LES MISÉRABLES: Tom Hooper (2012)

[Chris Knipp]

Tom Hooper: LES MISÉRABLES (2012)

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/673/VPWYaQ.jpg
SAMANTHA BARKS AND EDDIE REDMAYNE IN LES MISERABLES: "A LITTLE FALL OF RAIN CAN HARDLY HURT ME NOW"

Musical miserablism, squared

Tom Hooper's Les Misérables, the Nth iteration of the long-popular 1980's American transplant of the British adaptation of the French theater piece based on the 19th-century Victor Hugo novel, may be unlike the original Broadway musical in as many ways as it is like it, but diehard fans of the show are still likely to enjoy what they see; that's why we call them diehards. The film features most of the songs, the same oddly simplified plot, and quite a number of screen stars to make everything even more larger-than-life than it was already in the stage version. In fact the overblown and distracting production tends to get in the way of the songs and what should be the emotional highlights. The screen "Les Miz" still provides splendid, touching moments. But elaborate and ambitious though it is, it's not the success Hooper achieved in his last film, The King's Speech.

Problematic to start off with: lots of the cast members aren't known at all as singers, and they do have to sing. Along with that, and making the musical aspect even iffier (assuming the music still matters in a musical), the production proudly eschews lip-synching, which means the live-recorded performances of the singing, a lot of which is wispy and semi a capella, have dramatic immediacy but lack musical polish. Which makes them seem less like songs and more like lyric-delivering recitative. And about the doggerel-rhyme verse we get to hear more clearly sometimes as a result, the less said the better.

Furthermore, there are the images. Thankfully, we are spared 3D. But we're given something rather like it. Despite some glorious shots of Paris and other locations, the sets look pretty artificial. And they're often pushed into the background by in-your-face closeups in which wide-angle lenses fatten chiseled faces and shapely bodies unflatteringly. When the camera pulls back a bit, it tends to get tilted up on one side or the other, creating endless annoying diagonals. The bustling but underlit scenes are prevailingly bluish and dark, till late in the game the story turns to the revolt in the streets of Paris, and by then you may have already given up hope of seeing the light of day.

Those screen stars include notably Hugh Jackson, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfriend, Helena Bonham Carter, and Sasha Baran Cohen. Jackson, a veteran song and dance man and a tall, handsome fellow, is of course sterling in the lead role of the noble and long-suffering Jean Valjean, imprisoned for twenty years for stealing a loaf a bread and then remaking himself, though pursued endlessly by his nemesis, the jailer, Javert. Crowe is saddled with the role (that's how it felt to me) of this sweetly singing but dramatically limp villain who keeps reappearing like a bad penny -- far too often and too fast because in the musical, all the long intervening passages of the 1300-page novel have been left out.

Surprisingly few other cast members stand out. As Fantine, the scrawny, screechy Anne Hathaway, starved and shaved and dirtied up after swiftly being shunted from factory worker to gutter-prostitute to martyr-mother, makes an unappealing pathetic dying heroine, though, to be sure, before expiring she delivers a heartfelt (if unmusical) version of her character's anguished show-stopper about dreaming a dream. Like Crowe when he's endlessly standing on the battlements contemplating suicide much later, you just wish she'd hurry up and die. Fortunately she does and we can move to other tumultuous and confused events -- what's left of the novel makes only limited sense.

You probably know the basics of the story. Valjean of course gets out of prison, but paroled for life, is a virtual fugitive. He's taken in by a noble cleric (Colm Wilkinson) whose silverware he steals, but who then saves him from going back to prison for another twenty years by claiming it was a gift. The good guys are just so, so good and the baddies are way too evil to take seriously. An already highly sentimental and over-the-top novel has been changed into something like a medieval morality play for the musical. I was personally most taken with the freckle-faced Eddie Redmayne as the young revolutionary lover Marius and by Samantha Barks as his frustrated admirer Éponine. Ms. Barks was one person who really seemed to be singing rather than overacting in a wispy falsetto; and her main songs were rare and welcome occasions when Hooper and his King's Speech cinematographer Danny Cohen don't get in the way. Best of all was the tiny 12-year-old Daniel Huttlestone, who mostly doesn't even have to sing but just talks flavorful cockney, as the little revolutionary martyr boy, Gavroche.

But before the lovers and the revolutionaries come along we have to put up with the intensely mugging Bonham Carter and Baran Cohen, reprising their Sweeney Todd roles, as the comically greedy and repulsive Thénardiers, who run a thieving inn where all the guests are fleeced dry. A more repulsive place could not even have been imagined by Bonham Carter's husband, Tim Burton, who has used her so often in his movies it's impossible not to be sick of her. It's with this repulsive, scatological interlude that everybody starts beginning to sound very British and on the cockney side, and Valjean, for a while a factory owner and mayor, now in flight from Russell Crowe again, mysteriously adopts an orphan under the questionable care of the Thénardiers, little Cosette (Isabelle Allen), who is to be his companion and the love of his life, except that she's his adopted daughter. With breathtaking suddenness Cosette grows up into Amanda Seyfried, and the fresh-faced but (we're briefly told) well-off revolutionary Marius falls in love with her, amid carousing and barricade-building and with Samantha Barks hovering around mooning over Marius. Then there's fighting and blood and martyrdom and some changes of heart. Little Daniel Huttlestone does something really brave. It all happens with that much speed and makes that much sense.

The revolution, whatever it was (actually the 1832 Paris student uprising), has been lost -- and Eddie Redmayne sings his heart out and cries over his lost comrades in an empty, ruined garret: very nice. But he still gets to be with Amanda Seyfried, and Hugh Jackman turns into a saint, finally free because Russell Crowe has very reluctantly jumped into the sewer, or the Seine, I wasn't sure which. And we all got to go home and eat our turkey and mince pie.

Les Misérables, 157mins., opened on Christmas Day 2012.

[tabuno]

For most of the reasons, Chris doesn't like this film, I loved it! It was the very use of the non-singers that made this movie more believable and real and authentic instead of the often times overly dramatic, pompous singing excellence that seem to focus more auditory perfection instead of the more articulate but more heartfelt and human dimension which really is the basis of this movie and hopefully Victor Hugo's immense novel. The visual imagery was magical and captivating in its revealing detail that unlike most contemporary and earlier film productions enhanced the original Broadway version instead of just highlighting, exaggerating, or distorting the essence of the original musical. Hooper achieved something substantively significant in his film version of the musical, he made the film better than then original Broadway Musical production by the delicate use of film and the camera. Easily one of the best movies of the year in both epic proportions, outdistancing such productions as:

Chicago (2002), Moulin Rouge (2001), Mama Mia!!! (2008), and Across The Universe (2007)

and achieving the same resonance and power as Evita (1996), The Sound of Music (1965), and Dr. Zhivago (1965).

I am reminded in watching this movie the same epic and emotionally wrought experience as found in Cold Mountain (2003), Apocalypto (2006), How The West Was Won (1962) and Dances with Wolves (1990), Titanic (1997), even Gone With The Wind (1939). At the same time, Les Miserable brought the audience into the personal world and human struggle of living as found in The Pursuit of Happiness (2006), The Aviator (2004), Twelve Monkeys (1996), and Atonement (2007). In Les Miserable, the director attained the power of personal tragedy as depicted by Gillian Anderson in House of Mirth (2000) and Memoirs of a Geisha (2005).

What Tom Hooper has done with Broadway using film is what Shakespeare accomplished through the written word in developing narrative as a story performed live. Unlike The Artist (2011) which brought forth the remaking of the retro-art history of the past, Les Miserable has gone forth into the future and brought back a fine blending of the Broadway Musical and enhanced its visual and auditory power with a film directorial detail that brings out even more the emotions and vibrant themes of the Musical itself. Except for the technical blemish in a few places of voice-over singing which detracts from the intimacy of the movie, the refreshing use of non-operatic performances gives this movie a more rich and authentic humanism that taps into the universal urges and mental ponderings of every person.

[Chris Knipp]

If's fine to say like the cheerleader Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, "Damn the imperfections, it's perfectly marvelous." That's justified. But your paean of praise would be more convincing if you went into more specifics about the film; and if you acknowledged at least some of its failings, and acknowledged that it has them. Todd McCarthy in Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/les-miserables/review/398662)and other major critics have listed the most often mentioned shortcomings of Hooper's approach to LES MIZ.

1. Eliminating spoken dialogue causes monotony. Staging the show almost entirely sung without spoken dialogue makes it hard to distinguish the separate songs and causes the music to blend monotonously together.

2. Too many tight closeups. The preponderance of tight closeups on singing principals also creates a sameness in the scenes and music. The scenes ought to have been shot in a variety of different ways. "It’s the worst of times, though, when Hooper repeatedly traps his stars in tight close-ups during the musical numbers — practically shoving the camera down the singers’ tonsils."--Lou Limerick, New York Post. (http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/movies/les_miserables_may_cause_weeping_Y3Ra6snZsgWBxC0SP hW5vJ)
[Hooper] stages virtually every scene and song in the same manner, with the camera swooping in on the singer and thereafter covering him or her and any other participants with hovering tight shots; there hasn't been a major musical so fond of the close-up since Joshua Logan attempted to photograph Richard Harris' tonsils in Camelot. Almost any great musical one can think of features sequences shot in different ways, depending upon the nature of the music and the dramatic moment; for Hooper, all musical numbers warrant the same monotonous approach
--McCarthy.

3. Weaknesses as well as strengths of recording the songs live. As I noted, the live recording makes for immediacy and acting intensity, but makes for less polished and less tuneful musical performances. As I asked: does the music still matter in a musical? If so, lip synching remains the way to go. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks are exceptions, delivering fine vocals. So does Jackman, but there is so much of him none of his solos stands out.

4. Lacks in the backgrounds of shots. As I also noted, the backgrounds, though in some cases handsome and authentic, tend to look artificial. McCarthy: "Hooper has handsome interior sets at his disposal. However, with the exception of some French city square and street locations, the predominant exteriors have an obvious CGI look."

5. Excess. The whole thing, however moving at a simple level, tends to seem outrageously overblown, though at this point it begins to be hard to distinguish the faults of the film from those of the original musical. "For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine (http://www.boxoffice.com/reviews/2012-12-les-miserables-2012), Mark Keizer.

[tabuno]

1. Eliminating spoken dialogue causes monotony. Staging the show almost entirely sung without spoken dialogue makes it hard to distinguish the separate songs and causes the music to blend monotonously together.

Evita (1996) was an amazing singular sensation and I'm not talking Chorus Line (1985) here (which film version was a great disappointment by the way). Directed by Alan Parker and performed by Madonna, Evita was perhaps the only pure, non-verbal dialogue, it was entirely sung all the way through. As for Les Miserable, just because this "musical" doesn't follow the musical script of clearly distinguished songs, this new cinema music experience perhaps is a breakthrough form of film-making because it offers up a musical experience without having to adhere to the rigid lines of music versus movie and instead allows the flow and tempo of the plot and events and experience to become one, a more naturalistic unfolding of the story instead this song and break and song and break and song and break... which now that I observe it, seems much more artificial and distracting. I didn't find monotony at all in this movie, the varying set designs, different events occurring, the rapidly moving changing storyline flowed with diversity and thought provoking and emotional evolutions of varying intensity from laughter to great sadness to hope and despair. Most people would have a hard time becoming bored or find anything monotone in this movie except for perhaps those uninterested or detached from the underlying themes that seem to radiate out from this movie, or those who are avoiding some of their own tragedies reflected in this movie, or who have experienced so much in life that such fine details are passed by without a second look because it is presumed to be inferior to begin with, or that this movie doesn't follow the standard requirements of what is supposedly a finely crafted movie - song, dialogue, song, dialogue, song, dialogue.

2. Too many tight closeups. The preponderance of tight closeups on singing principals also creates a sameness in the scenes and music. The scenes ought to have been shot in a variety of different ways. "It’s the worst of times, though, when Hooper repeatedly traps his stars in tight close-ups during the musical numbers — practically shoving the camera down the singers’ tonsils."--Lou Limerick, New York Post.
[Hooper] stages virtually every scene and song in the same manner, with the camera swooping in on the singer and thereafter covering him or her and any other participants with hovering tight shots; there hasn't been a major musical so fond of the close-up since Joshua Logan attempted to photograph Richard Harris' tonsils in Camelot. Almost any great musical one can think of features sequences shot in different ways, depending upon the nature of the music and the dramatic moment; for Hooper, all musical numbers warrant the same monotonous approach
--McCarthy.

