Les Miserables for honors in the coming awards season, notably the Oscars. We may also want to discuss how the competition is being viewed for its chances.

Re this new topic --

One of two major trade paper in Hollywood ( the other would be Variety), THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, reviews UNIVERSAL PICTURES slate in 2012 ( those released and those about to be released). The whole article covers all the 2012 releases from the studio and not just Les Miserables -- but here I am just going to quote the excerpts that have relevance to Les Miserables.

www.hollywoodreporter.com/race/oscars-savages-snow-white-bourne -legacy-ted-les-miserables-364229

Its first paragraph points to Universal Pictures pinning its Oscar hopes on Les Miserables --



>>>>Midyear Awards Report: Universal (Analysis)

The century-old studio is best known these days for blockbuster franchises but believes "Les Mis" could produce its first best picture Oscar in more than a decade.

2:40 PM PDT 8/30/2012 by Scott Feinberg


NOTE: Throughout July and August, The Hollywood Reporter's lead awards analyst and blogger Scott Feinberg has been analyzing each studio's 2012 awards outlook. He will post his first "Feinberg Forecast" of the season -- featuring ranked projections for every major Oscar category -- after the Toronto International Film Festival.

The studios that we have covered, thus far: #1# Warner Bros., #2# Fox Searchlight, #3# Focus Features, #4# Disney/DreamWorks/Pixar, #5# Paramount/DreamWorks Animation, #6# The Weinstein Co., #7# Sony Pictures Classics, #8# Columbia/Sony Animation/Screen Gems/TriStar<<<



Among the last paragraphs is THR's prelimary impressions on the chances of Les Miserables --


>>>Just two days later, Universal rolls out its biggest gun of all, Les Miserables, which is that rarest of things these days: a good old-fashioned movie musical. Adapted from the hit Broadway play based on the 19th century Victor Hugo novel, the film, which has been in development for decades, marks director Tom Hooper's first project since The King's Speech for which he won the best director Oscar two years ago. As Valjean, a man whose past comes back to haunt him, Hugh Jackman has his first film role that showcases his talents as a singing-and-dancing performer. The rest of the cast includes Oscar winner Russell Crowe (who also sings in the film); Oscar nominees Anne Hathaway (whose vocal abilities are beautifully demonstrated in the movie's trailer) and Helena Bonham Carter (who earned the second of her two Oscar noms for her work in The King's Speech); Hollywood stars Amanda Seyfried and Sacha Baron Cohen; and theater actors Samantha Barks (who was retained from the stage production for very good reason, I'm told) and Aaron Tveit. The number of Oscar nominees and winners who handled the below-the-line responsibilities for this film suggests that its production values will be as impressive as well.

INITIAL IMPRESSIONS

Universal hopes that Les Miserables will bring the studio its first best picture Oscar nomination in four years and its first win in 11 years. It will face an uphill climb, though: No film from a major studio has won since The Departed six years ago, and no movie musical has won since Chicago 10 years ago -- and none had won prior to that since Oliver! in 1968. Still, if any musical ever had a good shot, it is this one. The 1987 Broadway version of the show won Tonys for best musical, best book of a musical, best original score, best featured actor and actress in a musical and several tech awards. The studio probably will push Jackman for best actor and Crowe for supporting actor, even though the actors who played their corresponding parts on the stage both competed in the same lead category, which strikes me as a smart move. Everyone else apparently will compete in their respective supporting categories, with Hathaway reportedly standing the best chance at a nom, despite -- spoiler alert -- relatively brief screen time. As far as below-the-line categories, the sky is truly the limit. <<<


****************************************************


It seems that Scott Feinberg who is lead awards analyst and also a blogger for THR may not have actually seen the stage musical.

*"Hugh Jackman has his first film role that showcases his talents as a singing-and-dancing performer." -- er, unless Valjean dances a firstdance with daughter Cosette for the wedding? Seriously, does he know that Les Miserables is actually a serious and dramatic tale, with a musical structure to tell the story. It is not song and dance routines! Presumably, he has seen the Phantom of the Opera movie, because that probably comes closest to the nature of Les Miserables as a movie story and storytelling format.

