Movie Review: Les Miserables

by Brian Kesler

2.5/5 stars

(This review assumes you've seen either the movie or stage show, or read the book, or just know the plot, as I don't explain it any.)

The biggest problem with Tom Hooper's film adaptation of the hit Broadway musical 'Les Miserables,' is that it isn't meant to be a movie. Stage and screen are two wildly different mediums, and this adaptation of 'Les Miserables' is so faithful to the musical that its status as a film is hindered. Fans of the stage production will most likely love it. Movie buffs will most likely be unimpressed. Unfortunately, I'm a movie buff and a fan of the original production, so my insides were confused during the entire thing.

The faults are apparent right from the beginning. The plot has to cover a lot of ground, and the musical accomplishes this through continuous singing. On a stage, the actors occupy the same space, so when a character is seen going from place to place within a matter of seconds, it isn't jarring like it is when we go from shot to shot of the character going from one place to another. The result is that, after the opening number, the first twenty minutes of the film is a giant montage. It seems like it is rushing through the plot, because it is.

While the stage musical effectively utilizes sing-through style to get through the many plot points, there are musical moments that are completely useless to the film. Film is a more intimate medium. On stage, the Bishop must sing to Valjean to establish the importance of such a seemingly insignificant character. On film, where we inhabit a real world and see the characters up close, the priest would have been better established through simple dialogue and shot composition. On stage, it's necessary for Marius and Cosette to sing their affection for one another, and it doesn't seem odd that they do so because they occupy such a large space. On film, when the camera is up close and personal, we can establish this connection - and much more effectively - through the characters simply looking at one another. The song, 'A Heart Full of Love,' becomes completely unnecessary, and if a song in a musical isn't absolutely imperative for the character to sing, it should be axed.

One moment where a character singing is imperative is 'I Dreamed a Dream.' Fantine becomes so broken and downtrodden, that there is no other possible way for her to express this than through song. Anne Hathaway performs this singing soliloquy so gorgeously that there wasn't a dry eye in the theater, including mine. It represents moments of greatness that this film attains. Unfortunately, all of those moments are established by actors and not direction.

Let's get this out of the way: Tom Hooper is not a good director. I know he won an Academy Award for direction. That's because the Academy is stupid. 'The King's Speech' was a phenomenal film. It benefited from a tight screenplay with witty dialogue and impeccable performances. Not Tom Hooper's direction. Here, he doesn't benefit from a tight screenplay or dialogue, and the result is sloppy direction and obvious visual motifs. The opening number of the film is set up like this: Shot of Javert looking down on Valjean; Shot of Valjean looking up at Javert; Shot of some prisoner pulling a rope; Shot of Javert looking down on Valjean; Shot of Valjean looking up at Javert; Shot of some prisoner pulling a rope; Shot of Javert looking down on Valjean; etc. etc. etc. We get it. There is a relationship between Valjean and Javert being established, you don't have to be so obvious about it. Another moment comes during 'Stars' sung by Javert on a high ledge that Javert could easily slip off of. Hooper is sure to film Javert's feet walking along it, about to fall. An obvious foreshadow to Javert's ultimate demise. The song consists of Russell Crowe walking back and forth with the camera following him. Can't we just have an actor standing still during a song? And can't we just allow the camera to remain motionless? 'God on High' is another example. The song could've been effective as a simple prayer over Marius' sleeping body. Instead, Hugh Jackman is directed to walk all over the place as he sings, sapping any intimacy right out of the number.

In 'Les Miserables,' Hooper attempts to bring the musical to a softer, grittier level, but the musical is inherently big, bombastic, sappy, and operatic. It is impossible to do a faithful film adaptation if you want the characters to be anything but one dimensional. Tom Hooper's attempt at dimension is to film every ballad close up and in one shot, and to have the characters cry uncontrollably. There are a lot of ballads in 'Les Miserables,' and they are all filmed in this manner. After the twentieth ballad of a character up close and crying like a crazy person, I just wanted to rip my teeth out. You don't have to contort your face and scrunch your eyes together to make 'On My Own' an emotional song. Towards the end, I was getting impatient. I get it, you all know how to cry on cue, you've been doing it the entire film.