The close ups (I found myself in a sold old movie theater on Christmas Day n the "second" row and to the rare experience of audience applause at the end of the movie) are some of the most valuable and powerful images of any movie and as such brought a depth and natural intensity of feelings rarely seen on film. It is just such use of cinema here to which brought more richness and aliveness than even the Broadway production could do with its limited in theater spacing and needed distance of the audience from the stage. There is no sameness in each of these amazing faces and performance and direction - the pain, the hurt, the suffering, the regret, the guilt, the sadness are presenting in such large and detailed close ups, each actor could hide behind darkened corners, make-up, or angles - the vibrant emotive connection of each of these characters drip from these scenes as tears are reflective of the best of art here, like portraits painted by our classical artists themselves. The audience is a direct, immediate witness into the eyes of the soul of these characters that the American public have been attached to for decades. In this movie, these characters are brought to life in a way that 3-D or IMAX cannot replicate...because it isn't fancy shot making here, these are closeups...perhaps some of the hardest form of film to direct and perform and each of these characters hit their spot and their dialogue and feeling with power and connecting most deeply in my rapt soul.

3. Weaknesses as well as strengths of recording the songs live. As I noted, the live recording makes for immediacy and acting intensity, but makes for less polished and less tuneful musical performances. As I asked: does the music still matter in a musical? If so, lip synching remains the way to go. Amanda Seyfried and Samantha Barks are exceptions, delivering fine vocals. So does Jackman, but there is so much of him none of his solos stands out.

The only obvious and distracting weakness in the musical presentation and particularly in the amazing, awesome opening scene was the lip synching, most likely because of the impossible authentic noise of the set and actor's activities shot at the time. But the use of live vocals gave a definite immersive, Broadway quality and the use of less than stellar vocalists made these scenes more available to the public, made for a more realistic presentation of the characters apart of the overly stylistic operatic presentation, the exaggerated presentation required for stage performances for an audience. Even Russell Crowe's performance comes from a man, not a singer. This movie isn't really a musical in the way it has traditionally been conceived. Instead this is an epic movie using music to tell a story where the acting with the music and song is just as important as the singing itself and it is surprisingly, unlike many musicals, most of the lyrics were easily understood, a testament to the abilities of the performers in this movie. It was just this close up fusion of singing, melody, lyrics, and acting that when brought together became more glorious than each separately.

4. Lacks in the backgrounds of shots. As I also noted, the backgrounds, though in some cases handsome and authentic, tend to look artificial. McCarthy: "Hooper has handsome interior sets at his disposal. However, with the exception of some French city square and street locations, the predominant exteriors have an obvious CGI look."

I was convinced...except perhaps the sewers appeared too clean, but I can't imagine anybody being able to really act well in real garbage and refuse, it smells terrible unless one has lived most of their lives in it. To complain about the set design would be to come close to a double standard when one complains about the singing and this being a musical and then complain about the set design...where most musicals aren't based on realistic sets so much as based on Broadway Production themes which are usually the exact opposite of reality. Personally, with this new musical experience, I find the suggestive elements of the set are sufficient to capture the story. I focused on the characters, the make-up being so carefully and well applied that the backdrop was secondary and this story isn't about the buildings, the streets, but about individuals and their tortured lives. Even Blade Runner (1982) could be considered to have been so elegantly misty and dark and well designed by the director, but authentic and real...I don't think so. For those of us poor people who don't travel to faraway lands and can only imagine and dream of such things, our standards are likely to be way less here. What was important was the impact of the story and message, and the feeling and coming away from a movie that deeply moved one and represented some of the most difficult but fundamental human values and emotions and dilemmas that any human may face. As such this movie for me was a crowning experience in almost all ways.

5. Excess. The whole thing, however moving at a simple level, tends to seem outrageously overblown, though at this point it begins to be hard to distinguish the faults of the film from those of the original musical. "For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine, Mark Keizer.

Perhaps the problem of movies nowadays is the tedium of the standard of excess - violence, sex, the stereotypical plot line, special effect explosions... But what movies haven't really present to the audience is the restrained excess of human emotions and in this movie the patience of time to experience the full evolution of emotions, the small details of human noises and grunts of pain often are avoided...but the form of excess in this movie is this movie's redeeming strength, to give full measure of the immensity of what is occurring deep in each of these characters.

[Chris Knipp]

I may try to reply in more detail tomorrow. But your saying that the less than stellar perforances made the musical more accessible to the audience suggests you'd be more satisfied with a small town amateur production. You also liked sets that didn't seem real, so there you're happy with a CGI look, which wouldn't strictly be accessible to your small town company. Again, you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the film has any faults, at least not ones you don't embrace as virtues, and such an uncritical look at the new screen "Les Miz" just isn't convincing as an argument in its favor. Of course you're perfectly welcome to love the movie and as I've written in my review, I'm sure the diehard fans or uncritical admirers of Eighties musical blockbusters, which you seem to be, are going to love it. I really try to look at things neutrally. I can see many virtues and performers of high skill even if some of them are not really good singers or simply are not allowed to present their best singing performances (musically). This is NOT by any stretch of the imagination a small town amateur production. It's big, it's professional, it cost millions and it's going to make millions; it's already beating THE HOBBIT and THE HOBBIT is a money-maker. But is it perfect? No. Is not using post-synch a wise decision? Debatable. Many cite examples of the few filmed musicals shot live as blunders; one by Bogdonovich AT LONG LAST LOVE has been mentioned and said to be a catastrophe. It was the first such since 1930, one source says. There has to be a reason why live recording of a film musical is such a rarity. It has not been found to work. I am disappointed in the singing of many of the live-recorded songs because they aren't satisfying musically.

As for the spinning-in-for-tight-closeup approach on a majority of the song solos creating a sense of monotony I will trust the more expert writers and my own feelings. Some of the songs were shot in an unobtrusive way. I'd cite the ones by Samantha Barks, and Eddie Redmayne's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" solo in the ruined, empty garret room, which unlike "Dreaming a Dream" was shot at a decent distance, showing the singer's whole figure, not looking down his tonsils.

[tabuno]

It's a wonder how Chris continues to keep his capacity to absorb body punches and stay standing intact with integrity.

I'm not proclaiming that Les Miserable is an inferior product using less than stellar actors or even set designs. Instead what I'm suggesting is that Les Miserable represents a distinctly new and improved film experience that breaks out of the traditional mold of musicals to create something that "expert" traditional professional critics have yet to accept or acknowledge. Instead they look through established film indoctrinated glasses that perhaps makes them blind to the extraordinary substantive emotional delivery that this different film composition enables its lay audience to enjoy. The end product of live singing using actors not professional singers has created a mainstream audience experience that we can relate to more directly and intimately than the more polished and perhaps even less than authentic delivery, resulting in a film that Victor Hugo might have demanded of the humanity not the sound quality of the humans involved in his novel.

Like 3-D and Chris who appears to have slowly evolved in his appreciation of the CGI, so too Les Miserable come upon us that represents not a special effects innovation but a directorial and acting innovation by bringing together music and storyline and performance into a refreshing, detailed portrayal of humanity not seen often on the big screen in such profusion but without the bombastic, over the top delivery. Instead the director has created a more raw and internally felt experience for the actors who themselves then exposed themselves for the audience to see. Unlike the Broadway production requiring projection, it was the director's camera that brought the audience to the actors, and as such this was the more genuine and natural way of experiencing Victor Hugo's brilliance.

[Chris Knipp]

I know but I was just saying you were implying that as a logical extension, if you liked the imperfect aslpects of the live-recorded performances in LES MISERABLES so much, you'd like an amateur performance even better. Indeed sometimes a less pro production can be more moviing. I found that with Tom Stoppard's play The Invention of Love. I happened to see a small theater-in-the-round version in DC and then just a week later saw the full-on Broadway version. No question about the fact that the DC version was more touching and immediate, without the name actors, fancy costumes, and costly sets.

I don't know what you mean when you say I appear to have "slowly evolved into an appreciation of the CGI." Of course Hooper's "Les Miz" doesn't involve "special effects innovation." Its chief innovation is the abandonment of post-synch shooting of the action and instead recording the voice performances live with the action, to achieve immediacy and put more of an emphasis almost on a kind of "method" acting. That is borne out also by Hooper's having both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway lose substantial weight before shooting his first secens and her later scenes, and he says he also was asked not to drink any water even for the last 36 hours before shooting the prison sequences.

I'd paraphrase Capote's famous quip about Kerouac's ON THE ROAD, "That's not writing, it's typing," and say That's not acting, it's dieting. I don't think all in all I am a huge fan of Method acting -- and it's not generally what the English actors do, though some Brits have studied at the Actor's Studio.

I still am convinced that (1) post-synch shooting with more tuneful and polished renditions would be better; and (2) the constant use of extreme closeups for many of the songs as well as the constant tilting of the camera to creat45-degree angles are visual distractions that undermine, not enhance, the presentation of the musical.

A musical is an artificial stage event. Trying to make it more "naturalistic" and "real" is a dubious enterprise at best. I'm not against the use of many location shots. Why make a movie otherwise? That's what is done in music videos. But music videos are post-synched. That way the sound is good and the images are good. Why sacrifice the sound to the images?

[cinemabon]

http://movies.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/movies/les-miserables-stars-anne-hathaway-and-hugh-jackman.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

[Chris Knipp]

That review by Manhola Dargis in the NY Times that you cite is one I've read (not till after I'd written my review however, I might add) and is rated by Metacritic as a 50, actually way lower than I'd consider mine, though I may say some of the same things; I'd give it a 60 or if nuances are available a 58. To give a nod to the fans who love it anyway.

What about you, cinemabon? Have you seen it? If so, what do you think?

[Chris Knipp]

Two of my usual reference points:

Armond Whilte loves Les Miz in his review (http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/still-not-a-brother/) ("Working Class Heroism"). He thinks it presents some kind of working class authenticity, and you're an effete snob if you dislike it.

Walter Chaw hates it. He just says in his review of Les Miz (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/12/les-mis%C3%A9rables-2012.html) that it's a big loud bore. He thinks "accidental auteur" Hooper was galvanized into making something extremely ugly by the freedom of having won too many awards

And conversely, Armond White, who is black, joins Spike Lee in a somewhat knee-jerk condemnation (http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/still-not-a-brother/) of Django Unchained ("Still Not a Brother") heaping abuse upon Samuel L. Jackson, calling him the new Steppin Fetchit. He provides a very superficial, actually pretty unsophisticated misreading. Spike Lee spoke out against Django Unchained without even seeing it. Simply the fact that the movie deals with slavery in the South through a prism of spaghetti Western and Blaxploitation genres made it odious to him.

And meanwhile Walter Chaw sings the praises of Django Unchained in his review of it (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/12/django-unchained-2012.html), saying that it once again shows what a genius filmmaker Quentin Tarantino is.

Meanwhile White has a somewhat more calm and balanced condemnation of Zero Dark Thirty and his review of the one (http://cityarts.info/2012/12/28/zero-for-conduct/) ("Zero for Conduct") -- nice titles this week,, Armond -- I'm going to save to go back and ponder after I've seen that film.

[cinemabon]

I'm not big on musicals that scream their opinions in my face. While I enjoy many musicals (theater and film), LM tends to be bombastic and pontifical. There is no question that the film is peppered with talent - I love the work of Ann Hathaway and Hugh Jackman; I was a champion on this site for "The King's Speech."

However, as much as I enjoyed "Chorus Line" on stage, met the writer, producer, director, and cast - I loathed the film. I enjoyed seeing "Phantom" onstage and hated the movie. I saw "Camelot" "My Fair Lady" and "Fiddler on the Roof" with some, not all, off their original casts and absolutely hated the film versions. I liked "Mary Poppins" better than I did "My Fair Lady." Whereas, "The Sound of Music" and even "Oliver" benefited enormously when they were made into films. "Gigi" is perhaps one of the greatest musicals of all time, and it was never a play (later adapted for stage). "Singing in the Rain" is less a musical and more a compliation of MGM properties dragged out of the closet and pieced together into a film with the flimsiest of plots. If not for the charm, grace and talent of the cast, it would have been a flop.

