by Sam Juliano
‘Those who do not weep do not see’ -Victor Hugo
Art is manipulative. Whether its creator’s intent is to spur humor or consternation, or move the work’s viewers to the depth of their being, there is always a conscious and overriding intent to embolden and exhilarate through a direct appeal to the emotions. Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Mozart, Beethoven, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Dickens and Dante succeeded as well as any others in the pantheon of Western culture. Then there’s Victor Hugo, whose 1862 novel Les Miserables, written on wide canvas of suffering, injustice and loss, asserted that love and compassion are the most important gifts one can forward another in this life. Hugo takes his case even further when he proposes that “To die for lack of love is terrible, the asphyxia of the soul” and “To love or have loved, that is enough. There is no other pearl to be found in the dark folds of life.” Hugo’s sprawling novel, with it’s emotional epiphanies and character-driven melodramatic narrative was meant to be a transformative work, one aimed to spur government reforms, especially within the justice system and the unjust class structure in nineteenth-century France, one that turns good people into beggars and criminals. With it’s larger than life characters and lofty philosophical themes, Hugo’s novel was a perfect subject for the cinema, and tailor-made for some kind of operatic transcription. To be sure there have been dozens of film adaptations of the epic work dating back to the silent era all the way up to a 1998 adaptation by Bille August with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey playing Valjan and Javert. The number of times filmmakers worldwide have turned to Hugo’s novel may well in fact be within hailing distance of Stoker’s Dracula and Dickens’s A Christmas Carol. The best of these versions was Raymond Bernard’s four-hour plus epic of 1934, which is the most faithful to the source, and a 1935 Hollywood treatment with Fredric March and Charles Laughton in the leads that is well acted and mounted but substantially truncated.
What was ultimately to turn into a worldwide phenomenon, was the first musical of the work, a stage play composed by Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boublil that was distinctly operatic and suffused with soaring lyricism and some unforgettable arias. Breaking records in New York and Paris, Les Miserables continues it’s amazing longevity in a west end theater in London. The score, with it’s beautiful melodies and stirring anthems has captivated and touched audiences since it first appeared, and for many it was a kind of introduction to opera, without spoken dialogue and virtually every line sung. With it’s politically correct themes and the tragic endings of most of it’s cast Les Miserables was always a work with operatic underpinnings, and the tears are hardly at odds with it’s tragic arc and deep sense of poignancy. It’s high brow art, but too often is misunderstood by people with low brow tastes. Those at odds with their unwillingness or inability to emote at such material often find themselves lashing out against a work that never made any attempt to hide it’s intent. Les Miserables is manipulative all right, like some of our greatest art.
When Tom Hooper’s film version of the stage musical was first announced it immediately divided expectations. The theater fans were exultant that the their beloved work was finally being made into a film, and the opportunity to here new singers take on these venerated songs, while others fully expected another The Phantom of the Opera fiasco, though this writer thought the reaction to that 2004 film was way too harsh, in good measure for the same reasons that have been applied against the stage Les Miserables and it’s score. It seems the Christmas Day opening has yielded a realization of this division, though generally the yay-sayers seem to outnumber the haters. Still, there is sharp disagreement on the success or lack thereof of an artistic decision made at the outset by director Tom Hooper, who had the actors recorded live rather than lip synching to a dubbed track to keep their performances more authentic and on par with an actual stage turn. Taking matters a step further the gambling Hooper opted to go full face with the singing of the work’s pivotal songs, using the close-up with the austere bravado of Carl Theodor Dreyer, whose The Passion of Joan of Arc was perhaps cinema’s most celebrated example of the cinematic power of this device. While the non-emoters have complained that exceeding use of the close-up deprives them of the stage variety that would would work with a more mid-range approach, the gambit yields the intimacy that such highly-charged drama and music can gain the most from. Hooper, who received some great performances from his cast in The King’s Speech, again relies on actors to give his film it’s most resonant element, though the fact that his new film is a musical means it all comes down to the singing. And in that department Les Miserables, reliant on big-name stars has received a surprisingly solid ensemble contribution. Best of all is Anne Hathaway, who brings thunderous emotional intensity to her rendition of one of the score’s most beloved numbers “I Dreamed A Dream.” Dreyer is again envisioned as Hathaway’s fearless Fantine, with shaven head and physical anguish leaves no room for indifference. Hathaway’s relatively quick exit from the film (no fault of Hooper’s or the stage musical, but a reality of Hugo’s novel) is a major blow, and while Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks especially keep the flags flying, the impression made by Hathaway is wholly arresting. Fantine is a prostitute in Hugo’s novel who sells her teeth to support her young daughter Cosette. In one of the film’s most poignant scenes, she expires in a hospital in front of Valjean (Jackman) being assured that her daughter will be cared for as long as he’s alive. By that point in the story, Valjean (who stole a loaf of bread to feed starving family members and was imprisoned for 19 years) has been reinvented as a philanthropist after a Bishop extended to him an act of such overwhelming kindness, that he has dedicated the remainder of his days towards enhancing the human condition.
The film, play and novel’s most dramatic hook is the relentless pursuit of Valjean by “Inspector Javert,” a merciless prison guard and policeman who devotes his life at that point towards making Valjean pay for his past indescretions. Of course as painted by Hugo, Javert’s strokes show a man of no soul, obsessed with the law at the cost of decency and compassion. This one-note character has been given superb demonic presence by Charles Venal and Charles Laughton in prior films of the work, but this quality is lacking in Russell Crowe’s admittedly self-conscious interpretation. Crowe, who is said to have a musical background is not nearly as bad a singer as some are claiming, but it’s lacks the color and earthiness of his counterparts and is too closely aligned with the monotone nature of the character he is playing. Crowe does do a decent enough job with some of his big moments, especially the musically ravishing “Stars” where he revels in his “mission.” Hooper is less effective with his staging of one of the play’s most celebrated numbers “Master of the House” which is contingent of the use of space. In this sense, it is the one number that does suffer from a more claustrophobic approach. Sasha Baren Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter sing the bouncy number with relish but seem to fall victim to some confusing choreography. I’ve always thought myself of the song as a throwaway and certain application of comic relief, so it’s not really of major consequence. In the novel the “Thenardiers” are innkeepers and evil incarnate, and have remorselessly enslaved young Cosette.
Hugh Jackman projects a raw quality as Valjean, and convincing prosthetics accomplish face scars from prison abuse, and a stoic delivery that possesses it’s own unique intonation. To be sure Jackman is hardly the equal of the best stage Valjeans (Hooper pays homage to Colm Wiliknson, the most celebrated Valjean of all, by having him playing the kindly Bishop of Vigne.) but he’s a fine singer who fuels his performance with feeling, acing his big number and one of the work’s most deeply felt, “Bring Him Home,” sung on the battlements as a plea for the survival and safety of young Marius (Redmayne) who is Cosette’s lover. Never mind of course that plenty of people who have seen Les Miserables still believe it’s about the French Revolution of 1789, instead of the student revolution of 1832. Jackman is stirring too when he bursts forth with “Who an I?” and when he provides one of the multiple voices in the convent in an ghostly epiloque that is sure to melt the hardest of hearts. Jackman does a good job too with the score’s weakest song, “Suddenly” which was commissioned specifically for the film by the composers. There’s neither anything musically exciting or especially lyrical in the piece, but it’s not an easy act to equal the rest of this rapturous line-up. It is Jackman’s character of course who brings on the most tears, and it’s a testament to his interpretation that he keeps you fully enthralled and emotionally immersed. Valjean doesn’t need a great voice (though Jackman has a very good one) but one who can transcribe the character’s humanity. Like many of the best Italian operas where the most sublime passages are reprised in vital spots, Jackman is equally effective in support as he is solo, much having to do with the natural, unadorned quality of his voice.
The lovely Samantha Barks plays Eponine, who is hopelessly in love with Marius (and says so three times in one of the score’s most venerated songs, “On My Own”) bringing to bear an irresistible charm and aching familiarity with a role she’s taken on in a year of West End performances. She’s also an attractive contributor to the beautiful “A Heart Full of Love” with Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried, the grown-up Cosette whose bird like sound is a perfect continuation of what we heard from her character as a young girl in “Castle on a Cloud.”
Danny Cohen’s largely sumptuous cinematography, which visualizes the world that the stage cannot -sweeping overhead pans and grimy Paris streets where heated students rebellions turn to violence-makes fine use of CGI, most impressively in the opening “Look Down” prison sequence. Cohen, editors Melanie Ann Oliver and Chris Dickens collaborate with Hooper on the spirited montage “One Day More,” which brings in all the principals in a dazzling sequence that recalls the mid-film rumble preparation in West Side Story that culminates with a soaring reprise of “Tonight.” The flash cutting and close-ups give this piece a visceral quality that can’t be matched on stage.
Then there’s Eddie Redmayne who plays the romantic lead Marius, who is saved by Valjean and lives to remember his comrades, all killed on the battlements. His haunting aria “Empty Chairs, Empty Tables,” shows the actor at his impassioned best, delivering a haunting eulogy to his deceased friends whose ‘phantom shadows and faces at the window’ are all that are left in an existence of unspeakable grief:
There’s a grief that can’t be spoken
There’s a pain goes on and on
Empty chairs at empty tables
Now my friends are dead and gone
Here they talked of revolution
Here it was they lit the flame
Here they sang about tomorrow
And tomorrow never came.
From the table in the corner
They could see a world reborn
And they rose with voices ringing
I can hear them now!
The very words that they had sung
Became their last communion
On the lowly barricade..
At dawn.
Oh my friends, my friends forgive me.
That I live and you are gone
There’s a grief that can’t be spoken
There’s a pain goes on and on
Phantom faces at the window
Phantom shadows on the floor
Empty chairs at empty tables
Where my friends will meet no more.
Oh my friends, my friends, don’t ask me
What your sacrifice was for
Empty chairs at empty tables
Where my friends will sing no more…
Redmayne is marvelous in his duets, and seems like a great physical choice for the lover who survives the tragic and endless sorrow in this story of the steepest price paid. And he does show some romantic chemistry with Seyfried.
Not every shot, not every pan, not every shaky cam sequence works in Les Miserables, but I give Hooper all the credit for daring to leave the box, and refusing to confine this theatrical work to its roots. With one of the greatest of all Broadway scores, based on a mighty source, his version of Les Miserables soars on the uniformly impressive singing, two audacious directorial decisions that largely succeed and the powerful telling of a story that never loses a timeless appeal. This Les Miserables is one of the best films of the year.
