Directed by: Tom Hooper
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Amanda Seyfried
Rated PG-13, 157 minutes
Clockwise fom top left: Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, and Anne Hathaway star in “Les Misérables.”. (Courtesy photo)
I have heard some very angry reviews of “Les Misérables,” both from people who just weren’t feeling the whole singing-every-line-of-dialogue thing and from theater buffs who can’t believe what director Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”) did to one of the most famous musicals of all time. Having seen the film now, I think the criticisms are a little exaggerated, but not totally off the mark. Hooper’s take on the theatrical classic is fascinating and beautiful, but the wrong parts drag on for too long and the story is, frankly, a mess.
“Les Misérables” concerns an ensemble of lower class citizens in post-Revolution nineteenth century France. Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman, “The Prestige”), jailed for stealing a loaf of bread, breaks his parole in order to clean his slate and start over as an honorable man. The vengeful policeman Javert (Russell Crowe, “Gladiator”), determined to fulfill his lawful duties, vows to bring justice to his escaped prisoner. A poor woman, Fantine (Anne Hathaway, “The Dark Knight Rises”), accepts a life of prostitution and begging in order to send money to her young daughter. Valjean tries to help Fantine, but she is beyond saving; as she meets her pitiful end, he promises to find her daughter and raise her as his own child.
So he does, and years later the daughter, Cosette (Amanda Seyfried, “Mamma Mia!”), finds herself in love with a young revolutionary student, Marius (Eddie Redmayne, “My Week With Marilyn”). Marius and his friends are planning to stage a revolution against oppressive government officials, including Javert, whose hunt for Valjean continues. Valjean finds himself compelled to help the revolutionaries, but his commitment to them is personal, not political. Even if he encounters Javert again, even if it means his own death, Valjean is determined to be the forgiving, honorable man he promised himself he would be.
If the plot seems disjointed, it’s because it is—the action is internal and non-linear, made physical through introspective lyrics and theatricality. This is expected, of course, in a movie with a musical theater past. On a stage, I suppose the flow from scene to scene would be much smoother, so it is remarkable how fluid the movie is, given the circumstances. I would even say Hooper has created a novel way of structuring a movie by embracing this theatrical style; the result is something unique and intriguing. The visual experience—Hooper’s obsessive use of close-ups and jarring handheld camerawork—provides a gritty, utterly personal look at these ill-fated characters, much to the movie’s benefit. Best movie of the year is pushing it, but this is certainly a spectacle.
Meanwhile, the acting ensemble is strong, albeit exaggerated all around. Jackman and the ever-underappreciated Redmayne are both very good, and appearances from Helena Bonham Carter (“The King’s Speech”), Sacha Baron Cohen (“Borat”), and British theater actress Samantha Barks are all great. Anne Hathaway, for her part, shines as the hopeless Fantine, delivering a powerful solo that is perhaps the most emphatic piece of acting I’ve seen all year. However, the film is not without its duds; Seyfried and Crowe are disappointing, especially the latter’s stiffness and lack of singing ability.
Acting criticisms aside, though, very few of the movie’s flaws are cinematic, but rather a result of the chaotic nature of the story itself. Generally speaking, this is a faithful and creative delivery of non-cinematic material to the silver screen. Where Hooper and company really only fall short, I think, is in their editing of the story. Hard as it is to believe after sitting through more than two and a half hours, scenes were cut. Yet superfluous moments remain: scenes and songs that drag on, characters we don’t need to care about but are forced to. This is a story broad in scope, and Hooper has done little to condense it into the sensitive frame of a one-sitting movie event.
That being said, the film is unique—and unique in a very good way. “Les Misérables” isn’t a story that will appeal to everyone—I didn’t find myself weeping for the characters or exalting in the triumphant human spirit that quietly takes over the film. But it is an interesting—perhaps even original—example of what movies can achieve. For that, at least, it deserves recognition.
Danny Eisenberg is a 2010 graduate of the Bromfield School and is currently a student at the University of Pennsylvania.
