Les Miserables (2012)

Les Miserables is a beautiful story and has withstood many interpretations and productions. Somehow, even with the disturbing zeal to bury the story of redemption in the 1998 previous feature film, by Billie August and Rafael Yglesias, it retained portions of the thrilling hope of Victor Hugo's 1,500 page novel.

It is the musical, however, that took the story and shamelessly dug out the themes and belted out the epic of grace and forgiveness across 42 countries in 21 languages. Last year marked the 25th anniversary. A new live performance traveled through Cinemas and a breathing cast appeared in concert halls throughout England and the US. Tom Hooper was working on his mountainous task--turning the well-beloved musical into movie. Something that would explain and present the story to thousands who'd never heard it, as well as die-hard, jealous fans. He is pretty crazy.

The finished product exploded on Christmas Day. Tom Hooper and our grand knight, Sir Cameron Macintosh, once again proved themselves (above and beyond Peter Jackson and other ambitious individuals who seize a powerful story in new love and best intentions and flail to present it to the public, missing and mutating the very elements that probably attracted them...ahem. We still love them anyway).

This new musical movie of Les Miserables presents the story in all of its gritty, offensive love, grace, and hope. With melody, words, and screen, the movie is able to highlight and draw out the beautiful symbolism and themes, something many of us haven't trained ourselves to do on our own. You forget you're in a musical and only find yourself in a grand epic which is, at the same time, the  personal story of each of us. This rendition was done in an adventurous way, all of the singing recorded during filming and on set, much of it straight at the audience. The factory women accuse us. Fantine begs us. There is no sparing our emotions or allowing us to hold it at arm's length--all the grit and the grace are right there, sometimes yelling, sometimes drawing us into the screen.

With all it's realism, it goes a little far, making the movie harder to enthusiastically recommend. As you could expect, the scenes with dissolutes and prostitutes lead to unnecessary content when performed as a complete screenplay. There is at least sixty seconds that none of us needed, even if it jolts us out of our comfortable, clean ignorance or indifference to things occurring today in our own cities...

Anne Hathaway gives everything she has to her performance of Fantine and left me absolutely speechless. Even if you are a Hathaway hater (which I have been) you have to admire how much of herself she pours into this character. Yeah...still pretty speechless on this.

Hugh Jackman also dug into his role. If you cringe at his voice at the beginning, it is because he starved himself to look and feel more like a laboring convict for the first shot. He improves over time and while there have been better voices, I whole-heartedly adore his Jean Valjean (even if you dread "Bring Him Home"). His soliloquy and last scene sacrifice things that can very well be sacrificed to bleed all the soul and life and struggle and longing. Outstanding.

But even with all his superb acting, Hugh Jackman is not Colm Wilkinson, so for dedicated Les Miserables fans, Wilkinson's appearance as the Priest is both exciting and satisfying. It also gloriously draws out how, through the Priest's kindness, Jean Valjean turns and becomes like the Priest. How Christ sacrifices and cares for us--recreates us into little Christs becoming more like Himself, and sends us out to show His Character and grace to the world.

Also this should comfort Les Miserables zealots and please Colm Wilkinson fans.

Aside from the live performance, Aaron Tveit was the best Enjolras I've seen. He probably didn't have the best voice, but all his vibes were spot on. I fell in love with the whole revolution preparation scene in a completely new way. His life and complete character--how it was contrasted and shown against others and how he inspired and loved his brothers, may have been my favorite and freshest part of the movie. Some may say his end was a little over the top, but if you dig into many historical biographies, you can find that many endings are similarly over the top and ridiculously epic.

Marius was a great rich kid. Cosette, despite deep-rooted loathing for Amanda Seyfried, may have been my favorite interpretation yet. Both seemed appropriately unlikable and newbish at the beginning but hopeful characters by the end. They were presented as I saw them in the story.

Although Eddie Redmayne's voice does not reach godlike status (who can compare with Micheal Ball?), his "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" is acted and sung in a way to wring your heart.

I'd seen Samantha Barks as Eponine before, but this screen version made me sympathize and fall in love with the character for the first time. And, unlike much of the cast, I have no hesitations about her voice.

The true test came with Javert. My first introduction to the Les Miserables musical came from Philip Quast version of Javert's soliloquy. It instantly rocked my world and has continued to do so ever after. The character of Javert created my original love and devotion to the story many years before and has probably influenced me above and beyond just my writing.

