Why does everyone say that Russell Crowe sucked in Les Miserables? is a very interesting question right now. Below is the best answer to the Why does everyone say that Russell Crowe sucked in Les Miserables? that we assembled. we will definitely make you satisfied!
I agree with Griffin, but would like to add that he didn’t have the vocal chops necessary. I’m not saying he was a bad singer, I’m just saying that his vocal range and style was inappropriate for the role. I hate when famous actors are mis-cast in singing roles, Johnny Depp CAN sing… but he CAN’T sing Sweeney Todd… To hit high notes he’s uses a Pop/Rock trick that doesn’t FIT with the 1800’s setting of Sweeney Todd. Gerard Butler can sing but he can’t sing the Phantom. He just didn’t have the vocal range neccessary. It’s not Phantom of the Pop song or Phantom of the Musical… it’s Phantom of the Opera and nothing short of an Opera level singing voices would do it justice.
If “Les Miserables” wasn’t a musical, Russell Crowe might have been a fine choice.
But not only is “Les Miserables” a musical, it’s an incredibly popular musical that many, for right or wrong, consider their “go-to” musical. Its music is grandiose and an enormous part of its appeal. And Russell Crowe, in a word, sucked. It didn’t help that the lead was not a very good musical fit, either.
Some adaptations of a musical, like “Sweeney Todd”, can get away with a non-singer in important roles, especially if the part has a limited vocal range. Depp was at least as good as Jackman primarily because “Les Miserables” requires an enormous vocal range, which Jackman lacks.
EDIT: If this seems overly harsh of Jackman, note that he does well in musicals that actually fit his vocal range.
some people are just idiotic. to the normal human ear he sang as well as the rest of the cast. I watched the movie and I listened to several versions of the musical sang by “professional´´ singers. the traditional musical versions weren´t convincing at all. performers sing well, but they don´t seem to be actors, you feel that their entire concentration in just singing the words properly. while the movie fuses both well singing with well acting. when I listen to russel and the rest of the cast I can perceive the emotions in their voices, human and realistic. they are in character. I feel that I am listening to real conversations in song form instead of listening to singers failing to give a convincing performance. for those who may be more sensible/perceptive to music russell probably fails, but to my ears the musical performances are the ones who fail. when russell sings his last song I can feel the emotions and the sense of tragedy of his own existence emanating from his intonation. when I hear the ´´professional´´ performances I don´t feel anything. just some dudes singing.
Edit: After doing what I said and listening to stars i added in videos to explain my points further 🙂
I actually admired Russell Crowe in this film. I know many people disliked him for the main reason that he doesnt appear to have a great singing voice. Look at ‘One Day More’ for example. He sounds weak in this compared to the others.
But lets look at him completly on his own. His character development and acting was brilliant, he made me connect with Javert in new ways and have more sympathy for the character. While after seeing it in the theatre I could dissect the story and tell you how it was a play about life and how there wasnt really a villian of the piece, Crowes interpretation of the character gave him a new sense of emotion. The whole scene where he gives the medal to Gavroche is superbly done, the suicide seems more ‘rational’ as well as ‘Stars ‘set and performed in a great way. The juxtaposition between the walk on the roof and the damn at the end is beautiful.
So why was he slated by some. The main critism was his singing. He has a rather rough voice, and its clear its not a trained musical theatre voice. When putting that up agaisnt Hugh Jackman it shows a marked difference in their talent. Same can be said of Hathaway and 99% of the cast. The only other “weak” singer was Sasha Baron Cohen, who got away with it because of his great character. He was funny so people ignored the rough singing and spoken lyrics.
But Javert is a serious character and cannot hide behind humour. Which is why he seems as if a weaker singer. I guess the next question is whether Crowe should have been cast. And I think he still was a good choice.
Audiences who enjoy Les Mis have come to expect this from Javerts song ‘stars’
Yes its sung beautifully by a Phillip Quast who is clearly a trained actor. When you compare it side by side with Crowe, theres no contest on singing skill.
