Sorry folks. Couldn't resist the goofy title.
The modern day movie-musical is a very delicate sub-genre to tackle. In many cases across the 00's you have movie musicals that prioritize singers over actors (see Dreamgirls). In other cases you have movies that tend to prioritize actors over singers (see Mama Mia). With the former you have what I call "singing with feeling" only (Jen Hudson may have won an Oscar, but to me that wasn't acting. It was very passionate singing), whereas with the latter you just have really terrible attempts at singing (I'm looking at your Pierce Brosnan). Where Les Mis succeeds over most movie musicals is that it benefits from skilled actors who have very spectacular voices. Not since Moulin Rouge have I seen such a good blend of acting and singing, but unlike Moulin Rouge, the entire ensemble is reasonably fantastic at both (not just Ewan Mcgregor)! THAT is Les Mis's strongest asset. The performances drive the film completely, in spite of some questionable directing choices and lack of risk-taking from director Tom Hooper.
Now Les Mis is a very long, very complicated story. I mean it ought to be considering the original text is like 1,488 pages. Jean Valjean, a prisoner serving out a 20 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family is paroled, but pursued constantly but Inspector Javert across several years after breaking that parole. Through those years Valjean makes a vow to God to become a better person as he inherits a position as the Mayor of a city, makes a vow to a dying factory worker to adopt and care for her daughter, and raises her daughter during the political unrest of France during the June Rebellion. We are introduced to several characters and more complex situations, all while watching this innocent man continue to dodge the ruthlessness of the law. In general, it's quite heavy on the melodramatic elements. I mean they wouldn't call it "The Miserable Ones" if it wasn't about bad things happening to miserable people right? But regardless, you're invested in the plight of our heroes because the circumstances in which they are led to be miserable aren't warranted (they're good characters overall) and because our actors who can sing are definitely selling it.
Now I liked the movie a lot. But it is a chore to sit through. The entire screenplay is sung through from beginning to end, apart from, maybe, 30 words un-melodically spoken throughout a 3 hour film. If you are not accustomed to musicals, beware, because this one is a huge doozy. However, as stated before, the entire cast is game. Hugh Jackman has definitely secured himself his first Oscar nomination. As Valjean, his performance is breathtaking. Jackman is such a naturally great singer, with the ability to hit so many great, long, high, complex notes. I knew he was good, but I had no idea before seeing this film that he was great. But what's even better than the singing is his emoting. Jackman does more than just sing passionately. We feel Valjean's kindness, determination, desperation, mercy, etc, coming from Jackman's incredibly expressive performance, facial cues, mannerisms, etc. He's not just singing. He's reacting, and you can see it all in his eyes and facial changes/glances/looks, along with the subtle changes in the intonation and volume of his voice while singing. It's honestly just very brilliant acting. Anne Hathaway is most definitely a highlight as well. If Jackman is secured a nomination, Hathaway is secured a win. Like Jackman, her emoting and reacting to the situations happening to her, through song or otherwise, is raw, tragic, and powerful. Her performance of "I Dreamed a Dream" is the definitive centerpiece of the film--something the marketers at Universal probably believed as well, considering it's a) arguably the musical's signature song, and b) basically the entire teaser trailer. But you see Hathaway's performance, and you completely forget the song was ever covered by the likes of Susan Boyle. It is heartbreaking. I may also not that the sheer fact that both Jackman and Hathaway are particularly gifted at bringing real tears and real red eyes to their performances is particularly effective in getting the audience to want to cry with them. Commanding. Charismatic. Powerful. Both of them.
Now the rest of the cast fairs very well also. They may not be the highlights Hathaway and Jackman are, but we get some very solid performances from Eddie Redmayne as Marius, and Les Mis stage-alum, Samantha Barks as Eponine. The Marius/Eponine chemistry is completely fantastic--in particular the tear-inducing "Little Fall of Rain" scene. Barks, in particular, is great throughout her entire role, evoking the tortured sadness of a woman deeply, tragically, and one-sidedly in love with someone, knowing full well it would never be reciprocated. Barks makes you feel the sadness she's feeling, without ever coming across as bitter. She allows you completely to sympathize with the character. Granted Eponine in general is just a sympathetic character. But Barks' lonely expressions, subtle weeping--the cracks in her voice, the empty smiles at Marius indicating her overall facade to show him she's alright when she isn't--all get you invested in her plight completely. She becomes the easiest character to feel sympathy for after Fantine's death in the first act, thanks to Barks' performance. Redmayne, for the most part, starts off reasonably bland, only really showcasing his abilities as a singer, rather than an actor. However, this all changes after a lovely performance and excellent chemistry with Barks in the aforementioned "Little Fall of Rain" scene. From there, we are treated to Marius' big number, "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." And Redmayne nails it. He's able to convey Marius' internal regrets, guilt, and woe about living while his cohorts have all died in a very expressive manner--vocally and physically. Next to Hathaway and Jackman, this duo and their chemistry come across as the next best reason to see this film.
