![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Les Miserables is one of my favourite musicals of all time. I got into it when a friend from high school suggested that we get tickets to a Detroit showing of it; and since then, I've listened to umpteen different versions of the soundtrack umpteen times squared. I've seen it live twice and seen several different stagings of the show on video. I can sing large swaths of the songs and I've performed the music several times on trumpet. In short, I kinda like Les Miserables.
Thus you might imagine that I was really hoping for the Christmas-released movie version to live up to the legacy that had spawned it. Would it be able to capture the magic that I rediscover in the musical time after time? Or would it be a tragically flawed attempt to capture lightning in the cinematic bottle? These were the questions that I asked myself before going to see the movie. I'd been heartened by the interviews and extended previews that I saw for it (I normally avoid promotional video for movies that I intend to see, because I like to go into movies cold, with as few expectations as possible. In this case, I figured being aware of what they were doing would be of more benefit to me) as they explained how they didn't have the actors sing to the music, but rather scored the music to what the actor was singing so that the songs would straddle the line between dialogue and song. I was also heartened by the various snippets of singing that I'd heard. So it's fair to say that I went into that theatre with some high expectations. Happily, I was far from disappointed when I left the theatre, almost three hours later.
The first thing that caught me about the cinema version of Les Miserable was that it employed restraint, which is such a rare bird in today's movie industry. There was a preview for Baz Luhrmann's (Romeo+Juliet, Moulen Rouge) The Great Gatsby which looked as though it would be as full of epically over the top stage dressing, obscenely great camera angles and dizzying performances; and that put me in the mind of how over the top Les Miserable could be. Would there be slow-motion, CGI-laiden ghosts upstaging about during Empty Chairs at Empty Tables? Would The Confrontation involve Highlander-esque swordplay? No! No, it would not! I was astonished at how often the director was content -- and rightfully so! -- to let the screen show a face that's singing to the audience. There were some epic sweeps (the opening is visually fantastic), but never to the detriment of the music or the focus on the personal drama playing out against the backdrop of desperation and revolution.
The actors were also well cast. Hugh Jackman did quite well with Jean Valjean, which is a fairly difficult role as -- being the main character -- his personality and motivations are already quite well spelled out, leaving the actor less room to make the character his own. This is not to say that it's impossible to interpret Jean Valjean in many different ways; it's just that much harder, because while the other actors are playing with the text to stamp their mark on their roles, you're playing around in the subtext to try to do the same. Jackman's body-language was where he decided to invest himself into the role, and he did not disappoint; every choice that he (or the director) made helped add to the emotional portrait that he was painting of his character.
Anne Hathaway turned out an emotionally stunning performance as Fantine; this role provides a lot of room to interpret one's self, but it all has to be packed into a very short span of stage-time, requiring the actress to burn her character bright before her character burns out. Hathaway apparently decided to double down, etching the pain of Fantine's downfall into each scene she's in, making it very hard to look away while desperately wanting to. Her performance of I Dreamed A Dream was stunning; I advise actresses who play this role to never try to emulate it! It ran the gamut from horror to misery to bone-chilling impotent rage; and trying to perform this night after night (and twice on Sundays) would probably shred an actress' voice after just a few months.
Eddie Redmayne's Marius was more interesting in this movie than is usual; the casting choice for him paints him as a very young, inexperienced youth (down to his boyish freckles) who's running towards some sort of meaning in his life. But he's also given several opportunities to rise to the occasion and make himself a man of action, which definitely adds to his appeal as a character. Often the part of Marius is the equivalent of that celery that comes with your order of buffalo wings: it's nice to have and you wouldn't want to have it left off your order, but it's the least memorable part of the meal. Happily, here Marius was a full appetizer.
Russel Crowe's Javert stole the show for me, whenever he was on camera. While Jean Valjean is a role that fights against interpretation, Javert is an almost blank slate for the actor to write upon. Javert is generally the character who changes the most from staging to staging; and Crowe's take on him was no exception. This Javert comes onto the stage broken and fragile; his world seems held together by the thinnest cotton of duty and the law. His eyes, his face, his whole demeanor is haunted throughout the film; it's hard not to sympathize with him. He and Jean Valjean are truly trapped into a cycle by their pasts, and the years-long duel between them comes across as tragically inevitable. Javert is also a bigger threat in this film than is usual: at several points he gains the upper hand in places where normally Jean Valjean would have. The worst thing that can be done with Javert is to make him come across as a Clousseau-esque bumbler who seemed to be more of an annoyance to Valjean than an actual threat. There is absolutely no danger of that happening here.
(Also, during the confrontation, pay close attention to the point where Javert is telling Valjean that he knows nothing about him. That passage is performed beautifully, and gives a plausible reason for Javert's fragility).
There are also a lot of nice little touches for fans of both the musical and the book on which it was based. Not all songs could make it into the film -- perhaps it was deemed unwise to let the movie's run-time stretch to three and a half hours -- but whenever a song is cut, someone sings a line or two of the excised music to acknowledge it. Also due to this being a film, many extra scenes or moments needed to be added so that the movie would flow better. Most of the time, what was added was taken right out of the book! If you've read Victor Hugo's original novel then the movie takes on a small but fun added dimension of bridging between book and musical.
Some songs needed to be added to make the movie flow a little bit better. Schönberg actually wrote the new music for the film, which was a lovely touch and helps the new music not clash with the old.