Yet film is a different medium. Compared to the west end there was a good sense of realism in the film, the breaking of Hathaways voice in I dreamed a Dream, along with the emotion in Empty Chairs brought another dimension to the film. The film wasnt about the singing, but the people. Its almost as if the singing became an afterthought to characters and emotions. This cant be done on the stage as well, as it would be blamed on poor singing instead of emotion. So look at Javert. Javert is a soldier/policeman. His character is rough. He grew up in a jail and has forged a life living by the law. Hes had a tough life. It would be wrong of him to have a perfect, classicsl musically trained voice. The roughness adds to his character. However I might add if you listen to Crowe in Stars he doesnt seem that bad a singer (and he isnt). Just when compared to Quast, or Jackman, Hathaway, Redmayne or most other cast members it is noticable.
But i guess not everyone agrees with this. People love Les Mis because of the songs.And its the songs that people look at first. So if one isnt perfect it really affects them.
And now Im off to listen to “stars”
Russell Crowe is not a bad actor, but he is also not a trained singer. This is a musical. The guy who played Javert in the original cast was the best. That is who longtime fans are comparing him to—watch the 10th anniversary on YouTube. That is what it is supposed to sound like. When fans who fell in love with the original watch Russell Crowe try to sing Stars with his vocals clearly run through some strange reverb-altering sound machine in an attempt to make him sound better…well that’s nearly as bad as watching Nick Jonas sing Marius. If you want to do musicals Nick, stick to pop musicals, not musicals where everybody else’s voice is trained for musical theater. One of these things is not like the other. Crowe’s performance was definitely a let down for long time fans and anyone who loves musical theater and knows how Stars is suppose to sound.
Even Hugh Jackman was not up to par with Colm Wilkinson, who played Jean Valjean in the original cast…Colm played the bishop in the movie and his voice is phenomenal. I absolutely loved Hugh Jackman in The Greatest Showman though, I think it’s just harder to impress people who already have an ingrained perception of what things are supposed to sound like. Jackman did not suck though, he was decent, but even if I hadn’t been familiar with the original, I still would have thought that Russell Crowe sucked because I am not tone deaf…in just comparing his voice to the voices of everyone else in the movie. The reverb effect didn’t fool anybody, or maybe it did because people are asking questions like this, like they thought he was good. Well in case you didn’t know, his voice sucks. Stick to movies stay away from musicals Mr. Crowe. I loved Gladiator…just don’t sing, unless your next role is playing a guy who is an average karaoke singer with dreams of being on Broadway…spoiler alert….Those dreams will never come true in this made-up plot and they shouldn’t have come true in real life, but for some reason movie producers think that big named stars in big roles will sell more movie tickets, and so many people are tone deaf, they can’t even tell the difference between what sounds good and what does not, who cares if we piss off people with musical sense, they’re gonna see the movie anyway because they already love Les Mis.
Someone else said that musical theater actors can’t act as well as the movie actors or something. The emotional performances were there in the original, not so much in the 25th anniversary concert edition. That Javert has a strong voice but I wasn’t feeling the emotion or the charisma of the original guy. The original production is obviously my favorite. Javert in that one had more charisma and the voice to back it, and why does everyone ignore the fact that when Eponine was played by Lea Salonga the girl who played her younger self was white? Lea Salonga is not white. If you’re going to use her, and I’m all for using her, find a young Asian girl with an awesome voice to play Eponine too. If you’re going to give Lea Fantine then make Cosette half-Asian.
Les Miserables does not accurately portray the French Revolution, for the simple reason that Les Miserables does not portray the French Revolution at all.
The Rebellion portrayed in the book and musical is actually the 1832 June Rebellion.
The fact that the Rebels lose and are all killed (well, all but one) is a pretty major clue to the fact that it is not the (successful) 1789 Revolution.
Besides, there are a few more clues; One of the main characters, Thenardier, is at least in the book a veteran of the Battle of Waterloo, a fact in which he takes great pride. The fact he wears his infantryman’s coat as part of his costume in the musical leads me to believe this is true there too. The Battle itself is described in lengthy detail in a chapter from the book, though the whole Battle of Waterloo subplot was axed in the musical. Waterloo, as you may be aware, takes place in 1815, 26 years after the French Revolution. That is also the year that Jean Valjean is released from prison the first time (in the book he gets caught again and sent back to prison at one point, but manages to escape by faking his own death and makes his way to find Cossette).
