Les Miz Opens Big. But Don't Expect That to Silence The Critics!
Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 5:03PM I started a link roundup but by the time I was two hours into surveying my Google Reader, the post had morphed into a rant as long as Les Misérables running time (which I'm about to indulge in again). It began with these three links:
Antagony & Ecstasy ooh, a list right up our alley: ten best adaptations of stage musicals, to celebrate the release of Les Miz. Interesting disqualifying comments on Cabaret
Slate "I Dreamed a Tween" Excellent excellent piece on Les Misérables' appeal to tweens and its long hold on its young fans once they've grown up
Advocate And another essay on our long histories with this particular musical phenomenon.
All of which are Pro Les Miz so buyers beware.
Eddie Redmayne takes aim. The critics have too.
As y'all know I've been quite touchy about this film. More...
I think a lot of the vindictive response to Tom Hooper's adaptation of the theatrical phenomenon is a part and parcel of two traditions I tend to despise. The annual act of scapegoating at least one Expected Oscar Player each year bugs me because no film deserves ALL the bile that people store up for the complicated moodswings that hit us all during the holidays. This is not to say that films don't sometimes deserve harsh reviews just that it's pretty easy to see the "pile on" effect in summer and Christmas movie season where one film will sort of become target practice as if everyone is suddenly embarrassed about gushing over all the others and finds a mutual target to bully). And I'm on record regularly as being dismayed by the huge swaths of the population (in the critical community and elsewhere) that raise all their cynical shackles up in the vicinity of the emotionally epic often earnest territory of Musical Theater (If the emotions weren't big, why would anyone be singing?).
I was at a dinner party earlier this week with a good number of gays present and one of them asked, sincerely, if anyone was going to Les Misérables on Christmas?
I wanted to see it but then I heard it was just atrocious."
"Atrocious!". Sigh. This is what I mean about scapegoating. No way in hell is that movie any worse that "Problematic" as adjectives go and I think it's better than that word implies, too. Some people will hate the movie and some will love it and either reaction is just fine. But the conversation has been ridiculously poisonous. That makes going in with an open heart difficult and open hearts are required when approaching musicals, no joke.
I asked him where he'd heard that and he said 'oh I was just reading some reviews.' The room suddenly turned to me -- aware that I was some sort of movie guy -- and the questions started flying. I was disappointed that the critical bile had already permeated a generally musical-loving community (some stereotypes being true) and I worried about the box office. But I worry too much. Les Miz took the crown with $18 million -- a very strong Christmas Day -- beating Django Unchained and The Hobbit. I had long expected Les Misérables to be a $100+ million hit (like Chicago & Hairspray) but the bile from certain corners of the internet surprised me with its devout fervor -- hating Les Miz being the new online religion!
I'm fully aware that box office means nothing in terms of quality as each weekend's charts regularly attest but box office does mean something in terms of future film production and if Les Miz can make a lot of bank whilst being a proudly dramatic musical (it's the first musical in some time to not pretend it's anything other than a musical in its advertisements, thank god!) it paves the way for more musicals to go into production and that's the Dream I always Dream.
If there's a bright side to the extreme negativity greeting Les Misérables in some parts, I hope it's this: Maybe Hollywood will notice the reviews (ha!) and stop casting people who lack the musical gift (Bonham-Carter, Crowe) in musicals and notice that people who have it (Hathaway, Redmayne, Jackman) are the ones people actually love to see singing! Go figure. [/Les Tangent]
Reader Comments (60)
I listened to a review on NPR that said that The Sound Of Music was infinitely more plausible and realistic than Lord of the Rings and yet everyone has a problem with people breaking into song, not with hobbits and magical powers. I admit that I'm pretty baffled about the problem as well.
And in particular the hatred (let's call it what is is) for something like Les Miz makes me scratch my head because it's singing from beginning to end, that is its universe. It's also a universe which has live singing and tight close-ups. I just don't see the problem. Sure we could wish for a universe where Norm Lewis was cast instead of Russell Crowe, but that's not the way of Hollywood.
I think Les Miz works better than Sweeney Todd or Nine and it's not because the source material is really any better. So it must be the abilities of the actors and the director, no?
Nathaniel, I'm not talking about you personally re: Extremely Loud, et al. When I say "around here," I mean in Comments discussions as well as on the actual site, in the same way that some commenters here have stated even more pointedly than you have that it is impossible and/or ridiculous to think of Les Mis as a D- or an F movie, and assumed that such a verdict is only possible if one is grandstanding or opposing the genre or following a critical trend. So this isn't all about you; I'm responding to the whole discussion, especially since I came up in it. I'm not saying these commenters aren't 100% entitled to their reactions, but I'm entitled to respond, right? Especially to characterizations of my own thinking?
That said, you do suggest in your piece that it's completely not possible to think this movie is "atrocious" or anything worse than "problematic" if you've actually seen it, and have indicated elsewhere that it's "so annoying to pretend Hathaway is anything less than stupendous," etc., which I also happen to disagree with. So, yes, I understand where the vehemence is coming from, and I don't consider myself the primary target. You are my beloved friend, and I think we can disagree a lot without taking it to heart. But I do think you're leaving very little room in these pieces for any of your readers to think Les Mis is terrible without standing accused of false consciousness or gang mentality. You were calling it a "backlash" before the movie even opened! I am totally willing to hear those critiques, from anybody, and maybe I did react too vehemently. But I think it's okay to stick up for my own position and say that, yes, I do find some (not all) champions of Les Mis to be monumentally defensive of it, to offer the virtues of the *show* as alibis for the *movie*, and to assume there is some kind of agenda going on if a viewer or especially a critic thinks it's actually worse than "okay." If you care about different things than I do at the movies -- or even if you care about the same things, but just reacted otherwise to Les Mis -- I totally get that you might react anywhere on the scale to this movie.
