Rambly Thought

Chatterbox: Pudding's Place

Rambly Thought

Rambly Thoughts About the Les Mis Movie Which I Have Finally Seen!

Generally? I think it's laughably bad. And I've never literally facepalmed in a movie before. Basically I spent the entire time going "what? what? ...what?!" and helplessly giggling. And at one point I was so surprised and enraged that I literally shouted "YOU DID NOT!!!!" D:< at the screen. 

Let's see... 

ACTING! 

I thought the singing was almost universally terrible, mostly because nobody was actually singing for... some reason. I guess because they were singing live on set? And for some reason that meant they weren't allowed to actually sing, and instead had to scream through their nasal cavities? 

Hugh Jackman was particularly bad, because he was also trying to sing above his comfort range and it generally was like fingernails on a chalkboard whenever he tried to hit one of Valjean's big notes. He also literally whispered "I'm Jean Valjean" at the end of Who Am I? and effectively killed one of the most universal crowning moments of awesome in the show. He also apparently forgot how to act for the duration of the movie. Sigh.

I adored Russell Crowe's acting. He was directed really badly, such that Javert was COMPLETELY OUT OF CHARACTER (more on that later), but the poor guy did his absolute best to carry it off and *almost* managed it.He was clearly trying his best but . . . gold star for effort.

Amanda Seyfried fills me with rage.

Eddie Redmayne is not Michael Ball. He did his best, but he was doomed from the start, really. Also: when he sings, his entire body vibrates. It's hilarious.

Anne Hathaway's performance ruined any respect I might have had for her. Because she did nothing but demonstrate and mumble and contort her face around to squeeze out her fake tears whenever she was onscreen. She (badly) faked an anxiety attack during I Dreamed a Dream and I almost broke a rib from laughing. And she channeled Catherine Zeta Jones and jerked her head around between every word and it made me want to kill things. Also, she can't belt, and she tried, and it almost made my ears bleed. Ow.

Master of the House was horrid, mainly because they slowed it down and exaggerated the musical's tongue-in-cheek humor to the point that it took a lead pipe to my suspension of disbelief. This is just one of many instances of Tom Hooper thinking his audience must be too stupid to understand anything subtler than a cricket bat to the face. More on that later, too. The same thing happened whenever the Thenardiers showed up. Also? Helena Bonham Carter is way too breathy and pretty to be a believable Madam Thenardier, but I forgive her because she, like Russell Crowe, did the best she could with the terrible direction. And Sacha Baron Cohen couldn't decide if he was French or Irish. What.

All of the *other* crowd songs sound fabulous. Mostly because the extras were actually singing. Also? You know what a fun game is? Count the extras who have been in stage productions of Les Mis! *waves* Hi, Frances Ruffelle! Hi, Hadley Fraser! Hi, Killian Donnelly! ...sigh.

Speaking of which, while it's always great to see Colm Wilkinson in anything because he's awesome, it's really cruel to make him try to sing that low. And it just sounds like it hurt a lot. That's not enjoyable, you know. 

Isabelle Allen is adorable. ^_^

I know Aaron Tveit can both act and sing, because I've seen videos of him in Next to Normal and Catch Me If You Can. However, he's either super camera shy or he just didn't care. Either way, his Enjolras is just... dull and boring. Possibly he was trying to compliment the rest of the dull, boring, and oddly personality-less students?

Last of all, Samantha Barks, who was actually the person I wanted to be cast as Eponine. She's literally the only person in the entire movie who actually sings outside of the crowd songs. It's particularly obvious when she starts belting in On My Own. And the real kicker? She was holding back too. I know, because her performance in the same role during the 25th anniversary concert was approximately twelve times more powerful than in the movie. 

The moral of this part of the rant? Live singing on a movie set is clearly not a good idea.

STORY!

...I don't know what Tom Hooper thought he was doing. Or any of the rest of the creative team, with exception of designers. I really don't. But they rearranged the songs for no reason and pointlessly changed lyrics in just about every song and added in dialogue to explain, in explicit terms, EXACTLY WHAT WE JUST LEARNT IN THE SONGS, and put in gratuitous references to the book which I would have appreciated had they also made any effort whatsoever to make them fit into the flow of the musical's narrative—particularly glaring is the RANDOM CHASE SCENE wherein Valjean and Cosette scale the wall to the convent. Yes, it's lifted straight from the books, but that doesn't mean it isn't a Big Lipped Alligator Moment within the context of the musical. The new song sounds ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like the rest of the show, and is creepily romantic to boot. Just... no. There's also a lot of really random smash cuts wherein we hop from location to location with no indication of why we're doing it.

Also, all those additions and changes and rearrangements I mentioned? They upset the pacing. See, the stage musical is absurdly long—averaging three hours plus an intermission—but the pacing is so spot on that it doesn't feel like that long at all. Every transition is perfectly timed, every song is exactly as long as it needs to be, every scene comes when it needs to and ends when its point has been made. It's one of the most cohesive musicals I've ever seen. The movie, on the other hand, ruins its transitions with a ton of whiplash-y, second-long smash cuts, and added dialogue that is redundant and unnecessary and BORING, and it puts things out of order and drags the songs out (Lovely Ladies and Master of the House are particularly egregarious examples of how they slowed down almost all the songs for the sake of, er, no reason at all); almost every song has been slowed down noticeably and the result is that they had to cut out TONS of lyrics and sung dialogue in order to not have a four hour long movie. Seriously, they cut out almost an hour's worth of original material and replaced it with sloppily-written new material that says half of what the original stuff did. They also randomly change things like having Valjean not show off his prisoner tats (i.e. the giant "24601" stamped on his chest) at the trial (which must also be the first time in the history of Hollywood that a movie passed on an excuse to have Hugh Jackman take his shirt off), rendering the entire scene nonsensical because it means there is still no proof that the mayor is really Valjean! They'd still just think he was having a nervous breakdown or something! They even pointed it out with unnecessary added dialogue!!

The end result is that the movie drags interminably in the second act and makes about 60% as much sense as the musical does. And then Tom Hooper shot himself in the foot by COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT of the finale. More on that later.

CHARACTER!

The changes made to the musical also had the effect of slapping almost everyone out of character. I'm going to do this in a list:

• In the musical, when Valjean breaks up the fight in At the End of the Day and leaves the foreman to decide Fantine's fate, it's obvious that he believes the foreman will give both sides of the story consideration and allow Fantine to keep her job, because he has no idea about the personal problems the foreman has with Fantine. In the movie, however, he charges in to save the day. Then Javert randomly shows up, and he and Valjean make excessive eyes at each other, and Valjean kind of wanders away while mumbling "take care of this" to the foreman. It makes him look selfish and completely dispassionate. The musical makes it very clear that Valjean cares very deeply about the factory workers, and expects that they will be treated well and fairly. The movie... muddies things by making it look like Valjean puts his fear of Javert over the needs of his employees.

• The runaway cart happens IMMEDIATELY AFTER VALJEAN LEAVES THE FACTORY. Now, I might be able to forgive this—except that it means that, instead of expressing his suspicions about the mayor in private, Javert tells them to the whole street. No matter how much Javert suspected the mayor of being Valjean, he would not bring it up in public, not even in the round-about implied way he does in the movie. He ALSO wouldn't write off to his superiors about how this well-liked mayor is secretly an escaped convict. He'd keep it to himself and maybe keep a closer-than-usual eye on the mayor until such time as concrete proof happened to come up. Because obsessive respect for authority is HIS ENTIRE CHARACTER. As far as he's concerned, the establishment is fundamentally incapable of doing wrong. He wouldn't do anything to encourage people to think anything less of an autority figure unless he had incontrovertible proof that something was wrong! Lifting a cart off of someone does not count as incontrovertible proof that you are an escaped con!!

• The second part of the runaway cart scene (because, yes, they literally chopped it in half and added a bunch of dialogue to the second half and put the second half where it's SUPPOSED to be, after Fantine is taken to the hospital) in the movie revolves around Javert being like "I misjudged you, punish me!" and Valjean being like "lol no." I guess it's supposed to be foreshadowing for how Valjean accidentally drives Javert to suicide by showing him mercy and basically breaking his brain?  In the musical, Valjean's question of "how can you know that I am not this man?" comes off as desperation for the sake of the innocent man they're about to convict.  See previous point about Javert keeping his suspicions to himself for this very reason. If he accused someone and realized he had done so wrongly, he really would expect to be dishonorably dismissed from service—which is why he wouldn't accuse anyone of anything unless he was absolutely 100% certain. In his eyes, a criminal is 100% evil, all the time, and is incapable of changing at all, ever. His world view is entirely black and white: criminals are ALL complete monsters, and people who aren't criminals are INCAPABLE OF DOING WRONG. And once you BECOME a criminal, YOU WILL NEVER STOP BEING A COMPLETE MONSTER. That's why he's completely unmoved by Fantine's pleading!! Not because he's a jerk! But because he believes her to be incapable of doing anything good!! STOP MUTILATING JAVERT'S CHARACTER, TOM HOOPER!!!

• They changed The Confrontation so that Javert and Valjean flynn for a while before Valjean escapes out a window. And Fantine dies immediately after she finishes singing. Um, what? In the musical, Javert tries to arrest Valjean WHILE FANTINE IS STILL IN HER DEATH THROES. Valjean knocks him down and is basically like, "WAIT." And Javert does until Fantine dies, and then they start arguing, but not fighting because Valjean so physically intimidating. And then Javert tries to arrest him again, refusing to listen about Cosette, so Valjean knocks him out and THEN runs away. The movie version fails so hard on so many levels. First, Javert creepily stands behind Valjean and watches until Fantine is dead. It's supposed to be shocking when the camera cuts to his face, but because they failed at keeping him out of the shot during Fantine's Death, it falls flat and takes another huge chunk out of Javert's implacability. Second, he immediately pulls a sword on Valjean, instead of simply trying to cuff him. Javert's first impulse IS NOT VIOLENCE!! His first impulse is to perform an arrest with as little fuss as possible! He's not a sadist! He's just IMPLACABLE AND STUBBORN!! And third, the anticlimactic escape makes Valjean look like a coward. See, in the musical, Valjean's established as a nonviolent man—he's become like the Bishop, basically—so his knocking Javert out (and threatening to kill him if necessary) shows how far he's willing to go to protect an innocent little girl. Simply jumping out a window doesn't have the same effect at all, it just makes him look like he didn't want to go back to the chain gang! Especially because movie!Javert is demonstrably sympathetic to kids, and would conceivably have listened to Valjean were he told about Cosette's situation! 

• That thing in the carriage, the new song that Valjean sings to young Cosette? Yeah, it comes off like a romantic love song. I shouldn't have to explain why this is wrong on all levels.

• Stars apparently comes before the act break now! Super! For some reason, Javert sings it while getting his Batman on on the roof of a tall building overlooking Gotham—er, Mont-Sur-Meir. I am not even kidding. It is also supposed to be foreshadowing for Javert's Suicide, because he walks along the edge of the building the EXACT SAME WAY he does on the bridge before he jumps—you see what I mean about bad directing?—anyway, it doesn't work, because Javert wouldn't DO stuff like this. He has no sense of the dramatic! He knows exactly where he's going at all times! He doesn't wander around on random rooftops wondering what he should do now! Stars is supposed to be him praying for God to help him find Valjean! That doesn't come through at all because he's pretending to be Batman! It's silly!! Also, this is the biggest offender on the whole orchestra-swells-singers-fade thing; on the final note, Russell Crowe's voice just sort of tails off, and the orchestra swells and the camera swoops up and away and it's supposed to be dramatic but it just falls flat because RUSSELL CROWE CANNOT SING.

• None of the students have distinct personalities. Not even Grantaire, who's the most colorful of them all. I literally couldn't have told who was who if I didn't know what character sang what lines. And I still had trouble keeping them separate. This is a problem.

• On My Own is before the barricade now, making it a whiny teenager song instead of Eponine's decision to return to the barricade in the hope that she might be able to save Marius's life or, failing that, at least die with him. What. Samantha Barks does her best, and she almost manages to save it, but the fact remains that without Marius's life being in danger to spur Eponine to desperate action, On My Own is nothing but an angstfest about how Marius doesn't love her.