*"The studio probably will push Jackman for best actor and Crowe for supporting actor, even though the actors who played their corresponding parts on the stage both competed in the same lead category, which strikes me as a smart move " -- he does not know that Valjean is the central character and Javert is the main antagonist. If the roles were equal, did he think that RC would have accepted second billing?

*"even though the actors who played their corresponding parts on the stage both competed in the same lead category, " -- at the West End, the actor (Wilkinson) who played Valjean and the actor who played Thenardier ( Armstrong) both competed as lead actors, whereas on Broadway it was the actor who played Valjean ( Wilkinson) and who played Javert ( Mann) who were up for lead awards. Feinberg is not familiar at what goes on when classifying roles for awards purposes on Broadway and in London.


But still, the article is excellent publicity for Les Miserables, despite a release date that is 3 1/2 months away! Also, it is good to read about awards expectations for the actors. I wonder if the writer had a chance to talk with some studio insiders ( who are in the know) about Universal taking a big stance in pushing Les Miserables as its banner movie for 2012! Hope it is also true that Hugh and the rest will be pushed for serious consideration!

[mamaleh]

Jo, isn't your favorite scene from LES MIZ when Valjean cheers up the folks at the barricade and convinces Enjoiras to co-lead a kick line with him? How quickly we forget!

I just wish at least some snippets of Hugh's singing "Suddenly" would materialize. Can't wait to hear it.

Ellen

[jo]

Haha - Hugh Jackman and Aaron Tveit both ;D ;D ;D

Catch them if you can


Jo

[jo]

Hugh's Oscars Opening Number has been clicked 4 million times on YouTube! And people are still flocking to watch his remarkable and memorable performance!!

Congratulations, Mr. Oscars Host!!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Terhj8mjPwY


Jo

[rmtndew]

Just thinking; if Hugh wins an Oscar for Les Mis, wouldn't that put him 1 award away from being part of the EGOT winners? All he would need is a Grammy. If the soundtrack won an award, would that be given to the cast or the music producers?

- Alicia

[jo]

The trailer for LINCOLN, one of the major Oscar contenders, including Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln --

www.deadline.com/2012/09/lincoln-trailer-spielberg-daniel-day-lewis-dreamworks-disney-video/

Interesting feedbacks on the Deadline Hollywood feedback section!

[jo]

There has been a slight change in the key dates for the Oscars season --and Pete Hammond does an analysis :

How Oscar’s Surprising Changes Affect Awards Season: Analysis

By PETE HAMMOND | Tuesday September 18, 2012 @ 3:01pm PDT

My phone started ringing off the hook shortly after the Academy of Motion Picture Arts And Sciencessent out their press release today detailing key dates in the voting schedule for the 85th annual Academy Awards. Awards consultants I spoke to were clearly thrown for a loop and expressed dismay over the new dates — particularly the Academy’s switch from the previous Oscar nominations announcement date of January 15 to January 10, an unprecedented three days before the Golden Globes.

Does this blunt the impact of the Globes? In some ways it definitely will as the Academy’s nomination announcement will get enormous attention just as the Hollywood Foreign Press Association is drumming up attention for its own big night. Also, the usual window in which studios use Globes wins for newspaper, online and TV advertising is, well, out the window as Oscar nominations will likely take precedence. Last year, there was a week-and-a-half between the Globes ceremony and the Oscar noms. Now the two are much, much closer. The impact, if any, of Globes nominations on Oscar voters is also minimalized as the Globes noms are announced December 13 and Oscar nom voting starts four days later on December 17, with ballots now due back January 3.

And then there is the Broadcast Film Critics Association’s Critics Choice Movie Awards, another big telecast movie awards show that usually falls on the Thursday or Friday before the Globes. No date has been announced for 2013, but the group’s decision will certainly be impacted by today’s Academy news. Certainly they don’t want to show to fall on the same day as Oscar nominations, but will they move earlier because of this? There’s only so much wriggle room here. Making things even more crowded and headache-inducing for awards consultants, The National Board Of Review also holds their awards ceremony in New York on January 10th

How this new nomination voting window (Dec 17-Jan 3) affects voter turnout in the Academy is another issue as it falls smack-dab in the heart of the busy holiday season, with ballots due just as many in the industry are coming back from vacation. Consultants usually use that period to screen heavily — even in winter vacation spots like Aspen and Hawaii — so there’s now a time crunch to make sure everyone has a chance to see the films, particularly those late-breaking December releases. There also will be a huge crunch with the Academy’s official screening schedule as there are only so many slots and now much less time to see everything before ballots are due; this end of the process puts more pressure on members scrambling to screenings. Getting DVD screeners or downloadable movies available earlier will be more important than ever even though the Academy prefers members see contenders on the big screen, a much tougher task for a busy Academy voter. Of course, with the new electronic voting Academy members won’t have to deal with paper ballots and snail mail and will able to send in ballots with the click of a button on their laptops or iPads.

