Les Misérables (2012, Hooper)

[siowafc]

That Victor Hugo was SUCH a hack.

This is a poor argument, McTeague. Hugo didn't turn his 1500 page novel into a contemporary Broadway musical, and he certainly didn't adapt it into the most insipid film of the year. So to wrap this project under the cover of, "But a well-regarded author was once involved!" is a more than a little disingenuous.

Yeah I hate that people sings in musicals! Musicals are supposed to not have people sing them. Hooper clearlyy didn't understand this genre.

This may be to me never have the chance to see Les Miserables as a stage production, but there is a difference between having characters breaking into the song during certain moments (a category which virtually every other musical I have ever seen falls under) and "singing" virtually every second of the production. And for the most part, these characters aren't singing -- it's that terrible, out-of-tune, half-musical song-speech. I love musicals (and musicality), but I found this to be one of the most tedious and frustrating approaches I have ever seen! I'm sorry if that offends, but I'm not just trying to be naive for the sake of being a provocateur -- I genuinely found it to be one of the more infuriating parts about this movie/musical.

Sio, that is probably the worst review I've ever read, anywhere, for any movie.

Well, at least I accomplished something!

[McTeague]

This is a poor argument, McTeague. Hugo didn't turn his 1500 page novel into a contemporary Broadway musical, and he certainly didn't adapt it into the most insipid film of the year. So to wrap this project under the cover of, "But a well-regarded author was once involved!" is a more than a little disingenuous.

I've never done that and I re-read your review quite a few times to see what you were exactly saying. And you weren't talking about an adaptation, but about the story itself, not how it's told. The plot doesn't differ from the novel at all, save for Eponine's role being beefed-up. The story is the same, condensated or not, that's what the story is. And that story, that plot has been meaningful for more than 150 years and in many different adaptations, many even more condensed than in the musical. You never talked about pacing, structure or anything, but about the plot itself, the story itself.

This may be to me never have the chance to see Les Miserables as a stage production, but there is a difference between having characters breaking into the song during certain moments (a category which virtually every other musical I have ever seen falls under) and "singing" virtually every second of the production. And for the most part, these characters aren't singing -- it's that terrible, out-of-tune, half-musical song-speech. I love musicals (and musicality), but I found this to be one of the most tedious and frustrating approaches I have ever seen! I'm sorry if that offends, but I'm not just trying to be naive for the sake of being a provocateur -- I genuinely found it to be one of the more infuriating parts about this movie/musical.

This is hardly the first musical to be entirely sung or to use that semi-sung approach, though.

Whatever, I don't want to sound like the fan that attacks every negative opinion about the movie (there have been plenty I have not attacked), but this gets on my nerves. Like, yes, it's entirely sung. Like thousand of works of art through the history of mankind. Seriously, that's like attacking abook for not having any drawings. Well yes, there are works like that. Welcome to the ever-surprising world of dramatic arts. Any concerns about HOW it's done instead of WHAT is being done?



Well, at least I accomplished something! [/QUOTE]

[Blasty]

There are many musicals that are 'operettas' though, Sio, LOL? You sound like you've never seen one as you refer to most musicals you've seen being the kind where they burst into song at certain moments. You know, there are actually those that find that style more unbelievable than those musicals that basically let you know they're operas from the get go.

I mean, most of Andrew Lloyd Webber's '70s musicals are entirely sung through - I only pick him because of the popularity of those shows. And certain Sondheim shows as well. I mean, Sweeney Todd is. Is it that discombobulating and/or shocking?

[crazyfists3600]

Not loving musicals is not loving life. Seriously, the realization this season that half of AD are avid musical haters is depressing.

Blasty, please hold me.

[steve4922]

There are many musicals that are 'operettas' though, Sio, LOL? You sound like you've never seen one as you refer to most musicals you've seen being the kind where they burst into song at certain moments. You know, there are actually those that find that style more unbelievable than those musicals that basically let you know they're operas from the get go.

I mean, most of Andrew Lloyd Webber's '70s musicals are entirely sung through - I only pick him because of the popularity of those shows. And certain Sondheim shows as well. I mean, Sweeney Todd is. Is it that discombobulating and/or shocking?