• One Day More really, really, REALLY doesn't work onscreen. Because it's mostly just a mass of really quick cuts. They show Eponine binding for her stint as a revolutionary while singing her parts (possibly as punishment for DARING to belt properly in On My Own?), and Marius flipping out and trying to break down the door on Rue Plumet, and the Thenardiers trying to be funny and failing while the students collect arms and ammunition, and Javert wandering around in civvies and generally just being awesome, and Valjean and Cosette in the carriage as they run away. And then it smash cuts to Lamark's funeral so fast I almost broke my neck from the whiplash. STOP THAT.

• They killed Eponine early—as in, before she delivers Marius's letter to Valjean. Because Tom Hooper apparently missed the following points: (1) Eponine loves Marius enough to put his happiness before her own, so she's willing to deliver his love letter to the object of his affections and then return to the barricade for the reasons discussed in On My Own. (2) Marius gave Eponine his letter to Cosette in hopes of getting her away from the barricade because he didn't want her to die because she's his best friend! Making her die before he can do that makes him seem like he doesn't care about her at all! (3) Gavroche is cute, but he is not the main point of the show. Stop showering him with undue attention. Seriously.

• After the slaughter at the barricade we have the  moment—this is the one that I mentioned shouting "YOU DID NOT!!!" about. In the musical, Javert is on the fast train to a nervous breakdown, and the entire day has been spent fighting at the barricade and everyone is dead. It's dark, he has a torch, and he's searching for Valjean's body among the dead revolutionaries as the bodies are being carted away. In the movie, he calmly walks down a line of students (during the day) and gets to Gavroche. And he kneels down and takes off his metal and puts it on Gavroche's body. It was at that point that I had an aneurysm. Remember how I talked about how Javert has no empathy whatsoever for anyone whom he considers to be a criminal? Yeah, that would INCLUDE Gavroche, who was a nasty little street rat who spent his whole life committing petty theft. No, Javert doesn't care that the alternative was starvation. GAVROCHE MEANS NOTHING TO HIM. THE REVOLUTIONARIES BROKE THE LAW AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT HUMAN TO HIM! NOR ARE THEY WORTH ANY RESPECT, EVEN POSTHUMOUSLY!! JUST BECAUSE GAVROCHE IS UNUSUALLY YOUNG FOR A VICTIM OF THE BARRICADE DOES NOT MEAN THAT JAVERT WOULD SHOW HIM ANY KIND OF HONOR OR RESPECT WHATSOEVER!! JAVERT WOULD NOT DO THIS!!! 

I get that it's supposed to illustrate the extreme mental duress Javert is under as a result of Valjean's (to his mind) impossible mercy, and to demonstrate that Javert's becoming more empathetic and thus to foreshadow that he's going to let Valjean save Marius—BUT EVEN THAT DOESN'T WORK!

*deep breaths*

I don't appreciate my favorite character being butchered.

 

SYMBOLISM!

Yes, this deserves its own section, because the whole movie was basically Tom Hooper going, LOOK, everybody! Look at my intelligent symbolism! AREN'T I CLEVER?!

Have another list:

• In the first scene, Javert orders Valjean to "retrieve the flag" (on the broken mast of the ship the chain gang just dragged in). He goes to it, picks up one end, and carries it on his shoulder. It's a VERY obvious analogy to Jesus carrying the cross. It was like being slapped in the face with the cricket bat of subtlety and the sledgehammer of symbology all at the same time.

• After Valjean's Soliloquy, he rips up his parole papers and tosses them into the air. He does that in the musical, too. But the movie has to go above and beyond: the pieces are swept up by a draft of air, the camera pans after them, and we get this shot of thick clouds over head, with a break in them through which the "sunlight" (read: heavy-handed light of God) shines through. Guess where the pieces end up. Go on, guess. It was at this point that I realized how hilariously awful this movie was going to be.

