Les Miserables: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying About Overrated Directors and Love a Solid Motion Picture

If we are to accept the modern "auteur" theory of film criticism, then it is an understood concept that the director of a motion picture is considered by most to be the author of a film.  And make no mistake, I am a devotee to this theory:  I am much more prone to heaping praise on Martin Scorsese for directing "Raging Bull" or "Taxi Driver" for its excellence, despite the fact that both films were actually written by Paul Schrader.  I do believe that because of the manner in which a director has to multi-task so many different aspects of a film a filmmaker typically deserves the credit when a film succeeds in achieving what it had hoped for.

With that said, I do not feel that way AT ALL about the recent 2012 film musical "Les Miserables", a long-awaited screen adaptation of a play that has been beloved for two decades.  This does not mean that "Les Mis" is a bad film;  quite the opposite in fact.  No, a large wealth of the review I will be heaping praise on what works in the film, and far more works than does not.  But among the many flaws that abound with this film, most of the them can all be rooted to the man at the helm of this picture, Tom Hooper.  I have expressed my objection to Hooper before for winning Best Director for "The King's Speech", upsetting the clearly far more technically proficient David Fincher for "The Social Network".  I thought "Speech" was a great film, but nothing in the execution or direction was impressive about the film, it was all in the performance and script.  "Les Mis" takes this to the 1000th degree.  The script, music, and performances are terrific, and its a good thing too because if the movie was being carried purely on its direction it would have crumbled to the ground. It's not that "Les Mis" isn't great;  its just frustrating because I think under the direction of someone else it could have been better.

For those unfamiliar with the story of "Les Mis" in any of its current or previous incarnations, it chronicles the tale fo Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a man newly emancipated from imprisonment for 19 years as a result of stealing a piece of bread who breaks parole to start his life anew.  After making a promise to care for a dying factory worker's (Anne Hathaway) daugher once she has passed, Valjean finds a new purpose that drives his life in the care of the beautiful young Cosette.  But Valjean tries to keep his adopted daughter and himself in hiding from the dutiful and obsessive eye of Javert (Russell Crowe), the law enforcement official obsessed with bringing him to justice for breaking his parole.

So before I get to some of my admitted qualms with this film, it is probably best at first to detail what I did love about the film.  First and foremost, the single best quality of the film can be summed up in two words:  Anne Hathaway.  Hathaway's part really is a supporting role in every way;  in all honesty her total screen time ends up being under 20 minutes.  But the visceral energy she brings into every scene is performing within is palpable.  Her performance as Fantine is remarkable in that at no point does any element of what she is doing onscreen feel as if it is a performance.  Hathaway sells the anguish, desperation, and even the anger of a broken and beaten woman having to sell her body for the well-being of her beloved child.  the unbroken close-up shot of her during her show-stopping rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" was spellbinding.  Of all the high praise I can give Hathaway the one that chimes in my mind loudest is this:  even above the legendary Daniel Day-Lewis, I feel Hathaway is the strongest lock for an Oscar victory at the Academy Awards this year, and every inch of the praise she has garnered is warranted.

Also capturing my attention in a way I did not expect is Hugh Jackman.and Russell Crowe.  I am mentioning them together not to debase Jackman's lead performance in this film, as it is a strong one, but to emphasize how much better the film is when playing off the dynamic of the two of these actors together.  Jackman has already proven himself to be a capable actor in musical films, but Crowe really established himself as an actor who is comfortable in this genre as well.  It shouldn't have been that much of a surprise, considering Crowe has his own Australian rock band, but I was overly impressed because in many ways he has the more difficult part than Jackman.  Jackman is playing a man who we respect because he was once a criminal and is trying to rise above his own sins to be remembered as a great man.  Crowe, on the other hand, is to some degree playing the "villain" but still has to strive to maintain a sense of respect among the audience because at his core, he is simply doing his duty to its fullest.  Outside of Hathaway's big moment these are the most fulfilling moments in the picture.

The rest of the cast with minor exceptions (I am getting to that) are also competent and service the material well;  even Amanda Seyfried, who I am not a traditionally a fan of, has an angelic voice as Cosette.  I also applaud the filmmakers' decision to sing everything live rather than having them lip-sync precorded music;  the ambience of the sound at first took some getting used to in the opening scenes because of this, but once your ear adapted to it, its actually preferable.  Not only does it ultimately have a more authentic sound, but it allows the performances to open up, and I would argue that this film's actors emote far better than even the actors in great musicals like "Chicago" as a result of not having to over-think the syncing of the scene.  And the script itself, blending sadness, tragedy, religion, crime, and French revolution, is also highly commendable........

So what is my issue with the film?  Well there are a few, but it comes down to one central element:  Tom Hooper.  Tom Hooper is a director that I have very little love or admiration for, and the fanfare that he receives is still puzzling to me.  I will begin my critique of this overhyped filmmaker by pointing out what I DO enjoy about him.  First of all, he does have the propensity to pick some really terrific scripts.  And secondly, his sense of casting a picture continuously produces actor/role pairings that feel very spot-on.  And no I am not minimizing the importance of either of these elements, as character and story I feel are the driving forces of any great picture.

But how much say does Hooper really have in these elements?  It has been widely raved in describing Hathaway's performance that she literally brought the audience to tears in her AUDITION.  That tells me that Hooper did not have much of a hand in her stellar performance;  it was an energy and passion she brought to the project coming in.  Even in talks of "The King's Speech" many of the actors described their process with nary a mention of any prominent contribution that Hooper had to the actual quality of the performance.  And these details would not be enraging if the way in which "Les Mis" is shot was not often awkward and aggravating.  This film had as many tilted angle shots (known in the film business as "canted angle" or "Dutch angle") as "Battlefield Earth" it seems.  And when your shooting style is being compared to "Battlefield Earth" it is typically cause for alarm.  Another Steadicam shot where Jean Valjean is renouncing his life as a thief and the camera is spinning around him is so frenetic it borders on disorienting.  It was also apparent at moments that Hooper had to create an epic feeling with very isolated sets in a few moments that were clearly suffering from budget constraints.  Granted that is not his fault, and I'll even agree he pulls off the scale in several moments effectively, but in the uprising scene in the middle of the city in particular it was difficult for me not to notice I was being subjected to too many close-ups and camera tricks to try to distract me from the obvious.  The movie is a very, very good film.........but based on the strength of the film and the script, all of which seemed to be firing on all cylinders, it frustrates me because I feel like it could have been even better if a more assured filmmaker had been behind the camera.  My only other major complaint about the film lies in the performance of Samantha Barks as Eponine, the young woman whose unrequited love leads her to a path of tragedy.  For me, and I am conceding it is likely just me voicing this opinion, she did not express the torment and anguish of having a love that is not readily returned the way it had been executed in other recordings and performances I have seen of this musical.  I have heard she recently performed this role in the 25th Anniversary DVD of the stage performance, and I am interested to see how she approached the role in that capacity.  "On My Own" is my favorite song in "Les Mis" and sadly it was my least favorite performance in the film.

I know the loyal devotees of "Les Mis" will likely call for my demise as a result of my comments.  There is something so pure about the sadness and desire emanating from this story that it is impossible not to be seduced to its charms if you are truly someone who appreciates a compelling story.  And yes I fell for it too; I even have the soundtrack saved on my phone as there are several performances I continue re-listening to.  But I also cannot avoid the fact that there are very straightforward details that prevent the film from entering "masterpiece" territory.

Rating: 8/10