Comments on Les Miserables movie- Page 10

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 11:40am

I've seen it twice now, and agree with basically everything that Phyllis posted.

I have no attachment to the musical. I know the big songs, and I've seen the concert version, but I've never been able to get into the story - it's always felt too big and convoluted to me - but this version changed my view.

When it comes to parts I could do without, I would absolutely take more Russell Crowe if I could slow down Amanda Seyfried's insanely fast vibrato. That got on my nerves much more than his singing voice did. But honestly, at that point it's being incredibly nit-picky. This is a great work. The second time around I connected much more to it and may have even shed a tear when Gavroche and Valjean died.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 11:50am

I can't understand what the deal is with people saying it's not the musical. It is VERY MUCH the film version of the musical, just as any film version of any other musical.

Saw it last night and loved it. I also agree with PRS and her report. And I also was surprised by how much I enjoyed Amanda Z. as well as Sasha Baron Cohen. He really could have wrecked the film, but I thought his performance was quite brilliant (same with HBC)

It was a stunningly beautiful film.

I only wish Russell Crow had a little more 'musicality' to him. His singing made me cringe.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:00pm

@broadwayfever, thanks! :) Glad you enjoyed it (and actually managed to read the whole thing!).

@My Oh My, thanks for your comments. I've enjoyed your posts on this musical in the past. I think semantics might be obscuring things here. I am most familiar with the word "adaptation" in the biological sense (I'm a science writer). Over the course of generations, an organism responds to a new environmental demands through evolutionary adaptations. Sometimes, these adaptations are slight and what we see is essentially the same animal with slightly different characteristics, as with the brown bear and the grizzly bear. I would say Chris Columbus' RENT and Joel Schumacher's Phantom are good examples of films that are only a few generations removed from their stage counterparts.

Obviously, you're correct in that the film follows the musical's conception of the novel. Otherwise, we'd probably be missing most of the numbers and have them replace with completely different scenes. I felt like Hooper and Nicholson used the libretto as a basic skeleton, but their priority was telling Hugo's story. Why do I say this? I think many people are going to go into the cinema expecting the sense of the relative scale among the characters and the songs to match the stage version. That is not what they're going to get. Look at the thread about the "One Day More" clip. That number in the film is not the showstopper it is on stage, while "Do You Hear the People Sing?" feels exuberant and driven. Eponine's character feels less prominent, Cosette more so, and the barricade is feels much more underpowered and ragtag. Essentially, I'm saying that if you go in with an eye for "Les Miserables: the world-famous story of Jean Valjean" rather than "Les Miserables: the world-famous musical phenomenon", you will be far better rewarded. Anyway, this was just my own impression of the film. Others will obviously see it differently.





Updated On: 12/19/12 at 12:00 PM

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:20pm

Having read the screenplay online, I'd like a simple answer to this question. In what way is the movie at all different from the musical? Unless the script is markedly different than the one revealed online, Les Mis seemed to me to be among the most faithful adaptations from libretto to screen of any stage musical ever. Sure, there were touches here or there from the novel - the set piece of the Elephant monument for instance - and, of course, it is a movie so the form is different than a stage musical (unless it is one of those rare movies that merely tries to replicate the stage experience on film), but I find it hard to believe that - again, if the script is what was released - that there is any other difference at all from the show.

Updated On: 12/19/12 at 12:20 PM

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:30pm

Okay, perhaps my subjective impression is not really justifiable. The libretto is pretty much 90% the same, but the way it's filmed and the way it's blocked makes it feel very different. I can't really explain it better than i did in the IMDB post. Again, this is probably very subjective and maybe a bit of wishful thinking on my part, as I am a bigger fan of the novel than the musical. Perhaps I wanted to see more of an adaptation of the novel than the musical.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:34pm

I'm reading reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Wow, a lot of critics are majorly slamming this movie.

A lot of them don't seem to understand the original novel, though, either.

