by Brian Kesler2.5/5 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment