Review - Les Misérables

Les Misérables is one of my favourite musicals. Although it is over a decade since the last of my four trips to see it, I still know huge chunks of by heart. I have, therefore, been looking forward to seeing the film version. I didn't necessarily intend to go on the day of release but, somewhat spontaneously, I decided to go last night.

Earlier this week, it received 8 Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Hugh Jackman), Best Supporting Actress (Anne Hathaway) and Best Original Song. Good news, I thought.

The film has stuck almost completely to the stage version: a brave move given its length and the lack of an interval when viewing it on film. Consulting my copy of the Original London Cast recording has confirmed that only a couple of numbers were cut (although a few were abridged) - and that the running order has been varied.

As with the film version of Evita, there is new song, with music penned by the original composers Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alain Boublil and lyrics once again provided by Herbert Kretzmer. I must confess to having been concerned about this but I was pleasantly surprised. It may have been a wee bit twee but it bridged a gap in the stage version and moved the story on.

So much for the good stuff, but what did I think of the film itself? Well, I was worried you might ask that... I'm afraid I couldn't get really get past Crowe's singing, and to a lesser extent, Jackman's. My immediate post show Facebook tweet sums up my thoughts in this regard: "When casting a Musical it would help if the lead actors could sing..."

Jackman's voice improved through the film but Crowe's didn't. The films unique selling point is that the singing was recorded with the action, rather than pre-recorded and then dubbed on. As I type this, I'm listening to the soundtrack (which was recorded after the film) and I don't think that capturing the singing as part of the performance is to blame - I really do think they were poor singers and this had a real impact on my enjoyment of the whole film.

Hathaway, on the other hand, was a revelation as Fantine and, in terms of the actors, head and shoulders above the rest. Her rendition of the "I Dreamed A Dream" was fantastic. Sasha Baron-Cohen was good as Thénardier, complete with comedic French accent. Helena Bonham-Carter was also good, as Madam Thénardier. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks performed well in the roles of Cosette and Eponine, Barks was particularly good although the former was slightly patchy in places. Eddie Redmayne made a passable Marius.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the various numbers sung by the chorus - which were performed with the right level of joy and levity to lift the mood and the tempo. And, despite my earlier comments on Crowe and Jackman, the vocal (and physical) duelling track "Confrontation" between them was excellent.

Visually, the film captures the grit and grime of revolutionary France and the various sets are good (although the barricade not necessarily as impressive as the stage version). Those who have seen the stage show, though, may feel that some of the magic of theatrical sets and effects has been lost in the transition to the screen - although director Tom Hooper does make an effort to retain the impact of some of the deaths.

Hooper is keen to mine the emotion and expressions of the actors in the way that a singer projecting to the back of a Victorian theatre can't. In doing this, though, I found some of the camera angles and shots strange. There were also too many close ups of people almost (but not quite) singing to camera. It was also oddly notable that the female leads were considerably smaller than their male counterparts - and this was often accentuated by the choice of shots.

So, I came away singing (somewhat predictably, Do You Hear The People Sing) but disappointed. Ultimately the stars of the show - other than Hathaway - are the songs and the score. And they're available (in many versions) elsewhere. I would recommend going to see Les Misérables: but go and see it on stage!

Andrew

I should note that my review seems to be at odds with the Oscar nominations garnered and the generally favourable reviews elsewhere. There was also a small round of applause from some of the audience in the screening I went to, so maybe it's just me...

Review - The Dark Knight Rises

"Made and Finished on Film" is the proud boast at the end of the credits of The Dark Knight Rises - a boast that will, I imagine, become rarer in years to come. Of course, that's not to say that "film"-making will be any the worse for that, any more than the advent of sound or colour made for worse films - but it may lead to a different type of film.

Christopher Nolan's film is an old-fashioned type of blockbuster - heavy on stunts, lighter on effects and eschewing 3D - and the intelligent (if far fetched) storyline ensures that you don't come out of the screening feeling like you've just been bombarded with music and images for 2 hours and 44 minutes. Indeed, in a lot of ways the action is downplayed or cuts from intense action to quieter or more dramatic scenes. Even the score, which in many places is as bombastic as you'd expect from Hans Zimmer, is adapted to allow for these periods in the film.

The Dark Knight Rises completes Nolan's vision for his Batman and seeks to bring the story to a natural end - an end I shall not be giving away - whilst leaving open the door for others to take up and run with elements of the story in further episodes of the franchise. More likely, of course, is that another director will step in and a re-boot will result. Unlike when Nolan took over the reins, however, a reboot is not required. Having set a darker tone and re-created a Batman mythology in Batman Begins, Nolan's version of Gotham and it's universe has been consistent, constant and character driven.

The plot of the latest instalment is somewhat contrived although it just about hangs together within it's own internal logic. To cut a long story short - Eight years have elapsed since the previous film, Batman is in retirement and Commissioner Gordon has banged up 1000's of criminals. Bane arrives in Gotham with an axe to grind against modern culture in general and Batman in particular. In amongst it all is Catwoman - feisty, independent and mercurially minded; but on what side will she be?

Whilst the story arc may have its flaws, what fascinates Nolan is what makes people who they are - in this case, the back story of Bane is told and re-told with each telling bringing us closer to an understanding of his origins - and why he wears a mask which distorts voice. The twin characters of Bruce Wayne and Batman are further explored with Wayne having to plumb new depths of resolve and spirit to succeed. The mercenary character of Catwoman is examined with Nolan questioning whether there can be any deeper motivation for action than either money or self-interest.

Once again, Nolan has a stellar cast: Christian Bale is excellent - again - as Bruce Wayne and also as The Batman (as Gary Oldman's Commissioner Gordon still insists on calling him), although his voice as the latter still annoys me. Michael Caine is back as Alfred before disappearing in one of the less satisfying elements of the plot. Morgan Freeman is back as Fox - Chairman of Wayne Enterprises and confidant of Wayne.

Joining them this time are Tom Hardy (whom Nolan previously directed in Inception), Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman, Marion Cottilard (who was also in Inception) as Miranda Tait and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Blake.

I enjoyed Gordon-Levitt's assured performance and Marion Cottilard was also good as Wayne's business associate. Anne Hathaway was intriguing as Catwoman with some wonderful lines and looks. There was something very sexy about the demure-but-assured way she delivered her initial dialogue with Wayne that had me (almost) falling head over heals for her. Hardy's performance I was less sure about, due in a large part to the ever present mask on his face. This meant that his dialogue was either muffled or shouted.

The film falls down in relation to The Dark Knight in that it lacked a character that lit up the screen - in the case of that film, the late Heath Ledger who brought an edgy, nervous energy to the roll of the Joker. Bane, by contrast, is a thug whose party trick is breaking people's necks with his bare hands and whilst Catwoman has some great lines, she doesn't get enough screentime. It also falls down in relation to Batman Begins which pared everything back and gave a context for Batman's activities and motivation.

I don't want to be down on the film, though, because for all it is flawed - the comparisons I've made are with it's two predecessors. In comparison with other Superhero films (i.e. Spiderman), The Dark Knight still rises well above the competition. Made and finished in plain old 2D film it may be - but in an all singing, all dancing 3D world an analogue Batman is still a force to be reckoned with.

Andrew