• There's a bit where the poor are singing their Look Down mantra in an alley with a locked gate (read: prison door) at one end. Some soldier dude rides by on a horse and goes through the gate, which closes behind him again. And the poor rush the gate and do the whole "reaching through the bars" thing. For no reason. SUBTLETY.

 

 

• Javert gets his very own Symbolic Griffin during Stars. What, exactly, it was supposed to symbolize, I don't know, but it was so blatantly supposed to mean something that I can't really leave it out. It got almost as much screen time as Javert did in that scene! Also, gratuitous Batman references. I mentioned those already.

• Gavroche squats a la Peter Pan in the window of a carriage during his bit in Look Down. Why he did not immediately get the gentleman's cane to the teeth when he did so, I don't know, but best I can figure, Tom Hooper was aiming for Spunky Narrator of Everyone's Misery and got nonsense instead. He also sits on the back of the same carriage for the rest of the number while the rest of the kids (from the book, yo) run after him and it just looks really stupid. This is just the beginning of the Gavroche favoritism. 

• There's a Symbolic Butterfly on the gate while Marius and Cosette are warbling A Heart Full of Love at each other. Amanda Seyfried squishes it when she grabs the bars in the throes of new passion. I lol'd.

• Every time Eponine sings, she gets RANDOM SYMBOLIC RAIN. Seriously—she opens her mouth for the first note of On My Own, and BAM! It's suddenly pouring rain. And then it does the exact same thing in A Little Fall of Rain, only with more fail, because it happens even more suddenly and looks very much as if it's only raining on Eponine, no one else. No, I don't get why Paris is apparently in Uberwald either.

• When Marius says that they're going to build their barricade on Lamark's tomb, he meant that metaphorically, not that they were actually going to hijack the funeral procession.

• On that note, they put Lamark's coffin in the place of honor at front of the barricade. SUBTLETY.

• Enjolras whacks the camera with a lead pipe. I don't know why, but I'm convinced it was meant to be symbolic somehow. 

• When Valjean sings Bring Him Home, there's a huge picture of an eye in the background. SUBTLETY.

• The students hide in the top of the ABC Cafe while the soldiers rush the barricade. The soldiers then shoot the floor out from under them, but Enjolras somehow survives while holding the big red flag, and then Grantaire comes charging out of nowhere and they stand dramatically together in front of the window, surrounded by a corona of golden light, while the soldiers shoot them down. Enjolras falls out of the window in the traditional death pose. It looks stupid, because there's nothing on the outside of the building to hold him up. *holds head*

• I believe I already mentioned that Tom Hooper missed the point of the finale? See, he sets the reprise of Do You Hear the People Sing (the one that goes "Do you hear the people sing?/Lost in the valley of the night/It is the music of a people who are climbing to the light/For the wretched of the earth/There is a flame that never dies/Even the darkest nights will end and the sun will rise!/They will live again in freedom in the garden of the Lord/They will walk behind the ploughshare/They will put away the sword/The chain will be broken and all men will have their reward!") ON TOP OF A GIANT BARRICADE.

Those of you who have read Night Watch, you know how Terry Pratchett parodies the barricade thing by having the revolutionaries push their barricades so far forward that pretty much the only thing outside of the barricade is the Cable Street Particulars and the Patrician's Palace? Yeah, that's what Tom Hooper did with the barricade in the finale. ONLY HE DID IT STRAIGHT, INSTEAD OF USING IT AS A CLEVER JOKE. 

*cries*

 

submitted by TNÖ, age 19, Deep Space
(January 19, 2013 - 4:57 pm)

I liked it, but I've never seen the musical.

I do know, though, that he chose the actors for the emotion he knew they could bring to the song.  Not the singing voice.

For your complaint about the finale, all I can say is: dramatic affect.  It looks impressive. 

 

I'd like to add that movies are almost always different from shows, and both are vary from the original book, too.

Admin

submitted by Melody, age 14, Maleficent's Lair
(January 19, 2013 - 7:17 pm)

Oooh see the musical if you get the chance! It's divine!

I've heard that, about the acting thing. I don't buy it. Because: The thing with picking actors who can act but can't sing is that it wouldn't have been that hard to get people who could do both! He could have cast a bunch of former West Enders—he did cast a bunch of former West Enders as extras and minor characters!—and let them sing properly and the movie would have been approximately four times as good!

