This is the first of a new series of reviews I'm (hoping) to do. I love musicals and, as I feel they are sadly overlooked these days, I've decided to review a musical film once a month on Monday. This week I'm tackling the 2012 adaptation of one of my favorite novels...
Les Miserables is a musical film released in 2012. It is adapted from the stage musical by Claude Micheal Schonberg, which was based on a novel of the same name by Victor Hugo. It is directed by Tom Hooper and stars Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, and Eddie Redmayne. It tells the story of Jean Valjean (Jackman), an ex-convict in In 19th-century France, who for decades has been hunted by the ruthless policeman Javert (Crowe) after he broke his parole. He agrees to care for a factory worker's (Anne Hathaway) daughter, named Cosette (Seyfried) when he finds her dying in the street. Valjean must continue to escape Javert's pursuit and take care of his newly adapted daughter amidst the turmoil of the 1832 June Rebellion.
It's no secret to anyone who regularly reads my blog (if there is indeed anyone who does) that I unabashedly love Victors Hugo's Les Miserables. This gives me a somewhat unique perspective on this film. At just under 1500 pages, Hugo's novel is rather difficult to adapt. One would have to either focus only on certain characters/incidents (admittedly a wiser approach) or try to condense as much of the book as possible into a 2-3 hour film. Hooper, following Schonberg's model, opts for the latter choice. The book is both a personal story, of Jean Valjean’s journey to redemption, and a wider historical retelling of the 1832 Paris Uprising. This film, like the play it's based on, succeeds well enough with the former and not at all with the latter.
Jean's journey, akin to a sort of martyrdom, is depicted as a series of struggles. First, he must decide how to use the opportunity given him by the bishop who lies to protect him from being arrested again. He chooses to amend his life and live to help others as the Bishop helped him. Then, years later Valjean, who has now taken up a false name and become the mayor of a small town, must choose between letting an innocent man, who is mistaken for himself, go to prison or giving himself up. As he won't betray his conscious he chooses to reveal himself. Finally, he must decide what to do concerning Marius, the young revolutionary who his daughter has fallen in love with but who threatens to disrupt his anonymous existence with Cosette. While these struggles are somewhat truncated, they work well enough to carry the film.
Where the film really stumbles is in its depiction of the Paris Uprising of 1932. The script contains very little real background for the events that lead up to this uprising and we, as an audience, are given no real idea what the motive behind the rebellion is. Certainly living and working conditions in Paris are depicted as being pretty terrible but how this is connected to the current French government or how an armed rebellion will help is anyone's guess (unless your familiar with the real history). We don't even really know what Marius and his friends hope to accomplish beyond incredibly vague ideas like "a new day" or "freedom". This might work for rebellious teens looking for a vicarious outlet for there frustrations but it's not really good storytelling.
The musical relies on big emotional outbursts from the players in order to really hold the audience's interest. In order to translate this to film Hooper uses long takes and records much of the singing live. This has advantages and disadvantages. On one hand it allows for a feeling of immediacy and intimacy with the performer, similar to what one might feel during a play. On the other hand it limits what the director can do with framing and blocking and can become obtrusive if overused. Similarly, these crescendos themselves only work in certain, more emotionally charged scenes. By featuring them practically back-to-back more than once Schonberg, and Hooper by extension, risk exhausting the emotional weight of the piece as a whole and I'd be lying if I said that the director doesn't occasionally overstep his bounds in this regard.
Because of its reliance on this kind of emotionally intense storytelling, Les Miserable lives and dies on the strength its performances. Fortunately, they're pretty solid here, for the most part. Hugh Jackman is especially effective as Valjean, bringing a perfect blend of vulnerability and gravitas to the role. Anne Hathaway is every bit the world weary, desperate Fantine. Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried do as well as they can with, admittedly, thin characterization. Samantha Banks shines as the forsaken Eponine and Sacha Baron Cohen's take on Thenardier is particularly slimy. There are a few weak spots. Russell Crowe's singing is rather rough around the edges. According to him this was a conscious choice, but I'm not convinced that it worked. Helena Bonham Carter, though she seems like a natural fit to play the cantankerous Madame Thenardier, decides to go for an overly sexualized/damaged performance and singing style that, frankly, is just off-putting.
In the end Les Miserables is a bit of a mess. Its attempt to truncate a long, expansive novel into a 150 minute film won't work for everyone but it works, well enough, for me.
Score: 7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment