Stars: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit, Samantha Barks
Director: Tom Hooper
Oscar History: 8 nominations/3 wins (Best Picture, Makeup*, Actor-Hugh Jackman, Supporting Actress-Anne Hathaway*, Original Song-"Suddenly," Sound Mixing*, Art Direction, Costume)
Snap Judgment Ranking: 4/5 stars
I will start with the confession that multiple reviewers seem to be sharing about this film, in that I've never seen this musical either on stage or on a taped version on PBS. I have received a copy of the book for Christmas, but have not had the chance to read it, primarily because it's 1500-pages long and that's not going to happen in the course of a week. Sure, I knew a couple of the songs-I do write recaps of Glee, so I knew a couple, and I don't live under a rock, so I know of Susan Boyle's performance of "I Dreamed a Dream." But what I have to say is that I don't have a built in love for the musical-I had to pay attention to learn character's names, I did not sing along to "Do You Hear the People Sing," in fact the only person I know for certain was in the original Broadway run of the show is Judy Kuhn (and I'm a bit of a Broadway nerd, though this is clearly a blind spot). So I went in with blinders on and as few preconceptions as I could muster.(Spoilers Ahead) For those of you, who like me didn't know the story, it's obviously based on the novel by Victor Hugo and the musical by Schonberg/Kretzmer. It tells the story of a man named Jean Valjean (Jackman) who went to prison for twenty years for stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's son during early 19th Century France. Valjean tries to steal from a church, and instead of being re-incarcerated, he is given silver to start a new life as an honest man. This would go well (he becomes an employer of the poor, and makes an honest and rather comfortable life for himself), if not for Inspector Javert (Crowe) spending decades trying to pursue him and re-arrest him for breaking his parole.
The film, of course, is also about the after-effects of the French Revolution, and when France briefly returned to a monarchy, and the people uprising against the King and nobility. This features primarily in the second half of the film, where thanks to the death of one his employees, a woman turned to prostitution named Fantine (Hathaway), Valjean is now the caretaker of a young woman named Cosette (as an adult, played by Seyfried), who has fallen in love with a young revolutionary (Redmayne). All the while, Valjean is still being pursued by Javert, who is aging far better than Valjean, for the record (the makeup team seemed to spend all of their time on Jackman, it seems, and completely disregarded Crowe, who just seems to have had his temples greyed). The revolution, unsuccessful as it was, happens, and multiple characters die (including Valjean and Javert), and the lovers are reunited, and in true Broadway fashion, all of the characters unite once more on the stage...err screen, at the end of the film to sing the final reprisal. It's the sort of epic scale moment in a film that doesn't often happen, and seemed to be more en vogue in the 1990's, but it clearly pays off, as it's one of the few films that I've seen that people actually applauded at the end (the last time I remember that happening was Milk four years ago, and that was in a primarily gay audience). All of this is to say that anyone who disregards this film from being crowned the 85th Best Picture in favor of darker fare like Zero Dark Thirty or historical biopics like Argo or Lincoln does so at their own peril.
But what did I think of it, as this film has truly divided critics, and a lot of critics that I love and often agree with have had wildly dissimilar reactions? This is probably because, to paraphrase the most annoying cliche that Scott Hamilton throws out every Olympics, "when the film is good, it's really good, but when it's bad, it's awful' (he always says something hackneyed like that-isn't there someone better at skating announcing that NBC could hire?...but I digress).
The film has many high points, as the score is clearly exceptional, and the cast is about as pedigreed as you get. While there are a couple of roles I would have recast or retrained (we'll get to that below), the fact that Hooper hired stage pro's who are unknown to most audiences like Aaron Tveit and Samantha Barks to work alongside movie stars like Hathaway and Seyfried was an absolutely brilliant decision. I loved the live-singing. Even when it didn't pay off, it still was wildly refreshing-after the last few years of lip-synching and auto-tuning everything to death, the live-singing gave it a truly fresh breath, as if you were at a live stage rather than just sitting in a darkened theater. And for anyone who complains about "too much singing"-get over it, it's a musical, people are going to sing.
I'll also say that I think the sets were divine-this film is inevitably going to be nominated for Best Art Direction, and since the greatest limitation that Broadway has is its finite space in terms of the sets, it was rather awe-inspiring to see the film lit up with a multitude of churches and French buildings and some masterful matte painting.
The film had some exceptional, some mediocre, and some in-between performances, and so we'll start out with some of the best performances. Anne Hathaway has been sucking up all of the oxygen in the Best Supporting Actress race, and seems almost assured of a trophy there, and there's reason behind that. Though she only is on-screen for approximately twenty minutes (that's a guess, not exact, but it's not a long time and it's very front-loaded-she is largely absent for most of the second half of the movie), she sells every second she gets, and her "I Dreamed a Dream" is the equivalent of Jennifer Hudson's "And I Am Telling You," and just like Ms. Hudson took her Oscar for that song, I suspect that Anne Hathaway will follow in her footsteps and win here. Hathaway is for some reason a divisive actress (and seems to be the heir apparent to Liza Minnelli's throne, what with those pipes and her joie de vivre about everything and everyone), but she's an entertainer of the highest order, and though I don't think she should slam dunk win the Oscar for this role (there are others this year that are her equal, and she doesn't quite hit the perfection that, say, Catherine Zeta-Jones did a decade ago), she's a deserving contender, and anyone saying otherwise just has sour grapes or should blame that Oscars on James Franco.