There are also moments when characters actively provide exposition through song. Again, this was a necessity of the musical, not for film. We don't need Valjean to sing to us that he's the mayor of the town. All we need is a shot to establish this. Exposition in film shouldn't appear as though the character is explaining something for the audience's benefit. It happens all too often in this film.

Reading this review, it might seem like I just hated this movie. I didn't, though. The theatre nerd within me was nostalgic and giddy. I would actively become excited at a new use of orchestration or the start of a song I really liked. But, ultimately, I would rather have been watching this on stage. It was not movie material. Had there been no stage show, and the composers began writing this material for a film, the final product would have been vastly different. As it is, however, the filmmakers had to remain faithful to the show to please purists and theatre-heads. Those people will be pleased. Movie people? Not so much.

Movie Review: 'Life of Pi'

by Brian Kesler 

5/5 stars

WARNING: Spoilers Abound

There are two basic stories about the creation of life. In one, life began with a single celled organism that separated in two. In the other, God created Adam, and from Adam's rib created Eve. They are both true. One story represents the factual truth, but the other provides an emotional connection to the creation of life.

The underlying message of 'Life of Pi' is that, while religious text and belief might be impossibly fantastical, it provides a fuller, more emotional understanding of life and the human spirit. The film accomplishes this through a "plot twist" that may leave some viewers let down. But it is the pivotal moment in understanding the underlying thematic core of the character and his journey of survival.

The film opens with our protagonist revealing the story of how he took on his name: Pi. He took the name after the irrational mathematical number used to measure the distance in a circle. The number has so many decimal places that it is nearly impossible for the human mind to comprehend, which is why the number is represented by a symbol and often shortened to a comprehensible three digits. This sets the story up, symbolically, and foreshadows the nature of the story we are about to see.

Pi and his family are traveling from their native India, where they owned and operated a zoo, to Canada, with many of the zoo animals on board for sale in America. A storm hits and the boat sinks, killing Pi's family, and the entire crew of the ship. The only surviving members are Pi and a few of the zoo animals, who congregate on a life boat. The animals include a zebra, an orangutang, and a hyena. Pi witnesses the hyena attack and kill the zebra and, eventually, the orangutang. Then, suddenly, a tiger emerges from a clandestine section of the life boat and kills the hyena. The rest of the film involves Pi struggling for survival in the middle of the Pacific and setting up territorial dominance over the tiger, eventually leading to peace between the two.

With the wrong director, this film could have been a bombastic blockbuster with no soul, but the poetic quietude of Ang Lee gives the film an emotional current which propels the adventures of Pi and his tiger, whose name is Richard Parker, to a more substantial level. The visual impact of the film is truly wondrous. Since the 1960s, color in film has not been a major factor in story development, but with the influence of Pixar, and their invention of the color script, the use of color in film has become a distinguishing factor in the filmmaking trends of the new decade. Color is used here to heighten Pi's journey and to establish important plot developments. It's also just awesome to look at. The isolation of Pi and the dynamic between he and Richard Parker are represented by the merging mirror reflection of sky and sea.

This reflection is symbolically important. When Pi finally reaches the Mexican shore and recovers, he is asked to recount his journey. His story is met with skepticism and disapproval, and he is pressured to tell the "truth." Pi, then, tells another story - one in which some of the crew members of the ship, and his mother, were on the life boat with him and horrors ensued. From Ang's directorial directness, we know that this new story is actually what happened, and that the story we've invested ourselves in was only invented by Pi as a way to overcome the harsh realities of his actual journey - just like the number 3.14 is represented by a symbol as the complexity of the number surpasses human comprehension. In the context of understanding the reality of what happened, the tiger represents a dimension of Pi's character: his anger, his impatience, his animalistic simplicity. These are all things Pi must overcome. To survive, he must discipline himself and learn to control his emotional insecurity. This is represented by Pi's efforts to tame Richard Parker.

By the end of the film, an adult Pi asks a listener, whom he had conveyed both stories, which one he preferred. The listener draws parallels between the two stories and, after a thought, firmly confirms that he prefers the story with the tiger. It is important to note that Pi regards both stories as the truth. One is the factual truth, while the other is the thematic truth. Just like the story of the creation of life, we are more emotionally invested in the thematic truth, because of the parallels and underlying symbolism. 'Life of Pi' is one of the best films of the year.