by Sam Juliano
One of the running jokes the last few weeks is how many times I have watched Les Miserables on the big screen. I have kept this big secret from circulating, as I would surely be seen as someone with more than a few screws loose if I divulged the truth. I have always regarded a musical film as more imminently condusive to re-viewings if for no other reason than to revel in the songs in much the same way someone would listen to a CD album at home. The theatre’s booming speakers and the big screen visualization of course make it much too tempting if the theatre is just minutes from your home. Alas, in the spirit of full divulgence I hereby provide the evidence for the loss of my sanity, if indeed I ever had any when it comes to movies on the outside.
After what seemed like an eternity for the Christmas Day opening, I escorted my family to attend a sneak preview on Christmas Eve at 10:00 P.M. a day ahead of the planned viewing. The problem with this strategy is that we uniformly refused to forfeit our original itinerary, and went ahead with the holiday viewing, seeing Les Miz a second time, albeit two hours earlier at 8. What does one do after watching the same film on two successive days, much less days few would ever venture out to a multiplex? The answer is bonafide lunacy. See it again on the day after Christmas, and then a fourth time the following night after that. So there you have it. Four nights consecutively. The first two were with the full family contingent, the third with my wife and two daughters, and the fourth with two cousins. After that four-peat I stayed clear of screens showing the cinematic transcription of one of the most successful musical theater phenomenons in history, content to that point to listen to the CD score in my computer room.
That is until earlier this evening, when I indulged in a fifth showing with my son Danny and my very good friend and site colleague Dennis Polifroni, who had not seen the film until now. So after two weeks and change I again submitted to the ravishing score, relentless close-ups and live singing that invariably define this most interesting musical hybrid. I expected either deju vu or a modest falling out. What I got was quite the opposite. Seemingly invigorated with the mantra of absence makes the heart grow fonder I found director Hooper’s controversial decisions more satisfying than ever, and the film’s emotional core as resonant as every single past viewing. It’s like I am saying to myself yeah he got it right. He knew precisely how to maximize the emotional potential of this material. In the car on the way home, Dennis glowingly praised Hooper’s strategy and thought the director’s branch blew it for not awarding him with a nomination. I assured Dennis that the film did quite well with eight other nominations, a solid review concensus, and of course the big showing at the Globes the other night, where it won more awards that any other film.
The film would have done even better with the critics if there wasn’t a backlash after the standing ovations the film had originally received in New York during previews for Broadway personnel. Many believed there was some resentment for a theatre crowd making confident calls on a different medium, and there was certain disdain for Tom Hooper, who just had his day in the sun two years ago. The result was that some unfavorable reviews were especially vicious toward Hooper’s bold choices and even a few of the singers. Mind you this was a distinct minority, but it stung just at the vital time when everyone was watching.
Film musicals usually bear the negative brunt of the youthful blogger critic, most of whom have no taste or background in musical theater, opera or recitatives. The musical has always alienated some who never got beyond the implausibility, even in the case of something like Les Miserables that is far closer to straight opera than conventional song and dance. Of course, Schonberg and Boublil knew back in the mid 80′s when they wrote their ravishing score that Hugo’s philosophical and emotional novel required an operatic slant right down to the singing of nearly every last phrase. There can never be appreciation for this kind of art form by those predisposed against it or from others who simply don’t appreciate this kind of music in the first place.
In any case, this evening’s repeat viewing confirmed the soaring lyricism, the extraordinary performances from Anne Hathaway, Hugh Jackman, Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks and the most acceptable work from Russell Crowe, the latter of whom is a favorite target from those who deem to make summary judgement on his singing ability. The story arc and various scene segues being more familiar now seemed to work better than ever, and the technical contributions from the cinematography to the costumes and sound mixing were all on a high level of accomplishment.
Those who claim they dislike the film point to bombast, but this of course is precisely what Les Miserables aims to project in it’s epic scope, while it’s intimate aspects are wholly sublime. Many who have criticized Hooper’s artistic choices of course are people who have never directed a scene in their lives. The criticisms are really a justification of a negative or indifferent view of the source material.
Les Miserables on the fifth go-around is just as great as it was during the fourth visit and surely on par to how it will be assessed when the half-dozen number is achieved. If I were to do my Ten Best list over again today, I’d be hard-pressed to have this lower than poll position. Like last year’s The Artist, it’s really my favorite film of 2012, regardless of how I numbered it, and I was thrilled to hear such effusive praise from Dennis. This is why lists are only good for the day they are composed. I will rectify the situation next week when I cast my first vote ever for the Muriel Awards, after being invited a few days ago.
I think my EXACT words, as the film moved into the final credits, were: THIS IS HOW YOU MAKE A SCREEN MUSICAL.
Gone were the dead moments of reflection between numbers that poisoned otherwise wonderful stage-to-screen adaptations like DREAMGIRLS and CHICAGO. Hooper brought a kind of reality to the proceedings that has been a hallmark of his work both on the big and small screen and I was immediately reminded of his LONGFORD TV film from a few years ago when I realized that his use of close-ups in LES MISERABLES was going for the EXACT same emotional effect.
LES MISERABLES is a musical property with more than it’s fair share of big, bold set pieces that require many of, if not all of, the cast on screen at the same time to add their voices to a chorus of bravery or challenge. However, what LES MISERABLES is most famous for is the intimacy of the main characters personal fights with their inner demons and the reflections they make to themselves about questionable actions and decisions made during the course of the narrative. I have read many a reviewer that have bitched and moaned about Hoopers decision to frame many of these numbers in extreme close-up, that his framing is all wrong for a musical of this kind. Looking at the film last night (with Sam and his middle boy, Danny, in tow), I was astounded by how right Hoopers decisions were and how effective his use of this kind of technical intimacy lent to charcater construction and the flow of the libretto.
The performances are to die for.
