Review: Les Miserables

Set in 19^th Century France, Hugh Jackman stars as reformed thief Jean Valjean, whose wish to leave his criminal past behind him is constantly threatened by the overbearing presence of Inspector Javert, who refuses to let Valjean forget that he is and in his eyes forever will be a criminal who broke his parole. Valjean has since become a respectable factory owner under a different name. Unfortunately, his cover is blown when trying to save a prostitute named Fantine (Anne Hathaway, in the screen version of a role her own mother once played on stage!) from arrest. Fantine’s descent into a life of easy virtue was as a result of the factory manager firing her for being an unmarried mother, something Valjean feels somewhat responsible for. Javert sees through Valjean’s new respectable image, but once again Valjean manages to escape, this time rescuing Fantine’s infant daughter (Isabelle Allen) from her rotten guardians (played by Helena Bonham-Carter and a seriously slappable Sacha Baron Cohen). Years pass and Cosette has grown into the beautiful Amanda Seyfried, romanced by a young revolutionary (Eddie Redmayne). Unfortunately, the dogged Javert is still on Valjean’s trail as Paris undergoes a violent uprising all around them. Samantha Barks (a musical theatre actress in her film debut) plays Eponine, whose unrequited love for the young revolutionary nearly gets in the way of true love. Colm Wilkinson (Valjean on the stage himself back in the 80s apparently) has a memorable small role as a compassionate bishop.

 

I generally take poorly to musicals as you probably well know by now, and I especially hate musicals that involve singing dialogue. This is even more the case when the people doing the singing frankly aren’t very good. This 2012 big screen adaptation of the legendary stage musical (as well as the original novel by Victor Hugo) ticks all of those unfortunate boxes (in addition to being awfully downbeat for a ‘musical’), but manages to actually come out alright by the end. Directed by Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”), it’s not a great film, and features some serious flaws, but if even a hater of musicals like me can comfortably make it to the end of this 2 ½ hour film, most others will likely be quite enthused by it, so long as a story that is pretty much ‘The Miserables’ is your idea of entertainment.

 

The chief talking point here is clearly the cast, and they’re a bit of a mixed bag. Oscar-winning Anne Hathaway is probably the best of the lot, and her rendition of ‘I Dreamed a Dream’ is heartbreaking and seriously moving. I don’t understand why many women don’t like her (<cough> jealousy <cough>), but it’s impossible to hate her here. She gives the role (and that song) everything she’s got. It’s just a shame that she’s barely in the film, something that surprised me (having no experience with this story before). I actually found her to be the heart of the film, really. Helena Bonham-Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen are perfectly cast and a lot of fun in their dastardly, but largely comedic roles. They’re not very good singers, but I don’t think their roles require it, and Cohen is particularly hilarious. The rendition of ‘Master of the House’ (which, like George Costanza, I can’t get out of my head) is good fun, one of the highlights of the film, musically. Eddie Redmayne (Second ugliest man alive, behind yours truly), Amanda Seyfried, and Samantha Barks probably do some of the best singing in the entire film. Redmayne in particular surprised me, but his acting, as per usual, is bland as hell. Seyfried already proved she could sing better than anyone in the cast of “Mama Mia!” (especially Pierce Brosnan), and once again I found her lovely here, and certainly well-cast. Barks can definitely sing and is way too attractive for Redmayne not to notice her, even with the lovely Seyfried in the room. She’s also surprisingly adept here in a medium outside of her norm (Perhaps being a stage actress in a film version of a stage play she has already acted in, gave her a real advantage).

 

Hugh Jackman probably came to this film with more weight on his shoulders than any of the other principal actors. He’s a musical theatre veteran, and can definitely both sing and act. In the role he has been given here, however, his acting is of a far better quality than his singing. Part of this is because of the way the movie has been shot. The singing was done live on set, to help with the acting performances and with spontaneity, and thus a bit of the singing quality is going to suffer. I get that, though it didn’t seem to negatively affect Hathaway’s singing, merely enhance it with emotional acting. Others aren’t as successful. But I also think that this role from the point of view of singing requirement, was an ill-fit for Jackman anyway. He embodies the role well and acts his arse off, so in that respect it’s his best film work to date. But the singing register is set far too high for Mr. Jackman’s capabilities, sending him into far too nasal territory as his voice is stretched a tad (a noticeable tad) beyond its limits. Jackman is a natural baritone, the role is a tenor, and apparently adjustments were made to suit Jackman. Not nearly enough adjustments if you ask me. You’d think Jackman would be the bonafide singing success of this film, but he is hampered by the choices made, presumably out of his control. That said, I shudder to think what any other actor of lesser singing ability and experience than Jackman would’ve done in the role. He’s OK, and on an acting level, even better than that.

 

The film’s biggest weakness is clearly Russell Crowe. Anyone who has had previous misfortune to witness Crowe’s previous forays into so-called music are well aware that he’s a teeny bit crap, and that is definitely on show here, big-time. The problem is, Crowe clearly thinks he’s a great singer (Just as he refuses to believe he had an Irish accent in “Robin Hood”). And maybe before he started drinking and smoking heavily he might’ve been...decent (Apparently alcohol consumption was banned during filming. Too late for Crowe if you ask me). Y’know, usually Aussies like to claim Kiwis as our own, but after his turn here as dogged Inspector Javert, maybe the Kiwis should keep the former Russell Le Roque for themselves. Crowe is capable of so much as an actor (presence and gravitas personified), but as a singer he is embarrassing in a role that he is uncomfortably miscast in already. I’m not saying Russell can’t play a villain, but Javert is more of a miserable, one-dimensional jerk than a villain, and Russell just didn’t seem to fit. Hell, he didn’t seem to want to be there, and given how shite his singing is, I kinda wish he wasn’t. To be honest, the character itself didn’t work for me, either. It seems so one-dimensional and not belonging to what is an otherwise quite strong, occasionally stirring story. I can appreciate the rather garish caricatures played by Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter, but Javert surely shouldn’t be a caricature. It also seems a rather repetitive role, as though he’s the only copper in all of 19^th Century Paris who could interfere in people’s squabbles. It gets a bit silly after a while, bordering on being that Graham Chapman character on “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” who was always turning up to try and stop a sketch from becoming too silly. His best singing moment is probably when he’s on the rooftops sing about the stars.

 

Kudos to the casting director for finding a young girl (Isabelle Allen) who looks the spitting image of the character (of the young Cosette) on the infamous poster we’ve all likely grown up seeing. That girl is uncanny. Aside from the two best-known songs (‘I Dreamed a Dream’ and ‘Master of the House’) the best songs are actually the group ones, and all of those are well-sung too. Meanwhile, the film looks great, with terrific production values and convincing period recreation. The music score by Claude-Michel Schonberg is superlative, stirring, and infectious. Unfortunately, there was just too much singing for me, and purists of the musical can go and take a flying leap. This is a film musical based on a stage musical (or novel, really), not a stage musical itself, and in my view, musicals that sing about 95% of the dialogue are about my least favourite thing on Earth. I can handle cockney accents in a French story, but my tolerance for sung dialogue is very, very low. It tends to take me out of the drama a touch. Sure, with that much singing, it becomes a bit less noticeable that there’s so much singing, but at the end of the day, I would’ve cut half the singing out and replaced it with dialogue so that there’s some breathing room in between the big numbers in particular. As such, the numbers tend to bleed into one another and most end up being forgettable. Obviously, musical fans (and purists) will be able to swallow it a lot easier than I, but surely we can all agree that any scene involving Russell Crowe attempting (and failing) to sing probably should’ve been left on the cutting room floor. Along with anything else Crowe was doing in the film.

 

Look, I went into this expecting to turn it off after ten minutes. I stayed for the entire journey, and that right there is a testament to the power of the original story, more than anything. It’s a sad, depressing, and yes miserable tale, but an interesting and enduring one. As for the film itself? It’s pretty good, no better, no worse. The adaptation is credited to screenwriter William Nicholson (the underrated “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”), but let’s face it, the songs are doing most of the work and they were there before Nicholson came along. I’m not so sure what his input would’ve been. A solid, but lumpy film, that probably would’ve benefited from replacing one of the principal cast, and cutting out at least half of the singing.

 

Rating: B-