board77

Lidless wrote:

Philistine, that's me. Songs should have repeatable tunes, art should show skill, and poems should rhyme.

Broaden thy mind!!!!!!!!!

OK, I just saw it again, and enjoyed it far more, despite dodgy sound quality in the theater... (I've already dealt with that. Got my moneys worth I did.)

By far the weakest performance was Anthonys, and that was pretty amazing. Personally I'm not the hugest fan of musicals (particularly Andrew Lloyd Weber), but this is one that had good plot, characters and music, which are, IMHO, the three most important things in a musical.

As for repeatable tunes, well Johanna is a perfect example, in every way. The song is threaded through most of the film, the melody returns within each performance of the song, and it has that "hum along" quality.

The best bit for me this time was one of music, not of performance. In "pretty women", when Turpin and Depp are passing the "Pretty Women" "Silhouetted" etc. bit between each other, the horn plays a muted dissonance when Turpin sings. That created the mood far better than anything else for me.

I melted over Rickmans low C-sharp. What I found incredible was that he was also singing the D above middle C with relative ease. That man must have an enormous range. Just think what he could do with training...

Edit: I looked up Alatars stage production on youtube. I can honestly it's actually better. The removal of the Chorus after My Friends takes quite a bit from the production, as does the liberal slicing up of "A Little Priest". Anthony is far better. "The Quartet" shouldn't have been cut. A fantastic little song. As it was, in the film, Johanna and Anthony remained undeveloped. "The Ballad of ST" is another number that, having now seen it, seems to me to be something that certainly should have remained.

Iavas_Saar wrote:

I am wondering what you and Estel think he got his Oscar nom for?

What does that prove? I know what the Oscars stand for but the only people who think they're the be-all end-all of filmmaking are accountants. I love them, but there are other opinions. Namely, one's own!

If I misread your statement, I apologize. I just think it's a misstep to bring up Oscar nominations as validation for a performance.




*E*

It doesn't prove anything. But I think it's a fair question for people to give an opinion on. My opinion is that he gave a fine performance and this was noticed by the majority of people. Others might think he got the nomination for a different reason (factors other than a worthy performance)..?

Iavas_Saar wrote:

I don't think you can say that HBC did a great job at making the character her own without considering her singing to be part of that.

Actually I can. Easily. Her singing was in general breathy, painful to listen to, and just generally wrong for the part. Her interpretation of the character has absolutely nothing to do with her singing ability just as the difference between Patti's Lovett and Angela's Lovett goes far beyond the differences in their voices.

Quote:

I am wondering what you and Estel think he got his Oscar nom for?

I never said he was bad. In fact, I do believe I said somewhere that was was actually good in the role, just beneath what I think of as his own standards. And, to be honest, I think the Oscar nom is partially in light of his past body of work that deserved to be recognized but wasn't. And I really do recall him as having essentially one facial expression.

Crucifer wrote:

this is one that had good plot, characters and music, which are, IMHO, the three most important things in a musical.

Are you giving that as a reason why it's a good film? Because those three things are all due to Sondheim, not to this particular version of it.

Quote:

Actually I can. Easily. Her singing was in general breathy, painful to listen to, and just generally wrong for the part. Her interpretation of the character has absolutely nothing to do with her singing ability just as the difference between Patti's Lovett and Angela's Lovett goes far beyond the differences in their voices.

Are your ears particularly sensitive? I guess we'll just have to disagree. The emotive aspect of the singing is part of the characterization for me, so the interpretation would be hurt if I found the singing painful.

Quote:

I never said he was bad. In fact, I do believe I said somewhere that was was actually good in the role, just beneath what I think of as his own standards. And, to be honest, I think the Oscar nom is partially in light of his past body of work that deserved to be recognized but wasn't. And I really do recall him as having essentially one facial expression.

Well, in a way you are right - part of the characterization is that his revenge lust is an obsession and dominates his life. So looking generally moody is perfectly right. What were you after exactly, more smiling/laughing?? The expressions change when needed and seem to fit every situation. Can you give one example of a moment where you think the expression didn't fit?

Also, how many times have you seen the film? (4 for me) You notice the nuances of the performances more each time.

I simply didn't like the movie. I feel that my opinions are well informed and valid. I do understand that others have different opinions, but that doesn't make mine any less.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion though. It's basically just become people repeating their opinions and explaining why opposite opinions aren't right, and it's turning into a circular debate that isn't going to head anywhere new

This reminds me of the LOTR days.. I would use the argument that while everyone's opinion was equally valid, the fact that the films had received such positive reaction overall indicated that they were objectively well made.