The spark of the Rebellion is the death of Jean Maximilien Lamarque, a General who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars, was very critical of the government and died in, wait for it, 1832. This one is a bit less of a clue than the others, as it relies on the audience knowing who General Lamarque was, but still.
There is also a passage in the book describing a previous Revolution, that being the July Revolution of 1830.
As for whether it is accurate to the events of 1832, the answer is mostly. It was planned by various groups, who would have included students. These groups were small as there was a law forbidding gatherings of more than 20 people. On the day of Lamarque’s funeral, they did hijack his funeral procession and redirect it to the place de la Bastille, so named because it had been the site of the infamous Bastille prison whose storming had begun the 1789 Revolution. That wasn’t a coincidence.
In Les Miserables, the shooting starts quite quickly, and the revolutionaries are attacked by Cavalry. In real life, first a number of speeches were given, including one by a certain Marquis de Lafayette, and it was only when somebody began waving a red flag about that things turned violent.
The Revolutionaries indeed built barricades, and were indeed disappointed when the Revolution failed to spread. The Rebellion in the book and musical appears to last about two days, and this is also accurate- it lasted from the 5th to the 6th of June. The army is called in, and fighting lasts until the last barricade is stormed and everyone dies. This matches broadly what happened in real life.
Russell Crowe was nowhere near as good a singer as the role demanded. He made Hugh Jackman look even better (if that is possible.) Russell’s acting was also quite flat and 2 dimensional. Just because you can sing or act, it doesn’t mean you’re suitable for all roles. I know there would have been plenty of better choices for that role and it’s a shame they didn’t choose one of them to give the movie that extra lift.
Having said that, Hugh Jackman was outstanding so they should have found somebody who was as strong as him, in both singing and acting, for that role.
The usual suspects are Valjean’s, Javert’s, Gavroche’s, Éponine’s, Fantine’s, Enjolras’, Pontmercy’s — all those deaths who stood out the most, where the pain was most evident, where the stature and gravitas of the character was most evident, where the tragedy was most evident; in short, those who came into the limelight the most. Those who make for rattling good reading and, once they leave the book, for good television.
Which is precisely the reason why none of these deaths is remotely the saddest of the book.
The one who died that death, heretofore unmentioned in this thread, had the saddest death by far precisely because no one around here remembers it, and if the gentle reader has read Les Misérables, I doubt he does as well. You all have forgotten him; you do not remember his name, and you certainly don’t remember he had a role in the story at all. You might even have yawned as you ground through the scarce passages dedicated to him, cursing Hugo for his tangents and digressions, and begging the action to start again. And in the musical, I won’t be surprised if people cared even less — even I don’t remember if he appeared there at all!
And you know the best part? The part that makes this death all the more sad? Because the utter indifference towards him isn’t unexpected; Hugo warned us about it:
The misery of a child is interesting to a mother, the misery of a young man is interesting to a young woman, the misery of an old man is interesting to nobody.
He tells us so just as he presents us with this slow-motion train crash that is the life of our poor deceased; his descent into poverty, the loss of everything that brough him joy, his loneliness, his depression, his misery, his detachment from the world and from his own humanity. As one Nazarene carpenter warned thou shalt deny me thrice, so does Hugo tell us in advance: you will spare no pity for this man.
Father Mabeuf lived an unremarkable life, and only managed to obtain a fleeting moment of greatness in death: by defying the royalist troops, shouting Republican slogans, planting the flag on the barricade of the Rue de la Chanvrerie, and dying from a barrage of bullets. Enjolras, ever the savvy Republican propagandist, didn’t miss the opportunity to try and rally his comrades right after his death:
“Citizens! This is the example which the old give to the young. We hesitated, he came! We were drawing back, he advanced! This is what those who are trembling with age teach to those who tremble with fear! This aged man is august in the eyes of his country. He has had a long life and a magnificent death! Now, let us place the body under cover, that each one of us may defend this old man dead as he would his father living, and may his presence in our midst render the barricade impregnable!”
A murmur of gloomy and energetic assent followed these words.
