See it.
See it on a big screen where you are surrounded by the screen and powerful sound.
The last sentence was in response to Erik who said he didn't care if he just saw it on DVD when I wanted him to come with McCall and I. Now part of that may be he was the babysitter since Calla would be gone but still...
Wrong answer!
He will not get away with that.
I actually worked it pretty well, saw it with friends, saw it with daughter, (I did cover her eyes in one particular spot), now I need to go back with my cute hubby.
Firstly, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway BETTER get Oscars. Or I'll boycott! I will!
I think they did an amazing job acting and singing. I'm sure haters can find something wrong with their acting or snobs might state that they are not "classically trained singers" but this was a MOVIE. I give that it was a MUSICAL MOVIE but you sort of have to walk the line between the two. In a movie with a camera in your face and acting the character with every emotion on your face picked up by the said camera, which zooms in a LOT closer to see expression and emotion then a stage audience can, it has to be very different from the stage where you have some linear footage and heavy make up between you and your audience. I guess Hugh would know, he's done both.
Unfortunately, it is hard to complete with the sound of this...
Anyway, I thought they both (Anne and Hugh) were great and I sure wish I had an ounce of their talent.
I heard of a tiny blip of criticism of Annes over wrought crying in the film. All I can say is I suppose those persons criticizing have lived a spotless life. I have not. I can understand weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth for sin. They obviously have not and therefore have never felt the breathlessness, the hyperventilation of realizing your life is far from what that eternal light that is calling to you from within. As the lovely curls and pink dress tried to imply in the factory, Fantine was pure and happy and she made one bad choice, as a very young girl, to a youthful boy who was having some fun one summer with his friends. That choice lead her down a horrible path. She was so in love and he acted the part well. He promised her a lovely life and then ran away. He abandoned her.
Jerk.
I liked Annes tears and I liked the sobs. They sold me. They sold me that Anne read all 251 pages of Hugo's unabridged words on Fantine. Anne understood Fantine. That is what her tears spoke to me.
Most of the other actors I thought were amazing too. Sure Eponine was a BIT too happy after receiving a bullet to the abdomen. Yet she is stage trained so here we go again walking the line. She probably has to grin from ear to ear on stage so the audience can tell she is somewhat happy to see Marius safe at this point. The second go round as I watched I tried to imagine endorphins kicking in and maybe that was why she was so happy.
NOTE: If Eponine looked familiar to you, you probably saw her with the GREATS from the 25th anniversary special with amazing talents like the original Valjean, Colm Wilkerson (who incidentally played the Priest in the movie - you saw him if you listened to the video above). Or maybe you were lucky enough to hear her in London West End as she played the part of Eponine on stage.
Amanda Seyfried, sorry, I sort of struggled with. Darn. I really liked her in Mama Mia as do all my four girls. I do prefer the parts and songs of Eponine to those of Cosette, so I guess her parts just don't grab and pull me. I though Amandas voice, while pretty... well I just didn't LOVE her. I will admit...after reading all 1376 pages of Hugos unabridged book, before seeing the Broadway version again when it came to SLC two-ish years ago, I have become a bit of a Les Mis purist. In my teens I loved Cossette. When I saw the broadway play in high school I waited in anticipation for this castle dreaming girl to grow up on stage, but after reading what Hugo wrote, I like her less. That is not the same as saying I do not like her, or Marius, but the couple comes off much different in the unabridged Hugo then on the stage.
Russell Crow did a great job. I'll give him a pat on the shoulder for attempting the role. Yet. I really struggled with Russell Crow. There were two problems I felt... while he did a "great job", his vocals were not strong. Plus, I didn't feel he understood Javert well enough. I wish the director could have pulled him out of it and helped him come to life.
In the song Stars he was not able to carry the song like he should have, or NEEDED to. And then at Javert's Suicide, I waited for that powerful climax of note combined with lung power and it never came. Disappointing. It should have shook one to the core. You should have felt in in the hollow of your heart. Now, one might say he is not a classically trained singer. You're right. And I just wish they could have pulled it off because I really like Russell Crow and wanted him to be completely successful in the part. But again it was kind of disappointing.
As far as Crows acting...I'll go back to being a Les Miz purist. I didn't wade through Hugo's Battle of Waterloo to not come out with a proper understanding of this story and it's characters! Javert was not a bad man and I think in the movie he comes off that way. Javert was a good person. He just never understood gray. He only saw black and white, wrong and right. I think they tried to bring that aspect in when he places the medal on the Gavroche (the boy), who is actually the Thenardiers son, and Eponine's brother, but that one act of the medal didn't sell me on the Javert that Hugo wrote. Crow had a hard time making me feel and believe in that character. Up on the bridge I didn't feel how torn or racked with turmoil Javert was, facing a blurring of the course he had built a life around, a confusion of what defines good and evil.
Instead of feeling like Javert LACKED emotion, I wanted to see that Javert suppressed GREAT emotion to act dignified and uphold morals and standards of goodness. He fought to overcome his circumstances and to live an honorable life after being born into nothingness. He fought for good. He was religious. He loved God. He wanted to do everything right. To him people were like STARS. Constant... they didn't change, they were good or bad. Again, no gray. No changing.
Okay enough of the misunderstood and misrepresented Javert.
The Thenardiers. WOW! What fun and I think they did a GRAND job of showcasing how low and just how filthy they were. There was no way to delve into the MANY other awful acts of that couple (Thenardier was with Marius father when he died at Waterloo and was horrible then and never changed), but I think they tried to show how rotten they were, granted taking a few liberty's to help modern day movie go-ers understand how deprave they were.
My Mom commented how the Thenardiers seem to always get the biggest applause. It's true. When they come on stage we all smile and cheer! In some ways they steal the show. And I think it is comical that those who are criticizing the movie and its cast, well, you don't hear anyone criticizing THEIR singing??? Have YOU??? And it's not because they are good singers.
Just as Joseph Smith Jr. corrected his foolishness in "falling into levity" and "associating with jovial company", but not commiting any major sins mind you... it's funny how easy it is to like such awful characters. Sort of the Billy Joel, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners and die with the saints."
Now as a PURIST there is not one likeable or laughable thing in the book about Thenardiers. But you would have to then fault the play, and you have to sell tickets SOOOO make them funny! I thought they perfectly cast Helena and Sacha, people who could play the role the way it needed to be played and I'm sure they had a lot of fun while at it, but I would not say the actors were STRETCHED! They were definitely type cast.
So my final analasys?
If you cast a singer for Eponine, people will criticize the acting.
If you cast an actor for Marius, people will criticize the singing.
You cannot win!
So go with it.
When I asked my 12 yr old if she liked the movie or Broadway play better she responded... "They are so different, I really liked both...but I understood the story a lot better in the movie and now it makes more sense."
She is so wise and I love her for that.
You cannot compare a movie to a play. Or a play to a book. Or a book to a movie.
Just like you cannot intelligently compare an apple to an octopus.
So what do I say?
Sit back and just enjoy it.
Enjoy that for 1/10 to 1/18 of the price people ANYWHERE, EVERYWHERE can get a glimpse of one of the most moving and epic musicals and story.
This story changes hearts. It shows what compassion and charity do. How it changes lives.
This movie has brought the message to a whole new audience.
And maybe, just maybe, those who never would have seen the play before will go see it and enjoy the differences of seeing it live on the stage.
And maybe, just maybe, those who never would have picked up the book, will do so and read one of the greatest novels.
That is what I love most about this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment