First of all, let me set to rest your concerns about my headline. Yes, everyone can sing and everyone should sing. The health benefits of singing have been exhaustively researched and universally lauded. (In case you didn’t know, even singing badly is good for you: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/singing-happy1.html )
But I’m not here to discuss recreational singing, karaoke singing, singing in the shower or even singing around the campfire. I want to talk about professional singing, ie., singing for which one is paid and which people pay money to enjoy. And because he’s powerful and rich and famously not prone to anger (!), I’m going to use Russell Crowe as my example.
Russell Crowe’s singing is awful. On a purely technical level, it’s laughable; on an aesthetic level, it’s horrendous. In the Les Mis montage last night at the Oscars, the cast appeared on stage singing the stirring anthem “One Day More” to great effect and I was moved… until Crowe entered and nearly ruined it. It was as if a foghorn had started blowing in the middle of a Sousa march and was as distracting as the cowbell in that classic SNL skit. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/digital-shorts/video/recording-studio-more-cowbell-excerpt/1374012/) Crowe’s voice at the Oscars had the same effect that it had in the movie: the fourth wall came crumbling down and I was no longer carried away by the moment.
Russell Crowe is a fine actor, a distinguished craftsman and an attractive man. He looked the part of Javert and his dramatic portrayal was pitch perfect. If only I could say the same about his vocal performance. Because Les Miserables is not just a movie; it’s a musical. Who on earth would choose this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8WSysB5vKM over this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFr6nk4ry4Y ?
The man in the second clip is distinguished actor Philip Quast, an Australian who has won the Laurence Olivier Award three times. Go back to that clip and skip ahead to about 2:30. Listen to that tone, that intonation, that inflection, then take note of his high note at about 3:20. His voice soars with the orchestra and I get chills, no matter how many times I hear it. Now skip ahead one last time, to about 4:00. This is the most important moment of the song, when the hopelessness of Javert’s position has begun to dawn on him, when the actor/singer has to convince the audience that committing suicide is better than living with the knowledge that his long-time nemesis is a good man. Quast makes it believable, compelling, and beautiful.
If there are actors in this world capable of singing like this, why on earth would they hire Russell Crowe instead? (Oddly enough, in this live clip released in December, Crowe sounds a bit better, but it’s unclear if the muddy sound quality is helping him: http://www.hypable.com/2012/12/10/hugh-jackman-and-russell-crowe-sing-the-confrontation-les-miserables/) While researching for this blog, I went to iTunes and listened to every snippet of music from Crowe’s band(s); in performing pop music, he sounds fine. Uninspired, but perfectly passable for the kind of music he’s writing. That music, though, is infinitely easier than “Stars,” Javert’s big number in Les Mis.
The truth is, singing in a musical or opera is not easy, and it’s not the same as singing a pop song. Frankly, musicals are unrealistic and slightly ridiculous. It is absolutely unbelievable that someone would suddenly break into song during the course of every day life. In order to push the dramatic action forward through music, it requires training and careful preparation. Not every actor is suited for it or has the natural gift. But judging from the casting in any number of big budget Hollywood musicals, movie producers seem to think that anyone can learn to sing.
Let me be clear: if Russell Crowe were sitting at home singing along with his double CD set of the original Les Mis production, I would cheer him. But he was paid millions to play a major role in a musical and I would argue that his inability to execute the vocal lines skillfully made the movie weaker and less effective. If you don’t believe me, imagine it with Philip Quast in the role of Javert instead of Crowe. No comparison.
Marni Nixon, the woman who sang for Natalie Wood in “West Side Story” and Audrey Hepburn in “My Fair Lady,” says “If you’re making a musical, you should hire singers. Singers who can act. In a musical, you want singing that’s technically good. It’s cruel to make people who can’t sing, sing.” Nixon feels Hugh Jackman could have sounded stronger, but adds that Crowe “was nothing. It wasn’t that he was choosing to sing like that, he just couldn’t do anything else.”
Granted, I am biased on this issue. I am a professional singer myself, with an advanced degree in voice. But after spending years learning how best to faithfully translate the printed notes into compelling drama, it irks me that a movie producer thinks anyone can “pick it up” in a few months with a few voice lessons. There must be some natural talent there at the very least and if there isn’t, they should find another actor.
Of course, there’s an argument to be made that Russell Crowe is a big name and brings people to the box office. But they already had Jackman and Hathaway and I think the clips of Crowe’s singing probably dissuaded as many people as his name attracted.
The underlying point, though, is that Les Mis is a musical. If director Tom Hooper truly respected the material, then he would have seen that the musical line was just as important as the words the actors were saying or the cinematography. If he wanted to do it without music, he could have remixed the 1998 version starring Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush. I suspect that Rush can’t sing well and it doesn’t matter because the 1998 version wasn’t a musical.
But Hooper chose to do the music and so he should have hired real singers. That’s what the score demanded and it’s what audiences had every right to expect.