Sam, it’s clear you were impressed even if you had reservations at times about the extreme close-ups – a wonderfully detailed review here, with your love for the music coming across loud and clear. I read Hugo’s novel in the last couple of years and have also seen the musical on stage in the past, so am now really looking forward to seeing the film version – I’m one of those who was somewhat disappointed by the film of ‘Phantom’, so am pleased to hear that by the sounds of it this one works much better. I do love the 1930s film with Fredric March as Valjean and Charles Laughton just superb as Javert, but haven’t yet seen the Bernard version – but I will! Anyway, you’ve got me champing at the bit to see this!
Oh Judy, see the Bernard Version, it blows away the 1935 Cliff’s Notes version, for all Laughton’s quality. (Physically Laughton would have been better as Valjean with Raymond Massey as Javert).
Judy I certainly do agree with Allan on the Bernard version. In fact Allan is the one who first introduced me to it, sending on copies he had made from a television broadcast many years ago, prior to the Criterion Eclipse version making it’s first appearance. I do approve of Hooper’s decision to go with the close-ups throughout the film, but I do acknowledge there were a few instances where it didn’t quite work. The score is one of the greatest ever written for musical theatre, and a well-sung presentation alone would make a viewing essential. But yes this is much more. Like you Judy I also do like the March/Laughton version, though the excessivve cutting of the source leave it well behind the Bernard. I am sure the latter will have your moved and ravished! Thanks as always my friend, and a Happy New Year to you and your lovely family!
Sam,
I always enjoy reading your reviews because you always bring a great deal of context to the fore. Thanks for laying things out nicely both from the perspective of the film, the book, the musical etc. I just saw this film last night. Let me say that I know literally nothing about Les Mis in any incarnation. I haven’t read the book….I haven’t seen the musical. I HAVE seen the Bernard version of the film, but of course this new film is vastly different of course.
I enjoyed the film. I liked it far more than I expected, especially after reading Michael Phillips’ hateful review in the Chicago Tribune last week. I was literally expecting the worst. I think it’s a fine film and a fine musical. The score is absolutely tremendous and this of course was my first introduction to it. It’s got to be one of the best scores for a musical that I’ve ever heard. This would be intrinsic to any adaptation of the broadway musical of course. I thought, as you did, that the singing was uniformly pretty good. Crowe notwithstanding. He inflections and range were on the weak side. Jackman is usually very good here. Hathaway is tremendous and so is Eddie Redmayne. I also like Redmayne’s performance. I saw something in him I really liked in My Week With Marilyn. So I was not surprised by him here. The guy can REALLY sing though.
Let’s get into the meat of things here.
The live singing: I think this was a great choice. I think it brought an intimacy that can be lacking in musicals. I think this stripped away some of the artiface and brought home the humanity more. I applauded this.
The close-ups: I too recalled Dreyer here in Joan of Arc. This was a bold move for sure. It didn’t really bother me per se. What I mean is….I don’t think the camera being close is inherently good or bad as a general rule. However, what happens in the frame when it’s in close-up can come under more scrutiny. I did like that the close-ups seemed to provide for some interesting long takes. I’m not certain, but there were times that holding the camera on the face and not cutting away brought some intensity and focus to the scenes. Think of Hathaway’s song in particular. One issue I DO have with the close-ups is that I think there tended to be a bit of over-acting in the close-ups. If the camera was further back it wouldn’t have been as noticeable, but when the camera is right there, it catches EVERYTHING…meaning every tear especially. For me there were 1-2 scenes too many where the actors cry in close-up. It happened about 6-7 times I’m sure. Now crying is fine. And I know Musicals can be usually highly emotive. I just got a bit of emotional fatigue later in the film. In my opinion, close-ups work best when there are subtle facial expressions….think of Lillian Gish or Greta Garbo or Liv Ullman. It doesn’t take much in close-up to register what one is thinking. Like I said……I did like some elements of the close-up, but not all.
What I DIDN’T like…was the shaky cam. I think this was the riskiest element and didn’t work for me at all. I got tired of it very early on. I was in a conversation last week with Joel about the shaky cam being too prevalent these days in cinema. I thought it was distracting, much as I thought it was distracting in Beasts of the Southern Wild.
I also thought the first half was better than the second half…and maybe this is due to the absence of Hathaway as you mentioned.
Overall though…I think Les Mis is a fine film and very solid musical. I like it a lot more than Chicago, which won Best Picture, but not as much as Moulin Rouge! as far as modern musicals go. I would give it a solid 3 stars out of 4.
Jon–
Thank you so much for this painstaking, fantastic super-comment on LES MISERABLES! I am delighted to hear that in large measure you enjoyed the film, and were behind some of the unorthodox decisions on ho to present this beloved material on film. Yes, this is absolutely one of teh greatest of scores. Most who have heard it feel that way, but for some popularity breeds contempt, and still others are not opera fans so they’d object to the tone and the full singing of every line. Schonberg’s music is sublime and contains some unforgettable arias that inform the story and the inner mind and motivations of the characters. I hear what you are saying about the over-acting in some of the close-ups, but of course that would be the price to pay when ever inflection and movement is closely monitored. It seems Anne Hathaway defied this by actually becoming Fantine. Agreed too that her early departure could never be fully overcome, but with achingly beautiful numbers like “Bring Him Home,” “Empty Chairs, Empty Tables,” “On My Own,” “One Day More,” “A Heart Full of Love,” “Stars” and that cathartic final 15 minutes in the convent when all the musical themes are rapturously reprised, would seem to support that the beauty was maintained throughout. I’d match the final half hour with the Hathaway run myself, but I can see varying positions. You are not the only person who had problems with the shaky cam. I read one critic who was so exasperated that he demanded the tripod be “nailed down!” Ha! Yes that filmmaking style does need to be re-evaluated. Thanks again for this towering comment, the exceedingly kind words, and wonderful reaction to the film mmy friend!
Sam,
Yes I am certainly for the most part in your camp on this one. I am a fan of opera, so the singing throughout didn’t bother me at all. I enjoyed that element. It seems the shaky cam is most useful when it’s not very noticeable…..as in it coincides with the subject matter or the type of genre…..meaning low budget indie affairs….or War films. Not sure. I am seeing it everywhere these days.
Hey, Sam, stupendous and contextually resonant review of a film I still plan to avoid for reasons well known by now. You almost gave me a heart attack when I read “cinematographer” Danny Boyle – which gave me a horrific image in my mind of a Danny Boyle musical! I believe you meant Danny Cohen?
David, thanks very much for the kind words! Thanks too for detecting that lamentable error, one I will change right now, long after the fact! LOL!!!! A Danny Boyle musical indeed!!! I am trying to recall the original reservation you had, but so far I am drawing blanks. I do know you like other musicals.
Nay, Sam, I loathe musicals, and everything I have read about this one tells me it contains all of the elements that I hate about musicals amped up to the nth degree (not a single spoken line of dialogue, right?) complete with Hooper’s crazy Dutch angles and other flourishes. Granted, I will probably watch it on Netflix at some point…and there have been those rare musicals I enjoyed in spite of their genre (I think there are three – Oliver!, Chicago and Dancer in the Dark) but still. Love your enthusiasm and detailed analysis here as I know we are on polar ends of the genre spectrum.
Sam, I have the Boleslawski on my DVR, the Bernard on my shelf and the book (in a huge recent translation) looming as a new year’s resolution, but I see the musical tomorrow and hope to judge that as objectively as possible by keeping the others at arm’s length until later. I can remember reading the reviews when it premiered on Broadway; back them, my impression was that the old-timers resented what they took as another “rock opera,” not for any emotional manipulation, obviously, but because they found the music and lyrics banal by “Standards” standards. I don’t really have a dog in that fight because I’m going for the spectacle, but I do have one question about your preamble.
If “there is always a conscious and overriding intent to embolden and exhilarate through a direct appeal to the emotions,” why are both detractors and supporters so quick to point out certain artists who appear to avoid such appeals? In movies, you know who I mean: Kubrick and the Coens come quickly to mind, and some might add the P.T. Anderson of The Master as artists who are “cold,” un-emotional or synonymously cerebral. So do most people simply misperceive the emotional appeals of such creators, or are they not artists? It seems more likely that there are standards of subtlety or refinement for emotional appeals that can be applied, a difference (tentatively defined) between one film saying, “Isn’t this sad?” and another saying, “CRY!!!” Can’t judge where Les Miz falls because I haven’t seen it yet, but at least I’m not deterred by anything I’ve heard about it. As some wag wrote, who could resist such a badass musical as one with Wolverine and Catwoman in it?
Samuel—-
Ha, that’s quite a New Year’s resolution if I may say so! But surely when navigated one you will never forget. Hugo’s sprawling novel has the same kind of cathartic effect on me that Wagner’s ‘Ring Cycle’ did. Bernard’s 280 minute film is the novel’s greatest cinematic transcription by a distance, though the condenced Boleslawski is a well acted and mounted introduction that holds up well. Good luck. I’ll be looking forward to your reactions! Yes I remember the critical reaction back then as if it were yesterday, and the rock opera application is dead-on. You ask a good question there. I think most people simply misperceive these artists, or at least don’t make the same connection that the most passionate adherents do. But your second perception is equally persuasive, and yes there are standards of subtlety and refinement that have much to do with the style, and inherent subtlety of the work. Davies’s extraordinary THE DEEP BLUE SEA for example, plays it’s emotional cards close to the vest, while Ang Lee’s magnificent THE LIFE OF PI makes no attempt to pull back from the fray. In other words both ways of presenting the emotional quotient are valid. I was just defending the ‘heart on the sleeve’ approach if it fits the source as it does here. I’ll be quite interested in your reaction to today’s screening. Thanks for the fantastic comment my friend! Happy New Year to you and yours!
I’ll have more to say at my place shortly but I’ll tell you here that while Hooper may not have been the director to do the material (novel and musical) true justice I have to admire his revival of an old-fashioned sensibility. We have so much fantasy in movies now that this movie’s apotheosis of a finale doesn’t seem awkward or even strange.
Excellent point there Samuel, about the “old-fashioned sensibility.” I’m looking forward to your full review!
Les Misérables has indeed seen numerous versions. This is a rundown of the ones I have seen, and there have been others.
1911 – Fr, Albert Capellani ***
A little primitive perhaps but the print I saw online years ago had no Eng subs and wasn’t restored.