Hathaway is not alone at the top of the heap of this film, though, as the biggest surprise coming out of the movie was the remarkable Eddie Redmayne. Redmayne was sensational as the romantic, aristocrat-turned-revolutionary Marius, who falls for Cosette, but is also loved by Eponine (Barks). Redmayne, who won a Tony Award for Red, has a spectacular tenor voice, and manages to outdo even the human perfection that is Aaron Tveit onscreen. His "Empty Chairs" number was divine, and I welled up during his duets with both Tveit and Seyfried. I'm not sure that there is a lot of musical work onscreen for a man with cheekbones like a Michelangelo painting and a voice like a dove playing a cornet, but casting directors take note-hire Eddie Redmayne if you want to get the audience to "ooh" and "ahh."
Though they aren't quite of the same muster as Hathaway and Redmayne, Samantha Barks and Aaron Tveit are both excellent-in-voice, fine-in-acting as the doomed Eponine and Enjolras. Barks, who is I believe the only cast member to have played this role on stage, sells her "On My Own" with a confidence that says "I beat both Lea Michele and Taylor Swift for this role, so I'm going to take advantage and wow everyone in the audience," but the rest of the film she's a bit overshadowed by the distracting brilliance of Redmayne and the haunted shadow of the other doomed lady of the film, Hathaway. Also, can I just say how thankful I am they didn't cast Taylor Swift here, who would have been wildly out-of-place, and likely would have sunk that love triangle-having an unknown to romance Redmayne against the lovely Seyfried was a far better solution. Tveit, who I've seen on Broadway and is sooooo handsome and has a beautiful voice, is strong, though his Enjolras was in some desperate need of a character arch, and he didn't take full advantage of the emotional range of the character, in my opinion. His "Red and Black" is brilliant, though. With both of these actors, I'm hoping that Hollywood takes note, and hires them for more work, as I'm intrigued and want more.Amanda Seyfried is somewhere in the middle of the roles. I feel like her character could have been considerably expanded (she oddly doesn't get her own solo number), but I will admit to being a huge fan of her in general-when she gets the material, she and her bewitching eyes take advantage, but against the more interesting characters of Eponine and Fantine, she just can't compete.
All right, so now if you're one of the film's haters, it's time to start reading and stop gagging on the gushing (that would be a bit of a tongue twister out-loud-you should try it). The two most notable faults, and the ones that people are most consistently complaining about, are the shoddy camerawork and Russell Crowe. The camerawork is the more unexpected complaint, but it's definitely deserved. I'm not sure if the editor, the cinematographer, or Hooper himself is most to blame, but I'm throwing it at all three (Academy, since you're bound to nominate all three out of habit, please at least consider this when you're handing out the actual trophies). There are far too many close-ups, too many odd shots from the floor-there is more to the cinema than giant close-ups of people's faces, and while it works with Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream," it gets very old when they do it for everyone.
Crowe, of course, was the biggest eyebrow-raiser when they announced the cast, and while critics are too-quick to dismiss him as not being able to sing (he clearly can hold a note), this is not his style, and he seems wildly out-of-place throughout the entire movie. Considering that they cast Tveit and Barks in rather significant roles without much fame, and that they had both the wildly successful musical and Jackman as their safety nets, it's a pity they didn't mine Broadway for a Norm Lewis or a Norbert Leo Butz or a Michael Cerveris to try and play the role of Javert-someone who could sell the role and also surprise audiences by being so extraordinary. By casting Crowe instead, the producers have an easy target for the critics who always hate musicals (there are some prominent ones, and if you follow the Oscar game, you know who they are), and likely cheated themselves out of an Oscar nomination, as Javert in the right hands could be a great launching pad for a nod.
I'm also so over Sacha Baron Cohen (who is clearly talented, but so reliant on ticks and gimicks in his acting that I sort of wish that performance art was more popular, as that is probably far more his thing), and wish that Helena Bonham Carter (who is a delightful screen presence usually) would steer clear of musicals, considering her vocal range is limited at best. Their mugging, while probably too integral to the plot of the film to completely throw out, is so routine that it's a gigantic yawn in the second half, and you want to say "get off the screen" whenever they are not essential to the film. Also, before I get to the end of this review, I do want to question why Gavroche sounds like an extra from Oliver Twist when he is running around the streets of Paris. I get that they didn't want to give everyone a Parisian accent, but the British kid seems completely out-of-place (anyone super familiar with the book, if the child for some reason is supposed to be British, let me know).
Finally, I want to address the actor I've clearly been avoiding, Hugh Jackman. Jackman is not an actor that I have ever gravitated toward. I can appreciate him-he's clearly got chops as a singer, loves to entertain, and has biceps the size of my head, which we can all admire. However, while Hathaway gains so much from live-singing, Jackman loses quite a bit. His voice gets thin and pitchy during some of the "talking/singing" portions of the musical, and whether this is the musical director's fault or Jackman's, I'm not sure, but he doesn't seem to crescendo at the right moments. He's going to be nominated for an Oscar for this, and I suspect it's because he's a genuinely nice guy and people have wanted him to get a great breakout role for a while now (not to mention that someone needs to be a first-time nominee this year, and he's the most likely bet), but he shouldn't win, and really, he shouldn't be nominated. There's nothing extraordinary about this performance, and while he should probably still pursue musicals, he desperately needs a vocal coach to teach him to stay on key.
And so, after all that, I'm reluctant to give a ranking, because I know my opinion of such a gigantic movie is still being formed. I'm going with a safe 4/5 stars, but I know that's not where this will stay-it could go to 5/5 stars if my memory stays on Marius and Fantine and the epic scale Hooper attains, or it could move down to 3/5 stars if I can't quite get over the Jackman and Crowe of it all. But now I shall let you share your thoughts-what did you think of Les Miz, and for those familiar, how does it rank alongside the stage version or the book? And also, if I don't get another post in before then-Happy New Year!
No comments:
Post a Comment