The Adaptation Station.com

It may seem strange that I’m going to devote a whole blogpost to what I consider the shortcomings of Les Misérables (2012), especially when I claimed to be tired of the negativity I sensed towards it on the internet. But I feel that, after all my gushing in the latter half of my last post, I’d come across as a mindless fanboy if I didn’t grant that the movie has imperfections. To coddle it and act like no one can say anything bad about it would be to condescend to it, acting like it can’t stand up to any serious critical scrutiny. I believe it can. So here are what I consider the movie’s flaws. (Most of them are more like missed opportunities actually.)

The Cinematography Some of the Time

I admit it. Some of Tom Hooper’s stylizations don’t really make sense to me. I don’t get the point of the recurring off-center camera angles. Maybe the thought behind it is to make the constant closeups of the characters’ faces less potentially tiresome by having those faces be a little to the right or to the left. ^[1]If Hooper has ever explained them on a commentary for one of his other works, I’d be interested in hearing what he had to say. I find it’s just confusing visually. You keep wondering what you’re supposed to be looking at over the characters’ shoulders. And it’s really annoying when it pops up during what is otherwise one of the musical’s most powerful moments, Fantine’s song, I Dreamed a Dream. ^[2]Anne Hathaway knocks that scene out of the park! Her performance in this movie is awesome in general. I didn’t want to write about it too much in my original post because she and Hugh Jackman … Continue reading These camera angles certainly don’t ruin the movie for me but I don’t really have a defense for them either.

Helena Bonham Carter to an Extent

I hate to say this because I really enjoy Carter’s performance as Madame Thenardier. She’s a whole lot of fun to watch and brings great facial expressions and comedic timing to her every scene. But her early scenes with young Cosette lose a little because she’s not the physical type for the role. In the literary Les Misérables, Victor Hugo describes the “Thenardiess” as being incredibly muscular and intimidating. I don’t mind that Carter doesn’t match this description for most of the movie. And we can all understand that a normal sized adult is intimidating to a little child. But the bits where Cosette is bullied by Madame Thenardier would be more powerful if we could empathize with her, not just understand her fear in a theoretical way. The visual contrast between the puny Monsieur Thenardier and his brawny wife would also add to their comedy. ^[3]While we’re on the subject of the Thenardiers, I suppose I should also mention I’m not a fan of the bawdy comedy of the Master of the House scene. But that comes from the stage version … Continue reading

Stars (No, This Isn’t About Russell Crowe)

In his big solo, Stars, Javert describes the stars in the night sky as an example of the order he sees in the universe. This vital character moment is one of the few times in the musical that Javert explains his personal philosophy in a way that makes it sound remotely appealing. Later, during Javert’s Suicide, he describes the stars as being “black and cold.” The visual contrast between a starry night sky when Javert is confident in his beliefs and a cloudy night sky when his faith is shattered could have been great. It…really isn’t. This is a rare missed opportunity for visual symbolism/storytelling for this movie and the only instance when I feel it would have benefited from a less exclusive focus on the soloists’ faces.

Samantha Barks (Kind Of)

I feel really bad about criticizing Samantha Barks’ portrayal of Eponine. For one thing, she’s one of the few stage actors who gets to reprise their Les Misérables role in this movie ^[4]There are plenty of other veterans of the stage play in the cast-Colm Wilkinson, Fraces Ruffelle, Hadley Fraser-but none of them recreating their onstage role. and I don’t want to alienate Broadway fans anymore than I have to do so, especially since she manages the impressive vocal act of sounding better to traditional ears than many of her Hollywood costars do while never sounding like she belongs in a completely different movie. For another thing, her performance is really moving and I don’t have the heart to say I dislike it per se. But Barks’ take on the character feels a little off to me. Eponine is supposed to be a cynical, hardened young woman who comes from a dysfunctional family and has been living on the wrong side of the law for quite some time when we meet her as an adult. An actress playing her definitely needs to be emotional and vulnerable during her soliloquies about her unrequited love, but she should come across as somewhat callous and invulnerable during her initial exchanges with Marius and her fellow gang members. This actually makes it even more moving when we see her softer side. But Barks comes across as vulnerable and, for lack of better term, traditionally feminine right from the start. She also did less method acting for her role than Jackman and Hathaway did for theirs. I certainly can’t blame her for that, but neither can I deny that she looks less convincingly wretched than they do. The character still basically works in the movie, but there’s a nagging sense that it could work better.

