December 27th, 2012
MEOW!
A little bit of history about me and Les Miserables before we carry on. I have not seen the production live, nor have I read the novel written by Victor Hugo. I was, however, introduced to it by watching the 25th anniversary concert on Television, and have returned to it on numerous occassions online. I fell in love with the music, the performances by everyone involved were just a joy to watch (Yes, even Nick Jonas. Go ahead, society.), and the themes ring true and are relevant to today's society as a whole. I also sang "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" for not only my senior solo at my last Chorus concert, but also for a scholarship that would go towards my tuition at the college I now attend. And of course, I've watched other renditions of the songs, such as Philip Quast's rendition of "Stars," and Colm Wilkinson's rendition of "Bring Him Home." So naturally, when I saw the first trailer of Anne Hathaway singing "I Dreamed a Dream," I was hooked from the start. It was easily one of my most anticipated films of the year, and EASILY my most anticipated film of the season. Still, I went in understanding that it's not going to be exactly what I expect, so I gained an optimistic attitude that it would still be a great adaptation to one of the most beloved musicals ever written for the stage. So, did my optimism pay off?
Um...somewhat?
I guess this is yet another example of The-Dark-Muppet-Rises syndrome. What is that, you may ask? Both The Dark Knight Rises and The Muppets were films that almost everyone was excited for, including myself. At the end of both films, everyone around me went absolutely bonkers for them while I sat in my seat sulking because I saw a completely different film. I didn't understand it. I felt like I was being surrounded by people that I couldn't talk to because if I said what I had to say, they would reject me as if I were some sort of alien. I didn't get it. Les Miserables is, sadly, one of those films. In fact, I would dare say that the audience reaction to this film would top both of the films previously mentioned before. When this film ended, people went unbelievably nuts, while I had to grit my teeth and bear it so I didn't spoil anybody's fun, even though it certainly wasn't a lot of fun for me.
In no way am I saying Les Miserables is a bad film, however. Let's start off with the positives first before I get to the major problems I had with this adaptation. First of all, I thought it was a bold choice of having every actor sing their songs live on set. Of course, singing live in a film is not as new as some people are claiming it to be (I think Once had their performers sing live everywhere they went.), but it's comforting to know that these types of musicals can still be filmed today when everything else is lip-synched and so-called *fake.* That said, I honestly prefer some of the so-called *fake* movie musicals over this, such as Hairspray and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street; they also cared about the material at hand while focusing on the endless possibilites of filmmaking. That not only makes for a great movie musical; that makes for a great movie, period.
Wait, wasn't I going to focus on the positives first? Anywho, back to them. The ensemble works really well together. Hugh Jackman makes for a fine Jean Valjean; whenever he belted out his '2460111111' moment at the end of "Who Am I?," I just had to perform an automatic 'OOHRAH' with my fist in the air. Good thing I was in the very back of the theater when that happened. Anne Hathaway as Fantine...yeah, what else can you say about her? She performed "I Dreamed a Dream" in no more than two shots. How many times it took to get those shots perfectly remains in question, except that it is easily one of the highlights of the film. and one of the best interpretations of the song in years. And ya know what? I liked Russell Crowe as Javert. Could there have been a better actor to portray him? Perhaps, but as is, I easily admired the choice. I thought his rendition of "Stars" was absolutely wonderful, and his voice really complimented the orchestra incredibly well.
As for the younger folk in this film, Samantha Barks is just a joy to watch as Eponine; it's great to see her film acting career get started with a character that she originally portrayed before on stage. Eddie Redmayne, while having a wonderful voice as Marius, has a distracting quality as to how he sings; it almost seems like he's nodding to every emotion that he makes. Still, it's a nice performance, and he sells "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" well enough. It's also great for Aaron Tveit, not a stranger to the broadway stage if you've seen him in Next to Normal, to get his chance to shine as Enjolras. And the two child actors, Isabelle Allen as Young Cosette and Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche, have really nice voices and suit their chracters really well.
Oh, and having Colm Wilkinson cameo as the Bishop is a genius move by the casting directors. Well-done.
The stand-outs, however, are Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the Thenardiers. I swear, any scene with them in it almost had me on the floor. Yes, they should've belonged in something like Sweeney Todd, and yes, they almost seem out of place in a film that should make us feel, oh, the shades come on again, *miserable* to be us. But...my lord. It's just comic perfection. When they perform "Master of the House," it makes us cringe in the way that Borat makes us cringe--that is, in the funniest way that you could imagine. There's a reason why this number becomes an audience favorite in the musical, and this will definitely become one when people see this film. Though I really, REALLY hope that cat grows his tail back. Ya know, something like this:
So, alright. The casting seems to be more than OK. The music is EASILY more than OK. What seems to be less than OK that really brings this film farther away from home?
Well, you may have noticed that I forgot to mention one character in an earlier paragraph, and that's the older version of Cosette (Amanda Seyfried.). I love Amanda Seyfried in this. She has a wonderful singing voice, and brings an otherworldly dimension to her character...that is, for the fifteen-to-twenty minutes of screentime she only has. I mean, seriously? This whole story was leading up to the relationship between her and Jean Valjean, and it was a solid relationship so far, albeit somewhat creepy (If I was a child under the age of ten, and some middle-aged man came up to me asking what my name was, I would say "I'd rather be eaten by the flying cows I have in my nightmares inspired by The Little Vampire."). There was even a nice song titled "Suddenly" that attempts to flesh out their relationship even more, though that seemed to end up like unnecessary filler. So, what happens? Well, apparently the good-ol' June Rebellion decides to screw up the development between the two characters. Once we 'hear the people sing,' we hear everyone except Cosette singing.
And actually, Jean Valjean gets sidestepped by the June Rebellion for a bit as well. There's a section of the film that goes on too long to the point of making me ask myself "OK, Jean Valjean is in this film, right?" He becomes a secondary character in the story, as well as Javert. OH. NO. That's a *BIG* NO-NO when crafting a story like this, no matter how ambitious it aspires to be. YOU DO NOT make your two main characters secondary to the story, especially when the other characters are not even developed in the slightest. And even when the film completely focuses on the two, when you come down to it, all of these events in this story happen because Jean stole a loaf of bread. I mean...really? I understand this is supposed to represent how insane Javert is, but..I'm sorry. To paraphrase my buddy Al: "All of THAT for a loaf of bread??"
Because of this, and because of some of the choices Tom Hooper made with his direction, it was almost impossible to feel as emotionally involved as I could have with this film. Only a couple of moments toyed with my emotions brilliantly: anything involving Fantine, and a child's death that could make any parent involved in the Newtown shooting walk out of the theater (I wouldn't reccomend a child under the age of 11 seeing this film.). Aside from that, I don't know what happened. When I listened to the "Epilogue" on Spotify (Thank You, Andrew Kohanski), I was shaking afterwards; it was incredibly emotional. I had no idea how I would fare out when I would hear it in the theater. Now it could be because of how the sound wasn't as spectacular as the other theaters at the RAVE in Buckland, but I got through it without feeling like a mess. That's a problem either way, as a film should work to its emotional advantage even with a less-than-powerful sound system.
I've heard many go on, and on, and on, and on, and OK I'm going to stop, about the filmmaking style Hooper applies for this film. While I appreciate the close-ups when it comes to observing the performer's emotions, there are times where I would want to just take the camera and exploit the epic wonder that an entertainment like Les Miserables truly deserves. There a couple of moments that happens, however. One is "Stars." There is one shot when Javert is looking up at the night sky, and the camera moves as if we are looking from his point of view; it's one beautiful moment. The other moment occurs immediately after Jean Valjean belts out his 'begin' in the prologue. As the incredible music plays during that scene, the camera follows the ripped paper of his parole flying in the wind, which signifies that his new life is about to commence; it's one awesome moment. If only Tom could've lived up to those moments, and then, we would've had a wondrously epic adaptation on display. Intimacy does not equal Les Miserables in any way, shape, or form; it's difficult to take a film as is when the filmmaking could've been something exceptional and extraordinary--the two ex's, my friends and neighbors.
One last thing: If William Nicholson, the screenwriter of this film, was 100% committed to a movie musical adaptation of Les Miserables, he would've gone all the way by having at least 95% of the lines being sung, and not 85%. There shouldn't be any scenes with just dialogue; it takes away from the overall feeling that this is a SUNG-THROUGH movie musical universe. Some moments, such as when Hugh Jackman is performing "Who Am I?," work well when a sung lyric is spoken for emotional depth, but when one scene of Jean Valjean looking for work is entirely unsung, it can pull some people out of the universe entirely, and it would be tough to get back in. I won't question whether or not it plays as an attempt to rope in a wider audience, but considering that over 30 million people worldwide have seen the production before, having dialogue in certain scenes causes a severe distraction.
Even though I've had some problems with the musical version of Les Miserables in the past, they were easily overshadowed by performances of emotional depth and some of the craziest technical theatre that I've ever seen in my life. I reccomend this film, but with some reservations (No, not reservations to the theater, you silly ducks. Quack!). Most of the performances are terrific, and I do admire that films like these can still be made today. For a film adaptation of such a well-known musical like this one, however, Hooper should've gone that extra mile and made it sung-through the whole way, and even when it is staying faithful to the source material, there could've been a few tweaks to make the story all the more powerful. Still, I guess for what it is, it should please many 'miserable' fans out there. Advice? Just don't go in expecting the most heart-rending film of the year, and you'll be OK. In fact, go in with that expectation, and you could actually prove me wrong. Who knows? Just how 'miserable' are you?
To conclude...A LOAF OF BREAD??? REALLY???
Until next time,
MEOW!
No comments:
Post a Comment