Updated On: 12/19/12 at 12:34 PM

[p.s.]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:40pm

Basically, I'm saying that if you go in with an eye for "Les Miserables: the world-famous story of Jean Valjean" rather than "Les Miserables: the world-famous musical phenomenon", you will be far better rewarded.

@Mike: Thanks so much for that! I saw the movie last week (12/12 in D.C.) and I guess I experienced it as still another of the many different productions of the musical that I've seen. That is, I certainly enjoyed it overall, but kept taking note of the differences and changes and performances as compared to the "standard" (my history of "standards").

My next viewing will be with an eye for the film which tells the world-famous story of Jean Valjean (a select ONE of the title characters).


p.s. 10:00 p.m. Xmas eve.

[Wildcard]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 12:50pm

"I'm reading reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Wow, a lot of critics are majorly slamming this movie.

A lot of them don't seem to understand the original novel, though, either."

I can understand critics not liking the direction or editing. However, when it comes to the material, I think it comes down to people not liking musicals, period. They are unable to suspend disbelief. However, if you put on a cape on someone and make him fly, they are more easily able to accept the premise.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 1:16pm

Mike you talk about the feeling of the movie being different and you talk about the movie being most rewarding in terms of telling Jean Valjean's story. But wouldn't you also agree that the musical on stage is - in the way book musicals at their best are - extremely rewarding as a telling of the story of Jean Valjean?

I personally like the stage musical very much because it does tells Jean Valjean's story effectively and by using the vocabulary of musical theater does so with a stirring emotional intensity. Of course the show, like almost any musical, has its champions and detractors. But there is no question that Les Mis on stage is, at its core, a book musical that tells the story of Jean Valjean, his having stolen a loaf of bread out of starvation (the inciting incident), his imprisonment and release, difficulties in being accepted as a convict, return to crime, epiphany from experiencing compassion (via the Bishop's magnanimity) rather than punishment for his wrongdoing, followed by a life of marked success (not achieved on his own - shades of Obama's so-called faux pas - but with the help of others) and civic duty followed by a spiritual life of love and redemption amid the background of political unrest, a country crying out for justice on a national level akin to the justice he finally achieves for himself and those whom he sacrifices for.

All of that is in the show and on the most emotionally reeling terms that musical theater - and, arguably, musical theater alone
- can provide.

How can the movie of the musical succeed without BOTH effectively telling the story (as the show does) and at the same time achieving the singular heightened emotional impact of the musical?

Perhaps it simply doesn't succeed on the second level. If not, why bother? There are countless versions of Les Miserables on screen already and a few of them (Raymond Bernard's 1935 French version, available on HULU's Criterion collection, is a masterpiece) quite extraordinary. Moreover, a musical to work has to achieve that emotionally heightened connection, particularly a musical telling a story as poignant and classic as this one. And, above all, a musical that is sung through or all but sung through!!!

* * *
Or are you saying that it does achieve that emotional impact but simply doesn't achieve it with the same musical proficiency one looks for in a solid stage production of Les Mis?

That, of course, presents a very different question.



Updated On: 12/19/12 at 01:16 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 2:29pm

"The libretto is pretty much 90% the same, but the way it's filmed and the way it's blocked makes it feel very different."

That's because it's a movie. If you are expecting a turntable and belters, you won't be getting that.

It's just as much a film version of the musical as Camelot, Cabaret, Sound Of Music, or any other musical that was turned into a movie.

Let it go.

[ChanceEncounter]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 2:56pm

It's a badly filmed version of the musical.


The directing absolutely destroyed it for me. Hooper has seriously never heard of a mid shot

[JP2]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 3:18pm

Saw it last night and I also loved it. Had a few nitpicks, but they were just that... nitpicks.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 4:21pm

p.s., I was at that screening, too! :) My initial impression was similar to yours: basically, comparing it to the "standard" version. It took me a few days to really process it and see it on its own terms.