Enjolras bent down, raised the old man’s head, and fierce as he was, he kissed him on the brow, then, throwing wide his arms, and handling this dead man with tender precaution, as though he feared to hurt it, he removed his coat, showed the bloody holes in it to all, and said:–
“This is our flag now.”
And that was it.
No one ever cared for Father Mabeuf before. No one ever even bothered to remember him after that. His tragic suicide was the last hurra of a broken man, crushed under the suffering that was his life and the abandonment that worsened it, who tried to at least go down in a brief blaze of glory. And as soon as he was gone, and Enjolras’ pretty speech was done, nobody cared.
Who’s a better person? Cosette, and it’s not even close. Who is the more interesting character? In the musical, Eponine by a mile. In the book, both characters are fleshed out a lot more. When they were very young, Eponine was the favored daughter living in luxury while Cosette was the orphan fighting for scraps with the Thenardiers’ pets. Eponine grows into the typical bratty teen, spoiled and self-involved, while Cosette is the Cinderella-type figure always doing the chores and getting nothing but hate from her evil ‘stepsisters’. When Valjean takes Cosette away from the Thenardiers it’s kinda like the fairy godmother giving Cinderella a fancy dress and carriage. Later on Cosette is in a much better situation, living with Valjean, but in a sense it’s still the same. She is hidden away from the world, unable to do things ‘normal’ girls do. Meanwhile Eponine is still with her parents, more or less, living in a crappy apartment in Paris. No longer the favored child, she’s the annoying drain on family resources that hasn’t had the good sense to run away like most of her siblings (Gavroche, et. al.). She helps her parents with their schemes but secretly longs for the boy in the apartment next door (Marius). She flirts with him, but he thinks literally nothing of her. When Marius and Cosette meet it is instant fireworks, and there is Eponine completely left out. This is the part that gets the most visibility in the musical, where Marius and Cosette are drunk with love but things keep happening that threaten to keep them apart. Eponine is the epitome of unrequited love, and therefore an easy character to root for. They’ve done a 180, in a sense, in that when younger it was easy to root for Cosette and hate Eponine, but at this point it’s the other way around. Less so in the books, though, as Cosette is still the orphan girl (albeit with an adopted father now, more or less) who dreams of experiencing the world and finding love, and in Marius sees all that she’s been dreaming for. Marius uses Eponine to relay messages to Cosette, but doesn’t seem to know or care about Eponine’s feelings. Eponine’s death is tragic, and the song in the musical is heartbreaking, but in the book Marius finds her, is very appreciative that she has a message for him from Cosette, then steps over her corpse without another thought and goes to find his true love.
In their youth, Cosette is the tragic figure and Eponine the pampered brat. In their late teens, Eponine is the tragic figure and Cosette the somewhat-pampered naive girl that’s not as easy to root for.
A. Bowdoin Van Riper
Kept aboard the ship during a battle, the boats would almost certainly be struck by enemy gunfire, damaging or destroying them and turning them into flying debris (called “splinters,” but larger and more lethal than that word implies) that could kill or wound members of the crew. Putting the boats over the side and trailing them astern also cleared the main deck of an obstacle that might, depending on how the battle unfolded, hinder the crew’s ability to do their jobs.
Putting the boats over the side was part of a routine known as “clearing the ship for action,” a combination of readying the guns for use, moving unnecessary gear out of the way, and taking precautions to minimize (and prepare for) casualties.
Javert (not Javier) was certainly the antagonist, but I’m not sure I would consider him the villain. I’m going to explain this relative to the musical, rather than the book, so if there are differences bear with me.
An antagonist is the character whose motives are opposite the protagonist.
Random House Unabridged Dictionary
defines villain as “a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.” While they may often be the same character in stories, “antagonist” and “villain” are not strictly synonymous.
I don’t believe that Javert was evil nor do I think he was living a life devoted to wickedness. Quite the contrary: Javert was a man of the law who dedicated his life to upholding the law with unwavering conviction. Having worked with and around criminals for much of his life, he became jaded and came to view the men and women who had been charged with crimes to be the scourge of the earth.
