Where do you start reviewing something with such a cultural impact on modern media as Les Miserables? It's a little tricky to pinpoint exactly where it's impact began, and thus how the version I'm discussing weighs in to the original's legacy. So I'll start from the very beginning.
In 1862, the renowned author Victor Hugo published his magnum opus- Les Miserables, a title that can be translated to "The Miserable Ones" or even "The Depressed". It caused a great stir in late 1800s England, causing critics to pan the original book and citizens to protest and riot over it's publishing. But as time went by, people started to notice that it was, in fact, a powerful work that spread it's message of rebellion, hope and poverty with a heavy heart and a lasting impact on whoever reads it. It became so popular that a play based on the novel was released on Broadway, and became an instant hit: It was true to the story, had phenomenal scenery and music, and was overall a fantastic performance. But I'm not a play critic, so let's continue with the timeline.
Over the years, Les Miserables has inspired many other plays, reimaginings, and even a fighting game (which, for some reason, is called "Arm Joe") with it's legacy. And recently, in 2012, a new chapter was added, this time in cinema. Les Miserables hit the big screen as a musical three years ago- and continues to be a subject of laughter among die-hard Les Miz fans. But it really as bad as they say?
Let's get the big thing out of the way- yeah, Russel Crowe is not a very good Javert. While his voice works for the part, it's just so awkward and jutting out that you can't help but pick on it. But here's the thing: the reason Russel Crowe sounds so out of place is because he is. Crowe doesn't sing dramatic pieces, he's accustomed to simple baritone and deep tones. and attempting to fit into each different part just isn't his style. Of course it wasn't an ideal casting choice, but it's fair to say this is less of Crowe's fault and more of his voice's.
One of the big problems of adaptation is the time limit: with a book, you can take as long as you need to write and flesh out the characters and story. With a play, audiences usually allow 2-3 hours at least to hold attention and tell the story. With a film, audiences allow 2 hours AT MOST to tell the story. I honestly think they didn't do too bad compressing it.
But what about the time lapses? The odd close-ups? The lack of the powerful scenery found in the play? Those are all factors, There's no excuse for the lack of the powerful scenery found in the play (barricades, anyone?) or the sometimes mismatched casting (although admittedly the film could be improved by having Jackman play Wolverine in this film), but taking into consideration the limits imposed on a film adaptation on a timeless book, it's not too bad......
**ducks under desk** please don't hurt me, Le Miz fans..
Jurisdiction: Good
OVERALL RATING: 7/10
-----------------------
By Les Miz standards. it lacks compared to the Broadway version, but as a standalone film, it's not bad. Now kindly put down your pitchforks and torches and remove yourselves from my room.
No comments:
Post a Comment