TheatreDiva, I’m confused by your comment. I LIKED the film. My review was positive. I don’t understand why it should bother anyone that I simply saw this film more as an adaptation of the novel (and enjoyed the film all the more for this very reason)? Why does that irk people? Again, I liked the film. Re: Cabaret, I actually don’t consider that film an adaptation of the stage version. I see it as a film that uses Kander and Ebb’s music to tell a story inspired by Christopher Isherwood’s Berlin Stories. And it’s a beautiful film that I love. Same with Milos Forman’s Hair. I don’t consider that a film adaptation of the stage musical. It’s its own creature (which I think is much underrated), that uses the the songs from the musical to tell its own story about the Vietnam-era counterculture.

henrik, I actually consider the musical one of the most successful version of the story. It gets more into its three hours (sometimes even managing to approximate word-for-word Hugo’s own words) than many other versions. (And, somewhere in my review, I mention that I consider this film the second-best adaptation of the novel; second only to Bernard's 1934 version.) It may make more sense if I explain the context of my review. Like p.s., I saw the 12/12/12 showing in D.C. last week. At that time, the film was barely holding onto its 70% “fresh” rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The main criticism from the critics who actually bothered to do their research was that Hooper’s direction alters the material too much:

For example, TIME magazine’s Richard Corliss, who writes: “The earlier movie versions of the Hugo story exploited its epic sweep, and that should be the central advantage a film of the musical has over its stage incarnation... People near me at the Les Miz screening I attended may step forward to testify, “I saw you cry. In fact, I heard you cry.” It’s true. I’m an easy weep. I get misty at beer commercials and puppy videos and when Chris Christie talks about his love for Bruce Springsteen. I’ve sobbed the four or five times I’ve seen Les Miz on stage. And a few times during this movie, I wiped away tears. That’s my problem, and I can live with it. Tom Hooper’s problem is soiling good projects with bad direction. Even if his Les Misérables wins as many Oscars as The King’s Speech did, it’s a habit he really needs to correct.”

And Luke Buckmaster from Cinetology: “Hooper has managed to suck the life out of a magnificent production...”

My initial impression of the film was actually in concert with these criticisms. And perhaps it was colored even more by my fondness for the stage version. Perhaps I was expecting a more literal translation of the stage version (which is unrealistic for a director like Hooper). I was expecting the numbers to have the same relative importance in the film that they do in the stage version. They didn’t. But what Hooper did manage was to focus the story much more on Valjean. As I say in my review, the film feels much less of an ensemble production than the stage version. It feels very much focused on Valjean, and everyone else is sort of playing their part in what is HIS story.

The musical is more broad and sweeping. This film is very exciting, but feels much more focused and smaller. And I don’t think this is an inherent to the nature of the film medium vs. the stage. Certainly, the acting is usually smaller than in the theatre, but there is definitely a way to make “One Day More” the same sort of big moment it is on stage. Another director may have tried to maintain that number’s epic nature. Hooper and Nicholson went in a different direction. For me, that direction takes it closer to the novel and I like that. (This rebellion is small, undermanned, and somewhat chaotic. You get a better sense of that from the film.) But I think many people will go into the cinema expecting the film to maintain the same sense of scale from the stage version. But that doesn’t happen. And I think that may disappoint some people (as evidenced by some of the comments in this thread).

And again, before anyone else mistakes me from a crazed fan who is complaining that this film isn’t exactly like the stage version: I enjoyed the film. :P





Updated On: 12/19/12 at 04:21 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 5:38pm

We've all seen what can happen when the film a stage musical and don't change much of anything for the film version (Producers, anyone?).

It is NOT a film version of the novel. It's a film version of the musical.

[MikeInTheDistrict]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 5:54pm

It struck me in the way you phrased that that it may have been wrong of me to set up a dichotomy and make the two mutually exclusive: perhaps the film is BOTH an adaptation of the novel as well as the musical? You really can't have the latter without the former anyway. It sounds so odd to hear you say that this isn't an adaptation of the novel.

I hadn't anticipated having to so hyper-literal in order not to be misconstrued.