We have been talking for weeks now about how unstoppable the great Daniel Day-Lewis has become on his way to grabbing just about every major prize for his spot-on turn as LINCOLN, and I would never take away from the effectiveness this actor, probably the most skilled in film today, but…
Hugh Jackman is just a shirt-tail away from matching Day-Lewis’s brilliance with his utterly spectacular turn as Jean ValJean, the wrongly punished prisoner who tries to make good when he flees the parameters of his parole when released from jail. His turn perfectly balances the pent up emotions of a man torn between freedom and doing the right thing. Jackman, a veteran of the musical theatre, was the perfect casting for the lead and the dramatics of his voice are perfectly matched with the same kind of dramatics in his physical presence on screen. He’s bold, strong, yet keeps at bay a humanity that a lesser actor would have flubbed in lieu of worrying about the vocal precisions the character demands. If there could be an upset for Daniel Day-Lewis’s inevitable Oscar win in February then look no further than Hugh Jackman who, I believe, is breathing down the Academy voters collars to wrestle the prize to his mantle piece.
In fact, I found all of the cast of LES MISERABLES bringing their A+ game to the production. Revered as more than just a “musical” for the stage, LES MISERABLE shares with WEST SIDE STORY and SWEENY TODD the odd hybrid of being a musical/opera of sorts and it’s reputation since it’s premiere (both on the London and New York stages) in the 80′s has enticed many a great singer and/or musical actor to do some of their best work. Well, the buck didn’t stop with the screen adaptation. Sascha Baron Cohen (of BORAT and HUGO fame) does some of his very best work here as a slimy inn-keeper whose M.O. is thievery and some the worst culinary devices in screen history. Helena Bonham Carter (Mrs. Tim Burton), has a minor field-day in her comic turn as Baron Cohen’s sleezy wife, often reminding him that he’s mispronouncing Cosette’s name during his pleadings to keep her home even though he’s been abusing the poor waif with every fiber of his being.
Russell Crowe, regardless to whether he’s the greatest singer in the world or not (he’s not), has taken some really unjust ribbing for his vocal turn as the obsessed lawman, Inspector Javear. His vocal range is far from operatic and, in comparison to Jackman’s professional training, would never be in contention for a recording contract. However, seeing the film only a few hours ago, I must say that I was impressed with his rendering of some of the key numbers in the film and found his performance NOT to be the detriment so many are claiming it to be. Crowe is a formiddable actor whose intense physical presence can become intimidating given the part he’s given to portray (see what I’m talking about in films like GLADIATOR or ROMPER STOMPER), and he’s very wise to use that same physical intimidation to embue Javear with a power that adds to his vocals. What Crowe lacks in strength as a vocalist is amply disguised and rendered well done because the combination of the physical and the vocal work together extremely well.
If there is a performance in the film that could make you forget about everyonew else in the cast (and all are doing some of the best work in their careers), then the showstopper of the piece is, most certainly, the frail yet shockingly beautiful Anne Hathaway as Fantine. Her moments in the movie are fleeting, she’s gone just after the 1st quarter mark of the film. However, in a moment of such touching poignancy as to see her plead for understanding as she commits crimes to obtain funds to feed her starving off-spring (the afforementioned Cosette), Hathaway all but brings the house down with her pitch perfect rendition of one of the cornerstone numbers of the entire play. I know I was not alone in the theatre last night that will attest that I heard audible weeping from many in the audience when Hathaway quietly, but powerfully, unleashed her spot-on rendition of “I DREAMED A DREAM”. It was at this very moment of the film that I said a condolencsey prayer for the great Sally Field (emotionally devastating with her turn as Mary Todd Lincoln) for I knew her chances at receiving the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress of the Year were destroyed by Hathaway’s take-no-prisoners turn. Hathaway, vocally trained by the great Julie Andrews when readying for her performance in the throwaway THE PRINCESS DIARIES, balances a truly remarkable dramatic performance with some of the most intimately delicate vocalizations I have ever heard in a screen musical before and her return for the finale, a dream sequence of hope and redemption, is the icing on the cake for a musical adaptation that makes nary a wrong step.
We have all bemoaned the absence of Kathryn Bigelow in the Oscar race for Best Director of the Year (as her work for ZERO DARK THIRTY, the very BEST American film of 2012, was seen as a threat to Steven Spielberg’s momentum), but I dare say that I moan in just as much pain and hurt by knowing the Academy overlooked Tom Hooper for guiding Les MISERABLE successfully to the big screen. After all, LES MISERABLES IS a great movie. Do great movies get on the screen blindly and without a captain to maintain a steady course through tumultous seas? Some would say that the property and score were enough to land LES MISERABLES a top slot on the end of the year BEST OF lists and that Hooper just phoned in the whole thing and let the music and the performers do all the work. I say BULLSHIT, though. Anyone who has seen LES MISERABLES or, for that matter, any of Hoopers earlier, great work, will know that the earmarks of his kind of attention to detail, good taste in choosing the right shots, production designers or editing are all over this miraculous musical. This ship was not guided by a ghost. It was steered into port, gloriously, by an ace director whose technical skill and emotional conscience are the driving force behind bringing this monumental work of musical brilliance effectively to the screen.
If a gun were put to my head and I was forced to make up a list of the best films of 2012 I would, without hesitation, name LES MISERABLES in my No. 2 position. It’s that good. As for PERSONAL favorites this past year, LES MISERABLES makes my short list with wonderfully entertaining films like DJANGO UNCHAINED, SKYFALL and BRAVE.
I understand why Sam’s passion for this film has brought him back to the movie houses again and again.
THIS IS HOW A GREAT MUSICAL SHOULD BE.
Well Dennis, this was an absolutely spectacular, passionate response to LES MISERABLES. It’s one I can pretty much stand with you on throughout. For one, I agree that Jackman is nearly as excellent as Day-Lewis, and that Crowe was the scapecoat for those who feel they know what good singing is or isn’t. Sure his voice is more standard, but the character he played is not violated but such a projection. Yes, Hathaway was astounding, and I found Redmayne and Barks Oscar nomination worthy. I also completely agree with you that Hooper should be among the directors for his bold choices, and that he has indeed proven yet again why he is so effective with actors. Thrilled to hear you have the film near the top of your list, and that you acknowledge the incomparable operatic beauty of the score. I will say that I do like CHICAGO and DREAMGIRLS too, but LES MISERABLES is a completely different animal, and one I have adored since it’s 1988 opening on Broadway. Great comment!!!
Well, I had my doubts. Like you I had seen the NYC Broadway stage production and thought nothing could match the experience, but….
Well, lets just say the placement on my list (No. 2) for the 10 best of 2012 says it all…
I hereby provide the evidence for the loss of my sanity . . .
Who needs evidence?
Congrads on your “coming out,” Sam, and for your pride in indulging your appreciation of something you clearly love. I’ve seen The Artist, for example, more times than you’ve seen Les Mis — not because I felt it was the best film of that year, mind you, but because I was attracted to the romanticism, much of which is driven by the musical score.
Although I don’t share your effusive regard for Les Mis, I do appreciate the film and found myself attracted to the music and the performances — unexpectedly so. I also agree with Dennis as to the quality of Jackman’s work here. The quality of his acting is evident not just in his vocal machinations but also in his way of being. Though I’m not a fan of Tom Hooper’s directorial style, I acknowledge his successes in working with actors.
Go for it!
Pierre—
Like you I spent the last month of 2011 and first month of 2012 over-indulging on THE ARTIST, which just got better and better everytime I saw it. In retrospect I’m not sure there was another film I liked more during the entire year, and much of this is precisely what you have noted: “The romanticism driven by the musical score.” Obviously there were many others out there who felt the same way, and it racked up Best Picture awards around the country and the world at a record pace, capping it all off with it’s Globes and Oscar wins. But wouldn’t you know it, there were dissenters here in our very home, this gloriously critical fraternity we casll WitD! Ha! I think I saw THE ARTIST 6 times in the theater, but you may have gone even further. Your own view on LES MIZ is more than fair enough, especially considering you were not the biggest fan with the original sourece material and stage musical. Yes, one can’t praise Jackman enough for his demanding role, and you are absolutely right to go beyond the excellent singing. Hooper is devisive for sure, but you are right that he does exceedingly well with actors. Thanks as always my friend!
I think you and I can agree, Sam, that 2011 gave us better films than The Artist. But that doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy it more than some. And, as you may recall, I wasn’t thrilled at all the first time I saw The Artist — not until my second viewing and I gave way to its unabashed emotionalism.
I may be the only one who has never seen where Les Mis captures anyone attention and what all the chatter was about. I have seen a stage production in Philadelphia a few years back, it was free, I would not have gone out of my way to pay for a show I just didn’t get.
So all this fuss over a this movie is surprising, not that these actors are not good at their craft, so after these two glowing reviews I may have to go spend my money!
Jeff—
Thanks so much for stopping by!!! I must assure you that you are hardly alone in that conviction. As you know the roadshow has won worldwide attention and acclaim over decades, and there is a strong LES MIZ sub-culture out there. I have always found that the most passionate fans seem to be people who love opera and/or musical theatre in the first place, but that is not a general rule either. There are some who loved CABARET and CHICAGO but couldn’t take LES MIZ or PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. This Pucciniesque romanticism is definitely not everyone’s thing and I respect that. I would love to find out what you think of the film is you get to it. Thanks again very much my friend!!!
Jeff, I saw the original touring company production of this show and was unimpressed. But I have to admit I liked the film version — not without exception, mind you, but liked and moved by it nonetheless.
You can count me as a fan of the original show and of the film version. The actors all delivered marvelous singing performances, even Russell Crowe was a more impressive Javert than some are giving him credit for. Valjean’s ‘Bring Him Home’ brings the house down. There’s a sense of intimacy with the close-ups that heightens this already emotional material. Delightful “admissions” and an incredible comment from Dennis.
Peter, be rest assured I have counted you (even twice in fact!) as a fan of the Broadway show and the film! Crowe always gives many of the self-professed evaluators of what true singing constitutes to strut their stuff. His singing was not supposed to be ornate but deapan in the first place. One could argue that he isn’t operatic enough (I have alluded to this in my original review) but he hardly a bad singer. Let’s just say he’s either an easy taret for those too uncomfortable to issue blanket praise for the film, or a “weak link” well worth exploiting for those on the outside. I know a professional singer who claims Crowe was actually quite good. I can’t agree with you more that Jackman ‘brings the house down’ with his big aria. And yes I am with you on the close-ups as I have explained. Thanks so very much my friend!
You’re funny Sam. Thanks for admitting this to the lot of us, however it does not surprise me as you are definitely one to re-watch films quite often.
For some reason, I rarely re-watch films that have been just released. Even films I love sometimes go 5-10 years between viewings. Not sure why this is. I honestly can’t even imagine a scenario myself that would cause me to view a film twice within the same year. I guess that’s just not how I operate.
Like I said before, I like this film. The music is spectacular and the staging of it is quite wonderful for the most part. My favorite performances are Hathaway’s and Redmayne’s. I guess I’m not as high on Jackman as some of you are. He’s fine, but I guess I appreciated the other performances I mentioned more for some reason.
I still think Crowe is serviceable, but nothing spectacular…..not sure he came across as menacing as I wanted? No real complaints here but nothing amazing either.
I don’t mind the close-ups. They were fine. My only REAL complaint is the shaky-cam, but that’s nothing new. I’ve been complaining of shaky cam in other films as well of late. I personally didn’t enjoy this aspect of it. I could understand how others could be able to overlook it or appreciate it though.
Your assertions on people complaining that the musical is too bombastic etc are right on. People that are against the concept of musicals to begin with, should not even attempt to explain why they don’t like this film. Their opinions are not important on the subject anyway. Same for anyone who is against any genre type…..they don’t like it as a concept to begin with. I’m more interested in the opinions of someone more open to the genre or likes the genre than someone who doesn’t.
I certainly think it’s far better than Chicago was.
Your assertions on people complaining that the musical is too bombastic etc are right on. People that are against the concept of musicals to begin with, should not even attempt to explain why they don’t like this film. Their opinions are not important on the subject anyway. Same for anyone who is against any genre type…..they don’t like it as a concept to begin with.
Jon, you really penned a brilliant observation here! Here is the sequence of events surrounding a LES MIZ hater (or general musical hater):
1. I hate this film and must now justify that hate
2. I hate the very idea of musicals and heart-on-chest emotions.
3. Musicals are manipulative
4. Musicals are bombastic.
Of course as you note ‘bombast’ is part of the musical equation, so it’s never much of an original or valid disclaimer.
While yes, I like Jackman more than you and found him the most vital of all, I agree with you across the board. Thanks for the tremendous comment!
Sam, can we say the same when you give lukewarm praise (or even outright dismissal) to brilliant but coldly cerebral films for being…. “emotionally distancing” LOL.
