HOM Chats: Les Miserables - Ms. Green

HOM: Les Miserables is touted as one of the most grand and epic novels ever written. What do you think Victor Hugo would have to say about Russel Crowe and Hugh Jackman taking the reigns of two of the most iconic characters in literature and singing through some timeless human dilemmas?

Ugh. What a serious one to start with. And it’s by far your hardest question - you should have built up to this.

OK, well, it’s pretty incredible that this story is still drawing crowds on such a huge scale. I expect most authors would be happy with the thought that their work would have mass appeal over 150 years after they wrote it. There are maybe more interesting ways in which a film based on the book could have been made and would have been closer to the original material but no doubt less popular at the box office. I doubt we will ever know how Victor Hugo would feel about the modern musical as a vehicle for his story....However, I suppose you could argue that if you aremaking a Hollywood musical you couldn’t ask for bigger actors. I thought Hugh Jackman was great, he also has a musical background – I saw him play Curly in Oaklahoma! in the theatre about 10 years ago (pre big fame) and he was incredible. Russell Crowe....hmmmm. I didn’t love him in this film, possibly because people had told me he couldn’t sing and that distracted me. Um, that’s it. Easier questions please...

HOM: When I lived in London I had several folks come to visit. They were unanimous in their desire to see the Broadway production of Les Mis. I've seen the show in more than a few cities. My friends, sister and mother have more than worn out the soundtrack. I've thought about reading the book and then thought better about it. It's so long. I've even seen a member of the GLEE cast in the role of Eponine. Wether I like it or not, this story has played a major role in my life. It's like I couldn't grow up until I decided on which side I stood on--Javert or Valjean. Tell me about your relationship with the story, the Broadway show and now the movie? Where have you seen it and where do you talk about it?

Ha! Well, this is where you will gasp and say I have no right to comment on the film, but I have never seen the musical, read the book or listened to the soundtrack before....I know.  I didn’t have a clue what was going to happen - except that Anne Hathaway died - how else do you rouse so much ‘best supporting’ attention...

I did know the songs - at least the big ones - we sang them at school, plus they are inescapable in the same way that I could sing numerous well known tracks by 90s boy bands, even though I never attempted to learn them. They just infect your life. Which in this case is no bad thing, there are some good musical theatre tunes in there. But in terms of being a cultural reference point in my life, it is non-existent.

I actually think this puts me in a particularly great position to comment on the film, I have no point of comparison – I just judged it on its own merits (or lack of).

Which side did you choose? I didn’t realise there was a choice, I thought it was completely one sided – but maybe that tells you something about the film?

HOM: What were your expectations for the film? I had so many people telling me that it changed their life. I have a student that has seen it six times. I was told that I'd cry through the whole thing. I didn't cry. Maybe my expectations were too high to be met. Maybe I'm an anomaly in my saturation with all things Les Mis. Also, at what point does one give up on the full pronunciation--Lay Mizerabulls--and settle on Lay Miz? 

I think you can go right in with LayMiz from the start. You sound weird and formal saying Les Miserablés, plus you have to contend with how authentically ‘French’ you want to say it which risks backfiring.

My expectations were high, it was sold as an epic, must-see movie and I thought for once that may actually be the case (it hasn’t for so long). It has also been nominated for a lot of things, plus friends recommended it.

6 times, that is 18 hours of life! How on earth would this 3 hour dirge change your life? Please ask them and let me know, maybe I’m missing something? Or maybe I need to be 16?

HOM: You've mentioned that the whole thing was just kind of "underwhelming." I have friends that would, through clinched teeth, ask you, "Who do you think you are?" How would you assuage their distaste with your distaste for the film? 

Come on! This is serious epic movie material – there is potential bursting out of it and yet I was bored. Don’t get me wrong, there are good things about it – um, wait, let me try and think of some...OK, some of the performances were good (actually the smaller parts were among my favourites – Eponine, Enjolras, Gavroche), and I like the overall look of the film, but that aside I thought it consistently underperformed. The sets appeared small, the cinematography uninteresting, the singing was not all great, the big tunes often seemed inexplicably to have far too little impact, there were long sequences where I had to wait what felt like a very long time for something to happen. Is that enough? If not, I resort back to my previous point, perhaps the reason I didn’t like it enough is because I am not 16?

Following up my comment on question 1 - just discovered that there is a 1998 version with Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman and Clare Danes – I think that would be worth a look.

HOM: Is it true that every heterosexual (and maybe homosexual) female wants to have babies with Hugh Jackman? You don't have to elaborate on your answer. Just a simple yes or no will suffice. 

I think a poll would suggest a strong majority. That man can rock stubble.

But it’s also true that you want to be him, right?

