Les Miserables (2012)

Directed by: Tom Hooper
Written by: William Nicholson, Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Stromberg, Herbert Kretzmer
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter

Following his Oscar-winning triumph, "The King's Speech", Tom Hooper has decided to undertake the massive project of translating one of the most beloved stage productions of all time, "Les Miserables", on to the big screen. Assembling a cast of very skilled, A-list actors, Hooper has made one of the most highly anticipated films of the year, no doubt fronted by teenage choir girls and other pretentious "cultured" folk such as myself. The result is passable, not great, though it will undoubtedly be a huge audience success and will rake in the gold come awards time.

Prisoner 24601, Jean Valjean, a man condemned for stealing a loaf of bread in post-revolutionary France, dodges his parole and attempts to become a better man. Victor Hugo's epic story is about the trials of a man who faces God and spends his life repenting for his misdeeds, hoping to enter the gates of heaven. Hugh Jackman handles what I imagine was a hugely demanding role very well, with beautiful singing and a few moments of very fine acting. Particularly his moments of self-reflection towards the beginning when Valjean makes the decision to become an honest man left me impressed by his talents.

As Valjean assumes the name M. Madeleine and becomes the mayor of a small town, the whereabouts of the convict are hunted by the wolfish Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe). The cat and mouse chase between the two will be the framing device for the rest of the story. Locked inside of this skeleton are half a dozen subplots about love and loss, greed and humility, friendship and betrayal, all culminating in what should be, though frankly wasn't, the spectacular finale of a fight at the barricades between the French Army and the impoverished folk of the Paris slums.

Without giving too much away, Valjean's spiritual path becomes clear in the form of a young girl named Cosette (with her adult self played by Amanda Seyfried) whose mother, Fantine (Anne Hathaway), sacrificed her life in order to protect the child, though putting her in the hands of the evil and avaricious Thenardier's (Helena Bonham Carter and a stellar Sacha Baron Cohen). When Valjean learns that he was inadvertently responsible for Fantine's death, he takes on the role of mother and father to Cosette and it is her purity helps keep him on the path of righteousness and helps lead him to salvation.

This is a tremendous story to try and condense from the massive 1,100 page novel into a short three hours on stage, though Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Bublil made a masterpiece of the theatre out of it. Hooper's screen adaptation is very faithful to the musical, with only minor additions of dialogue, some additives from the book, and some new music including an original, though decidedly inferior, song called "Suddenly".

It is still a long movie, clocking in at nearly three hours, but for some reason I find that the film does not carry the same fluidity as the stage production, and it felt rushed. I should like very much to distance the two mediums, but as one is so obviously inspired by the other I find it difficult not to. The acting is great by almost all cast members, but Hooper's very involved, heavy handed direction made it almost impossible for me to become emotionally invested in the story.

Firstly, the whole production looked rather cartoonish. In trying to create a grand, sweeping piece of cinema, the sets, costumes and gratuitous use of CGI are meant to heighten the realism of the piece. But this story is not meant to be about heightened reality, it is meant for quite the opposite. Much of the production looked so artificial and outlandish that the characters oftentimes began to seem less like real people.

Second, I am not sure who hired Danny Cohen to handle cinematography, but that person ought to be fired--and Cohen as well, for that matter. When it became acceptable to shoot an entire film in close-up and medium-close shots was is unknown to me, but it made for a jarring, claustrophobic movie-watching experience.

Both of these things are mentioned because they detract from what this story is about. Hugo was writing in large part to present the plight of the miserable poor, the neglected and the downtrodden. The play carries such resonance because so much attention is placed on the situation of the masses who have nowhere to turn to except the rifle and the cobblestone. What Hooper has done in trying to create "spectacle" out of a narrative that is already spectacular effectively draws the audience's attention away from what the story should be about and focuses it on the individual, which defeats the whole point of the story. Jean Valjean is there to serve as a guide for the reader/theatre patron/audience member to keep morality and spirituality present for us as we examine the causes, the costs and the benefits of revolution. Turning the film into a character study--and a poor one at that--is counterproductive.

There are things that I enjoyed in this film. Jackman was great, as was Baron Cohen who is always invested in his character and so effortlessly funny. I really liked the casting of Eddie Redmayne as Marius, Cosette's lover, who made me love and care about the character for the first time. Anne Hathaway was the true standout of the film, though. I have never really cared about the character Fantine in the book or play, but even in her short time on screen Hathaway delivered an emotionally wrenching performance that is sure to get her a well deserved Oscar nod, and possibly even a win. She reminded me very much of Maria Falconetti in "The Passion of Joan of Arc", which anyone who knows their stuff can tell you that that is a tremendous compliment

These actors made up for two very disappointing performances. Samantha Barks as Eponine, the Thernadier's child and my favorite character, was dull and lifeless (also, her hair and makeup were always perfect, but that's neither here nor there). Crowe was absolutely miserable. Javert is a ruthless and immensely complex character who, through Crowe's portrayal, was stiff, flat and boring. If I don't fear Javert and I don't believe Valjean fears him then what's the point? His singing was terrible, and was all around a bad choice for the part.

I am conflicted about the music. Hooper did something very interesting which as an actor I am very fond of, but as a movie watcher I was less than impressed with. Instead of having the actors sing in a studio and dubbing their voices over afterwards, the actors were recorded singing as they acted, adding the music in behind them later. This deepened the actors' ability to give honest portrayals of their characters, but also took some of the power out of their delivery. One of the greatest assets to this musical is... well, its music. If some of the greatest soul-stirring music ever written for the stage doesn't engulf the audience then we are missing out on an integral aspect to what is a very brilliant show.

I give this film a mild recommendation almost solely for its acting and for the fact that its source material is outstanding. I have read the book and seen the show twice on the West End and it reaffirmed my joy of life and my love of my fellow man, all while making me weep like a little girl. Tom Hooper should have taken a step back and let the material breathe. When it is given a chance to work its magic it is wonderfully resonant. It should not have been a time for Hooper to stick his nose in where it wasn't needed, and the parts that he did decide to leave well enough alone were great, giving small tastes of what everyone hoped the whole film would be.

2.5/4