Ha! Fair enough Maurizio. Excellent point!
Sam, to an extent I like the movie in spite of the music. Some numbers are good, some not, and I was disappointed by Jackman considering his stage reputation. His voice often seemed little better than Crowe’s and it seemed that more could be done to differentiate Valjean’s musical voice from Javert’s. Maybe it’s not operatic enough. But Hooper’s “bombast” carries the day, even if his resort to close-ups and handheld shots doesn’t match the usual idea of cinematic bombast. There were numbers when he seemed to cut pointlessly and obtrusively as if to remind us of his existence, but as a dramatic director he did all right. My understanding is that Les Miserables is a bombastic novel — I’ve just started an unabridged translation — and play and film honor that. The ending is probably the most bombastic and best part of it, and its apotheosis feels well-earned.
But let me tell you how unabridged this translation is. I’m past page 40 — this is a hardcover with relatively small type — and we’re still getting introduced to the bishop and Valjean is nowhere in sight. This is going to take awhile….
Haha….I have the unabridged version too and will be starting shortly. Talk to you about it in 5 years.
Samuel–
While I do stand apart from you on the power and strength of Jackman’s voice and the clear differentiation between Valjean and Javert, I applaud you for acknowledgin g that Hooper’s bombast is all part of the fabric of this form and material. I am not so sure I’d use ‘bombast’ to define Hugo’s novel (one I have actually read cover to cover twice in my life) as it veers into intimacy and spirituality more often than people might think. The ending of the film of course is immensely moving as well it should be for a number of reasons. I believe you will see Valjean in about 30 more pages. But the section that focuses solely on the Bishop of Vigne is one of the most immersive in the novel. Thanks as always my friend!
Five times at the cinema, you sad fuck!
Well, I figured this response was imminent.
This would be an interesting topic for discussion, all vitriol aside, how many times one sees certain films in a theater.
I have never seen any film in a theater more than once. If I’m going to go to the movies, I rather watch something completely new.
That’s already an interesting response, and one that I certainly don’t share myself. I sometimes feel bad if I only see a movie twice. I only went to a theater twice to see “Film Socialisme” for instance, both times at the NYFF. I could’ve seen it half a dozen more times at the IFC Center.
I saw FAR FROM HEAVEN 22 times in movie theaters in 2002, and CHARIOTS OF FIRE about 14 times in 1981. So, seems like I am on the other side of the world here! Ha!
Okay, I do draw the line at seeing stuff into the double digits. But if I live long enough, who knows.
God, the FAR FROM HEAVEN debacle. I know I got roped into that one like five times because he was so excited. But, then it went completely off the wall with playing Elmer Bernsteins score, ad nauseum, from the car cd radio and calling up to talk to him only to get Lucille chiming back that he was seeing it again.
It was borderline lunacy and I remember that Oscar telecast well. We practically had to hold Sam back from kicking in the TV screen when Bernstein lost out in the music department and I really thought Sam might go postal when they slighted Julianne Moore in favor of Nicole Kidman for THE HOURS.
The profane expletives that came out of Sam’s mouth that night would have curled the hair on sailor let loose in NYC for shore leave. Lotta MF’s flying around the house that night…
Hysterical, and the eggplant rollatini, by yours truly, was to die for…
You’re on the other side of everything, Sam. Life, sanity, this reality…there’s a film, a near masterpiece, that is the perfect title for your life, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE UNDERNEATH.
Ah shucks guys, cut Sam a break! he plays no favorites. Every year there’s at least one film he latches on to for multiple repeat viewings. Last year it was ‘The Artist.’ What about ‘The Fountain?’ He traveled the continent to see that as I recall. He’s a man on a mission.
Anyone who can survive all this ribbing gets my vote.
Peter–
Thanks for remembering THE FOUNTAIN. I did travel once up to Poughkeepsie New York to some obscure strip mall to see it with Lucille Jason Giampietro, at a time in January when it had left the immediate area. I has seen it alone a few weeks before in the Angelika. Anyway it was a two hour and fifteen minute drive, and the car’s heater broke down on the way up during 10 degree weather. We all suffered frostbite on the way up and my hands were numb to the bone while grasping the steering wheel. Two weeks later i escorted Kaleem Hasan to the outer reaches of Long Island to watch the film yet again after another two hour plus drive. but that theater in a University lecture hall was quite the treat! That January I devoted my life to Aronofsky! Ha!
Pierre: There is no vote of confidence that means more to me than yours!
It was easier when movies were cheaper and I was younger. Back in the early 80s, many theaters had dollar nights and my friends and I would see favorites many times over. In 1982 I could probably recite the entire script of Conan the Barbarian from memory. More recently, the last time I saw a movie twice in the theater was LOTR:Return of the King, seeing it with two different friends when one was laid up and missed the first outing. I was tempted to try Dark Knight Rises in IMAX after first seeing it on a normal screen, but thought better of it. Dollar nights are a distant dream now.
I saw Phantom Menace…11 times in the theater. And then never bought it on video. I’m pretty sure I was trying to convince myself I liked it as much as the first three, a holding action that succeeded temporarily but failed in the long run. Although Natalie Portman didn’t hurt.
Beyond that, the number drops way down. Jurassic Park I know I saw 5 times. I think Independence Day either ties it or came close with 4. Lion King was 4. Man, I used to be able to rattle off all these statistics in an instant. What has happened to me in my old age. (It’s perhaps sadly notable that there were more trips to the theater in ’99 for the overblown Star Wars follow-up than in 2012 for all movies I saw there COMBINED, something I hope to rectify in 2013).
Samuel, there’s a $2 theater near me in Pasadena ($3 for evening shows). Second-run, but this presumably where I’ll be seeing many of 2013′s newbies.
Wow, great Fountain trip story! These confessions are a blast, keep ‘em coming…
Now all this has me curious, so I counted it up.
There were 10 trips to the cinema for new releases this year, including two repeat views, two 2011 films, and a screening of episodes from Oliver Stone’s series on the big screen.
Retros fared better, with 13 screenings.
Overall, I watched (in full) 213 films this year, including repeat viewings, different versions of the same film, and completed miniseries (but excluding films shorter than 40 minutes). A low haul for me, especially when you consider 72 of those films were seen in January & February (May had a whopping four films).
