Les Miserables

[scarlettina]

When I heard the news about Les Miserables being adapted for the screen, I was on the fence about it until I heard that Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe had been cast as Valjean and Javert respectively--and then I couldn't wait. I was certain it would be epic. I saw the movie last night. There were things about it that I loved and things about it that I really hated. Despite what's going to look like a lot of criticism, I really enjoyed the movie and may see it again, but I do have issues with it. I'm going to go on at some length here, so I'm cutting this post for flist mercy.

What did I love? Jackman as Valjean. While I don't think he's as vocally strong as some of the other actors who have performed the part (notably Colm Wilkinson and Alfie Boe--two actor/singers about whom I could write an entire 'nother LJ post, their two completely different performances of the role and why each one works), but he brings the exactly the right balance for a cinematic adaptation. I will admit that I wasn't fond of the way he sings through his nose, but he brings such earnestness, strength, and compassion to the part and gives his whole self to it, and that's what Valjean needs. I also loved Anne Hathaway as Fantine. She is perfectly cast and gives such a raw performance that you can't help but be drawn in and completely convinced of her agony. She sings "I Dreamed a Dream" the way it should be sung, as an angry, broken crie de couer rather than as a triumphant ballad. I thought that both Eddie Redmayne as Marius and Aaron Tveit as Enjolras were terrific. (More Tveit please?) And, of course, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helen Bonham Carter were terrific as the scheming, thieving Thenardiers--because I don't think either one of them is capable of giving a bad performance in anything. The costumes and sets were just perfect; I wish the director let us see more of them. (More on the direction in a moment.)

I also loved the director's choice to have the actor's sing live rather than pre-record their songs and lip-synch to them later. It brings an immediacy and credibility to the performances that is just wonderful, and lets the actors act their music in a way a lot of musicals-on-film don't. It may spoil me for other musical movies from now on.

What was I "meh" about? Gavroche. I never liked this character, or maybe I just dislike the way he's written in the show. I kind of just don't care about him and his presence always irritated me; his presence in the film reinforced that feeling. The kid who plays him is terrific, no question, but he could have disappeared from the movie and I wouldn't have missed him. Someone else could easily have done the one thing that makes his character important to the plot. Also, I was meh about Eponine--good actress and singer, but another character who doesn't really do anything for me. I feel like she's there to be pitied; if a character doesn't take her own agency in hand and then suffers as a result, I just feel disdainful. (Side note: Gavroche is her little brother. I don't remember which one of them dies first, but they're both present on the barricade, and neither one of them expresses concern or grief for the other. It's contemptibly bad writing; that's the play's fault, not the director's. I could get all exegetical about what their ignoring each other means about their parents'--the Thenardiers--parenting style but . . . nah.)

I was meh about Amanda Seyfried as the grown-up Cosette. She was fine, she was pretty. Her voice was high and tremulous. She performed the job she had to perform. Meh.

And I was meh about Russell Crowe. I don't think he was vocally strong enough for the role, and I don't think he knew what to do with himself while singing. He seemed unsure what to do with his hands, so he did nothing with them. He seemed stiff and uncomfortable in his uniform so he stood like a mannequin in almost every scene. ironymaiden lays the blame for his performance at the director's feet which, given the distaste for the direction that I'm about to express, I'm happy to agree with. What I can't figure out is why Crowe, an actor notorious for expressing himself on the set, didn't make some choices for himself. Again, this may be a directorial issue but he was hamstrung by it. Well, that, and having the wrong voice for the music he was performing. He brought this tentatively soulful approach to a part that, in my opinion, must always be strong; it was entirely wrong. I didn't hate it, I just wanted it to be so much more than it was. From a performance perspective, he was the weakest link in an otherwise incredibly strong cast, which was really disappointing.