Some of the Cuts

For the most part, I believe this movie makes great decisions at to what to cut and what to keep from the stage musical. (I hope to go into this at greater length in Part 3.) But as a fan of the score, some of the deletions do leave me a little wistful. I know I just questioned Samantha Barks’ acting choices, but she really is a great actress/singer and I feel like she deserved to do her character’s full death song, A Little Fall of Rain, on the big screen. ^[5]I’ll defend this cut to an extent in the aforementioned Part 3. Another loss that makes me wistful is that of Valjean and Javert’s duet at the end of Confrontation, in which the former promises to always be there for Cosette and the latter promises to always be there to arrest him. The movie has ample material to still make those ideas clear to the audience though. From a storytelling perspective, on the other hand, I find it a bit odd that Marius’s wondering aloud who rescued him was cut as it sets up a major climactic plot point. As with many deletions, I assume it was for time. There’s only one cut that really, really bothers me though. One of the verses from Javert’s Suicide. ^[6]Yes, I know this means I want more of Crowe singing in the movie. It’s a verse that marks an important transition in his attitude. The song doesn’t flow well without it. Javert ends up going from defiant to despondent without a pause. I’d love to see an extended cut of the film. Much of it would make the movie too long, but that one retention would be welcome. ^[7]And other extensions would still be interesting for fans to see and hear, even if they weren’t ultimately improvements.

The Wedding

During the Wedding Chorale, the movie largely focuses on the Thenardiers sneaking into Marius and Cosette’s wedding reception. This is entertaining and gives fans a chance to see something they can’t onstage. But I’m personally disappointed that it takes our attention away from the bride and groom. Marius and Cosette’s romance is one of the few storylines in Les Misérables to have a completely happy ending and this song is one of the few songs in the musical that expresses undiluted joy. It’d have been so nice to be able to enjoy it without distraction.

The Ending Could Be Clearer

The movie’s uplifting finale depicts the spirits of the dead characters on a massive barricade during the 1848 Paris revolution. This is rather an odd event for a Les Misérables adaptation to celebrate since Victor Hugo and Napoleon III were not fans of each other. ^[8]To put it mildly! But being generally willing to put history out my mind when I watch movies (and even when I’m not watching them), I can see the appeal of contrasting a successful revolution, one with a much bigger and more heavily defended barricade, with the one we saw fail. It’s in keeping with Hugo’s ultimately optimistic message ^[9]In Les Misérables, I mean. He can be more cynical in other books. that no matter how grim history looks at the moment, the world is gradually improving rather than worsening. But unlike other time skips in the movie, we’re given no captions explaining the political situation or what year it is. (Presumably, this is to avoid distracting from the lyrics.) Adding to the confusion, the deceased characters aren’t dressed any differently from how they were in life. Nor are they noticeably cleaner. ^[10]There is a good argument to be made that Gavroche (Daniel Huttlestone) would always be happier in his urchin garb anyway. The movie relies solely on the actors’ facial expressions to communicate the joy and peace their characters have apparently found beyond the grave. I think the actors deliver on that, especially Jackman and Hathaway. But watching the scene for the first time, I was initially confused and wondered if this was a weird flashback. Once you figure what the scene is supposed to be, I think it works wonderfully, but it takes a couple viewings to appreciate.

So can the 2012 Les Misérables be a masterpiece, as I called it in the title of my last post, if it has all these issues? If a masterpiece is defined as work of art with no flaws, then maybe not. But if a masterpiece is defined as a work of art whose strengths render any flaws immaterial, then yes! And, anyway, this story is about showing grace, guys.

It doesn’t say much for my confidence that I feel compelled to start off my first non-introductory blog post with a disclaimer. But during the past year and a bit into the current one, there have been far too many attempts by my frustrated fellow citizens to violently overthrow the government and take over cities. And here I am writing a series of posts praising Les Misérables, the 2012 movie adaptation of the beloved stage musical, itself an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s classic novel, which portrays such an insurrection in a very positive, idealized way. Let me state that I don’t condone any of these attempts, either rightwing or leftwing, and if that were all that Les Mis were about, I wouldn’t be writing about it. As it is, the doomed revolution is one plot thread among many and however cynical I am about Victor Hugo’s ridiculously idealized view of it ^[1]It’s not much of a defense, but I will say that the original novel is a little more nuanced in its depiction of the insurrection than the musical is. Victor Hugo was at least willing to … Continue reading, I know it’s possible to enjoy his story without agreeing with all of his philosophy, since I have many, many times.

