See The First Clip from Hank Williams Biopic Movie “I Saw The Light”
No more waiting, no more hypothesizing what the British-born Tom Hiddleston will look and sound like attempting to evoke the likeness and sound of the great Hank Williams. Ahead of the world premier of the Hank Williams biopic “I Saw The Light” at the Toronto Film Festival this weekend—-directed by Marc Abraham, and based off the biography by Colin Escott—we now get to see the very first clip of the movie, released by Tom Hiddleston through Twitter Thursday (9-10) morning.
The minute-long clip begins with the Hiddleston-played Hank Williams recording the country classic “Move It On Over” at Castle Recording in Nashville on April 21st, 1947. Included in the clip are Hank’s Drifting Cowboys, which include Michael Rinne as Hank’s bass player Lum York, Joshua Brady as lead guitar player Sammy Pruett, Joashua Brady as steel guitarist Don Helms, and Casey Bond as fiddle player Jerry Rivers. The clip then cuts to a scene of Hank Williams at home with his first wife Audrey Williams, played by Elizabeth Olsen.
I Saw The Light is set for release on November 27th, and is being distributed by Sony Pictures Classics. Producers licensed the rights to the original Hank Williams songs for use in the film, and the film is already garnering considerable Oscar buzz.
Hank’s grandson, Hank Williams III, has previously criticized the pick of Hiddleston to play the Hillbilly Shakespeare, saying, “You got no soul or moan to your voice.”
READ: Hank Williams Biopic “I Saw The Light” Readies World Premier in Toronto New Details Revealed
It gives me great pleasure to introduce the first clip from I SAW THE LIGHT. @TIFF_NET tomorrow! #MoveItOnOver https://t.co/0xC30AghNF
Tom Hiddleston (@twhiddleston) September 10, 2015
September 10, 2015 @ 10:17 am
I made it through 9 seconds. I’d take sam hunt over that. They had a chance to do a Hank Williams biopic right and they blew it.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:31 am
Wow, you gave it a whole 9 seconds? I think Hiddleston makes a damn fine Hank. I don’t need him to sound exactly like Hank, because that’s impossible. I need his acting to be believable and the writing to be solid. I believe we’ll get a solid performance from Hiddleston. Have to wait and see if the writing delivers.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:19 am
Yes, a whole 9 seconds. And seeing as none of us have seen his non-singing portrayal of Hank (at least as far as I know) I was basing it solely off the musical performance and it was…not good, to put it nicely.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:37 am
Have you forgotten that Hank Williams didn’t have the most pleasant voice? It’s not like Hiddleston is trying to impersonate a world-class classical vocalist, here.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:47 am
I think “the most pleasant voice” is subjective, as are all opinions, of course. But Hank Williams’ voice was undeniably genuine and soulful. Tom Hiddleston’s interpretation and execution of Hank’s music is clearly that of a novice.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:51 am
I completely reject that notion. I love Hank Sr.’s voice.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:46 pm
read “sing a sad song”, The first biography written about the guy post mortem- his voice was nothing short of spellbinding. Everyone who knew him said so.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:27 am
My only complaint is lighting, and it’s not specific to this film but all films in recent years. Why all the emphasis on shadows? I can see nothing but darkness and maybe half a face!!! At least “The Last Ride” film had better lighting…
Really though, the lighting is a small complaint. I thought Tom Hiddleston was okay singing, and he’s a decent approximation of how Hank moved, looked, and sounded. There are Hank Williams impersonators who do it better, but they probably couldn’t act in a major motion picture.
I’m very excited for this film, this one and “Now Show Jones,” which I remain adamant should have been named “The Grand Tour.”
I take exception to the notion that a southern American HAS to play Hank Williams. Hank Williams didn’t belong to the southern Americans, he belongs to everybody, that’s a whole part of why his music is so timeless, is that his character is so accessible, to easy to understand… I was a kid when I first heard “Long Gone Lonesome Blues” but I could understand it.
September 10, 2015 @ 1:59 pm
I like you suggesting The Grand Tour, but I always thought Why Baby Why would have been the best title for a George Jones biopic
September 10, 2015 @ 10:36 am
Wow, that’s just terrible. Maybe Shelton was right, no place for a Brit to play the Hillbilly Shakespeare
September 10, 2015 @ 10:46 am
I’d love to hear your explanation of what makes this one minute clip “terrible”……
September 10, 2015 @ 1:24 pm
I just see don’t see him doing Hank justice from what’s come out so far near as I can tell…maybe it’ll be a good movie, hell I’ve been known to be wrong more than once. I just don’t see it from what’s come out thus far.
September 10, 2015 @ 2:03 pm
Joaquin Phoenix doesn’t sound anything like Cash either, but people generally agree Walk The Line was a pretty good movie. Trying to judge whether this will be good based on a one minute clip is just absurdly reactionary.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:47 am
I’m sure Clint Eastwood never went to space, but he sure gave a great performance is “Space Cowboys.” I’m sure Arnold Schwarzenegger was never a Witness Protection Program employee OR a robot from the future but he gave great performances in both “The Terminator” AND “Eraser.” I’m also certain that Colm Wilkinson never went to jail for stealing a loaf of bread OR lived under an Opera House wearing a mask, but he remains the most celebrated Valjean AND most celebrated Phantom in Broadway history.
John Wayne was also never a REAL cowboy, I’ll have you know…
You’re obviously stuck in a very selfish mentality that Hank Williams the man belongs to one group of people, and anybody else is an outsider who will never be right… That’s probably why the bros hate us traditionalists, because folks like you NEVER give them any respect for anything they do.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:50 am
Schwarzenegger as a high-water mark? Now that’s an interesting take.
Anyway I know what you’re trying to say. I feel for Hiddleston. If I were an actor I would not enjoy playing a real, actual person that has lived. All that can be asked of you is to imitate that person as precisely as possible.
It’s like if you’re a painter and you’re only allowed to realistically paint the still life that’s right in front of you, instead of painting something abstract or surreal or fantastical that’s in your imagination.
With fictional characters actors can inhabit them, interpret them, make them their own. Like, say, Sean Bean made Ned Stark in Game of Thrones his own. He was only around for season one and people still talk about him. Ned Stark was no real person that Bean would have had to imitate. Bean had only the lines of dialogue in front of him and the opportunity to imagine this character and embody and enliven this imagination of his. And he did that to great effect.
Even if somebody is playing a historic person like, say, Julius Caesar, the actor has the leeway to create his own interpretation of that character. For, of course, nobody from ancient Rome is around today to correct him on his mannerisms and diction.
This freedom is something that Hiddleston will not be given with his Hank Williams role. To create a close imitation is all that he can hope for, which is a thankless task really. People will not allow him to give his own take of Hank Williams, although that would be the more demanding and worthy expression of his art.
Anyway this short clip did not make me twitch with impatience for the movie. These seconds look very glossy, not gritty. The suits and hair are so meticulously done and the sets are so squeaky clean and shiny, it already makes you feel like the emphasis was on the surface and the superficial, not the essence. Still, once it comes to the theatres I will give it a look.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:00 pm
Arnold may not be anybody’s top choice for great acting, but the first two “Terminator” movies were masterpieces… The threat and fear they embodied was real then, and may be even more real now, three decades later, when technology has advanced to an almost unfathomable degree.
Playing a real person is always difficult, because a fictional character is far less complex. They’re as one, two, or three dimensional as the story needs them to be.
Daniel Day-Lewis, for instance, was outstanding as President Lincoln, BUT going in to see that movie, so many of us were biased by all the mythos surrounding the real Honest Abe. The same could be said of Phoenix’s portrayal of Johnny Cash… There is a lot of hype, pre-conceptions, and downright exaggerations about Johnny Cash, that obviously would have biased people going to the theatres. AND more importantly, people want to have their own ideas reinforced. We all like to think of Mr. Williams as a sad, tired man, aged beyond his years and blessed with great wisdom and an understanding of the human experience… Maybe he was snobbish, pretentious, racist… I’m not saying bad things about Hank Williams, but IF Tom Hiddleston played him perfectly the way he lived, and not the way we THINK he lived, would we be happy?
September 10, 2015 @ 2:56 pm
You might be pleasantly surprised about the feel of the film .
The link below goes to a pic from the actresses Instagram account, which was taken on set. He doesn’t look nearly so polished in that, and she’s not wearing a shirt. I think there’ll be grit (how can there not be with an alcoholic and drug addict) they just haven’t shown us that yet.
Pic link – http://40.media.tumblr.com/54449f4a5748a2ed4a1a13211f3f74a1/tumblr_inline_nuh6ebrXvT1supl3a_1280.jpg
September 12, 2015 @ 7:12 am
Exactly. Some people think Hank was born with a bottle of whiskey in one hand and a a pile of colorful Rx pills in the other.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:38 am
Why didn’t the clip include any of Hiddleston attempting speak in Hank’s Alabama drawl?
