Les Miserables

Les Miserables, 2012
Directed by Tom Hooper
Nominated for 8 Oscars

Les Miserables is one of the most popular, beloved and well-known stage musicals. It tells the story, starting and ending, with Jean Valjean, a prisoner for 19 years in the galleys for stealing a loaf of bread. Finally, he is released on parole, but breaks it so to make a better life for himself. Years later, he has achieved this "better life", and when he learns one of the workers at his factory was let go, and has a child she is trying to look after, Valjean decides to rescue this child after the woman (Fantine) dies. Valjean, while still hunted, rescues the child, Cosette, and both their lives are changed forever.

I must confess something. Being the bookaholic I am, I decided to read Les Miserables before ever having seen the full musical (I've seen 45 minutes of the 10th anniversary a year before reading). Yes, you read that correctly. I read Les Miserables. Unabridged, and I skipped no pages. And once I read the final page of the book, I realized I`d screwed myself over for watching the musical or the movie. No play or film could ever accurately portray how beautifully written this book had been; how complex, how heartbreaking, and how glorious it was told. Yes, there were many parts that were drawn out or unnecessary, but when you got to the meat of the story, it was so incredible. And once I read the entire summary of the musical, I knew I was in for a let down. Because translating a 1200 page novel into a 3 hour musical meant that many things were going to be changed, and many would be simplified.

The problems I had with this movie were not the films fault (unless we're talking costume inaccuracies, or historical inaccuracies, but that's different), but that it was over-simplified from how the book had told it. Cosette and Marius did not take one look at each other and were in love. Eponine was not really a main character at all. The Thenardiers were not funny, but were incredibly evil people (and had more children than just Eponine). But I digress.

The first half of the film was incredibly done. Hugh Jackman is the powerhouse of the film, and carries it all on his shoulders. His performance is constantly great, and his singing is really quite good. The live singing, I thought, was incredibly well done. The group numbers were all my favourites and sounded so so good. Anne Hathaway, on the other hand, completely and utterly broke my heart. Her portrayal as Fantine was so emotional, and raw, and broken, that I believed her completely every second. Her rendition of I Dreamed a Dream was heartbreaking, and had me in tears (like everyone else in the theater). For only being in the film a short period of time, her character was properly fleshed out and had the right amount of development (something that the second half of the film lacked).

Everything, right up to where Marius, Eponine, etc come in, this film was really, really good. I had thought I wouldn't like the film whatsoever because of the book, but was surprised I liked the movie so much. Until then. Whether this is how it goes in the stage musical, or if this is just the film, I'm not sure, but everything felt very rushed and under-developed at that point. While Marius was my absolute favourite (Jean Valjean a very close runner up) in the book, his character was extremely diminished. We didn't get to know him on a deeper level like we had Fantine and Valjean. Same goes with Eponine. I felt like I hardly knew her at all before she dies. Which was such a shame. Had there been more time to flesh out these 2 characters, and the other revolutionaries, this would have been much better, but it felt too rushed, and too shallow for me to really care.

Overall, it's very hard to come to a conclusion of what I thought of the film overall. The first half was incredible, well paced and heartbreaking. The second half felt a little more rushed, less character development happening. It makes it very hard to decide what you thought overall.

So overall, I know that the live singing was well executed, and brought a lot more emotional, and a lot more acting in to the film. It made things seem a lot more real. I feel like I Dreamed a Dream would not have been nearly as heart-wrenching had it not been sung live. It would've sounded too perfect and not broken enough. The acting was all superb. Jackman, Hathaway were great. And I adored Eddie Redmayne as Marius. Russell Crowe was not nearly as bad a singer as I'd kept hearing he was (he was decent, ok people?). The visuals were stunning and the makeup for Jean Valjean was excellent. But there were pacing issues, lack of character development, etc.

I'd say Rotten Tomatoes hits it right when it gives it a 70%. It wasn't anything fantastic, but wasn't horrible either. It was a decent movie.