I'm going to stick with that here.

(And before I get called out, this also means there are films I don't like which I would have to concede are well made, and films I like which I would have to classify as guilty pleasures)

Quote:

there are films I don't like which I would have to concede are well made, and films I like which I would have to classify as guilty pleasures

This can be applied to art in general. There are works I think important that I do not personally care for, and works I like that I would never defend as important.

Quote:

Are you giving that as a reason why it's a good film? Because those three things are all due to Sondheim, not to this particular version of it.

Nope. Just why I love it as a musical in general. I'm not the biggest fan of musicals.

Given the mundanity of most movies (as was ever thus), anything deemed as stylish tends to get more praise than it should deserve - the subjective creeps into the objective. Rose-tinted glasses, if you will.

For me this seems to be the case here.

Re JD's Oscar nomination, many here have pretty much answered it. If an actor has a body of work that includes several iconic performances but has never won, Oscar starts to nominate them for the very next good performance.

There are many examples of this, none more so than Judi Dench who should have won Best Actress for Mrs Brown, but ended up with Best Supporting Actress the next year for 8 minutes in Shakespeare In Love.

Much of Oscar involves guilt and previous culmulative unrewarded performances.

But the Dame was spectacular for those 8 minutes...

You see, that is why I asked the Oscar question.. some people do have a different justification.

While I think his body of work might be starting to become a factor, I would put it at no more than 10-20% importance in terms of him getting nominated. He still has to give a performance widely accepted as being a strong one.

Does anyone own the film soundtrack? I has to vent.

The version I downloaded had 20 songs on it so when I bought the actual CD this weekend I didn't even check the cover (for anything other than Johnny Depp's face, of course). Then I go to unwrap it to play on the long trip home but there are only 17 songs.

Yep, I'd been had by the evil Select Highlights fairy again. Bitch.

This happened with Phantom too, where I bought one album and then found out they'd be releasing a two-disc version including all songs and orchestration featured in the film. Except with Sweeney, there was only a difference of three songs, so I hardly see that being worth the effort. Especially when two of those songs are "Alms, Alms" and "Ladies In Their Sensitivities", both about a minute long. Why the hell would you make a separate soundtrack for "highlights" and basically say, "yeah it's the whole soundtrack you heard in the film except for three songs because we think they're shitty and didn't want to waste your time. Go us!" Honestly. The last song on this CD is "Not While I'm Around." There's like a half hour left in the movie at that point!

I really hate that the third song excluded is "Final Sequence", since it's so long and also features the brilliant music that accompanies the finale. I don't like being deprived of that. It's like watching Moulin Rouge without the curtain call, or cutting Phantom off after the chandelier crashes. I love "Not While I'm Around" but it is not the note I want to part on. If that makes sense. I assume it was left out for spoiler reasons but hell, if you haven't seen the movie, don't listen to the soundtrack, you know? Its title doesn't even give anything away. Ugh. Up yours, Dreamworks.

For your time: http://youtube.com/watch?v=xkLSFdvrhq0




*E*

That sucks E*. Why the hell would they do that? Ist not like the usual 1CD, 2CD difference.

That's what I got too, and I'm happy enough with it for now, but what I'd love is the whole film put on CD. (I have the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on CD. It's so much fun listening to it with no visual!)

When I first went out to buy the soundtrack all I could find was that crappy 17 track version. I ended up having to be patient and order the full CD from Amazon (it's not just the 3 extra songs, it also comes with a nice booklet/libretto).

What's a libretto? Booklets are always nice, fo sho.

I would go for the more comprehensive version also, I just didn't know it existed heh. At least all of my favorite tracks are on this version, but you know.

Exactly, Alatar, it just doesn't seem like much of a difference to justify a separate CD. I mean, even folks who only like a fraction of the music but would still like to buy it, would they really object to three songs, and maybe a nice booklet? I don't know how music distribution works but it seems kinda lame.

Off the top of anyone's head, is there other music from the film not on either soundtrack? I wonder if a third version will come out. Will have to keep an eye out for the DVD too, in case they start selling a two-disc version like the day after I go to buy the one-disc. Groan. "Special 1-year Anniversary Pack, Now With 3 Extra Minutes of Johnny Depp Moping!"




*E*

Quote:

Off the top of anyone's head, is there other music from the film not on either soundtrack?

Probably some of the non-vocal score.. for example I'm not sure if the music while Sweeney builds the chair is on the CD?

Finally saw it tonight. Liked it a lot, but, to my surprise, I actually found it too bloody. I knew There Will Be Blood, and I didn't think I'd mind (I usually don't), but... I did.