And I wasn't even that impressed by the acting, with the exception of Russell Crowe and Samantha Barks! Hugh Jackman is usually capable of a huge range of facial expressions, but he didn't use them! Aaron Tveit is an extremely talented actor who, for the duration of his appearance in the movie, had no energy whatsoever! Eddie Redmayne vibrated like a bobblehead every time he opened his mouth! Anne Hathaway outdid her standard bad acting by several multitudes of Brechtian demonstration! And not even good demonstration! Her performance was absolutely laughable!!

Also? Les Mis is sung through—none of the talking you heard in the movie is in the musical's script, that was all added—so why would anyone think it's a good idea to cast actors who can't sing? The entire libretto is in song except for one line!! It's like Broadway's version of opera!! 

About the finale: I disagree that it looks impressive. I just thought it was *silly*. Admittedly, due to the aforementioned joke in Night Watch, I associate "absurdly huge barricades" with "temporally-displaced Sam Vimes facepalming," which is hilarious. Even putting that aside, though... the disparity between what's being sung and what's being shown at that point is still so bizarre that it's funny! Because it makes no sense!

And even if that's what Tom Hooper was thinking when he decided to do it, that's still not a good thing. You can't just randomly put in things because you think they'll look cool! There has to be a reason! You have to be able to justify everything! Otherwise what's the point?!

 

@Admin: Oh, I agree. The musical and the book are quite distinct from one another, and the movie is its own disaster entirely. I think part of what made the movie so bad is that they tried to put the book back into the musical and it, er, really didn't work. Because the musical is the essence of the book distilled into a much more streamlined story (in much the same way that Wicked-the-musical did to Wicked-the-book), and in putting extraneous details from the book back into the libretto, the movie cluttered up the storyline and made it not make sense.

Or, you can adapt the book into a movie, or you can adapt the musical into a movie. You can't do both, because the book things that were left out of the musical were left out for a very good reason, namely time constraints and coherency in a hugely different medium. 

I'm not complaining that the movie is bad because it's different from the musical, I'm complaining that the movie is bad because it made pointless, excessive, and confusing changes from its source material (the musical), AND because it's just not a very well-put-together movie on it's own. (See: excessive, glaring symbolism, poorly-timed and poorly-put-together cuts, clunky script, bad direction, hand-holding, etc). 

I walked in expecting something like the Sweeney Todd movie, which also made huge changes to its source musical. Let's see, it removed the Ballads and distilled most of the crowd songs and pulled emphasis away from Johanna and Anthony to focus almost exclusively on Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett, and put Johanna (quartet) before God That's Good, and generally darkened the tone of the show and scaled back the humor (and, ironically, also featured Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen in its cast). However. Tim Burton preserved the integrity of the story, kept everything that needed to be kept in order for the movie to make sense, cast actors who were, if not the strongest singers ever, at least able to comfortably sing their parts, and made a movie that, on the whole, feels like a cohesive, well-thought-out, and finished piece. And the song reordering I mentioned? My guess is it happened because movies don't have act breaks, and Burton wanted to avoid the whiplash that would happen if he left it visible. Also, an argument could easily be made that putting Johanna (quartet) before God That's Good actually strengthened the story, considering it shows Sweeney's murder spree before Mrs. Lovett's sudden business success.

The point is, movies do have to make alterations to the musicals they're based on, because they have to accomodate for things they can do that musicals can't: with a movie, you can have more complex scenic and costume design, because audiences won't be sitting fifty feet away from the action; they'll be as close or as far as you choose to put the camera. And you can have closeups and sweeping, panoramic shots if you so choose, and computer-generated special effects if you need them, and you can direct focus much more minutely than a production can on a stage, and you have the luxury of absolute control over the final product because you can do as many takes as you need. Likewise, things that work on a stage won't work on a screen, and that has to be compensated for as well; for instance, were there ever to be an Into the Woods movie made, the filmmakers couldn't get away with never showing the giantess, because film audiences expect to be shown the main antagonist (as much as Into the Woods has an antagonist, anyway), whereas theatre audiences know that the logistics of putting a giant on stage are impossible and forgive it.

The problem is, the Les Mis movie didn't make changes for that reason, or if they did, they did it really badly.

The biggest trouble with movie musicals is, to paraphrase Stephen Sondheim, that a decent actor can cram the same amount of emotion into a second-long facial expression as en can express in one four-minute song. In a movie, wherein an actor's face can be shown to the audiences larger-than-life, in perfect detail, this renders the songs superfluous. This is bad. The trick, then, is to use the camera as an extension of the song—Tim Burton did this to great effect in Sweeney Todd, where the camera acts in tandem with the music; it's subtle, but cuts happen simultaneously with musical breaks, and the camera usually pans more or less in time with the melody. The overall effect is one of visuals and audios working together.

What Tom Hooper did in Les Mis, on the other hand, was to basically hang a camera off the actor's faces for the entire duration of the song. It's especially glaring in Valjean's Soliloquy and I Dreamed A Dream, wherein we stare at Hugh Jackman's oddly-contorting face or Anne Hathaway's fake tears for four and five minutes, respectively. And when the camera's not being rammed down an actor's throat, it's wandering aimlessly around with no apparent rhyme or reason, or jumping from place to place like an overcaffeinated cricket. There's no logic behind it whatsoever, and it looks awful.

Similarly, the excessive rearranging in the Les Mis movie failed where the Johanna/God That's Good swap didn't because there wasn't any apparent thought put into it. None of the changes made the story flow better—quite the opposite—and none of them were intended to disguise stage conventions that would have been jarring on screen (and as for the act break, they didn't even try to hide that—just smash cut into the next scene). It muddled.

I mentioned that Burton removed the Ballads and scaled back most of the crowd songs for Sweeney? Yeah, however much I mourn the loss—the Ballads are killer (ha!) and the full version of God That's Good is to die for (ha! ...okay I will stop now)—but they were cut because they would have looked awful on screen. The Ballads in particular would have been completely out of place in the movie. For those who don't know, the Ballad of Sweeney Todd and its numerous reprises are sung by a Greek chorus to the audience intermittently throughout the show, usually to accomodate big scenery or costume changes. It's an accepted convention in theatre, and it doesn't interrupt the flow because they take place during long transitions. On screen, however, where big costume and set changes don't happen in realtime during the story and Greek choruses and direct address are far less common, they would have broken the narrative and just looked silly, so out they went. 

There are things in Les Mis that work great on stage but, as demonstrated so perfectly by Tom Hooper, really don't on screen. One Day More is the biggest example of this. In the stage version, it starts with just Valjean on stage, singing as he prepares to flee from Paris. Then the rest of the cast migrates onto the stage—Cosette joines her father, Marius stands alone until he rejoins the rest of the students and Gavroche, Javert and Eponine both follow individual routes, the Thenardiers pop out of a window, etc.—and it ends with the entire cast (sans Thenardiers, who are still in their window, overlooking the rest of the cast like the vultures they are—that's proper symbolism, Tom Hooper, take notes) marching in formation on stage. Originally this was because the turntable kept spinning and the cast had to keep moving to stay centered and facing the audience, but now that the turntable has been left out, the marching stays because it looks bloody awesome.

It would also look absolutely ridiculous on screen. Tom Hooper tried to fix this for the screen by cutting rapidly between singers, but this doesn't work because there is so much overlapping—he couldn't cut between his different groups fast enough. He tried to compensate for that by merging Javert, the students, and the Thenardiers into one group, but he still had Valjean, Cosette, and Eponine to deal with. And the ending of the song—where the entire cast sings the same lines together—lost some of it's impact because you can't put everyone all in one shot when they're established as being in multiple locations at once, and the compromise—just showing the student group—fell a bit flat. Admittedly, there's not really a good way to put something like One Day More on a screen, because it's 100% designed for a stage—the staging is all but written into the music, and the music was written to accomodate the staging (because of the turntable, which never stopped spinning during the course of the play in the original production, so everything had to be timed perfectly to the second).

