Pop quiz, my faithful readers. Who can tell me who "Les Miserables" refers to and who calls them that? Anyone? If you had to look the answer up, you have lost the right to comment about how wrong I am about my following comments. See, what bothers me here is that I hear people saying this wasn't for fans of the book... Say what?! How can a musical adaption of the book (then made into a movie) not be for fans of the book? It must be plagiarism out and out than. As a clever magician once said, "It takes nothing to steal another mans work." (I believe Hugh Jackman was involved there as well ;) What we have is two guys who took another man's masterpiece, striped it for parts, and regurgitated it with songs. (They even stole most of the "lyrics" directly from the book.) The whole "to love another person is to see the face of God" line that everyone is now posting as their status, yeah, that's not Claude-Michel Schonberg or Alain Boublil, that's pure Victor Hugo. So get this straight, fans of the book have every right to their opinion on the way their beloved classic is portrayed.
Now I hesitate to write this review because I know that there will be some individuals who will be livid by that fact that someone doesn't unquestioningly love "their" movie. I remember the mania that accompanied The Phantom of the Opera and I would had to get on the wrong side of that. Sadly, I must quote Kanye West and say, "Well, if this take away from my spins, which will probably take away from my ends, then I hope this take away from my sins." (Yes, I quoted Kanye West, but this doesn't take away from my legitimacy, it just gives me street cred ;) So before you get your panties in a knot you should know for the most part I LIKED the film! Far from loved it, but I'd give it a 6.8 out of 10. So before ya'll start a French-style revolution accompanied by a stirring musical number (apparently that's all we'll be doing in Heaven ;), let's discuss what I did like about the film.
Firstly, I can understand why people who are being introduced to the narrative of Les Miserables for the first time would be smitten. The tale woven by Victor Hugo is so beautifully intoxicating and universal that the simplest retelling will garner life-long fans. And for the most part, the movie (and therefore the musical) did what it could to jam thousands of pages into three (or four) hours. But we'll discuss that later. I felt the acting was spot on. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crow (two of my all-time favorite actors) fully met my expectations (which were EXTREMELY high). Anne Hathaway did slightly better than expected. However, I was beyond impressed with Eddie Redmayne as Marius. His was a truly entertaining performance. The glaring exception, of course, was Amanda Seyfried, who should never have been considered to play one of the most angelic characters in all literature. Hers was a laughable performance with the sound quality of a drunken pixie. Other than that, I have absolutely zero complaints about singing ability or performances of the actors. I felt they were refreshingly real.
As someone who has never seen the musical and was only vaguely aware of the music, I was, for the most part, impressed with the soundtrack. "Castle on a Cloud" has been stuck in my head for two days now and rightly so since it is a gorgeous piece. I felt one of the greatest achievements in interpreting the plot was Jean Valjean's pieces during his most important decisions. In the book, some of the most gut wrenching parts are when Valjean wrestles with his own conscience: when he must decide whether or not to save the man who is incorrectly arrested as himself, whether or not to save Marius, and whether or not to make the truth known about himself to Marius. I was pleasantly surprised how well it was interpreted visually.
As a film adaption of a musical, I did think it failed to live up to it's predecessor, The Phantom of the Opera which was far more bold, creative, and enticing. However, there is still some praise to give for the cinematography and camera work of Les Miserables. The majority of scenes with a solo occurring were in-your-face but not abrasive, enjoyable but not comfortable. I liked it. However, that charm was lost the second another individual began to sing. Now then, I've given it the benefit of the doubt as much as I can, let's get to my deeper thoughts.
As I have stated before, this site is dedicated to the story. That is what I love: the narrative, the lesson, and journey. As a cheap concert of high-profile celebrities singing at me, this film was a success. As a sweeping, engaging narrative that takes the audience to new heights, it was not. You would be correct in assuming that my perspective is the result of reading the book first. Having first experienced this narrative in it's truest, most beautiful form, I don't feel anger at this film--like I said I liked it for the most part. What I feel is pity for all those who have been robbed of one of the greatest stories
Firstly, I can understand why people who are being introduced to the narrative of Les Miserables for the first time would be smitten. The tale woven by Victor Hugo is so beautifully intoxicating and universal that the simplest retelling will garner life-long fans. And for the most part, the movie (and therefore the musical) did what it could to jam thousands of pages into three (or four) hours. But we'll discuss that later. I felt the acting was spot on. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crow (two of my all-time favorite actors) fully met my expectations (which were EXTREMELY high). Anne Hathaway did slightly better than expected. However, I was beyond impressed with Eddie Redmayne as Marius. His was a truly entertaining performance. The glaring exception, of course, was Amanda Seyfried, who should never have been considered to play one of the most angelic characters in all literature. Hers was a laughable performance with the sound quality of a drunken pixie. Other than that, I have absolutely zero complaints about singing ability or performances of the actors. I felt they were refreshingly real.As someone who has never seen the musical and was only vaguely aware of the music, I was, for the most part, impressed with the soundtrack. "Castle on a Cloud" has been stuck in my head for two days now and rightly so since it is a gorgeous piece. I felt one of the greatest achievements in interpreting the plot was Jean Valjean's pieces during his most important decisions. In the book, some of the most gut wrenching parts are when Valjean wrestles with his own conscience: when he must decide whether or not to save the man who is incorrectly arrested as himself, whether or not to save Marius, and whether or not to make the truth known about himself to Marius. I was pleasantly surprised how well it was interpreted visually.
As a film adaption of a musical, I did think it failed to live up to it's predecessor, The Phantom of the Opera which was far more bold, creative, and enticing. However, there is still some praise to give for the cinematography and camera work of Les Miserables. The majority of scenes with a solo occurring were in-your-face but not abrasive, enjoyable but not comfortable. I liked it. However, that charm was lost the second another individual began to sing. Now then, I've given it the benefit of the doubt as much as I can, let's get to my deeper thoughts.
As I have stated before, this site is dedicated to the story. That is what I love: the narrative, the lesson, and journey. As a cheap concert of high-profile celebrities singing at me, this film was a success. As a sweeping, engaging narrative that takes the audience to new heights, it was not. You would be correct in assuming that my perspective is the result of reading the book first. Having first experienced this narrative in it's truest, most beautiful form, I don't feel anger at this film--like I said I liked it for the most part. What I feel is pity for all those who have been robbed of one of the greatest stories
You will never experience the apathetic distaste of Eponine that turns to shock, pity, and guilt in a moment. You'll never feel the claustrophobic entrapment of Javert ever tightening his web around Valjean. You'll never know the months of giddy flirtation that turn to life-altering love between Marius and Cosette.You'll never know the bright, beautiful spring that precedes the darkest of winters for Fantine. And you'll never truly know how much good one being like Jean Valjean's can do to change the world around him. I weep that those experiences will never be yours. They can't be: the musical is close enough to the plot to tell you the sequence without the juicy detail. And the detail is only rich when you don't know what is coming next. Don't get me wrong, the book will still be incredible, but it just won't be the same for you.
I realize that since this film is an adaptation, most of these critiques are directed more at the musical than at the movie. The problem is that there is SOOO much to fit into a limited time. As a result, time becomes the enemy and narrative becomes the victim. It takes a very special person to not steal another man's story as their own when it comes to adaptations. In most cases, time is the excuse for why that "artist" "had to" make the choices they did. I can't take issue with the fact that this is done: I take issue with the way it was done in this one instance.
What I see in the musical of Les Miserables is not an attempt to tell an incredible story, it's an attempt to showcase some pretty music that was inspired by the story. That is why we have a beautiful song from Marius singing about his fallen comrades and an enchanting song from Jean Valjean about keeping Marius safe. But we get these at the expense of details that actually take place in the book. I would much rather have another love song between Marius and Cosette than a three minute song about prostitution just so 20 women can wear corsets and fondle themselves. Sorry, but that kind of defecates all over the harsh reality of what's happening with Fantine. Additionally, this is a musical folks, not an opera; not every word has to be sung! Please don't leave something great out just because you can't find something to rhyme with it. And please don't change the plot because you DO have a clever rhyme.
Two changes to the plot upset me more than any other. First, the Thenardiers. How in the world did two of the most disgusting, deplorable, sociopathic villains in the history of literature get turned into the comic relief of the story? I suppose that's the best I can expect from a society that would laugh at an pornographically suggestive scene involving "Santa." Humor must have drastically decayed without my notice. I promise you there is nothing "funny" about these two. They are the antithesis of Valjean (not Javert). For those of you who didn't know, it is THEY who are called "the miserables" by Marius as he observes the depravity of their cave of sin. So sorry, but I don't find humor in the couple that would grotesquely abuse a child, abandon and abuse their own, steal, kill, grave rob, kidnapped, and torture. But maybe I'm old-fashion. Oh, and Eponine becomes twice the heroine she is when you realize what she has come out of.
Second, I am deeply upset that one of the most beautiful love stories in literature got turned into the butt of a Disney joke. How did months of infatuation and flirting, followed by months of secret love notes and stolen meetings of pure joy, a love that leaves both people without desire for life if they can't have the other get turned into "I'm Marius. And you are? OH COSETTE! We shall be married in the morning!!" This is proof of what I was saying: time is the enemy and narrative the victim. Don't destroy my love story and expect me to be happy about it ;)
I'm sorry to those of you who have seen the movie (or musical) with out reading the book first. But that doesn't mean you won't still love the book. I highly recommend you take the time to read it. It'll make you love the story that much more. If you haven't seen the movie, READ THE BOOK FIRST! Then go see the movie, because it's worth seeing at least once.
I realize that since this film is an adaptation, most of these critiques are directed more at the musical than at the movie. The problem is that there is SOOO much to fit into a limited time. As a result, time becomes the enemy and narrative becomes the victim. It takes a very special person to not steal another man's story as their own when it comes to adaptations. In most cases, time is the excuse for why that "artist" "had to" make the choices they did. I can't take issue with the fact that this is done: I take issue with the way it was done in this one instance.
What I see in the musical of Les Miserables is not an attempt to tell an incredible story, it's an attempt to showcase some pretty music that was inspired by the story. That is why we have a beautiful song from Marius singing about his fallen comrades and an enchanting song from Jean Valjean about keeping Marius safe. But we get these at the expense of details that actually take place in the book. I would much rather have another love song between Marius and Cosette than a three minute song about prostitution just so 20 women can wear corsets and fondle themselves. Sorry, but that kind of defecates all over the harsh reality of what's happening with Fantine. Additionally, this is a musical folks, not an opera; not every word has to be sung! Please don't leave something great out just because you can't find something to rhyme with it. And please don't change the plot because you DO have a clever rhyme.
Two changes to the plot upset me more than any other. First, the Thenardiers. How in the world did two of the most disgusting, deplorable, sociopathic villains in the history of literature get turned into the comic relief of the story? I suppose that's the best I can expect from a society that would laugh at an pornographically suggestive scene involving "Santa." Humor must have drastically decayed without my notice. I promise you there is nothing "funny" about these two. They are the antithesis of Valjean (not Javert). For those of you who didn't know, it is THEY who are called "the miserables" by Marius as he observes the depravity of their cave of sin. So sorry, but I don't find humor in the couple that would grotesquely abuse a child, abandon and abuse their own, steal, kill, grave rob, kidnapped, and torture. But maybe I'm old-fashion. Oh, and Eponine becomes twice the heroine she is when you realize what she has come out of. Second, I am deeply upset that one of the most beautiful love stories in literature got turned into the butt of a Disney joke. How did months of infatuation and flirting, followed by months of secret love notes and stolen meetings of pure joy, a love that leaves both people without desire for life if they can't have the other get turned into "I'm Marius. And you are? OH COSETTE! We shall be married in the morning!!" This is proof of what I was saying: time is the enemy and narrative the victim. Don't destroy my love story and expect me to be happy about it ;)
I'm sorry to those of you who have seen the movie (or musical) with out reading the book first. But that doesn't mean you won't still love the book. I highly recommend you take the time to read it. It'll make you love the story that much more. If you haven't seen the movie, READ THE BOOK FIRST! Then go see the movie, because it's worth seeing at least once.
I have to say that I agree for the most part. I actually think Amanda Seyfried did a lot better job than you say.NOT SPECTACULAR but not horrible either. I think she did an okay job. Overall, I think that everyone did a very good job of acting the part, singing it...that's a different story especially Marius. I LOVED his acting but every time he sang I thought he was going to pop a vocal chord or shake apart.
ReplyDeleteAs for us being "robbed" and "never" getting the chance to experience the beauty that is the story rather than the music, you are wrong. I have started reading the book with the mindset that this is NOT the musical. Hard as it may be to read, I have completely been enraptured by a story that I have only previously had a taste of. Have more faith in Victor Hugo to transcend the abridged, musical version by Alain Boublil & Claude-Michel Schönberg. If anything, it hass only peaked my interest and curiosity. It is a classic for a reason and that will not change just because people come along and adapt it to be something else. People are smarter and stronger than "never" being able to get the beauty of this story, regardless of when they read the book vs. when they see the play/movie.
As for the comic relief being the Thenardiers, unfortunately, that is how the musical was adapted. Unfortunately, it was only further enhanced in the film and it disgusted me beyond words.
Again, I have to emphasize that readers will NOT be robbed, as you say. If you believe so much in that book, you, of all people, should know that. Don't feel sorry for me because you are wrong and I am proof of that.
I don't think you understood me Caitlin. I don't remember ever saying that the movie (musical) would have the power to take away from the glory of the book. I merely said that there are experiences in the book you'll never have. One of the greatest marks of an author is making the reader think and feel the way a character thinks and feels.
DeleteFor instances in the book you think of Eponine the way Marius thinks of her; with apathy, neglect and a slight distaste. When you see her for who she really is, you physically feel quilt the way Marius does. You wont feel that the way I did because you know from the beginning the sacrifice she makes for Marius. So you can't prove me wrong there because it's physically impossible for you to have the book experience without the movie (musical) experience first (unless you have a time machine which still wouldn't work because as far as my research has shown memory isn't erased by time travel ;)
As I said, this doesn't take away from the beauty and power of the book, just the element of shock and awe (in the same way knowing the ending to the sixth sense takes away from seeing it the first time). There is a reason people hate spoilers...
Agreed. Loved the songs but wasn't a fan of how little detail there was to the plot line. I suppose Les Miserable will be next on my "to read" list! :)
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I was pretty anxious to read your post ever since Alisa said you were working on one. I will be the first to admit that I have yet to read the book. I do plan to, but let’s be honest, it’ll probably happen after graduation. I was first introduced to the musical version of Les Miserable when I was thirteen and have seen the musical production a countless number of times since then. I am smitten with the storyline, the music, and the lessons learned throughout the plot. With that said, I hear people complaining all the time that “the movie didn’t do the book justice.” Most times, I agree, I agree, I agree. However, I have learned to separate books from movies because they’re not the same, and you’re right, you will never experience in a movie what you do in a book, and for a number of reasons. First, there is the time issue; in most cases time proves to be the enemy. Blame Hollywood for that one. Second is detail. There’s so much explicit and intimate detail in a book that it’s almost impossible to recreate it on the big screen. The last I will mention is imagination. The beauty of our brains is that everyone thinks differently; each of us has a unique vision that only you can satisfy, so naturally, seeing someone else’s vision can be difficult to adapt to when we’re so used to our own. Everyone has very subjective opinions of this movie simply because people have been introduced to it in a number of ways. For the most part, I really liked it, and this is partly because I love theatre, especially the musical version of Les Mis.
ReplyDeleteOkay, here are my thoughts about the movie. I loved Marius. His singing is powerful and strong. Yes, I did notice the head shaking thing, but honestly, what would you look like if you were singing live and belting difficult songs with a camera six inches from your face? I loved Hugh Jackman as well. The only complaint I have of him is the way he sang “Bring Him Home.” For me, that song is private moment between him and God-- singing a prayer, if you will. There is a sense of reverence that seemed to be ignored during one of the most beautiful songs in the movie. I just thought he went about it the wrong way. Anne blew my mind!!! It was obvious she worked hard, studied her character, and put everything she had in each of her scenes. She definitely deserves to win best supporting actress. Russell Crowe, oh bless his heart, I think he tried really hard to do well in the role, and in fact, he did have a demanding presence about him; however, I couldn’t help but feel like I was listening to the cowardly lion every time he sang. Good actor, but I think his vocal range is what ultimately killed it. Amanda…oh Amanda…what can I say other than I don’t think she was right for the role. Yes, she played off the innocent, frilly, “drunken pixie” okay, but vocally, it was not there. They might as well have casted a ten year old girl from an elementary school choir and called it good. The high C was impressive though.
I love the idea they had of singing live, I really do. As an actor you have the opportunity to play with the music a bit more rather than prerecording an album before you arrive on set with the acting decisions already made. Nonetheless, some of the voices were drowned out such as the harmony, quartets, etc. I definitely heard some sound issues throughout, especially when some characters turned their backs to the camera.
Overall, I loved it, and am planning on buying it on DVD.
Alex... did you know the answer at the beginning of the blog... cause if not you're not really supposed to comment... ;) I'm totally kidding of course!!
DeleteThanks for your thoughts!! I think we are almost spot on in agreement about most things in the movie itself, especially Marius and Amanda... oh Amanda...