LES MISÉRABLES: Tom Hooper (2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Tom Hooper: LES MISÉRABLES (2012)


SAMANTHA BARKS AND EDDIE REDMAYNE IN LES MISERABLES: "A LITTLE FALL OF RAIN CAN HARDLY HURT ME NOW"

Musical miserablism, squared

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables, the Nth iteration of the long-popular 1980's American transplant of the British adaptation of the French theater piece based on the 19th-century Victor Hugo novel, may be unlike the original Broadway musical in as many ways as it is like it, but diehard fans of the show are still likely to enjoy what they see; that's why we call them diehards. The film features most of the songs, the same oddly simplified plot, and quite a number of screen stars to make everything even more larger-than-life than it was already in the stage version. In fact the overblown and distracting production tends to get in the way of the songs and what should be the emotional highlights. The screen "Les Miz" still provides splendid, touching moments. But elaborate and ambitious though it is, it's not the success Hooper achieved in his last film, The King's Speech.

Problematic to start off with: lots of the cast members aren't known at all as singers, and they do have to sing. Along with that, and making the musical aspect even iffier (assuming the music still matters in a musical), the production proudly eschews lip-synching, which means the live-recorded performances of the singing, a lot of which is wispy and semi a capella, have dramatic immediacy but lack musical polish. Which makes them seem less like songs and more like lyric-delivering recitative. And about the doggerel-rhyme verse we get to hear more clearly sometimes as a result, the less said the better.

Furthermore, there are the images. Thankfully, we are spared 3D. But we're given something rather like it. Despite some glorious shots of Paris and other locations, the sets look pretty artificial. And they're often pushed into the background by in-your-face closeups in which wide-angle lenses fatten chiseled faces and shapely bodies unflatteringly. When the camera pulls back a bit, it tends to get tilted up on one side or the other, creating endless annoying diagonals. The bustling but underlit scenes are prevailingly bluish and dark, till late in the game the story turns to the revolt in the streets of Paris, and by then you may have already given up hope of seeing the light of day.

Those screen stars include notably Hugh Jackson, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfriend, Helena Bonham Carter, and Sasha Baran Cohen. Jackson, a veteran song and dance man and a tall, handsome fellow, is of course sterling in the lead role of the noble and long-suffering Jean Valjean, imprisoned for twenty years for stealing a loaf a bread and then remaking himself, though pursued endlessly by his nemesis, the jailer, Javert. Crowe is saddled with the role (that's how it felt to me) of this sweetly singing but dramatically limp villain who keeps reappearing like a bad penny -- far too often and too fast because in the musical, all the long intervening passages of the 1300-page novel have been left out.

Surprisingly few other cast members stand out. As Fantine, the scrawny, screechy Anne Hathaway, starved and shaved and dirtied up after swiftly being shunted from factory worker to gutter-prostitute to martyr-mother, makes an unappealing pathetic dying heroine, though, to be sure, before expiring she delivers a heartfelt (if unmusical) version of her character's anguished show-stopper about dreaming a dream. Like Crowe when he's endlessly standing on the battlements contemplating suicide much later, you just wish she'd hurry up and die. Fortunately she does and we can move to other tumultuous and confused events -- what's left of the novel makes only limited sense.

You probably know the basics of the story. Valjean of course gets out of prison, but paroled for life, is a virtual fugitive. He's taken in by a noble cleric (Colm Wilkinson) whose silverware he steals, but who then saves him from going back to prison for another twenty years by claiming it was a gift. The good guys are just so, so good and the baddies are way too evil to take seriously. An already highly sentimental and over-the-top novel has been changed into something like a medieval morality play for the musical. I was personally most taken with the freckle-faced Eddie Redmayne as the young revolutionary lover Marius and by Samantha Barks as his frustrated admirer Éponine. Ms. Barks was one person who really seemed to be singing rather than overacting in a wispy falsetto; and her main songs were rare and welcome occasions when Hooper and his King's Speech cinematographer Danny Cohen don't get in the way. Best of all was the tiny 12-year-old Daniel Huttlestone, who mostly doesn't even have to sing but just talks flavorful cockney, as the little revolutionary martyr boy, Gavroche.