1925 – Fr, Henri Fescourt ****
Superb silent version, but sadly only seen in butchered barely 2 hour version when was originally 6. This is the version Georges Sadoul said was the greatest and said far outstripped the Bernard. I can’t really believe that until I see the full thing but certainly Fescourt’s Monte Cristo , which I have seen in full, is the best version of that tale, so you never know.
1934 – Fr, Raymond Bernard *****
Essentially storytelling perfection with at least a dozen superb character portrayals yet to be surpassed, magnificent phgotography, editing and a peerless score from Arthur Honegger. One of the nicest touches was that the Bishop of Digne was played by Henri Krauss, who played Valjean in the 1911 version!
1935 – US, Richard Boleslawski ****
Excellent if mutilated version with excellent lead performances and photography from Gregg Toland, but as I said, it would have worked better with Laughton as Valjean and Raymond Massey as Javert.
1948 – It, Riccardo Freda ***
Serviceable version with excellent emotional highpoints and a solid Valjean from Gino Cervi, chewing less scenery than usual.
1952 – US, Lewis Milestone **
A cheap mistake, with a stolid Valjean from Michael Rennie and miscast Javert from Bobbie Newton.
1958 – Fr, Jean de le Chanois ***
Need to see this one again once the Blu Ray comes out from Olive in February, but while Jean Gabin was a strong Valjean and it looked fine, Bernard Blier was wrong as Javert and the version I saw was English subbed off an old VHS. It may be stronger.
1978 – US, TV **
Pretty mediocre TV reworking with Anthony Perkins badly miscast as Javert and rather simpering juveniles.
1995 – Fr, Claude Lelouch ****
Sadly never released on DVD with English subs, a semi-updated version with a fine lead performance from a nonetheless too old Jean-Paul Belmondo.
1998 – US, Bille August **
Beautifully shot and with a fine Javert from Geoffrey Rush, but otherwise flimsy and anorexic version made for typical short attention span audiences. Like watered down old wine.
2000 Fr TV **½
Essentially an attempt to give Gerard Depardieu another great literary part, but not as compelling as the 1998 The Count of Monte Cristo, though he gives his customary committed performance as Valjean.
I always enjoyed the Bille August one somewhat, but mainly in relation to my dislike of the overblown musical. It probably would’ve been stronger if it had been directed by Polanski, who began the project. Maybe not strong enough to make much difference, but hey.
Great to have your thoughts on all these versions, Allan – this will be a good resource to go back to. I saw the 1998 one only last year but must confess I have already almost forgotten it, though I do remember that Rush was good as Javert. I will be seeing the Bernard version soon, and also definitely want to see the version with Gabin.
Well I have seen six of these and have the Bernard as easily the best, with the 35 Boleslawski a solid second. Good idea to list them all here!
That isn’t them all, guys. Just the ones I have seen. I know there’s definitely another one with Lino Ventura in it and at least one other French TV version and another silent.
Sam – “…there is always a conscious and overriding intent to embolden and exhilarate through a direct appeal to the emotions.”
You know that I do a lot of public speaking. One of the things I often say is that, “Dogs experience life through their nose. People experience like through their emotions – how they feel.”
This film is a masterpiece of emotion; of feeling! It took us through the full gamut and back again. Every single thing about it pulled at one heart string or another. A complete and total standing ovation!
Laurie–
That is a great analogy there and I can just imagine hearing you saying it to a group!!! The film does take you through the emotional ringer and full-circle, but as I’ve tried to argue it’s valid considering the nature of the source material. I had no doubt you and Len would respond to this is a big way, and I’m frankly thrilled! Have a great 2013 my friend! Many thanks as always.
Best Wishes to ya’ll for the coming year Sam –
And Thanks to your review here, we decided on Lincoln earlier today before the snow started to fly again, and glad we did – Although, it was much like reading about the bickering in DC today – and am still amazed this bunch can’t even get the simplest tasks done ; (
Will need to see the 30’s version, can’t really imagine many of todays actors really able to pull off the acting ability to make it believable to look past there sameness in looks –
Saw the Hobbit last week and felt like we’ve seen it all before and isn’t a film to be seen again –
BTW the new Oz coming out next year looks lame, as does the johnny depp Lone Ranger film – sometimes previews are OK to sit through I guess –
=Cheers!
Best Wishes to you both Michael!! Snow has really been making the rounds out by you. LINCOLN is a great film, and glad to hear you saw it and made those modern-day correlations! Ha! Of the earlier versions YOUNG MR. LINCOLN is best, but ABE LINCOLN IN ILLINOIS is worth a look. I hear ya on THE HOBBIT, which is still a big favorite for my kids. Looks like the box-office is reaching the stars again, though I am not at all surprised. But yes it’s easy to see you’d see it as another reprise. And heck there are two more yet to come! Ha! Saw the trailer for the new OZ and must say I completely concur with your expectations! New Year’s greetings to you my friend! Hope the year brings some sustained happiness. Many thanks as always!
Earlier this month TCM showed back-to-back-to-back Les Miserableses(?) (Boleslawski, Milestone, Bernard) and I taped the last one, but I haven’t the time to watch yet. I’ve read that Bernard’s Javert is a caricature of evil, rather than a man clinging to an empowering obsession with the rational and legal. Is that a fair criticism? (It strikes me in the book it is a false note that Javert goes beyond the calls of the law or reason in his victimization of Fantine.) You imply that all the major characters get their due.
