Thoughts on Les Mis

Ok. Let's talk about Les Mis. The musical itself has received plenty of praise and criticism over the years (I daresay it has more fans than critics, though). Most of the negative reviews (of both the show in general and the movie version) throw around the word "bombastic," which, if you didn't know, essentially means "inflated" or "overblown." In other words: it's just too over-the-top. And I can see that, in a way. But isn't that sort of what musicals do? I mean, when I think of musicals, the word "subtlety" rarely comes to mind. And yet for some reason, everyone expects so-called "high art" to be subtle. I say there's a fine line between being subtle and being so abstract that nobody really gets the point. I guess what I'm saying is: I don't mind having the point thrown shamelessly in my face. And that's exactly what Les Mis does.

Les Misérables (sometimes translated "the wretched," "the poor," or "the victims") is a story about suffering, oppression and hope, with an overarching theme of redemption. Director Tom Hooper set out to do something a little different with his film adaptation by recording his actors singing live on the set, rather than lip-syncing to a studio recording. It may not seem like it, but that's actually a really big deal. It gave the actors an opportunity to marry the free, impromptu nature of acting with the bare, vulnerable act of singing. Every musical decision they made: every pause, crescendo and ritardando was made right before your eyes, not in a studio somewhere prior to filming. Hooper wanted the music to be "raw" and "unsweetened," and it was, to great effect. Each actor wore two microphones, one on each side of their head. Those microphones had to be digitally painted out of every. single. frame. To which I say: holy SMOKES.

Source of photo: digitalspy

If you've seen the film, or even heard anything about it, you probably know that Anne Hathaway absolutely stole the show. Her performance proved Tom Hooper's technique could be successful in every way, and I'll never be able to hear "I Dreamed a Dream" again without picturing her agonized face. Everyone's been criticizing Russell Crowe (or the people that cast him), but I thought he did a fine job as Javert. His singing was imperfect in technique, but that made his character seem all the more real to me. And if I was Russell's voice teacher, I would tell him that he has some gorgeous stuff going on in his lower range. There's definitely potential there. I thought his acting was fine too. I think that everyone else was emoting so much that it made his performance seem understated in comparison; however, I really felt for his character in the end and in my mind, that's a job well done.

From a Christian standpoint, Crowe's character, Javert, is a lot like the Pharisees in the New Testament. He sincerely believes that he is doing the Lord's work by trying to punish Jean Valjean for his transgressions, but in all his zeal for God's justice he has no room in his religion for God's forgiveness (especially when it was clear that Valjean had repented and changed). And unfortunately for Javert, Christianity without forgiveness is not Christianity at all. The story also touches on this important truth: that man can change, but not apart from God.

Check out this featurette that was released a few months before the movie...it focuses on the live singing aspect of the film:

And then go see the movie, if you haven't. It's great. Bring tissues (not gonna lie, I feel like I cried for the entire second half of the movie). :)