What will be the impact of all this on those big December releases like The Hobbit (December 14), Zero Dark Thirty (December 19), Django Unchained (December 25) and Les Miserables, which Universal announced today was switching from December 14 to Christmas Day, getting it out of the way of The Hobbit? Major reviews won’t even appear for Les Miz and Django until Oscar voting has already been going on for a week. In the case of Kathryn Bigelow’s much-awaited and controversial Osama bin Laden film Zero Dark Thirty, there was word Sony would hold back screenings until a couple of weeks before opening, which will give Oscar voters even less chance to see it pre-nominations. The December releases need to screen like crazy to make up for lost time. You can bet today’s announcement will bring on some hastily called strategy sessions over at the affected studios.

“What’s gonna happen with the poor Palm Springs Film Festival?” one consultant asked me this morning. That fest’s black-tie gala awards ceremony where studios and distribs trot out their Oscar hopefuls has traditionally taken place during the Oscar nomination voting period. This year it is scheduled for January 5 — now after polls have closed — meaning minimal impact. Looking on the bright side, the consultant said the press releases announcing Palm Springs honorees will be the major reason for getting talent to participate, instead of the actual ceremony.

In the run-up to the final voting for Oscars, the Academy has shrewdly placed its nominees luncheon four days before that vote begins, giving it maximum impact. In fact, the actual dates for final voting (February 8-February 19) are similar to recent years and ballots are due back the same Tuesday before Oscars they always have been. I might have thought electronic voting could have extended that a few days but apparently the Academy does not want voting going on during key events that Oscar week.

Despite the increased time-crunch to see movies pre-nominations, the Academy is to be congratulated for finding a way to extend the period between nominations and final ballots being due by two full weeks. It’s good for members who won’t feel as rushed in seeing the actual nominees, and from the Academy’s point of view it further blunts the less-savory campaign elements of Oscar season as rules for parties and personal campaigning are far more stringent post-noms than pre-noms — effectively giving the Academy more control where they want it. It’s also good for the business: A longer window for theater owners to tout Oscar-nominated films is something exhibitors with whom I have spoken have long wanted, and it will give moviegoers and potential Oscarcast viewers more time to see the films and get invested in the race. That should help ratings — at least in theory. And the Academy has done it without making the potentially foolhardy move of staging the Oscars a month earlier as was rumored but never really true. There was never much taste for that on the part of the Board of Governors or ABC.

With these tweaks to the schedule, the Academy is putting the emphasis on seeing the nominees and making voting for them easier. Nothing wrong with that.

Jo

[Jamie]

Predictions update from Gold Derby www.goldderby.com/odds/experts/56/

[foxie]

so many on Facebook can't wait for this movie people who aren't Hugh nuts like us are saying the trailer is making them cry and they can't wait!

[Jamie]

Good time to throw in comments www.hitfix.com/in-contention/best-actor-2012-potential-nominees-from-ben-affleck-to-denzel-washington In Contention has a run down on the potential Best Actor category

[jo]

This is what I was whining about earlier on this board - that Hugh is not considered even among the top 5 but only as a possibility beyond the strong contenders!

I hope that these predictors will change their tune once the movie is released. Although I wonder if part of the reason why he is ignored is that some film bloggers do not consider movie musicals as worthy of award notice...and even more so, its male leads. Many have commented that the AMPAS rarely bestows acting honors to male leads in movie musicals!

Jo

[birchie]

Wasn't sure where to put this but wanted to send a heads up to you New Yorkers. Someone just posted this on the IMDB Les Miseables 2012 board...

The New York Film Festival is having a "surprise screening" of a work in progress on Monday. They announced this at the Paperboy screening I went to last night. I dunno why but my gut feeling is that it might be Les Miz.