So there you have it. Your lives are now complete due to these statistics lol.
72
Oh and I kept tabs on what I saw last year obviously. This was not off the top of my head
Again Joel, Christ. I like TPM, and I only saw it twice in ’99, and another two times last year for the rerelease. 11 times is a little much for mere convincing yourself, so I’m guessing there was something more in the positive column than Natalie Portman.
The most times I’ve ever seen a movie was ROTS, and that was only 6 times. End of the series (or so we thought), and the only SW movie to open while I could drive. The other prequels I saw twice theatrically, and the original films once each in the ’97 rereleases.
After that– I’ve seen “Castle in the Sky” 4 times over the past year-ish, “Cosmpolis” 3 times, as well as a handful of other movies (“Inception” and “The Dark Knight” were two, though the latter simply so I could see the IMAX version once). After that there’s a range of other movies I’ve seen twice, and are no real big deal. I think I even saw “Fellowship of the Ring” twice, but not the other two. No thank you.
Saddest of all to me are those movies that I would’ve liked to have seen multiple times theatrically, but due to scheduling or whatever became mere one-hit wonders. I would’ve flocked to see the “Evangelion” movies over and over if they played at easier-access theaters, and it burned me to no end seeing “2.0″ play at a local theater on a day I couldn’t show up for it. Never show anime on a Tuesday, damnit. It’s not right.
Craziest thing I’ve ever done moviewise was seeing “Kill Bill, Volume 1″ twice in the theater, on the same day. But beyond that, it’s a basic rule for me that if I see a movie more than once theatrically, I like it. Usually if I don’t like a movie enough to see it twice I already know about halfway through seeing it the first time.
Joel, if you saw PHANTOM MENACE 11 times in the theater, well then you are a bonafide accomplice in the Repeat Movie Fraternity. Bob will especially appreciate that accomplishment, as he has already! Ha! And in my book seeing 213 films in any year no matter where you saw them is a staggering accomplishment!!
Yep THE FOUNTAIN trip story is another lesson in cinematic irresponsibility. Ha!
So you had your own repeat moments there too Bob!
I hope to goodness, Dennis, that none of the rollatini was hurled at the TV set or — God forbid — any of the shocked guests.
Nah, the people that were there for the festivities demolished the food and then split before most of the telecast was done. There’s really only ever three or four people there that like movies or predicting the awards-the true experts. The rest, basically come to eat, visit, have a few laughs and enjoy time spent with friends.
That night, though, we were fully expecting to have to call the wagons in from Bergen Pines to send Sam on a relaxation vacation, lots of sedatives and classes on basket weaving…
It’s so sad to watch people slip away like that. I’m sure you did all you could.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sam, I applaud your passion for movies, even if I sometimes don’t share your tastes. Heee! Based on your enthusiasm alone, I plan to catch ‘Les Miz’ at a matinee this weekend, girding myself for the omission of some of my favorite scenes in the book: ‘The Entrails of the Monster,’ Hugo’s description of the Paris sewers, probably untranslatable to film anyway, and the Battle of Waterloo, inconceivable in a musical unless you can teach the horses to sing or Wellington to do a victory polka with Blucher. I read Hugo’s description of Fantine’s degradation and death last night, welling up as I read, so I’m not immune to this sort of epic pathos.
Also planning to see ‘Django Unchained’ in the next few days. With the title’s echo of Steve Reeves’ “Hercules Unchained” I really don’t expect a serious treatment of racism or slavery. And how about Tarantino upsetting Kushner at the Golden Globes?
Well, Mark, I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised with the “seriousness” of DJANGO UNCHAINED. Yes, it is true that most of the film is presented as a very dark comedy… However, where it counts, Tarantino is not afraid to get gritty and horrifying to express his intolerence to slavery and bigotry. I know there were at least three moments in the film that, for me, were so precise in the depiction of what can now be called the “American Holocaust” that I had to turn away from the screen because Tarantino was unflinching in his depiction and condemnation of slavery and the violence that erupted because of it. In fact, DJANGO UNCHAINED makes it’s points about the cruelty of racism and slavery guite well. That Tarantino disguises all of this in the guise of a cross hybrid of Spaghetti Western/Blaxploitation film is part of the genius of the director to pull you into the story and the statement that he desires to make. It’s one of the most entertaining films of the year and is often raucously funny. However, at it’s heart there is a message about intolerence and how such intolerence should be wiped from the planet.
Kushner would have won the screenplay award at the Globes had they decided, rightfully, to split the category into two factions, one for adapted and one for original. The Globes are notorious for trying to walk to the beat of their own drum. While I was thrilled to see someone give Tarantino his due (and it’s a blisteringly precise, acid tongued screenplay, perfectly in keeping with his wonderful words for films like JACKIE BROWN and PULP FICTION), it’s really a bittersweet victory for Tarantino as he will, most assuredly, lose the Oscar to Wes Anderson for his bizarrely original and hilarious MOONLIGHT KINGDOM in the category of BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY.
Kushner, one of the titan scribes working for the stage (he won the Pulitzer and the Tony for his remarkable ANGELS IN AMERICA), will make minced-meat out of the competition for best ADAPTED screenplay for his probing and humane work on LINCOLN. More than anything, LINCOLN is a triumph for the screenwriter and the central performance by the awe-inducing Daniel Day Lewis. If there are any Oscar LOCKS this year they are, most definately, Daniel Day-Lewis as BEST LEAD ACTOR, Tony Kushner for BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY and Anne Hathaway for BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS…
As for DJANGO… I’d love nothing better than to see Christoph Waltz take the prize for BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR (it’s now the hardest category to predict, a three-way heat between Phillip Seymour Hoffmann for THE MASTER, Tommy Lee Jones for LINCOLN and Christoph Waltz for DJANGO UNCHAINED). In every moment he’s on screen he steals the movie with his over-the-top comic turn… Frankly, Waltz gave my favorite performance in any category this year…
Mark—
“The Battle of Waterloo” and the epic treatment of the Paris sewers (the latter is the major complaint from those who dare to say that Hugo’s expansive work isn’t one of the greatest ever written) are reasons by themselves to pick up the novel! True neither gets much coverage -and could they really?- the latter plays a vital part in the narrative later on. But I love your little joke there! It’s no wonder that one of the novel’s most wrenchingly movings passages brought you to tears! Well my friend, based on what you have related here I am going to go out on a limb and predict that -against all odds- you are going to have far more good than bad to say. You are going in vulnerable to the story! This is the first obstacle. The proof will be in the pudding. Thanks very much my friend. I am greatly looking forward to your response! I am also ceratin you will love DJANGO UNCHAINED. I loved the film for sure, but I found the win over Kushner for screenplay was rather absurd. I think even Tarantino deemed it bizarre. A friend of mine referred to all the n words throughout as the substance of the screenplay. In any case it’s still a terrific film. I greatly look forward to your responses my friend!