But before the lovers and the revolutionaries come along we have to put up with the intensely mugging Bonham Carter and Baran Cohen, reprising their Sweeney Todd roles, as the comically greedy and repulsive Thénardiers, who run a thieving inn where all the guests are fleeced dry. A more repulsive place could not even have been imagined by Bonham Carter's husband, Tim Burton, who has used her so often in his movies it's impossible not to be sick of her. It's with this repulsive, scatological interlude that everybody starts beginning to sound very British and on the cockney side, and Valjean, for a while a factory owner and mayor, now in flight from Russell Crowe again, mysteriously adopts an orphan under the questionable care of the Thénardiers, little Cosette (Isabelle Allen), who is to be his companion and the love of his life, except that she's his adopted daughter. With breathtaking suddenness Cosette grows up into Amanda Seyfried, and the fresh-faced but (we're briefly told) well-off revolutionary Marius falls in love with her, amid carousing and barricade-building and with Samantha Barks hovering around mooning over Marius. Then there's fighting and blood and martyrdom and some changes of heart. Little Daniel Huttlestone does something really brave. It all happens with that much speed and makes that much sense.

The revolution, whatever it was (actually the 1832 Paris student uprising), has been lost -- and Eddie Redmayne sings his heart out and cries over his lost comrades in an empty, ruined garret: very nice. But he still gets to be with Amanda Seyfried, and Hugh Jackman turns into a saint, finally free because Russell Crowe has very reluctantly jumped into the sewer, or the Seine, I wasn't sure which. And we all got to go home and eat our turkey and mince pie.

Les Misérables, 157mins., opened on Christmas Day 2012.

[tabuno]

For most of the reasons, Chris doesn't like this film, I loved it! It was the very use of the non-singers that made this movie more believable and real and authentic instead of the often times overly dramatic, pompous singing excellence that seem to focus more auditory perfection instead of the more articulate but more heartfelt and human dimension which really is the basis of this movie and hopefully Victor Hugo's immense novel. The visual imagery was magical and captivating in its revealing detail that unlike most contemporary and earlier film productions enhanced the original Broadway version instead of just highlighting, exaggerating, or distorting the essence of the original musical. Hooper achieved something substantively significant in his film version of the musical, he made the film better than then original Broadway Musical production by the delicate use of film and the camera. Easily one of the best movies of the year in both epic proportions, outdistancing such productions as:

Chicago (2002), Moulin Rouge (2001), Mama Mia!!! (2008), and Across The Universe (2007)

and achieving the same resonance and power as Evita (1996), The Sound of Music (1965), and Dr. Zhivago (1965).

I am reminded in watching this movie the same epic and emotionally wrought experience as found in Cold Mountain (2003), Apocalypto (2006), How The West Was Won (1962) and Dances with Wolves (1990), Titanic (1997), even Gone With The Wind (1939). At the same time, Les Miserable brought the audience into the personal world and human struggle of living as found in The Pursuit of Happiness (2006), The Aviator (2004), Twelve Monkeys (1996), and Atonement (2007). In Les Miserable, the director attained the power of personal tragedy as depicted by Gillian Anderson in House of Mirth (2000) and Memoirs of a Geisha (2005).

What Tom Hooper has done with Broadway using film is what Shakespeare accomplished through the written word in developing narrative as a story performed live. Unlike The Artist (2011) which brought forth the remaking of the retro-art history of the past, Les Miserable has gone forth into the future and brought back a fine blending of the Broadway Musical and enhanced its visual and auditory power with a film directorial detail that brings out even more the emotions and vibrant themes of the Musical itself. Except for the technical blemish in a few places of voice-over singing which detracts from the intimacy of the movie, the refreshing use of non-operatic performances gives this movie a more rich and authentic humanism that taps into the universal urges and mental ponderings of every person.

[Chris Knipp]

If's fine to say like the cheerleader Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, "Damn the imperfections, it's perfectly marvelous." That's justified. But your paean of praise would be more convincing if you went into more specifics about the film; and if you acknowledged at least some of its failings, and acknowledged that it has them. Todd McCarthy in Hollywood Reporter and other major critics have listed the most often mentioned shortcomings of Hooper's approach to LES MIZ.

