a few thoughts abou Les Miserables

Because Jessica asked!

I won't try to make this sound all film theory formal--reminding myself this is not an academic arena but just me sharing thoughts with my homies. ; ) My critical theories about the most recent Les Mis movie are so far just in defense of the casting, and in wonderment of the overall God arc. 

I heard a LOT of people slamming the performance of Russell Crowe because he did not show a dynamic acting range and they felt his voice was not good enough for the role. These accusations are both true.  And yet, I believe they are a sign of how well he was cast, not how poorly. The limited nature of both his singing and acting in this movie perfectly reflect the narrow and rigid nature of his character Javert. The script is clearly portraying him this way--the depictions of him on high precipices, his lines about balancing on the edge of a knife.  Javert is literally unwavering in his black and white views of crime and justice, and a voice without vibrato perfectly expresses that.

I also felt the epic nature of the story/movie made people want grand acting gestures from all those involved--which most of the actors, esp. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, delivered, and appropriately so.  But I think Crowe actually did an excellent job internalizing his character, and people were not looking carefully enough at the small and subtle acting choices he made throughout the film that were brilliant characterization. Javert is a man who cuts off emotion, who gives himself over to the Law and the way of legal Right at the sacrifice of his own feelings--of his own personhood.  He says he is the law.  So there would not be much to see on the outside of this character--the struggle to reconcile his identity as Law with Valjean's belief in Grace would be on the inside, a struggle better portrayed through the lyrics of his songs than the expressiveness of his acting. 

In fact, in making his character dispassionate, ultra-controlled, hardened, he is the perfect foil to Anne Hathaway's character Fantine (not Valjean, as we might expect). She was born to a wealthy family, but because of young, foolish love ended up literally in the gutter.  Emotional vulnerability and open-heartedness leads to her demise. Javert admits he was born in prison, and has worked his whole life to rise up in the world.  Emotional disconnect with others and legalistic definitions of worth, truth, right he believes will lead him to victory over his past. 

Her "fall from grace" makes her ultimately vulnerable, dying, in despair.  And in her weakness, God's grace is strong, and Valjean literally swoops down and lifts her from the muck, and the movie clearly tells us when she dies she is at peace with God.  Her precious daughter is also redeemed, by the same human instrument of God--again, swooped up into the strong arms of love--and Cosette's beauty is literally brought forth from ashes.

I remember seeing this Les Miserables in the movie theater, and squirming in my seat not at Russell Crowe's voice, but at Hugh Jackman's.  He is so often straining, eyes bulging, the cords in his neck taunt, the timbre of his voice almost unbearable and the extreme close-ups at such times painful.  And yet. . . I don't think this is a flaw of his singing ability as much as a sign of his excellent sense of emoting through the music.  He is not straining to reach the notes as much as he is straining to restrain them and not overwhelm the microphones held so close--I get the feeling he would have done the same songs much better justice on Broadway.  He was having to hold in his voice to get the proper intimacy and tone of the moment being filmed--"Bring Him Home" is a good example. (Click on that link to see a video clip.)  It is supposed to be a prayer, a whisper of the spirit.  But this song is where his vocal tone is most stretched thin--again, I think because of his attempts to rein in his voice and not overwhelm the scene.  But then I think, why didn't he just use his falsetto?  That is the perfect time for it--to sing more softly, more tenderly.  The very nature of the song seems to demand it.

But yet, I completely believe in Jackman's abilities as an actor, and see only excellence in all other areas of his characterization in this film.  This leads me to believe Jackman's choice to sing the song without falsetto, straining to sing those high notes gently, must be another purposeful choice.  And really, it still works in the scene--because throughout the movie, the times when his voice seems tightest, most strained, are the times when his character IS under strain, is wound tightly, has no release.  So did he choose to sing in a manner that requires so much control because he is showing his character's strong control over his emotions, over his choices?  Does he sing with that strident tone as a means of showing the audience the pent-up tension/energy in Valjean at these moments?   When I look at the singing in the movie as an extension of the acting, I find it is extremely effective at conveying character and the significance of certain moments/choices in the story.

The ground-breaking sound recording technology they used in the making of the movie must have been a welcome challenge for these actors--allowing them to actually *act* their songs instead of just make a pretty voice over later, when the feel of the moment is gone.  And yet, that performance of "Bring Him Home" would keep me from owning the movie soundtrack--it is that painful.  And while painful might have been an excellent acting choice on Jackman's part in the film, it is not going to connect with a listener the same way on an isolated sound recording.

