“Les Misérables” excels with its strong cast and highly emotional scenes

Zack Gill
Copy Editor

In the popular imagination, “Les Misérables,” the musical about post-Napoleonic France, has surpassed the stature of Victor Hugo’s mammoth 1862 novel upon which it is based. Where Hugo’s work is digressive, philosophical and pious, the musical, from Claude-Michel Schoenberg and Alain Boublil (of “Miss Saigon”), is sensual, exuberant and definitely more accessible.

Decades after its opening, “The King’s Speech” director Tom Hooper has finally adapted the musical of Hugo’s novel for the screen. At times, and perhaps in spite of Hooper, the film achieves a commendable intensity, the high drama Hooper seeks, but the film’s successes are drawn from its cast and source material, rather than Hooper’s filmmaking.

“Les Misérables” tells the decades-long tale of redemption of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), condemned to hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his poor starving infant nephew. After a kind bishop offers the released an opportunity to start life anew, Valjean breaks his parole and creates a new identity for himself. Meanwhile, he is relentlessly pursued by the persistant Inspector Javert (Russell Crowe) for doing so.

Over the course of many years, Valjean makes and keeps a promise to an impoverished young woman in trouble (Anne Hathaway), takes in and raises a child (Amanda Seyfried) and becomes embroiled in a futile students’ revolt in the streets of Paris, all the while evading the law, or more specifically, Inspector Javert.

Needless to say, “Les Misérables” the film displays that certain grandiosity that one can only seem to find in classical literature and opera, and “Les Misérables” the stage musical is a wonderful marriage of both of those forms. The screen, however, proves to be a less effective form for the conveying of Hugo’s ideas than the page or the stage.

Some distracting decisions get in the way of material. Hooper and his screenwriters often seem baffled where to put their characters during musical numbers, free from the limitations of the stage.

Indeed, production design throughout is damningly inconsistent. Some sets are comic grotesques, ineffectively emulating the stage, while others, namely the barricaded street, are detailed and authentic. Hooper and cinematagrapher Danny Cohen also distractingly attempt “gritty,” almost entirely alternating between wide shots and stark close-ups featuring oddly geometric composition. Kinetically, the cinematography falls flat.

Still, the film contains some remarkable performances. Hathaway will likely win an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and she deserves it — as Fantine, she performs one of the most cathartic numbers in an uninterrupted close-up (during which she sings live—a technique employed in the film). Eddie Redmayne and Aaron Tveit, as revolutionaries Marius and Enjolras, often ground the film and Samantha Banks portrays a devastating Eponine (a favorite character of the musical’s devotees).

Crowe’s Javert, is severely lacking. Crowe has the perfect physicality for such a character, as well as his particular brand of intensity. He looks perfect for the role, but he doesn’t sound perfect. In a cast of Broadway veterans, he simply can’t keep up in the musical numbers.

“Les Misérables” is far from perfect, but don’t let jaded film critics sway you from seeing it. A lot will be written about the film, likely because critics know it will garner many awards, and even likelier because critics know that it was made solely to do so.

Ultimately, “Les Misérables” is well-made melodrama, sappy yet compelling, somehow mature and naive and perfect for all Christmas audiences. “Les Misérables” is rated PG-13 and opens nationwide Christmas day.