I have mixed feelings about this movie that go back twenty years when my aunt was practically cramming the thing down my throat. Just about everything she likes (She's a staunch Repulican/conservative/stick-in-the-mud) I hate. Call me prejudiced, call me madam, call me late for dinner; you can even call me Johnston... I'm reticent.

[Chris Knipp]

No doubt about one thing: In the eyes of the critics Tom Hooper's two films are of very different quality (Metacritic scores THE KING'S SPEECH: 88, LES MISERABLES: 64).

You present a thorough personal survey there with some famous titles. Some musicals have proven successful on the screen and some not. D'you think the unsuccessful transfers outnumber the successes? I'd like to hear opinions on that.

Is that a common view that SINGING IN THE RAIN is weak material, but made great by the cast and crew?

Personal experience again factors in, and it turns out that "Les Miz" was crammed down your throat by an aunt whose likes you routinely hated. (Isn't it ironic-- or not? -- that a right-winger loved a musical romanticizing revolutionaries?)

Come on, cinemabon, out with it. You've seen LES MISERABLES the movie now, right? Stop being "reticent" and tell all. What did you think of it?

[tabuno]

Bombastic - "using or characterized by high-sounding but unimportant or meaningless language." Of all the musicals that have been hits, Chicago, Moulin Rouge, Mama Mia, it is Les Miserable that offers up an epic story of suffering, sacrifice, integrity, devotion, love and is presented in this movie with larger than life expression that connects to the very population of which Victor Hugo devoted his novel, the masses, not the elitist power authority. As such this particular musical presented in this very fashion fits perfectly with both the theme, the purpose, the fundamental meanings of the" important" populace of the people who died in red blood. High-sounding yes, but unimportant or meaningless language, far from it.

[Chris Knipp]

All that is what you think, tabuno. And you are a fan. We who are not fans do not think that.

Merriam-Webster:

BOMBASTIC: marked by or given to bombast : pompous, overblown

SYNONYMS: rhetorical, flatulent, fustian, gaseous, gassy, grandiloquent, oratorical, orotund, windy

ANTONYMS: unrhetorical [and, I might add, understated]

A thesaurus online adds these:

ostentatiously lofty in style; "a man given to large talk"; "tumid political prose"
declamatory, orotund, tumid, turgid, large
rhetorical - given to rhetoric, emphasizing style at the expense of thought; "mere rhetorical frippery"

Not all of the implications are negative, as you assume (and cinemabon may have implied). There is nothing really wrong with "declamatory," "orotund," or "lofty in style." Nothing even wrong with "grandiloquent" or "oratorical." It's just flying high and shooting high. It's ambitious and with that come risks. But this is really true of the original musical, and not uniquely of the film version of it.

I know cinemabon calls LES MISERABLES "bombastic and pontifical." My own original quotation using a related word however was:


"For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast."--Boxoffice Magazine, Mark Keizer. You have to be aware, tabuno, that LES MISERABLES is a film that has gotten decidedly "mixed" reviews. Keizer however is not entirely condemning Hooper's effort. His review argues that Hooper sets out to make the ultimate statement and to work on a very grand level, putting all previous and subsequent efforts to shame. Keizer is not condemning this approach in itself. Let me put that quote in a larger context:
In his follow-up to Best Picture Oscar winner The King's Speech, a reverent Hooper plays everything to the rafters, a strategy that admittedly yields great rewards. Claude-Michel Schönberg's soaring music has never sounded livelier, the production is rigorously detailed and the performers leave no lip unquivering and no tear duct untapped. For fans, this is exactly how the story of Jean Valjean's transformation from thief to saint should be delivered: smothered in bombast. However, what Keizer is not happy with is the cinematography, or what he calls "the shaky-cam, wide-angle lenses and vertiginous crane shots." This I think is what most mars the film, along with the dubious decision to live-record without post-synching all the singing, thus sacrificing musical and vocal quality to "acting." It's a dangerous tradeoff.

[cinemabon]

I feel like the stubbord child in the high chair, keeping his mouth closed while his mother is holding a tablespoon full of Caster Oil!

"No! I won't take it... and you can't make me!"

Some of the songs in "Singing in the Rain" were used so many times it was a wonder the film made any money at all on its release. But the thing that escapes most people is that Kelly (who practically directed some of the scenes, such as "Gotta Dance!") Donan, Green, and Comden were really poking fun at the industry that had given them a job. This irreverent look at their own business is what won the hearts of Academy members and to this day, thrills the stanchest film critic into laughter when you see the hokey way they portray film directors and studio heads (remember that by this time Louis B. Mayer was beginning to loose his iron grip over stars and production at MGM). Like Hitchcock with "Psycho" Kelly and Donan's "Singing in the Rain" used cheap sets and old songs to reduce the cost of a film "destined to fail." But when you add the energy of a Donald O'Conner whose "Make 'em laugh" is perhaps one of the best comedic moments on film, it gives the film the needed shot in the arm to elevate the mundane into the ridiculous.


Movie musicals that work for me are usually based around strong performances by their stars (for one) and good adaptations. "Bells are Ringing" is one of the best examples. The broadway musical had a modicum of success on broadway. But when Comdem and Green took their play to Hollywood, they upped the ante for star Judy Holliday (for whom the play was originally written) showcasing her talent. She comes out of the gate full blast and never looks back. (She was nominated for a Golden Globe but not an Oscar - she won for "Born Yesterday") Tragically she died not long after the film's release of breast cancer.

Then take the case of "Guys and Dolls" which Sam Goldwyn paid a million dollars for the rights (an unheard sum at that time). This is a perfect example of taking a great cast (how can you go wrong with Marlon Brando... but they did!) and a great director Joe Mankiewicz and turning this beautiful play into a real stinker by using good actors but poor singers who butcher the songs. Every night after filming, Sinatra would go to Vegas and perform "Luck be a lady" better than Brando could ever hope to sing it. The day Sinatra died, they played his signature song on the jumbotron in downtown Vegas after which they darkened all the lights (done only for President Kennedy).

The same could be said of Richard Attenborough who gave us both "Ghandi" a brilliant film and then made "A Chorus Line" a musical film that is so bad, you won't even see it as a re-run on TV! I would say that this and "Hello Dolly" killed the musical genre. Kelly's bloated budgeted Streisand vehicle turned out to be horribly miscast with Horace one of the worst performances in Walter Matthau's career. He said he hated working with Streisand and it shows on the screen. They have absoutely no chemistry. But the music by Jerry Herman is one of the best scores and librettos ever written! They destroyed it!

The worst musical, and I mean one of the biggest butchering jobs I've ever seen, happened with "Camelot." Jack Warner, who had no business being on the set of that film, practically ran it into the ground single handedly, again a producer that can't keep his hands off the production of a musical. Vanessa Redgrave is a tremendous actress but could hardly fill the shoes of Julie Andrews (who performed Guinevere on Broadway with the super cast of Robert Goulet and Richard Burton). Warner, who still resented Andrews taking the Best Actress award from his "My Fair Lady" night at the Oscars, miscast the film and has a three hour turkey that is one of the most forgettable movies of all time.

But the grand prize for ruining a broadway play goes to...????? "Mame"

Angela Lansbury, who made the lusterous musical a smash hit on Broadway and was a shoe-in for the film, had the rug pulled from under her when it went to Lucille Ball (of all people). No only did she ruin the film, she turned it into what most critics agree is the worst musical film ever made. Her performance is so lackluster that it evoked laughter in the first screening from critics (and I was there)! I could hardly bare to watch it. I cringed for her. I loved and love Lucy very much and it hurt me to see how bad her performance is in this worst of all movie musicals.

As to the best? The golden age of musicals is probably a compliation of good productions and good directors from the 30's, 40's, 50's and some in the 60's. "Oliver" is certainly one of the best. Director Vincent Minelli made several, including "Meet me in St. Louis" and "Gigi." Julie Andrews, who was so wrongly snubbed by Jack Warner appears in four great musical films and one horrible turkey (we all know about "Star") - "Mary Poppins," "The Sound of Music," "Thoroughly Modern Millie," and "Victor/Victoria" are among the best musicals ever made. Take that, "My Fair Lady" and "Camelot," which could have used a strong voice and great actress like Andrew to bolster their leading lady roles.

I believe I've said quiet enough for one post. Thank you for reading and Happy New Year.

[Chris Knipp]

You will I think love, cinemabon, and you will equally hate, tabuno, Anthony Lane's witty new review (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2013/01/07/130107crci_cinema_lane)of "Les Miz" in the new New Yorker (Jan. 7, 2013 edition). He points out that Anne Hathaway gives exactly the kind of performance that she would make fun of on Saturday Night Live; and she apparently does make fun of it in a recent video, a friend just told me, alongside Samuel L. Jackson as they lampoon their respective blockbuster performances in current movies. Lane has a bit of fun with the story's melodrama:
Valjean (Hugh Jackman) serves nineteen years for stealing a loaf of bread: a punishment that he regards as unjust, though in fact it reflects well on the status of French baking. Had he taken a croissant, it would have meant the guillotine. He has fun with the musical too:
I was unprepared, having missed “Les Misérables” onstage, for the remarkable battle that flames between music and lyrics, each vying to be more uninspired than the other. The lyrics put up a good fight, but you have to hand it to the score: a cauldron of harmonic mush, with barely a hint of spice or a note of surprise. I'm not so sure either side wins that battle. The lyrics remain transcendently inane from start to finish. Then Lane gets to Hooper's film, and notes that "The director is Tom Hooper, fresh from “The King’s Speech,” and you can’t help wondering if this shift into grandeur has confused his sense of scale." This leads into a description of the camerawork that so many reviews (including mine) couldn't fail to focus on:
The camera soars on high, the orchestra bellows, and then, whenever somebody feels a song coming on, we are hustled in close, forsaking our bird’s-eye view for that of a consultant rhinologist. That's right: down the tonsils we go. And as we go down the singer's throats with the wide-angle lens, the grand scale of Hugo's concept goes down the tubes. Lane notes some acquit themselves "with grace," Eddie Redmayne (whom I admired), and Sasha Baran Cohen, whose joke of referring to Cosette as "Courgette" probably goes over the heads of most of the American audience.

Lane is also pretty hard on DJANGO UNCHAINED in this review, but I won't quote that here because this is the wrong thread, and besides, I like DJANGO UNCHAINED too much to be comfortable with Lane's no doubt at least partly justifiable and nonetheless damning critique of the movie's latter part (but Lane skips over too much detail, particularly erring in not even mentioning Candie/DiCaprio's phrenology lecture--- but I said I wouldn't mention this! Somehow Lane recovers from his surfeit of irony and dissatisfaction to deliver (as he must) an admiring short description of Haneke's AMOUR. That's a lot of stuff to deal with in one review. But New Yorker writers are well remunerated.

[cinemabon]

This quote from Lane's review had me in tears. Thanks, Chris, and Mr. Lane, for the smiles...

"Crowe launches into his lusty anthems as if a platoon of infantry, stationed in his immediate rear, had just fixed bayonets without giving sufficient warning."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2013/01/07/130107crci_cinema_lane#ixzz2GfHNsaNR

[Chris Knipp]

This is great, and really instructive. You know so much more about the history of musicals and their screen adaptations than I do. But you still haven't said enough.

I still want to know: Have you watched the film LES MISERABLES, cinemabon? If not, will you? If so, will you please comment further on it. If you refuse to, will you please say more about why?

And what about AFTER the golden age of musicals? What about the reign of Rodgers and Hammerstein? What about OKLAHOMA! and SOUTH PACIFIC?

And most importantly for our current discussion, what happened in the 1980's? Did you stop caring at that point, when CATS, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, MISS SAIGON apparently being the big ones, along with LES MIZ, made a packet? How are they different from the musicals of the golden age of them?

What about WEST SIDE STORY, I assume a musically fine musical, being by Leonard Bernstein, and a good movie?