September 10, 2015 @ 3:06 pm
I’m not too worried about his speaking voice. I feel like it’s generally easier to imitate someone’s speech than to imitate their singing.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:38 am
I played the section from Hank’s track, then Hiddleston’s clip over and over about a dozen times total. The movie sounds very close to the original. Two things stood out, (besides the difference in audio quality – which I wouldn’t count): 1) Hiddleston has the vocal down except for a bit of a whine on some of the higher notes. and 2) the movie doesn’t have quite the “slap” on the bass that I’m hearing in the original.
Now, one minute of a two hour (or however long) movie does not mean that the every song will be great or that Hiddleston’s acting will be up to par. But, honestly? Sounded pretty good to me. I’m looking forward to seeing this film.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:32 pm
That’s a bit generous. The “whine” is the distinctive and soulful appeal of his voice. If he doesn’t get that right (and the actor doesn’t), then that’s a big drawback. However, the movie may still do everything else right, and the terrible vocals are not a deal-breaker for me.
September 10, 2015 @ 1:55 pm
I get that the “whine” is a distinctive part of Hank’s voice and that missing it takes something away. I guess I more surprised with how similar Tom Hiddleston sounded, despite not having the “whine”.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:46 pm
Having to play Hank’s version over and over doesn’t really give you adequate frame of reference or authority to compare the two. Was this the first time you sat and listened to Hank Williams? Try again. And again. And again. There are drastic differences!!
September 10, 2015 @ 2:02 pm
Yes, sir, it’s the first time I ever listened to Hank Williams. In fact, I watched this video clip of Tom Hiddleston impersonating Hank and then went a found the original recording of Hank Williams and listened to it.
Or not.
Having to play Hank’s version over and over was my attempt to match up the same 40-45 seconds that is played in the movie clip. I was trying to compare the same part of the song, stanza for stanza. I mean, goodness, that’s all it is: 40-45 seconds of an actor trying to recreate a vocal ability.
And if attempting to compare two versions of the same piece of music doesn’t give me, or anyone else, an “adequate frame of reference or authority to compare the two”, then what does? Moreover, if there are “drastic differences”, as you say, in the 40-45 seconds of Tom Hiddleston singing compared to Hank’s original, then what are they?
September 10, 2015 @ 2:12 pm
Sure, one could grab-ass through technicalities between the two versions or one could interpret the songs through that which is not quantifiable: The soul of the music. It’s immediately clear that Hiddleston’s sophomoric rendition lacked exactly that. Dissect it all you want. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
September 10, 2015 @ 2:27 pm
“Grab-ass through technicalities”? What does that even mean? I’ll thank you to please leave my ass alone.
I’m not sure how else to compare two pieces of similar music. The video is the recording session for “Move It On Over”. It’s not a concert or other live setting. So, it made sense to compare the original studio recording with the video. Moreover, it made sense to compare the same stanzas.
But, you see, it”™s not “immediately clear” to me that this was a “sophomoric rendition” by Hiddleston. And, based on some other commenters, I’m not alone in thinking that. Is it Hank? No, but no one is or will be. But, I think it’s pretty close. Again, for a 40-45 second clip of a much longer movie.
But I guess I (and some others) just don’t get it and will never be as good as you are, sir.
September 10, 2015 @ 3:06 pm
While I’m flattered that you’re hanging on my every word and see fit to embolden them with quotes, I think you’re correct that we should stop here. Music is always open to interpretation; you have yours, I have mine. Sorry I failed to respect that from the beginning. Good day sir; I hope you enjoy the movie when it comes out.
September 10, 2015 @ 4:28 pm
I am like you Big Red and don’t get it either lol. I agree the best way to compare two things is to, I don’t know, COMPARE two things . When I listen to Hanks studio version I don’t feel anymore soul than in the movies version. Maybe in his live versions there is more soul but this is the studio version being recreated. But why would anyone compare an apple to an orange?
September 11, 2015 @ 10:53 am
Yeah, I don’t really get the “no soul” thing on this particular song. Sure, it’s about marriage troubles, but it’s also an uptempo, bouncy song, not an angst-y ballad. The real test in that regard will be “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry.”
I thought it sounded fine. Not spectacular, but close enough to get the music across. The real point to me is the acting, and Hiddleston is a fine actor from what I’ve seen of his work.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:42 am
Does it sound exactly like Hank did? No. Neither did anyone in Walk The Line. There is nobody who could and also act. What matters to me is that he moves like Hank.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:52 am
I shall reserve judgment after I have viewed the movie. He portrayed my friend and fellow supervillain Loki as just about the only multidimensional villain in superhero movies. I wish I could be portrayed in such a way. Fox can’t even get the most basic elements of me correct. They just stick some guy in a metal mask and hood and call him Dr. Doom. Just give the Fantastic Four character rights back to Marvel already! Where was I? Oh yes, I believe Mr. Hiddleston will make a fine Hank Williams.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:54 am
Come now, let’s be realistic… is there any way us peasants could ever hope to understand, much less recreate the genius that is Doom? Don’t blame Fox, they simply aren’t capable of comprehending such a legendary figure!