What did I really hate? Tom Hooper's direction. I understand that there are artistic reasons for getting into an actor's face with a camera, but Hooper does it relentlessly throughout the film and, by doing so, deprives the audience of the complete physical performances of the actors. Jackman is such a physical actor, and by shooting his first solo, "What Have I Done?", entirely in close-up, he deprives Jackman of one of his greatest assets, creating this deeply uncomfortable, claustrophobic experience that overwhelms the song completely--at least for me. (Sure, here's a directorial point to creating that experience, but I didn't think it succeeded.) Javert's first solo, "Stars," should be a physical expression of Javert's resolve and conviction. Instead, we get close-ups of Crowe's face and his feet (and the incidental shot across the Paris skyline), and little else. Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" is shot in medium close-up, which is a relief and is also relieved by the fact that Hathaway never sings directly into the camera; the performance is all about her interior life and by not engaging the camera directly, she makes the experience what it should be. I think she defeats the director's shortcomings in her scene.

In a show that hammers at its themes to begin with, Hooper felt the need to add extra blows to heighten the effect: Valjean hoisting a ship's mast onto his shoulder and dragging the impossibly heavy thing JUST LIKE JESUS DRAGGING THE CROSS! Valjean singing "Bring Him Home," a prayer WITH THE EYE OF GOD STARING DOWN FROM A PAINTING ON A WALL! Subtletly is not this director's strength, at least not in this production. (Maybe it's a non-renewable resource; did he spend it all on The King's Speech and John Adams?) While this didn't bother me per se, it amused me a bit.

Personal treat: When I saw Les Miserables on Broadway, it was with the original Broadway cast including Colm Wilkinson, who knocked my socks off. He had more presence than anyone I've ever seen on a stage before or since and gave an absolutely unforgettable performance. (Click the Wilkinson link above to get a sense of what I'm talking about.) I was delighted to discover that he plays the bishop in this version; it's a lovely turnabout for him.

So while I really did like the movie for many reasons (perhaps all of which I haven't articulated here and may not be able to for some time), I also had my obvious criticisms. Chalk it up to my loving the material enough to want it to be if not perfect then at least as strong as it can possibly be.

Do I recommend seeing it? For all my complaints--yes, absolutely.

This review is dedicated to Phil, with whom I would have adored tearing this movie apart with. It just wrong that he's not here for this.

Comments

[garyomaha.livejournal.com]

Thanks...good review. I agree with most but somewhat disagree about the closeups. This is something a movie can do that the stage version cannot (unless one has binoculars/opera glasses). Yeah, a bit too much, but I liked it because it was **so different** from what can be done onstage.

Poor Russell Crowe, getting flak from nearly every review I've read. Unfortunately I'm in agreement -- Javert was the strongest presence in at least two of the performances I've seen (even moreso than Valjean) largely because of that rich baritone. It didn't exist in the movie, and I guess I was looking forward to it. I guess that, and some of Crowe's other characterizations, didn't make Javert seem as "mean" as I had expected.

One thing I'd like to mention that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. I clearly heard lyrics in the movie that I've struggled to hear at live performances -- the sound mixing in the movie (IMHO) was excellent. It might be the live singing or those closeups where the lips and face can clearly be seen, but I heard words I'd never heard before...and liked it.

Thanks, Janna.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

You're welcome, Gary. No one could have shut me up about this film anyway. :-)

Good point about a movie doing what a stage production can't. Even with that said, I think that, for me, there's a little too much of a good thing going on here.

I absolutely agree about being able to get all the lyrics; that was a pleasure! Excellent point about the sound mixing and editing here. It was a gift.

I never expect Javert to be mean, because I don't think he is. He's a man of the law and takes his duty more seriously than anything. He's very black-and-white, and he is defeated because there's nothing in him that can reconcile the gray areas and the reversals that Valjean introduces into his reality. My challenge with Crowe's performance is that he's just there, neither an energetic presence nor a resolute one. He just is. He should be as physically implacable as he is philosophically and I never got that from him.

[garyomaha.livejournal.com]

"Mean" was not the best word for me to use. Resolute, as you suggested. Javert seemed a darker character on stage (in voice, in costume) than in the film.