[jo]

Sorry, but it's been confirmed on several threads on the section MOVIE AWARDS of IMDB that the movie is LINCOLN ( for the NYFF).

www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/threads/

Deadline.com also had the same scoop --

www.deadline.com/2012/10/surprise-steven-spielbergs-lincoln-to-premiere-monday-at-new-york-film-festival/

Jo

[birchie]

Oct 4, 2012 19:11:25 GMT -5 jo said:

Sorry, but it's been confirmed on several threads on the section MOVIE AWARDS of IMDB that the movie is LINCOLN ( for the NYFF).

www.imdb.com/board/bd0000005/threads/

Deadline.com also had the same scoop --

www.deadline.com/2012/10/surprise-steven-spielbergs-lincoln-to-premiere-monday-at-new-york-film-festival/


Jo

Yes, just saw that too. Sorry New Yorkers!

[jo]

Someone on IMDB found the name of the publicist who is running the Oscar/Golden Globes campaign for Les Miserables He previously did the campaign for A BEAUTIFUL MIND for Universal.

Here is his biodata (Tony Angellotti) --

www.imdb.com/name/nm0029653/bio

Part of his extensive experience includes --

The Angellotti Company was founded in 1997, following Angellotti's 8 year partnership in Weissman/Angellotti. TAC plans and executes publicity strategies for films, filmmakers, production companies, industry events and Golden Globe and Oscar campaigns. Angellotti has assisted Universal with all its awards campaigns since 2000, with such best picture nominees as "Frost/Nixon," "Munich," "Ray," "Seabiscuit," best picture winner "A Beautiful Mind," picture nominee "Erin Brockovich" and multi-nominees "King Kong," "Cinderella Man," "American Gangster," "United 93," "Children of Men," "Bourne Ultimatum," and "Billy Elliot," among others. He has also managed Disney/Pixar's animation awards campaigns, beginning in 2001, including Oscar winners "Toy Story 3," "Up," "Wall*E," "Ratatouille," "The Incredibles," "Finding Nemo," "Spirited Away," and Oscar nominees "Princess and the Frog," "Bolt," "Cars," "Howl's Moving Castle," "Monsters, Inc." "Brother Bear," "Lilo & Stitch," and "Treasure Planet," among many others.

He also assisted Miramax Films with its awards campaigns from 1991 through 2000 (more than 100 Oscar nominations during this time), including best picture winners "The English Patient" and "Shakespeare In Love," as well as best picture nominees "Chocolat," "The Cider House Rules," "Life is Beautiful," "Good Will Hunting," "Il Postino," "Pulp Fiction" and "The Piano," and multiple nominees "Malena," "The Talented Mr. Ripley," "Sling Blade," "Wings of the Dove," "Mrs. Brown," and all other Miramax films during this time. He assisted Miramax with all its foreign language awards campaigns, including winners "Life is Beautiful," "Kolya" and nominees Iran's "Children of Heaven," Brazil's "Four Days in September," France's "Red" and "Queen Margot," Japan's "Shall We Dance" and Hong Kong's "Farewell My Concubine."...

[jo]

I found these feedback comments re the blog of Sasha Stone very insightful on why certain movie musicals work and some do not -- and why the hype over Les Miserables may be deserved --

rufussondheim / October 15, 2012

Yes, several musicals have been made into movies since Chicago, and, it’s true, none have been nominated for Best Pic. Of these films none has the combination of critical success and popularity that Les Miz has.

a) Phantom of the Opera. Yes, this is a very popular stage show, but this show was always more spectacle than substance. The shows consists of about 6 songs repeated over and over and the lasting popularity of the show is very suspect. No matter the source material, the film was leadenly directed. It was extraordinarily dull because, well, the director was a hack and the material was never as good as people thought (note, it lost Best Book And Best Score to Into the Woods at the Tonys, never a good sign)

b) Rent. This is a great show (check out the filmed version of the show) but one of the reasons is great because it’s all done on a set that’s pretty static and there’s lots of commotion and moving around and connecting stuff that keeps the story exciting and moving along. There is a great flow when you see it on stage. This show was and is still quite popular but it was very much a zeitgeist film when it hit Broadway (AIDS was still widely seen as a terminal illness.