September 10, 2015 @ 11:20 am
You, sir, shall be one of my Four Horsemen when I invade your dimension and conquer it. Yes, I know I am ripping off Apocalypse, but frankly, he spent 5,000+ years futily trying to gain as much awesomeness as I naturally possess. Together, we will weed out the stupid and non-country, so that only country music with substance survives!
September 10, 2015 @ 11:28 am
Sounds like a fun job… will I get dental insurance?
September 10, 2015 @ 11:38 am
You will receive substantial insurance for everything. There will definitely be Bro-Country enthusiasts throwing beer cans at you or running over your Ferrari (that you could afford a million of) with their big. black. jacked. up. trucks.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:42 am
I’m in! Although I can’t help purge country music right now, I lost a lot of muscle tone in space.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:52 am
Sounds good I think. Not Hank but then again, nobody is. Can’t wait to see this!
September 10, 2015 @ 10:54 am
This clip doesn’t get me excited for what’s to come. The truth is though, I’d go watch this movie even if every trailer stunk, just because it’s about Hank Williams.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:01 am
I wouldn’t buy a Tom Hiddleston solo album, but that could have been a lot worse. Not bad, Loki!
September 10, 2015 @ 11:03 am
I am appalled. These people tasked themselves with making a biopic about, arguably, the most important singer/songwriter of all time and they cast a man who offered, at best, a sub-par karaoke performance. At least in Walk the Line, Joaquin Phoenix underwent extensive vocal training to approximate the voice of Johnny Cash; such was his reverence for the Man and his music. The result of Joaquin’s hard work and immersion into the role was respectable. Granted, this is a short clip, but I sensed no such reverence or metamorphosis in Tom Hiddleston’s meager offering. Through its honesty, Hank Williams’ music has a way of evoking instant connection with an audience. Emulating Hank Williams is, indeed, a tall order, but Hiddleston falls drastically short. In my opinion, his rendition is condescending and devoid of soul.
That said, I will likely go see the movie. They will get my eight dollars even if I walk out of the theater halfway into the film, and maybe that’s all they want. I sincerely hope there is something redeeming about the production, but this peak into Mr. Hiddleston’s rendition is not endearing. It would seem that Hank Williams III was right all along, but I doubt that will serve him well as consolation.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:11 am
Well, my only response to you is, that if they cast somebody who sounded enough like Hank, nasally wail and all, they’d drive away a large chunk of the movie-watching public… Then they’d lose funding, not be able to pay quality actors, writers, or executives, and then we’d end up with a poor quality film like the June Carter film “Ring of Fire” that wasn’t particularly good… Yeah, it would be great if they could get a better singer, BUT in doing so they run the risk of having worse dialogue and worse acting… And I would rather the movie was good than authentic. It can be authentic and sound just like Mr. Williams and have poor dialogue, bad shots, and a poor score… OR it could sound nothing like Hank and have great dialogue and incredible set design… and I think the latter would make a better motion picture.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:59 am
Given that they moved production forward without the consent of the ‘movie-watching public’, I can’t buy into the premise that they would have driven people away by choosing someone who sounded like Hank and that it would have affected funding and, subsequently, the quality of the film. This is a film about Hank Williams, and I would think that its primary audience will be Hank Williams fans, country music fans and music enthusiasts in general. Why wouldn’t these people want an actor who sounded (lyrically) like the man? That’s where the authenticity should come from. I don’t think it’s fair to assume that we have to sacrifice the music for quality writing and cinematography. Done right, this movie could have had it all. As a musician and Hank Williams fan, it’s clear to me that Hiddleston lent no conviction or soul to the music. Now all we can hope for is that he redeemed himself with the dramatic performance.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:05 pm
I guess then, at least for you, it comes down to what you want most… I’m excited, I’m going to see it, and I think I’ll enjoy it.
