Les Tough Comparison

In my continuing quest to see as many of the movies nominated for a Best Picture Oscar this year as possible, this afternoon I decided to take in a matinee showing of "Les Miserables." The good news is that since the movie has been out for over a month and I was going in the middle of the day there were plenty of good seats available, as I didn't have anyone within 10 feet of me. Even better was that sitting with this crowd I felt downright childlike, as I was the youngest person in the theater by at least a decade. Normally I am a little hesitant to give movie reviews for things which are still in the theater, but let's be honest - if you wanted to see this movie by now you would have already done so. Also, I can pretty much talk about whatever I want and not have to give a 'Spoiler Alert' warning because, let's be frank here, it's "Les Mis." The book has been in circulation for 150 years, the musical adaptation has been on Broadway for almost as long as I have been alive and there are two previous movie versions before this one. People who have been in a coma for two decades know the story. Anyway, before seeing the movie I had notice a strange theme among its critics - the more times they claimed to have seen the stage version of the story, the less they like this version. After finally seeing it for myself, I can totally understand why.

What it comes down to is quite simple - I've seen the show live, which means I've heard the songs done better. I'm not saying the performances in the movie were bad (far from it), just that they are not the best I have ever heard. This just isn't usually the case when musicals move to the big screen. Either they dub actors to make them sound as good as the stage performers or they simply take smaller names who can sing to the next level. Here they went for the biggest names possible and made them sing live, which meant asking these actors to leave their comfort zones. In some respects the actors should be commended for their bravery, but the movie suffers as a result. Also, this preference to have the people sing live resulted in the other thing which I felt brought the movie from a 10 to an 8: because the actors were singing live the cameras had to be close enough to hear them, meaning most of the movie is shot as a close-up. Before going in I had heard people talk about this method and their belief that after a while it becomes a bit overwhelming. I have to admit, I couldn't help but notice it as well. In my case, what brought it to my attention was the few times they cut to wide shots. When you have been staring at faces all movie, suddenly seeing bodies and scenery can be quite jarring. Now, for most of the songs the close-ups worked - they made intimate songs feel even more intimate. However they had the opposite effect on the big, raucous songs, which didn't feel nearly big or raucous as I am used to. It left me less than impressed. In conclusion - see the movie, but don't buy the soundtrack.

Anyway, as I said the main thing I wanted to do was compare this movie to the other Best Picture finalists, so as I was walking out I had already started to think about this movie versus the most recent Oscar contender I had seen, "Zero Dark Thirty." I have to tell you, due to their insane differences I couldn't even try to tell you which one was the better movie. (Though, I have to admit it is kind of hard to say "Les Miserables" is the best picture of the year when it isn't even the best version of "Les Miserables" I have ever seen.) But beyond that , it is easier to compare movies like "Argo" and "Zero Dark Thirty" because both are tense political thrillers and have some common elements. The only thing a movie like "Les Miserables" has in common with them is that I saw them in the same place. It would be like trying to compare potatoes to yams. Sure, technically they are from the same family, but if you order one and get the other you will be in for quite a surprise. To really get into a comparison would require me to start looking at things like costumes, use of sound and editing, and I can't talk about that kind of stuff when discussing movies without wanting to punch my reflection in the face and call myself a douchebag. All I can say is that both were very good films, but whether or not they should be considered the best picture of the year pretty much comes down to what you feel like on that day.

Still, this led me to conclude something I really don't want to - the Hollywood Foreign Press may have the right idea about something, specifically having a category for musicals and comedies and another for dramas. I mean, they are all trying to achieve the same goal (entertain audiences) but do so by very different methods. The more I think about it, the more insane is it to me that all movies are expected to be judged through the same spectrum, because every movie should be taken on its own merits. Considering the level of self-importance Academy voters use (much like baseball Hall of Fame voters, they actually think which picture they choose matters), a comedy or musical is never going to win Best Picture when it is the same category as the story of a French, blind goat herder who overcomes impossible odds to find his family who were separated by some atrocity, only to discover they are dead and he is secretly gay (I'm pretty sure that movie is being written as I speak). I admit it is entirely possible that this is just a fluky year and next year we'll be back to nothing but Oscar-trolling movies compiling the list of finalists. But just in case this does happen again, all I am saying is if the Academy is already planning to spend three hours giving out awards for things most people never notice, sneaking in one more award for comedy seems like a better use of a night.