OT: Miss Saigon
It looks like the Miss Saigon film is moving forward again. Possibly with Danny Boyle directing. Maybe we'll finally get the director's cut of Les Miz if it does well.
shareMaybe we'll finally get the director's cut of Les Miz if it does well.
If I remember right, it was Tom Hooper who was reluctant to do a DIRECTOR'S CUT of LES MISERABLES. Right from the start of filming, he has said that he thinks a 2 1/2 hour film adaptation of the movie would be the optimal length, presumably from a director's point of view. He did trim about 20-30 minutes from the initial cut.
Unless he changes his mind, I doubt that we will get to see that initial cut ( not necessarily the Director's Cut).
Why would a film adaptation of Miss Saigon influence what Tom Hooper would like to do with his own artistic and creative effort?
share
Actually the initial cut ran over 4hrs long and as you say, was never meant for release. However Tom Hooper has said on several occasions that his preferred cut of the film was 3hrs long. He was obligated to Universal to deliver a 2.5hr cut so he trimmed 20 to 30 minutes prior to release. But he stated his plan from the beginning was to release the 3hr cut on disc. However he also said he was mostly happy with how the 2.5hr cut turned out and since it would take a lot of time and work to restore the original 3hr cut he chose not to release a longer cut on the initial DVD. However he has said he would be open to creating a director's cut in the future, which is why there were no deleted scenes on the DVD.
shareSorry to disagree but that was not my recollection of the facts.
Were you with us on this board when the movie was in pre-production/production/post-production? A good-sized group of Les Miserables fans had formed a very active discussion group here and we would share as many things as we would learn from what was happening when they were auditioning, casting, prep-ing, rehearsing ( 8 weeks), filming, and in post.
Too bad that very long but very informative subset of topics here on IMDB was eventually deleted, per IMDB policy. Towards the end, we even shared a link to the screener's copy of the script and had read about which parts were further edited when the movie came out.
But I did recall when Tom Hooper had talked about his vision for the movie.
As early as December 2011, this is what he said about his desired length -- this was an article on his rejection of the use of 3D but he did mention the film length he was aiming at. There was another article about the casting of Eddie Redmayne where Tom also talked to BBC and mentioned the film length at more length ( not sure if I can still find that one).
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-16032642
"With a two-and-a-half hour film, I didn't want to make something that anyone might think 'That's not for me, because I don't like the medium'.
"I wanted to make a film that would touch everyone. I believe the story is so strong, 3D is not essential."
He eventually came down to his desired film length of 2.5 hours after trimming some 20-30 minutes from his initial director's cut ( which was already trimmed from the initial cut from usable filmed scenes). There were a few here who were not pleased with the further editing of the 20-30 minutes (maybe because we were used to that length of the stage musical?). But we never heard any buzz that Universal wanted it trimmed down per se, as Tom had mentioned the 2.5 hours target length even before filming started. But some of us felt that a very long movie musical might not sit well with movie audiences, especially in the sung-through format.
Also, I am not sure where I read or heard about Tom Hooper being reluctant about doing a director's cut. I will have to review his Director's Commentary on the BluRay disc ( probably also available on the DVD version). He could have also said it in one of the numerous interviews when the movie was being promoted...or in any of the Q&A's which followed the numerous special screenings for the awards community. But I do remember that it came from him. Actually, what we were hoping for was simply the restoration of the 20-30 minutes that he edited out before the movie's release.
share
From a Collider interview with Tom Hooper from when the film was released:
Hooper: The director’s cut was about three hours. So I got about an hour out between the assembly and the director’s cut. I got it to about 2:45 and then hit a bit of a wall because there comes a point at which you’ve made a decision about what songs you’re going to keep. What’s fundamentally different about doing this and a normal movie is you can’t take time out anywhere you want like it or not. If you’re editing, say this dialogue that we’re having, you could snip a second out every time I paused, every time you paused take a second out. You could take a sentence of mine out and leave another sentence. You’ve got tremendous control on the pacing of our dialogue that we’re having. If we were singing you can’t just stick your knife in, you can’t take a second out here a second out there a sentence out there because the musical construction falls all over the place. And I realized in the end that the only way I could get it down any more, and I was very committed to getting it down to 2:30, was to try to become more expert at the detail of musical construction so that I could really understand in terms of bars what was possible and what was not possible.