Look at his relationship to Jean Valjean. Valjean stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving child and was subsequently put in jail. His sentence ended up being 19 years because he kept trying to escape. Javert held the “once a criminal, always a criminal” belief probably because he had seen it happen. We see it in the US with our prison system: some people spend such a huge part of their lives in jail that they’re not only unable to break the cycle of crime, especially because we make it so difficult to convicted felons to get employment after being released from jail, and some people lose the ability to function in the real world and they’ll actually commit a crime to go back to jail because it’s the life they know. Think about the circumstances Valjean lived in: his sister’s family was so poor that the children were literally starving to death and the only way to save their lives was to steal the bread. To Javert, Valjean is a thief. He’s not technically wrong, but Javert sees the world in black and white and he struggles with the idea that someone could do a bad thing for a good reason. Javert has established a construct by which he lives his life, and Javert doesn’t work within it.
Jean Valjean tries to reinvent himself and dedicate his life to doing good after stealing from the Bishop. He gets rid of the parole papers that prevent him from being able to find consistent housing and employment, and assumes a new name and creates a new life for himself. However, Javert was obviously informed that Valjean had broken parole and he dedicated his life to bringing Valjean to what he considered to be justice. That mission is what makes Javert the antagonist. I don’t think Javert is a bad man. The truth is that Jean Valjean did break the la…
Why was Russell Crowe chosen to play the role of Javert in Les Miserables?
I’ve heard people discuss the movie who talk about the fact that his casting was actually perfect. The theory is that they weren’t trying to make a musical they were trying to make a movie that used music to convey stories and emotions. They could have cast singers who gave flawless performances but they went with people whose singing was more raw and untutored in keeping with their characters.
In Les Miserables, why are the women of the factory so upset that Fantine has a daughter?
Because she “had airs”, in their opinion. Fantine had been accustomed to hanging out with wealthy students and having fun, even though she had basically been the serious one of the bunch. When her beau up and left (as a ‘nice surprise’), she was left on her own and pregnant. The guy hadn’t known. Fantine was spiraling down into despair, and her beloved child she had left in the care of a seemingly-nice innekeeper. She spent her days at work feeling miserable about not being able to care for her daughter, worrying about the future, and not socializing with her coworkers. This, combined wi
In Les Misérables, why is Fantine fired after it’s revealed that part of her earnings are going to care for her child?
She wasn’t fired because the foreman found out part of her money was going to care for her child but because she had a child at all. Unwed mothers tended to be frowned upon because misogyny and double standards dictated that respectable unmarried women did not have sex, and it’s pretty hard to deny sex happened if you have a kid.
Plus, factories in that time tended not to hire mothers of any variety. Mothers were assumed to be at home taking care of their children or they were treated as a bad mother (this remained the prevalent view through the 1960s – Star Trek TOS actually has women as ensig
Why does everyone blame Russel Crowe for bad singing in Les Miserables (2012 movie) while Hugh Jackman didn’t even sing on pitch?
Are you kidding me? You need your ears tuned. Jackman wasn’t stellar in the lead role, but he could carry it roughly along, whereas Crowe barely dragged Javert through the mud. He sounded like he had a frog in his throat or was about to barf the whole time, in addition to struggling with hitting the notes.
Who are the “misérables” in Les Misérables?
The money quote is buried in the fifth chapter of the eighth book of the third volume, which I mention because I can’t talk about Les Mis without marvel-complaining about how spectacularly long the thing is.
Here Marius thinks about the Thernadiers, who are crap people, but whom Hugo wants to teach us to pity.
What! only a wall separated him from those abandoned beings who lived gropingly in the dark outside the pale of the rest of the world, he was elbow to elbow with them, he was, in some sort, the last link of the human race which they touched, he heard them live, or rather, rattle in the dea
because he has the worst singing voice in the whole godamn world he is the worst singer ever
he is the worst
Who is your favorite Les Miserables character?
She is a beautifully tragic character that we never get to know much about except her tragic unrequited love.
However it is clear that she has some street wise sass and has taken a fall from grace after her parents dealings.
I think she would have been an incredibly interesting character to develop. Especially to see how her parents upbringing shaped the person she is and her view of life.
Can you explain the plot of the film Les Misérables and why it was Oscar worthy?
