Pitching into the conversation two years late, but I still think there's something worth saying about this movie.
It did not match the quality of the theatrical production, that much is clear. I don't think Tom Hooper is a bad director, but honestly, there's a reason why so many people love musicals and why
Les Misérables is the longest-running show in history. To me, the big selling point of a musical is that, unlike a straight film or play, it shows a fusion of fantasy and reality, sometimes leaning more towards the former. Musicals can transmit certain qualities of joy and imagination that are exclusive and unique to the genre because of the use of harmonious, elaborately choreographed songs and dances, implanted in an imitation of the, or a, real world. Spontaneously breaking into a song to express thought or emotion is not realistic nor logical, it simply doesn't happen in our everyday lives. But that is the allure of the genre: it is magical and surreal.
That is where the film version of
Les Misérables failed, in my opinion. The close-ups, having the actors' faces almost shoved in front of the camera, seemed to me like a way of enhancing the visual and the realistic, whilst reducing the role of the music (especially during the parts of the score in which actors speak to the melody, or sprechgesang, or half-sing half-talk, or whatever it is you want to call it). The theater production is much more effective because it plays on the strength of the beauty of Schönberg's score to tell a moving, stirring story. This is of course much more difficult to do in a medium that is usually more realistic like film, but it can be done: take
The Wizard of Oz or
The Sound of Music or
West Side Story, for example. These films are universally beloved classics because instead of trying to make the sound opaque compared to the visual aspects, they use
both in harmony and attempt to hide neither. That is why these films are so great: the real and surreal merge, not clash with each other.
Meanwhile,
Les Misérables has the face of Hugh Jackman plastered on the camera, therefore giving favor to a more "genuine" and "demure" acting, slightly trying to ignore the fact that the actor is actually singing (and with a very downplayed singing compared to the play, in fact), and eventually mismatching. It is a waste of a beautiful, powerful score, and trying to make a musical seem more real by having visual over sound only backfires: many scenes ended up being awkward, at times uncomfortable for the audience to watch, ineffective and not at all moving (there are exceptions of course, like the "I Dreamed a Dream" number). Instead of letting the musical's natural progression develop, it is oddly and stiffly halted. So neither the visuals nor the music impress or dazzle. Emotion is transmitted, but not as fluently or as touching as it could be. It serves its purpose, but not as fully as it should.
This film had huge potential, with an excellent score and an excellent story and a large, loyal fanbase. But what is the point of trying to make a musical and reject the fact that it is, after all, a musical?
Reply to Topic
