‘Les Miserables’: Making the best of it
Tom Hooper’s film of the musical “Les Miserables” is an exceptional movie of a mediocre musical, the kind of middlebrow melodrama that passes for profound on Broadway.
Part of the sorry big-box-musical era that brought us “Cats,” “Miss Saigon” and “The Phantom of the Opera,” “Les Miserables” was a hit in London and New York as much for its muscular and imaginative stagecraft as for its anthem-laden score, which had the sung-through quality of an opera – a popera, if you will.
By having the actors in this film sing live on camera, rather than prerecord their voices in studios prior to reaching the set, Hooper gives the story a live, even visceral feel. It’s as though this is a melodrama whose characters are so passionate that they can no longer speak their feelings – they are forced to sing them.
The story – distilled from Victor Hugo’s five-section, 1,200-plus-page historical novel (full disclosure: Never read it, don’t intend to) – focuses on Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), about to be released from prison after serving 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread. On his way out of prison, his jailer, Javert (Russell Crowe), warns Valjean that he will be dogging him, just waiting for him to violate his parole so he can send Valjean back to the clink.
Instead, Valjean disappears, popping up a dozen years later as the rich owner of a factory and mayor of a small town; these kind of story twists were so much easier in the days before mass media. But he’s still looking in his rearview mirror for Javert. So he’s understandably distracted when his factory foreman sexually harasses and then fires a poor single mother named Fantine (Anne Hathaway). Her life goes so far off the tracks that she’s become a dying, tubercular prostitute when her path next crosses Valjean’s – whose guilt at Fantine’s fate leads to his vow at her deathbed to find and take care of her daughter, Cosette.
Valjean stays one step ahead of Javert, even as Cosette grows from a tot into Amanda Seyfried, who later falls in love with a student revolutionary named Marius (Eddie Redmayne). Marius is involved with an uprising against the return of the French monarchy in 1832 (not to be confused with the French revolution of 1789, which most people assume this work is about). On the barricades, as the students hold off the government forces, Valjean finally confronts Javert for the final time.
The music, as noted, is a mix of the tuneful and the pretentious, particularly the more operatic part. The composers, Claude-Michel Schonburg and Alain Boublil, and lyricist Herbert Kretzmer, really have only about four distinct melodies, on which everything else seems to be a variation.
Hooper’s dynamic camera sometimes emphasizes the staginess of the material. At other times, it makes it feel immediate, when characters define themselves through song. And this is a cast that mostly seems up to the task.
That’s particularly true of Hugh Jackman as Valjean, his strong, sometimes keening tenor giving depth to the music and deeper meaning to the words. Having been shown kindness by a clergyman who he meant to rob, Valjean sings “What Have I Done,” a soliloquy about turning his life around that Jackman seems to sing through tears.
But the tears – and the chills – will come from the audience during Hathaway’s solo, “I Dreamed a Dream,” otherwise known as “the Susan Boyle song.” It’s the most heart-breaking movie-musical performance since Jennifer Hudson’s version of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going” in “Dreamgirls.” It’s a landmark moment, a watershed scene for a young actress who reveals further layers of an already fertile talent.
Russell Crowe’s Javert is an imposing heavy, though Crowe lacks the trained vocal quality that Jackman, Hathaway, Redmayne and Seyfried bring. But he has a certain gruff soulfulness nonetheless. Conversely, while Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter can both handle the comic tune, “Master of the House,” their comic riffs as the film’s secondary villains seem tentative and undeveloped.
“Les Miserables” builds to a moving climax in the battle between the revolutionaries and the army, and ends with an emotionally well-wrought finale of surprising power. The music is never as impressive as the filmmakers want you to think but the filmmaking itself is often very good – good enough to keep you watching and plugged in on a level that will leave you feeling wrung out.
And that’s the point, right?
Print This Post
December 26th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
“Tom Hooper’s film of the musical “Les Miserables” is an exceptional movie of a mediocre musical”
Sorry, Sir, I don’t agree with you. The novel is a masterpiece of French litterature and the musical is the longest run in London West End History. Do you mean more than 60 millions people in the world have no taste ?
Maybe you don’t like it because it’s not faithful to American standard (written by French people and adapted by English talents) but the story, the lyrics and the music match with the epic emphasistic work of one of our great writers (I’m French sorry for the bad English).
I love Rodgers and Hammerstein work and many of your great composers and lyricists but please don’t tell me “Les Misérables” is “mediocre”.
December 26th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
And truly,you MUST read the book !!!
December 26th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
I agree mostly with you, but we actually like the Master In The House crew, they add a dimension to the plot, ugly though they are.
I personally go more up set by ” Bring Him HOme” and all of went on after that, including the so sad ending and the little girls singing on barricade. How did they get the pitch to sing like that!
I was not all that fond of the camera being so close to the faces, they could have given another six inches with out losing a thing!
December 26th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
No mention of Eponine (Samantha Barks)? You do realise she’s a major character, right? And Samantha Barks’ story of getting into the film is extraordinary, just like her portrayal of Eponine in the film.
Also, a ‘mediocre musical’? What’s a good musical then, High School Musical?
December 27th, 2012 at 1:59 am
My wife and I saw Les Miserables last night. Our thought was that the director made a pact with the dark side in his efforts to make singers out of big named actors. The end product was a worthy effort, but in the end a terrible disappointment. Hugh Jackman’s voice did not come close to the brilliance of others that have played JVJ. In fact, he was terrible by comparison. Russell Crowe didn’t do too badly, but it was easy to see he didnt have the right vocal talent for his part, and his acting belied his lack of confidence. Only Ann Hathaway was able to pull off this devil’s
bargain,andshe did it wonderfully. The people that want to see movies like Les Mis will want to see real musical talent, not what we got here.
December 27th, 2012 at 6:22 am
What a lousy review. “Sorry” musical era? A “mediocre musical”? You don’t know shit about Broadway. All those “sorry mediocre” musicals you listed are among the highest rated longest running broadway musicals of all time. This guy is an idiot. Don’t listen to this quack. It was a great movie, worth your time and money if you are a theater fan.
December 27th, 2012 at 6:41 am
yeah-so mediocre that 65 million people have seen it
December 27th, 2012 at 6:49 am
Disagree with your review, here’s mine.
Les Miserables, the film (forevermore to be known as how to royally F$%^ up a legendary musical) is a big disappointment.
One of the main problems with this film is Russell Crowe as Javert. Crowe sounds awful and generally tends to be out-acted by many of the extras and quite a number of the props.
Hugh Jackman is barely ok in this, and the Director Tom Hooper needs to be questioned on how poignant songs like “Bring Him Home”, “On My Own” and “A Little Drop of Rain” could be presented with an utter lack of emotion.
It’s not all bad, there are quite a number of positives. Anne Hathaway’s “I Dreamed a Dream” was exceptional and surely she’s bagged the Oscar for best supporting actress with this. Other notables were Amanda Seyfried who somehow manages to avoid making Cosette annoying, Eddie Redmayne as Marius (he’s quite fetching too) and Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche who is brilliant. The Bishop also gets a mention for a thank god moment, because quite frankly until he arrives, this film is a big fat yawn of mediocrity.
Les Mis for a fan of the musical was a disappointment. I won’t be seeing it again or going anywhere near the cast recording. It was all a bit too Les Meh for me.
December 27th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Middlebrow Les Mis may be, and melodramatic in some parts, too. But there is no shortage of popular operas that fit the same bill, yet rivet and move their audiences with their music, singing, performances and staging just as this musical has done for me both on stage and now on film; even if does lead one to say, as an elderly lady once commented about a film that she had just seen: “I loved it. I cried right through.”
In short, to judge by the response of the audience, many of whom applauded at its end and remained seated until the music came to an end and the screen went blank, the film “worked” and worked well for what it was – and that is one criterion which, whether applied to music, art, literature, film, play or any creative work that I turn to.
As for your review, then, for me, it is at best only an opinion. Legitimate, of course, but I felt in this instance sufficiently contrary to your assessment that I had to counter it, lest it is read as gospel.