A blast to read, one of your most enjoyable pieces. My friends were visiting last weekend, so I watched the Globes which I’ve sat out in recent years (though not with the vehemence of my Oscar protest). Got to see Jodie’s big moment (which I found rather confusing – did I miss something, or did she retire from movies in her speech as well?) and increase my growing crush on Jennifer Lawrence, though I’ve yet to actually see her in a movie. And, of course, I saw Les Miz’s big win. Since I don’t follow these things much, is this the Oscar favorite?
I enjoyed the show on Broadway years ago and am mildly curious about the film. If my moviegoing habits improve soon, I’ll see it in the next month or two; if not, I’ll probably catch it when it hits the $2 second-run theater nearby. I’ll let you know what I think. Unless I dislike it. In which case I will either clam up or run for the hills immediately after letting you know my opinion lol.
Incidentally, my parents put a screener in the other night, and had to stop it in the middle of the assault on Anne Hathaway, which they found to upsetting. Which I guess is a comment on the power of the work, even if they weren’t in the mood.
Five times? I wonder what the record will be when all the dust settles and the film leaves theaters. Do you think it will outstrip Far From Heaven?
Allow me to address several of your queries in order, Joel.
1. The thing with Jodie Foster left me perplexed as well. At first I thought she was finally coming out of the closet as a Lesbian (don’t know what that would accomplish as EVERYONE on the planet knows that she is gay). I, too, thought she was then announcing her retirement as well but… It all boiled down to a big sentimental segue that was, basically, saying that, even after 47 years in the business, she was going to continue her path in the film and acting world providing she could still make her own choices and go forward with her own “voice” picking what she felt was connective for her at the age of 50. I never understood these “honorary” moments from the Globes as they, time and again, pick people that have more than 20 years of professional life left to them. A lifetime achievement award should go, basically, to a veteran of the business that is finally being put out to pasture.
2. Is LES MISERABLES the favorite to win the Oscar for BEST PICTURE?
Well, I wouldn’t say the “favorite”, yet it is close and one to definately consider. It had the third most nominations of the films chosen for the heat in the biggest category and that, in and of itself, lends us to believe it is admired and respected by the Oscar people. However, it’s not closer to the win than say, LINCOLN or LIFE OF PI or AMOUR or any of the five films that procured a nomination for BEST DIRECTOR. True, there were 9 films nominated for BEST PICTURE but only 5 director slots available in the helmers category. The general thinking is that those with the directors nods have the greater chance of winning because the Academy respected the films enough to say the artist behind them were integral to the production. This is unfortunate because no less than three films this year for BEST PICTURE with NO nomination for BEST DIRECTOR are better than some of the films nominated with their directors. LES MISERABLES is one of the MAJOR contenders that failed to recieve the director nod and this severly detriments it’s chances from going all the way to the top slot. It is perplexing to me since this is clearly a DIRECTOR’s film and about 90% of the decisions made to bring it successfully to the screen fell into the lap of the ever watchful Tom Hooper (who won both prizes three years ago for the wonderful THE KINGS SPEECH).
There are many theories as to why this one or that one DIDN’T procure the directors nod (particularly, since films like SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK and BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD didn’t deserve them-not really directors films in the least), and just as many over which of the directors that didn’t get nominated SHOULD have been nominated. Ben Affleck was an early favorite for director for ARGO but, after rewatching the film again the other night, that scenario was more like early over-kill during a year that was only half finished and the heavyweights hadn’t shown themselves yet. His direction was fine, best he’s done so far, but the film is really only a mere trifle and directed by-the-numbers if you ask me. DJANGO UNCHAINED also fell victim to this casternation. However, while the film’s direction is miles ahead of ARGO, DJANGO is really about the performances and the screenwriting of Tarantino. I’d have loved to see him get the nod, but understood that cuts needed to be made. Which leaves us with the afforementioned Hooper and it boggles the mind that many saw fit to state that a film of this scale and magnitude, epic really, could have directed itself.
The biggest omission, however, was Kathryn Bigelow. Look around at the different reviews of the film, read up on many of the blogs that speacialize in movies and this kind of prognostication and you’ll see that the omission of this former winner (THE HURT LOCKER) had been predicted as one of the shoo-in’s the moment ZERO DARK THIRTY made the previews circuit. Arguably the best film of the year, Bigelow rose to the challenge of bringing the same type of intensity she brought to HURT LOCKER to ZERO DARK THIRTY, yet also remained steadfast in the precise decision of remaining unjudgemental during the introspective moments of the film-basically emmulating great journalistic film-making without ever giving you a personal take on her belief about what is going on in the midst of a highly controversial subject. She turned ZERO DARK THIRTY, a film that could have easily been a bore to most, into a white-knuckled thriller that stands tall with some of the best thrillers/action films of all time.
The theories as to why Bigelow and Hooper were missing from the nominations are many but, Sam and I both believe its two-fold. First off, the subject matter, and execution of the facts, behind ZERO DARK THIRTY have come under the scrutiny of govermental big-wigs that cried foul about Bigelow’s accuracey and many of them claim that much of the film is untrue hog-wash (c’mon people, we all know “waterboarding” was used to derive information). These screws have put great pressure on many that help make the nomination choices and, as it has been implied, may have been frightened to nominate the “author” of a “piece of innacurate trash” (a quote I heard in a news telecast about the film just the other day).
But, more than likely (or so it seems to me), the Academy really snubbed Hooper and, particularly Bigelow for a more obvious reason.
