Les Miserables: A Movie Review

So the movie version of Les Miserables has finally arrived! I am not as huge a Les Mis fanatic as some people I know,
(my little sister is completely obsessed with the score) but I do know the
story quite well. I listened to most of the book on audio as a kid, and vaguely
leafed through the massive tome at least once. I own two movie versions
(non-musical) and I have spent my fair share of time watching segments of the anniversary
concerts on youtube, so I was pretty excited to see it. I was skeptical about
the leads. I knew that Hugh Jackman had gotten his start in musical theater,
but I didn’t know that Russel Crowe could even sing, and thus far I had not liked
Anne Hathaway in any movie I had seen her in. Not that I couldn’t stand her, I
just was completely unimpressed.

I did not see the movie right away. I watched it
about a week after it came out, and then again less than a week later, and I
must say, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

I am not going to provide a synopsis of the story,
only say that it follows the life and redemption of an ex-con and
parole-breaker named Jean Valjean, as he struggles to live a good life in
mid-revolutionary France, relentlessly pursued by his ex-guard Javert.

First, the actors:

Hugh Jackman, in my opinion, was a complete and
total failure. His acting is fair to middling, unequal to the depth of
character required to do justice to that part, his pitch is terrible, and he
sings through his nose with a terrible faux vibrato throughout. The
sung-dialogue sounds stilted and artificial, and the large musical numbers lack
any semblance of vocal control. So the leading man was a huge strike against
the movie. Fortunately the story is so beautiful and the rest of the acting and
storytelling was so well done that they managed to carry a mediocre performance
and in the end it did no harm.

Russel Crowe, as Valjean’s nemesis Javert, did
slightly better. Again, acting and singing at the same time is not really his
forte, so the sung dialogue was often painful to listen to. Javert’s biggest
musical number is “Stars” in which he describes his vision of justice and vows
to follow Valjean to the death if necessary to bring him back to prison. The
director chose an interesting vehicle for the song, having him pacing back and
forth on the edge of a balcony next to a giant stone eagle, overlooking the
city of Paris, which was a powerful visual metaphor for his vision of law.
There is no room in his worldview for deviation, sin, or human weakness. There
is only the straight and narrow. Russel Crowe’s physical acting was perfect for
the part, giving the impression of a bitter, dedicated, driven man, with a
strong undercurrent of aggression. He is potentially a violent man, willing to
kill without hesitation or remorse, simply because he believes so unflinchingly
in the rightness of his cause. Unfortunately, Russel Crowe seemed to lack the
fire the song seems to call for, and instead softly crooned most of it to the
rooftops of a sleeping city. Other than that, I thought his performance was
excellent and only got better as the movie continued.

I admit that I had very low expectations of Anne
Hathaway as the prostitute Fantine. Honestly, I was pretty sure she would fall
flat on her face. To my surprise and utter delight, she not only did not flop,
she carried the part with perfect vocal and emotional pitch, from desperate
factory worker, to destitute selling her hair and teeth to pay for her daughter’s
medicine, to unwilling prostitute, to a woman on her deathbed, half crazy,
delirious and emotionally shattered. Her reprise at the end (which I will not
describe, if you haven’t seen it) was the most amazing and triumphant moment I
have seen in a movie in a long time. Well done!

The odd thing is that the farther down the list of
actors we go, the better they get. Samantha Barks appeared in the movie,
reprising her stage role as Eponine, a street urchin who tragically falls in
love with a revolutionary who barely notices that she exists. There is a
definite incongruity between her look and the part. At one point in the movie
her revolutionary love interest grips her arm with his hand, and the visual
contrast is almost comical. That is a woman who works out! Not that her bicep
is grotesquely huge, or even remotely masculine. She is, and looks like, a very
fit woman in her mid to late twenties (I have no idea how old she actually is)
not at all like a half starved street waif. Apart from that physical disparity,
she played the role beautifully, constantly watching from the shadows, moving
things behind the scenes, very much in love and totally unnoticed.

Eddie Redmayne (I have no idea who he is apart from
this movie) played an excellent Marius. He captured perfectly the character of
a naïve, idealistic, passionate and ultimately stupid revolutionary student.
Likewise his friend and ringleader Enjolras was perfectly done. All fire and hot
headed idealism, no patience and no common sense. Most of the best musical
moments in the movie involved these two and their band of young idealists.

Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter as the
criminal innkeepers, the Thenardiers, were equal parts revolting and comical,
nauseating and hilarious. On the one hand they portray the vice, greed, and
criminality endemic in the underworld of society. On the other hand they
provide some much needed comic relief to what would otherwise be an overly
emotional and dramatic story.

And of course, no character list would be complete without
Gavroche. Played with childish bravado by Daniel Huttlestone, the little street
boy with some serious mojo hangs out with the university students and becomes
all too willingly sucked into their revolutionary plans.

Visually the movie was stunning. The sets were
amazing, the physical acting and storytelling was thoughtful and meaningful throughout.
I thought the editing was a little rushed at the very beginning, but there is a
difference between a movie musical and a theater musical. In theater the
audience is composed of either die hard musical fans or die hard Les Mis fans, and they will give you the
time to tell the story. In a movie time is on a budget, and they had to get the
story going before the audience lost interest, and at 157 minutes it is already
pushing the attention span of many movie-goers. The pace was ironed out by the
second half of the movie as the scope of the story unfolds and comes to its

There has been some furor over moral content among
Christian movie reviewers, particularly the immodesty and sexual content. Some
have even gone so far as to say that Christians should not see it because of
this. That, of course is too broad a topic for a movie review. Instead, let’s
just talk about the movie itself.

Let’s be frank, here. This is a story about mid-19th
century France, and the evils of that society form a huge part of the moral
content of the story. Valjean walks a thin line between the strict, unbending
legalism of Javert on the one hand and the vice and squalor that Javert seeks
to keep in check on the other hand. The movie portrays that vice in a bit more
gritty a fashion than we are used to see in a musical. (Oklahoma! this ain’t!) In the “Lovely Ladies” sequence prostitutes advertise
their wares for the sailors on the docks, wearing low cut bodices and some
suggestive movements. The lyrics of the song are suggestive, full of euphemism,
but never explicit. Fantine, after being wrongfully fired from her job at a
factory and struggling to make enough money to buy medicine for her daughter,
sells her locket, then her hair, and then her teeth (the song represents the
passage of days or even weeks in the book), and finally, with no other recourse
allows the pimp and prostitutes to talk her into accepting a “customer.” No
nudity is shown, and the scene is mercifully cut short but it still leaves the
viewer feeling almost as sick and violated as Fantine herself feels; and that
is the point. It is most certainly not appropriate for children, or even
teenagers, but for adults I think it is great storytelling. It is an invitation
to enter imaginatively (and in a very insulated fashion) into someone else’s
pain and degradation. Instead of condemning her, as Javert does, or dragging
her deeper as the other prostitutes do, or simply ignoring her as most of the
world does, the story invites us to look at her as Valjean does, with mercy. He
never minimizes the evil of her situation, but refuses to let her be taken to
jail, and instead takes her to the hospital and pays for her care and pledges
himself to protect her daughter as well.

This is in many ways the central moral decision of
the story. It could have been hinted at, or glossed over in any number of ways,
but that would have been to rob the story of its power and humanity.

The other major kerfuffle is about the “Master of
the House,” scene, which depicts an inn full of dissolutes cavorting through
their miserable existence aided by drink, sex and thievery. There is some
cleavage and some suggestive movements, and a prostitute is briefly shown with
a customer, (no nudity), all the while Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham
Carter sing and dance and rob their customers hand over fist. Is it grotesque?
Yes. Is it funny? Yes. Again, this is a little bit grittier than you might
expect from a musical, but still far, far from being a realistic portrayal of
that kind of life. Perhaps the conservative viewers would prefer to see the
degenerate low-life scum portrayed as being miserable, sick and reaping the
just rewards of their sin, but that would be unrealistic. Criminals and
degenerates are human too. They joke and sing, if only as a way to deal with
the reality of their lives, and this is, above all, a story about human beings.

The story is a Christological one. Valjean, having
himself been saved from hatred and misery by the mercy of one man, spends his
life trying to live up to that burden by spending his time, energy, fortune,
and ultimately his life for love of his neighbor. At the end of the movie,
having paid a hundred times over for his petty crime and his neglect which
indirectly contributed to Fantine being fired, still prays, “Forgive me my
trespasses.” Other characters are shown leading him through his final moments
and interceding for him before God. The overall message of the movie is
overwhelmingly beautiful and redemptive and not only justifies, but even in
some sense beatifies the ugliness that Valjean had to overcome. “To love
another person, is to see the face of God.”

So in conclusion, despite the lead (realizing that
that is big exception to make in a musical) and Russel Crowe’s rendition of “Stars,”
the movie gets four out of five stars. I will definitely watch it again,
probably when it comes out on DVD.


  1. It isn't that Hugh Jackman is a terrible singer, I just don't think he had the right voice for the part, and trying to force it made it terrible. Some of the women I know who have seen it were definite fans though. 😉


  2. I've heard that the company did a better job than the leads. In particular Russell Crowe's singing has been criticized, as well as Anne Hathaway for being too “screechy”. I'm a bit surprised by your review of Hugh Jackman, who generally does a great job singing and whom I've seen on Broadway. Seems like the movie is overall a success. I'll look forward to that whenever I get around to seeing the movie.


What do you think? Join the discussion.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s