I personally have warm feelings about MY FAIR LADY and THE SOUND OF MUSIC from their jazz offshoots. Andre Previn made a handsome jazz piiano record full of his own performances of his own jazz adaptations of songs from MY FAIR LADY, and of course John Coltrane made "My Favorite Things" from THE SOUND OF MUSIC into a piece he played in a hundred different brilliant and awesome ways, turning it into his own personal anthem, played at the end of every concert.

[Chris Knipp]

Michael Philips of the Chicago Tribute is a fan of the musical "Les Miz" who does not like the movie version. Here is his review in toto which comes online from here (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-19/entertainment/sc-mov-1221-les-miz-20121220_1_film-musicals-jean-valjean-inspector-javert):


I wouldn't be surprised if "Les Miserables" became the most popular movie musical since "Mamma Mia!" On stage, both diversions were, and are, easy to enjoy in their diametrically opposed ways. "Mamma Mia!" revels in Greece, glitter and ABBA; "Les Miz" wallows in France, sewers, good, evil and revolutionaries with fabulous hair

Realizing many eager filmgoers will cry big, leaky wooden buckets of tears over director Tom Hooper's film version, let me state that I have reviewed the stage version of the musical many times, from London to New York to various touring companies, and I like the show. I do. It's the only '80s blockbuster of its ilk ("Cats," "The Phantom of the Opera" and "Miss Saigon" being the others) that I really do like. It's big but not entirely reliant on spectacle. Its compression of the Victor Hugo novel, musicalized by Claude-Michel Schonberg and Alain Boublil with English-language lyrics by Herbert Kretzner, is a pretty piece of theatrical craft.

You get the right singers for the roles, and a couple of tolerable comic-relief types for the sleazy innkeepers who lead the chorus in that infernal tune "Master of the House," and you're more than halfway to the barricades.

Now: the movie.

I didn't like it.

Why?

There's no genre I cherish more than film musicals. Hugh Jackman (who plays, sings, mutters and roars his way through the role of saintly Jean Valjean) has the stuff, the training, the voice and ability to express 101 percent of what's needed in a fervent close-up. Anne Hathaway, a fairly sure bet for a supporting actress Oscar as Fantine, grabs ahold of her big song "I Dreamed a Dream" like someone with an Oscar to win. Russell Crowe's voice may be wrong for Inspector Javert — he spends most of the score straining in his upper register, while sounding like an amalgam of all four Beatles — but already he's taking the rap for single-handedly dragging "Les Miz" down, which is silly. The movie drags itself down.

Hooper directed two films I very much admire, "The King's Speech" and "The Damned United," and now he has made his largest and worst. He films a great deal of it in eyebrow-to-lower-lip close-up. Or else he cuts like a maniac raised on too many Ken Russell biopics, shaping each individual set piece as a blur of noise and chaos. There's no breathing room in his approach, visually or otherwise.

The musical is "sung-through," as the theater people say, crammed with nattering recitative, i.e., dialogue that is sung, either in earnest or on the fly. The camera bobs and weaves like a drunk, frantically. So you have hammering close-ups, combined with woozy insecurity each time more than two people are in the frame. Twenty minutes into the retelling of fugitive Valjean, his monomaniacal pursuer Javert, the torch singers Fantine and Eponine and the rest, I wanted somebody to just nail the damn camera to the ground.

The years pass; Valjean becomes a respectable and wealthy man with a dangerous secret and an adopted daughter, Cosette, who grows up to be Amanda Seyfried, while Javert keeps almost nabbing the ex-con continually eluding his grasp and vexing him, to his very soul, with his goodness. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter might've worked as the innkeepers under a different director, and with funnier bits, but they come off like third-raters here. Eddie Redmayne (Marius) does well by "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," but too little in this frenzied mess of a film registers because Hooper is trying to make everything register at the same nutty pitch. With the camera an inch away from everybody's noses, you worry about catching a cold or something.
December 19, 2012|Michael Phillips | Movie critic [CHICAGO TRIBUNE]

[tabuno]

The film brings to the masses details that aren't available in the Broadway musical and as such is more successful in capturing some of the comical and dramatic details left out of the Musical. However some might argue that that is the reason professional singers are required in a live performance in order to compensate for the "distance perspective" of the audience in experiencing such a performance. But as a film, such singing virtuosity isn't needed or probably even desirable. The standards used to judge both art forms are somewhat different. The film allows the the audience to focus on how the inn keeper is so deft in his craft of detaching its customers of their valuables. The singing in this movie isn't so much for the brilliance of the singing, but for delivery to the audience of an intensely human experience, such that even most humans aren't allowed to express themselves in this most emotive way even if they want to.

Again critics are confusing the this movie as a musical and it isn't. It's an epic period piece with historical drama at its core using music and sung lyrics to enhance the intimate experience. This is a new movie format. It is the very fact that Russell Crowe isn't a professional singer that makes this movie work better. The audience can identify with him as one of us while his delivery is actually more intelligible since the focus is on the narrative not of the singing and yet we get the emotional melody and the strained delivery that's based on the character's in the moment experience, not based on some musical note book. If one doesn't embrace this assumption of this being a historical drama using music and song and not a musical, then we are talking about two different movie experiences about the same movie. It's almost like Gary Chapman's Love Languages where the wife's language is affirmation and the husband's language is physical touch - there is no communication between the two. What is required is a change of paradigm perspective in experiencing this movie. if not, then one might a well not wear 3-D glasses to a 3-D film and get the same critical result - a most nauseating one.

[cinemabon]

Actually, Tab, if you check the definition, "Les Miz..." is technically an operetta - not an ordinary film or an opera. An opera is sung lyrically, that is full throated, with no spoke words, period (and there are other provios). An operetta has "some" spoken parts in dialogue sequences (I take it there were extras who did not "technically" sing, and from what I understand - Russell Crowe did not sing either). A musical provides both dialogue and songs that pertain to the plot, sung the main characters. A film with sung music is considered part of the soundtrack and not considered a musical, such as "Flashdance" where the characters do not sing. "Les Miz" borders between an opera and an operetta - if you want to be technical. The fact that it is based on a fictional story which is based on a moment in history does not make it factual in any shape, form, or content. None of these people ever existed and the novel by Victor Hugo, which I did read, is not only excellent but a must for fans of classic literature.

All of that aside - I have very high expectations when it comes to musicals... and I did not see "Evita" for this reason and do not intend to see "Les Miz" as well because the idea of taking this piece of literature that I identify from my first days of reading for enlightenment sounds silly and absurd to me. I would have a difficult time putting people in rags, filthy, and starving to death on the streets of Paris and breaking to song - "I dream the dream..." and so on sounds so silly to me as to be ridiculous. Besides the song has become poluted with images of the pudgy English woman with a mustache who sang it and her version went viral on YouTube. (Granted, I hardly have room to talk, as I am more pudgy than she is).

Funny you should mention "South Pacific." My mother took me to the Broadway touring company back in the late 1950's. It was one of the first stage shows I ever saw and I will never forget it. We were so excited at the time (I was but seven) to see the movie that she and I went alone. I'll never forget that either. Half way through, we both looked at each other and thought - "What is this?" My first big let down at the movies. Joshua Logan wanted to set the "tone" of certain songs by colorizing the film with different colors. He ruined it and critics let him have it.

"West Side Story" is a film that almost had a bad ending. Stage director Jerome Robbins was hired to direct the movie, after he had directed the play he made famous on broadway. But directing a film is nothing like directing a stage play. The production fell behind schedule and much of the footage that Robbins shot was unusable. Walter Mirsch, who was bankrolling the project, contacted Robert Wise to take over. But Wise decided he wanted more than to just direct and filled in as producer as well, putting up additional funds. Robbins ended up choreographing the dance scenes and Wise took over as principle director delivering one of the finest musicals of all time, despite the weak performance of non-musical talents Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer. How can you argue with a score by Leonard Bernstein that is so powerful nothing can compete? The opening night which was presented in 70mm brought the first house to their feet in applause, something that rarely happens for any movie (after all, who is listening?). The overture, written specially for the film, makes the opening of "West Side Story" (especially in 70mm) one of the most dramatic openings of any movie in the history of film. Blare the speakers and f**k the neighbors!

Many of the musicals from the resurgence of the stage musical (the 1980's marked their comeback) never made it to the silver screen because of the failure of so many films from the late 60's and early 70's (you mentioned several like Miss Saigon, never made). Of the films that have been made in the last 30 years, very few are memorable (Did you see Evita? A chorus Line? Phantom of the Opera? Hair?). Only Disney managed to encorporate both song and story in their animated films (which ironically became Broadway productions) and one of those, "Beauty and the Beast" so impressed audiences that it is the only animated musical ever nominated for Best Picture AA.

As the late great Rudy Vallee put it, and I'm paraphrasing - "The [musical] is not only dead, it's decomposed!" Of course, he made the comment about chivalry, but you get the point.

[Chris Knipp]

Evidently cinemabon, you're holding out against watching the film "Les Miz", perhaps because it was "crammed down" your throat by your aunt. Russell Crowe does sing. Or attempts to. The boy Daniel Huttlestone (does he naturally have that accent?!) mostly doesn't sing; I'd not call him an "extra," though. He's Gavroche, an important character. I wish you'd see the movie. You know so much about musicals, your views would be of real value. How bad could it be? I saw it, and I don't even much like musicals really.

I am not an expert, but I think musicals are still very much alive. People like them and new ones keep coming along. I wanted to see BILLY ELLIOT, but I didn't get around to it. For many months it was very hard to get tickets. THE BOOK OF MORMON has been a big success. My friend who goes to everything said BLOODY BLOODY ANDREW JACKSON was great. JERSY BOYS was a long running hit that I actually saw, early on, because a friend's friend's boyfriend was in it and we got comps. They keep on coming. Reports of the medium's decomposition are surely very premature

Evidently you're right that the film versions of EVITA, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, A CHORUS LINE, and HAIR were not extremely successful. I didn't see those four.

I'm glad you enjoyed the stage version of SOUTH PACFIC that you saw. I enjoyed the revival, and knew all the music from the original recordings.

The movie WEST SIDE STORY seemed very good, except that the color was a bit garish.

.

[cinemabon]

An extremely brief history...

Musicals before 1940's were mostly convoluted plots that had songs stuck in them, mostly to showcase the songs for sale.

"Porgy and Bess" changed that. After that, musicals had plots in which characters sang about situations within the course of the play. Rogers and Hammerstein followed that pattern and their success with "Oklahoma" literally changed Broadway overnight and ushered in the golden age of musicals (and many of those were made into films).

After World War II, returning GI's soured to the idea of people breaking into song as they walked down the street. Gradually over the next decade, despite the huge popularity of musicals on Broadway, their ability to bring in audiences in movie theaters declined (although "The Sound of Music" broke that mold being the highest grossing musical of all time) and by the end of the 1960's the musical as a genre was considered dead. "Hello Dolly" is credited with being the last "big" musical (Streisand did do several after that... now without going to google or imdb, can you think of three? That's how memorable they were, although as a singer, she is without a peer!).

Of the song writing teams, we mostly recall the one mentioned above along with Lerner and Lowe; Frank Loesser; Jerry Hermann; Jules Styne; Irving Berlin; Leslie Bricusse; Meredith Willson; etc. I would say that less than half of all filmed musicals are worth the time to watch and of those only a handful belong on anyone's "best movies in the history of film" list of 100. None, and I mean none, would ever make my "Best top 25 movies of all time" list... and I'm a big bloody fan!!!

I might see "Lez Mez" if my mysterious vistor this weekend wishes to go. Otherwise, I may not find the time.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, I still hope you do see "Les Miz," cinemabon, because you speak about musicals with authority.

There's a lot of information on a site called www.musicals101.com.

You skipped over some big hits of the Seventies (runs of more than 1,500 performances), maybe intentionally.
GREASE, 1972 -3,388 performances
THE WHIZ, 1975, 1,672 performances
PIPPIN, 1972 - 1,944

Eighties. I don't think we've mentioned CATS. 1982 -- 7,485 performances
LA CAGE AUX FOLLES. 1983 1,761 performances
Disney stagings of Broadway mucals, BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, around as many performances as THE LION KING.


I can't see them ever dying out during any recent decade. What I can see is that for every hit there are a dozen or two dozen big money-losers.

[cinemabon]

"Grease" is a very interesting case where a producer had an idea and in this instance, created a vehicle for things he wanted to promote. As much as the two main stars or the director are touted, it was the producer, Alan Carr, who created the look and feel of "Grease." He had a sound in mind that would appeal to a mass market that went far beyond the scope of the original Broadway production. The Broadway version spoke more to the 1950's generation. Whereas, "Grease" the movie, spoke to the current (at the time) Disco generation. He "amped" the songs, added Olivia Newton John's "Hopelessly Devoted to You" (written for her - it has nothing to do with the story) and also added the big opening song (Frankie Valli, speaking of the Jersey Boys, he spearheaded The Four Seasons) and manipulated the end ("You're the one that I want"). Alan Carr should be given full credit for "Grease" being a success.

"Pippin" was never made into a film, nor was "Cats" (thank God for that!) I forgot about "Annie" which I actually liked, basically a filmed stage play. I thougt the film was wonderful but it suffered from lack of promotion.

"The Wiz" was a huge bomb, once more, people who don't know musicals, don't know music, and don't understand markets put together an absolute fiasco with top name talent (How much bigger can you get with Diana Ross and Michael Jackson?). The problem is that you've got snappy songs but no market. People had never heard of "The Wiz." But they knew "The Wizard of Oz." The movie bombed because it had no market and it had no one to spearhead the film and promote it properly. So another nail in the musical coffin as far as financiers were concerned. You're also forgetting movies like "The Slipper and the Rose." Richard Chamberlain in a musical! You never saw a movie open and close as fast as that one. How about "The Happiest Millionaire?" Fred MacMurray in a musical... ouch! Even "Chitty Chitty Bang Band" along with "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" were not the success of "Mary Poppins" because you didn't have a producer like Walt Disney behind them. After he passed away, Disney floundered for the next two decades with losses on nearly every vehicle because they had no direction, no leader at the helm the way Uncle Walt ran his dream factory. Walt knew markets and knew how to churn out a finished product. It took Disney executives twenty years to find someone as talented as Jeffrey Katzenberg to come along and create a mermaid who saved Disney overnight and turned the studio around. Even then, they looked a gift horse in the mouth and sent him packing, but not before Katzenberg laid the groundwork for breathing new life into the musical via animation, which he did better than anyone and deserves full credit for saving Disney and the musical.

Remember "Pennies from Heaven?" I wish I didn't. Nothing about The Great Depression was very funny. When you throw in Steve Martin and Christopher Walken (two actors from opposite polar regions of acting), you have a disaster in the making. It was money wasted.

For all of his meddling in "Guys and Dolls," Sam Goldwyn had a great eye for talent. His work with William Wyler is perhaps the best collaboration either of the two men had in their careers. Even though they bashed heads often, the two artists, and yes a producer is an artist, created some of the finest movies Hollywood has ever made - and they have the Oscar nominations to prove it - more nominations for their movies than for any producer/director collaboration in the history of film. But neither man collaborated together on a musical. Goldwyn's musical was ok, not even good and far from great. Wyler, on the other hand, was a mastercraftsman when it came to movies. His "Funny Girl" is a "perfect" musical with not one close up in the entire film. He shot it straight, and used a lot of studio set pieces (most of the big songs except for "Parade" were shot on stages). Barbra Streisand, with all of her incredible talent, is no William Wyler. Her attempt at being in charge of a musical "Yentl" came close but was no cigar. It was a small film with small ideas and did just enough business to be successful. But "A Star is Born" was just plain awful - bad casting (Kris Kristofferson) and poor execution resulted in a bomb. However, "Evergreen" is a brilliant song (it had nothing to do with the plot!) and deserved the Oscar.

Now you have an Oscar winning/DGA awarded director taking on a major musical stageplay and making it into a film (which is a competely different medium) and using film techniques that don't work for a musical (yes, I've heard about the nostril shots, excessive close ups). That is not how you display "drama" by going in so close on an actor to see his subtle acting style. It's a musical! Sounds like his "art" got in his way (Tom Hooper). The one thing Hooper has going for him is that this play is so well liked by such a large number of people, they're willing to forgive the bad movie-making just to see their baby. The problem lies with longevity (when it comes to market). Have you seen the fall off in the numbers? Let's look at the daily tracking poll...

"Les Miserables" was BIG opening day (the biggest movie day of the year, Christmas). Lots of older people who never go to a movie flooded theaters and boosted the musical to number one... for ONE DAY! Otherwise the market has been dominated by The Hobbit and other films. And the slide has only just begun. When "Zero Dark Thirty" comes out, "Les Mis..." will fall into third or lower and sink faster than a stone.

The musical is, sniff, les mort. (my French is rusty - the death?)

A musical is a very funny thing. You either have a feel for the medium or you don't. Most filmmakers don't. Oddly, a person like Steven Speilberg would be good at it (because he knows which lens to shoot with what shot). His parody in the opening of "Indiana Jone and the Temple of Doom" is a hoot. Even though Kate Capshaw can't sing a note, we don't care! The production was fantastic and the best part of the movie - Anything Goes!

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks again for your very knowledgeable and thorough comments. Just a couple of comments with the caution that I am no expert on musicals and have not seen any of the musical films you mention except GREASE and FUNNY GIRL. I never saw either the 1978 Dennis Potter British TV PENNIES FROM HEAVEN nor the 1983 American film adaptation using a screenplay by Potter, but I remember it had some strong defenders, so I was somewhat tempted to go (but I went out to movies less then and it may have disappeared quickly): it was given a "rapturous review in The New Yorker by Pauline Kael," according to one online source. As a constant reader of her reviews, I saw it. You can find Pauline Kael's review of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN excerpted at some length here. (http://peterspennies.blogspot.com/2005/09/pauline-kael.html) The year before she wrote a more mixed review of ANNIE, though she had some good things to say about it in a thumbnail review here (http://www.geocities.ws/paulinekaelreviews/a5.html). Her full review is in her book Taking It All In. Kael's PENNIES FROM HEAVEN review is a lengthy one, at least two thousand words, but it's not "rapturous." She simply begins by saying PENNIES "is the most emotional movie musical I've ver seen." She finds plenty of faults with it, loving the use of lip-synching with Thirties tunes and noting the interesting-sounding use of Walker Evans and Edward Hopper imagery, but also questioning the over-extended use of spoken dialogue and uncertainties of tone in the use of the sad material.

I was an admirer of T.S.Eliot from childhood but never took an interest in "Old Possom's Book of Practical Cats," which might explain why I didn't seek out the long-running musical but did go to see his plays. I also avoided MARY POPPINS. I can smell treacle a long way off. I was out seeing BECKETT, ZORBA (a very big hit in Cairo, where I was then living), and SEDUCED AND ABANDONED. I see MY FAIR LADY was a top-rated film of the same year. I missed that, though I might have liked it. I've seen bits of it, and they're great. The music is good, filtered for me as I've said through the prism of Andre Previn's lovely solo jazz piano recording.

You'll forgive me if just as I read Pauline Kael with admiration but skepticism, I note your very confident but sometimes rather abrupt dismissals. When you say "you either have a feel for the medium or you don't," I know what you mean, and obviously not just any feature film director of spoken dramas can just do a musical and pull it off. But then again they sometimes can, and there's more than one way to skin a cat. Kael obviously liked PENNIES FROM HEAVEN because it approached the musical in a new way, no doubt inspired by Dennis Potter's own distinctive approaches.

As for box office for LES MISERABLES (Hooper's version of the Eighties musical), it and DJANGO had strong starts, and the former is already not a money-loser, since it cost $60 million and has grossed $80 million. (DJANGO cost $100m and has made $77.8 so far as of Jan. 3 '13). Both are dwarfed by the $200 million of THE HOBBIT, but we'll have to wait and see what has legs. LES MISERABLES ranks third among the decade's end-of-year musicals according to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=endyearmusicals.htm), below CHICAGO and DREAMGIRLS.

One more little thing: thereis another little different kind of "musical" film that, though I didn't give it very high marks in my NYFF review (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?3341-New-York-Film-Festival-2012&p=28585#post28585), seems to me much more appealing than a blockbuster noise-maker like "Les Miz": David Chase's big screen directorial debut NOT FADE AWAY, about a bunch of kids in New Jersey in the Sixties who form a band. The music is original and people get to talk and there's even James Gandolfini. And unlike Russell Crowe, he doesn't have to sing. Review-wise, LES MISERABLES' Metacritic rating is 63 and NOT FADE AWAY's is 68. DJANGO: 90. THE HOBBIT: 58.

French for "the death" is la mort.

[cinemabon]

If you want to see Chris Walken act out of type, skip through most of "Pennies from Heaven" which has the weirdest ending of any musical... ever! Near the end, there is a scene in the bar where Walken breaks character and the fourth wall (perhaps this scene carried Kael's favor and made her regard the film positively - although for a musical, it's very very dark while sing-songy at the same time... like I said, weird), jumps up on the bar and does a song and dance routine that is a show stopper, including a surprise I won't reveal here because it worked in the theater and will probably work on you. Otherwise, it's a groaner and closed in two weeks (at least it seemed like it did. I've never heard Steve Martin mention it). Herbert Ross, who started out choreographing numbers in major films, moved into the director's chair with first "Goodbye Mr. Chips" a rather forgettable musical version of the famous historic film and then "The Owl and the Pussy Cat," otherwise known as The Singing Whore. Streisand, chasing Oscar number two (Fonda did it, Taylor did it - played a hooker and won an Oscar) desided to star in this awful movie (remember all of those stupid musicals she did after "Funny Girl" like "Hello Dolly" "On a clear Day" "Funny Lady" and "A Star is Born" along with forgettable "Up the Sandbox" "For Pete's Sake" etc.) Oddly, "Pennies from Heaven was bookended by "Nijinsky" and "I ought to be in pictures." You can use your imagination on both titles as to how successful they were. Many of my gay friends loved "Nijinsky" so somebody liked it, but the BO did not.

Now, are you ready for this? Ross directed the musical numbers in "Funny Girl." You'd think he would have learned from that experience. Instead, he had a rather hit and miss career that bobbed up and down throughout his life, with "The Goodbye Girl" probably his best film. Another bit of trivia, he married Jackie Kennedy's sister, Lee Radizwill, who is still alive. Ross passed away in 2001.

[Chris Knipp]

HOLY MOTORS, which is at the top of my Best Foreign 2012 Movie List (4.3 press score on Allocin and Metacritic 84), only ran for one week here in the East Bay (east of San Francisco), and I doubt that it was big box office in NYC, or in Paris, so what does it matter of an unusual musical film ran only two weeks? That does not mean necessarily that it is unworthy of our interest. It just puts it in the "overlooked" category. And I wouldn't put too much stock in whether Steve Martin "mentions" it or not either.

Being gay doesn't mean liking NIJINSKY. That 1980 film was a bore. There are two Nijinsky films, one a cancelled project:

Nijinsky (uncompleted film, 1970)
The screenplay was written by Edward Albee. The film was to be directed by Tony Richardson and star Rudolf Nureyev as Nijinsky, Claude Jade as Romola and Paul Scofield as Diaghilev, but producer Harry Saltzman canceled the project.
Nijinsky (1980)
Directed by Herbert Ross, starring George de la Peña as Nijinsky, Leslie Browne as Romola, Alan Bates as Diaghilev and Jeremy Irons as Fokine. Romola Nijinsky had a writing credit for the film.

To have had Nureyev playiing Nijinsky would have been remarkable, and Tony Richardsom and Albee add potential luster. Nureyev did the choreography for a number of films and acted in 14. The most notable might be the 1977 VALENTINO. I don't think it was good, but Ken Russell directed it, which makes it interesting to his fans.

I respect your great familiarity with the repertoire of musicals and the films made with varying success from them - it's beginning to seem as if you're never going to go and see LES MISERABLES the film during my lifetime - but when you say something was "very, very, very dark for a musical" I wonder if you aren't a bit old fashioned. Isn't even making a musical out of Victor Hugo's novel an indication in itself that the rules have been changed, that musicals aren't cheerful and bright any more as they were in the days of OKLAHOMA and SOUTH PACIFIC?

