A Perfect Cinematic Storm

Just got home from the theater.

Still in awe.

They say a perfect storm happens when all the elements come together, perfectly timed, in just the right combination of forces.

Tom Hooper (the director) is a genius for putting all of those elements together.

I cannot even start to say what or who was "best."

Every actor/singer in the ensemble was in perfect balance with the role and with each other, in each and every scene.

If you are one of those who loved the book but hated the stage musical for trivializing the novel, you will be satisfied. Hooper and the cast members made the decision early on: when in doubt, go back to the book. Bits of confusion are cleared up.

If you are a devoted lover of the stage musical and concerned about how the film portrays the libretto and score, the few changes only enhance the concept. The original lyrics and score still dominate the production (and the original producers, writers, and composers were involved in every step).

If you are concerned about Hooper's decision to have the singing performed live - it gives an emotional quality to every scene that not only does not detract from the experience of the song, it enhances it.

If you are concerned that the productions decision was to focus on actors who could sing as opposed to singers who could act - stop thinking either/or and think both/and.

There are no weak links. The chain of elements that produce the whole are in perfect harmonic balance.

The best way for each of you to test the accuracy of my perceptions is to see for yourselves.

So glad you liked it--it sounds phenomenal

It was.

I can't wait to see it, Ann. We hoped to do so today but missed the start times at our favorite theaters. Soon!

Glad you were not disappointed!

You might want to consider pre-ordering tickets. I did, and it was a good thing. The theater near my home was sold out today.

It is worth it.

Enjoy it when you do get to go.

Bumping a thread....
So, who has seen Les Miz and what do you think? Be honest. Many people are saying what they honestly think (and others seem deluded - more on that in a bit)

Here is a blog that goes along pretty strongly with my perceptions, especially where the antagonist is concerned:
http://big-girls-blouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/russell-crowe-javert-or-bust.html

Quote :

The biggest mistake is to think that Javert's evil. He's absolutely not. His job is to capture bad people. If he believes Valjean is a bad person who keeps escaping, he'd not be doing his job if he didn't want to capture him.

Javert certainly doesn't think what he's doing is bad - in fact, he's absolutely, resolutely set against 'bad'. That's who Javert is. And he just wants to do his best which isn't that much different to Valjean. It's just that his best means capturing Valjean because he genuinely believes that he's a dangerous man. Why wouldn't he want to recapture him when he has gone against the law? 'I am the law and the law will not be mocked'. Admittedly, it's a bit excessive for stealing a loaf of bread but not being a creative thinker, Javert's not necessarily in a position to question that.....Javert's been working his way up the ranks. He starts off a prison guard in a humbling little cap, and ends up a man with silver epaulets. This is a man who has had an excellent career. Considering he's never caught Valjean, his successful career must therefore be based on other achievements. It may be a personal goal, but his work rarely suffers because of it, obviously.

Until the moment he allows Valjean to escape him. He has him in his sights but he lets him go and it breaks him. So he [spoiler alert] kills himself. He cannot exist in a world where there is grey between the black and white, so indoctrinated by the State is he, that he sees no other option.

Crowe's interpretation is very different. For a start, he's got quite a weak vocal compared to Jackme Jackman. But it's not a bad thing. It immediately sets them apart. Valjean the enduring good, Crowe the Wannabe. He has intense moral courage, but without the flexibility that Valjean shows, he flounders. He only knows the law and is only capable of reading things through this. He is alone whereas Valjean plays with others well (if a little piously).

Crowe brings a real vulnerability to the role. A real sense of a rounded person with insecurities he's always having to fight against. He's not this assured hunter - he's desperately trying to be better than he is. He doesn't hunt Valjean, Valjean happens to wander across his path - in Montrieul and in Paris. He chases him but both times - when Valjean takes Cosette and when he emerges from the sewers - he gives up pretty quickly. This man knows where he stands.

Crowe also begins his emotional collapse sooner than the traditional Javert: at the point when Valjean allows him to escape at the barricade. So by the time he pins the medal to Gavroche, he is already questioning himself - it's also a moment that is so gentle and moving that you forget it's JAVERT. That's how fresh his interpretation is.

So he's not a huge, powerful voice. The subservient, jobsworth middle-manager that Crowe creates is far more powerful to me.

But there is at base a kind of self-doubt over who he really is, that no external success can compensate for.

Much of the criticism has centered around Russell Crowe's singing voice, which would be OK if the criticism had been voiced rationally, but there is nearly always an underlying venom,and a malicious intent to rob the character of any valid contribution to the performance as a whole. And while the negative audience is quite vocal, there are as many who appreciate the performance, as seen in the above blog.

Maybe there are so many nay-sayers where Crowe's interpretation and performance are concerned because they see too much of themselves, and so, must judge Javert and his portrayer as they secretly judge themselves?

Just me, again. /what do you think?

I personally think that director Tom Hooper's vision was carried out extremely well by his choices for the characters, and that the whole of it perfectly fits our politico-cultural position today.