Les Miserables

I have loads of notes or snippets or phrases from reviews I've barely drafted, things I didn't care enough to actually compile thoughts about (though you may see something on them soon), but then came Christmas, and the gift that was Les Miserables. Since I've been having some trouble writing lately, this will probably be messy - and my thoughts are all over the place. As expected, I have a LOT of thoughts on this one. Let's start with a list.

Things from the book that are back:

Fantine selling her teeth

Valjean and Cosette taking shelter at a convent 

The elephant statue

Marius's grandfather

Marius's apartment

Cosette is vapid

Valjeans rooms are always sparse

Gavroche delivers the last note to Cosette's house

I like those things, but there are two problems with adding plot points back to the story: one, you must provide music for these sections, and two, something else must be lost. Most of the time, the loss of material is not noticed. The new material, however, stands out like Russell Crowe taking a leading role in a musical. In other words, remarkable in their mediocrity. Crowe's Javert is in no way an imposing figure, he seems to have no authority whatsoever, and absolutely no spine. Who is this man that Valjean is running from and moreover - why? Jackman's Valjean could easily take Javert. And I mean easily.

The biggest problem with the movie - I don't know who to blame. Since my sister works in film, I know there's more involved here than the cinematographer, or the director of photography, or the cameraperson, or the director - but something went horribly wrong. Almost the entire film is shot in closeup, which a) gets old fast, b) makes for some nauseating follow-work, and c) causes a loss of focus for the entire epic, which spans many years, several generations, a dozen or so characters, plots and subplots, regimes, cities - why on earth would you make such a decision, to bombard and overwhelm the audience with closeups? The closeups also make it difficult to absorb the carefully constructed setting and atmosphere (I think it rains for most of the film?), and if I was the set designer, possibly the costume designer too, I'd be pissed. None of the hard work, dedication, or attention to detail can be appreciated here, none of it contributes to the film as a whole. I have no idea what some of those sets were. Fantine 'by the docks?' Someone said, "Why make a movie of the greatest musical of all time?" and Tom Hooper said, "Well, because we can see their faces! Up close! Not from far away in the audience!" but I gotta tell ya, Tom, I saw Les Mis in the back row of the theater in the 8th grade and I would rather see it again onstage, from the very back row. Hint: when you make a movie, those faces are projected on a screen that's twenty feet tall. We'll see their damn faces, and they're going to be pretty. That's how this whole movie-thing works. There's no need to do an entire film in closeup.

That said...

Casting is roughly... 75-80% of good directing. If you've cast it right, the work is done for you. Let's talk about casting.

. Hugh Jackman (Jean Valjean)

Good as it's going to get in Hollywood. Not sure he's old enough. But at least he can sing and act at the same time, unlike some people...

. Russell Crowe (Javert)

LORD was that painful. Just... no. 

. Anne Hathaway (Fantine)

Very good, clearly the fullest and most grounded performer in the film. Don't buy her as Seyfried's mom, though.

. Helena Bonham Carter (Mme. Thenardier)

Perfect! Spot on! Really liked her! Which is more than I can say for most of her work - the only other film I liked her in was Hooper's Oscar winner, The King's Speech

. Sacha Baron Cohen (M. Thenardier)

Excellent - love the subordinate role he plays to Carter, it was an excellent choice, since Carter is clearly the favorite

. Amanda Seyfried (Cosette)

The good news is that there's not much to say for Cosette - ever. Seyfried sounds like a bird when she sings, which fits Cosette, who is referred to in the novel as a lark.

. Eddie Redmayne (Marius)

What a little English boy! Stop smiling, and get hold of your jaw when you sing. I've heard it's bad practice. Plus, in a film that's entirely closeup, it's annoying.

. Samantha Barks (Eponine)

Tiniest waist since Jane Powell (which is a reference that only my mother will get, probably). What's interesting about Barks is that she's played the role on stage, so she thoroughly gets it. I'd like to hear her input on having done both.

. Aaron Tveit (Enjolras)

My favorite (male character in the film)! Oh my goodness. How handsome, and what a singer. Tveit has been around the musical theatre circuit for a while now, and hopefully he'll stick around. If we get him enough lady-fans, maybe he'll get to play Jamie in The Last 5 Years opposite Anna Kendrick? Just a thought.

There were so many good ideas bouncing around the film, so many of them horribly underused because of the damn camerawork. I wonder if those who find perfection in the film are simply starved for a good story - something Victor Hugo spent his life crafting. I know I didn't spend that long crafting this commentary, but I couldn't go to bed without producing something. These are my thoughts.


Notes:
- Did my predictions come true? Reference my June commentary on the film's first theatrical trailer.
- The Bishop is played by Colm Wilkinson - the original Jean Valjean.
- One thing the film does (rather) well is to omit the somewhat problematic plot point of Jean Valjean's "24601" - the distinguishing "brand upon his skin" that is supposed to identify him. If the police have caught the man they believe to be Valjean, wouldn't they have looked for that? Did they find it? Am I missing something? It's not in the book - there's some other evidence - but if all you theater people have a better answer than 'suspension of disbelief,' please let me know.