For the longest time, Victor Hugo’s
Les Miserables was considered to be part of that pantheon of
literary works deemed unadaptable (along with other such *ahem* “unadaptable” works
as
Fight Club,
Life of Pi, and
The Lord of
the Rings trilogy). It’s easy to see people’s doubts about Hugo’s work
being translated to any other medium. The novel tells a sprawling, sweeping
tale with a large cast of characters and deals with a wide range of heavy
themes. But
Les Mis’s first stop to
the big screen wasn’t in the form of film, but oddly enough into a theatrical,
operatic performance. Though the now highly regarded musical version of the
story cut a fair bit of the narrative, it kept much of the central themes of
loss, redemption, and revolution that had made it such a powerful story in the
first place.
Hugo’s novel had proven itself adaptable, but now people
wondered less about the plausibility of that, and more about the question of
whether its superb musical counterpart had any hopes of being made into a film.
Well, now, that it’s been made, the more appropriate question seems to be: how
does the play translates to film?
That answer hinges on
the musical itself because much of what works and doesn’t work for the
adaptation is the nature of it being a musical. The music of
Les Mis has a majesty to it; an
emotional, powerful grandeur. But the music by itself is not enough to carry a
film. And
Les Mis by its very nature
has next to no dialogue. The film has us watching one person after another
singing (with varying degrees of enthrallingness and ability). This isn’t
necessarily problematic; a number of films have done this before.
West Side Story, clocking in at over 3
hours, is almost non-stop musical for the entirety of the film’s length. But
what allows
West Side Story to get
away with this is that every musical number is dynamic. The camera changes
angles, and actors move around. It provides the film with a vibrancy and energy
that
Les Mis often lacks. Too many of
the shots in
Les Mis are a single
close up for almost the duration of the musical number. It’s as if director Tom
Hooper forgot that he was making a movie and had the ability to move the camera
around. This leads to a stiffness to the movie that causes it to be a slog to
sit through at times. In short, the execution and staging of these musical
numbers often takes away from the impact of them.
Don’t get me wrong; I love Les Mis. Ever since my high school put on a production of the show,
I’ve been a devout fan of the musical. But that’s just it; I’m a fan of the
musical, not this film adaptation which just happens to have its music. And it
doesn’t even always have its music. There are weird cuts and additions to
songs, and there is a wholesale creation of music that often feels clunky. For fans
of the musical it may seem like it’s enough, especially after long wishful
thinking about the arrival of the day when the play would appear on the big screen.
But for people uninitiated to the story and music, it may not be nearly as
satisfying. The fact is that Les Mis was never something that was
going to be easily turned into a film, and this is probably the best we could
have hoped for considering the difficult source material they were working
with.
Les Miserables – B-
Overall I agree with your sentiment about this film, but more specifically I think you are spot on about the lack of different camera angles.
ReplyDeleteFor the first few songs the camera seems to be focused on the actors uvula instead of panning out and encompassing more of the overall scene. In musicals all your focus is on the singer, all other players stop moving and remain silent to add to this effect. Movies are allowed to be more dynamic though. Unlike a play, were the location of your seat often affects how you perceive the play, movie directors get to choose at what angle you see the scene, making lighting and set and mood much more important. By hovering the camera over an individual actor they not only miss out on the opportunity for a great shot, but they also diminish the benefits of the film media. I often found myself establishing shots in my mind while watching the play, trying to mentally change what was already filmed...
The music itself I thought was good. There were a few changed lines that sounded better and a few that messed up the rhythm of the song (and the change to the last song which altered the entire importance of the plot line!!), but overall I was willing to let it go.
As much as this wasn't my favorite variation of this story it did provide the most likable Marius character I've yet seen (and I've seen the musical somewhere between 5 and 8 times) and the musical prowess of the other school boys was fantastic. Cosette still wasn't my favorite (she never is), but the Inn keeper and his wife were both hilarious and well played.
At the end of the day (HA! see what I did there?) I would probably give this movie a B, but ask its director to take a look at the Phantom of the Opera film adaptation before attempting another opera to film adaptation.