Les Mis Review

So, I finally saw Les Mis Friday... after my plans to see it got foiled three times, and then my weekend plans to go see my family in PA were utterly destroyed. So how was it? Well in a word... Okay. The saddest thing about the film version of Les Miserables is that is gets as many things right as it does wrong. Every few minutes the filmmakers and cast do something that the Les Mis fan in me wanted to cheer for, almost always immediately followed by doing something that just made me stare at the screen dumbfounded.

Let me break this down.

Casting

Russell Crowe has taken a lot of shit for his performance of Javert, and frankly he deserves it. While he would have been a great choice for Javert in a non-musical version of the story, his voice is just not up to snuff here. He lacks the power that the role demands and just can't perform the songs with any sort of emotion because it feels like he's struggling just to sing them. Hugh Jackman, I think, has a similar problem is that he feels like he's forcing every single note that he sings. The songs feel like they are all at the tip-top of Jackman's range and so he has to belt even quiet songs just to hit the notes. This just made me cringe during Bring Him Home, and also forced several songs to have some of Valjeans more impressive vocal pieces to be cut (the one that left me the most sad is when Valjean steals the silver and should have the line "And when the house was still I got up in the night, took the silver took my flight". The last word of which is an out of nowhere high note that I just don't think Jackman was capable of).

Amands Seyfried was not a terrible choice for Cosette, but she has one of those reedy soprano voices that just gets lost in a crowd and also makes you think her voice is going to give out at any point. Similarly upsetting with the casting of Aron Tveit as Enjolras. If you've ever heard the previous recordings of Les Mis, Enjolras always has a sort of "action hero" voice. He is supposed to inspire you to his cause, and stand out as the real leader of the rebellion. Tveit looks and sounds the opposite of an action hero. His voice is very soft and tenory, much more Marius than Enjolras. I never felt inspired to follow him, and couldn't really understand why anyone else was.

Let's take a break to talk about the good casting. Anne Hathaway and Eddie Redmayne both knock it out of the park. Hathaway does more with her screen time than anyone else in the film, and she manages to sing the most wrenching version of I Dreamed a Dream that I think I've ever heard - Ruthie Henshaw, Patty LuPone and even Alice Ripley didn't pull so much hurt out of that song. Redmayne takes full advantage of the film medium by playing his songs too subtly for the stage, but perfectly for a mid to close-up shot. He nails the awkwardness of Heart Full of Love, and the pain of Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. Redmayne get that they are in both a movie and a musical, and succeed at nailing both worlds.

It goes without saying that Colm Wilkinson was amazing as the bishop. He was Jean Valjean and the Phantom of the Opera, for god sake, did anyone really think he couldn't play the Bishop of Digne.

Now, I'm torn on Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thernadiers. Well, more Sasha than Helena. Helena doesn't have much of a singing voice, but she made it work in Sweeney Todd, she does the same here, using what voice she has to great effect and acting the hell out of the part. Sasha, I think is great when he's not singing. Unfortunately he just doesn't seem comfortable singing the role, and he fades in and out of a weird french accent throughout most of Master of the House. Was it intentional? Probably, but that doesn't make it wound any better.

Music

Can anyone explain why they cut verses of a lot of the classic songs, but then inserted a new and not-nearly-as-good song where one wasn't needed?

Yeah, me either.

There were a lot of fun things done with the music here, some reorchestration, and rewriting of lyrics. The Work Song really felt like a call and response, which I guess it always was. And it felt like something the prisoners would sing, so that worked well. The use of Gavroche as the entire female part in the song Drink With Me also worked very well, although they butchered the set up to it, but I'll discuss that later.

Cinematography

Let me say what I liked first. The wide sweeping shots were beautiful. A lot of the group songs were well shot, especially things like the Work Song and Look Down.

That said....

Why in the hell would you make just about every solo song look like the actor singing was just holding two home video cameras and recording himself? Seriously every single time someone broke into song, the director and the cinematographer got lazy and just shot the singer in a 2 camera close up. This was a TERRIBLE decision because it made every song claustrophobic and made you tune out a little bit. Worse, it removed so much from songs like On My Own that we lose the characters loneliness on an empty street cause all we're seeing is a close up of her face. I'm not sure why they felt the need to do this. Did they think we'd forget who was singing?

Writing

I'm not going to comment about the story itself of the general story of the musical, cause well one is over a hundred years old and the other is like 27 years old so.. too late for that.

But in the film, they wrote a LOT of changes into the flow of the story and added some very strange bits.