What about RENT, by the way? I don't think you've mentioned that. Another tremendously successful Broadway musical that's run for years (off Broadway) - about a not-so-cheery topic - life in Alphabet City under the shadow of AIDS - that got a mediocre film iteration (Chris Columbus) that I sat through, but didn't review it.* Other dark or twisted shows: URINETOWN, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, SWEENEY TODD -- about as very, very, very dark for a musical as you can get; ASSASSINS; and NEXT TO NORMAL, a musical that got great reviews (and I saw it), about a woman who is mentally deranged. I would agree with you that a lot of these, including NEXT TO NORMAL, are very dark, or just plain dreary, for musicals, but they have gotten produced and gotten good reviews and sold tickets.

So can't we say the rules have changed?

I mean, would Rodgers and Hammerstein have written songs for a dying prostitute? When you insinuated earlier that PENNIES FROM HEAVEN was inappropriate for a musical because "Nothing about the Great Depression was very funny," you are just disregarding the direction that musicals have been going for a number of decades now.

Which reminds me of another recent musical about very dark material, which was very good: SPRING AWAKENING. I saw it. Yes, I walked home feeling depressed. But I liked the wholly new musical approach. It's called "a rock musical," but that's only vaguely descriptive. It's modern music, not old fashioned musical comedy music, but fresh, and the staging and the cast were brilliant. SPRING AWAKENING "is based on the controversial German play Spring Awakening (1891) by Frank Wedekind which was banned in Germany for some time due to its frank portrayal of abortion, homosexuality, rape, child abuse and suicide." That indeed is the main material of SPRING AWAKENING, and they made something wholly contemporary and original and good out of it, which the music fit into very well.

That's the way musicals have been going for w long time now, and to say that something dark is inappropriate for a musical just seems out of touch with the times.

That doesn't mean either one of us has to like "Les Miz." But I don't think we can say that something is weird or inappropriate in a musical because it's dark. Partly my early idea of "musicals" came from operettas - Gilbert and Sullivan - which are charming, but I wonder if this was every the way it was meant to be: after all, in operas people are always killing each other, dying of consumption, or stuff like that. "Dark" stuff is essential, at least the the nineteenth-century Italians. And who knew better how to craft musical drama than they did? So maybe it's not that the material for musicals has changed, but that they've gone back to their roots.

Rereading Kael's review of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN after all these years in the 1200+-page collection of her reviews For Ke3eps, with her descriptions of the use of Thirties songs, images from Edward Hopper and Walker Evans and Reginald Marsh, "Brechtian devices," contributions by a crack team including Bond film production (and DR STRANGELOVE and BARRY LYNDON!) designer Ken Adam, and of course Martin and Walken in unusual roles for them, it makes me want to see the film. I'd have to decide for myself if I like it or not.

*RENT was discussed by mouton and Oscar on this site (http://www.filmleaf.net/showthread.php?1612-Rent-Vacancies-Available&highlight=Chris+Columbus) but I din't join in. I would certainly side with mouton - " it was hollow and unfulfilling from an entertainment perspective" - but now would note that it was written by Stephen Chbosky, who after RENT went on to co-create and co-write the amazing TV series JERICHO, and this year wrote and directed my indie favorite, THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER."

[cinemabon]

we have been neglectful of the most significant musical in the last 40 years and that is quote to Rocky Horror Picture Show quotesince I am filing this on my phone it is late in fact it's past midnight I will make a proper entry tomorrow morning. talk about a change in the musical genre this film had everything including for and I consider it 1 of the greatest musical film of all time.
Of all

[tabuno]

My dearth of academic background in cinema is embarrassing, but cinemabon's valuable insight into technical details regarding various theatrical performances is very welcome and the name cinemabon is an apt descriptor. I still wonder whether or not such various differences in art forms also suggest different standards and criteria for reviewing or observing them. We don't rate figure skating the same way we rate ice dancing. And then there's there personal bias between various art forms - some people just don't like operas not matter how good they supposedly are. How then are we to take into account such personal tastes when it comes to judging movies outside of their technical merits. As for Les Miz, a lot of it is based on how the movie made me feel and think about the fictional personal and historical experiences that entered my mind.

[cinemabon]

Aye, there's the rub, Tab.

I studied film at Ohio State University in the 1970's and my film theory instructor was Mojmir Drvota. I remember him speaking of a film phenomenon "when you put red lips up on a wall, a hundred and eight feet across... then you have something!"

He, of course, referred to the opening of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." It was an eye opener for me (raised on the traditional meat and potatoes stuff from the Midwest) and a trigger or alert, if you will, for my mind to become more accepting of alternative art forms... any art form, especially when it came to film. In going on to study art, philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc while a student there and at other colleges, I began to realize that expression, especially when it came to the medium of communication (which groups all forms of visual expression) the term "art" was a fluid, constantly changing perspective and that if one was to remain true to artistic expression, I had to keep an open mind, willing to compromise and be accepting of generational change... that no one particular view of art should be more correct than other - whether it be opera or the most raunchy piece of crap nailed to canvas. Art comes from the mind of the artist and everyone has something to say.

I admire everyone who posts on this site, we select few, because we film critics have tried to maintain through the years, an open mind when it comes to the way we look at and interpret film expression. I will see, "Les Miserables"... someday. Right now, my daughter, six and half months pregnant, is bringing my first grandchild from out of town. So this might be the last post I make for a little while. But I just wanted to say, that in regards to this film, I will keep an open mind, as I have maintained throughout my life, and when I post, my opinion hopefully will reflect on the art and not on some preconceived belief.

[Chris Knipp]

cinemabon will see LEZ MIZ "some day." Meanwhile I've watched PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. This is definitely one of Pauline Kael's extreme missteps (and it's said this was one of her more famous reviews): nobody else liked the movie much, and there are reasons for that. Kael had too much self confidence. That was what made her reviews exhilarating to read, but very untrustworthy. I've never admitted that. I see it vividly now. A little surprisingly, Ebert has an excellent review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19810101/REVIEWS/101010353/1023) of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. He gets it absolutely right. Ebert gets his facts wrong sometimes and likes every movie he sees, but he totally nails the pros and cons of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN in his review. . Read it and I don't have to say anything. Ii'd just say that Chris Walken was and is an excellent tap dancer and song and dance man. There was nothing off-kilter about casting him as the sleazy lounge lizard who encounters Eileen (Bernadette Peters) in a bar and does a song and dance and strip tease, a virtuoso number. The movie is brilliant, but creepy. Arthur, Steve Martin's character, is an absolute rotter, who poses to himself and others as an innocent who falls into temptation. What a creep. And Martin can be creepy. But the idea behind PENNIES FROM HEAVEN was a bold one, and that they managed to make a $25 million musical the producers wouldn't like at all is remarkable. The production values are as Ebert says very high; check out the well-scrubbed elementary school kids all in white doing a Busby Berkeley-stye musical number beyind baby grand white pianos. All this is fascinating -- and useless and wrong.
Pennies From Heaven
BY ROGER EBERT / January 1, 1981

PENNIES FROM HEAVEN is dazzling and disappointing in equal measure. It's a musical with an idea, and ideas usually have been deadly to the musical, that most gloriously heedless of movie genres. The idea this time is that there was a great contrast between the grim reality of the Depression era, and the mindless song-and-dance of the era's favorite escapist entertainment, the musical. Well, so there was, and viva la difference.
PENNIES FROM HEAVEN illustrates its insight by setting up a brutal contrast between its dramatic scenes and its musical numbers. The story in this film is relentlessly downbeat, cruel, and occasionally twisted: A miserable marriage leads to a cheerless love affair, both based on the sexual humiliation of women. Then, just as we are primed to hurl ourselves out of the window, the characters undergo a transmogrification into inhabitants of an upbeat 1930s musical. The voices of Bing Crosby, Connee Boswell, Fred Astaire, and other Depression recording artists issue from their mouths, and they dance their way through the most dazzling production numbers since Busby Berkeley.
The movie keeps cutting back and forth between its mean-spirited narrative and the empty-headed perfection of its musical numbers until we're as dispirited as the characters. We get it: Nothing is real except pain, and anyone who dares to sing "Let's Face the Music and Dance" is sooner or later going to have to face the music. It is the structure of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN that works most fatally against the film. A few key scenes contrasting grim reality and movie escapism would have made the point, but two hours of contrast simply destroy our ability to get into the movie and enjoy it. The movie constantly shatters its own realityÑwhich is, admittedly, a daring thing for a $25 million musical to do, but in this case is not a very good idea.
Original ads placed the emphasis on the movie's musical numbers and its stars, especially sheet music salesman Steve Martin and his schoolteacher mistress, Bernadette Peters (there was less emphasis on Jessica Harper, who plays Martin's desperately hapless wife). Hollywood is always pragmatic in these matters: If the filmmakers haven't made the film the studio had in mind, the studio simply advertises the film they wish had been made. That led to some thoroughly puzzled audiences, as Martin fans lined up for a wild and crazy musical and discovered they were in a musical that wanted to subvert musicals. Some of the scenes in PENNIES FROM HEAVEN are very hard to take, especially one in which Harper pathetically tries to cater to Martin's favorite fetish, which is lipstick on the nipples; this is the most embarrassing and gratuitously cruel scene I've seen in a long time.
On the other hand, PENNIES also contains musical scenes that are wonderfully entertaining, even if the movie has a way of ending them with emotional crash landings. The choreography has been referred to as a Busby Berkeley parody, but it's not parody, it's homage, and never have I seen such well-drilled troupes of chorus girls, song-and-dance men, and even well-scrubbed little toddlers lined up at dozens of baby grand pianos.
The production values in this movie are superb, and it's great to look at, not only during the musical interludes but even in the dramatic moments. Many of the compositions are borrowed from famous paintings or photographs of the time.
The problem is, PENNIES FROM HEAVEN is all flash and style and no heart. That's the problem with the Steve Martin performance, too: He provides a technically excellent performance that does not seem to be inhabited by a person. Bernadette Peters has a winning way with the schoolteacher, all curls and sweetness and shattered hopes, but the emotional reality of the other characters is consistently undermined by the movie's lame-brained determination to interrupt each happy moment with a grim one, and vice versa, until we're emotionally shellshocked. Just imagine if the creativity, energy, work, talent, and money that went into PENNIES FROM HEAVEN had been devoted instead to a cheerful film on the same topic. Boy, would we need it now.
--Roger Ebert.

[cinemabon]

This is Roger Ebert at the height of his critical prowess. He had a well respected position at the Chicago Sun Times. Every Friday, I'd rush out to buy the edition before I decided which movie to see. On Saturdays, he and Gene Siskel had a show on PBS called "Sneak Previews" which catapulted both men into national prominence. However, they were known locally in Chicago long before they made their first appearance on the tonight show. Their friendly rivalry taught me how to respect other film critics. To this day, I regard what we do here on this site with the same reverence. Although our following is small, I cannot but like four or five continual contributors to our little piece of cinema appreciation; because I know that this love I have for film is shared. That communal experience comes with a price I am willing to pay, mutual respect and admiration.

[Chris Knipp]

Ebert "at the height of his critical prowess" indeed and it also shows his limitations, though I wouldn't fault his evaluation of PENNIES FROM HEAVEN. There is a bit more to the story, and I think this movie a rare and interesting experiment which I'm glad now to have finally seen, thirty years after Pauline Kael's (measured--she points out plenty of faults) recommendation. More light is shed on it in a piece from a book My Year of Flops by Nathin Rabin serialized in AV Club, from 2007. For one thing Rabin fills us in on some extreme ironies surrounding Dennis Potter's adaptation of his own British TV series for this film and the way MGM kept American viewers from seeing that series for a decade so it wouldn't interfere with this financially unsuccessful film. Rabin also sheds light on the intended tension between the tinny cheerfulness of the Thirties pop songs it uses and the film's dark, downbeat trajectory.
In a revelatory lead performance, Martin here plays a sheet-music salesman trapped in a loveless marriage with sour-faced scold Jessica Harper, a glowering, bible-thumping puritan who probably views even eyes-closed missionary sex between married adults as a shameful perversion punishable by an eternity of hellfire. To escape a barren home life and a career sputtering head-long into Nowheresville, Martin frequently breaks into giddy, kinetic fantasy sequences where he lip-synchs to Tin Pan Alley ditties and cavorts his way through production numbers worthy of MGM's legendary Freed Unit.