Les Misérables is an incredible and very long story. In summary, we have Jean Valjean, a man who stole a loaf of bread and is being released from prison on parole after 19 years. He can’t get anywhere to work and is taken in by a kindly bishop but he stupidly decides to steal some silver. He is caught but the bishop forgives him and gives him candlesticks. Jean Valjean decides to use the silver to better himself. Fast forward and he is now mayor of a small town. We are introduced to fantine, a woman who’s idiot lover left her to raise their child who she leaves to be raised by the Thenardiers
Is Russell Crowe a method actor?
The short answer is no, not in the traditional sense as most people interpret the definition of method acting. Actually Russell Crowe reportedly disdains formal acting instruction and the complete immersion of one’s self in the character. He states that he does his own method. Most of Crowe’s characters are not a far distance from his natural personality.
Perhaps the most “acting” Russell Crowe had to do was his Oscar nominated role as John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind” in which he turned in a memorable and finely nuanced performance.
Russell Crowe explains the Russell Crowe method of acting
Why is javert considered villain?
Javert is more of an antagonist than a straight-up villain, but he represents a mindset that was prevalent in Victor Hugo’s time that still resonates among some today: Once you break the law, you are a criminal by nature.
The opening chapters make this pretty clear – when Jean Valjean is on parole, he’s basically on parole for life but forced to sleep rough. No one will give him work because he is an ex-con. He is forced to live in poverty, drifting from job to job because no one trusts hiring an ex-con. After all what if he commits a crime again? But when he breaks his parole, and uses some st
Is Les Miserables a boring book?
I have started it three times. I’ve never finished it. Mind you, I did fine with David Copperfield, managed to get through Hamilton, and have read over 150 books this year.
What do you think drove Javiert in Les Miserables?
Javert is the personification of the law. What drives him is his unflinching belief that enforcement of the law makes society better. Just as the law is intended to make everything binary, guilty or innocent, so Javert sees the world. The guilty must be punished so that the innocent may be protected. Nothing else matters.
Is The Next Three Days starring Russell Crowe any good?
I disagree with anyone that says this film is anything but stellar. I just finished watching it on Netflix Streaming. I admit, based on the trailer I had little interest. This film sat in my queue for quite awhile until I finally watched it tonight.
I pride myself in being able to predict thrillers while still being able to enjoy them. I must say, this script, written and directed by Paul Haggis, blew me away. It turned every predictable plot point on its head and took me into another direction, then another, then another.
It has been a long time since I have seen a film that truly kept
Karen Marie Shelton
What’s wrong with Russell Crowe?
Russell Crowe has major anger issues.
In fact, he is famous for his explosive temper and rages.
Eva Rinaldi from Sydney Australia – Russell Crowe – 2017
Back in October of 2016 rapper Azealia Banks claimed she’d gotten into an altercation with Oscar-winner Russell Crowe in his suite at the Beverly Hills Hotel
Banks wrote in a since deleted Facebook post: .
“To recap my night, I went to a [party] at Russell Crowe’s suite, at which he called me a n—-r, choked me, threw me out and spat at me,”
She continued: “Last night was one of the hardest nights of sleep I’ve had in a long time.”
Both parties’ acc
What’s Russell Crowe like in real life?
He is a genuine, honest hard working man! with absolutely no ‘side’ ( no movie star behaviour).
Russell has a great sense of humour and he cares about people he knows, or who work for him.
He loves his boys and will miss them when he is away.
He is a true blue Australian, even if he was hatched in NZ.
When he says he will do something for you, he does.
The Rabbitos are his great love and his pride and joy.
I wish we saw more of him, he is always busy.
How did Meg Ryan really feel after her affair with Russell Crowe?
How Meg Ryan Really Felt After Her Affair With Russell Crowe
Ryan was allegedly “hugely in love” with Crowe on the set of his movie “Proof of Life,” and her affair caused awkwardness among the film’s cast and crew, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Actress Meg Ryan was involved in one of the biggest cheating scandals in Hollywood history with her partner actor Russell Crowe…..
The overhead is the best answer to Why does everyone say that Russell Crowe sucked in Les Miserables? that we researched. Follow us for more interesting answers!