They bumped Javert's presence during the Fantine segments, having him show up and suspect Madeline of, rightly, being Valjean before Fantine becomes a whore... and then say that someone else arrested "Valjean" so he had to have been wrong. I'm not sure why they bothered with this change. The point of Javert suspecting Madeline of being Valjean is NOT to test Javert, it's to introduce a moral dilemma to Valjean, which spurs him to reveal himself for who he really is. By shifting the focus of it to "Wow, Javert is a bloodhound" it makes the choice a little less damning. Javert really did suspect him now, it's not like Javert was just making a passing statement... Javert had him dead to rights, and someone else messed up.

Similarly, in the Javert as a bloodhound department, they introduce an extended and pointless chase sequence after Valjean adopts Cosette. In the stage version, Valjean adopts Cosette and then we cut forward 10 years to see Javert is still hunting Valjean. In the film version, Valjean adopts Cosette, and Javert shows up 5 minutes after he leaves, only to give chase. This chase leads Valjean to lead Cosette through back alleys of Paris and hide of ledges to avoid Javert. This chase has no real point, and in fact just makes Cosette seem a little air-headed. She seems like she has no idea what Valjean is hiding... even though the night she met him, the police chased them? Does she suddenly not remember this?

Next, while I support their movement of I Dreamed A Dream and Stars, as to use them in arguably more effective places, the fact that the filmmakers rescripted Do You Hear The People Sing to after the "act break" just seems to weaken it. The revolutionaries sing Red and Black, and then find out General Lamarque is dead. Enjolras tells them to take to the streets... this should be where they rally the people. Instead we just cut away to Marius going to Cosette's house. We lose every ounce of energy and momentum toward supporting the June Rebellion, and frankly end up not caring about it. When they finally do cut back to the Friends of the ABC Cafe, and sing Do You Hear The People Sing, they make it a huge crowd number, and the song has to build it's own momentum. Additionally by making it a big crowd number, the film makers make it seem like more people support what now seems like a poorly planned rebellion... and then when they don't actually show up, you're left confused. On stage, it's very very clear that no one is supporting these schoolboys.

Then, the film takes great pains to show Eponine taping down her breasts to disguise herself as a boy, and then does absolutely nothing with it. Eponine no longer delivers a message from Marius, only to die returning from her errand. Instead she takes a rifle round to the chest at point blank range while trying to save Marius. No only does this kind of make her singing a song seem really odd, but it also makes the title of the song not work, forcing the film makers to actually have it rain during the song. Yeah, way to mess that up. (They also cut a verse from this song for no reason). Then, as soon as she's dead we all just move on, losing completely the moment where Enjolras says "she's the first of us to die, we will remember her and will fight in her name." This is all painful to me as a Les Mis fan because Little Fall of Rain is one of the shows big tear jerkers. It's a moment in the story where you shouldn't have to dance your way into and out of it, you should just play it straight and it'll work.

Makeup

Largely the makeup was good. Anne Hathaway had a very subtle but striking shift in weight and complexion as she slips into prostitution. The Thernadiers look suitably terrible after they've lose their Inn, and then look wonderfully over the top at the finale. Russell Crowe ages nicely, though I still don't understand why he has a beard in the film and Valjean is clean shaven. Valjean looks great as a weathered prisoner, largely because Jackman dropped tons of weight.

The place the makeup fails is Valjean aging. When the story begins, Valjean has been in jail for 19 years. When he comes out of jail Valjean is easily in his 40's (to be precise, he's 46 according to the novel). It's then 8 years later (making him 54) and Valjean still has brown hair and looks very healthy. We then cut another 10 years ahead (making him about 64). On stage, the first two segments portray Valjean with brown hair and the third his hair had gone gray. In the film, Jackman maintain brown hair throughout. This is extremely problematic because Valjean dies at the end of the story. On stage and in the book, you get the notion that it's a combination of everything he's been through and old age. In the movie, there's no reason. He still looks pretty young, but suddenly he's just dying like it's a Lifetime Movie of the Week.

I get that you want Hugh Jackman to look good since he's your star, but seriously by not aging him you have messed up the entire end of the story.

This and that

Can someone please tell me why we needed Javert to hit stone during his suicide? Every version of his death is him jumping into the river. Geoffrey Rush, in my opinion, did it best with his simple "I release you Valjean" before jumping. In the film version Crowe gives an acceptable version of Javerts Suicide, and then jumps from the bridge. Instead of just splashing into the river, he hits the edge of a constructed waterfall with an audible "thwack".

What did we gain from this? It took a very nice moment and just made it uncomfortable.

Sorry, wasn't sure where else to put this, but this was one of the first things discussed after leaving the theater and 2 other big Les Mis fans both agreed with me that this was just a terrible change.