The weaker links in the main cast are unfortunately Russell Crowe as Javert and Amanda Seyfried as Cosette. Seyfried's voice is pretty, if not a bit shrill, and her acting is fine. But for the most part she could have had the opportunity to do anything new or compelling with the role, which originally is actually an underwritten part, but I honestly didn't detect anything special about her performance. And unfortunately, while Russell Crowe does a fine job singing and acting, he pales in comparison miserably (see what I did there?) whenever he's on screen with Jackman. I feel like a lot of the reviews have been harder on him than they should be. Because in truth, hey, who knew Gladiator could sing as well as he does in this film. And naturally his performance in bringing Javert's dedication to the law to life is as good as you'd expect from a man used to playing a soldier. You get his mad dedication to the law, and his ruthlessness. But his singing is just not on par in terms of power with any other stage incarnation of the character on Broadway, nor is it on par with majority of the main cast. Considering that he's sharing the screen with the fantastic vocals and presence of Jackman, Crowe's performance ends up coming across as "good" rather than "great," and his singing, in the end, is really just slightly above mediocre. For minor-ish roles, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen provide some necessary comic relief as the sleezy Thenardiers. Their roles and singing ability is not unlike what we've previously seen them do in Sweeney Todd. And, it must be noted, Aaron Tveit as Enjolras, leader of Les Amis de l'ABC is also very fantastic. Tveit makes you believe the convictions of Enjolras' goals as a character in a similar way Crowe convinces you his character believes in his. The only difference here is that Tveit can actually sing very very well.
However, the giant lists of performance positives aside, the biggest, worst problem with Les Miserables lies in Hooper's direction and cinematography. Where we, as an audience, should be transported to the immense, impoverished environment of post-revolution France, we get a giant close up of a character's face, with a shot that stays focused solely on the characters face, as if they're talking directly to the audience, rather than reacting to the situations going on or the world around them. This happens more than once in the film, particular examples being Hathaway's "I Dreamed a Dream" performance, Redmayne's "Empty Chairs" number, and several of Jackman and Crowe's songs as well. Despite the amazing performances of each, so much more could have been done to many of these scenes. I honestly don't think it would have killed Hooper to move the camera once in a while, or let the visuals set some sort of mood or motifs for the songs and situations in the story. It's especially disappointing given how amazing the sets and scenery look. The environment of 19th century France is incredibly well established on a technical scale, so why not emphasize the magnificent production design/aesthetic of the film? Why not let this environment enhance your characters and the performance? While letting your actors drive the raw emotion of a scene is important (hence I somewhat understand his decision to make this stylistic choice), there's nothing at all special about taking a camera and shoving it directly in front of someone's face, expecting them to sing and emote. Any 4-year old with a Super 8 handheld camera could do the same. In some cases it works (For "I Dreamed a Dream" I understand it's necessary to capture the broken, empty, lonely condition of what's left of Fantine's spirit and hope), but for many others, it de-emphasizes the impact of the musical numbers. And Hooper is capable of more than this. He got very animated for the "Master of the House" number, and "Do You Hear the People Sing." And, yes, he's not expected to be that animated for the less upbeat songs. But he really completely does nothing for many of them, other than remain stagnant on an actor's face for the entire number. In some cases, we even get some "shaky cam" moments to make the film feel raw, when it really doesn't need to. Raw is good in a movie, yes. But that cannot be the only tone or atmosphere conveyed in a movie musical of this magnitude, honestly. And there's a point where "raw" ends up feeling more like "You Tube." Having said that, there is one decision Hooper made that benefits the movie greatly: the decision to have the actors sing on set, rather than pre-record and lip sync. In a movie as musically driven as Les Mis, acting and emoting genuinely through the song is key because the songs are your script. Having the actors sing up front, on set, in real time brings so much more raw emotion and sincerity to the performances than most other musicals with pre-recorded, lip synced tracks. And for that, Hooper deserves praise.
As indicated before though, again, the performances are what really save this movie. The actors are able to make you believe in the story and disregard any contrivances or melodrama the story may have. They make you invested in their characters' situations with their strong voices and intense charismatic emoting, even if the writing feels overly dramatic at times. And they do this all in spite of some uninspired, and oftentimes lifeless directing on behalf of Tom Hooper. Granted, the way the film is cut together is actually beautifully done--but that's more of an editing win than a directing one. There are just opportunities that feel wasted in several instances throughout the film--for example, as beautiful as the chemistry was between Redmayne and Barks for "A Little Fall of Rain," we're quickly forced to "unfeel" the impact of the situation, since Hooper just decides to move on without really taking time to acknowledge the gravity of the tragic situation. But hey, again, regardless of the direction, at the end of the day (see what I did there?), I still think it's the best, most sweeping, reverent movie musical in at least a good decade. And, ladies and gentlemen, there's nothing miserable about that at all.
Overall Grade: B+
No comments:
Post a Comment