Hooper: I used to think definitely I would do a longer version, [but] having been through the oil tanker that this thing is, to wrestle it to where we got it, I’m aware that the moment you go, “let’s go back in” it’s not a simple process. But let’s see how it goes and if we feel there’s tremendous demand I’d always consider it. It’s difficult because at the same time I feel that I’ve paced it as I wanted it to be paced and do I want to put out in a world a less well paced version? I’m not sure. If there’s interest in the community of fans of the musical then I would definitely consider it.
Collider: Is there anything that you would consider deleted scenes that fans can expect on the Blu-ray?
Hooper: No, because I want to give myself the option of the extended version.
😕 ...but you've merely confirmed what Baj said (that Hooper was reluctant to release an extended version):
Hooper: I used to think definitely I would do a longer version, [but] having been through the oil tanker that this thing is, to wrestle it to where we got it, I’m aware that the moment you go, “let’s go back in” it’s not a simple process. But let’s see how it goes and if we feel there’s tremendous demand I’d always consider it. It’s difficult because at the same time I feel that I’ve paced it as I wanted it to be paced and do I want to put out in a world a less well paced version? I’m not sure. If there’s interest in the community of fans of the musical then I would definitely consider it.
Anyone can see that if you read further than what you've highlighted...Hooper's reluctance is obvious. He even says that it's not a simple process (after the rigmarole of making a film), and blatantly says that the film is paced as he wishes it to be paced (saying that he's not even sure he wishes for a less well paced version to exist!). And I wouldn't put any credence into the fact that Hooper says that he will consider it (twice)...sorry to disappoint you, but Stephen Schwartz has 'considered' a filmed version of Wicked for over six years. It's just their way of saying "Okay, yeah...I'll think about it"...to silence the fans (for a while). 😞
ELPHABA: Eleka Nahmen Nahmen Ah Tum Ah Tum Eleka Nahmen.share
Nothing inconsistent with what I had originally written.
and I was very committed to getting it down to 2:30
Which is what he said as early as 2011 as his target film length.
The director’s cut was about three hours
As I had mentioned, the first edit that he did came to around 3 hours ( after he snipped away about an hour's length from the assembly of usable filmed scenes). He further edited about 20-30 minutes to bring it down to 2.5 hours.
He also discusses at length that editing a movie musical is much more difficult, especially in a sung-through musical, because editing songs/recitatives is not as easy as editing spoken dialog. But he did succeed in doing it well for two songs --
*A Little Fall of Rain -- people complained about how a beloved song from the stage musical was cut short. But it would not have been realistic to let a fatally-wounded person sing such a long song ( and she expired right after) so the shorter song, which also gave the same message, was the more realistic version.
*Drink with Me -- fans also complained about the cutting short of this song of brotherhood. But given the very somber thought of what they would face soon, it would have been too awkward to make the rebels sing it in a very celebratory mood!
Also, what would be the demand for a re-issued Director's Cut via BluRay/DVD? It is likely going to be popular only with diehard fans, as we know many have already bought the original film adaptation version. We also know that musical theatre purists were not very pleased with the film adaptation... as there were many contentious issues involved ( just check the topics on this forum).
Statistics indicates that about $ 77 million worth of DVD/BluRay discs have already been sold in the USA ( international sales figures not available)
http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Miserables-Les-(2012)#tab=summary
Will there be at least a reasonable demand for the second video issue?
Besides, Tom Hooper probably gets a lot of interesting offers ( he is now doing an R&D effort on how to do a film adaptation for CATS - which could either be a film adaptation of the stage musical or a blockbuster type of movie about animals who sing ) and may not have the time and inclination to do a different director's cut, apart from the original 3 hours he did then? share
Ok. I guess sometimes I tend to post of message boards fast and may not make my self clear enough, so I'll try again.
In Collier interview Hooper describes the 3hr version of Les Miz as the "Director's cut". In all my years as a film buff I have only heard the term "Director's cut" used as a description of the version of a film that was personally created and endorsed by the director.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/director's+cut
director's cut
n.
The version of a film in which the editing process is overseen, executed, or approved by the director, usually including footage not included in the standard release.
director's cut
n
(Film) a version of a film which realizes the artistic aims of the director more fully than the original version
So when Hooper himself uses the term "Director's cut" in the interview I assumed that it was his preferred cut of the movie. When he further separates "directors cut" from "assembly cut" it gave more evidence to my assumption.
So when he described his "commitment" to a 2.5hr version and even describes how he "hit a wall" at 2hr,45min, it seemed to me that he was describing some kind studio interference. If I was wrong on the point I stand corrected.