1. Eliminating spoken dialogue causes monotony. Staging the show almost entirely sung without spoken dialogue makes it hard to distinguish the separate songs and causes the music to blend monotonously together.

2. Too many tight closeups. The preponderance of tight closeups on singing principals also creates a sameness in the scenes and music. The scenes ought to have been shot in a variety of different ways. "It’s the worst of times, though, when Hooper repeatedly traps his stars in tight close-ups during the musical numbers — practically shoving the camera down the singers’ tonsils."--Lou Limerick, New York Post.

[Hooper] stages virtually every scene and song in the same manner, with the camera swooping in on the singer and thereafter covering him or her and any other participants with hovering tight shots; there hasn't been a major musical so fond of the close-up since Joshua Logan attempted to photograph Richard Harris' tonsils in Camelot. Almost any great musical one can think of features sequences shot in different ways, depending upon the nature of the music and the dramatic moment; for Hooper, all musical numbers warrant the same monotonous approach
--McCarthy.

3. Weaknesses as well as strengths of recording the songs live. As I noted, the live recording makes for immediacy and acting intensity, but makes for less polished and less tuneful musical performances. As I asked: does the music still matter in a musical? If so, lip synching remains the way to go. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks are exceptions, delivering fine vocals. So does Jackman, but there is so much of him none of his solos stands out.

4. Lacks in the backgrounds of shots. As I also noted, the backgrounds, though in some cases handsome and authentic, tend to look artificial. McCarthy: "Hooper has handsome interior sets at his disposal. However, with the exception of some French city square and street locations, the predominant exteriors have an obvious CGI look."

5. Excess. The whole thing, however moving at a simple level, tends to seem outrageously overblown, though at this point it begins to be hard to distinguish the faults of the film from those of the original musical. "For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine, Mark Keizer.

[tabuno]

1. Eliminating spoken dialogue causes monotony. Staging the show almost entirely sung without spoken dialogue makes it hard to distinguish the separate songs and causes the music to blend monotonously together.

Evita (1996) was an amazing singular sensation and I'm not talking Chorus Line (1985) here (which film version was a great disappointment by the way). Directed by Alan Parker and performed by Madonna, Evita was perhaps the only pure, non-verbal dialogue, it was entirely sung all the way through. As for Les Miserable, just because this "musical" doesn't follow the musical script of clearly distinguished songs, this new cinema music experience perhaps is a breakthrough form of film-making because it offers up a musical experience without having to adhere to the rigid lines of music versus movie and instead allows the flow and tempo of the plot and events and experience to become one, a more naturalistic unfolding of the story instead this song and break and song and break and song and break... which now that I observe it, seems much more artificial and distracting. I didn't find monotony at all in this movie, the varying set designs, different events occurring, the rapidly moving changing storyline flowed with diversity and thought provoking and emotional evolutions of varying intensity from laughter to great sadness to hope and despair. Most people would have a hard time becoming bored or find anything monotone in this movie except for perhaps those uninterested or detached from the underlying themes that seem to radiate out from this movie, or those who are avoiding some of their own tragedies reflected in this movie, or who have experienced so much in life that such fine details are passed by without a second look because it is presumed to be inferior to begin with, or that this movie doesn't follow the standard requirements of what is supposedly a finely crafted movie - song, dialogue, song, dialogue, song, dialogue.

2. Too many tight closeups. The preponderance of tight closeups on singing principals also creates a sameness in the scenes and music. The scenes ought to have been shot in a variety of different ways. "It’s the worst of times, though, when Hooper repeatedly traps his stars in tight close-ups during the musical numbers — practically shoving the camera down the singers’ tonsils."--Lou Limerick, New York Post.
[Hooper] stages virtually every scene and song in the same manner, with the camera swooping in on the singer and thereafter covering him or her and any other participants with hovering tight shots; there hasn't been a major musical so fond of the close-up since Joshua Logan attempted to photograph Richard Harris' tonsils in Camelot. Almost any great musical one can think of features sequences shot in different ways, depending upon the nature of the music and the dramatic moment; for Hooper, all musical numbers warrant the same monotonous approach
--McCarthy.