While I was looking up images to share with this post, I found another blogger giving a casual but spirited review of the movie, which I enjoyed.  This was her take on one particular song in the movie, which apparently critics did not like, but which she is quick to defend:

Les Mis isn't about the critics.  It's about the people.  Historically, this story hasn't done well in the eyes of the Uppity and Scholarly Folk who review it in newspapers and such, yet the madding crowd who have bought the book and seen the musical and watched the film are touched by it in a special way.  And isn't that what the story is all about?  Ordinary people, the "lower classes," the uneducated and poor?  I'm not saying that the majority of Les Mis' fan base are peasants, but I am saying that I don't give two beans for the snooty reviewers who say "Suddenly" was too slow-moving and saccharine and nobody liked it.  It's a heartwarming little piece about a man who's become a father overnight, for Pete's sake... it's not supposed to be an eleven o'clock showstopper.  (Oh, and Hugh Jackman's an adoptive father in real life... which I thought added a special tenderness to his performance.  And this song was actually within his vocal range.  So he sounded great.)

 (Hugh Jackman is an adoptive father?  Even more to love!)

OK, enough on that.  As for the God story arc--I just want to say I have not read the novel, but I have seen it performed on stage, and neither fact affects at all my interpretation of how God is portrayed in this particular movie version.  It is perfectly legitimate to analyze something on its own, as its own work, and not have to include other versions or the original text in the analysis.  I am very curious, however, how much God really does factor into the original novel and in the previous film versions.  But anyway, redemption is THE theme of the whole movie, and is played out in so many character's stories.  And God is one of the main characters, and the forward thrust of the whole story--or, one could argue, people who believe in God are.  (I could see someone making a case that God himself is not clearly at work in the movie, but instead people who believe in the saving Grace of God--a potentially important distinction for a film theorist, but splitting hairs for someone who just wants to revel in the positive, affirming nature of this movie towards there being such a real things as Grace that redeems and restores and compels us to love and sacrifice.) 

Eponine also lays down herself for Love, and dies for it

Of course, at the end there is no Jesus required for access to heaven--just the willingness to die for the sake of love or liberty.  Ironically, Javert too died to uphold that which he believed--that Justice is clearly defined and those who adhere to it, who champion it are absolved from having to decide if their upholding Justice is right or wrong.  His wavering from the "straight and narrow" proved the flaw in his "religion"--or his failure as its "priest"--and so letting Valjean go free shook the very core of his identity.  This is why he says there cannot be room in the world (i.e. in his own rigidly constructed worldview) for both Javert and Valjean.  So he chose to kill himself in honor of the Law, sacrificing his life rather than sacrifice his identity.  He could not re-frame his identity around the truth that someone who "deserves" the wrath of the Law might also "deserve" Grace.  That there is no clear, human way to point to who is right and who is wrong, to who deserves punishment and who deserves mercy.  That there is a God who loves those who are unlovable and fallen, but condemns those who have no love or mercy.  And so maybe that is another reason why Javert throws himself into the abyss--when confronted by Grace he had to look into his own soul, and if the proven criminal Valjean is a better man than he himself is, then what hope is there for him. 

In other words, his death is pitiable for its vanity. 

But this is where I am reading into his death more than the movie's cues tell me to.  The movie clearly codes Valjean as a man redeemed by God, who then goes on to redeem others, and all those who sacrifice their lives for others--either personally or politically--end up in heaven.  The movie also clearly codes Javert as a man trapped by his own Law, who spends his whole life upholding Right (according to the Law) but not ever doing Right (according to Grace), who then throws himself into the gaping maw of Destruction/Hell as a final triumph over his fears and assertion of his mastery of his own identity.  So the final thought is that some things are worth dying for, and some are not--and clearly dying for others, for a higher purpose, for Love is a worthy calling, but dying for oneself is pathetic.

It is also interesting to note how much the warm, golden, intimate glow of candles is associated with God and safety and peace and rest.  How Valjean is so often placed in those scenes--subtly emphasizing his being in the presence of--indeed, enveloped by--God.  (As is Fantine.) And conversely how Javert's personal scenes take place in cold, dangerous places, with the notable light being the cold, distant light of the faraway stars (which he also mentions in his songs).  So there is a definite coding there of light = God = Good = comforting.   And dark = Law = hard = dispassionate = unsettling and unsafe. 

I am always fascinated by how God is portrayed in contemporary films, and often think God (or belief in God) showing up in a movie has less to say about a film-maker's personal beliefs as the film-maker's desire to tap into something in the consciousness of its audience.  What does this movie being made, at this time in our nation's history, to this degree of faithfulness to the stage production, with this plot emphasis on standing up for what we view as right and being willing to lay down our lives for it and for others, and with this particular portrayal of God. . . what might this movie tell us about ourselves?  Or what we want to believe about ourselves? 

OK, that's all!  It took we way to long to formulate even that much--wow, I remembered how long I toiled over academic papers  back in grad school.  How fun it is to delve for meaning into movies--and how danged hard it is to say what you mean.

But thanks for inspiring me to be a critical thinker and writer this week, Jessica.  I'd say that's a fine use of the Week Without Children--reminding myself I have interests and thought-power outside of the usual mommying and homewifery!