 
HOM: I'm trying to think right now about movies that peak in their first scene. All that comes to mind is Cliffhanger. I'm sure there are others. Did this movie peak with a harangued Hugh tugging a gargantuan ship into a harbor? I have to admit that he made being a slave seem somewhat desirable inasmuch as their was a palatable vindication that went along with his plot. But then again, maybe that's just due to that really catching refrain, "Look down. Look down..." What do you think?

Yes! Totally agree. The opening sequence was great – visually exciting, incredible set/effects, emotionally involved right from the start, setting up the time/place/world they live in and the tension between the 2 characters. Plus it was one of the few musical numbers that included a big chorus of singers and was effective. It is by far the most memorable part of the film for me. Although I did find it impossible not to think of Wolverine when he lifts the mast, and again later when he jumps out of the sewer – it was like a poopy re-run of the part in X-Men Origins where he bursts out of the blue superhero goo.

Back to LeyMiz - it’s irritating when you are built up to expect great things by an opening and then it turns into a long (LONG) slide into mediocrity. The movie sets itself up to fail - if the start was as underwhelming as the rest of it, then at least I would have known what was coming. 

(My mum suggests Casino Royale as another ‘peaks in the first scene/sequence’ contender. Maybe a HOM top 10 is called for?).

HOM: What would you say about Anne Hathaway? Was she convincing at least? She's pretty talented I suppose.

Hmmm, she was definitely up there with the best in this particular film. But she didn’t really have to do that much. I don’t mean this to sound petty but generally if an actor starves themselves, shaves off their hair and their character dies they get a lot of attention for it. That said, she was very good with not a lot to do and the scene when she is at rock bottom and singing ‘I dreamed a dream’ in the abandoned ship was one of the most memorable moments for sure.

This is an aside, but I am confused by all this talk of her losing crazy amounts of weight – what was the point? If your actor has done that you could at least shoot them in wide shot so we can see how much effort they have put in. I actually felt sorry for her starving herself then being in the movie for 10 minutes during which we only see her face and shoulders.

HOM: What would have taken you full tilt? What was missing?

Er, some drama.....

It was an unbelievably unimaginative movie, the way it was shot was pedestrian, there were too many fairly dull close-up of actors singing (which is very difficult to do in a way that is interesting, or allows you to be expressive/still look normal). There were very few wide shots so we didn’t get an impression of scale or place. The result is that the film felt too small for the story and the big numbers didn’t pack any punch.

For example, the scene when they interrupt the funeral, signalling the start of the revolution - this should be an epic moment but instead it was a complete non event. A few people sang while they hung onto the sides of a carriage...Where was the tension, the impact, the sense of something big happening? They had a complete gift with the music and it seemed very under-exploited, I felt like it needed a sweeping John Williams score to get me excited and yet it was full of huge songs I already recognised – ridiculous.  None of this was helped by the fact that there seemed to be a maximum of 7 extra’s in shot at any time. When you have a budget that big you’d think they could stretch to a few crowd scenes....I mean, can you imagine what Baz Luhrmann or Quentin Tarantino would have done with this??

On a separate note, I thought Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the Thénardiers were great, but completely out of place. It was as though a light hearted storyline was tacked on but without any attempt to draw it into the style of the rest of the film. As a result, even when they were genuinely funny, it felt wrong to laugh and detracted from the impact of the preceding/following scenes. Actually if they had been really dark and sinister it would have worked better – alternatively if the comedy theme had been more consistent. As it was I thought it was a very strange addition.

HOM: I have many ways of measuring a good film. You don't placate me for most of my methods. With that said, one of my qualifiers hinges on my memory of a film after a first viewing. I can't remember many scenes from this movie. I think my memory is usually paired with emotion as it is easier for me to remember how I felt during a certain scene if I truly felt something during. Even now I can recall more than a dozen scenes from SPEED--I was overwhelmingly tense for years after that first viewing (first R rated movie--do you remember your first R rated move--wait--UK doesn't have same ratings--whatever). I think I was, I'm scared to admit due to undoubted push-back I'm about to receive, kind of bored for most of this movie. Was this a 'good' movie?

I could probably recite the entire script of Speed but that’s a different interview... but one we should do as Sandra Bullocks’ socks need to be discussed. And I can remember my first ‘15’ movie, it was The Full Monty – which is engaging in an entirely different way...Can’t remember the first ‘18’ I saw.

Anyway, to your question – nah, it wasn’t good, and I was bored too. This just felt like a huge missed/wasted opportunity to make something fab. What a shame. I expect people might defend the film on the basis of it being true to the musical (which I obviously can’t comment on) – but I don’t think that’s a valid excuse, this is a movie, and should be enjoyed/judged/discussed on that basis.

Just reading this back I realise I have been very negative, maybe a bit unfairly – I think it’s partly because I expected so much and, for me, it seriously didn’t deliver. I have plenty of friends who loved it. My frustration with it is perhaps because I think it’s a privilege to get to make movies like this and it’s so galling when they are under-cooked. 

Pop quiz, hot shot.....