Les Misérables, the movie—my thoughts

So, I just saw Les Mistoday. And yes, I’m gonna complain and bitch about stuff I didn’t like. I’ll try to mention some things I did like too.

My first reaction is about the piece—the score and lyrics and “script”. The songs are really great. The recitative-like bits aren’t so great. They just don’t feel natural. Am I wrong in thinking there’s a lot of “new” stuff added in? I’m somewhat familiar with the show, but I don’t KNOW it, the way I know shows that I’ve done. But there were a lot of little bits here and there which I didn’t recognize and which were kind of clunky and awkward, much like the “recitative”.

I had issues with several little bits of “dialogue” which seemed like ad libs. Maybe they aren’t. As I said, I’m not intimately familiar with the show, but that’s how they seemed to me. I’m not opposed to ad libsas a concept, but these spots I’m thinking of didn’t seem necessary, nor particularly great—they didn’t make it better, in my opinion, or convey anything that would otherwise be missing, so why not leave them out?

Also, I had some with the voices. Generally, I thought everyone “acted the songs” well without adding on a lot of stuff that didn't come from the text, etc. Everyone, that it, except Javert and adult Cosette, both of whom I found boring. But that may be an issue with the writing. Also, frankly, I felt that some of Anne Hathaway’s Fantine was a bit histrionic.

This is another writing issue: except for Valjean, I don’t feel that there’s really much to know about the characters, so I don’t care about them. And I think I’m expected to care about them pretty quickly as soon as we meet them.

So, about the singers...

I just hated Javert's voice most of the time. It was awkward and not natural. I think it's a technical issue with the placement. And, to me, it seemed Russell Crowe wasn't at ease with singing.

Hugh Jackman. He seemed very comfortable with singing. And that was great. He did a great job of “acting the songs”. And his last scene, at the very end, did move me to tears. (Not outright bawling or anything. Come on, this is me.) However, I thought his placement was strange maybe half of the time. Toward the end of the movie (3/4s through it) it occurred to me that maybe the role is just too high for him. Not that he can't sing those notes, but it sits fairly high much of the time. I found myself thinking he might’ve made a better Javert, certainly better than Russell Crowe. (I also found myself thinking that he was so strong because of the adamantium laced-bones.)

Eddie Redmayne as Marius. I thought his voice sounded good, but that shaky jaw tension thing was annoying to watch.  Really annoying.

When the Thénardiers appeared, I just thought, “Ug”. Weren’t they satisfied with their roles in Sweeney Todd? I just was not that crazy about either Sacha Baron Cohen or Helena Bonham Carter. They were alright, but I just saw them and not the characters.

When Amanda Seyfried sang (Cosette) I kept wondering if that was a real voice or some computer-adjusted thing. Especially when it went high. It was odd, maybe a bit like a boy soprano or something.

Anne Hathaway sang well, but as I said it was a bit much at times.

I think that covers all the famous people, right? All the “stars”. Everyone who I didn’t recognize, the non-stars, was great. Aaron Tveit as Enjolras (the “leader” of the revolutionaries—I had to look up both the actor and character names) was great. I actually thought he should’ve played Marius. Daniel Huttlestone as Gavroche (the little boy revolutionary) was wonderful. Samantha Barks was fine as Éponine, although I did find the character uninteresting.

I thought that the bishop was really excellent. It’s not a big role (yes, there ARE small roles), but he was great. Ohhh...No wonder. I just looked it up, and he was played by Colm Wilkinson. Colm Wilkinson was the original London and Broadway Valjean, as well as various other stage musical roles.

A general note concerning the accuracy of musical performances in this film. I fear that this film may piss off various music directors and music teachers and accompanists for several years to come. Because there seemed to me to be a hell of a lot of inaccurate rhythms and pitches, and rushing. (“Rushing” means going faster than you’re supposed to so that you get ahead of the beat.)  And now that it’s recorded in this way, it’s set, tons of singers and actors will learn it that way.

(This is part of a general gripe of mine about how many actors learn music—by only using a recording when they apparently don’t have the ability to decide if that’s the way it’s supposed to be. In fact, I know an actor/singer who used to think that since people went to so much trouble to make a recoding, often with the composer involved, that it must be the way it’s supposed to be. Not true. A recording, like any production, usually involves compromises. You loved this one take, except there was that one spot which was a little off. Or, you love how this actor performs this role, except they have trouble with the range or maybe have trouble with learning tricky rhythms or whatever. You make compromises. Anyway...)

Okay...what else?

The sets and costumes were great, although, I didn’t like the Thénardiers costumes. They just seemed a bit...I don’t know, not ridiculous, but they sort of took me out of the story. Look, comic relief is great and absolutely useful in a drama. But to me, they were too much. Sorry, this isn’t about their costumes so much as about their performances.

