Review: "Les Miserables"

Director: Tom Hooper
Runtime: 157 minutes

For as BIG as Tom Hooper's Les Miserables is - the music, the decades-spanning story, the emotions - this adaptation of the mega-musical also contains a surprising intimacy. Aside from the decision to shoot the musical numbers live/on-camera, no one directing aspect has received as much attention as Mr. Hooper's close-ups on his actors' faces. It's a decision that, like much of the material on display here, will likely prove divisive (not to mention the fact that the film is almost entirely sung, even outside of standard songs). As someone completely unfamiliar with the stage show as a whole (I know a few songs and some major plot points), I had reason to fear for the worst. Yet, some missteps that arise in the middle sections aside, Hooper's film soared enough to turn me into a Les Mis convert. 

As far as plot goes, there's quite a bit (which is at times a slight problem). The basics are as follows: Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), released on parole after 19 years in prison, seeks to rebuild his life while avoiding the unwavering lawman Javert (Russell Crowe). There's also a wrongfully disgraced factory worker (Anne Hathaway) and her daughter (Isabelle Allen/Amanda Seyfried), a band of student revolutionaries (Eddie Redmayne, Aaron Tveit), and a pair of nefarious inn-keepers (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter). Even at 2 hours and 40 minutes, the show (and as a result, the film) wobbles when it comes to condensing Victor Hugo's mammoth novel. Thankfully, there's a game cast delivering some rousing renditions of the epic score. Ultimately, how you feel about Les Miserables could come down to the music. If the musical material isn't working for you (ballads, sung-dialogue, etc...), then it might be best to leave early on. 

But not too early. Because at the very least it's worth staying around for what will inevitably become the film's signature moment: Anne Hathaway's rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream." Though the scene's power in comparison to others has been overstated, this is the scene that will likely win over the hardest hearts, even if said hearts hate everything else the film has to offer. Hathaway's time as Fantine is brief, but she nails what little material she has, turning her doomed character into a suitable icon to loom over Valjean for the remainder of the story. Watching Hathaway's big moment highlights all that works in Les Mis, and how the soaring moments overcome the smaller missteps. Yet to cite "I Dreamed a Dream" as the sole shining moment of the film does a disservice to so many other moments.

Carrying the bulk of the narrative is Jackman's Jean Valjean. Though his songs are some of the least melodically compelling, the actor compensates by marvelously acting through them. One of his earliest moments, the expositional "Soliloquoy," pales in comparison to nearly every song, yet succeeds thanks to Jackman's ferocious commitment. Jackman blasts through the screen as Hooper and cinematographer Danny Cohen hone the camera in on his face, allowing himself to falter with words, his voice breaking on carefully chosen words to bring a sense of character to the discordant music. Jackman is forced to stick to his upper register, where his voice starts to veer towards shrillness, but the power he brings to the numbers remains compelling. 

The rest of the cast fare equally well, even though some have less material to work with. Eddie Redmayne, among the cast's stronger vocalists, makes the potentially bland Marius an engaging presence. His work opposite his fellow student rebels (led by a magnetic Aaron Tveit as Enjolras) resonates, and his one time to shine as a soloist reaches the same emotional magnificence of Fantine's anguished cry in the dark. His pair of romantic interests handle themselves well, even as the material lets them down compared to the ensemble. Amanda Seyfried does her best to turn adult Cosette into a compelling presence, but ultimately the role doesn't have quite enough weight to it. Then there's Samantha Barks' Eponine, who sings quite well, but lacks the screen presence of those around her.

Less immediately entertaining are the story's comedic relief cast members, the nefarious Thenardiers (Cohen and Bonham Carter). For those not acquainted with the material, the Thenardiers' "Master of the House" could prove awkwardly stitched together and jarring, considering the material that comes before. The Thenardiers' presence is something of a mixed bag throughout, and the might have better served the film with fewer, more carefully chosen, scenes. 

Last, but not least, is Russell Crowe as Valjean's tireless nemesis, Inspector Javert. Crowe has become the single most divisive element of the cast, yet I have to confess that I found the actor compelling, despite his thinner vocals. Crowe's limited range fits into an interesting rock opera range, yet thanks to the close-ups, he's able to make it work. Both of Javert's big solos, vocal rough patches and all, managed to give me the right kind of chills. Redmayne is the vocal star of the supporting cast, but as far as acting is concerned, it is Crowe who truly makes every moment count. 

With the cast generally turning in strong work, however, there's still the matter of everything around them. And thankfully, despite some shortcomings, Hooper and his behind the scenes collaborators have brought their A game. The cinematography, wide angle lenses and all, gives the songs a sense of immediacy. These are not the prettiest renditions of the score, yet thanks to the use of close-ups, they are guided from their lofty pedestals down to a much more human and visceral level. And Cohen's camera also captures the often dark scenes with a surprising richness, and the scenes set in daylight possess a painterly texture that fits wonderfully with the time period. Technical aspects, despite the inherent dreariness of the setting, are also aces. The stylized sets and costumes are bold and textured, and the makeup ranges from wonderfully subtle (Valjean's aging) to appropriately cartoonish (Mme Thenardier in particular).