All my backstory with the Inspector made Russell Crowe's performance imperative to any joy or horror I would get out of the movie. His first singing attempt actually was a little distressing. He improves over time and does interesting interpretations of his two solos. His acting is phenomenal and I feel like he really entered into the character and understood him. His performance is almost as opposite to Norm Lewis as anyone with the same lines can present. Russell Crowe paints a more passive character with considerably less gleeking and more unspoken conflict. He is a little soft, in all respects, but I actually loved his embodiment of so complex a character. Of course, he is not the only right and perfect portrait and his voice, even with everything else he adds to the character, is nothing exceptional and still cannot be compared to Philip Quast.

The scene right before Javert starts his soliloquy was disappointing. They switch it up so Jean Valjean leaves basically in defiance (also, covered in a little too intense of sewerness). I understand how this might have made the scene switches and all easier, but it was almost an unforgivable sin.

The only other dissatisfying scene for me was the end. Although when you learn the history, the last scene makes more sense, even a successful revolution hardly gives Fantine, Gavroche, or Valjean the hope and deliverance they need and long for. This finale piece is much bigger and seemed trivialized and disconnected from the thirst we all have and the song of victorious hope in the souls of all who have been driven to the light. A disappointing scene to finish a glorious story. But perhaps if they'd wrapped it up in all it's heart-throbbing glory no one would have been able to walk out of the theater alive.

Of course there are portions left out and others jumbled. There is a new song and theme added written by the original creators who were all involved with the movie. The new content highlights Jean Valjean and Cosette's father/daughter relationship. It feels almost Disneyish in a few moments, but gives a break from the intensity of the rest of the movie. I already had mountainous respect for Tom Hooper and now it will last forever. What a massive task to turn a successful musical into a cohesive, powerful screenplay. The hard work and dedication by the entire cast and crew is unbelievable.

There will be more Les Miserables, some which will perhaps dig deeper and soar higher, but this movie captures the spirit, raw soul, and devastating grace. The best stories can and should be told in many ways, shapes, and forms. If you can deal with the grit or know when to go get a popcorn refill, go see it.

Come back and tell me what you think. :-)

There is so much more that can be said. Hopefully Lauren will say some of it soon. If you go see it, look for crosses (obvious and camouflaged), new creation/covenant and old world/covenant themes, reoccurring musical melodies, and contrasting reactions and characters.

Also see this post - Comfort and Confrontation for us Les Miserables Snobs

Artists be encouraged. Work done this well and with such a proclamation of truth will last, spread, and send tremors throughout the world. We are changed by just such things as these.

You know what?

Brothers Bloom

Quick thoughts on "The Adjustment Bureau"

I watched this in a Moscow park with my bro and sistah. We laughed...a lot. But the movie didn't make it. 

I just simply had to say something about the dialogue between Matt Damon and Emily Blunt. It was quick, funny and spontaneous, while remaining believable. 

Unfortunately the movie deserves it's PG-13 rating all the way...and David (Matt Damon) and Elise's (Emily Blunt) relationship lacks some virtue and chaste qualities. :-/ Really too bad, because their romance in other ways is both refreshing and interesting.

Guys could take a good lesson from this. All girls really want is to be irrationally pursued. A guy who's decisive and proactive. The more streets the guy run down with a white shirt and rolled up sleeves, the more points he gets. 

Matt Damon pursues his bride with all he's got and he's willing to sacrifice everything in his life, including being with Elise, for her own good. And...fyi...even though this is sweet, it's a dumb move. I don't know about guys, but girls (at least any I've ever been around) would 100% rather have happiness (and an awesome fellow) than a disturbing dance career. ;-)

The other potential that fell flat in the movie was the whole chairman/angel/destiny deal. Some of the allegory was intriguing and fit, but it ultimately flopped. Besides the hats and occasional painful dorkiness, the conclusion seemed like an easy way out. The Chairman seemed to be both God and the villain, and was either purposefully befuddling his "agents" or a little indecisive himself.

Freewill was too big and complicated of a topic to tackle with coffee spills, headgear, doors, and George Nofli.