Congratulations on a great essay, one that is boldly uncool, especially considering the anti-sentimentality so often expressed by your esteemed (note: nonironic usage of ‘esteemed’) colleagues. I had planned on waiting until the Hooper movie was out on DVD, never having seen the musical on stage.. I hadn’t thought that Eponine would have made it into a musical version, and that really pleases me. Years ago, I saw clips of the Thernadier comic scenes and from that abasement concluded I could live without seeing Les Miz. (Imagine a musical version of The Big Sleep sporting a comic number sung by Canino. That was what it felt like to me seeing 30 seconds of Master of the House.)
Scott—
It is a fair criticism, but I didn’t find it especially persuasive, as Venal gives the film his own persuasive rendition of obsession to resonating effect. Javert’s excessive cruelty in regards to Fantine paints a dire but accurate picture of his complete dehumanization. In any case make no mistake about it, Bernard’s version is the defining cinematic masterpiece. And yes I did indeed pick up your irony there! The character of Eponine would be a given for a musical version for all sorts of reasons (she was certainly vital in Hugo’s novel) and Ms. Barks was a lovely choice for the role. LOL on the imaginings of a musical version of THE BIG SLEEP. Hope you do get to see this new L:ES MISERABLES, and I thank you for your kind words and insights!
Sam I am so looking forward to seeing this one. Thank you for the thorough and thoughtful review. It will stand me in good stead when I finally get a chance to see this remarkable work which has been successful in so many forms.
Terill—
Thanks so much for the very kind words! I have every reason to believe that you and David will be ravished by the singing and the operatic score. Yes, few works in the culture have been attempted and have succeeded inb so many forms. New Year’s greetings to you and David!! Many thanks as always.
Sam, my girlfriend and I saw it Friday night, and at the end we joined most in the theater who sniffled. You again have mastered the art of writing a film review, and you are ‘not’ manipulative! lol. Beautiful discussion of the score and the songs (but what else is new?) and the audacious choices that were made by the director. Sue ‘s favorite song is the one who really seem to heap praise on: ‘Empty Chairs, Empty Tables.’ Mine is ‘Bring Him Home’ Hathaway really nails every big moment. Jackman was a terrific Valjean. Barks and Redmayne were wonderful. Crowe’s presence made up for some vocal shortcomings. A great musical film that is score big at the box-office. The showing we attended in Edgewater was nearly full.
Thanks for that Frank! And your response is right on cue. Your girlfriend has very good taste needless to say (“Empty Chairs” is one powerful song) and “Bring Him Home” no less so. Both are resprised at key moments in the score. Good point there about Crowe! Box office returns have been terrific of course, and sellouts are not uncommon. New Year’s greetings to you and Sue, and thanks for all your regular support my friend!
Terrific review. I did figure you’d be writing this, and with your customary musical passion. I plan on seeing it this coming weekend!
Peter, I look forward to your reaction! Thanks as always for the very kind words.
Boffo review, Sam, of a musical I will probably never see. Ever since Attenborough wrecked ‘A Chorus Line’ I tend to stay away from these singing behemoths. Besides Laughton’s Javert is burned into my memory forever and now I can’t imagine another actor in the role….now if a toothless Hathaway sang “I Dreamed A Dream”…
To all at Wonders “….And a Happy New Year!”
~ George Coulouris, ‘Citizen Kane’
I’m not interested in gold mines, oil wells, shipping, or real estate. I think it would be fun to run a movie blog…
You provide the prose poems, I’ll provide the flame war.
Thanks very much Mark! I hear ya, I know this isn’t everyone’s cup of tea. Love the Coulouris quote and Joel’s response!!!! Ha!
Laughton as Javert? Now that’s the ticket!
David Denby of the New Yorker reveals himself as the Anti-Sam with this review.
Just as Denby was embarrassed for the audiences, I’m embarrassed for him. This is, fluid writing and humorous bon mots aside, a very embarrassing review. I’ll mostly leave it at that – I originally wrote a longer comment but it seemed too vitriolic and Denby’s piece already injected enough vitriol into the conversation so I’ll let it rest (some of the reader comments are great though). Suffice to say most galling is his assertion that “the story does not connect to our world” which is doubly confounding: first, because it reads like a blanket condemnation of all period pieces, an absurd position for any lover of cinema to take; and second, because the smug formulation of “our world” seems tone-deaf to the class warfare of the present and the dire straits many find themselves in today (including those sent to prison for minor drug offenses, not that far off from Valjean’s situation). As if the entire world was the upper East Side. Ugh. Loved his “death of the movies” piece and looking forward to the book which I just got from the library, but Denby taking the piss out of Hugo is not a pretty sight…for Denby.
Yep, Denby’s review is snark, and incredibly narrow-minded. He lives in his own world, and his takedown of Hudo is hysterical? Who next? Shakespeare? Da Vinci? Mozart? Love your response here Joel. I went over and added one myself, but it hasn’t yet appeared. Like the “as if the entire world was the Upper East Side.”
Love these comments placed under Denby’s review by readers, but 80% of the posters are attacking him! Ha!
Denby lost me when he suggested “Top Hat” as a cure for “Les Misérables.” Really!? I have nothing against “Top Hat” or “Singing in the Rain” etc … they are great, but if I were to try to suggest musicals likely to appeal to the Les Mis crowd “Top Hat” would not be high on the list. Maybe if Denby has listed some of the great dramatic musicals such as “West Side Story,” “My Fair Lady,” “Fiddler on the Roof” or “South Pacific” I might give him a little more respect. But because all of his suggestions are not true book musicals. I’m inclined to believe that the real problem is that Denby just doesn’t like book musicals. And someone should really remind Denby when he talks of the musical being “sacrilege” to the original novel, that the original critics hated the novel too. In fact his article reads like the original 1862 reviews of the novel: Le Monde: “One cannot read without an unconquerable disgust …” Gustave Flaubert: “infantile,” “neither truth nor greatness” Charles Baudelaire: “tasteless and inept” 160 years later, their opinions are forgotten. The novel is an unquestioned masterpiece. I’m sure that’s how history will remember Denby’s opinion here too.
Posted 1/4/2013, 1:36:29am by digne
MR. CONDESCENSION: Yeah, I’ve seen all those other movies you’ve recommended. I’ve read the New Yorker weekly for a couple of decades. Still, I was deeply moved by the movie version of Les Miserables. It broke some new ground, just like the stage version I saw in London 25 years ago. I resent your view that I am without that elusive, short-on-definition quality you call “taste.” I don’t think I’ll read any more of your reviews because you’re a phony, fatuous ass.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/theres-still-hope-for-people-who-love-les-miserables.html#ixzz2H7c0vO2A
So, you are an expert in all things musical and opera, yet you claim never to have heard the music or know the story of the most popular musical on the planet earth for the past 25 years? I smell a hipster.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/theres-still-hope-for-people-who-love-les-miserables.html#ixzz2H7cUtgTn
This is one of the most unintentionally funny columns I have ever read. ‘Didn’t any of the audience notice how gloomy and dolorous the story actually is?’ Well, yeah, David, the title is ‘Les Miserables’ – you know, ‘The Miserable Ones’ (freely translated). So I don’t think too much of the audience showed up thinking they were going to see a story about a school for wizards, or some knee-slapping comedy. It’s like going to see a production of the ‘Hunchback of Notre Dame’ and being horrified that it has this disfigured deaf guy at the center of the plot. Then there’s the critic of the New Yorker admitting he goes to see a movie made out of one of the most popular musicals of all time, now over two decades old, without having heard a note of the music – or, evidently, read a word of the book. Really, David? What DO you do to bone up on this stuff? Watch back episodes of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ and hope they relate somehow?? I will tell you what, if you don’t want to be caught by surprise. Learn just a teeny bit about the background of the movie you’re going to review – you know, like at least the implications of the title, or maybe that it is based on one of the most sensational novels of the 19th Century – bad, but terrifically melodramatic – or that – Never mind. The ‘Glee’ season renews next week. Stick to that.
Here is the comment that I placed. It was published there this morning:
Wow, Denby is offering us a public service? How kind and considerate of him. He takes down Hugo here with glee and snooty elitism. Who’s next? Shakespeare? Da Vinci? Mozart? As far as I’m concerned his entire review, replete with smarm and sarcasm again shows his limitations as a writer and critic. But then again he was never remotely the equal of Kauffmann, Sarris nor Kael. He’s a very little man, who deserves an immediate boycott after this critical blasphemy. Tarr’s THE TURIN HORSE is my top film of 2012, but this rapturous LES MISERABLES is in my Top 5. Yes I am a big fan of the Broadway show (saw it three times) and Hugo’s masterpiece is the most towering novel I have ever read in my life. I am a middle school literature and writing teacher for 29 years.
Posted 1/5/2013, 9:52:43am by SamJuliano
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/01/theres-still-hope-for-people-who-love-les-miserables.html#ixzz2H7fiPTbK
Had he stuck to dismissing the film, which I am mildly curious about but not rushing off to see, I wouldn’t really have cared. Heck, even if he had critiqued Hugo intelligently, I wouldn’t be as down on the piece – it’s the smug tone and glib criteria he applies (which just screams of the 90s boomer “we’re all comfy bourgeois now” mentality, which I thought I had died with the crash but apparently not).
In a way, the ultimate loser with this is Denby. His critique of contemporary cinema was in many ways dead-on last fall. I’m sorry to see him become such a caricature of his worst tendencies here which can only serve to further sink his already controversial theses posted on the New Republic in September.
Gonna start his new book, Do the Movies Have a Future?, soon, probably today as I just finished the other nonfiction I was reading. Will return with further reports. Hopefully it goes lighter on the snark, which is not his strong suit (and honestly seems more than anything a lame attempt to emulate his icon, Pauline – his own strengths lie in different areas than hers though, so it’s a poor fit imo).
Spoke about this with Bob last night, and although he’s no Les Mis fan he did not cotton to Denby’s critique. My favorite line (hope he doesn’t mind me quoting him), in response to Denby’s passage about the revolution (which Bob called “almost a parody of disinterest”)…
” ‘what’s all this revolution about?’ well, it’s france. it’s the 1800’s. do the math. “
Bob (Clark) may be down on LES MIS (which by the way he hasn’t seen) but Maurizio gave a surprising response, pointing to some shortcomings, but rating it a solid 4 o 5.