The film failed because it came off as a Disnified version of something that in person is much grittier and adult. Plus so much of the connecting compositions and songs were cut and disrupted much of the flow of the show. Plus many of the show’s scenes are very theatrical and theatricality doesn’t translate well to the screen (see War Horse)

c. Nine – I’ve not seen the movie nor the show. That’s saying something since I like Broadway Shows. This show is really an also-ran in the history of Broadway. None of the songs are well-known or really even known. It was a bad choice to put on the screen.

d. Hairspray – This is a completely delightful show and film. Probably the best filmed version of a Broadway Show I’ve ever seen. But it’s just too light for the Oscars. Blame the Academy, not the film.

e. Dreamgirls – This is one of those shows that had a following because of a legendary performance of a legendary song (Jennifer Holliday singing And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going.) But outside of those 5 minutes, the show is really not good. Yeah, “I’m Changing” is also a quality song, but the character arcs for everyone in the movie outside of Effie are quite poor. When Effie is not on stage/screen, all you want to see is Effie. Note that Jennifer Hudson got the Oscar and the film pretty much bombed otherwise. I know many people predicted big things for it, but those of us who actually knew the show did not (I could say that for Nine, too)

f. Sweeney Todd. – This is my favorite show that ever got turned into a movie. If you can find the filmed version with Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, you really should watch it.

The play is a Grand Guignol masterpiece that’s filled with dark humor, an edge of your seat storyline, tragic character arcs, a significant plot twist (that was ingeniously staged) song great melodies and more than anything else, some of the best four part song stretches you will ever hear. And the haunting main theme is performed throughout as a Greek Chorus keeps the momentum and energy at a very high level. This is an over the top musical as any that are out there and it serves the dark subject material extremely well.

While the staging of the show is extraordinarily well done, it’s not overly theatrical and there’s nothing in the show that shouldn’t have worked on screen. And the stuff that did make the screen was very well done. The movie is a fine version of the stage show. But Burton chose to exclude that haunting theme and any of the group choral parts of the other numbers. This made the movie seem claustrophibic and small at times, but more importantly certain stretches of the movie seemed naked without them, especially the thirteen minute final sequence that seems frantic on stage but lifeless in the film.

2) And that brings us back to Les Miz. Les Miz doesn’t have many of the problems the other stage musicals had. First, it’s not an overly theatrical play. It’s very straightforward even though the stage rotates. Most of the time the scenery is incidental and there’s nothing gimmicky going on.

The show has a ridiculously popular score with several songs that are mini-masterpieces. This isn’t a show that’s riding on the popularity of one song, there are 6 or 7 songs that are all great, and if you ask different people they will all chose different songs they consider great. My least favorite number of the show is the favorite song for others.

Outside of a few group numbers most of the songs are solos/monologues sung directly to the audience or duets/group songs that have a lot of solo segments in them. yes, there are big group numbers (At the end of the day, Do you Hear the People Sing, One Day More, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables primarily) these are readily filmable with the exception of the crucial One Day More. But, all in all, this is a very filmmable show.

That doesn’t mean there aren’t potential problems with the show. The first is its length. The movie could wear on people’s nerves since it will be close to three hours long if filmed in entirety. If it’s not your thing, you will hate it by the end. While there are strong numbers throught, there are moments that drag in the theater (at least from my perspective) and those could be problematic to many.

There’s also the problem with the numerous song solos. A lot of the songs are 4 to 5 minutes and it’s just the person standing on the stage. This will be very difficult to find new and interesting ways to keep them interesting. The live singing should help this a great deal as the performances will be more immediate, but, still, this could come off very much like a concert than an actual film.

Then there’s the dramatic problem of One Day More. It’s an utterly fantastic moment on the stage as each cast member joins a desperate anthem. It’s less than three minutes on stage and it’s a barburner. And it ends the first act. And then you have 15 minutes to revel in its greatness as you get up and move around. It’s a glorious theater high.

The film won’t have that luxury as it moves pretty quickly into a torch ballad. On the stage this is also a standout number and will be the centerpiece to a Samantha Barks Oscar Campaign. But I wonder if the transition from One Day More to On My Own will be too quick in the film for the audience to truly enjoy either. If this transition fails, the film will fail to register big with people unfamiliar to the show.