And since he states we would be willing release a longer cut if there was a demand, my original post spoke to the possibility that there might be a lot of hype surrounding the release of Miss Saigon the other musical from the same creative team of Les Miserables, and this hype might open an opportunity for a tie-in release of a longer cut of Les Miz. share
I understand what you are saying with the technical term " Director's Cut". But if you had followed the film project as it was being "born", he was referring to the first artistic cut that he emerged with after editing the "assembly" of usable filmed sequences. But since he had articulated that he wanted an optimal length of 2.5 hours even as early as December 2011 ( when he was still in pre-production), he already had laid plans for that kind of final product.
Universal Studios was never involved during the actual filming. It was Working Title ( a film company with official tie-ups with Universal which was based in the UK) which was heavily involved during the entire project. My guess of the only time where the studio might have had a hand in was in the casting of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe because it seems that the initial feelers were sent out to them via the studio. There was a report then from a trade paper in Hollywood or Deadline Hollywood ( not sure which) that Universal was interested in these two actors -- which would have been a credible piece of news because it is the studio that will fund the movie. Again, that was the early buzz then.
A possible MISS SAIGON film project has not been officially announced. I don't remember reading that UNIVERSAL, via WORKING TITLE, is interested in that film project. As a matter of fact, the current project that has Hooper, Working Title and Unversal involved in (together with Andrew Lloyd Webber) is the feasibility study that Hooper is working on to assess how a film adaptation of the stage musical CATS might work.
Boublil and Schonberg ( Kretzmer was not involved on a daily basis) together with Cameron Mackintosh were monitoring what was happening at the set then but the overall artistic direction belonged to Hooper and his film creative team alone at that time. He was also working at a very tight pace ( filming started in late March for the Jackman opening scenes in France...then moved to the UK for the main parts of the filming. Last filming date was sometime in mid-June ( they had to film into the night for the last day just so they could keep within filming deadlines - the last scenes filmed were the sewers scene). Hooper only had a very short time for post-production. He had to deliver the finished product ( together with the film scoring and the orchestrations which had to be done in post) earlier than the original release date of early December. So, he was very deeply involved, including in the laborious final editing process ( as he said, it is not easy editing a sung-through movie musical compared to regular movies).
To some, a restoration to the original director's cut that he mentioned ( the 3-hour initial edit) may already please some fans. But given the circumstances in which the official version had been done, if he ever wants to do a " real" director's cut from a truly artistic viewpoint, he may want to go through a more rigorous process given no time constraints this time. But what happens to the film scoring and orchestrations that were done in post production then? Shouldn't that also be reviewed if he is restoring some parts of the filmed scenes? I doubt that his stars will be around for re-filming so he can do a more artistic edit. He will have to work with only already filmed scenes.
This is not like a regular movie project where it might be easier to come up with a director's cut (although that usually comes out almost at the same time as the official release version...sometimes it is just chasing a desired film rating that can dictate the change).
And the more important question -- who is going to buy it other than the diehard fans ( not necessarily those who prefer the theatrical version)? Can it generate a strong enough demand to jusfify the additional costs involved?
I think pragmatism will win the day. Our best hope is if he is willing to release the first artistic cut that was put together then!
For the record, I am already very pleased with the final version that was released on film.
I have been a longtime fan of Les Miserables and I have seen the stage musical itself 10 times in different venues ( Broadway, London, Paris, and where I live) over the years. The film adaptation is still my favored interpretation of the novel of Victor Hugo ( which I have now read twice), beautifully expressed with the music from Boublil, Schonberg and Kretzmer. What the film adaptation has done ( at least for me) is to present a very powerful and masterful storytelling, with the music complementing the acting choices. The story has really come alive!
I have recently seen a stage version based on the revised version of the stage musical ( which included some stars who reprised their roles from London or Australian productions) -- I think it is based on the current Broadway revival -- it did not evoke the same emotional reaction that I used to have when I had first seen the show several times many years ago.
Could it be because I have now been spoiled by the artistic merit of the film adaptation? It seems that this has now become my standard for the musical! I may not even like a true Director's Cut better, if ever Hooper decides to release one .
I found the report from Variety in June 2011 re Hugh Jackman as possible lead for LES MISERABLES. It also mentions that it was the studio who wooed Tom Hooper to handle the helming duties. It makes sense that the choice of director and the lead stars would be the prerogative of the studio that would be funding the project and handling the distribution of the finished movie.
http://variety.com/2011/film/news/hugh-jackman-in-talks-for-les-miserables-1118038639/