Les Miserables

I didn't think I was the person who could like musicals. For some reason I believed I didn't have the patience to sit through one. But Tom Hooper's new film, Les Miserables was almost a meditational experience. It is nothing short of a miraculous feat for cinema, possessing just the magical, surreal and existential allure that it ideally should. Heavily loaded with genuinely bursting emotions, Les Miserables glamorizes meloncholia in such an affecting manner, that the suffering begins to seem desirable. A participatory bond is quickly forged and the engrossing poetry, a clever and hauntingly articulate substitue for dialogue, conveys myriad emotions that brings one closer to oneself.

Which is always something to celebrate, even if it is closer to pain.

Ultimately, it is a spectacle of love and its absolute necessity, of unrequited feelings finding an alternative channel, about having faith, and letting go, about ideologies and passion, about making the right decisions and about deserving another chance in life. Based on the popular Victor Hugo novel which has also been a globally successful stage adaptation, Les Miz tells the story of a man (Jackman)who jumps parole and the policeman (Crowe) who keeps on the hunt for almost a decade. How adopting a petite young girl brings in enormous joy in his life, and also affects the latter course of his life forms the essential crux of the story that also has the French revolution in the backdrop.

The film is spectacular in every measure, starting from the way its subtly lit, and gorgeously photographed. Every frame overflows with infectious sentiments, while the extraordinary actors do a tremendous job of bringing alive the mos profound of emotions. A lovely cameo by Anne Hathaway ("I Dreamed a Dream") is pain-stakingly beautiful and heart-shaterringly meloncolic.

Part of the reason the film gets its rousing authenticity is also because unlike other musicals where the songs are pre-recorded, Les Mez makes use of live-singing. The effort pays off remarkably well. Although I could see a whole lot of people laughing (seriously couldn't figure why, how?), some chose to walk out. Its clearly not a populist form, and doesn't even have to be. But for the select few that it works, it does so wonderfully. "

Push your boundaries a bit more, and indulge in this poetic mediation that can be so intimately felt, it makes you feel unreasonably schmaltzy. And that, dear friends, is not always a bad feeling.

If you don't like musicals there is nothing for you in Les Miserables. And, if you like musicals this film will put you away from one for a long long time.

Based on the musical of the same name Les Miserables is about Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) and his journey from being a slave who jumps parole and while on the run is touched by an act of kindness by a priest. He then becomes a mayor but fate has more miserable lessons in store for him. There comes a moment in which he could have helped one of his workers Fantine (Anne Hathway) but he does not do that. That one moment yet again changes his life and sets him on a course of life in search of redemption.

Though the film is beautifully staged with every department giving their best to the film it suffers from an overdose of songs. Instead of coming in breaks the film is a series of songs continuously strung together with no breathing space for dialogues or a moment to pause to dwell on the emotional drama. After a point it looked like a parody. The audience were tired of being patient and were laughing till the end.

This is an ambitious film for director Tom Hooper but sadly the music and singing didn't make me feel anything for the characters. The immense hardwork and singing by the cast also failed to move me. At 2 hrs 40 mins it tests you patience and eardrums.

Final few words - “To love another person is to see the face of God” . This line was my only take away from this miserable musical.

Rating - 2.5 ( Average)

Ticket Meter - not worth it

I love musicals. They generally have polarizing effects: you either love them or hate them. Les Mis\xe9rables takes the polarity to a whole new level. Before going in to watch this film, you must ask yourself one question: How much do you want to watch people in misery singing constantly for 2 and a half hours? No really, there are almost no dialogues. It is all singing. They are also sung live as opposed to being dubbed later. How much do you want to see that? You don't need to have knowledge of cinema, but only that of your own taste. Good or bad taste is not the point.

Les Mis\xe9rables is a cinematic version of the long-running and much loved West End/Broadway musical which is based on the 1862 Victor Hugo novel. I absolutely loved this film. If I had to pick one reason why, it would be that the response it asks from the audience in almost each scene is solely emotional. We aren't given information about character or plot. It only works with our emotions; character and plot emerge through it, not outside it. By this I don't mean it asks us to cry in each scene but that the film is not an intellectual experience. It isn't perfect and I don't think I care whether it should be or not. I care about spirit and passion.

There are musicals like The Sound of Music (1965), West Side Story (1961), My Fair Lady (1964) and even the more recent Chicago (2002), which just deliver the goods in the most traditional way possible. Then there are others like Moulin Rouge! (2001), Sweeney Todd (2007) and Across The Universe (2007). The two films I can draw direct parallels with are The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) and Fiddler on the Roof (1971). The former is a French film where all the dialogues are sung-through. It is a brave film, one of the best and most radical musicals ever made. Fiddler on the Roof, if it were made today would be getting as many critical pans as Les Mis\xe9rables is bound to get. I'm glad The Umbrellas of Cherbourg didn't get a major release and wasn't in the English language and remains cherished only by true lovers. These films refuse to be typical movie musicals. Les Mis\xe9rables leans towards the second category.

Tom Hooper's visual choices are a grand technical achievement. It is consciously epic and oddly intimate with shades of gritty realism. The tools used are the close up, the wide-lenses and the edge of frame. I was not particularly fond of his previous directorial effort - The King's Speech (2010) but it was clear as day that the blocking of the actors within the composed shots was deliberate. Almost half the frame was empty and the actor invaded only one side of it. It did not seem jarring to most (to me it did) as it went with the thematic elements of the story. This is heightened to another degree here. While they are jarring again, I did not mind them as I wished the characters would indeed fall off the edge, on to a better fate.

Then there is the close up. I can tell you this much, I don't remember the last film I saw which was conscious of the power of the image of the human face and the depth of emotion it can project. The best use of this is clearly the one-take “I Dreamed A Dream” song sequence owned by Anne Hathaway who should deservedly walk away with each award. There is another similarly effective moment given to Samantha Barks' rendition of “On My Own”. Even the harshest detractors cannot ignore these two performances. They are “obviously” great.

Hugh Jackman is the soul of the film. He is the valiant Valjean who leads his cast to musical bombast. The biggest surprise for me was Eddie Redmayne. "Empty Chairs and Empty Tables" stirred me. I can't believe he isn't getting more awards traction. I also found Russell Crowe's portrayal of Javert largely satisfactory. He is clearly not the best singer of the lot but I've heard worse. I was surprised by how much I liked his two solos (especially “Stars”) and the way they are shot, mirroring each other. Hooper makes sure he must open up the stage musical but only so much. I'm referring to a few shots where the camera cranes up, especially the one near the opening after "Valjean's Soliloquy" with a dead leaf escaping to the heavens. They show Hooper's command on the narrative by choosing specific points to exhibit them.

Les Mis\xe9rables is in no way a failure. Yes the film is long and it tests your love/ hate. Apart from the songs mentioned above, my favorite song performances ranged from the fervent "Bring Him Home" to the literally heartbreaking "A Little Fall of Rain" to "One Day More" which comes smack in the middle of the narrative stringing everyone's fates together and then the stunning "Epilogue". The finale is a triumph. It goes from a good musical to a great one with its rousing conclusion. Take a bow, Tom Hooper and the cast.

While I have unfortunately not read Victor Hugo's literary masterpiece, I have watched one previous cinematic adaptation of the tale, which was the one released in 1998 starring Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean and Geoffery Rush as Javert. Having little knowledge of the tale before that viewing I was engrossed by the movie through much of its running length and remember particularly enjoying Neeson and Rush's performances. So when I learnt that director Tom Hooper whose previous efforts I quite enjoyed (The Dammed United, The King's Speech) was going to direct an adaptation of the musical with actors such as Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe and Anne Hathaway starring, I was enticed despite its musical origins. My enthusiasm waned an hour into the movie and unfortunately never recovered.

The plot condenses a story spanning nearly 1,500 pages into a movie little over two hours and a half. To summarise the plot, Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) once served a nineteen year prison term for stealing a loaf of bread in post-revolution France under the watchful eye of Inspector Javert who thinks a criminal will never change his ways. An incident with a merciful priest after his release turns Jean into an honest man who changes his identity and starts living in another town with much respect and money. However fate delivers Jarvet to his doorstep again and Jean is forced to abandon his identity again to protect not just himself but also the daughter, Cosette, of a poor woman, Fantine (Anne Hathaway) he believes he wronged, resulting in her social degradation and ultimate death. Many years later Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) has grown to be a beautiful young woman in Paris and is love with Marius (Eddie Redmayne) a revolutionary in a city on the verge of exploding due to the social and economic divide. Javert and Jean meet once again and Jean has quite a few choices of his own to make while a violent revolution brews in the backdrop that will pull all the people into its mix.

The tale more or less stands the same as most previous adaptations, the only real difference being the musical aspects of it which encourage a certain kind of narration style coupled with a constantly roving camera replete with close-ups of actor's faces. The sets are opulent in a stage sort of way and while real outdoor locations are used in places, the effect is generally of a static location.

Almost every line uttered is sung and for me it got more than a little tedious after sometime, because the actors turn even the most basic of lines as an excuse to exercise their vocal chords. The last musical I saw was 'Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street' which was a musical but kept it's musical sections exclusive from the normal spoken parts, making the viewing far more tolerable.

Some of the songs are no doubt catchy and I find myself even humming a few of them subconsciously but it's the bits between the songs during dialogue exchanges that get tedious. I also got the feeling that since the actors were made to sing their lines, for some of them it almost seems to get in the way of their acting abilities, the most affected being Russell Crowe, who turns a complex character into a bland, one-dimensional character.

For those who want the spectacle there is much to admire but this is not for everyone's taste and at nearly 160 minutes, it's quite a task to sit through it all, at least it was for me. I'd still recommend the 1998 version over this one.