And this is where that Anne Hathaway trailer assuages me of some of my fears. The snippet of the song and the shots of Hathaway singing it are far more interesting than the song is on stage. I find the song to be rather forgettable in the show, it comes early and is not part of the main narrative and by the end of the show you’ve seen better stuff. Hooper and Hathaway work magic in that 90 seconds.

But can they maintain it for the three hours? I don’t know. But in this stage of the game, I think this is going to be a huge success. Could I be wrong? Of course, but I think this stage to film project has a lot going for it that translations listed above did not.



rufussondheim / October 15, 2012
Oops I forgot to write about The Producers and Mamma Mia!

Yeah, sure The Producers was a huge success on stage and it’s a lot of fun. But it’s such a high energy production that really only works on the stage. I never thought it was going to be a good movie for that reason. And it’s not. And when I saw the movie it occurred to me that the show really isn’t that good. The songs are amusing but not particularly good when taken out of context.

And Mamma Mia – well this show is not very good, but I must say the movie with its big stars and gorgeous scenery is a shit-ton better than the execrable show. (Maybe it was the production I saw)

[birchie]

Oct 16, 2012 5:37:04 GMT -5 jo said:

I found these feedback comments re the blog of Sasha Stone very insightful on why certain movie musicals work and some do not -- and why the hype over Les Miserables may be deserved --

rufussondheim / October 15, 2012

Yes, several musicals have been made into movies since Chicago, and, it’s true, none have been nominated for Best Pic. Of these films none has the combination of critical success and popularity that Les Miz has.
<snip>
...Then there’s the dramatic problem of One Day More. It’s an utterly fantastic moment on the stage as each cast member joins a desperate anthem. It’s less than three minutes on stage and it’s a barburner. And it ends the first act. And then you have 15 minutes to revel in its greatness as you get up and move around. It’s a glorious theater high.

The film won’t have that luxury as it moves pretty quickly into a torch ballad. On the stage this is also a standout number and will be the centerpiece to a Samantha Barks Oscar Campaign. But I wonder if the transition from One Day More to On My Own will be too quick in the film for the audience to truly enjoy either. If this transition fails, the film will fail to register big with people unfamiliar to the show....

Rufus makes some good points. I wanted to add that it appears that On My Own has been moved to before One Day More which should eliminate the problem he talks about here. Also, he indicated that Empty Chairs At Empty Tables was a group number as opposed to a solo which was confusing. Unless he just means that other people appear on stage but don't sing. Otherwise, very interesting.

I think there are ways that ODM can be done effectively in the film and the medium may have advantages. Sometimes in a stage performance you can't make out everything that the individual singers are saying. Whereas, on film they can zero in on the individual and isolate the mike so each important solo part should be heard with no problem. I'm really looking forward to seeing how they've done it. Sue

[jo]

Goldderby handicaps the odds for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical. Guess who's leading at the moment, sight unseen ;D

www.goldderby.com/events/805/golden-globes-(film)-nominations-2012/comedy_musical-actor.html

Hugh leads the field with odds of 11/8 ...and is the only one who has received Editors' votes (6). And take a look at how many voted for him - overwhelming

Check out the link for the entire grid of potential winners.

Jo

[jo]

I have just patiently listened to one Oscar forecast podcast, from Jeffrey Wells' site - it is slightly over an hour long.

hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/10/douglas_poker.php

It is a long podcast. It is really frustrating that Les Miserables has not been seen because, as of now, they withhold their comments about it. But Ed Douglas did say that if there is someone who should get in the nominees list, assuming he gives a showstopping performance (and because of all the transformation in the role) it is Hugh. Jeff Wells says he has heard from someone who has seen the movie who said that it is Hugh's movie! Not so much Russell, but maybe Anne, too.

They repeated that Les Miserables will probably start some screening the week or after Thanksgiving.

First concrete words that Hugh is definitely carrying this movie !

Jo

[mamaleh]

I was a little concerned about that aspect, especially after reading that they'd beefed up Javert's role. (That was probably how they got RC to sign on.) Good to be reassured that the lead remains the lead. Thanks, Jo.

