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

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.

---

"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!

"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

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.

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?!!

message deleted

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

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

^ LUV!

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!

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

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

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.

---

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.

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.