There's something disconcerting and strained about plastic smiles and speed-fueled peppiness of dancers in old musicals, a forced bonhomie that's borderline creepy. Pennies brilliantly exploits that blatantly artificial pep in queasy, disquieting ways. There's similarly something haunting and weird about the pop and crackle of ancient recordings where dead voices gather to obliviously espouse long-forgotten hopes and dreams. There's a reason creepy old records playing at unexpected intervals are a horror-film staple.This piece is referenced on IMDb's PENNIES FROM HEAVEN page. (http://www.avclub.com/articles/my-year-of-flops-case-file-59-pennies-from-heaven,10907/) Rabin begins with an ironic mockery of Fred Astaire's declaration that the 1981 movie almost made him weep because "Every scene was cheap and vulgar" and "They didn't realize that the '30s were a very innocent age." Everything that made the dubious but boldly experimental PENNIES FROM HEAVEN good eluded Astaire because his own heyday was in the original song's era and that was where his poor old heart remained, focused on his own dazzling success, not on the sufferings of the majority, Jim Crow, Sexism, and the rise of Hitler. One could watch the movie just for the musical numbers -- the dialogue is too long and too slow, as Kael pointed out; ther should be more music and less talk -- and it's worth a viewing for Christoper Walken's bar tap dance strip tease song number alone, and the elementary school class in front of tiny white grand pianos and in evening clothes. All this -- to return to topic -- puts Hooper's bludgeoning, thoughtless version of LES MISERABLES to shame because it keeps your mind awake. "I love musicals, but I also love Heaven's merciless deconstruction of the genre. It gets under my skin and haunts my psyche anew with each viewing." Rabin says. But nonetheless, and despite Kael's opening claim about how emotional the movie is, Ebert is right too: the movie is "all flash and style and no heart." What we need is something in between this and "Les Miz." Now I need to see Dennis Potter's original BBC miniseries and I'll have to see if Netflix has it. I would not be surprised if Bob Hoskins were better than Steve Marin as Arthur, and with six hours instead of two, it all might make more sense.

[cinemabon]

A musical is/was a strange genre. If you look at the early ones, as Fred Astair would have us do, you must realize they were pure escapist sojourns into flashy black and white numbers for no purpose other than to promote songs studios sold in music stores. People flocked to them (at first) and helped to establish the genre.

World War II changed all of that. It wasn't just the returning GI's who were affected by the war, but the filmmakers as well. Suddenly the idea that people break into song at the drop of a hat and in a natural setting seemed anything but natural. That's why Rogers and Hammerstein changed the musical. They did have something to say, and so the musical evolved. We came to accept his new form (very different from the Astair versions) because it spoke of racism, of slavery, of inequality, and other social problems coming into prominence. Even harmless musicals like "My Fair Lady" and "Gigi" address the differences between the poor and uneducated classes versus the wealthy and seemingly indifferent classes.

The 1960's changed it all again. My generation came along and said, this breaking into song just to be emotional is crap. If you're going to sing about something, lets hear about poverty, about specific forms of racism, about equal rights for everyone, about the environment and so on. The musicals that came of out of this period changed and offered us a far more serious view of life and the way our music fits into that and the way it is presented. When you have someone from the first era commenting on the third era, you're bound to come up with someone who is confused by the medium and the message (aka Marshall McLuhan's influence on the current writers of musicals said we had to be more inclusive - hence the rise in social consciousness and tone).

The turn of the century is seeing another change in the musical, one that has not made its way into the media spotlight but is being hinted within "Les Mis..." as the future of the musical. That is, what if actors should break into song as part of their character and part of their dialogue with the audience and those on stage. Is that an opera? And what of the satire built into "Pennies from Heaven" where you have those from the third era of musicals mocking those from the first generation in glossing over the social ills of their time with phoney words and sentiment rather than confront the issues of the day. All of these things are constructive ways of approaching our way of looking at film both in the present and films that have attempted to make those social changes no matter how resistant society was for the filmmakers to make those changes.

[Chris Knipp]

THE PROBLEMS OF HOOPER'S CAMERA IN LES MIZ
I knew a lot of reviewers criticized the camerawork, as I did, but I was surprised at the wealth of examples of negative comments on the use of zoom, the angles, everything visual about the film, really. So I thought I'd put my findings up here in the LES MISERABLES thread.

About half the critics like LES MIZ and half don't at all. Those who don't, find fault with the camerawork. Motion perception, screen size, or where you sat in the theater have nothing to do with it. Here are some examples of reviewers' references to the camerawork. I could give more, but I got tired.

Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune: "The camera bobs and weaves like a drunk, frantically. So you have hammering close-ups, combined with woozy insecurity each time more than two people are in the frame. Twenty minutes into the retelling of fugitive Valjean, his monomaniacal pursuer Javert, the torch singers Fantine and Eponine and the rest, I wanted somebody to just nail the damn camera to the ground."

David Edelstein, New York Magazine:; "When an actor begins to sing, the camera rushes in and fastens on the performer’s face, positioning itself just below the head, somewhere between the navel and the Adam’s apple—and canted from 30 to 45 degrees, although the angle changes as the performer moves and the operator scampers to keep up. I imagined the cameraman to be small, fleet, and extremely high strung, like Gollum. The actors must have had to cultivate an inner stillness to keep from recoiling from him/it. A Zen forbearance would also have kept them from grimacing at all their missed notes."

Dana Stevens, Slate: "We're all familiar with the experience of seeing movies that cram ideas and themes down our throats. Les Misérables may represent the first movie to do so while also cramming us down the throats of its actors."

Jay Gabler, Twin Cities Daily Planet: "Hooper’s approach varies little. For the confessional numbers, he brings the camera in as he did with Hathaway and lets us watch the actors’ eyes redden for the first couple of verses, then as the song rises to its climax, he cuts to a medium shot at a 45 degree angle (dynamic!) and finally gives us an ascending helicopter shot so that we can see the computer-assisted recreation of 19th century Paris. . . Except we can’t actually see it very well. Much of the movie takes place at night. . ."

Kimberly Jones, Austin Chronicle: "Shot to shot, Hooper’s vision careens between lightly grotesque hyperrealism and tinny movie artifice, wherein unplucked brows and oozing open wounds share space, if not sensibility, with digital fakery and histrionic zooms. "

Lou Llimerick, The New York Post: "It’s worth seeing the movie for Hathaway alone. . .It’s the worst of times, though, when Hooper repeatedly traps his stars in tight close-ups during the musical numbers — practically shoving the camera down the singers’ tonsils."

Justin Chang, Variety: "As it shifts from one dynamically slanted camera angle to another via Melanie Ann Oliver and Chris Dickens' busy editing, the picture seems reluctant to slow down and let the viewer simply take in the performances. That hectic, cluttered quality becomes more pronounced as the story lurches ahead to the 1832 Paris student uprisings. . ."

Tasha Robinson, AV Club: "Content with steadier, soberer camera work in The Damned United and The King’s Speech (which won him a Best Director Oscar), he repeatedly chops Les Misérables’ setpieces into disorienting fragments seen from a crazed variety of angles."

Lawrence Toppman, Charlotte Observer: "Nor does Hooper know how to shoot musical numbers. He often locks onto actors’ heads for the length of a number, pointing the camera at open mouths, until we become more familiar with Jackman’s uvula than his otolaryngologist.

Ann Hornaday, The Washington Post: "There’s little sense of dynamism or pacing, a fault both of the original score and Hooper’s unimaginative staging and camera work, which tend to underline, italicize and boldface every emotional beat."

Manohla Dargis, The New York Times: "The director Tom Hooper can be a maddening busybody behind the camera. . . .Mr. Hooper’s maximalist approach is evident the very moment the scene begins — the camera swooping, as waves and music crash — setting an overblown tone that rarely quiets. His work in this passage, from the roller-coaster moves of the cameras to the loud incidental noise that muffles the lyrics, undermines his actors and begins to push the musical from spectacle toward bloat. . . . .his inability to leave any lily ungilded — to direct a scene without tilting or hurtling or throwing the camera around — is bludgeoning and deadly. "

Eric Kohn, Indiewire: "Relying heavily on close-ups over the course of a two-and-a-half hour narrative with almost no spoken dialogue, Hooper's approach comes across as the equivalent of sitting in the front row of a stage play while the entire cast leans forward and blares each song into your eardrums."

Calum Marsh, Slant: "Fisheye lenses and poorly framed close-ups abound in Les Misérables, nearly every frame a revelation of one man's bad taste; the best that can be said of the style is that it's deliberate, which at least distinguishes it from Hooper's work to date."

Matt, Cinecritic: " Two of the the musical's biggest numbers, Lovely Ladies and Master of the House, which involve large parts of the cast, were the weakest moments of the film because of Hooper's decision to focus on single characters with a zooming camera."

[cinemabon]

Yes, yes, yes, and more yes's... I couldn't agree more. Too close, poor lenses, way too much steady-cam.

I would even add this caveat about make-up, which is a HUGE problem when you get that close. As noted in my review, the streets, clothes, and sets were dirty for realism. However, when every "star" smiled onscreen, they had perfectly straight, albiet slightly colored (Ann's) teeth. A little bit of brown does not make lousy teeth. And if you look at any portrait from the time, you will never see anyone's teeth because in nearly every case, they didn't have any! On her deathbed, Ann turns toward the delusion and makes this big wide grin! OY VAY! Beautiful teeth! Lousy direction! Even the "elderly" Jackman, whose gray afro does not aging makeup make, had great teeth for being so old... and no change in his jaw! (His jowls would be sunken)

You want us to suspend disbelief by making the film so real... but then you subject us to these detractors and I just have to sigh and say... another adaptation goes bust... sigh

[tabuno]

The balance between a musical fusion of epic period drama is one that breaks new cinematic ground. Chicago (2002) brought to life a nearly schizophrenic depiction between the drama and musical scenes while Moulin Rouge (2001) brought the two together in a more musical fashion. Here in Les Miz, there presentation between music and the drama is far less clear and distinctive and the balance is much more subtle. Authenticity in depiction of reality isn't necessarily the best way to present musical material since by its very nature, singing is not the generally acceptance manner of communication in every day life. In fact one would more likely experience singers who are styled and with make up...so in filming such a scene, the bright lines between having an actor appear natural and a singing actor appearing as the audience is usually accustomed to in real life is a fascinating directorial decision. Personally, I felt that Tom Hooper captured this new blended distinction with finesse.

[cinemabon]

Saying that something is a new technique and applying it to your work in the hopes of starting a new trend has been tried many times before "Les Miz." The truth is that many directors have tried differing techniques when it comes to filming a musical in the hopes that these variations will somehow breathe new life into the old horse. The truth is that the public wants music videos and not musicals that are feature film in length. Modern audiences get bored. It's one thing to have the characters break into song as a satire or for amusement ("Something about Mary" did this to hilarious effect). It is another thing to subject an audience to nearly three hours of non-stop singing. Audiences who have grown used to music shorts on television don't do well when an "opera" is thrust upon them. Look at "Les Miz" box office. It peaked for two days before it fell like a rock. Did it make money? I would presume it did as a result of world wide take (most corporate enterprises do because of international support). When the bottom line is considered to fund future projects along these lines, you'll find that Hooper's experiment will not be a trend setter.

[tabuno]

Les Mis (2012) will more than double its production costs from box office receipts from the United States alone. Personally, I believe that the movie version has found a significant if not spectacular niche in the American market and whether or not this new fusion-hybrid of an epic period romance, drama using musical lyrics will find a permanent place in the American cinematic market I don't know.

(current box office amounts)

$167.1 million - Lincoln
$146.3 million - Django Unchained
$137.2 million - Les Miserables
$117.6 million - Argo
$103.5 million - Life of Pi
$ 69.9 million - Zero Dark Thirty
$ 69.5 million - Silver Linings Playbook
$ 11.2 million - Beasts of the Southern Wild
1.8 million - Amour

Les Miz compared to the other traditional major contemporary musicals has fallen into a marketable range,

$ 57.3 million - Moulin Rouge (2001)
$170.7 million - Chicago (2002)
$144.1 million - Mamma Mia! (2008)

While I find that cinemabon's comments about American tastes for musical film seem to capture the description and box office result of the other more traditional musical that came out last year.