The women in the factory and “Lovely Ladies” scenes I found kind of annoying, and the choreography in the factory seemed contrived to me. Like suddenly they were doing a number. And that generally was not the feel of the rest of the movie (except “Master of the House”...again, the Thénardiers). And the “Lovely Ladies” scene seemed almost an odd, stylized thing unlike the rest of the movie.

I liked how the opening just began, no Overture, no bumbling around, just start. I did not like the long (CGI?) camera shot from far away and above. I similarly did not like the couple of shots at the end of songs (“Stars” and “Bring Him Home” I think) that pulled up and away from the singer, both visually and aurally, so that the last note, the last word, didn’t end, but faded instead. The first time that happened I laughed out loud. And the couple of times Javert was pacing somewhere up high above the rest of the city seemed strange to me.

There was one shot I though odd—with young Cosette and Madame Thénardier. It was where Cosette was hiding behind a wall, and you saw only her eyes and mouth, alternating with Madame Thénardier’s hair and eyes and nose, but not her mouth. That image of Cosette was a really great, striking image, but it just struck me as odd within the film—I don’t recall there being other such striking images.

There were a lot of shots that seemed off-center a bit—almost more diagonal than horizontal. I feel certain that those were done on purpose, but I don’t know why. They just made me feel a little dizzy. And there was a lot of cutting back and forth between 2 or more shots in solo songs, which was also a bit dizzying. I would’ve appreciated more shots where the camera was set in one spot or moving in a longer shot with the singer.

Re: Javert’s suicide—it was so incredibly obvious to me from before his last song even started what he was going to do. There was no working it out, no questioning, nothing like that. Just a long, drawn out “I’m confused and I can’t live like that, so I’m gonna do it. I’m not even trying to convince myself or justify it. I just have to get through this hurdle of a song and then I’m done.” So, the whole time I was just sitting there thinking, “Yeah, do it. Now. Don’t make me suffer through any more of your dreadful singing. Do it.”

Wow, that sounds kind of callous. But, in my defense, from the beginning of the movie I found his voice annoying and I didn’t care about his character at all. So what else was I supposed to feel about that song?

Okay. Well...I’m not sure what more there is to say. Obviously these things are a matter of taste and opinion, like much of what I’ve mentioned here. Then again, it is me writing my reaction to the film. I’m certainly open to questions or responses. 

LOTR, the ending(s)

Ya know, some movies and stories just don’t have much of an ending—no denouement, just climax-and-we’re-done, like a dude who falls asleep the moment he’s done having sex. But that’s okay; The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a few to spare.

(A.k.a, so, the Ring of Power is destroyed, the dark army is defeated, and Frodo and Sam are saved by giant birds. Movie’s done, right? Nope.)

1. Frodo wakes up (in Rivendale?) and sees all his friends., a.k.a. The Wizard of Oz ending.

2. Aragorn is crowned King, everyone appluads, he gives a pretty speech, and he gets to make out with his girlfriend, a.k.a, the “It’s good to be the king” ending.

3. Frodo narrates that the Hobbits made it back home, a.k.a., the “all’s well that ends well” ending.

4. Samwise finally chats up the hot Hobbit chick from early in the first movie, cut to their wedding day, and all the Hobbits are happy, a.k.a., the traditional-comedy-ends-with-a-marriage ending(?).

5. Frodo narrates some more, writes in Bilbo’s/his book while melancholy music plays, complains to Samwise about his wound, narrates some more and accompanies decrepit Bilbo to the Elves ship, then Bilbo gets to make a last funny comment about the Ring, a.k.a., the sad but cute ending.

6. Gandalf gives a goodbye speech, a.k.a., the wise old dude ending.

7. Frodo leaves with the Elves (along with Gandalf and Bilbo) after a tearful goodbye to the other Hobbits, a.k.a., the actual sad ending, OR the long, drawn-out ending.

8. Samwise goes back home to the Shire (hot Hobbit wife and Hobbit kids), while Frodo narrates some more about life and the future, a.k.a., the actual ending, OR the unnecessary ending unless there’s gonna be a sequel—perhaps called Hobbits the Next Generation, or maybe Son of Sam...wise.

Survivors

I just finished reading Survivorsby James Wesley, Rawles. Yes, that’s his name: James Wesley Comma Rawles. He’s a former-military, conservative Christian, survivalist blogger/author/consultant.

It was very disappointing. I bought this book mainly because I liked the cover-art and the description suggested a slightly different story than what I got.

It kept me reading, because from the beginning there was a sense that something big and awful, perhaps awesome, was going to happen. It took a long time setting it up, which only increased the tension. But the closer I got to the end, the less I liked it. There was never a pay-off—no truly big, exciting episode, and no real ending. Also close to the end, the author introduces new characters that seemed as though they should’ve been someone we met before, and there was a several-page episode with new characters in a new location that never reappeared nor had anything to do with any other characters.

There was one character who at the beginning was a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan and who worked his way back home. Along the way he kept encountering people who spoke pretty-good English. So that was a big help. Plus all the gold and silver coins he happened to have hidden away.

Basically this book was just a description of how several (presumably fictional) characters and their families survived an economic collapse—mostly because they were prepared ahead of time with a lot of guns and ammunition, as well as gold and silver coins stored up in readiness for such a collapse. It included a lot of description of guns and other equipment. Also prayer and Bible verses, but certainly nothing that really indicated “God” actually exists or was listening or helping them out. 

I think it was shelved in the sci-fi/fantasy section of some bookstore. But it should’ve been in the Christian fiction section, if there was one. 

Let the airing of grievances begin!

Ya know, I wonder about the seeming increase in the length of the Christmas/Holiday Season...apart from the horrid consumerism aspect, which I think on a lot.

Already? Ug.

Perhaps as time goes on in this failed way of life* we have, there’s more and more of a need for some big escape from it all. Like the stakes are getting higher. Like it’s more and more vital to make “the holidays” more and more meaningful. And it’s all to distract us from how generally unfulfilling our lives are—our way of life.

* You know—this civilization of totalitarian agriculture/we control the world and it

needs our control/everyone has to live like us because it’s the one right way to live... etc.

I don’t know if this holiday escape is something that we the people unconsciously perceive the need for, or if it’s perpetuated by the mechanisms continuing our way of life, i.e., those selling us all the shit, etc. Probably it’s bi-partisan effort.  

Dear country...

Dear country,

Now that the election is done, can we please start dealing with the uncomfortable truth that we are destroying the planet? It’s not just us, here in the United States, but we’re definitely a huge part of it.

See, it’s the way we’ve been living and consuming all kinds of stuff—stuff that doesn’t really make us happy, stuff that often makes us less happy, but stuff that certainly makes the planet less happy.

We’ve built cities that require mechanical transportation to get around, and we burn oil to get from place to place.

We make and purchase and use cheaply made products—often not easily recyclable—which fall apart or become “obsolete” when the new version comes out a few years later. So we toss it. We throw it in a bin, put it out on the road where it’s conveniently picked up weekly by a loud, stinky truck.

Meanwhile, our rich people keep getting trickle-up richer, and many of the rest of us keep believing that if we stay in this broken system of ours, we’ll eventually win and be rich ourselves.

We don’t have to be this way. But the thing is, before we can start to make a change, we have to admit that there is a problem. We have to look at ourselves and recognize and say, “Hey this isn’t good, this isn’t healthy, this isn’t sustainable. We have to stop this madness if our children and grandchildren, perhaps even we ourselves, are going to be able to survive on this planet.”

Then we need to make some serious changes. And it would really, really help matters if we had leaders who could admit this stuff to themselves and to us. Leaders who would stop focusing on the election cycle and start doing some real work for the people.

Either that, or somebody needs to invent some magical sci-fi tech and find some other planet where we can relocate. And then we’ll start in raping that planet too. 

Do not vote for this man.

Here’s something I’ve been mulling over for a while.

I have a hard time imagining ever voting for Mitt Romney. 

I find him to be untrustworthy. I’ve had this feeling about him for maybe a year or two. How long has he been running for president?

It’s not just the “flip-flop” on positions. And it’s not just the “lying” or offering misleading information. It’s more basic than that. The man seems disingenuous. He does not seem honest or true or upright. When I watch him speak, I feel that he isn’t being true to himself. I don’t believe him, because he doesn’t seem to believe himself. He doesn’t seem to be himself, he doesn’t ever seem comfortable.

It’s like he’s not just being there, in the moment, speaking, like a person does. It’s more like he’s watching himself and reacting to himself and controlling himself based on what he sees himself doing. I find that disturbing.

And I’m surprised that I haven’t heard this from anyone else. I suppose this is what other people have referred to as Romney’s robotic quality. But I don’t think of it as a robot thing. It’s more of a lack of comfort with one’s self. I’ve known other people like that, and I find them disturbing.

Even if I were a conservative—which is just impossible to imagine—I think I would feel the same way about him. Of course, maybe if I were a conservative I wouldn’t care about that kind of stuff. Maybe the party platform, etc., would be more important. I don’t know. I really have a hard time understanding conservatives. It’s like crazy-talk to me.

Spoiler alert!!! ...2

I’m watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It’s on HBO, which I have here at the beach.

When Scabbers, the rat, turns into Peter Pettigrew, he’s wearing clothes. 

Okay, fine. It’s magic. The clothes he was wearing when he last turned are still with him.

Also, it’s a kids’ story/movie.

I can accept that.

Except that several minutes later, when he turns back into a rat, he shrinks out of his clothes and leaves them behind.

So which is it? I vote for nudity. It makes sense.