The "half sung" parts of sung-through musicals comes from recitative, which is a very common device in operas--the recitative is the part between the arias and ensembles. In many of the older operas in the standard repertoire (including Mozart's operas), the recitative is usually sung to a harpsichord accompaniment, with the orchestra coming in only for the arias and ensembles. So this convention has been around for a long time.

[siowafc]

All of you Les-Maniacs are so hard to please! You guys are the Javerts trying to bring everyone down to your petty, one-track-mind level!

I think some of you are approaching this from a completely different level than I am, which is okay, as long as you are willing to admit that is where you are coming from. I get that some of you love Les Miserables intensely, and have seen the stage performance, and have worn out the soundtrack, and feel that it is coming from a rarefied place in the history of theater. If you love the core of the musical, you're probably going to find something to enjoy about this film, even if you find flaws (or not, even) in the way that it was adapted.

But, personally, I've never seen a stage performance of this musical. Part of the fun for me when going to see this was to figure how what was going to happen and how that was going to take place. And, perhaps, taking my analysis to other level, the approach that the director and actors took made it difficult for me to enjoy was happening? I understand that the "wholly sung" approach is inherent with staging Les Miserables, but I think the way the performers sing makes the production...exhausting? Everything seems so spuriously overemotive?

And I'd still argue that this entire enterprise is probably the least informative three hour epic ever? The characterizations are so thin and the film does so little to set up what is happening and Hooper tries so little to open up the film using any kind of cinematic language. Never has a revolution seemed so stakeless or so lacking in context.

Take poor Epoinine, whose character is perhaps the most poorly developed. I love the idea that she would dress up as a man (Albert Nobbs style!) in order to join Marius and the revolutionaries. This seems like a big sacrifice that should make a big impact. But the film spends about six seconds total on it (three seconds of her putting on a hat and three seconds of her randomly dying). Sure, Marius and her get that song at the end, but I feel like this is something that could have and should have been a bigger moment! But the film seems far too slavishly devoted to progressing to the next musical number! There's no room to breathe, to take a pause and reflect and absorb the decisions and the sacrifices that these characters are making. Even Fantine's descent into a living hell seems sadly overrushed. We barely get a chance to find anything about her before she's dying and singing about her dreams of long ago. It just seems half-baked -- why create a character when we can just have her sing maudlin ballads?

Perhaps I should dive in and read the novel? Maybe it would illuminate some of the details that this film so desperately needs.

And I really hope my dislike of this doesn't group me into the "haters" of musicals! Because I truly do adore a lot of them -- Meet Me in St. Louis (my all-time favorite), anything with an exclamation point (Oklahoma!, Moulin Rouge!, Mamma Mia!), The Wizard of Oz, Top Hat, Grease, 42nd Street, All That Jazz...and the list goes on. I even really enjoyed Sweeney Todd, which the film bears a huge resemblance to. I just really disliked this film.

[erikdean]

sio, I think you are 100% right in your criticisms of this cold mess.

[City Lights]

Sio, I think you're 1000% wrong.

I agree with McTttttttt. WORST. REVIEW. EVER.

[haqyunus]

Cold it certainly was. I think it is viral. First Anna Karenina and then this.

[Jonathan]

Yeah, I actually agree with most of what Sio says as well. I almost like the film, but I think that mostly the strength of the material standing out in spite of Hooper's attempt to obscure it in close-ups and general kookiness that he seems to think make it CINEMATIC. It reminds me of The Hobbit, actually - in both cases there's a LOT of good material here for a compelling film, but it's all obscured by their directors indulging their worst tendencies to a near-sickening level.

[crazyfists3600]

I actually get where sio is coming from on the thinly developed characters, and I did actually think while watching it that those who are not familiar with the stage musical and or in love with the story may find some of the plot points rather underdeveloped. Having seen and loved the musical, I didn't have any problem following or getting invested in the characters and the film, but I see how some could.

I would hardly call this cold, though.

[steve4922]

But, personally, I've never seen a stage performance of this musical. Part of the fun for me when going to see this was to figure how what was going to happen and how that was going to take place. And, perhaps, taking my analysis to other level, the approach that the director and actors took made it difficult for me to enjoy was happening? I understand that the "wholly sung" approach is inherent with staging Les Miserables, but I think the way the performers sing makes the production...exhausting? Everything seems so spuriously overemotive?