Updated On: 12/19/12 at 05:54 PM

[willep]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 11:05pm

Interestingly enough, most of the people I know who have seen it (all musical theatre people) have said that Russell is one of the best performances in the film (he and Anne, specifically). And we all loved the film.

Hugh's Bring Him Home is probably the most disappointing number overall. He just starts it so aggressively, where is the tenderness? And he just looks like he is straining so hard to hit those notes that we know he can hit.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 12/19/12 at 11:35pm

Highlight: Anne Hathaway

Lowlight: Tom Hooper's direction

Everything else was in the middle.

[HBP]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 12:21am

Just saw a screening in NY. I thought it was phenomenal. My excitement level dropped down to about a 6 after seeing the preview clips & especially "One Day More," but every actor met and often exceeded my expectations. I was especially impressed by Hugh, Anne and Russell.

Javert's voice annoyed me in the clips and sounded very forced, but he really played the role like a man with a giant stick up his @ss, so I found the voice to be very fitting. Amanda Seyfried's voice was also surprisingly bearable.

As for "One Day More," it felt much more logical and less jumpy when seen in the context of the film. It also serves as a nice transition piece between the pre- and post-revolution scenes without being a big, showy number as it functions on stage.

A wonderfully cast movie. I think more people will enjoy it than won't.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 12:50am

I also want to add, and maybe this is semi-spoilery, but the fact that Do You Hear the People Sing comes a little bit later in the movie gives that song a more rousing feel than One Day More. And I don't say that as a bad thing.

Another thing that I felt was that the movie felt a lot more intimate and less of a spectacle than the stage version. Again, I don't mean that as a bad thing. There are a lot of complaints about the direction and the tight shots and, yeah, I get it, but there was an intimacy I felt with it that I wasn't expecting. Valjean's Soliloquy was almost wrenchingly intimate, to point where I think that's where a lot of people are going to start to get turned off.

[NoName3]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 2:17am

"If you remember back in the day, all these Broadway plays and sh_t, dawg. It's a take off on that."

"The freshest part of that video was the elephant's ass," he said. "That and the big ship coming in. That was a cool effect. But the rest of the movie is lameness. I just wanted it to end. That's how I felt about that f__king trailer. Not only is a musical, which is lame as f__k, but it's from France."

‘It’s Wolverine Versus Gladiator’: Insane Clown Posse Discuss the Les Misérables Trailer Updated On: 12/20/12 at 02:17 AM

[Wildcard]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 2:52am

I saw the film tonight and I loved it. Like many, I was worried about what I would see based on some early critics' reviews and the clips we had been shown. I came into the movie with tempered expectations and I found that as a whole, I was impressed with the movie. Spoilers below --

The film started off "shaky." And I mean that literally. If there was something I would nitpick about the movie, it was the use of hand-held cameras. I thought to myself, have they not heard of steady-cams? Fortunately, as the film progressed, they either used less of this style or I had just gotten used to it. One of the comments other people had mentioned was the use of close-ups. It did not bother me at all like I was afraid it would. In fact, it made the film very intimate even though Valjean's story is an epic one. The other concern I had was of the sets looking like sets; how scenes were lit. While there was a surrealness to the way the movie looked, my concern didn't materialize as I was able to accept the look of the film.

The acting was very good -- all of them. Even the singing was very apt. Fears of Russell's voice or Amanda's speedy vibrato ruining the movie were unfounded. Of course, if you are hoping for the bombastic sing-to-the-rafters style of the Broadway stage (or the Christina Aguilera riffs of the 25th anniversary tour), you would be disappointed. Stick to the concert versions (I'm looking at you Dave19). The songs in the film were sung to tell a story. And did they. The machinations of the characters were clear and it explained why they did the things they did. The lyric changes helped as well. After all, when watching the film, one wouldn't have access to the synopsis from a Playbill.