World Magazine gave a good and thought provoking review on this movie when it was in theaters. I disagree with some of their estimation of the romance, because I really think the characters were drawn well...their actions fit. Maybe I'm just young and immature, but the dialogue really was an interesting study.

If I had to rate the movie, I'd probably give it a five...mostly for the dialogue and generally "colorfulness" of the filming, along with the good acting of the two star characters. All other aspects, acting and otherwise, mostly deserve derogatory attention. 

Thoughts on "Thor"

I know I'm behind the times, but I only just recently got to see Thor (first movie in 3D). The following are random thoughts, not a well-thought-out movie review... Proceed with caution. ;-)

I really had no inclination to see Thor until I heard that it was another Kenneth Branagh/Patrick Doyle director/soundtrack team.

My original indifference was mostly because I'm not a huge superhero/Marvel fan and for some reason it just really seemed like Chris Hemsworth should be Sean Bean...and he wasn't. (Don't try to make sense of that one.)

I walked into the theater with a lot of recommendations but not much idea of who as acting or what the story was all about.

It was a good movie.

Thor was a refreshing character...far from perfect but not blatantly retarded (not the typical "bad boy"). I thought Hemsworth acted wonderfully. Thor was a sympathetic, changing, and mildly complex character who acted realistically (even with the god-factor in there). He turned into a true hero...the best produced by hollywood in a long time.

By the end of the movie, I forgave him for not being Sean Bean, but that was about as far as it got.

Anthony Hopkins was superb (duh). His character (the king) kept much of the movie from becoming cliche.

The whole cast is very typical of a Kenneth Branagh film and meshes together beautifully.

There were moments of goofiness, predictability, or complete unbelievability, but over all, the movie was a fun and clean 114 minutes.

If you know me...you might know what is coming next...

Depending on how you look at it, plot spoilers may lie ahead. Also...let me just say that Tom Hiddleston looks a lot different with straight, black hair.

From the first moment you see Loki you know that they are going to make him have all of these unresolved issues and that he's going to turn against Thor. He's the good boy who will turn bad, while the bad boy will turn good. I was literally hoping beyond hope that they would have just let him be an amazing brother and son. I loved him from the beginning and I knew they would do this to him. Come on. It's so overused.

He could have been amazing.

I want to see a movie where there is simply a supporting character like Loki could have been. I want to see a movie where the child can truly accept the fact that his parents love him for who he is, no matter where he came from. I want to see a movie where a guy can be from the enemy race and still be a good guy.

There were just so many things about the whole situation that I didn't like. It really put a damper on the movie.

Please don't sacrifice a potentially awesome character just to come up with a plot element. There are other more original options.

And of course he's not dead. Who dies in these type of movies?

I know it's all based of a comic book and I'm going to refrain from blaming people like Kenneth Branagh, but it makes me want to rewrite the story.

Having said all that, I did think it was the best superhero movie to perhaps ever come out (maybe not my favorite, but the best).

They did a great job keeping it interesting, crazy, and clean. Thor was very much the lion and Loki was very much the serpent, but at the same time the characters were more morally complex. It had an interesting focus on the purpose and place of war and actions of individual characters.

At first I thought they were going to do a lot with the whole "god" thing, but they actually go out of their way to explain him as not being a god at all (although he still is the god of thunder...not sure how that works). Certainly the most unobjectionable movie of its type.

Really enjoyed it. I'll just have to make up an alternate reality for the whole Loki aspect.

Visit my sister's blog to see her take.

I would enjoy hearing your thoughts.

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian

"Hamlet" on film and Kenneth Branagh

Before we get into any particulars I think we should establish the fact that Kenneth Branagh is a genius of his trade.

There have been many, many movie versions of Hamlet and Branagh has been the only director to tackle the entire play.

He loves Shakespeare and it is amazingly obvious.

He works hard to pull in the meaning, themes, and life of all the plays he's done and his enthusiasm is contagious.

One thing I particularly appreciate about him is the fact that he does not take himself too seriously...but he is very sincere about whatever story he is dealing with. He is willing to make the production all about what is happening and what it is saying, not about himself or the other actors.

Of the versions of Hamlet I have scene Branagh's 1996 production is my favorite. Although there are several portions that are distinctly his interpretation, he stays with the complete text. I believe he is true to the story, leaving the questions that Shakespeare does not answer, still questions.