[bedii.livejournal.com]

I once knew a Mousketeer: not one of the originals--one of the ones from the 80's. (Last I heard he was in the Seattle Men's Chorus--I should check the photos to see if he's still there.) I once commented to him about how strange the first production number with Natalie Portman was in Moulin Rouge. Give it a look sometime--the majority of dancing shots in that scene are either upper body or lower body, like the late, unlamented "Hot City Disco" TV show, with few showing the entire bodies of the players during the group dances. He snorted, and said "That was because that group didn't have good enough singers and dancers to be used in a medium shot."

It sounds like Hooper came prepared for that sort of thing and couldn't adjust, which is a crime if you're shooting someone like Jackman, who's got it all. (Jackman is good enough that he reminds me of that old line about "Singing in the Rain": "Kelley must have been the most secure choreographer in Hollywood, because he choreographed Donald O'Connor in 'Make 'em Laugh' and was able to dance himself later on." I still wish I had that clip from a PBS special about dance where they asked O'Connor about Kelley's style and he danced in it, and then talked about Astaire's style and he danced in it and then talked about Cagney's style and he danced in it, all within about four minutes. Astounding!

I've not seen any incarnation of the musical, but years ago there was some sort of TV version with Anthony Perkins as Javert, and I thought he was superb in the role.

If you want to be un-spoiled with actors singing live, may I recommend the first movie musical shot live since Lubitch: At Long Last Love, which will persuade you that it's a tool to be use sparingly. I've seen it, and it's so bad that everything fades but the screw-ups. I still maintain that if Cybil Sheppard hadn't been trying to sing well enough for the final recording she wouldn't have gotten tangled up in the curtain that way, which has always made me wonder what the other takes, if any, looked like. Mind you, the script didn't help: when a scene at poolside features the love interests spitting pool water at one another you should rethink the script. I always liked Burt Reynolds comment after getting the final script, which was along the lines of "I knew I was going to have to fall back on charm, because acting wasn't going to work on that script."

[davidlevine]

Haven't seen the film yet, but as it's one of my fave musicals of all time I shall certainly be doing so soon. But I had to comment on your comment on Gavroche, which was a surprise to me. Wikipedia confirms my recollection that in text of the play there's no hint he's a member of the Thenardier family, though he's listed as such in the playbill. What terrible parents, indeed!

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

I don't think I knew this about you, that Les Miserables was one of your top musicals! The things you learn! We shall have to discuss!

[e-bourne.livejournal.com]

I agree with most of this -- except for Gavroche, who I've always loved and felt was important. And, I liked this Gavroche too. He and Eponine are brother and sister? I never knew! Fascinating.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to his position or character as written in fiction. In the play, he seems to be a terribly self-impressed little boy--I'm Gavroche! I'm great! I can do all this stuff you guys can't!--who brags on himself a lot and then gets himself shot unnecessarily. He just irritates me.

[oldmangrumpus.livejournal.com]

What was I "meh" about? Gavroche. I never liked this character, or maybe I just dislike the way he's written in the show. I kind of just don't care about him and his presence always irritated me; his presence in the film reinforced that feeling. The kid who plays him is terrific, no question, but he could have disappeared from the movie and I wouldn't have missed him.

Yeah, but he's such an obvious stand-in for the innocent young poor of Paris cut down before their time (and as we discussed last night, Hugo's writing this just 8 years before the Paris Commune), that there had to be someone like him in the play.

[roadnotes.livejournal.com]

Aaron Tveit was in the original Broadway cast of Next to Normal. If you look on YouTube for "I'm Alive" and "You Don't Know/I Am The One," you'll get to see him being awesome in a contemporary way.

[mcjulie.livejournal.com]

I found the movie a disappointment, although I love the play enough that I still enjoyed sitting through it. My biggest disappointment was Russell Crowe, who seemed stiff and dull most of the time. The Javert vocal on my Original Broadway Cast recording has a nicely sneering Snape-like quality, alternating with that rich baritone, and it makes "Stars" and "Confrontation" real standouts. I missed that in the movie. I missed that a LOT.