December 27th, 2012 at 1:36 pm
If we are to talk about the quality of voices, as some other commentators do above – whose remarks I had not yet seen when I wrote mine – were the voices of the singers in those other “middlebrow” Broadway musicals – Rodgers and Hammerstein, Rodgers and Hart, Jerome Kern, George Gershwin et al, in the ultra high level class? Did Les Miserables demand the very best available? On the contrary here. The voices that I heard, even if not necessarily professionally trained as singers, suited the characters particularly well: natural, clear, earthy, unstaged and unforced with finely apt bodily and emotional (even where seemingly understated) expressiveness to match, thereby avoiding what could have been a grating dysjunction between character and voice had the performers been more polished singers but lesser actors.
December 27th, 2012 at 3:00 pm
Hi from Brisbane Australia and thanks for the review. I’m not a huge theatre goer but I believe Les Mis stirs almost as much ambivalence among the cogniscenti as Cats
For my part, I was firstly relieved that the Aussies didn’t suck and then I was really taken in by this film. Crowe was much better than I expected – playing the wrong-headed bad guy for a change. His was the weakest of the voices but was serviceable. I agree about Hathaway – just before her solo I was starting to worry about making it through a whole singing film. I was touched and riveted by her solo. I care little for Hollywood stars but afterwards, I felt like going down on one knee and kissing her hand. When someone puts themself out like that, I feel a visceral desire to thank them in kind. She was that good. I don’t care how embarrassing that sounds. She was awesome. There is an actor of (for me) surprising substance in her.
I was sucked in by this film. I teared up more than once and didn’t feel that annoyance that some hollywood “fixer” had tugged my heart strings. It was a clean, sweet more than bitter reaction that has left me feeling uplifted. I’m giving it 4.5 stars.
December 27th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Everything about this film looks awful – it looks set up to win awards rather than anything else – no thanks.
December 28th, 2012 at 5:22 am
I couldn’t disagree more with this review. What we have here is an indulgent masturbatory exercise in over emoting. I do like the musical, seen it several times, but what the Hooper doesn’t realize is that the emotive quality of the music is more than enough to carry the story if it is sung well. And this case it is not. So you have several examples of bad singing coupled with over the top emoting, which gives cloying a whole new definition. It is not hard to make people cry and somehow that equates itself with good film making. It doesn’t. And then you have a series of closeup shots with the character either in extreme close up on one third of the screen alternating between left and right. It redundancy deadened any impact those close ups could have conveyed. Les Miz is a very theatrical piece and I think had they approached it in the way Anna Karenina was filmed they would have had a far better product.
December 28th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Disagree with your typical (under 50) American immature attitude toward this
semi opera-musical.
It is the most anti war film I’ve ever seen.
And the music superior to post 50′s American musicals.
How is this as middlebrow? Wonder what you consider, high brow
December 30th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Oh, Goody! Marshall Fine’s gonna tell the smart people what to think about the film. At last! Whew, I’ll sleep tonight. Thanks so much Marsh.
December 31st, 2012 at 5:48 am
This movie is brilliant. I have never been so moved in a movie. Cried buckets at the end. Hugh Jackman totally unbelievable his acting and singing my god he lived the part. Oscar for sure.
January 24th, 2013 at 4:52 am
Saw this movie this past weekend. It was as profound as could me made from the material. The novel stands alone and can’t be made into a musical. As a standard piece of work by the Purcell-wannabe, Sir Cats, it is mediocre. But in the hands of a film great, it becomes a moving vehicle for image and specatcle. Yes, Hugh is very good, and Hathaway’s I Dream a Dream is exceptional. Finally, if this is middlebrow, what is highbrow? Opera in general is highbrow and Broadway is lowbrow. SIr Cats is Purcell for the uninitiated. INHO. You can enjoy whatever you enjoy, God Bless, as Red Skelton so famously said. Opinion should be to enjoy, not to disdain. To each her own. Actually, Beethoven String QUartets are high-brow. Agreed?
I watched it in the same few days as A Cat in Paris, and that is by far a more moving piece of cinema IMHO
http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/movies/a-cat-in-paris-the-animated-french-film.html?_r=0
I ask those who loved Les to see that one, and tell me which one is a more creative piece of film work.
That said, each meal is a joy to the one able to sit at the table.
Den NC USA
May 19th, 2013 at 6:06 am
My wife watched this, I haven’t seen it yet. But after reading these comments and the buzz about it. I will have to make time to check it out.