As for live-singing: yes, I think Dreamgirls would have been improved with on-set recording. Live-singing could have worked for Les Mis, but not with a lot of those singers, in those parts, and (for me) certainly not in the way Hooper executed it. Neither approach is categorically good or bad. The fact that the Les Mis publicity machine has framed the discussion so strongly in those terms from the get-go only resonates with my sense of the movie itself: I'm supposed to think it's good just because they're calling attention to how effortful it is?
(P.S. for podcast fans: You're now officially watching me and Nathaniel do our version of that scene in The Hobbit where the mountains start fighting with each other!)
I wasn't familar with Les Miserables, either the musical or the book, before seeing it so I went in completely blind (except for being familiar with 1 or 2 of the songs out of context). I kinda loved it. I keep encountering reviews that call it 'manipulative,' and I can't help but wonder if the people saying that are just afraid to admit that the damn thing made them cry.
In my theatre, there were a couple of people sniffling throughout the movie, but at Jean Valjean's death scene there were sniffles coming from all over. You could tell many people were doing their best to keep from really crying. Interestingly, that last scene got a bigger reaction than 'I Dreamed A Dream.' There was applause when the movie ended.
Aside from Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, who are getting most of the buzz, I thought Eddie Redmayne (who I didn't know much about before) was fantastic. A lot of the reviews I've skimmed haven't mentioned him at all or say he was 'ok,' which is frustrating. He was clearly far better than ok, in my opinion. And Russell Crowe struck me as the weak link, not just singing-wise. I was under the impression that I was supposed to see Javert as a more straightforward-minded man than I thought Crowe came off. His character didn't really make sense to me.
Wow, this is one polarizing film! I saw the stage production and liked it a lot, own the original soundtrack and was really looking forward to the film (especially based upon the trailer). But I have to say I think the film is kind of a disaster and totally the fault of Tom Hooper. So many bad choices. His staging is chaotic and fails at one of the basic tenets of directing: clearly establishing the space in which his actors inhabit. The shots go everywhich way and the ADD editing keeps the viewer confused so much of the time. This will seem nitpicky but Hooper goes to great lengths to show the realism of the filth and skin diseases of the peasant actors but then has child-Cossette wandering barefoot in the snow without any sign of experiencing the bitter cold. No shivering, no signs of breath. Same thing when Epenine is singing in the freezing rain. She's skimpily dressed like a Victoria's Secret model yet never reacts to what is supposed to be the harsh environment she exists in.
Another big complaint is that almost every actor STARTS at their emotional high point and is left with nowhere to go. Anne Hathaway is playing "miserable/at the end of her rope" from her very first shot and never shows any other colors. As an actress, she obviously digs deep in delivering "I Dreamed a Dream" but since there has been no variation in her emotions it just comes across as one-note over-acting.
Finally, the biggest disappointment to me was the live singing which sounded great on paper. But there seems to be a weird disconnect between the acting-singing and then the soaring-yet-muffled orchestrations that accompany the voices. Also, the technique seemed to encourage the actors to over emote. (And don't get me started on how Hugh slaughters my fav number, "Bring Him Home.")
I hate to be a hater on this movie. I'm actually glad that people like it and that it is doing block-buster biz -- hopefully that will encourage more movie musicals to be made. Just hope Hooper isn't guiding them.
Scott -- happy to hear from a sane person who doesn't like the movie :) thanks for sharing... though I have to admit hearing Anne Hathaway's performance described as one note puzzles me since I was literally shaking during her scenes from all the backstory and psychology and years of struggling she was jamming into it. I felt like I Dreamed a Dream had like 10 scenes within it and they were all coming from her voice and face. To me its one of the most triumphant pieces of acting I've seen in years. I do understand certain criticisms of the movie as I've said in several posts but Hathaway's work is not among them ;)
Nick/Nathaniel: "You are my beloved friend" is where this comments section had me choking up. I was all, "Why can't they see they belong together?" And then it happened.
Hey Nathaniel, what I mean by “one note” is that Anne played desperate misery as pretty much her only acting choice from her first scene through her song. If she had found something else to play to vary her performance, it would have made “I Dreamed a Dream” more effective for me. Like in the workhouse if she had shown maybe a flash of bitchy humor or steely defiance when she was being tormented by the other women, it would have brought variety to the role. Instead of sliding into prostitution all victimy, what if she had shown a fierce determination to do ANYTHING to provide for her daughter even if it meant willing selling herself. Then, when she realizes she actually does not have it in her to endure the degradation of it all, THEN her lament of her lost dreams of a happy life would have been more poignant since it would have built on something. She brings a lot of emotion to the song but it’s all emotion we’ve already seen from her (at the same intensity of delivery) so it just didn’t affect me the way I had hoped. I don’t blame Anne here—again, it’s the director’s job to shape and mold his actor’s performances and in my opinion he blew it.
BTW, thanks for taking my negative comments so well. I love your site. If my employer ever tracked how many hours I spend on it daily, I’d be sacked on the spot!
I lost my Les Mis virginity at the Ziegfeld last week.
My only reservation going in was Russell Crowe's singing.
Let me just say this, i left thinking he was neither bad nor good.
As for the musical, i loved it, every second of it.
The atmosphere was like watching it on Broadway, the audience applauded, laughed and stayed through the credits to applaud names as they came on screen.
I have since read that the movie has been getting hate by the critics, lest, we forget, not everyone likes musicals in the first place and it was going to get hate regardless.
Hugh Jackman really does deserve to win an oscar, as does Anne Hathaway.
I personally thought the movie was beautiful and amazing.
Roll on oscar nominations, i hope it gets a handful of nominations and awards.
I LOVED IT! LOVED IT!