The Actors are Empowered to Make the Performances Their Own in 'Les Misérables'

Live singing embodies the performances with a certain amount of honesty that isn't afforded to the casts of other movie musicals.

Les Misérables

Director: Tom Hooper
Cast: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Amanda Seyfried, Eddie Redmayne, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Samantha Barks, Daniel Huttlestone
Length: 158 minutes
Studio: Universal Studios
Year: 2012
Distributor: Universal
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Uk Release date: 2013-05-13
US Release date: 2013-03-22

When adapting a beloved stage musical -- especially one that had girls the world over wearing out their cassette tapes of the original cast recording -- filmmakers are faced with a puzzling choice. Should the movie version be a faithful re-creation of the stage experience as a collectible curio for fans and a way to bring the show to people who didn't have access to it at the theater? Or should it be a creative re-imagining of the source material so it can stand on its own as a film? Tom Hooper's Les Misérables struggles with this question.

The biggest innovation with the production -- one that's touted in multiple DVD features, including Hooper's dry solo commentary -- is the live singing in the movie. Instead of recording the songs with full orchestration beforehand, then having the actors lip synch to their previous tracks while on the movie set, the actors sing live to an in-ear piano accompaniment while filming. This is an extreme technical challenge, especially when it comes to dampening the background sound to capture a perfect vocal. (Raindrops, apparently, are a huge obstacle, as fat raindrops on rubber cobblestones are especially noisy.)

It's worth the hassle. There's no doubt the live singing makes a difference. The actors are empowered to make the performances their own, with freedom to pause, stop, speak-sing, or belt out their numbers -- and experiment with these in combination during different takes -- as they see fit. In this way, the cast is liberated from being locked into one vocal performance; it also allows them distance from the original show, tailoring the songs to the movie in the moment. To hear Hooper tell it, the live singing also embodies the performances with a certain amount of honesty that isn't afforded to the casts of other movie musicals.

In Hooper's limited bag of directorial tricks, his go-to is the close-up. He uses it as another way to distance his Les Misérables from the stage version, where close-ups are an impossibility. Repeatedly in his commentary, he talks about how he shot certain scenes or songs with various camera set-ups, only to stay with the close-up all the way through. For the most part, this technique is effective. You can see pain on faces and tears in eyes. This is most prominent in Fantine's (Anne Hathaway) biggest song, "I Dreamed a Dream". Pulling in tight on Hathaway' face ratchets up the intensity of he emotion in the song (and helped her win her deserved Oscar). Yet Hooper returns to this setup again and again -- for most of the soliloquy songs -- and eventually it begins to feel repetitive and lose its power.

And, since the stage version of Les Misérables is performed mostly on black-box stage with few big sets, you can feel Hooper reaching for the other extreme. He breaks away with massive setpieces. This involves shots of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) helping tow a larger-than-life warship into an enormous dry dock, walking over expansive mountains, and mingling with poor masses so gritty their dirt seems almost to smear on the screen. Hooper says his goal was to hit audiences with a "shocking level of realism" that you wouldn't find in a stage performance.

Going for "realism" is where Les Misérables is less successful. The authenticity Hooper strives for when capturing the live singing doesn't carry through the rest of the production. Those huge sets are actually on a sound stage (a famous one, Pinewood Studios). They don't necessarily look fake, but they do, despite Hooper's best efforts, look stagey. In the end, the movie is still a musical, entirely sung through with little or no spoken dialogue scenes, filmed on a big theatrical set. The production hasn’t strayed all that far from its West End roots.

The authenticity is also undercut by the fact that Hooper's Les Misérables takes place in a strange amalgam of England and France. In the DVD bonus feature "Creating the Perfect Paris", it's revealed that the location shots not filmed in Pinewood Studios are almost all from the UK. The dock that Valjean works out so torturously in the opening of the film was a dry dock in Portsmouth; the ship he was pulling on was modeled after the HMS Victory as opposed to a French ship. The Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich stands in for the Place de la Bastille. The foul sewers Valjean traipses through during battle bears no resemblance to the majestic sewer system below Paris as Victor Hugo described it. There's a certain disconnect one experiences when hearing someone speak in a Dickensian English accent, then throwing in a "monsieur" or ending with "vive la France!"

In the end, though, Les Misérables does stay true to the spirit of its original source material -- and that's a good thing. There's a reason that those original cast recordings have logged so many miles in cassette, then CD, then mp3 players. It's the same reason that young women sing "On My Own" for every audition, or that the world can turn the person behind an outstanding rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" into an overnight superstar. It's because, from loneliness to lovesickness, rigid idealism to sorrowful regret, Les Misérables perfectly embodies the full spectrum of human emotion. And, be it because of live singing or good casting or just sheer luck, Hooper manages to amplify it.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.