A Love Story Wrapped in an Epic
Tom Hooper is a highly talented director, though I have only seen The King's Speech and now Les Miserables. Before than, it seems like, aside from The Damned United, that he mainly did television work. I thought The King's Speech to be a very well-written, impeccably acted and directed film, though it was not one of my favorites of the year, and I thought its Best Picture and Director Oscar wins over The Social Network were two of the greatest Academy Award injustices since Titanic. In The King's Speech, I immediately recognized a fresh and distinct directorial style, particularly as far as the cinematography is concerned. Often, characters are placed to the left or the right of the frame, rather than typically balanced in the center; he had an intriguing use of negative space in the frame; and many shots were distorted through a variety of techniques, such as varying the focal length of the lens. Some of that is on display in Les Miserables, particularly some shots in the film's third act, which definitely had a "Tom Hooper" stamp on them.
Hooper is also masterful at bringing time periods to life; he fills his frames with set and costume designs that are unmistakable to their era. In The King's Speech, it was 1940s Britain. In Les Miserables, it's 1800s France. The technical craftsmanship on display in both films is impeccable. Gorgeous cinematography, phenomenal sound mixing and editing, impeccable make-up, costume, and set design, and in the case of Les Miserables, quality visual effects.
I knew next to nothing about the story of Les Miserables. I'd never seen a performance of it; never read it; never knew anything about its plot. So all of this is new to me. I don't tend to like musicals on film... unless they're critically lauded, or hold some sort of intrinsic value to me, I don't generally see them. I much prefer the spectacle of a stage musical; they always astonish me with their choreography and professionalism. On the stage, you know you're watching maybe an hour of unbroken action. There are no "takes." Or rather, there is only one. Mistakes can't be made and erased like they can with film. There are no cuts. The action exists, and is never less or more than what you see. On the other hand, film obviously carries a weight of capabilities that doesn't extend to the possibilities of the stage, precisely because you can cut, or do multiple takes, or special effects, or... the list goes on and on. And with Hooper's Les Miserables, there is much here that could not have been done on the stage, making a good case for its non-superfluous existence. For example, as much as I love von Trier's Dogville, I wish it had been done on the stage, as its nothing more than a filmed stageplay.
Les Miserables begins with a scene of intense scope; hundreds of men are pulling a gigantic ship into dock. Not only does this establish the epic nature of the story, it reminds us of the hard-times and back breaking labor of older times. I began to think of the Egyptians moving those gigantic pieces of stone to build their pyramids. It is a scene that immediately sparks a contrast of time relation. Anyway, one of these men is Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), ragged, thin, and unkempt. He's been serving a nineteen year sentence and at the end of this scene he is released on parole by Javert (Russell Crowe), who becomes one of the film's primary antagonists throughout its decades-long story. Through a series of happenings, Jean meets Fantine (Anne Hathaway), who is fired from her job at Jean's factory; a job she desperately needs to send money to the caretakers of her daughter. That is all the more I will say, as the plot is one of its primary pleasures, though admittedly I found the acting and technical craftsmanship to be far more interesting than the story.
Of the acting. Hugh Jackman as the protagonist and most prominent character is quite good. It may well be his best performance to date. If he earns an Oscar nomination for his work, I won't complain, though I can think of five better performances off the top of my head. Russell Crowe, whom I heard was the film's worst element, isn't nearly as good as he's been by any stretch of the imagination (The Insider, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, come on!), but he isn't horrible. And his character is one of the most fascinating in the film. The true highlight of performances, however, goes to Anne Hathaway, who turns in the best performance from a supporting actress I've seen of 2012. In what is probably the film's greatest moment, Hathaway sings "I Dreamed a Dream" in a long unbroken medium close-up that is both heartbreaking and beautiful at the same time, and one of the most perfect moments of acting all year. After Rachel Getting Married, I believed Hathaway was an actress of exceptional talent; now I am undeterred in that sentiment.
The next best moment of the film involves a small child, revolutionaries, a barricade, soldiers, and "The Second Attack" which is at once devastatingly sad and invigoratingly inspirational. Along with Hathaway's Oscar moment, these were the two best scenes of the entire film.
All of this sounds resoundingly positive, and it is. Les Miserables is an exceptionally well-made, acted and directed film. Why is it not one of my favorites of the year? First, I don't think the material is as fitting to my tastes as some other films. As with anyone, there are subject matters that are inherently interesting to me, and if executed properly, result in a more substantially resonant experience than others. Les Mis is not that type of film, similar to The King's Speech. Thus, part of it comes down to mere personal taste. Beyond that, I felt this could've been about thirty minutes shorter; some scenes condescended and more economical. As it is, there were times when I (fairly sarcastically) thought that the title - which as I understand it, translates to "The Miserable" - might be referring to me, rather than the characters. That's sarcastic overstatement, however; I was never miserable. Just bored, at times. Compare it to Django Unchained, a film ten minutes lengthier: I never wanted that film to end. With Les Mis, I was welcomely anticipating its closure.
All in all, this is a good film. A terrifically acted, gorgeously shot, brilliantly directed piece of musical cinema. The script could have used some trimming to bring this down to a less tedious running time. If the topic appeals to you, or you already have knowledge of the story and like it, or you like musical films in general, you'll probably like this much more than me, and I liked it. I saw it almost 24 hours ago, and it has grown on me since. All good films do.
No comments:
Post a Comment