The stage version of the muscial isn't nearly so exhausting (as you put it) because the applause after the songs breaks up things and really energizes both the audience and the performers. IMHO, the joys of the show are the stagecraft (particularly in Trevor Nunn's original staging, with the turntable) and the show-stopping songs, which in top-flight productions are sung by first rate singers, and each of those iconic songs usually draws a large ovation. Now imagine those songs being sung on a stage, but with the audience sitting on their hands and never applauding--the whole thing would be completely drained of energy. That's sort of the way in which the movie comes off.

The book of Les Miz is, IMHO, problematic and completely forgettable. By ditching the soaring voices (with the exception of Barks) and emphasizing the hyper-emotional narrative, Hooper's film really highlights the flaws in the book. Poor Fantine loses her job, loses her hair, loses her teeth, becomes a prostitute and has an extended over-the-top death scene. All musicals (and movies and books, for that matter) are emotionally manipulative, but in the book of Les Miz the manipulation is so transparent and without subtlety that some people aren't able to suspend disbelief enough to enjoy it. So I know where you're coming from.

[City Lights]

I'm still processing my thoughts on this, but I wasn't feeling the emotions until the very end. The end with Jean ValJean, Cossette, and Marius just killed me. Dead. Could have done without the ghost of Fantine haunting the screen, though. That felt like such a tack on, like a desperate "don't forget about ANNE!" oscar plea.

[lucy.tp7]

As a lover of the musical, I completely agree about the thinly developed characters, and I think that's one of the major faults that the Broadway musical has in terms of adapting Hugo's "brick" of a novel. The movie was simply being faithful to its source material, which unfortunately tries to squish a lot of subplots into one huge entity. I do think that the main idea of the piece is supposed to be the journey of Jean Valjean and his antagonism with Javert -- how he found love with Cosette, and gave her off to Marius. However, when you add in the revolution, a love triangle, the plight of Fantine, and two comedic innkeepers, it does get messy. I personally would love to watch movies dedicated to the revolutionaries and Eponine, or to Fantine. I actually think that it's a bit clearer in the musical, but in the movie they tried to add details about more minor characters, which I appreciated, but which also took away from the fact that for this musical to work, it should be about Valjean in the end. I adore the musical, but it's definitely got some focus issues.

But yeah, I don't think that's as much a fault of the movie as the musical. Hugo's book is a monster to adapt!

[siowafc]

One last thing:

Is it just or is the take of "I Dreamed a Dream" that they used in the trailer seems so much better than the one they used in the actual film? The trailer version is powerful, bold, and defiant -- "Yes, I am dying, but I am not going to go without a fight!" whereas the (lengthier and somewhat exaggerated) film version seems more like "Oh shit, I think I'm dying (cry), this bites (dramatic gasp), oh well (whimper)..." I think this shows just how much tighter editing might have benefited the film, though I am curious to know how this moment plays out in the stage production. What kind of song is it "supposed" to be?

I would say compare for yourself, but no one has uploaded the film version to YouTube yet!

[bryan1311]

Lol, Sio, I agree with a lot of your criticisms of the film (even though I ended up enjoying it a fair amount), but I Dreamed a Dream was fantastic in the film. Also, listening to this soundtrack just makes it even more obvious how wrong Jackman was in his performance.

[siowafc]

I'm not saying it was bad in the film! It's just I really loved the trailer version and I played it over and over so much I think the film version seemed a little...different in direct comparison. It's obviously two totally different takes with some slightly different orchestrations.

[Stéphane]

I almost liked the film, but the negative outweighs the positive. I thought Jackman was really good, but the direction is bloody awful. Hooper gave me a ride full of nausea.

My favorite performance has to be by Redmayne. Cathaway has the oscar in the bag.

Crowe's singing was a dirty diaper wrapped in bacon. How can anyone say he was good.

I almost gave this a positive score...Almost!

[bryan1311]

Is...dirty diaper wrapped in bacon an expression?

[erikdean]

A shitty ham?