The close ups (I found myself in a sold old movie theater on Christmas Day n the "second" row and to the rare experience of audience applause at the end of the movie) are some of the most valuable and powerful images of any movie and as such brought a depth and natural intensity of feelings rarely seen on film. It is just such use of cinema here to which brought more richness and aliveness than even the Broadway production could do with its limited in theater spacing and needed distance of the audience from the stage. There is no sameness in each of these amazing faces and performance and direction - the pain, the hurt, the suffering, the regret, the guilt, the sadness are presenting in such large and detailed close ups, each actor could hide behind darkened corners, make-up, or angles - the vibrant emotive connection of each of these characters drip from these scenes as tears are reflective of the best of art here, like portraits painted by our classical artists themselves. The audience is a direct, immediate witness into the eyes of the soul of these characters that the American public have been attached to for decades. In this movie, these characters are brought to life in a way that 3-D or IMAX cannot replicate...because it isn't fancy shot making here, these are closeups...perhaps some of the hardest form of film to direct and perform and each of these characters hit their spot and their dialogue and feeling with power and connecting most deeply in my rapt soul.

3. Weaknesses as well as strengths of recording the songs live. As I noted, the live recording makes for immediacy and acting intensity, but makes for less polished and less tuneful musical performances. As I asked: does the music still matter in a musical? If so, lip synching remains the way to go. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks are exceptions, delivering fine vocals. So does Jackman, but there is so much of him none of his solos stands out.

The only obvious and distracting weakness in the musical presentation and particularly in the amazing, awesome opening scene was the lip synching, most likely because of the impossible authentic noise of the set and actor's activities shot at the time. But the use of live vocals gave a definite immersive, Broadway quality and the use of less than stellar vocalists made these scenes more available to the public, made for a more realistic presentation of the characters apart of the overly stylistic operatic presentation, the exaggerated presentation required for stage performances for an audience. Even Russell Crowe's performance comes from a man, not a singer. This movie isn't really a musical in the way it has traditionally been conceived. Instead this is an epic movie using music to tell a story where the acting with the music and song is just as important as the singing itself and it is surprisingly, unlike many musicals, most of the lyrics were easily understood, a testament to the abilities of the performers in this movie. It was just this close up fusion of singing, melody, lyrics, and acting that when brought together became more glorious than each separately.

4. Lacks in the backgrounds of shots. As I also noted, the backgrounds, though in some cases handsome and authentic, tend to look artificial. McCarthy: "Hooper has handsome interior sets at his disposal. However, with the exception of some French city square and street locations, the predominant exteriors have an obvious CGI look."

I was convinced...except perhaps the sewers appeared too clean, but I can't imagine anybody being able to really act well in real garbage and refuse, it smells terrible unless one has lived most of their lives in it. To complain about the set design would be to come close to a double standard when one complains about the singing and this being a musical and then complain about the set design...where most musicals aren't based on realistic sets so much as based on Broadway Production themes which are usually the exact opposite of reality. Personally, with this new musical experience, I find the suggestive elements of the set are sufficient to capture the story. I focused on the characters, the make-up being so carefully and well applied that the backdrop was secondary and this story isn't about the buildings, the streets, but about individuals and their tortured lives. Even Blade Runner (1982) could be considered to have been so elegantly misty and dark and well designed by the director, but authentic and real...I don't think so. For those of us poor people who don't travel to faraway lands and can only imagine and dream of such things, our standards are likely to be way less here. What was important was the impact of the story and message, and the feeling and coming away from a movie that deeply moved one and represented some of the most difficult but fundamental human values and emotions and dilemmas that any human may face. As such this movie for me was a crowning experience in almost all ways.

5. Excess. The whole thing, however moving at a simple level, tends to seem outrageously overblown, though at this point it begins to be hard to distinguish the faults of the film from those of the original musical. "For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine, Mark Keizer.