LINCOLN is the kind of big, detailed, “inspirational” period piece that the Academy loves to award the big prizes to. It’s stance in presenting the heroic rather than the controversial is just the kind of thing the Oscar voters salivate over. It a positive film with an authentic feel for it’s time and covers a triumphant moment in American history that reverberates even to this day. My theory is that the real reason Bigelow and Hooper were NOT nominated was to stack the deck in LINCOLN’s favor and give free passage to Steven Spielberg. Had Spielberg been nominated in the directors category with the likes of Bigelow and Hooper his chances would have diminished as the vote would have split all over the place (probably going in favor to Bigelow, who WAS the best of the year) and the ACADEMY wants THEIR favorite of the year to triumph.
Now, I’m as big an admirer of Spielberg as much as the biggest fans of the director there could ever be. But, I am also an honest reviewer and even I will tell you, that in comparison, Hooper and Bigelows directorial efforts were better than Spielbergs and that ZERO DARK THIRTY WAS the BEST PICTURE from any country in this calendar year of 2012.
Call it a foul move but, I truly believe the Academy stacked the deck in Spielberg’s favor. With that in mind, I am forseeing a sweep for LINCOLN in the major categories (Editing-though this one should really go to ZERO DARK THIRTY, Adapted Screenplay for Tony Kushner, more than likely Best Supporting Actor for Tommy Lee Jones, Director, Picture of the Year and, the most inevitable win of the night, Daniel Day-Lewis for Best Lead Actor) and, quite possibly more if the dick-sucking for this film continues (it could also take cinematography as the photographer is the highly respected two time winner-both for Spielberg films-Janusz Kaminski-and music-also a Spielberg veteran and a 5 tim winner-for John Williams).
It looks like a LINCOLN kinda night next month.
3. Will Sam, enivitably, best the 22 times he saw FAR FROM HEAVEN?
Well, that is a really STUPID question because one with half a brain knows that the totally insane ever take a step backward. Their compulsivity for excess only worsens as time goes by and, usually, never subsides until electricity is introduced into the brain by doorway of the temples. Understand, this is not folly or the behavior of a man that really LOVES movies. This is a deeply disturbed individual who has lost sight of the important things in life and likes to dream that the fantasies on the big screen ARE life.
No, this will NEVER stop, Sam will break that record set in 2002 at some point UNLESS a friend and family intervention, where he’s wrapped up in a straight-jacket, given electro-shock and then thrown into deep psychological analysis for years on end, occurs. We all love Sam, but he’s far from the model of sane living. Painting the lawn furniture and weaving baskets at Bergen Pines seems like an inevitable finale for this once sane thinker and logician.
In a nutshell. Sam’s crazier than a shit-house rat.
Sam in the asylum. Do not adjust your set, normality has been resumed.
The director noms are the most puzzling aspect of the whole thing. Not that it matters per se….but puzzling nonetheless. I can’t quite figure out what all the hoopla is about for Argo though, which I found to be merely serviceable at best. No character development, cliched moments like the chase scene on the runway, stereotypical portrayal of Iranians etc.
Joel—
Thanks so much for the welcome response! I had a lot of fun writing it, and there’s nothing to match the spontineity of penning thoughts late at night right after the viewing. I really do hope you get a chance to see the film soon enough, especially that you had a generally favorable reaction to the Broadway show. I am sorry to hear that your parents didn’t go beyond the assault on Anne Hathaway (Fantine) as her big moment occured about a minute later with her famous wrenching solo. But I quite understand. LES MISERABLES is suffused with hardship and suffering, and it’s appeal was never one of exhiliaration but strictly of the soulful variety. The film does indeed have a few ‘turn away’ moments. As far as the query about theatrical viewings I seriously doubt the FAR FROM HEAVEN record will be challenged, or even the second-place one for CHARIOTS OF FIRE. It all comes down to timing and my resolve to drag locals. Most have now seen it, so that option has nearly been repleted. I accomplished the FFH record when a local art house multiplex held the film for six weeks. I was so delighted with the film’s success there, and remember counting the number of people who were attending to convince myself that teh theater (and film) were thriving. That was at least one of my sinful obsessions. Ha!
Jon—
I like ARGO quite a bit more than you do and found the characters were adequately framed and developed. But I agree that Affleck’s direction isn’t so out of this world that the snub is so reprehensible, at least not in this sense in the same league as what happened to Bigelow.
Jon, this year’s awards process is a bit screwier than usual because the timing of nominations has changed across the various awards bodies. Most notable, I think, is that when AMPAS determined its nominations, the Directors Guild hadn’t yet issued theirs. Not that AMPAS always follows suit, but people do look to other groups when making their assessments. I think this is one reason why nominations across the board this year seem to be a bit more all over the place.
As for Argo, first of all it had an earlier release date than the other so-called heavyweights, which allowed it to stand alone for consideration. The film’s direction was solid and well-grounded if not exceedingly imaginative or transcendant. Affleck also gets pats on the back for turning his career around, after a period of relative mediocrity, and showing competence in areas other than acting. I consider the film to be a taut and entertaining political thriller. What damages my view of it is the divergence from fact with respect to the final chase sequence on the runway. Although fact-based films often embellish the truth, this crucial aspect went a bit too far for my taste. Regardless, I view it as a good film though not deserving of top accolades.
Wow, I can’t say I disagree with one statement made by Pierre here. Not one, not even the final assessment of the film!
I see on Gold Derby the film is in a near dead-head with LINCOLN on the predictions:
Lincoln 13
Argo 10
Silver Linings Playbook 1 (Jeff Wells, of course!)
“I can’t quite figure out what all the hoopla is about for Argo though, which I found to be merely serviceable at best. No character development, cliched moments like the chase scene on the runway, stereotypical portrayal of Iranians etc.”
I agree Jon. I initially gave the film **** (which was extremely generous to begin with). Then I heard the ending was completely made up. Are you #$%@& kidding me was my response. It puts the whole picture in such a bad light. Like Dennis mentions elsewhere, it was released early during award season time, and clearly overrated by many. All the problematic things you bring up I agree with. I would also add the fact that it starts out like an awkward comedy at first before dropping the laughs to become a thriller. I found this structure very strange and unfulfilling. And let’s be honest…. Ben Affleck is just another big time actor that makes second rate films. Hollywood has a history of brown-nosing these people forever. Gone Baby Gone and The Town are average pictures as well, nothing more.
Geez, Maurizio. You are a great friend, and someone I respect as much as anyone I know, but I wouldn’t want you on a panel to judge me if I commited any kind of crime. You’d recommend the death penalty for littering at the bat of an eyelash. Ha! I could honestly care less if the end was compromised at all. It brings some emotional heft to a meticulous and often thrilling story that was a natural for cinematic treatment.
Forget the four star or the three-and-a-half star rating.
This is an out and out 4.5 star movie. It appealed to the intellect and the emotions, the pacing was exceptional and all the actors gave exceptional performances. I can’t blame Affleck either for the end, nor for the dramatizations that preceeded it.
It was more a case of the fictitious ending opening up the floodgates. I already had reservations, but that chase really made me want to not give any benefits of the doubt anymore (when I learned the truth). And it doesn’t really bring an emotional heft… it just brings a formulaic/cliche ending we’ve seen a million times before. If it was based on actual events than it would of been a different story, but it wasn’t.
Well, for one, I do not myself invalidate the whole of the film for the final eight minutes, and secondly I approve of that final eight minutes as an enactment of dramatic license and the proper emotional capper. I was not myself looking for anything revelatory in that ending (I got all that in the preceeding two hours) and wanting to go out in the proper emotional state of mind after being intellectually jogged all the way. Your view isn’t wrong. My view isn’t right. We just sometimes look at things differently.
Yeah but I keep saying that my problem was with more than 8 final minutes. It’s just that once I found the conclusion was completely made up (to adhere to a typical cliched ending) I stopped being generous towards a film I knew was essentially rather ho-hum to begin with. Either way, the whole Affleck being snubbed controversy seems like nonsense to me. Based solely on pictures nominated by the Academy… ZDT, Amour, Lincoln, Django, and Les Mis are all better IMO (and thus deserve best director more).
Maurizio, I went into ARGO wanting to believe it would be “ho hum” as I am generally no big fan of the actor turned director phenomenon in Hollywood. And Affleck as an actor never really impressed me. But alas like the overwhelming majority of the critics and audiences I found ARGO deeply immersive and moving. Say what you will about the way the film was crafted the story itself is anything but ho-hum and everyone involved made exceptional contributions. The film by any barometer of measurement was one of the best American films of 2012 and on any other day than the day I composed my list I may well have had it in the Top 10. The “online” critics society, which includes Ed Howard, Craig Kennedy, Marilyn Ferdinand, Jason Bellamy and several other respected bloggers we read and know well actually named this the best film of the year ahead of AMOUR and some other art house entries. Mind you I am NOT saying I agree with that extreme regard, but I offer it up to show that there are many we respect who found this film anything but ho-hum. As always there are some taste issues here, though I don”t necessarily play this card with you, since generally you are very welcoming of films with these kind of political subjects.
That said I completely agree with you that every one of those other five directors you mentioned to my way of thinking were more lamentable omissions.
I’ll add here that what bothers me about ARGO and all this awards hoopla is not anything connected to it’s intrinsic artistic value or achievement but the out-of-control (though expected) politicizing by Big Bad Harvey Weinstein and that charming master “statesman” of the movies George Clooney, who served as an executive producer of the film. That whole scenario is nauseating.
Interesting analysis, Dennis. I’m an outsider on these things lately but part of me suspects the Academy could give Les Mis the top honor anyway, on the strength of the source material (which may be one reason, however boneheaded, that they did not nominate Hooper). Re: Jodie & the Globe honararies for fiftysomething’s, true, but at least they are still giving out these awards piblicly. The only reason I refuse to watch the Oscars is that Hollywood has decided to give its past (the best thing about it) the finger by axing this segment from the broadcast. To deny Lauren Bacall and Francis Ford Coppola their moment in the setting sun so that there can be more time for stale rapartee and focus on the horse race and fashion parade aspects of the show is really inexcusable. Plus what a kick it would have been to see an Oscar montage celebrating Godard’s oeuvre! That was the last year I watched the Oscars.
Another thing worth mentioning here is that it appears ARGO is being judged by “art house” standards. ARGO is a Big Hollywood Movie, aand in that realm it’s exceedingly well-done.
“It was more a case of the fictitious ending opening up the floodgates. I already had reservations, but that chase really made me want to not give any benefits of the doubt anymore (when I learned the truth). And it doesn’t really bring an emotional heft… it just brings a formulaic/cliche ending we’ve seen a million times before. If it was based on actual events than it would of been a different story, but it wasn’t.”
Yeah Maurizio this is about what happened with me with the ending. I get it though. I mean this is a “big” hollywood type film as Sam brings up, however, I felt the film was too cliched to really have any lasting impact beyond watching it in the moment. Mind you, it was entertaining and slick and fairly well paced I suppose, but I was surprised with how average it was for most of it. After seeing several people name it as the top film of the year, I am flabbergasted that it would get such praise. Maybe I’m losing touch. I didn’t really ever get to know the Affleck character, nor any of the hostages…..and the shouting, angry Iranians were just so typical of how these films portray them, that runway scene was almost laughably ridiculous.
My other complaint with Argo, is that the script is loaded with “movie lines”, meaning things that people say only in the movies, like it was trying too hard to be movie-cool with its dialogue.
Sam,
An interesting discussion though on the “Hollywood” movie versus the “art-house” movie and expectations and evaluations under these considerations. There have been some rather high profile “procedurals” or “thrillers” that I thought bridged the gap between Hollywood and Art-House pretty well in recent memory: Syriana, Munich, No Country for Old Men, The Hurt Locker…..(haven’t seen ZD30 yet). These were interesting films but that which were also very entertaining and very slick. There is a way to do it very well.
Jon, I wouldn’t have NO COUNTRY grouped with these films, though I do agree it’s great. I am no fan of SYRIANA at all, and think ARGO tops MUNICH. THE HURT LOCKER however, is masterful.
Sam – five times in just over two weeks!? Wow! I am not a huge musical fan and have been too deep in the Canadian woods to truly get a taste for the theatre but you have my attention. I may even see if we can see it one the big screen – once at least. A great review Sam and a pleasure to read.
Terrill—
The deep humanity and stirring underpinnings of the work will probably win you over, even with a general indifference to musicals in general. True, though that your island paradise hasn’t yielded an opportunity to see the stage version. But I am optimistic. Many thanks as always my friend for the exceedingly kind words!