 |
| Courtesy of Vogue (via Movieline) |
The idea of having actors sing their songs live works so well on paper. Not having to tailor performances to what has already been recorded not only would seem to give the actors more time to actually dig deep into what they're singing really means, but would consequently allow for much more freedom and visceral emotion to come forth. What results, however, are weak performances throughout with even weaker renditions of these classic songs. Throughout the film, the performances are constantly polluted with the actors gasping for breath, struggling to stay on key and hit those powerful high notes. That's what the film lacks as a whole -- power. Listening or watching the on-stage musical is such a powerful and emotional experience that you can't helped but be thrown into these characters' world. Here, on the other hand, we constantly see actors struggling to even get their songs out. While I suppose it could be argued that this adaptation was trying to be a more gritty, realistic depiction, it's still a musical. And what's the main focus of a musical? That's right, boys and girls, the music!
Don't get me wrong, some actors take full advantage of the options that this form of filming opens up. In particular, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as a couple of filthy, painted-up rapscallions (mother and father of Eponine and momentary guardians of Cosette) are fantastic. Their brilliant mix of constantly switching between singing and dialogue works perfectly and the hilarity the imbues are some of the only moments of real emotion in the film. Eddie Redmayne also surprises and brings a similar mix of singing and acting to his scenes that is refreshing opposite the lackluster quality of the performances given by brothers in resistance and his bride (Amanda Seyfried) and father-in-law to be (Hugh Jackman). Though Jackman is perfect for the way Tom Hooper chose to film (no one does big, red, teary eyes better), and clearly has musical chops (just look at his Tony!), he consistently falls flat, unable to find his true voice or even the appropriate key. Anne Hathaway, who has received much praise for her brief turn as Fantine, is dreadful; spending most of her time chewing the scenery, demanding the audience look at how sad she is, lapping up the tears that are forced from the viewers' collective eyes. And Russell Crowe? I'm not even going to take the time to explain how bad Russell Crowe is. He can't sing and he should have never been in this movie. Although admittedly he does make for the funniest scene in the whole film, albeit unintentional. What I keep coming back to, though, is emotion. Aside from Carter, Cohen, and Redmayne, there just isn't any.
It's this lack of real emotion is the reason for the film's ultimate downfall. In many interviews, Hooper has stated that his decision to film the movie almost entirely in wide-angle closeups was to show the imperfection of the characters. The crooked teeth, the scars and blemishes, the flowing tears that go unwiped, staining the cheeks of the lower-class French. Again, in theory, this is a brilliant idea. But in practice it is but another failure in a long list. While on stage (or when filmed at a far enough distance) action can be much more easily taken in. You don't have to struggle to understand exactly what the characters are doing or where they are and when multiple actors are singing you can take them all in at once. However, filming almost exclusively with closeups forces the camera to quickly move back and forth between actors and what could have ultimately been a very emotionally charged moment becomes comedic in its execution. If the film was able to convey the emotion that is inherent in Hugo's novel and in good productions of the on-stage musical, being so close to the actors could have produced a raw energy that would have been near unbearable. However, the unbearableness instead comes from the fact that the film is unable to convey any type of real energy (perhaps due to the fact that the abundance of these closeups removes any kind of uniqueness that might have otherwise made them, I don't know, special and poignant?) and results to shoving you into the faces of the characters, showing the audience their watery eyes and quivering lips in an attempt to force them to feel.
And ultimately, I just didn't. Though the music, composed by a 72 piece orchestra, is beautiful and though I appreciate what Hooper tried to do with this film and while hope that it inspires more directors to try to change and improve not only the musical genre but every genre of film, this particular movie just didn't work. Maybe with a different method of filming it could have been something special? Maybe with better actors or some kind of balance between prerecording and live? Maybe so. However, the one thing it needed above all else was emotion, passion, life. Sadly, with all its ambition and innovation, that's one thing Tom Hooper forgot. And LES MISÉRABLES pays dearly for it.
3 out of 10
Don't get me wrong, some actors take full advantage of the options that this form of filming opens up. In particular, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as a couple of filthy, painted-up rapscallions (mother and father of Eponine and momentary guardians of Cosette) are fantastic. Their brilliant mix of constantly switching between singing and dialogue works perfectly and the hilarity the imbues are some of the only moments of real emotion in the film. Eddie Redmayne also surprises and brings a similar mix of singing and acting to his scenes that is refreshing opposite the lackluster quality of the performances given by brothers in resistance and his bride (Amanda Seyfried) and father-in-law to be (Hugh Jackman). Though Jackman is perfect for the way Tom Hooper chose to film (no one does big, red, teary eyes better), and clearly has musical chops (just look at his Tony!), he consistently falls flat, unable to find his true voice or even the appropriate key. Anne Hathaway, who has received much praise for her brief turn as Fantine, is dreadful; spending most of her time chewing the scenery, demanding the audience look at how sad she is, lapping up the tears that are forced from the viewers' collective eyes. And Russell Crowe? I'm not even going to take the time to explain how bad Russell Crowe is. He can't sing and he should have never been in this movie. Although admittedly he does make for the funniest scene in the whole film, albeit unintentional. What I keep coming back to, though, is emotion. Aside from Carter, Cohen, and Redmayne, there just isn't any.
It's this lack of real emotion is the reason for the film's ultimate downfall. In many interviews, Hooper has stated that his decision to film the movie almost entirely in wide-angle closeups was to show the imperfection of the characters. The crooked teeth, the scars and blemishes, the flowing tears that go unwiped, staining the cheeks of the lower-class French. Again, in theory, this is a brilliant idea. But in practice it is but another failure in a long list. While on stage (or when filmed at a far enough distance) action can be much more easily taken in. You don't have to struggle to understand exactly what the characters are doing or where they are and when multiple actors are singing you can take them all in at once. However, filming almost exclusively with closeups forces the camera to quickly move back and forth between actors and what could have ultimately been a very emotionally charged moment becomes comedic in its execution. If the film was able to convey the emotion that is inherent in Hugo's novel and in good productions of the on-stage musical, being so close to the actors could have produced a raw energy that would have been near unbearable. However, the unbearableness instead comes from the fact that the film is unable to convey any type of real energy (perhaps due to the fact that the abundance of these closeups removes any kind of uniqueness that might have otherwise made them, I don't know, special and poignant?) and results to shoving you into the faces of the characters, showing the audience their watery eyes and quivering lips in an attempt to force them to feel.
And ultimately, I just didn't. Though the music, composed by a 72 piece orchestra, is beautiful and though I appreciate what Hooper tried to do with this film and while hope that it inspires more directors to try to change and improve not only the musical genre but every genre of film, this particular movie just didn't work. Maybe with a different method of filming it could have been something special? Maybe with better actors or some kind of balance between prerecording and live? Maybe so. However, the one thing it needed above all else was emotion, passion, life. Sadly, with all its ambition and innovation, that's one thing Tom Hooper forgot. And LES MISÉRABLES pays dearly for it.
3 out of 10