You may need to ask yourself if you’d rather have no movie at all than have one that doesn’t fit your tastes… I may not have appreciated every moment of “Lincoln” or “On Borrowed Time” or “Christine.” BUT I don’t believe it would be better had they not been… If I had to choose between a flawed Hank Williams movie and no Hank Williams movie at all, I’d choose to have a flawed movie… It’s not like there’s enough demand to justify a perfect one, if a perfect one could even be made.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:12 pm
I am vastly disappointed that the music of the film will, likely, not be a fitting tribute to Hank Williams. I think it’s foolish to underestimate the effect of music quality in the film. I had previously looked forward to seeing developments on the film. While I am less optimistic about its release, I am still hopeful that it will adequately portray his life and introduce him to a new generation of fans. A subsequent nod from the Grand Ole Opry would be a redeeming byproduct as well.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:15 pm
Hank Williams is such a complex character with such a lasting legacy and effect on people, and considering the fact that there are people living who still remember him, I would say they’re undertaking a massive project in doing it at all. That’s probably why there hasn’t been a similar motion picture about Elvis, who has an even more dedicated and obsessed fanbase than Hank Williams.
September 10, 2015 @ 2:06 pm
Huddleston has also had extensive training. Rodney Crowell has been coaching him basically since he got the part.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:17 am
Well, the vocals are underwhelming, I agree. But, it’s going to be the writing, directing, and acting that determine how good or bad the movie is. The singing parts weren’t likely to cut it no matter who they got.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:40 am
That was more than good enough as a portrayal. Everybody whining had their mind made up before they even watched the video.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:42 pm
Maybe the people “whining” give a shit about the music, first and foremost. Maybe you don’t know shit about music. Pre-judging people might leave you standing on shaky ground, but I’ll jump on and respond in kind. What the hell…
September 10, 2015 @ 12:45 pm
If you give a shit about the music, you should be happy. That sounded good. No actor was going to sound just like Hank Williams.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:50 pm
As I’ve said, that was a piss-poor, sub-par karaoke rendition of the song. Anyone with an ear for music would likely attest to the same. No actor could sound exactly like Hank Williams, but I can’t help but wonder what that song would’ve sounded like with a little conviction behind it.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:53 pm
Yeah, as a musician myself, I don’t think he sounded spectacular. He sure sounded better than Luke Bryan, but when we’re handing out awards for being better than shit we’ve hit new lows. To be fair, the scene above may not even end up in the final edition of the film we see in theatres; they may recreate it or just leave it out… Assuming it’s a two-hour movie, a single minute is by no means consequential.
September 10, 2015 @ 9:26 pm
That doesn’t even make sense. “If you give a shit about music, you should be happy” – if someone thinks that something sucks then they think it sucks. You are aware the people can actually have differing opinions on the same subject, right?
September 10, 2015 @ 11:49 am
I think it sounds less fake than Joaquin Phoenix IMO. What matters is if he can recreate the stage presence that led Hank to six Opry encores.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:05 pm
It wasn’t solely presence and spectacle that prompted those encores; it was largely THE MUSIC. The music was what resonated with people, and it still does. No actor could possibly hope to mimic Hank Williams’ voice, but Hiddleston would have provided a more fitting tribute to the music had he performed it with conviction and feeling. It’s clear that he only wrapped his head around the technical fundamentals of musical performance and left out the feeling.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:09 pm
“the music was what resonated with people.” How much of that should we attribute to Hank William’s singing and how much should we attribute to his writing? Keep in mind, this was the first time anybody had ever heard some of these songs, (more or less) they were brand new songs… To many of them, it might not have mattered if Hank Williams or Faron Young performed the songs, because it was the songs that were great…
If he’d earned those encores doing covers of established songs it would obviously be his voice, BUT I dare bet it was his writing that moved the masses.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:22 pm
So are you talking about stage presence or songwriting? Reenacting Hank Williams’ stage presence and delivery will be an important component of the film. But you can’t just start piecing out the different parts of Hank Williams and say ‘it’ll be a good film as long as he nails THAT part of the man.’ Hank Williams’ legacy will be perpetual because he was equal parts masterful songwriter, singer and showman. All I’m saying is that it appears that Tom Hiddleston has already dropped the ball on one of those components.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:28 pm
That’s not what I said at all! My point is more that Hank Williams was a songwriter first, and everything else second… I’m also not expecting the film to spend copious amounts of time dwelling on Hiddleston singing, there are videos and recordings of Hank live, so most people won’t go to a theatre to see a reenactment of a recording session. I’m assuming the film will put a much greater emphasis on Hank Williams offstage rather than on, and subsequently Hiddleston’s singing may not be particularly relevant in the overall structure of the production.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:51 pm
I sincerely hope you’re right.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:57 pm
Not to downplay anyone’s opinion here, but I just feel the need to point out that the performance in this clip was Hank (or Hiddleston) in the studio, meaning not in front of an audience on stage like we’re used to seeing of old Hank Williams clips. He’s not supposed to be performing for anyone here except the microphone. Not that this affirms or refutes anyone’s opinion, but I think that needs to be taken into consideration.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:05 pm
He don’t sound bad, but it seems as if he’s trying NOT to sound like Hank. Who’s butt did he kiss to get that role. Jim Carrey would of killed, although a little old
September 10, 2015 @ 12:44 pm
Jim Carrey would make a horrible Hank in my opinion, but I believe he’d make a great George Jones.
September 10, 2015 @ 12:23 pm
Walk The Line wasn’t a huge success because Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon sounded exactly like Johnny & June (they didn’t BTW). It was a compelling story, well-told, and supremely-acted. If this movie has those qualities, it will be successful. If not, Hiddleston’s singing won’t be to blame.
September 10, 2015 @ 1:29 pm
How many of the whiners realize that “Move It On Over” was recorded during Hank’s first session in a major studio, and that this clip is likely of that first session? The Hank Williams that recorded “I’ll Never Get Out Of This World Alive” didn’t exist yet, so if Hiddleston had put all of the soul and moan that Hank developed over the course of his career into his rendition of Hank’s first hit recording he would be doing the film a dis-service.
I would encourage folks to listen to Hank’s original recording of this song and go back and listen to this clip again, I think those with open minds and clear heads would agree that Hiddleston’s performance is solid.
Then go find a YouTube clip of Hank III covering this song and you will understand why he would have been a terrible choice to portray Hank or overdub the vocals.
September 10, 2015 @ 2:11 pm
Most the people calling this terrible had already decided they were going to hate this movie long before they saw the clip. So what if he doesn’t sound exactly like Hank? Hank III is the only person on Earth who sounds exactly like Hank Sr. and I sure as hell don’t want to see him act. To me he sounds closer to Hank than Joaquin Phoenix does to Cash, so as long as the non-singing portions of the movie are good I don’t see a problem here.
September 10, 2015 @ 2:26 pm
Sorry, but Hank III doesn’t really sound all that much like Sr. if you really give him a critical listen. He’s got the moan and the phrasing down, but vocally he doesn’t sound any more like Hank than the guy down at the Karaoke bar singing through his nose.
September 10, 2015 @ 3:48 pm
I agree with you. Hank III is not good enough for his grandfather’s sound though he thinks he is. He is never be the level of to Hank Sr.
September 10, 2015 @ 10:57 pm
he is never be the level of to? really?
September 11, 2015 @ 4:48 am
Hank Sr was a genius. Hank III is not.
September 10, 2015 @ 3:07 pm
All that little clip did to me was make me want to see more.I can’t wait for this movie,and I think Tom will do great in it.I could give a shit if he doesn’t sound exactly the same as Hank,I want to see the STORY of the man. Jaimie Fox didn’t sound exactly the same as Ray Charles,neither does 99.9% of any other actor playing a singer in a movie.
And great comment by “Andrew”. The same people bitching are the same ones who bitched and moaned about this guy from day one. All because their God,Hank III,didn’t like him..Friggin sheep..
September 10, 2015 @ 3:39 pm
I will go see the movie but I agree with Hank III for sure on this…. Im also somewhat of a fan of Rodney crowell he has wrote and recorded some great songs. But does he know about Hank Williams, keep in mind there are still two Hank Williams walking this earth why were the not consulted??? Hank jr and Hank 3 could have done a better job than Rodney crowell Helping the actor… Don Helms said himself no one can sound more like Hank Sr than Hank Jr but he just wont do it anymore but he could have dam sure helped the actor and so could have Hank 3 and they should have got a better actor this movie could have been as big a I walk the line how sad…..
September 10, 2015 @ 4:03 pm
Dave, how do you know that ” Hank jr and Hank 3 could have done a better job than Rodney crowell Helping the actor?” Who’s to say that H3 would have refused to help unless a Southern actor was hired to play Hank Sr. And realistically what does H3 know about Hank Sr. that we can’t find in history books or through folks who knew him. 3 did not have a personal relationship with Sr. what stories could he have shared with the director about Sr? There are no “I remember papa” stories that 3 can share.
September 10, 2015 @ 4:52 pm
Good point is made.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:06 pm
I’ve been covering this story since Tom Hiddleston was first cast, and recused myself of giving my opinion on the matter, partly because it is so split down the middle with opinions that I feel like it should be my job just to deliver the information and let folks decide for themselves, and partly because I really don’t have an opinion either way, or more accurately, can see both sides of the argument.
