A pedestrian refutation of nitpicking, negative reviews of Les Miserables
Last edited Thu Jan 10, 2013, 08:28 PM - Edit history (5)
First of all, there shouldn't be a matter of spoilers here, since the book has its own life of fame and the play has been in circulation for all these years. So twists of plot don't matter here and the issue comes down to execution only: Effectiveness, successful communication (or not).
I'll start by agreeing with somebody I detest, Bill O'LOOFAH, who said of Mel GIBSON's The Passion of the Christ, (paraphrasing: ) I don't know what all the fuss is about, if you went through Catholic indoctrination, GIBSON's movie is just a depiction of it, something I grew up with, nothing unusual for me. (End of the O'LOOFAH paraphrase. This is now me/UTUSN talking about the subject movie at hand: ) I say this play/movie deserves whatever positive fuss there is, but I leave aside any talk of innovation or technical breakthroughs, which I know little about anyway: If anybody has read a certain number of classic works of literature, this is a straightforward rendering of the source material, playing the pathos straight. That is, this movie doesn't ask you to pity, pity is not imposed on you, but if somebody doesn't respond with empathy to the suffering and injustice then I say that somebody is dead. Other than that, it is a narrative telling of the tale without gimmicks of flashbacks or flashforwards or distortions. I read the book as an adolescent so I have no memory of details that might have been changed or omitted.
I'd say the telling of the story and its themes are fine, but this is matched by the lovely lovely musical score. The only song I had heard before from this was the Susan BOYLE dream one and I didn't even know what the song was from back then. I'll insert the name of the composer after Googling again: Claude-Michel Schönberg's music is absolutely fine, not totally as showstoppingly flashy as the LLOYD WEBBER stuff, but it never gets in the way of the narrative in the movie (I don't know how the play worked it). The music matches the universal themes as a reason for this production. Really, this seems to me to be in the class of West Side Story and Cabaret.
Now, to the GRIPES and NITPICKING I had read in reviews:
* "Almost three hours of just singing." - Not a problem. Really smooth integration of the libretto with the narrative. The pace was forward forward all the time, no digressions, moving right along. As for the physical length, I had preconceived concerns about having to take a break either from boredom or from urinary limits, but the pace and forwardness didn't give boredom a chance and I "went" and "went" again before the movie, so no problem.
* "Russel CROWE can't sing." Uh, I don't know what reviewers meant with this. I knew he had had (still has?) a band of his own, and wondered whether he was going to croak or bellow or have a cracked voice or be off key. He did none of these. He only had one featured song, and the rest of his role's assigned music was unflashy and secondary to everything else, so what else was he supposed to do? Besides, except for some of the wide ranges of some of the other voices, there was nothing in his voice that stuck out badly at all. And JACKMAN's voice seemed to me a bit strained at the top a couple of times. If anything, CROWE's contribution was to give some humanity to JAVERT's relentlessness, like, NOT a caricature of hatefulness.
* "Why did they SING LIVE instead of dubbing." I couldn't tell the difference, and wondered as it was happening how they technically fit the voices and orchestra in live matching. Besides, several times the lips and singing seemed a little out of sync just like when dubbing is obvious.
* "One intense scene after another, leaving you drained, unable to recover before getting swamped again." No, getting back to the pace and the forward narrative, you weren't left to linger long enough to get bogged down. You felt; you had a moment; and you went on.
* "Sacha Baron COHEN and Helena Bonham CARTER the wife (will Google and insert names) stuck out grotesquely in bad comic relief." If anything, I was impressed with his restraint. I fully expected him to break role and go without any discipline at all into his own performance art, and he didn't. He even used some of his personal space violation infamy to good effect, brushing off lint from CROWE's shoulder with a handkerchief then deftly LICKING the handkerchief to wipe again, breaking the personal space.
Those are all the pre-gripes I had heard. I'll end with another reference to Mel GIBSON for some reason. His thing, Apocalypto, debuted within a few weeks of his first big scandal, and that movie fell between the cracks. I thought that thing is BRILLIANT, and if it's a pounding, relentless chase you want for two hours and some heartful humanity, check it out.
Oh, there's another pre-buzz: Ann HATHAWAY blows the roof off with her rendition of the dream song and will get the Oscar. Well, (SPOILER????????????????) the role lasts about ten minutes? She is more of HITCHCOCK's MacGUFFIN for the rest of the movie. Yeah, the song and performance are great and Judi DENCH got an Oscar for 3-4 minutes, so...?
If anything, I'm glad Claude-Michel Schönberg got a nomination for an (one) original (for the movie) song because if anything this project is about it's (all) his music.
And my own personal peeve: One of my recurring gripes is a scene in movies where characters barf while hugging a toilet. I CRINGE at scores of movies that feature this disgusting scene. Hollywood writers seem ENAMORED of including a toilet barfing scene. Is it supposed to be profound bit of GRIT?!1 I had heard about a sewer scene for this movie and DREADED it. JACKMAN told an interviewer it took days to film in the filth. Well, thankfully, it went by FAST.