Fantine's "I Dreamed A Dream" was a tour-de-force. Anne sung and acted it in a way I had never seen before. It was full of emotion. Russell Crowe's "Stars" was prefaced with Javert in prayer. It was not a loud forceful performance. It was sung, in a way, as a prayer and it moved me. "One Day More" was not too exciting when seen by itself. However, in context of the film, it provided a nice build up to what was about to happen. It wasn't as rousing as it is on stage but it wasn't a set-up to an intermission either. The same goes with "On My Own". It didn't have the same impact it did on stage but then again, it was also a quiet number and not a post-intermission rabble-rouser. It was sad but it was intimate. Part of me wished the setting was different. I wanted a more romantic visage. Perhaps see the Seine. But then again, this romantic notion of Paris I had in my head was a result of the Haussmann Plan (look it up). This was not the Paris of Les Mis.

Marius' "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" was also performed in a way I had never seen before. This was the second act equivalent of IDAD. Eddie Redmayne should be getting as much attention as Anne in a role that onstage is often looked over. One would think that the second act equivalent of IDAD should be "Bring Him Home." This was actually the only song that I was disappointed with. Hugh was very good in the rest of the film. But just as I loved "Stars" having been sung as a prayer, the literal prayer of "Bring Him Home" was a loud aria that seemed out of place in its setting and in the language of the film. As Willep said above, there was no tenderness in it. Other than that, Hugh was very good especially in the first half of the film.

Helena Bonham-Carter sounded nothing like she did in "Sweeney Todd." Thank God! While she still had her occasional falsettos, her voice was fuller and not whispered. Sacha Baron Cohen definitely put his own stamp on the role of Thenardier. He was funny but unfortunately, the Thenardiers' roles were much reduced compared to the stage version. However, I understand why that was done in order to put the focus on the Valjean/Javert story. Speaking of funny, there were two moments when people in the theater laughed. Unfortunately, these were scenes which weren't supposed to get laughs. The first was when Valjean first meets young Cosette. He says "Don't be afraid" then follows it up with "Where do you live?" It was creepy. The second unintentional laugh occurs during "In My Life" when Valjean enters Cosette's room with his shirt wide open. It definitely put a new meaning to their relationship.

I have seen the original production four or five times and the 25th anniversary version twice. I think I can say that I loved the film more. While I missed what they had removed, I was very happy with what they added. It's not a perfect movie but it does not disappoint, especially as a fan of the material. Forget Les Mis as you know it and I hope you would enjoy the film as much as I did. I'll definitely see it again.

[Dave19]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 6:55am

"Of course, if you are hoping for the bombastic sing-to-the-rafters style of the Broadway stage, you would be disappointed. Stick to the concert versions (I'm looking at you Dave19)"

The style you are describing is exactly what Hugh does and what I don't like. I find his performance way too theatrical and I have seen many stage Valjeans giving a much more film-like performance.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 12/20/12 at 10:18pm

The more I think about the movie, the more I want to see it again. I can't wait till more people to see it, because I want to hear reactions to things other than clips that keep appearing online.

Some more reflections. It goes without saying that some of it is spoilery. Say what you want, I think as much of the score was kept as could be expected and while there may a few snippets here and there I might have wish they'd kept, it isn't something like Dreamgirls, where all the early word was how they'd kept almost all of the songs and yada yada yada, but really, some of the very best of the score was gutted. I was really impressed with how much of the show is there in Les Mis. I didn't even realize "On My Own" drops the entire first section until the song was almost over. For the 14 year old gay boy who identified so much with Eponine still inside me, I thought Samantha Barks was pretty marvelous.

I really think people are going to fiercely divided over this since people are already divided over the clips. I really hope everyone love it as much as I did. But I'll get if you don't. That's how I felt about Dreagmirls. I felt like that was a lot of squandered potential. If Les Mis misses the mark at times, I don't think it's for lack of vision. I just think it's not the vision a lot of people might have wanted for it.

[ChanceEncounter]

Posted: 12/21/12 at 12:45am

It's is for a lack of vision kringas, the vision so greatly limited by Hooper's poor choices.


But I agree about Barks. She was great.

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 12/21/12 at 5:36pm

How was Hadley Fraser's cameo? And is his moustache as awesome as we've been led to believe? =)