$38.5 million - Rock of Ages (2012).

Only time will tell as movies with a primary emphasis using music aren't an art form used by very many in the film industry.

[cinemabon]

Sound of Music is the all time box office winner for musicals (when adjusted for inflation) selling more tickets both domestic and world wide than any musical in history

[tabuno]

I have found that each generation in general seem to become trapped in their own time period when it comes to music and radio stations seem to follow that consumer demand. I suspect that with the public the same may be true of movies and what was captivating for one generations in many cases doesn't carry forth to the next generation.

When I first saw Sound of Music, I was awe by its epic, 70-millimeter, triple screen presentation. I was a little kid. This movie event was an adventure like going to Disneyland.

Yet now this movie over time, the acting and performances seem more staged, more traditional in its display of method acting perhaps...though not as distinctively rigid as film studio movie of the 50s. Yet it's hard to forget the memorable songs I grew up with and can easily continue resounding in one's mind. Perhaps its the staging and location shooting that seems to jar the sense now. Perhaps, its just that the Sound of Music seems so juvenile and tame, even though the inference of Nazi horror's lay beneath the tranquil surface of the movie. Somehow the movie now is a facade over the more harsh suffering of Les Miz which brings to the surface the real mental and physical injuries sustained in the revolution and poverty and allows a more direct connective emotive charge to the more sweeping, usually superficial syrupy sweetness of the Sound of Music. I would suspect that West Side Story (1961), the first movie directed by a dancing choreography made an even more stylized impact.

[cinemabon]

The idea that New York gangs would dance in tight pants and hurtle insults at one another without so much as single "cut" not only seems silly but extremely staged. However, so much of "Les Miz" is far from realistic. The barricades appear more like a set than a street. The sleezy inn is definitely over-the-top and the makeup cartoonish. The Nazis in "The Sound of Music" are more caricatures of archetypes not anything close to reality. Nuns do not sing. Gangs do not dance. Captains of the Army do not walk along the edges of buildings and spout philosophical nonsense into the night. A musical is a stylized thing. While acting styles do change, the successful formula for a good musical does not. Whereas the number of failures is almost equal in number to those musical films that are a success.

[tabuno]

Appreciate the musical movie framework which underlies this genre.

My use of the word authentic when it refers to Les Miz, which I still do not feel is a pure form of the musical, focuses on the emotive expression of these less than stellar operatic performers. The live singing which I feel is more real than lip sync-ing seems more connected and real, perhaps smilar to the distinction between animation and live action performances. Russell Crowe's performance felt like a human singing well as a character in this movie rather than as a singer in this movie. Hathaway's performance seemed to offer up more authentic human emotions rather than stylized, dance and song characterization of human emotions. Much of this movie was more acting in a movie instead of musical stage craft. There are definitely moments where the musical format was staged for the purpose of enhancing and helping to connect to audience to the lyrics, especially in the inn scene.

[cinemabon]

Your overuse of the superlative "more" still does not define what you mean by it. While your enthusiasm for the film is evident, your support of its techniques has not justified their use. How did the staging help connect to audiences? If by acting, did you mean the level of performance during the song or in scene that did not require singing? I find your argument unsubstantiated by your claims. If I stand and screech out a tune, does that make my presentation "more" dramatic than if I sing it in tune with a good voice? If I sing a song on set out of key does that make it "more" real than if I sang the song in a studio that presented the music in a polished way? This is a musical we're talking about, not some documentary. If you want realism, you're in the wrong catagory.

[tabuno]

If cinemabon's insistence that Les Miz (the 2012 movie) is a musical and if we both could agree on this fact, then he would be correct on insisting on the best musical criteria used for musicals in a movie and as such the quality of the singing, such as Russell Crowe would definitely makes this movie less than stellar and excellent. But cinemabon and I differ on this fact and I prefer to believe that this movie is a period movie that uses music and song to enhance the film-going experience. cinemabon has likened my use of the word "authentic" in regards to Les Miz to be synonymous with a "documentary" which I state is not my meaning that I am using here. Instead, my use of "authentic" with regards to Les Miz means the audience is experiencing in people like Russell Crowe and Ann Hathaway real people who aren't professional singers as their recognized profession but who are professional actors who are good singers nevertheless compared to most film-goers. The audience is thus offered a film experience where we can relate to these characters more aligned with our own abilities to singing and thus not have the distraction that such performances are so much qualitatively superior to our own that it becomes oddly enough as distraction from the tone of the movie as a period movie, not musical. Nevertheless these actors are able to present in moving and intelligible ways through their singing that connects to the human thoughts and emotions in enhancing the movie experience on a level that is superlative in my opinion. On the other hand, adherence to rigid musical movie criteria as can unfortunately filter the movie experience and leave one missing out on the more subtle, underlying performance. Perhaps that is what happens when it comes to figure skating and dancing judging between professional and lay audience members (the audience may be fortunately naively blind to the detailed analytically failings of a performance and just enjoy the show).

[cinemabon]

I will accept your premise that "Les Miz" is a variant, in as much as I accept a mule is a variant of a horse - that does not impune excellence, merely variety.

[Chris Knipp]

I like the comparison, which suggests "Les Miz" is a variant in the sense that a mule is a variant of a horse but hardly an improvement, anything but a thoroughbred. But I can't find a meaning of "impune" or "impugn" that fits here. Don't you simply mean "imply"?

[Johann]

I wonder if Hugo envisioned homosexuals claiming exclusive rights on his written work, if that was in the plan.
Gays have commandeered Les Misersables as their own private plaything.
Can you explain why that is, Chris?
I think it was meant for the WORLD, no?
It's for everybody. Rocky Horror they can have, but Les Miserables is for EVERYBODY.
Tell Adam Lambert.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, Johann, I think you may be overstating the case, for a change :). But the thing is widely popular, so it's pretty simple. It's not surprising different groups would latch onto it, despite what some have called (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-we-love-les-miserables-despite-its-miserable-gender-stereotypes/2012/12/28/bc8ef17e-4f84-11e2-839d-d54cc6e49b63_story_1.html) its "miserable gender stereotypes." Here's a site or page that discusses the issue you bring up, of whether gays particularly like Les Miz.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/LesMiserables

The logical path would be:

1. A lot of gay men love musicals.
2. Les Miz is a musical.
3. A lot of people love Les Miz.
4. Ergo, a lot of gays love Les Miz.

As for "commandeering" it "as their own private plaything," that's not strictly speaking possible, since it's very public property, and all sorts of people love it, "play" with it in the sense of talking about it, identifying with it, and re-watching it. Sure, though, minority groups or cliques can co-opt a popular fiction or movie. Likewise all sorts of people, me and cinemabon, for instance, who aren't exactly alike, also do not like it. And cinemabon really dislikes it because he loves musicals, and knows a lot about them. Not that we'd want to "commandeer" it, except insofar as we all seem to have commandeered it as our own private plaything on this thread, by discussing it to death. Are you dead yet, Les Miz? Unfortunately I don't think so. . .

By the way, as a joke I think it was Anthony Lane (who definitely didn't like Les Miz and makes sly fun of it in his review) who joked that the way Javert followed Jean Valjean around so long, they must have had a man to man romance going on.

[cinemabon]

I think that's an old fashioned stereotype (speaking of generational) by saying that only gay men like musicals. With the arrival of the metrosexual, you can enjoy boxing and the theater at the same time (they're all part of the city) without being labeled gay (or even effeminate). Look at the men starring on Broadway today and you'll find very masculine men performing in roles that years ago would have been filled by less manly shoes. I probably did mean "imply" although "impune" is a nice word (apply with impunity).

You'd have to go back to the days of Judy Garland and Bette Midler to find "mostly gay" audiences in Broadway theaters. Today, New York is a melting pot with a constant influx of tourists and locals vying for those few tickets available during any day of the week. Even after Sandy, some shows were still sold out.

If you're looking for gay men, Johann, try Craig's List; or so I've heard.

[Chris Knipp]

It is indeed an old stereotype but it's not that "only gay men like musicals," it's that gay men like musicals. This wasn't what Johann was saying. He was saying that gay men had alppropriated "Les Miz." Obviously it is beloved of millions of all persuasions. There was no "only" mentioned here.

[Johann]

Hey, overstatement WORKS. :D

I'm just trying to keep everybody on top of things. I have nothing to add to your brilliant reply Chris. You said it all there.

[Johann]

I haven't seen the movie yet but I have taken note of the "busy" camerawork and all of the criticisms this one has had hurled at it.
The main thing I'm concerned with is how a movie like this generates further interest in the source book.

When you are adapting a Classic to the big screen you have certain obligations to the spirit of the thing.
Did Tom Hooper maintain obligation to the source material? If so, then everybody should clam up about the technique.
Did the technique destroy the integrity of the story? was the story sufficiently portrayed to make people go out and buy a new edition of Victor Hugo?

That's all that matters.
Lord of the Rings pulled it off, despite my own *minor* qualms with it's cinematic technique.
How many more copies of Tolkien has Peter Jackson moved? A LOT.

[cinemabon]

Yes, Chris is brilliant. Isn't he?

[Chris Knipp]

Please stop. It's more perspiration than inspiration.

[cinemabon]

Is that what smells on this blog?

[Chris Knipp]

Or is it the rotting corpse of poor, bloated, bullet-riddled LES MIZ?

[Johann]

Ha ha

Yep. It's the corpse of Les Miz. 4 pages? On this movie? Really?

[tabuno]

One of the wonders of human experience is the breathtaking natural and awesome beauty of the Grand Canyon. And it with the mule not a horse that such beauty and awesome experiences can be obtained. It is the mule upon which people ride upon not a horse when they proceed with amazing grace to travel down the paths of the Grand Canyon. Thus as with Le Miz, I will be content to ride the mule along with the movie while others proceed to prance upon their sterling horses and their movies.

[cinemabon]

I take it you've never ridden a mule. The experience is something less than desirable. The Grand Canyon is beautiful. Mules are not. And I take it you've never been to Churchill Downs. That experience will take your breath away. Try taking in an afternoon at Santa Anita and you'll know why the likes of just about every actor and actress in Hollywood history hung out there.

[Chris Knipp]

If LES MIZ gets you down the Grand Canyon and back (I've done that), more power to you. I grew up in horse country (Maryland), and my father followed the races. We also saw point-to-point races with steeple chasing.

[tabuno]

cinemabon's comment about reruns on television of Chorus Line made me smile because I forced myself to try to watch it on television after a number of years of avoiding it...and I managed to get "hopefully" a few scenes into it before I just had to stop before I threw the television away. It was just sad. I wish I could get a copy of a video of the stage Broadway stage production.

[Johann]

Mules? The Grand Canyon? horse racing?
Nobody has any thoughts on camels, Mount Kiliomanjaro or raising peacocks?

Or how about the fine art of potato picking? squashing potato bugs and eating fresh peas right out of the pod?
Can we discuss the various types of foot powders out there? Exotic perfumes?
How about hemp?
I also have a hankering for Jelly Belly jelly beans, They have MANY flavors. You can mix and match at Sugar Mountain....
Roasted Marshmallow and Buttered Popcorn are just two of the cornocopias that will delight your tastebuds...

[Chris Knipp]

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels
Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings
These are a few of my favorite things

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes
Silver white winters that melt into springs
These are a few of my favorite things

When the dog bites
When the bee stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember my favorite things
And then I don't feel so bad

[Repeat all verses]

Or not.

[Johann]

:)

Feels like Christmas.

[cinemabon]

All of this allegory is making my head spin

"That's not smart, Maria, not too smart!" (another musical)

[cinemabon]

AT LAST! A version of "Les Miserables" I can like! Here the Korean Air Men, actually doing all the singing and the Korean Air Force band performing the music in this parody of "Les Mis"!!! It's the hottest video on the internet right now receiving over a million hits in the last two days!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZunEARBb6I

[Chris Knipp]

Another Korean viral video! This is certainly cute and they're better looking and better singers than the people in Hooper's movie. I'd say it's a takeoff rather than a parody. Hooper's "Les Miz" is so close to parody itself it'd be hard to parody it.

Lipsynched, of course.