Time to talk Les Mis

[ash48]

I know SPN is just around the corner but I wanted to chat briefly about Les Miserables.

I watched Les Mis a few weeks ago. Since then I've read a some reviews and have spoken to a few people about it. I've needed to do this because after I watched it I was left with a mess of reactions to it and I haven't been able to express what I actually thought about it. I was at once in awe and bored. I was in tears and then looking at my watch. I loved it and hated it. I was entranced but also incredibly frustrated by much of it.

I am posting now because I've come across a review that nails it for me. I want to share this because it's not only a comprehensive and entertaining review of Les Mis it's also a FABULOUS lesson in cinematography (and Film Making 101).



This is the review: Hulk Vs Tom Hooper and the art of Cinematic Affection

I'm new to this reviewer. He calls himself Hulk and does his reviews in 2nd person and in capital letters. Yeah. Sounds pretentious - except he knows his stuff and this style (I suppose) is about standing out among a hundred reviewers.

The style doesn't particularly suit me but what he says and how he says it does.

This review helped me to understand why I admired so much of this film (the performances, the story, the sets and a lot of the music) but didn't come away actually feeling anything. Or rather I didn't come away saying "OMG! That was incredible!" - which is what I was totally expecting to do. I know a film has worked for me when I feel like I have experienced something. An emotion, a new insight, a thrill, an escape.... Les Mis certainly left me feeling some of these things but it ultimately left me feeling unaffected and cold.

I'm really glad I saw it on the big screen. There was much I loved - Anne Hathaway's song, I Dream, was one of the best things I've experienced in forever, and the sets, costumes and commitment by the performers was impressive. (Though I am completely puzzled by the casting of Russell Crowe - I figure it was about his gravitas over his singing).

But this isn't about individual performances or singing abilities. Or whether the musical Les Miserables is a fabulous musical or not. It's about how the director, Tom Hooper, failed to allow his some of his audience members (me!) to connect with it. It comes down to film making.

Even if you found no fault in the film whatsoever I recommend this review for the Cinematography 101 section (about half way down). I adore this stuff - it's insightful and just downright interesting. READ IT if you are interested in what makes films work...or not.



oh, and a quote from this review I really liked...."And thus it brings us squarely into one of the most vile and misused words in the intellectual canon: pretentious. When talking about movies, or art, or individuals people seem to use the word pretentious wrong all the time. Most of the time they mean esoteric. Sometimes they mean ostentatious. But when someone is pretentious it means they are reaching for merit that is undeserved.

Hulk

Comments

[maenad.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the link. I know nothing at all about cinematography, but I think this explains some things. I found much of the first part, in particular, quite cold and unmoving - before it erupts into a cast of thousands and you are looking at a fairly intimate story: the battle of wills between Valjean and Javert. That's an odd thing to be unmoved by, really.

Although, I could have done without the capslock. I wonder if Hulk might understand that his formatting does to my brain what misused cinematography does to his. :)

The thing about Crowe is that I felt he didn't have any gravitas. I think he might have made an excellent Javert in a non-musical adaptation, but here I thought he was devoting about 90 per cent of his brain to hitting the right notes and the remaining ten per cent to not tripping over his own feet, and that left no room for actual acting. Javert is a difficult part, because his unyielding attitude is not automatically sympathetic. It takes work and nuance to make him human. If you can just barely carry a tune, that isn't going to happen.

I found a lot of Hugh Jackman's Valjean frustrating, too, though. One of the things I admire about the musical is that it manages to pack just about all of this brick of a novel into a reasonable amount of viewing time. I've never seen a film adaptation that was able to accomplish anything like that. But in order to do it, you've got to use the music as a tool - and I thought the way Jackman talked through a lot of his songs worked against that, and he can sing. A lot of the time, you've got one three-minute solo to completely change your character's point of view. If you talk through it, you're losing the thread that takes you from point A to point B.

I did, however, think the young people were all excellent and did a lot to redeem the experience. And it is an amusingly rewarding experience if you've read the book. Hey, it's Marius's grumpy grandpa! And Gavroche's elephant! And they reworked the barricade stuff to look like the novel! And poor Fantine's teeth!

[ash48.livejournal.com]

I read your review immediately after I watched and agreed with a lot of what you said. Though I was moved my Anne's Fatine and many of the young performers. I agree they were fantastic. In fact, other than Russell I can't fault the performances - I just felt disconnected from the whole thing and I wondered (after reading this) if it was because of the way it was filmed.

My thinking with Russell Crowe's casting is that his persona carries gravitas (imo) and it might have been thought that that would carry him through this. I agree that he would have carried the role off perfectly without the signing. I think he is a solid actor but I felt so awkward watching him sing.

And yes! Being yelled at is a difficult way to read. I copied it all into word and changed the case so I could read it more easily. Plus I want to keep all that stuff on camera work. (good for my media class!)

xxx