Yet for all that Mr. Hooper gets right as a director, he does make some decisions that get in the way of his cast, rather than helping them. Given the magnetism of the performances, Hooper's framing can be overlooked. Less forgivable is his staging of certain numbers, which isn't helped by the occasionally fussy editing. It's going too far to say that the film succeeds in spite of Hooper's direction, but some of his choices do provide some unnecessary hurdles. However, Hooper does allow the camera to settle in enough places to create some stirring (and stable) imagery. 

And when Les Miserables soars, it does so magnificently. The songs of the student rebels are among the most rousing, and lend the film a new sense of energy as new characters and arcs are introduced. Even when characters appear  as though the entire cast was living in a shrunken version of Paris, the music's power in the hands of the ensemble remains undeniable. The richness and grandeur of this musical epic remain fully intact, despite the deliberately unpolished vocals. Whether you weep or find yourself lifted in triumph, Hooper's shamelessly epic treatment of the material, coupled with the bracingly intimate treatment of the performances, manages to rise to the occasion over the technical bumps in the road. It may take some time to adjust (I have seen the film twice now), but even for the uninitiated, there is potential for this extremely faithful version to win you over. Or, at the very least, you can hear the people sing, and hopefully like some of what you hear. Les Miserables is full throttle in its sincerity (there's no Sweeney Todd-style black comedy) and devotion to the musical/operetta form. As such, it will undeniably turn off plenty, whether they be those driven away by the music, or Hooper's direction. Yet for those with whom the film even partially connects, there will be moments that register with a level of old fashioned majesty that's worth singing about.

Grade: B+/A-

Trailer: "Dark Shadows"

Despite being in a state of completion for quite some time, Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, an adaptation of the famous cult TV series has been kept, well, in the shadows. Until recently, only a handful of production still have emerged, with nary a poster or trailer in sight until last night. It might seem like a bad sign, considering that the film opens just under two months from now (May 11th), but to an extent it makes sense. May marks the high-gear kickoff to summer blockbuster season, and May 2012 looks pretty stacked with big, more widely appealing films, namely Marvel's The Avengers. So, in a sense, Warner Bros. is playing it smart by aiming for a short, powerful burst of marketing right before the film's release, so they don't end up spending a bunch of money on a film that, on paper, shouldn't provide much financial competition against the likes of Marvel's super-hero orgy.

Thankfully, the trailer actually seems pretty promising, though I do have a handful of reservations. I've never seen any of the show, so I can't judge whether or not Burton's darkly farcical tone clashes with the show or not. Still, said darkly farcical tone is right up Burton's alley, and Dark Shadows looks like an opportunity for the director to make something in the vein of Beetlejuice, which certainly wouldn't be a bad thing. I'm not sure most of the jokes are supposed to be gutbustingly funny, but I thoroughly enjoyed the laughs that the trailer showcased, particularly the bits with Eva Green, who looks like she's having an absolute blast as the film's villain. And, as per any Burton film, the production values look marvelous, and the generally higher amount of on-location and/or studio set-photography is a welcome change of pace after the nauseating CGI mess that was Alice in Wonderland.

All the same, there are a few shots in here that feature a sort of cheap, weightless-looking VFX look that contrasts with how nicely filled out and tangible the other sets come off. I'm hoping that these scenes are only a brief portion of the film's runtime, and that they're merely vestiges of Burton's work on Alice, because the man really does know how to work with his creative departments to create wonderfully textured worlds.

As for the cast, apart from Green and Helena Bonham Carter, I am a little worried about some of the other players, including, unfortunately, Johnny Depp. Burton and Depp have a great history together, but lately they've been slipping, to the point where I think it might be time for Burton to find another male muse (Bonham Carter is more than welcome to stay as his female muse, however). I'm also a little nervous about Michelle Pfeiffer, because her role seems a little too straightforward and stiff. The above-mentioned actors are all gifted at stylized performances, and it's unsettling that some might be getting past their prime and doing the same old thing (Depp), or not being properly utilized (Pfeiffer).

Finally, there's the plot. Frankly, I'm not expecting anything revolutionary, though I'm sure there will be fun in seeing Depp's Barnabas try to figure out the world of the 70s. What worries me more is whether the genre trappings and tone will elevate the "save the family business!" story line, or whether said story line will drag down the genre elements. I'm crossing my fingers for the former. Either way, though, I'll still be there first in line on May 11th, since it's been too long since Burton's last film, Sweeney Todd (now that this trailer is out, I'm going to start pretending that Alice never happened). And if this doesn't work, I suppose there's always Frankenweenie later this year.

