Les Misérables: So, what did you think?- Page 8

[PTOPhan]

Posted: 12/26/12 at 10:46pm

I never saw "Les Mis" on Broadway or in the Kennedy Center, and was not very impressed with the production I attended at Wolf Trap. The movie beats the play out by quite a margin, in my view. First, some of the less important songs have been shortened (e.g., "Little People," which always bored me to tears). Second, they've moved "Do You Hear the People Sing?" to a spot that I think makes more sense. Third, they've added some spoken dialogue and scene changes that help explain the otherwise confusing story. Fourth, they've added introductions to some of the songs that also help explain the action. Fifth, they've revived some of the important bits from the novel that the play cut out (e.g., Marius's grandfather appears in the movie, and Fantine sells something that she doesn't in the play). Sixth, in my view, the slight change in Javert's motivation for his soliloquy makes his character more believable, although some might disagree. Seventh, Jean Valjean's love for his adopted daughter comes through much more strongly than in the stage version.

On the other hand, I think that the much vaunted live singing technique falls flat. Most of the main actors -- especially Russell Crowe -- simply lack the voice to record the songs as part of the action, instead of in the studio. Second, the scenes on the streets are so gritty (literally and figuratively) that they can become almost stomach-turning. Third, the Thenardiers are over the top. There is a danger in making child abusers the comic relief, but the play manages to pull it off without appearing exceptionally tasteless. However, the campy humor of Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter doesn't fit, especially when sandwiched between the other relentlessly depressing scenes. As for the action during the "liver of a cat" line...the less said, the better.

Still, I can almost guarantee that, if you cried during "E.T.," you will cry at the end of "Les Miserables," despite the flaws. I'm sure the film will be up for numerous Oscars.

[GlindatheGood22]

Posted: 12/26/12 at 11:12pm

Saw it this afternoon and enjoyed it for the most part. I'm not really that familiar with the show so I'm probably not the best person to judge, but I did like it. The only thing that bothered me was Do You Hear The People Sing - seemed too contained to me.

[kec]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 12:07am

"Did anyone else lose it when Javert bends down to pin his medal of honor on the body of the young Gavroche? What a great directional choice!"

OMG YES!!!!!! I was already in tears by this time, and that scene killed me!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 12:10am

Third, the Thenardiers are over the top. There is a danger in making child abusers the comic relief, but the play manages to pull it off without appearing exceptionally tasteless.


I guess you weren't paying attention when you saw the show onstage.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 12:34am

"First, some of the less important songs have been shortened (e.g., "Little People," which always bored me to tears)."

When, since (and including) the original Broadway production, has "Little People" ever been anything but a short reprise-style snippet?

Updated On: 12/27/12 at 12:34 AM

[HumATune]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 1:43am

Just got home from seeing the film.

I really enjoyed it. My biggest quibble is that they should have lowered the key for Hugh Jackman's "Bring Him Home" because it was rather painful. I mean he sang "What Have I Done" and "Who Am I" in lower keys. A friend of mine thought the problem was that he was belting the whole time instead of using head voice/falsetto. But overall I thought Hugh gave a moving performance.

Russell Crowe isn't the best singer, but on film with his acting, he makes it work.

I enjoyed Samantha Barks much more here than I did on the 25th Anniversary DVD. On that, I found her acting to be rather wooden, but she kicked her acting up several notches for the film.

Also, I may or may not have been the only person in the theater cheering with Colm Wilkinson's name came up in the credits.

[philly03]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 2:22am

I thought Crowe did a sufficient job as well - not the strongest, but much better watching than just listening on the recording.

The close-ups distracted me terribly, particular Eddie Redmayne and his singing style (wobbling jaw).

I thought Sam Barks gave a wonderful performance, but the movie makes Eponine more whiny than the musical. "A Heart Full of Love," "On My Own," and "One Day More" practically back to back - overkill on the "all on my own"/unrequited love that makes her seem pathetic rather than spunky. I also found it bizarre that it manages to rain only for "On my Own" and "A Little Fall of Rain," then quickly stops. Lousy editing to me.

[Page2Stage 2]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 4:14am

I agree with you 100 percent on that. I think that Burton should have left the music and the songs alone, and sorry you don't have to cast your wife, and your best actor boy in everything you do, especially if they are not great singers, and don't fit the role they are playing. I hope Disney does a better job at being true to the Into the Woods musical film they are producing with Sandhime. Hav not seen Les Mis yet, but want to really badly.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 6:19am

I hope Disney does a better job at being true to the Into the Woods musical film they are producing with Sandhime.

Who on God's green earth is Sandhime?!!

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 6:25am

You know, Stefayne Sandhime! The dude who wrote the tunes!

[ladyanderson]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 7:54am

message deleted Updated On: 12/27/12 at 07:54 AM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 8:06am

One of the worst movies I've had the displeasure of sitting through all year. Long, ugly, and boring. The idea to have the actors sing live may have been genius but choosing to film every big musical number in one long jittery close up was not.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 8:09am

You know, Stefayne Sandhime! The dude who wrote the tunes!

^ LUV!

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 8:11am

Who the heck is "Colm Wilkerson"? And more importantly, did his name appear in the credits in quotation marks, 'cause that's cool if they actually did that.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 8:12am

One of the worst movies I've had the displeasure of sitting through all year. Long, ugly, and boring. The idea to have the actors sing live may have been genius but choosing to film every big musical number in one long jittery close up was not.

But no, really. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 8:45am

So, Carlos -- your entire job here is to trash anyone that has any opinion? You mock those that love it, you mock those that hate it, you mock those with a typo. You are truly more "you" than usual. (And yes, including the quotation marks.)

[AlanAntonio]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:02am

This is blasphemy! You don't know who Colm Wilkinson is? Google it.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:05am

Read more carefully -- the poster that mentioned the applause for his name spelled it wrong. Carlos knows who he is.

[AlanAntonio]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:09am

Bring Him Home is a prayer and should have been sung in the movie softly and solemnly, the way it is done on stage. Nonetheless, Hugh Jackman did a terrific job. Anne Hathaway was phenomenal. Her I Dreamed A Dream reduced the audience to a slobbery mess.

No movie is perfect, but this one is pretty darn good. It did the material justice. Victor Hugo would not be complaining.



Updated On: 12/27/12 at 09:09 AM

[AlanAntonio]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:10am

Oh, I see. I was just kidding.

[best12bars]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:13am

I think only a couple of you have mentioned this, but why on earth did someone decide to remove nearly all of the percussion from the movie orchestrations? While not as fatal a crime as cutting every trace of choral singing from Sweeney Todd, in many cases, the lack of percussion sucks the life right out of this score.

Did they think they were removing the "pop" sound and making it more legit or "timeless?" If so, they should have cast opera singers (which would have been awful with this score, in my opinion).

The source material for Les Miz is what it is. No less ... but no more either.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:23am

Excellent point; the orchestra is muted, and sounds, well, added. As it was. Can't imagine any reason to listen repeatedly to this soundtrack. But I've been listening to this score since I bought the French LP in London, two days after seeing the show at the Barbicon. For a new audience, this film may be definitive. Those of us with decades of experience with the show may be the least likely to embrace its pleasures.

[metropolis10111]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:26am

To me it had to be removed as to not overwhelm the live singing. IMHO the live singing hampered the score. If they have used it for the smaller more intimate numbers it would have been fine but the large numbers get lost in translation. The percussion may very well be there but to in the background as to almost be inaudible. Also there are cues in the music as to when things should happen that didn't and I found it distracting when then didn't. Not because I wanted it to be like the stage show but rather it was like the action was a beat to two behind the score. The most glaring was the jump at the end of Stars. That soaring last note and the swell of the music is glorious and it was not their on either count.

[Jane2]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 9:58am

"So, Carlos -- your entire job here is to trash anyone that has any opinion? You mock those that love it, you mock those that hate it, you mock those with a typo. You are truly more "you" than usual. (And yes, including the quotation marks.)"


Drammamama - my hero!

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/12 at 10:03am

I can only be true to myself. I'm an equal opportunity mocker. It's just too easy around these parts.

Oh by the way, lighten up...it's not that serious.