But what I do feel very strongly about is that Hank Jr., Jett, Hank3, and anyone with direct blood ties to Hank Williams, has a right to an opinion about how this movie should be made, who is cast in it, etc., and that their opinion should count more than the rest of ours. This is their flesh and blood, and they, above anybody else, have both the moral and legal right to manage how Hank’s legacy is presented to the public however they see fit. Hank Williams III shares Hank’s name, as does Hank Jr. Do they know more about Hank Williams that most others? I would say they do, even if they didn’t know him personally, because that is their father and grandfather, and naturally they are going to have a deeper emotional connection with him that the rest of us will never experience.
I think that Marc Abraham should have at least reached out to Hank3, asked him his opinions, opened a line of communication, see if he wanted to be an adviser for the film, even if it was just to placate or acknowledge him, just like he should have done with the rest of the Williams family. At the least, it could have potentially avoided all of this controversy. I feel this was a mistake by the production crew of the film.
My second question has always been if there was a true search undertaken to find the absolute best actor for the job, that could have pulled off the role of Hank Williams most convincingly? Or did Marc Abraham pencil in Hiddleston from the beginning since he is a hot name and there’s some physical resemblance there, and called it good? Was there a casting call put out? Were auditions held? Did Hiddleston even screen test for the part?
In the end, it may be all water under the bridge if the film is nominated for an Oscar, and Hiddleston walks away with Best Actor and there’s virtually universal consensus that it was an excellent film. But when dealing with a biopic film where the subject matter is so intimate to the family, it’s always best to include them in the dialogue. They didn’t, and that’s why the concerns aren’t going away.
September 11, 2015 @ 5:59 am
It looks like they did reach out to Jett in some capacity; her Twitter picture looks like it was taken on the set of the film. https://mobile.twitter.com/jett_williams
So maybe they reached out to others as well? I agree that would have been the respectful thing to do.
As to the casting, Abraham had to have known that casting a Brit would be controversial, so I can’t imagine that he did it if he didn’t think he was the best man for the job. I don’t really think Hiddleston is a huge name right now outside of Internet followers. That being said, if Abraham had scoured the country holding mass auditions, he possibly could have found someone who sounds more like him and can act, but would that have brought in new fans to Hank’s music like using a somewhat known actor might? Hank fans will watch regardless, but for those unfamiliar with him, I’m not sure that “Hey, come watch this actor you’ve never heard of play this songwriter you know nothing about” would be particularly enticing.
September 11, 2015 @ 8:59 am
Jett had to be involved because she had to sign off on the film as one of the executors of the Hank Williams estate. And if she was consulted and kept in the loop, then great. I know for a fact that none of that was extended to Hank3. Hank3 is not an executor of the Hank Williams estate. He will see no money from the movie, and has no legal say so in the affairs. But as a guy that Minnie Pearl said (who did know Hank Williams personally) “You’re a ghost!” when she saw him, I think it would have been a smart and important move to reach out to and open a dialogue with, even if it was symbolic. And I would say the same of Holly and Hilary Williams too. You know Hank3 is passionate about his grandfather through his Reinstate Hank campaign. Reach out, open a line of communication. Don;t let him hear about the movie through Entertainment Tonight. I have nothing but respect for Rodney Crowell, but maybe Hank3 could have said that one thing to Hiddleston or the director, or someone else in the production that could have turned a light bulb on an helped the movie in some capacity. There would be no harm in it. The harm was not reaching out at all, in my opinion.
September 11, 2015 @ 11:07 am
I agree re Hank 3, would have been good PR to get him onside and have him speaking for the movie not against it when theyre doing the rounds promoting it. Maybe they looked at the option and took the view he may have been a bit strong willed and difficult. I’m a fan of his but recognise his personality and lifestyle doesn’t mark him out as a team player.
September 11, 2015 @ 1:20 pm
Sure, I understand there’s difficulties to bringing Hank3 on the set and putting him on the payroll, but they didn’t handle that situation proactively whatsoever. Even just a phone call or an acknowledgement could have gone a long way.
September 11, 2015 @ 11:08 am
I will tell you why Bocephus an Shelton would do better than Rodney Crowell there his bloodline and I will go one step further with Bocephus anyone who knows anything about him knows Audrey put him on the stage at 8 years old imitating Hank Sr. He was pretty much programed like a robot to be Hank Sr. I don’t care what anyone says HE could have helped out a great deal on this film and He was not consulted
September 10, 2015 @ 3:57 pm
You do realize that neither Hank Jr nor Hank III knew Hank Sr either right? They only know him through stories and recordings and videos like everyone else
September 10, 2015 @ 8:46 pm
That’s a good point that gets left out of that discussion. Junior was only three years old when Senior died. He knew Audrey but he didn’t personally know Hank.
September 10, 2015 @ 4:47 pm
Is it just me or does Tom’s Twitter picture look like he could have played the part of Sturgill Simpson?
September 10, 2015 @ 5:09 pm
For those complaining that Tom doesn’t sound good, or just like Hank, that’s completely idiotic. If you want to hear Hank’s music it is real easy. I’m excited to see his life portrayed, while also bringing attention his music to a generation of people who may not be familiar with it. To say an actor needs from the area of the character they are playing is also kind of missing the point. You know like the thousands of movies with american actors playing foreign characters and speaking English…. That is not authentic!
September 10, 2015 @ 5:40 pm
I had trouble watching the video on my phone, but I got the gist of his rendition. I think maybe Hank was supposed to be distracted in that scene. Maybe he was having drama with Audrey or something, so he wasn’t giving it his all. Y’all say Tom isn’t trying to put any soul into it? Maybe he wasn’t supposed to be doing so in that scene. It was a recording session after all, so maybe that’s not what was actually recorded. Like I said, I couldn’t watch the whole thing, but that’s what it seems like to me. He moves like Hank and even looks like him a bit. He’s also a great actor. I’m reasonably certain Hank wasn’t supposed to be giving his all in that scene, and I bet his live performances will be better. Of course he won’t sound exactly like Hank, but nobody can. He sounds better than I expected. Just chillax and wait til the movie comes out to praise him or roast him.
September 10, 2015 @ 8:49 pm
As someone else said, “Move it On Over” was Hank’s first ever session in a major recording studio, so he wouldn’t have yet been the guy everyone remembers.
September 10, 2015 @ 11:23 pm
Boy I don’t know, I want to like this movie but he looks like he’s trying to hard and it’s not working. I’ll wait until I see the whole movie though.
September 11, 2015 @ 6:01 am
Lol so either he’s trying too hard or he isn’t putting enough soul in it. You people need to make up your minds.
September 11, 2015 @ 6:38 am
Sorry, but I’m actually think he sings better then Hank Williams himself. Hank was the brilliant songwriter anyway.
September 11, 2015 @ 8:27 am
Compared to George Hamilton in Your Cheatin’ Heart, this is like a documentary.
September 11, 2015 @ 12:02 pm
I’ll give him an A for effort, but they really should have overdubbed Shelton’s voice or someone else who can actually sound like Hank. George Hamilton’s performance seemed more authentic than Hiddleston’s, and he didn’t even sing in the film! .
September 11, 2015 @ 1:29 pm
Someone should’ve told him the difference between head and chest voice…
September 11, 2015 @ 4:52 pm
I am happy this film was made and I hope it does well. It will surely introduce Hank Williams to an audience that otherwise would never give him a second thought. That said, I doubt I’ll ever watch it. I’m just not a fan of biopics, they’re extremely formulaic, they paint the subject with extremely broad strokes and they’re little more than prestige projects for the star. I’d much rather read a detailed biography while listening to Hank singing his own songs.
September 13, 2015 @ 11:49 am
A few reviews of this movie have appeared on rotten tomatoes, and unfortunately it’s not looking good.
September 13, 2015 @ 1:57 pm
True, which is a shame. The critics do, however, unanimously give high praise to Hiddleston’s performance and that of his co-star Elizabeth Olson (as Audrey), stating that the performances (and also the cinematography) are the film’s good points. Critics are saying the film’s script and direction are the issues.
September 13, 2015 @ 7:21 pm
Who knew Loki can sing lol 😛
September 14, 2015 @ 8:25 am
I Think Hank III Should Have Played The Part Of His Grandfather. Don’t Know If He Would Of But That’s Who I Would Have Liked To Of Seen.
September 15, 2015 @ 6:27 am
If you’re listening for a whine in the voice, you’re missing the point of Hank’s music. Hank had a tear in his voice. Something you felt with your heart. If you talk to the folks who witnessed first hand Hank’s performances, which I have many times, the common experience is his music grabbed you and kept your attention until he stopped. Something few artists are able to do. Tom has the look going, but in this short clip, not the feel. Not sure many could. I will be looking forward to the full length film, hoping the masses approve and bring the music of Hank further alive. This clip didn’t excite me and the TIFF reviews are terrible, at best. Let’s hope the critics are wrong.
September 26, 2015 @ 1:54 pm
Tom Hiddleston, in my opinion, will be proven out to have given a fine performance of Hank Williams Sr. Critics are a dime a dozen and worth only the free info that they put out, they have agendas! From all that I’ve seen so far, this film is going for realism of the time period and from the perspective of what is known by those around Hank, living at the time and Hank’s songs. Give it a chance before condemning the film. In my hopes, it will be a great tribute to the life of Hank and his talents and his music….