Trailer Grade: B

"The King's Speech" - REVIEW

On the surface, one could practically write off Tom Hooper's The King's Speech as something custom-made for the Academy's voting body to gobble up. Not only does it have (real life) royals, but one of them also has a disability; it's the sort of thing that AMPAS loves to cozy up to with a bucket-load of nominations. And that's likely to happen with The King's Speech, although in this case, it would overall be well-earned.

The basics are as follows: The Duke of York (Colin Firth), long-afflicted with an awful stutter, is forced to become king when his brother (Guy Pearce) abdicates the throne, all while Europe gears up for a second world war. To help, his wife (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks out an unconventional Australian speech therapist named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), to help the future king overcome his speech impediment.

We haven't seen this particular story before, but we've seen this type of story done to death, in countless variations. So how exactly do Hooper and his crew succeed? Frankly, it comes from honesty. The film could have gone for easy crowd-pleasing by having 'Bertie' (the duke's personal nickname) completely overcome his stutter during the runtime of the film. Of course, that's not what happened, and David Seidler's screenplay avoids the easy ways out. When it comes to the the titular speech, Firth doesn't charge forth through the words and deliver them flawlessly, but rather goes through them realistically. And by emphasizing the difficulty involved with treating an almost life-long affliction, The King's Speech actually soars, instead of being hindered. And while the film moves at a stately, at times too stately, pace, Firth's pauses and stammers never become irritating or gimmicky to the point that they distract the viewer rather than convince. Do we feel uncomfortable for Bertie? Absolutely. Parts of the film's opening scene, in which the Duke botches a speech in front of a massive stadium crowd, are almost painfully awkward, but never to the point where the film itself becomes awkward or unpleasant.

Of course, a great deal of this also has to do with the great talent involved. Coming off of the energy built from last year in A Single Man, Colin Firth really gets to shine as the future King George VI, and makes him so much more than a monarch with a stutter. Every bit his equal is Geoffrey Rush, surprisingly toned down but every bit as lively as usual. The two together make one of the best acting pairs of the year, and the film's success is largely rooted in their chemistry. Lending supporting in a handful of scenes is Bonham-Carter as Bertie's wife (and future Queen Mother). Were the role larger, I'd suspect that the Best Supporting Actress race would already have its winner, but as it stands, Carter has enough to work with to make a small-yet-lovely impression.

The film also benefits from handsome production values and a lovely score by Alexandre Desplat, along with Hooper's assured hand in the director's chair. And Seidler's screenplay, while in spots a little choppy, manages to hold one's interest both in dramatic moments and in a few moments of laugh-out-loud humor. Unfortunately, in trying to cover a surprisingly long stretch of history, the film short-changes certain aspects; the abdication subplot isn't given as much time as it probably deserves (in fairness, it probably deserved its own film). But most, if not all, of the issues of the script can be forgotten (temporarily) when the film clicks, which it does quite often. It's not quite kingly, but Hooper's film is old-fashioned, enjoyable cinema worth the price of admission.

Grade: B/B+

Trailer for "The King's Speech"

And doesn't this look like a limited-but-compelling slice of acting heaven. Firth seems especially on his A-game, and I'm really loving the recent resurgence his career is having (remember The Last Legion...anyone?). He and Rush, one of my favorite working actors, seem to have great chemistry together, which has been stated in nearly every festival review. Bonham-Carter, another personal favorite seems solid too, though the strength of her role may not be up there with the former two. The film arrives in late November, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least Firth's campaign was only a matter of weeks away.

Telluride Review Round-Up: "The King's Speech" [incomplete]

One of the remaining mysteries of 2010, Tom Hooper's The King's Speech, which has no official stills and no trailer, opened today in Telluride. Based on the true story of King George VI's struggle with a speech impediment, the film stars Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter, all strong actors. Still, there was always the chance it could turn out to be another The Young Victoria in terms of reception and awards success. Apparently, that isn't the case, and the period piece is launching with some fantastic first reviews:

Variety's Peter Debruge kicks things off with a prediction that the film "should tap into the the same audience that made The Queen a prestige hit," and that "both roles provide a delightful opportunity for Firth and Rush to poke a bit of fun at their profession." He goes on to say that while Rush's performance seems - on the surface - to be showier, "the big scenes are indisputably Firth's." The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt is also extremely positive, and writes that "Firth doesn't just make a British king vulnerable and insecure, he shows fierce courage and stamina...it's not just marvelous acting, it's an actor who understand the flesh-and-blood reality of the moment and not its history."

But Firth and Rush aren't the only ones receiving attention; Honeycutt writes that Bonham Carter "is a revelation here despite a long career as a leading lady." Over at Incontention, Kris Tapely awards the film ***1/2 out of **** stars and says that "These two [Firth and Rush] have amazing, impeccable chemistry together. Each should comfortably find himself in the hunt for Oscar," and predicts that the film will have strong shots at Picture, Screenplay, and Art Direction.

Additional Reviews: [awaiting]

Telluride Verdict: A handsome and standard -yet-engaging royalty piece headlined by two fantastic lead performances.