There are so many other things to talk about, but I feel like I've covered the basics. I was not disappointed with this movie. This is a DVD that I intend to purchase when it comes out, and if there's an extended edition then that's going to be what I grab. If you're a fan, or if you're just interested in the musical, then you could do far worse than to catch this movie. It is clearly a labour of love and that shows through in each scene.
Drink with me.
Thus you might imagine that I was really hoping for the Christmas-released movie version to live up to the legacy that had spawned it. Would it be able to capture the magic that I rediscover in the musical time after time? Or would it be a tragically flawed attempt to capture lightning in the cinematic bottle? These were the questions that I asked myself before going to see the movie. I'd been heartened by the interviews and extended previews that I saw for it (I normally avoid promotional video for movies that I intend to see, because I like to go into movies cold, with as few expectations as possible. In this case, I figured being aware of what they were doing would be of more benefit to me) as they explained how they didn't have the actors sing to the music, but rather scored the music to what the actor was singing so that the songs would straddle the line between dialogue and song. I was also heartened by the various snippets of singing that I'd heard. So it's fair to say that I went into that theatre with some high expectations. Happily, I was far from disappointed when I left the theatre, almost three hours later.
The first thing that caught me about the cinema version of Les Miserable was that it employed restraint, which is such a rare bird in today's movie industry. There was a preview for Baz Luhrmann's (Romeo+Juliet, Moulen Rouge) The Great Gatsby which looked as though it would be as full of epically over the top stage dressing, obscenely great camera angles and dizzying performances; and that put me in the mind of how over the top Les Miserable could be. Would there be slow-motion, CGI-laiden ghosts upstaging about during Empty Chairs at Empty Tables? Would The Confrontation involve Highlander-esque swordplay? No! No, it would not! I was astonished at how often the director was content -- and rightfully so! -- to let the screen show a face that's singing to the audience. There were some epic sweeps (the opening is visually fantastic), but never to the detriment of the music or the focus on the personal drama playing out against the backdrop of desperation and revolution.
The actors were also well cast. Hugh Jackman did quite well with Jean Valjean, which is a fairly difficult role as -- being the main character -- his personality and motivations are already quite well spelled out, leaving the actor less room to make the character his own. This is not to say that it's impossible to interpret Jean Valjean in many different ways; it's just that much harder, because while the other actors are playing with the text to stamp their mark on their roles, you're playing around in the subtext to try to do the same. Jackman's body-language was where he decided to invest himself into the role, and he did not disappoint; every choice that he (or the director) made helped add to the emotional portrait that he was painting of his character.
Anne Hathaway turned out an emotionally stunning performance as Fantine; this role provides a lot of room to interpret one's self, but it all has to be packed into a very short span of stage-time, requiring the actress to burn her character bright before her character burns out. Hathaway apparently decided to double down, etching the pain of Fantine's downfall into each scene she's in, making it very hard to look away while desperately wanting to. Her performance of I Dreamed A Dream was stunning; I advise actresses who play this role to never try to emulate it! It ran the gamut from horror to misery to bone-chilling impotent rage; and trying to perform this night after night (and twice on Sundays) would probably shred an actress' voice after just a few months.
Eddie Redmayne's Marius was more interesting in this movie than is usual; the casting choice for him paints him as a very young, inexperienced youth (down to his boyish freckles) who's running towards some sort of meaning in his life. But he's also given several opportunities to rise to the occasion and make himself a man of action, which definitely adds to his appeal as a character. Often the part of Marius is the equivalent of that celery that comes with your order of buffalo wings: it's nice to have and you wouldn't want to have it left off your order, but it's the least memorable part of the meal. Happily, here Marius was a full appetizer.
Russel Crowe's Javert stole the show for me, whenever he was on camera. While Jean Valjean is a role that fights against interpretation, Javert is an almost blank slate for the actor to write upon. Javert is generally the character who changes the most from staging to staging; and Crowe's take on him was no exception. This Javert comes onto the stage broken and fragile; his world seems held together by the thinnest cotton of duty and the law. His eyes, his face, his whole demeanor is haunted throughout the film; it's hard not to sympathize with him. He and Jean Valjean are truly trapped into a cycle by their pasts, and the years-long duel between them comes across as tragically inevitable. Javert is also a bigger threat in this film than is usual: at several points he gains the upper hand in places where normally Jean Valjean would have. The worst thing that can be done with Javert is to make him come across as a Clousseau-esque bumbler who seemed to be more of an annoyance to Valjean than an actual threat. There is absolutely no danger of that happening here.
(Also, during the confrontation, pay close attention to the point where Javert is telling Valjean that he knows nothing about him. That passage is performed beautifully, and gives a plausible reason for Javert's fragility).
There are also a lot of nice little touches for fans of both the musical and the book on which it was based. Not all songs could make it into the film -- perhaps it was deemed unwise to let the movie's run-time stretch to three and a half hours -- but whenever a song is cut, someone sings a line or two of the excised music to acknowledge it. Also due to this being a film, many extra scenes or moments needed to be added so that the movie would flow better. Most of the time, what was added was taken right out of the book! If you've read Victor Hugo's original novel then the movie takes on a small but fun added dimension of bridging between book and musical.
Some songs needed to be added to make the movie flow a little bit better. Schönberg actually wrote the new music for the film, which was a lovely touch and helps the new music not clash with the old.
There are so many other things to talk about, but I feel like I've covered the basics. I was not disappointed with this movie. This is a DVD that I intend to purchase when it comes out, and if there's an extended edition then that's going to be what I grab. If you're a fan, or if you're just interested in the musical, then you could do far worse than to catch this movie. It is clearly a labour of love and that shows through in each scene.
Drink with me.
Tags: