At the End of the Day, It's a Good Movie: Les Misérables

-->

Note: This review contains a few plot spoilers near the end.

Oxford grad Tom Hooper is an exceptional director who has brought off some great stuff, mostly for television. His breakthrough directorial film effort was 2010’s extraordinary Oscar winning The King’s Speech, with Colin Firth in the role of George VI. He has also directed some very fine recent miniseries  (John Adams, Elizabeth I and Prime Suspect). His ability to create superior character pieces with a strong supporting cast in convincingly textured environments makes him one of the few complete directors who grasps the entire range of the work at hand.

Given Hooper's level of artistry, what wizardry can he bring to a legendary stage musical such as Les Misérables? Mind you, this is not one of those charming productions, alá Rogers and Hammerstein, where "normal" lines and acting are interrupted as the cast breaks into show stopping song and dance. Les Mis is one of the rare non-opera specimens featuring wall-to-wall music. It also just happens to be an iconic production that began in Paris, moved to London, crossed to Broadway, went back to the West End, then burst onto the world at large. Clearly Hooper faced a difficult challenge.

Stage aficionados should recognize immediately that the expectations for theatre and film diverge widely. There’s a level of energy and spontaneity on the stage that film can never achieve. The “frame” for theatre is the theatre itself, modified by set, sound and lighting. If you are one of the fortunates who caught a West End or Broadway showing of this particular production, then you have a pretty settled Holy Grail image in your mind and memory that probably no film is going to match. That, of course, doesn’t mean that a film version, with its potential to expand the visual scope and to capitalize on the acting, may not also be a solid work of art in its own right.

Fortunately Hooper played to his strengths in Les Misérables. He chose generally to direct the musical primarily as a film without trying to invoke the stage. Indications are that he resorted to live recording of the song track rather than canning it first or blending it in with post-production audio re-takes. Live piano played into singers’ earpieces and followed the pacing of the actor/singers, helping them hit the notes. The orchestral music was edited in afterwards and was also tailored to the performances. This method freed the actors to “act” as they sang. Hooper’s direction is nearly impeccable here and the actual performances are so convincing that technically imperfect singing comes across as somehow "right."  Particularly moving are the performances by Jackman, Hathaway, Samantha Barks (Eponine) and the astonishingly good Eddie Redmayne (Marius).

While Amanda Seyfried does justice to the role of Cosette, she had the misfortune of landing the most poorly developed part in the production—a classic ingénue of the worst kind. It’s really hard not to root for Eponine at Cosette’s expense. But maybe that’s what we’re supposed to do.

Hooper made use of many West End regulars to fill in the extras on the cast (Barks is the only headliner taken from the stage production). Most notably, Colm Wilkinson, the original Jean Valjean, makes an appearance as the priest.  Naturally, many believe his version of “Bring Him Home” is definitive. Perhaps it is. Judge for yourself in this clip from an anniversary concert.

The standout for worst performance, as many feared, is Russell Crowe as Javert. (One wonders what Hugo Weaving, Gary Oldman and Ralph Fiennes were up to). Rumor has it that Paul Bettany was considered for the part. While it's hard to see Bettany in the role, he would probably have been better than the plodding, unresponsive Crowe who looked to be concentrating too hard on his earpiece and forgetting he was supposed to act. Classic depictions of the darkly neurotic and obsessive inspector are shot to pieces by Crowe’s beefy attempt at pathos.

As a film, Hooper’s version contains some great moments, especially in the first act when we’re treated to wonderful French scenery. After that, things begin to move steadily toward contained locations, though the scene selection is generally strong with brilliant attention to symbolic detail. This strength was wasted a little by the overuse of close-ups during many of the key numbers. While the tight camera brought out emotive aspects of the music on a previously untapped level, it could just as easily have helped tell the “story” in these songs with just a little more shot variety. As a for instance, a few more angles were used to wonderful effect in Marius’ “Empty Chairs and Empty Tables,” and might easily have been employed with some of the other songs in which the close-up was the primary vehicle. At the opposite extreme, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter with her tossed salad coiffure were almost drowned by their  scenes. Each time the running gag villains get screen time, they seem to be inundated by their environs. As creative choices maybe these were the right ones, but they leave room for doubt.

At the barricade

Given the cinematographic qualities elsewhere in the film, the claustrophobic barricade set looked suspiciously stage-like, even with some of the lighting. The original cast of hundreds shrank to the handful one might see on stage as well. Perhaps Hooper wanted to achieve a theatrical homage as well as convey the hopelessness of the student heroes of the June Rebellion. While the set did not take full advantage of the film medium, the approach may have achieved a certain level of dramatic tension that served to heighten the final tragic moments of the handsome young intellectuals, at least one great moment in the movie impossible for the stage to match.

A flaw in the original that carried to the film is the inexplicable rapid aging of Jean Valjean between the close of the rebellion and the marriage of Marius and Cosette.  It has the effect of rushing to bring things to a close. You would think Hooper might come up with a convenient time device to create better continuity, but no; he let it go, too. 

I regret to have to mention the finale. If you haven't seen the film, read no further. The finale especially plays up the difference between the stage and screen. I wanted that swelling moment that polished off the production for me at the Queen’s Theatre in London back in 2005. The film moment just didn’t quite get there and it left me feeling a little unfulfilled.

In summary, Hooper turns out a terrific and in some places daring piece of work studded with many wonderful individual performances. It may not be the incredible film people were hoping for, but it’s definitely a great viewing experience worth catching at the theatre rather than waiting for the DVD. Give it four out of five of your preferred emoji.