Perhaps the problem of movies nowadays is the tedium of the standard of excess - violence, sex, the stereotypical plot line, special effect explosions... But what movies haven't really present to the audience is the restrained excess of human emotions and in this movie the patience of time to experience the full evolution of emotions, the small details of human noises and grunts of pain often are avoided...but the form of excess in this movie is this movie's redeeming strength, to give full measure of the immensity of what is occurring deep in each of these characters.

[Chris Knipp]

I may try to reply in more detail tomorrow. But your saying that the less than stellar perforances made the musical more accessible to the audience suggests you'd be more satisfied with a small town amateur production. You also liked sets that didn't seem real, so there you're happy with a CGI look, which wouldn't strictly be accessible to your small town company. Again, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the film has any faults, at least not ones you don't embrace as virtues, and such an uncritical look at the new screen "Les Miz" just isn't convincing as an argument in its favor. Of course you're perfectly welcome to love the movie and as I've written in my review, I'm sure the diehard fans or uncritical admirers of Eighties musical blockbusters, which you seem to be, are going to love it. I really try to look at things neutrally. I can see many virtues and performers of high skill even if some of them are not really good singers or simply are not allowed to present their best singing performances (musically). This is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a small town amateur production. It's big, it's professional, it cost millions and it's going to make millions; it's already beating THE HOBBIT and THE HOBBIT is a money-maker. But is it perfect? No. Is not using post-synch a wise decision? Debatable. Many cite examples of the few filmed musicals shot live as blunders; one by Bogdonovich AT LONG LAST LOVE has been mentioned and said to be a catastrophe. It was the first such since 1930, one source says. There has to be a reason why live recording of a film musical is such a rarity. It has not been found to work. I am disappointed in the singing of many of the live-recorded songs because they aren't satisfying musically.

As for the spinning-in-for-tight-closeup approach on a majority of the song solos creating a sense of monotony I will trust the more expert writers and my own feelings. Some of the songs were shot in an unobtrusive way. I'd cite the ones by Samantha Barks, and Eddie Redmayne's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" solo in the ruined, empty garret room, which unlike "Dreaming a Dream" was shot at a decent distance, showing the singer's whole figure, not looking down his tonsils.

[tabuno]

It's a wonder how Chris continues to keep his capacity to absorb body punches and stay standing intact with integrity.

I'm not proclaiming that Les Miserable is an inferior product using less than stellar actors or even set designs. Instead what I'm suggesting is that Les Miserable represents a distinctly new and improved film experience that breaks out of the traditional mold of musicals to create something that "expert" traditional professional critics have yet to accept or acknowledge. Instead they look through established film indoctrinated glasses that perhaps makes them blind to the extraordinary substantive emotional delivery that this different film composition enables its lay audience to enjoy. The end product of live singing using actors not professional singers has created a mainstream audience experience that we can relate to more directly and intimately than the more polished and perhaps even less than authentic delivery, resulting in a film that Victor Hugo might have demanded of the humanity not the sound quality of the humans involved in his novel.

Like 3-D and Chris who appears to have slowly evolved in his appreciation of the CGI, so too Les Miserable come upon us that represents not a special effects innovation but a directorial and acting innovation by bringing together music and storyline and performance into a refreshing, detailed portrayal of humanity not seen often on the big screen in such profusion but without the bombastic, over the top delivery. Instead the director has created a more raw and internally felt experience for the actors who themselves then exposed themselves for the audience to see. Unlike the Broadway production requiring projection, it was the director's camera that brought the audience to the actors, and as such this was the more genuine and natural way of experiencing Victor Hugo's brilliance.

[Chris Knipp]

I know but I was just saying you were implying that as a logical extension, if you liked the imperfect aslpects of the live-recorded performances in LES MISERABLES so much, you'd like an amateur performance even better. Indeed sometimes a less pro production can be more moviing. I found that with Tom Stoppard's play The Invention of Love. I happened to see a small theater-in-the-round version in DC and then just a week later saw the full-on Broadway version. No question about the fact that the DC version was more touching and immediate, without the name actors, fancy costumes, and costly sets.

I don't know what you mean when you say I appear to have "slowly evolved into an appreciation of the CGI." Of course Hooper's "Les Miz" doesn't involve "special effects innovation." Its chief innovation is the abandonment of post-synch shooting of the action and instead recording the voice performances live with the action, to achieve immediacy and put more of an emphasis almost on a kind of "method" acting. That is borne out also by Hooper's having both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway lose substantial weight before shooting his first secens and her later scenes, and he says he also was asked not to drink any water even for the last 36 hours before shooting the prison sequences.

I'd paraphrase Capote's famous quip about Kerouac's ON THE ROAD, "That's not writing, it's typing," and say That's not acting, it's dieting. I don't think all in all I am a huge fan of Method acting -- and it's not generally what the English actors do, though some Brits have studied at the Actor's Studio.

I still am convinced that (1) post-synch shooting with more tuneful and polished renditions would be better; and (2) the constant use of extreme closeups for many of the songs as well as the constant tilting of the camera to creat45-degree angles are visual distractions that undermine, not enhance, the presentation of the musical.

A musical is an artificial stage event. Trying to make it more "naturalistic" and "real" is a dubious enterprise at best. I'm not against the use of many location shots. Why make a movie otherwise? That's what is done in music videos. But music videos are post-synched. That way the sound is good and the images are good. Why sacrifice the sound to the images?

[cinemabon]

http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/12/25...s&emc=rss&_r=0

[Chris Knipp]

That review by Manhola Dargis in the NY Times that you cite is one I've read (not till after I'd written my review however, I might add) and is rated by Metacritic as a 50, actually way lower than I'd consider mine, though I may say some of the same things; I'd give it a 60 or if nuances are available a 58. To give a nod to the fans who love it anyway.

What about you, cinemabon? Have you seen it? If so, what do you think?

[Chris Knipp]

Two of my usual reference points:

Armond Whilte loves Les Miz in his review ("Working Class Heroism"). He thinks it presents some kind of working class authenticity, and you're an effete snob if you dislike it.

Walter Chaw hates it. He just says in his review of Les Miz that it's a big loud bore. He thinks "accidental auteur" Hooper was galvanized into making something extremely ugly by the freedom of having won too many awards

And conversely, Armond White, who is black, joins Spike Lee in a somewhat knee-jerk condemnation of Django Unchained ("Still Not a Brother") heaping abuse upon Samuel L. Jackson, calling him the new Steppin Fetchit. He provides a very superficial, actually pretty unsophisticated misreading. Spike Lee spoke out against Django Unchained without even seeing it. Simply the fact that the movie deals with slavery in the South through a prism of spaghetti Western and Blaxploitation genres made it odious to him.

And meanwhile Walter Chaw sings the praises of Django Unchained in his review of it, saying that it once again shows what a genius filmmaker Quentin Tarantino is.

Meanwhile White has a somewhat more calm and balanced condemnation of Zero Dark Thirty and his review of the one ("Zero for Conduct") -- nice titles this week,, Armond -- I'm going to save to go back and ponder after I've seen that film.

[cinemabon]

I'm not big on musicals that scream their opinions in my face. While I enjoy many musicals (theater and film), LM tends to be bombastic and pontifical. There is no question that the film is peppered with talent - I love the work of Ann Hathaway and Hugh Jackman; I was a champion on this site for "The King's Speech."

However, as much as I enjoyed "Chorus Line" on stage, met the writer, producer, director, and cast - I loathed the film. I enjoyed seeing "Phantom" onstage and hated the movie. I saw "Camelot" "My Fair Lady" and "Fiddler on the Roof" with some, not all, off their original casts and absolutely hated the film versions. I liked "Mary Poppins" better than I did "My Fair Lady." Whereas, "The Sound of Music" and even "Oliver" benefited enormously when they were made into films. "Gigi" is perhaps one of the greatest musicals of all time, and it was never a play (later adapted for stage). "Singing in the Rain" is less a musical and more a compliation of MGM properties dragged out of the closet and pieced together into a film with the flimsiest of plots. If not for the charm, grace and talent of the cast, it would have been a flop.

I have mixed feelings about this movie that go back twenty years when my aunt was practically cramming the thing down my throat. Just about everything she likes (She's a staunch Repulican/conservative/stick-in-the-mud) I hate. Call me prejudiced, call me madam, call me late for dinner; you can even call me Johnston... I'm reticent.

[Chris Knipp]

No doubt about one thing: In the eyes of the critics Tom Hooper's two films are of very different quality (Metacritic scores THE KING'S SPEECH: 88, LES MISERABLES: 64).

You present a thorough personal survey there with some famous titles. Some musicals have proven successful on the screen and some not. D'you think the unsuccessful transfers outnumber the successes? I'd like to hear opinions on that.

Is that a common view that SINGING IN THE RAIN is weak material, but made great by the cast and crew?

Personal experience again factors in, and it turns out that "Les Miz" was crammed down your throat by an aunt whose likes you routinely hated. (Isn't it ironic-- or not? -- that a right-winger loved a musical romanticizing revolutionaries?)

Come on, cinemabon, out with it. You've seen LES MISERABLES the movie now, right? Stop being "reticent" and tell all. What did you think of it?

[tabuno]

Bombastic - "using or characterized by high-sounding but unimportant or meaningless language." Of all the musicals that have been hits, Chicago, Moulin Rouge, Mama Mia, it is Les Miserable that offers up an epic story of suffering, sacrifice, integrity, devotion, love and is presented in this movie with larger than life expression that connects to the very population of which Victor Hugo devoted his novel, the masses, not the elitist power authority. As such this particular musical presented in this very fashion fits perfectly with both the theme, the purpose, the fundamental meanings of the" important" populace of the people who died in red blood. High-sounding yes, but unimportant or meaningless language, far from it.

[Chris Knipp]

All that is what you think, tabuno. And you are a fan. We who are not fans do not think that.

Merriam-Webster:

BOMBASTIC: marked by or given to bombast : pompous, overblown

SYNONYMS: rhetorical, flatulent, fustian, gaseous, gassy, grandiloquent, oratorical, orotund, windy

ANTONYMS: unrhetorical [and, I might add, understated]

A thesaurus online adds these:

ostentatiously lofty in style; "a man given to large talk"; "tumid political prose"
declamatory, orotund, tumid, turgid, large
rhetorical - given to rhetoric, emphasizing style at the expense of thought; "mere rhetorical frippery"

Not all of the implications are negative, as you assume (and cinemabon may have implied). There is nothing really wrong with "declamatory," "orotund," or "lofty in style." Nothing even wrong with "grandiloquent" or "oratorical." It's just flying high and shooting high. It's ambitious and with that come risks. But this is really true of the original musical, and not uniquely of the film version of it.

I know cinemabon calls LES MISERABLES "bombastic and pontifical." My own original quotation using a related word however was:

"For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine, Mark Keizer.

You have to be aware, tabuno, that LES MISERABLES is a film that has gotten decidedly "mixed" reviews. Keizer however is not entirely condemning Hooper's effort. His review argues that Hooper sets out to make the ultimate statement and to work on a very grand level, putting all previous and subsequent efforts to shame. Keizer is not condemning this approach in itself. Let me put that quote in a larger context:

In his follow-up to Best Picture Oscar winner The King's Speech, a reverent Hooper plays everything to the rafters, a strategy that admittedly yields great rewards. Claude-Michel Schönberg's soaring music has never sounded livelier, the production is rigorously detailed and the performers leave no lip unquivering and no tear duct untapped. For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast.

However, what Keizer is not happy with is the cinematography, or what he calls "the shaky-cam, wide-angle lenses and vertiginous crane shots." This I think is what most mars the film, along with the dubious decision to live-record without post-synching all the singing, thus sacrificing musical and vocal quality to "acting." It's a dangerous tradeoff.

[cinemabon]

I feel like the stubbord child in the high chair, keeping his mouth closed while his mother is holding a tablespoon full of Caster Oil!

"No! I won't take it... and you can't make me!"

Some of the songs in "Singing in the Rain" were used so many times it was a wonder the film made any money at all on its release. But the thing that escapes most people is that Kelly (who practically directed some of the scenes, such as "Gotta Dance!") Donan, Green, and Comden were really poking fun at the industry that had given them a job. This irreverent look at their own business is what won the hearts of Academy members and to this day, thrills the stanchest film critic into laughter when you see the hokey way they portray film directors and studio heads (remember that by this time Louis B. Mayer was beginning to loose his iron grip over stars and production at MGM). Like Hitchcock with "Psycho" Kelly and Donan's "Singing in the Rain" used cheap sets and old songs to reduce the cost of a film "destined to fail." But when you add the energy of a Donald O'Conner whose "Make 'em laugh" is perhaps one of the best comedic moments on film, it gives the film the needed shot in the arm to elevate the mundane into the ridiculous.


Movie musicals that work for me are usually based around strong performances by their stars (for one) and good adaptations. "Bells are Ringing" is one of the best examples. The broadway musical had a modicum of success on broadway. But when Comdem and Green took their play to Hollywood, they upped the ante for star Judy Holliday (for whom the play was originally written) showcasing her talent. She comes out of the gate full blast and never looks back. (She was nominated for a Golden Globe but not an Oscar - she won for "Born Yesterday") Tragically she died not long after the film's release of breast cancer.

Then take the case of "Guys and Dolls" which Sam Goldwyn paid a million dollars for the rights (an unheard sum at that time). This is a perfect example of taking a great cast (how can you go wrong with Marlon Brando... but they did!) and a great director Joe Mankiewicz and turning this beautiful play into a real stinker by using good actors but poor singers who butcher the songs. Every night after filming, Sinatra would go to Vegas and perform "Luck be a lady" better than Brando could ever hope to sing it. The day Sinatra died, they played his signature song on the jumbotron in downtown Vegas after which they darkened all the lights (done only for President Kennedy).

The same could be said of Richard Attenborough who gave us both "Ghandi" a brilliant film and then made "A Chorus Line" a musical film that is so bad, you won't even see it as a re-run on TV! I would say that this and "Hello Dolly" killed the musical genre. Kelly's bloated budgeted Streisand vehicle turned out to be horribly miscast with Horace one of the worst performances in Walter Matthau's career. He said he hated working with Streisand and it shows on the screen. They have absoutely no chemistry. But the music by Jerry Herman is one of the best scores and librettos ever written! They destroyed it!

The worst musical, and I mean one of the biggest butchering jobs I've ever seen, happened with "Camelot." Jack Warner, who had no business being on the set of that film, practically ran it into the ground single handedly, again a producer that can't keep his hands off the production of a musical. Vanessa Redgrave is a tremendous actress but could hardly fill the shoes of Julie Andrews (who performed Guinevere on Broadway with the super cast of Robert Goulet and Richard Burton). Warner, who still resented Andrews taking the Best Actress award from his "My Fair Lady" night at the Oscars, miscast the film and has a three hour turkey that is one of the most forgettable movies of all time.

But the grand prize for ruining a broadway play goes to...????? "Mame"

Angela Lansbury, who made the lusterous musical a smash hit on Broadway and was a shoe-in for the film, had the rug pulled from under her when it went to Lucille Ball (of all people). No only did she ruin the film, she turned it into what most critics agree is the worst musical film ever made. Her performance is so lackluster that it evoked laughter in the first screening from critics (and I was there)! I could hardly bare to watch it. I cringed for her. I loved and love Lucy very much and it hurt me to see how bad her performance is in this worst of all movie musicals.

As to the best? The golden age of musicals is probably a compliation of good productions and good directors from the 30's, 40's, 50's and some in the 60's. "Oliver" is certainly one of the best. Director Vincent Minelli made several, including "Meet me in St. Louis" and "Gigi." Julie Andrews, who was so wrongly snubbed by Jack Warner appears in four great musical films and one horrible turkey (we all know about "Star") - "Mary Poppins," "The Sound of Music," "Thoroughly Modern Millie," and "Victor/Victoria" are among the best musicals ever made. Take that, "My Fair Lady" and "Camelot," which could have used a strong voice and great actress like Andrew to bolster their leading lady roles.

I believe I've said quiet enough for one post. Thank you for reading and Happy New Year.