Ellen

[jo]

A little earlier, one of the film bloggers/Oscar forecasters, Kris Tapley, said he has been assured by official sources that Universal Pictures will be campaigning for only one lead role in Les Miserables, Hugh Jackman. Everybody else will be campaigned for in supporting roles, whether actors or actresses. So, that was resolved early on.



SPOILERS ALERT***************SPOILERS ALERT**************SPOILERS ALERT*******************SPOILERS ALERT***************SPOILERS ALERT




But if you have read the screenplay --- it was quite apparent how the Valjean role was enhanced and leads to even fuller character development. True, there was also some enhancement in the Javert role, but they are not as key as the changes in the portrayal of the Valjean character! The changes definitively establish that the central character is Jean Valjean!

*The prologue is no longer simply narrated/sung by Valjean but is presented in a succession of events. It established the state of Valjean's physical, mental, and emotional state when he first meets the Bishop

*It seems from the Extended Look video that they may no longer present the WHAT HAVE I DONE soliloquy as a straight, simplistic shout-sing portrayal onstage. It could be a very effective combination of act/sing choices this time, happening in different places ( the altar scene, the churchyard scene, etc)!

WHO AM I, instead of just being sung in a straightforward manner is presented visually as a progression of scenes to trace Valjean's redemption, from feelings of self-preservation, to self-doubts on his moral values, to the time when he finally marches to the courtroom to shout the famous numerals " 24601"!

*The scenes with Fantine are particularly more poignant, including supposedly carrying her from where he found her in the snow!

*The Confrontation has been changed - Valjean deliberately escapes to the river/sea instead of trashing Javert...giving further emphasis to the unending chase between man of the law and the supposed fugitive.

*There are extended scenes on the meeting with little Cosette, one called by Mackintosh as the most dramatically appealing that he has seen. The new scenes involve escaping from Javert into the convent where he meets Fauchevelent again, the man he rescues from the cart. There is also that poignant scene where he hovers over the sleeping Cosette and verbalizes his new feelings, with the song SUDDENLY.

*Many other scenes that seems to be better treated in the screenplay involving Valjean ( whether it is new recitatives or lines or polished recitatives)...

*Even BRING HIM HOME is treated more dramatically than the simple hovering-over-Marius-and-praying-to-God scene we see in the stage version. In the show, it is more of people simply being fascinated by the money notes of the song. Here, Valjean walks around the carnage around them in the cafe, before he sees Marius and starts his plea to God. But before that, I imagine that we would see how his feelings towards Marius is changing ( from someone he was jealous of to someone who is loved by his daughter and is now also loved by him) and all that reflected on his face. Plus of course the iconic singing!

*But there is one scene which would likely leave a startling imprint -- his trek through the sewers with the wounded Marius! That is one enormous and particularly dramatic sequence of scenes ( I shudder when I read the description of the physical hardship he undergoes for that episode!).

*And they have also put in an additional scene in the pre-finale, where a younger and stronger Valjean rising from his remains meets the Bishop at the pearly gates!



So, what I was just fretting about was not the role and how he is going to do full justice to it -- it is that all other film performances have mostly been seen and Hugh's name is not always mentioned as a strong Oscar bet because the movie has not been seen! I am hoping that the awards bodies are not making their minds up yet...and are waiting for Hugh's expected showstopping performance!

As a friend says -- Okay, assuming he does not play a historical figure, a mentally-deficient person, a substance abuse character, or a physically-disabled person -- can anybody else act and sing his entire role in a dramatic movie ;D

Jo

[birchie]

Oct 22, 2012 5:23:48 GMT -5 jo said:

...Ed Douglas did say that if there is someone who should get in the nominees list, assuming he gives a showstopping performance (and because of all the transformation in the role) it is Hugh. Jeff Wells says he has heard from someone who has seen the movie who said that it is Hugh's movie! Not so much Russell, but maybe Anne, too.

They repeated that Les Miserables will probably start some screening the week or after Thanksgiving.

First concrete words that Hugh is definitely carrying this movie !

Jo

I love that line about it being Hugh's movie! It's about time that they start talking about him as a contender!!! Even in just the tiny snippets we've seen in the teaser/tv spot/Japanese trailer and extended first look, I found him much more compelling than both the trailers I've seen w/DDL. In those brief looks he commands the screen even when it's only a half second. I can only imagine what seeing the entire scene would be like. Of course, having read the screenplay I can imagine it even better!

All these awards pundits & speculators do make me wonder about the whole process though...pre-conceived notions...playing favorites...who's do...who's been bad...etc... And now with the internet there are even more of them.

When I was younger I loved the Academy Awards and I really pictured the process as people in the same profession dutifully watching their screenings, making notes and then voting for the best performance from among their peers. Can't imagine why my friends always said I was such a Pollyanna!

[jo]

You express my own feelings of disillusionment, Sue!!

*These film bloggers/podcasters have practically created their own industry...doing what??? They are not even film critics as they are not likely qualified to do that kind of work. Listen only to one or two podcasts and one realizes how empty the blabbing is. Blah, blah, blah - nothing very insightful or very intellectual, nor really well-reasoned arguments for and against...If I had not wanted to hear why it was said that Les Miserables is Hugh's movie -- I was ready to cancel my audio download . Who reads their forecasts - the members of the awards bodies ( they should not!)?? The general public??? What purpose will it serve -- so one can bet more intelligently on the office pool? But shouldn't that be based on having seen the movies concerned??

*The Harvey Weinsteins are another source of disillusion for me. Why should he be allowed to use tactics that may not necessarily reflect artistic but political choices... or even worse, hopefully not commercially-transacted choices! These bloggers even glorify him, instead of reporting the kind of campaigning tactics he employs.

*The award bodies -- they are trying to outdo each other, instead of trying to work together to recognize the best of the best!

*The Oscar winners wannabes -- they shouldn't be put in a position where they have no choice but to campaign to win ...They have done their job when they have provided the most artistic and most inspiring aspects of their film portrayals!


I really hope that Les Miserables is a magnificent movie and such an artistic success that it is the general public that will recognize it as the people's movie!


Jo

[jo]

I don't know if any of you follow the discussions on IMDB but here's an interesting thread on " Les Mis is Hugh's movie" --

www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/board/nest/206009401

I have not put in my two cents' worth on why this could be so. I have only posted what I heard from the podcast... I am sitting on my hands, because I am already known there for being an unabashed Hugh fan

But --

I think the reason why the person who saw the screening dubbed Les Miserables as " Hugh's movie" is because his portrayal "owns" or "steals" the movie from everyone else, except maybe, to a little extent, that of Anne's ( and we know that already from the ubiquitous first teaser ).

They don't know how Hugh can steal scenes. I just saw a cable TV run of Real Steel - and there is one scene where Max is teaching Atom how to dance at the motel parking lot. Very cute scene! Then comes Charlie - with a great smile on his face ( typical Hugh smile) -- and his sunny expression puts the cute, blond, blue-eyed boy and the cute, grey, blue-eyed bot to the pale!! He walks in and he simply encompasses the scene!

On a more realistic note re his Les Mis performance -- he is the central character, the role has been further enhanced in the screenplay including how his musical numbers are staged and he is really the only character who interacts with every major character -- from the Bishop, Javert, Fantine, young Cosette, grown-up Cosette, the Thenardiers, Marius, a little of Enjolras and the rebels, and that " to love another person..." scene with Eponine! Maybe the person who saw the movie thought that the Valjean character was overwhelmingly the person around whom the storytelling revolved! Plus he gets the most solos/musical numbers and the most recitatives and maybe the most closeups

A lot of doubters among the IMDB posters ( except of course for our Birchie/Sue and Narrows) because many of them have probably not seen many Hugh movies or have absolutely NO idea on how he is on a musical theatre stage! I am so tempted to post Ben Brantley's reviews ( TBFO/Carousel/Back on Broadway) or even the unabashed fan letter from Rex Reed

But they don't know what is in store for them!

With what that lucky person who saw the screening said, I am convinced that Hugh's performance is going to be one for the ages in Oscar history! I hope all the other stars align for the formal recognition to happen!

Jo

[jo]

I know this might be favorite -son-type-of-comments, but --

During a quiet moment on the set, a rain-soaked 19th century Parisian street producer Debra Heyward describes Jackman's delivery of the heart-wrenching words as "absolutely amazing".

"He deserves 50 Oscars for what he's done already," she says, only half joking.


I think producer Debra Hayward was referring to the extent of acting/singing work that Hugh has done to make the movie a dream come true for the producers!