Having seen the show, and disliked it, I don’t have any interest in bothering with the movie. That said, Denby’s a shmuck.
Sam –
I have just returned from FINALLY seeing LES MISERABLES, and yours was the first review I wanted to read. And I must say, your assessment here is beautifully and persuasively written. I am pleased and gratified to tell you that we are in nearly complete agreement on every point, from your defense of the work’s emotionalism to our willingness to accept Hooper’s copious use of close-ups, from our immediate association of Hathaway’s big solo close-up with Dreyer’s/Maria Falconetti’s Joan of Arc to our lack of satisfaction with how the “Master of the House” number turned out.
I think the naysayers have come in gunning for this film on two fronts – a dislike of Tom Hooper or a dislike of ,musicals in general, and they’ve proceeded to use either of both of those clubs to beat the film to a pulp. I’m obviously in neither camp (I liked THE KING’S SPEECH and,as my recent comments here show, I was blown away by the brilliance of Hooper’s TV film, LONGFORD.) And we all know how I feel about musicals; this one in particular is a special favorite of mine which I’ve seen five times on stage.
The first 15 minutes of so of this film, I will admit, drove me a little nuts. I kind of wanted to find Hooper and throtlle him – put the camera in one place and back off on the close-ups!!! The camerawork was so distracting!! But about the time Anne Hathaway showed up, I started to settle into it and to get swept up in its emotional power.
I thought Hugh Jackman was everything you could want in a film musical Jean Valjean. As for poor Russell Crowe, he’s really can sing, but he just doesn’t have the right voice – or presence – for Javert. (My biggest disagreement with your review is on his performance of “Stars”; I felt nothing so much during that song as Crowe’s profound discomfort with singing it.) Hathaway KILLED it, of course, Banks and Redmayne were wonderful, Seyfried was lovely, but I got a little tired of her machine-gun vibrato.
And as for the Thernadiers, well Sasha Baron-Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were both funny, but could have been SO much funnier if either Hooper or his editor had known how to frame and cut comedy scenes. “Master of the House” was the only other spot in the film where the camera work and editing drove me to distraction – way too many cuts and way too much camera action undercut the payoff of every inspired sight gag. I was gratified to see that Bonham Carter has gained a bit more confidence in her singing or at least in her interpretation; she sold the jokes in her song this time in a way she wasn’t capable of doing in SWEENEY TODD. (Thankfully, thought, she didn’t have to be much of a singer to get by in this role.)
Finally, I was so thrilled to see Colm Wilkinson!!! I think his reappearance in the final scene made me cry even harder than I normally do during the final scene, just to see that he was part of this film all we LES MIZ geeks have waited so long to see!
I think the naysayers have come in gunning for this film on two fronts – a dislike of Tom Hooper or a dislike of ,musicals in general, and they’ve proceeded to use either of both of those clubs to beat the film to a pulp.
Absolutely Pat. You hit it on the nose there as far as I’m concerned. Actually the film has received more favorable reviews than negative, but the negatives really go for the jugular as you have noted. Seems like we are in full agreement thoughout, with only a varying view of Russell Crowe’s “Stars” as a bone of contention. Your own analysis here is as good as any review of the film! Interesting point about Seyfried’s vibrato. Hathaway, Jackman, Barks, Redmayne are superlative. Yes the camera was in overdrive in those first 15 minutes, but as you assert it settles in shortly thereafter. Yep, Wilkinson’s appearance really brings some extra tears to that already beautifully stirring finale. Thanks for the much appreciated stellar reaction my friend, and the sensational comment!
And the naysayers got some bad news today when Tom Hooper was nominated for the DGA (Director’s Guild awards) Love it!!!!!
Sam, returning to say I’ve now seen this film – the first one I’ve seen on the new Imax screen in my town. It was a fairly full house and people clapped at the end. I enjoyed it and was moved, but did feel that the insistent close-ups and camerawork got rather wearing and all on one note, and, like Jon, I felt after a while there were too many close-ups of people crying. I kept wishing the cameras would move back and let us see more of the scene, and every time this happened I was sorry it didn’t last for longer. Unfortunately I was sitting right under a loudspeaker which somewhat distorted the sound at times, but most of the singers sounded great to me all the same, although I did wonder if it would have been better still if they hadn’t been required to sing live.
Especially loved Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman and Samantha Barks as Eponine, and I also really liked the young boy playing Gavroche – a shame that the full song ‘Little People’, which i love on the original cast album, wasn’t included, but I gather it had already been dropped from the Broadway and West End productions. (I hadn’t remembered this from seeing it in the West End, but that was many years ago now.) I did also like Russell Crowe’s singing most of the time, though his voice isn’t really operatic. And Sasha Baron Cohen was a lot of fun.
Thanks so much for returning Judy, and for adding such thoughtful commentary to the debate. I know the insistent use of close ups has sharply divided the response to the film, and has even been the major stumbling block for many to issue a favorable take. Not having as many background shots is sadly the price to pay for such a strategy. True though, that the proximity of that speaker didn’t help things. Yep “Little People” was a score casuality, and the new song that was added, “Suddenly” was rather mediocre. Agreed completely on Hathaway, Jackman, Barks (and Redmayne). Thanks again!!!!