The reason I’m writing this series despite its need for a disclaimer is that it’s a you-love-it-or-you-hate-it movie ^[2]On the internet anyway. People I know personally seem to like it fine and I love it, but I feel like hating it has lately become the accepted norm. ^[3]That’s probably because director, Tom Hooper, recently directed a movie musical that was a notorious critical and financial bomb, one that was a punchline almost before its release, and people … Continue reading You don’t have to look far on YouTube to find video essayists badmouthing it. (Lindsey Ellis. Patrick H. Willems. Sideways.) The movie’s been raked over the coals by disappointed theater fans, musical-averse movie fans and lovers of both genres who dislike the combination. I’m not going to do a point-by-point rebuttal of any of the YouTubers I’ve mentioned, hence the title An Appreciation of Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables rather than A Defense of Tom Hooper’s Les Miserables, for a simple reason. I feel like a lot of their specific points are too subjective to really rebut. They’ll show a clip that supposedly demonstrates what’s wrong with the movie, explain exactly what’s wrong with it, and I, the viewer, can only say, “what was wrong with that clip? It was beautiful!” They’re never going to convince me of their point of view and I’m never going to convince them of mine. But they have a right to their opinions and I have a right to mine. ^[4]To really balance out the suffocating anti-Tom Hooper sentiment, which I confess is what I’d really like to do, I’d have to make a video essay of my own and post it on YouTube. As it is, … Continue reading

But I will address the two “classic” criticisms of Tom Hooper’s Les Misérables, which is not the same thing as addressing specific critics. One of them is that Hooper’s…very particular style of cinematography is distracting and annoying. (Harsher critics have called it lazy and claustrophobic.) The movie is jampacked with closeups of character’s faces, off center as often as not. And since much of the movie consists of dramatic musical solos, these shots tend to go on for a long time. If you share the opinion of Calvin’s Dad, this movie is not going to be for you.

I’ll admit that while I greatly enjoyed my first viewing, I tended to agree with the naysayers. There were so many cool sets and locations in the movie. Why not have the camera show them off more rather than have it be so often smushed against someone’s face for so long? But the more I re-watched the film, the more I agreed with what Hooper does in it. Les Misérables isn’t about cool sets and locations. It’s also full of exciting action scenes, which is why people keep adapting it for the screen despite its unwieldly length and structure, but those aren’t what it’s about either. It’s about the characters. Their psychology, development and inner conflict are what make it such a great story. ^[5]Victor Hugo may have thought his book was about France and the progress of humanity. But I’d say it became a classic in spite of its focus on those things, not because of it. Their psychology and inner conflict are what make Les Miserables so great. That’s part of the reason the musical is the most popular adaptation of the book. Its songs allow us direct access to the thoughts of the characters. By focusing the camera on the actors’ faces so much, Tom Hooper never lets us lose track of what’s important to the story. That’s why while I’ll concede that the movie’s cinematography can be claustrophobic, I’ll never let it be maintained that it’s lazy. Practically every shot moves the story forward or tells us something about the characters and their world.

OK, I have no idea what the point of this random shot of a stray cow during the barricade building scene is. I said practically every shot.

The subject of the characters and the many closeups of their faces, of course, brings up the other “classic criticism” of this movie. The casting/singing. Most of the main actors (Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, etc.) are movie stars with marquee value names rather than renowned vocalists. Veterans of the stage show are in the cast but mostly confined to supporting roles and cameos. You can definitely hear the difference when they sing though. Even I’ll admit that. Many viewers find the below-Broadway-caliber vocals and talky performance style hard on the ears. This is one of those criticisms that I can neither rebut nor agree with because…well, I just can’t relate to it somehow. Maybe it’s because I’ve never believed, even before the film was cast, that it would outdo the filmed 10th anniversary concert, which was my introduction to the musical, in that area. No production has ever eclipsed that cast vocally, ^[6]Well, OK, I’ll admit I find Judy Kuhn’s Cosette annoying except in her last scene. She’s the only major weak spot. including the later concert versions. ^[7]It drives me crazy when people hold up the 25th anniversary concert as superior to the movie when the 10 anniversary one exists! And whenever I watch the movie, I’m not thinking about singing. I’m thinking about storytelling, which the often breathy, unpolished sounding singing serves. To me, it just fits the tone which the movie is going for. ^[8]I’d argue that it’s trying to show what a world in which everyone sang all the time instead of talked would really be like, with not everyone being an amazing singer. But the consistent … Continue reading

I can certainly see the value of casting actors who aren’t big names. It makes it easier to forget about the performer and just focus on the character. But sometimes movie stars are stars for a reason and when called upon to have constant dramatic closeups of their faces throughout this movie, these stars were more than up for the challenge. There’s so much passion put into their roles and they manage to convey so many powerful emotions…

Anguish

Rage

Terror

Relief

Stoic acceptance

Grim determination

Empathy

And on rare but heartwarming occasions, joy.

I have to give a particular shoutout to Isabelle Allen who plays young Cosette. Despite her youth at the time of filming, she more than holds her own against Anne Hathaway’s Oscar nominated turn as her character’s tragic mother. In her short time on screen, she manages to perfectly convey Victor Hugo’s characterization. ^[9]OK, so she’s far too cute and healthy looking but apart from that.

She “mourns with the air of an old woman”

but is still capable of childlike delight.

She’s humanly envious of children who are better off than she is.

She’s terrified of her abusers

but has the guts to defy them once in a while.

And she instinctively trusts her mysterious rescuer, Jean Valjean. (Hugh Jackman)

The most frequently criticized/mocked performance in the movie is that of Russell Crowe. I can’t say his Javert has ruined the role for me the way Allen has ruined young Cosette. It’s true that he has the most limited range, both vocally and as far as facial expressions go.

And he’s clearly less comfortable acting while singing than his costars are, seldom, if ever, varying his delivery. Yet he works for me somehow. His lack of expressiveness fits his character’s initial singlemindedness and refusal to reconsider his philosophy. It also has the effect of differentiating him from the other characters, making him subtly creepy. ^[10]And unlike the other main actors, much as I love them in their roles, he actually looks kind of looks like his character in the book.

Crowe and Jackman each have one big solo that was clearly written for a singer with a wider range than either has. And each gives you a good idea of the actor’s vocal performance. Crowe “undersings” Stars, relying on the music’s inherent beauty and not even trying to reach the extended high notes of someone like Philip Quast, who played Javert in the 10th anniversary concert. Jackman goes for broke with Bring Him Home and falls short ^[11]Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can sing that song but gives the song a ragged, desperate emotion that makes the failure forgivable. ^[12]Of course, he has the advantage that Bring Him Home comes late in the story when we’re already invested in his character.

But enough about singing and acting. I want to get back to that cinematography. Because while the constant extended closeups may be wearying, whenever the camera pulls back to give us a good look at those cool sets and locations, the movie makes the most of it.

The movie has a great sense of scale and height. I love the way Javert, the tragic antagonist, begins the movie on high and at the climax undergoes a fall. I love all the movie’s visual symbolism. (The opening image of a tattered French flag. The crucifixes that pop in the background during scenes of Valjean. The butterfly that appears in the foreground during the big romantic scene.) And I love the art direction, which is somehow both muted and colorful, creating a world that is both gritty and poetic-much like Victor Hugo’s prose in fact! I’ve heard it said of certain movies that you could pause them at any point and find a beautiful image. I hesitate to use the word, beautiful, given Les Misérables’ unsavory subject matter, but I feel you could probably pause it at any moment and get a powerful, arresting image.

In fact, if I were to sum up the movie in one word, it would powerful. A powerful story, courtesy of Victor Hugo, powerful music by Alain Boublil, Claude-Michel Schonberg and Herbert Kretzmer, powerful visuals thanks to Tom Hooper, Danny Cohen, the director of cinematography and Eve Stewart, the production designer, and powerful performances from a great ensemble cast. It’s not a movie for everyone, but movies don’t become my favorites because they’re for everyone. They do so because they’re for me. And I’m so enamored of this one that after this long blog post, I’m still not done writing about it.