7/10

LES MISERABLES

LES MISERABLES
Written by William Nicholson
Directed by Tom Hooper
Starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne

Cast: and remember, the truth at once was spoken, to love another person is to see the face of god. 

I would think it would go without saying that a musical that announces itself as an ode to misery in its title, would be a fairly dramatic and depressing affair but apparently this isn't so.  Some of what I'm hearing of Tom Hoopers extravagant restaging of the classic musical, LES MISERABLES, is that it is a relentless, melodramatic onslaught of singing out pain in your face for nearly three hours. Yes, it is most certainly all of this but it was designed to be precisely that. Whether they're forever running from the law or selling their body to feed their child or watching all of their friends die in the French Revolution, these people have every right to be as anguished as they are. And what better way to deal with this pain than sing about it?

LES MISERABLES has a massive following. It has been staged thousands of times and has played to audiences around the world for over thirty years. And yet, this is the first time it has been attempted on film, as a musical anyway. To say that anticipation for the film has been high would also a be a great understatement. Now that it is finally here though, will purists be happy? I suspect not actually. Hooper decided to have his incredibly diverse and talented cast, from Hugh Jackman to Anne Hathaway to newcomer, Samantha Bark, sing this intensely difficult show live on set rather than record first in studio and then lip synch on set. While the effect itself is most often very intimate and emotionally engaging, some of the musical prowess is lost amidst the emoting. While Hathaway's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is deeply moving, I am sure some will wish there was more clarity to her belt and less cracking in her voice from crying. All the same, the film does feel more spontaneous than most film musicals so while the decision will polarize some, it is still brave and commendable.

Many an eye is on Hooper here as LES MISERABLES is the follow-up to his Oscar-winning work on THE KING'S SPEECH. While that story was a grand one, it was still told on a much smaller scale. LES MISERABLES may have been a tad bit much for him to handle. Set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, this is the story of one man's struggle to forge out a life in times of strife and suffering. Jean Valjean (Jackman) once stole a loaf of bread and he has been paying for it ever since. While pretending to be someone he is not, he takes in Cosette, a young girl (played as an adult by Amanda Seyfreid) when her mother (Hathaway, who shines like you would not believe) passes away. When Cosette falls in love with a revolutionary (a dapper and delightful, Eddie Redmayne), Valjean does everything in his power to ensure they are together. While Hooper has a strong handle on his characters, his French Revolution feels slight at times, hardly like the source of all their misery. 

What I love about LES MISERABLES is the inherent sense of hope in the music itself. The poor sing of how the end of the day brings nothing but another day to a close at first and later, albeit still suffering greatly, sing of how they long for one day more. And what with all the political unrest and death and disease in the streets, to speak of things like love seems entirely frivolous at first but eventually love is the only thing that makes any sense. For it is true what they say, to truly know happiness, you must experience LES MISERABLES first.

311. Les Miserables

311. (15 Dec) Les Miserables (2012, Tom Hooper)* 28



Midway through act two, Hugh Jackman and Eddie Redmayne quite literally are up to their necks in fecal matter. That Les Miserables willfully offers that metaphor makes it the ballsiest or most clueless film of the year. Considering how dreadful it is, I'm leaning toward the latter.

There's not an iota of scale in Les Miserables, with roughly four wide shots that so much as hint that this is a historical epic in its entire bloated runtime. Just like in The King's Speech, Tom Hooper's amateurish aesthetic undermines every moment. Here he's as reliant on dutch angles as he is on dopey framing, keeping heads in the corner of a shot while negative space dominates the background. It's one of the worst photographed major studio films I've seen. But there's simply not much to work with since the sets and costumes are decidedly unremarkable. When Les Miz is not irritating to look at, it's boring.

Tom Hooper's direction is astoundingly misguided. Without dialogue, he relies on the score to tell the story. Unfortunately, only five musical numbers are at all good. Most of the talk-singing is instantly forgettable (namely the added and useless tune "Suddenly"). The nasally Hugh Jackman and overly emotive Samantha Barks are shameful standouts in the cast. Russell Crowe channels Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia! Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfriend, without a hint of romantic chemistry, are wasted vocal talents. The much discussed Anne Hathaway is the only performer to give emotional impact to the film at all, overplaying her part, but at least not embarrassing herself in an intense close-up during "I Dreamed a Dream."

Hooper has suggested he attempted to emulate West Side Story, at least during "One More Day," which shows how ambitious and incompetent he is. His shoddily edited film not only is totally incoherent, unmoving, and uninteresting, it's laughable. Crowe's biggest dramatic moment is the most obvious joke, but it's impossible to enumerate the goofs in a film where next to nothing works. Empty heads and empty filmmaking.

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN

 Written by Adrian Hodges

Directed by Simon Curtis

Starring Michelle Williams, Eddie Redmayne, Kenneth Branagh and Judi Dench

Marilyn Monroe: All people see is Marilyn Monroe. As soon as they realize I'm not her, they run away.

In 1956, one of the biggest stars and sex symbols the world has ever known travelled to England to make a movie with one of the world’s most respected stage actors. Somewhere in the middle of the inevitable chaos and drama that ensued, a young man named Colin Clark was embarking on his first job in the movie business. The star was Marilyn Monroe; the actor was Sir Laurence Olivier; and the movie was THE PRINCE AND THE SHOWGIRL. Clark’s budding film career never took off but his unique experience would one day become a book (“The Prince, the Showgirl and Me”), which in turn has now become a movie called, MY WEEK WITH MARILYN.

The shoot itself actually went several weeks long but when it comes to spending time with Monroe, the experience is so fleeting that it can feel like an instant that has ended long before it should. There was nothing Clark, portrayed here by fresh faced, Eddie Redmayne, could have done to prepare himself for the magnitude of Monroe’s magnetism. And as the splendid Michelle Williams demonstrates with her finely nuanced performance, there was very little Monroe could do to tame that pull either. Though Clark is just a glorified gopher on set, his innocence and honesty grab Monroe’s attention and before long she latches on to him to use as a shield from the multitude of things that frighten her in general. Her near crippling fear and anxiety in turn threatens the success of the shoot, which causes a serious rift with Sir Laurence, who is played with great exuberance by Kenneth Branagh.

Director, Simon Curtis and writer, Adrian Hodges, both relative unknowns in the world of Hollywood feature filmmaking, infuse MY WEEK WITH MARILYN with a delicate subtlety that allows for simple but sympathetic insight into the mind of the infamous starlet. Bolstered by the almost always brilliant Williams, Monroe comes across here as part frightened little girl, lost in a world she barely understands and part experienced woman, aware of her position and unafraid of abusing her power if it means alleviating her own distress temporarily. She enjoys the attention but also doesn’t know what to do with it when she has it. Most importantly, she is aware that she is more commodity now than person, yet seems more or less content to play along. This might perhaps be because she has no idea how to change the direction of her life or it might be because she no longer remembers who the real Marilyn is anymore.

463. My Week with Marilyn

463. (13 Nov) My Week with Marilyn (2011, Simon Curtis)* 56



While Kenneth Branagh and Julia Ormond are completely unbelievable as Laurence Olivier and Vivien Leigh, Michelle Williams immediately convinces us she's inhabiting the role of Marilyn Monroe. She gets everything right, particularly Marilyn's deer in the headlights look. Singing her own songs and recreating some iconic moments, it's easy to see how she got into the Best Actress discussion early on.

The film itself isn't much to speak of. Joyce Carol Oates' novel Blonde would've been better to adapt since this offers only so much insight and ultimately is just a tired celebrity encounter story. But for what it is, it's an enjoyable look into a bygone era of filmmaking. Oddly enough, the film never feels cinematic. All those comparisons to TV movies are apt. Eddie Redmayne and Judi Dench also offer worthwhile performances.