I have such mixed feelings on this one. I loved parts and I really disliked parts. I had never seen this musical in any form before, so I'm not sure how much of that is the musical and how much is the adaptation. For instance, I thought that a lot of the story was very jerky and disjointed. In middle or high school I had read an abridged version of the novel, and I remember there being a lot more to it than was found in the musical. I remember there being more Fantine, more of young Cosette, more of Marius and his buddies, more to Jean Valjean's story and his relationship to Javert... just more everything! In fact, a quick glance at Wikipedia tells me I'm not wrong: "the novel elaborates upon the history of France, the architecture and urban design of Paris, politics, moral philosophy, antimonarchism, justice, religion, and the types and nature of romantic and familial love." So clearly the point of the story suffered in the condensing process and made the historical parts of the plot harder to follow.
Anyway, to the music. I really enjoyed the big "group" numbers, "Look Down," "ABC Café / Red and Black," "One Day More," and "Do You Hear the People Sing?" I liked the Thénardiers' "Master of the House" for similar reasons, but I didn't like the Thénardiers at all. I don't know if they were solely for comic relief for a musical with a very serious subject or if Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen were just too over the top (somehow I think it's the latter), but they were just too distracting. I also thought a lot of the individual numbers were overdone, as if they were trying to perform on stage and project the emotion, forgetting that the audience is much more immediate in film. They had the right idea, but it was just too much. For instance, Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" and Valjean's "Valjean's Soliloquy." However, I was absolutely enchanted by young Cosette's "Castle on a Cloud" and thought Éponine's "On My Own" and Marius's "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables" were beautifully done. (Although I must say, despite my love for Eddie Redmayne, I thought a little bit of that song was out of his range. Either that or his voice cracks way too much when he is crying and singing!) In general, I thought Éponine, Marius, young Cosette, and the ABCs were the big standouts in this film. Lastly, I was very underwhelmed with both Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe's singing abilities. Jackman wasn't terrible, but I think he would be much better with more chipper-sounding music. Crowe just didn't enunciate or emote much at all, which made his multitude of songs very jarring (despite some seemingly beautiful lyrics about the stars especially).
Of course visually it was stunning: sets, costumes, makeup, hair. The main exceptions were the Thénardiers (who just stood out too much visually as well) and the prostitutes who Fantine takes up with (they were garish, as they should have been, but something about them was too much as well). My friend informs me that the role of the priest was played by the "original" Jean Valjean, so that was cool too.
Now I've downloaded the soundtrack so I can start listening and memorizing the words, which will help me get a better feel before I watch it again. I also think I may need to read the book (unabridged this time), because it really is a fantastic tale and I know there's so much more to it.
Rating: 3.5
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Diary of a Lost Girl (1929, Germany)
My cousin and I were talking about how we both wanted to see a Louise Brooks movie, so we ended up watching this one together. It was truly fascinating how risqué a pre-Hays code film could be. There was a man with many mistresses, a young girl seduced by an older man, out of wedlock pregnancy and subsequent adoption, a girls' reformatory with questionable ownership, prostitution... I mean, wow. Melodrama!
For the most part, the film was easy to follow, though some parts I had to look up later to see what exactly had happened. I don't know how much of that was my not being used to watching silent film and how much was a lack of clarity on the part of the filmmaker. Still, as I said it was mostly understandable, and rather engaging as well. It was a bit too melodramatic for my taste, but it was clearly a product of the times. I supposed to main reason to watch it today (or in 1929 for that matter) is to soak in the performance of Louise Brooks. Her big innocent eyes just capture the viewer. It's hard to tear yourself away.
Just fascinating!
Rating: 3.5
For the most part, the film was easy to follow, though some parts I had to look up later to see what exactly had happened. I don't know how much of that was my not being used to watching silent film and how much was a lack of clarity on the part of the filmmaker. Still, as I said it was mostly understandable, and rather engaging as well. It was a bit too melodramatic for my taste, but it was clearly a product of the times. I supposed to main reason to watch it today (or in 1929 for that matter) is to soak in the performance of Louise Brooks. Her big innocent eyes just capture the viewer. It's hard to tear yourself away.
Just fascinating!
Rating: 3.5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)