Review of Les Misérables (2012) by Jeff L — 05 Jan 2014

First off: If you've read the book (one of 5 best works of classic literature, and even at 1,100 pages, a fantastic read!) your appreciation for the story will be heightened. Second, if you've seen the stage musical, which I did when it was on Broadway in the late 1980s and 90s (the longest continuous running musical in theatre history), or are just one of the millions who have heard the musical and love it, the film adaptation is made to satisfy. Without having read the book, the musical, in spite of brilliant music and lyrics, seems less real and even a little thin. (The book will give you hundreds of brilliant pages of background on each major character, especially Fantine's tragic back story). If you have read the book, you can't help being amazed how well the musical (as produced for the stage) captures the essence of this magnificent epic story.

I recommend you read the book first, and then hear the musical (the 25th anniversary concert DVD is wonderful), and only THEN see the movie. Only then will the movie blow your mind as it should.

If you can't wait to read the book and learn the musical, keep these thoughts in mind:

1. The musical is meant to be operatic. There is not a single word of unsung dialogue in the stage musical. This isn't a traditional 1950s style musical where the characters act a little, then break into song with snappy, toe-tapping tunes. This whole film is meant to be sung. And the songs hang over the story with weepiness and dread. It is how the story is designed to be told.

2. The story, as in the book, is bleak. It is a sad, sad story of misery and unjustified human suffering. In fact the musical and the film give the ending a bit of a lift, which is not present in the book. It is amazing (and it threw off critics at the time the musical was first produced) that such a sad story could be told with music. Isn't a musical suppose to be snappy and uplifting? If a story is deeply full of suffering and pain, how can it be "musical"? Well, this adaptation is somehow both bleak AND musical. So don't expect to leave the film experience with a happy face.

3. The performances of Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are stunning, mostly in that they (especially Hathaway) fully capture the bleakness of this deep story of tragedy and redemption.

4. Russell Crowe is the weak link, but even his performance does an effective job of capturing his character's menacing and antagonistic presence.

5. The epic spectacle of the film does an even better job than the stage show of capturing Victor Hugo's epic tale. It is a sad tale, a depressing story, but it is still a show. And the movie captures the grandeur of the book. This isn't a slice-of-life movie. It's a grand epic, and the movie realizes that, and the production makes it the spectacle it should be.

6. It's long. And it should be long. The book takes a fast reader about 150 hours to read. It is amazing that they get the bulk of the story told, with music only, in three hours.