Also I didn't like when he broke up the songs with action and didn't allow them to play out smoothly -- I thought it ruined "Look Down" and the Thenardier numbers.

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Have you seen the show on stage?

[mcjulie.livejournal.com]

I have! But it was a while ago. I loved it, but most of my familiarity is from listening to the recording over and over.

[frabjouslinz.livejournal.com]

Just came home from this. I can agree with you about poor Crowe. He doesn't have the kind of voice for that part, and he couldn't carry the aggression and antagonism and implacable foe-ness of the part in his singing, which is where most of that lives. (Especially as it's all recitative. Poor guy.)

Amanda Seyfried's voice is very old-fashioned, and it's not to a lot of people's taste, I understand. And I never cared much for the grown-up Cosette, because, well, because she's a cipher, really. The character is pretty and good and there for Marius to fall in love with.

I like Gavroche, but I never pegged him as Thenardier's kid, either. And I find his arrogance in the face of oppressive poverty and death kind of charming.

Anyway, liked it, didn't love it, cried far less than expected. Ann Hathaway needs to eat a sandwich.

[mcjulie.livejournal.com]

liked it, didn't love it, cried far less than expected. Ann Hathaway needs to eat a sandwich.

An excellent capsule review!

Teenage Cosette is always boring. I'm not sure there's a way to make her less boring given the material as written. It would help if there were a little more obvious sexual feeling in her instacrush on Marius, or if she displayed a little more anger toward Valjean for his refusal to talk about the past, but that's not how the songs are written. (Although if the director was going to muck about with the songs, that would have been a better use for the mucking about.)

Gavroche being a Thenardier is in the book, but isn't mentioned at all in the stage play as far as I know. The movie made some alterations to the play to make the plot resemble the book a little more closely. I don't remember that coming up in dialog, but it might be why it was in the credits?

[scarlettina.livejournal.com]

Ann Hathaway needs to eat a sandwich.

This made me giggle. At the same time, that kind of bone-thinness is appropriate for her character in this film. I do want to see her put a little meat on in her next role, though.

But yeah, kherli is right: good capsule review there at the end, and pretty much my feelings in sum.

[oldmangrumpus.livejournal.com]

Anne Hathaway actually starved herself for the role (as did Hugh Jackman).

[kehrli.livejournal.com]

I couldn't stand the nose-singing on Jackman's part. It doesn't make sense for the part, it sounds terrible, and later in the film it became very clear that he's capable of singing better than that.

I've never really liked Russell Crowe, primarily because the only mental images of him I can conjure are him, standing around, frowning vaguely at the horizon. I feel like he delivered about that in this movie. I got rather snarky on the film, but most of my dislike really boils down to Javert being a non-part in this movie, which sort of ruins it for me, as he's my favorite part.

I almost wonder if either Crowe or the director somehow deeply misunderstood Javert, or decided to tweak the part for the movie somehow. In the movie, for some reason, Javert seems introspectively doubtful from the beginning, possibly a bit mopey with his hanging around the edges of roofs. This totally deprives him of his character arc -- instead of a hard-ass who can't change and consequently shatters with his screwy worldview, we get this wishy-washy kinda sad dude.

His death is (to me, at least) both tragic and hopeful in the book/play. It's tragic in that it's his inability to reconcile the messiness of real life morality with his orderly view of what it should be that undoes him. It's hopeful in that he's a stand-in for the inhuman nature of a legal system that would brand someone a criminal for their entire life -- possibly if he dies, it can die, too.

But instead of getting all that, we got Crowe just sort of being a warm body on the set.

(And though I thought his voice was not up to the task, there were a few songs that he managed to pull off, just, tragically, neither of his super important solos.)

Also, I really really hated the camera following Javert down after he jumps. Something about watching him fall bothered me, and the crack when he hit the bottom was almost comical in effect.

In retrospect, it's a pretty good adaptation, with just a few flaws... but for me they were fairly major ones that kept tossing me out of the experience. (Javert, the incomprehensible camera angles).