Also, the barricade was pathetic. Why is it on stage they have a better barricade that has to raise and lower during the show than than film makers could construct with more money and less constraints? The barricade in the film just looks tiny and pathetic.

What's more during the final fight, the French soldiers just swarmed over it like it was a speed bump, and most of the fighting happened behind it. This made the film makers have to create a contrived and awkward death for Enjolras that involves him falling out a window so that he could recreate his death pose from the stage production.

Finale

Okay, I want to discuss the finale in and of itself, cause there were a lot of little changes and some of them were amazing, and some didn't work at all.

Firstly, I'm not sure why they changed some of Valjean's lyrics. In the stage version the "last confession" is more about the full story "It's the story of those who always loved you. Your mother gave her life for you then gave you to my keeping". This is keeping with Valjeans not wanting Cosette to know that he was ever a thief or a man who jumped parole.

In the film, the "confession" was just about Valjean, with the lyrics rewritten to be "It's the story of one who turned from hating. A man who only learned to love when you were in his keeping." So, Valjean thought better of keeping his secret, and decided to ignore Fantine who's been standing over his shoulder this whole time?

Dick.

This aside, the movie created a problem for itself because it never put Valjean and Eponine in the same room. This meant Eponine would have no reason to ever show up when Valjean dies.

The filmmakers solved this BEAUTIFULLY! Instead of Eponine, the Bishop of Digne shows back up to escort Valjean to the other side. This would have been fine on it's own.... but consider that the Bishop is played by Colm Wilkinson, and consider that Colm Wilkinson is the original Valjean. This was as much Colm moving on as it was Valjean dying. Jenna and I both lost it at that point, and a good friend of mine who is equally a Les Mis fan had the same reaction. "I was doing okay, then Colm showed up and I lost it."

I kind of wish it had just ended here.

But the final song goes on to bring in the spirits of those who died at the barricades. The film does an interesting thing here, which I'm not entirely sold on. The film cuts to a massive barricade with everyone who died on it, looking over it.

This doesn't work for me because the song their singing is about moving past struggle. "They will walk behind the plowshare, they will put away the sword. The chain will be broken and all men will have their reward." The film instead makes it seem like they'll be on that barricade forever. Is that supposed to be a good thing?


Over all, I enjoyed Les Mis: The Movie, but it's not a substitute for the stage production. Frankly I think I'd find myself picking the 10th Anniversary Concert or even the 25th Anniversary Concert over the film on any given day. Though both lack the visuals of the film, they both project a lot of subtlety that the film misses and over all both have stronger performances across the board.

If you've never seen Les Mis, maybe you'd enjoy it more, but for my money... it wasn't half as good as the Broadway production, and just made me leave the theater praying for a revival.

Against the Hunger Games

So, there's a huge amount of attention being given to the Hunger Games right now. The books are on the NY Times best seller list and have been for a while. The movie opens this week, and it's stars are all over television and in magazines. People of all ages are swept up in the story of Katniss Everdeen. But should they be?

It seems when there's a media sensation like this that everyone piles praise on a franchise and you almost never hear from the detractors. To listen to fans of this series, it's incredible. It's a gripping tale with a compelling main character that keeps you up at night until you've finished the entire saga.

But, there's one problem. This isn't the truth at all.

I'm currently a little more than half way through the first book, and I'll be completely honest.... I do not see why people are so caught up in this story.

First off, this story has been done before, and honestly done better. I think by now there's not a person in the geek community who has not heard the cry of Hunger Games is a rip off of Battle Royale. There's a good reason for this... the two books share a very similar plotline and over all story. While Susanne Collins has maintained that she never heard of Battle Royale, there is enough similarities that several respected reviewers have felt it necessary to point out the similarities. While it is indeed possible that Collins did not view Battle Royale, Collins lack of reference to any of the sources that obviously inspired Koshun Takami's novel (eg The Lottery, Lord of the Flies, Running Man, The Long Walk....etc) make one highly suspicious how two similar stories sprung into existence if there were no similar references or inspirations.

Putting the similarities between Hunger Games and Battle Royale aside, there are still a vast array of stories which have explored the same territory as Hunger Games before (some of which I've listed above). So, you would really expect that for Hunger Games to attract so damn much attention that it would have to be one hell of a book.

Sadly, though.... it's not.

Firstly, while I have to give Collins technical props for being able to sustain a novel in first person present tense, I feel that she made a terrible mistake in making Katniss the narrator of the piece. As written, Katniss is a wholely uninteresting person. She complains about the government, while her life under it's shackles isn't entirely terrible. She overlooks the fact that her skills have given her family a far better life than others around her have. Yes, she's on the bottom rung, but she is comfortably on the bottom rung.

As written Katniss' personality consists almost entirely of being oblivious, worrying about her sister, and disliking the government. She has no spark of wit, no endearing traits, no memorable thoughts... nothing to justify why Katniss should be liked. She's just your narrator because Collins wants her to be. This is compounded by Katniss being, quite literally, the least appealing character in the book. While every other character has a bit of flare to them, something to make you grin or scowl at their actions.... Katniss just kind of is.

While it's fine for the main character to be rather bland, there must be a point to it. John Watson comes to mind. In the Sherlock Holmes stories, Watson, himself, is a rather bland person. Yet, it's absolutely necessary that he be our narrator so that the skills of Holmes seem that more wonderful. We see Holmes reach conclusions as if by magic only because they seem that way to Watson. If we saw all the stories from Holmes point of view, it would all seem terribly dull because everything would jump out and scream the final answer.

That's not the case with the Hunger Games. There is no legitimate reason to limit our knowledge to that of Katniss, because there is nothing in this book that would not work if told from a third person point of view. Katniss being our narrator does not add to the narrative, in fact it feels like it detracts from it. She's put in terrible danger, but because she is our main character with everyone else taking a vague backsteet.... we're never forced to worry that she might lose this game, because there are more pages. (This is one of the grand points, specifically of Battle Royale. Yes, Shuya is the main character, but others get nearly as much page time, leading you to believe that Shuya might not be the main character after all and could die at any point.)

Moving away from the problem of the narration, the book also suffers from a problem of far too many coincidences. Katniss's sister is picked on her first year, despite the odds of her being selected being very slim. Then, coincidentally, the one kid in the village who happens to have not only a bond with, but a secret crush on Katniss is selected as the other participant after Katniss volunteers to take her sisters place. Then, Katniss coincidentally gets the greatest stylist the games have ever seen on what we presume is his first year, which sets up the whole "girl on fire" things which just reeks of resistance slogan. and then coincidentally gets to take in a pin which is a clear sign of treason (long story... the Mockingjay is a symbol of resistance against the government).

Now, I'm convinced there's some sort of weird puppet master pulling the strings in this, which just leads back to Katniss being uninteresting. If there is a puppet master, why not let us get a glimpse of them. It's much more interesting to watch the pieces move and fear that you'll lose the game than to watch a pawn dance around the board unaware that they're a pawn. That was one of the great things about Lord of the Rings... the chess master was a major character, whom appears to die at one point.

So, do we have a chess master, in which point we're following the wrong person, or does this story just stink of coincidence.

Additionally, far too many points in the story we're told rather than being shown. We're told about Gale rather than seeing him for more than a page. We're told about government atrocities instead of seeing them. If we don't actually see things, why should they have any impact us upon us as the reader because we're not experiencing them first hand. We only get vague second hand accounts. Rule number one of writing is to show instead of tell. Obviously Collins showed up to writing school a day late.

Finally I point out that the entire world of the books falls apart when thought about for more than a few minutes. The government of Panem (horrible name by the way) oppresses people without ever trying to indoctrinate them. There is not an oppressive regime in the world that only oppresses without indoctrinating. It's what keeps people from rebelling. Make people barely get by, but make them think that they must barely get by for the good of everyone. Make them think it is their duty to get by and that the government loves them for it. Make them think the government is their savior, and without the government they would be nothing.

Collins does none of this. Everyone in this world knows the government sucks, but they just keep toddling along wallowing in hatred for it. Why don't we rise up? Well, we're told the government might kill them, but if a large portion of the population of a single district would rise up, the government would be forced to think of something new.

Similarly, we're dealing with a world that has invisible hovercraft and precision targeting of aid, and yet we're somehow dependent on coal? Even if we are, leaving coal production to one district alone seems insane. What if  plague hits the district and everyone dies.... whoops, coal production is wiped out. What if the agriculture district gets hit with a hurricane or terrible frost.... whoops... we starve. More over, if there is simply an interruption to the supply line, which if it's all coming from one place wouldn't be hard to accomplish, you'd be screwed anyway.

You also have to wonder, with Panem broadcasting these games nation wide, where are the other nations of the world shouting down the atrocities or attempting to airlift in aid to the starving people? Sure Panem takes up most of North America, but what about South America or Europe or Asia. Have they completely ignored these violations of human rights?

I'm sorry but when the world of your story is vital to the story itself, if should not, MUST not, break down 5 minutes after you've put the book down.

So, seriously, can someone please tell me why everyone thinks these books are so great?