The end result is that, even without considering the musical, the movie feels slipshod and unfinished and it's just generally confusing—had I not had the knowledge of the musical's plot, I wouldn't have been able to follow the action at all. I accept that movies and plays are different media, but when the movie is honestly bad as a movie, then I'm not inclined to forgive small mistakes very much either. It's not the changes specifically that I have a problem with—it's that the changes either don't make sense, or create more problems than they solve, or both. Usually both.

submitted by TNÖ, age 19, Deep Space
(January 20, 2013 - 11:57 pm)

I've been wanting to read the book before seeing the musical or the movie or anything.  Eftersom jag är en bok purist.*

*Because I am a book purist.

 

The book is really good!

Admin 1

submitted by Gollum, Mooseflower
(January 21, 2013 - 11:39 am)

@ Gollum

What language is that in?

submitted by Melody, age 14, Maleficent's Lair
(January 21, 2013 - 7:00 pm)

Swedish

submitted by Ruby M., age 13, Sweden
(January 25, 2013 - 7:03 pm)

Swedish.  Jag tålar svenska, L tålar svenska samt.

submitted by GOllum, Mooesflower
(January 26, 2013 - 6:53 pm)

Note taken. I didn't plan on seeing this anyway. I really don't care for this sort of thing. I don't know any of the actors, except Anne Hathaway, who I don't as it is, except in The Princess Diaries, and Ella Enchanted.

submitted by Blonde Heroines Rule, age Who knows?, No idea
(January 25, 2013 - 9:11 pm)

...You know, you're right.

I mean... I actually really enjoyed it. But somehow, reading this, I agree with most of what you're saying. I just... didn't notice it, I guess?

There are a few things I disagree with you about, like Anne Hathaway's performance (although to be entirely sure about that, I'd have to rewatch "I Dreamed a Dream, which I can't do right now due to lack of headphones), but most of the flaws you pointed out... well, I'd agree that they're flaws, for sure, and there are evidently quite a few of them. I guess I didn't mind because I thought there was enough of the beauty and power of the original musical left to make up for it--but I would like to see it again with these things in mind and find out whether I still think that.

Clearly, I need to pay more attention when I watch movies. 

submitted by Ima
(February 3, 2013 - 10:31 pm)

I think it's partly because of the way I process fiction in visual-but-not-live formats (i.e. movies and television shows). I don't find screen media as up-front engaging as I do live performance or books, so I usually pick up on idea-hooks right away and extrapolate into epileptic trees as I go along. The tv shows and movies that I like the most are therefore the ones that spark the most interesting epileptic trees—this is mostly why I like Once Upon a Time so much, because even though half the cast makes me want to just shake them and tell them to start acting like adults, the concept and Regina's story are so fascinating that I can spin my own version without too much trouble. 

So what this amounts to is that I've inadvertently trained myself to do the equivalent of a close-read whenever I walk into a movie theater. (It's also really hard to keep my thoughts to myself. There's a reason I usually go weeks late and with my friend who does the same thing, so we can sit in the back of the theater and not disturb anyone). And when a director's as trigger-happy with the symbolism as tom hooper... yeah.

I've also seen the musical twice since October, in Des Moines and then in Chicago, so it's fresh in my memory and it made me FAR less forgiving of bad performances than I would have been otherwise.

...That said, I've never liked Anne Hathaway much, I think she's (poorly) Brechtian and always plays essentially the same character in everything she does, and that in Les Mis she turned that up to eleven and just became... ugh. Ruthie Henshall is the best Fantine. Let us leave it at that. 

submitted by TNÖ, age 19, Deep Space
(February 4, 2013 - 2:12 am)

Also, I am rereading this and realizing that some of my complaints were rendered completely incoherent because references to the massive UST between Crowe!Javert and Jackman!Valjean were removed. oops.

submitted by TNÖ, age 19, Deep Space
(February 4, 2013 - 2:20 am)

And when I said Stars comes before the act break, I MEANT it comes before "Look Down/Paris/The Brawl (Javert's Intervention)". ...teach me not to proof read.

submitted by TNÖ, age 19, Deep Space
(February 4, 2013 - 2:25 am)