Mel Gibson, although a very interesting Hamlet, completely fails to stick with Shakespeare's most important themes and suggests a relationship between Gertrude and Hamlet that Freud imagined. Laurence Olivier is good, although mopey, but forces his own interpretations.

I do not remember other versions I have seen well enough to critique. I know there are at least two productions since 1996 that I have not seen.

When the character of Fortinbras is obliterated for a shorter film, the play is no longer Hamlet to me. I can still enjoy it as a movie, but as Shakespeare's Hamlet it falls short. (See this post.)

Branagh's interpretation of Fortinbras is my main question with his Hamlet...although he is casted as Rufus Sewell, which is something.

Branagh also portrays Hamlet and Ophelia's relationship as exceeding the bounds of honorable courtship. I believe this could be a legitimate, (if unpleasant) interpretation. Unfortunately this leads to unnecessary scenes in Ophelia's mind while she is speaking with her father. This, a few other similar quick scenes, and some disturbing and violent images give Hamlet it's much deserved PG-13 rating and make me hesitant to recommend it. If you have Clearplay, go for it. Otherwise, be cautious.

Kenneth Branagh puts together a star cast. Nearly every character that turns up is familiar and excellent.

And he still manages to use falling petals despite the fact that he is dealing with a tragedy.

The first portion does a wonderful job of contrasting Hamlet with the other sons of the play and the other characters, which are essentially acting (an obvious theme of the play along with painting of faces and false appearances).

Brian Blessed gets a abnormal role for him as Hamlet's father and the ghost.

He's pretty creepy...

There is a lot of fog, cracking ground, and bubbling that make his and Hamlet's talk very dramatic and hardly gives the ghost a favorable impression as coming from any where but down. (Compare this to Mel Gibson's.)

Rufus Sewell as Fortinbras.

"The play's the thing..."

So...about Horatio... I love the character of Horatio. He is amazing. I have seen Nicholas Farrell in other movies (think Amazing Grace, Twelfth Night, Chariots of Fire, etc..) and I think he does a great job.

When I first realized he was playing Horatio, I confess I recoiled. I couldn't stand it for the first half hour, but I got used to it and he does do an interesting and sympathetic interpretation. He isn't what I would have imagined, but I couldn't tell you who I would cast as this part.

Julie Christie plays Gertrude.

Branagh is very convincingly mad...
It is very funny, sad, and a little scary.

Polonius is quite amusing. The interchanges between Hamlet and Polonius when Hamlet is being mad/rude are very well done.

Here is a clip from the "words, words, words" part. Branagh's face flexibility is impressive.

If you are Shakespeare or Branagh fan you will be familiar with Richard Briers.

He does an excellent job as Polonius. (Not sure if that is a compliment.)

Kate Winslet an excellent Ophelia...although I think she's a little over-the-top at times when she goes mad. I don't know.

I think the part where Ophelia goes mad would be a fun one to play. ;-)

The scene with Hamlet and Ophelia talking is very heartrending. In this version, Hamlet seems to discover part way through that Ophelia is betraying him and others are listening. Branagh made me want to cry.

Rosemary Harris and Charlton Heston reenact Hamlet's trap for Claudius.

We love you, Charlton Heston!

You can see part of his speech, Aeneas' Speech to Dido as First Player, here.

Timothy Spall and Reece Dinsdale as Rosencrantz and Guildenstern.

Billy Crystal as the 1st Gravedigger.
A hilarious, but thoughtful interpretation.

Robin Williams as Osric.

Very funny...perhaps goofy enough to be a bit out of place, but he does a good job.

Derek Jacobi does an outstanding job as Claudius.

I was happy to see him in this role because, although I know he is a wonderful actor, I have a hard time liking him when he's trying to be a good guy.

Throughout the movie they constantly show people practicing fencing at interesting times. Since Claudius and Hamlet are essentially fencing through the whole play and people keep getting in the way (or being pushed in the line of fire) this is a very interesting touch. I also love this checkerboard, chess-like floor.

Laertes and Hamlet's fight is very dramatic.

Michael Maloney as a dead Laertes...

And Fortinbras again...now King of Denmark.

If you've seen the 1996 movie version, what do you think Branagh's conclusion was? Do you think he sees Hamlet as a hero?

What do you think about other movie versions?

Thanks for reading,
Miss Pickwickian