Les Miserables (2012)

Title: Les Miserables (2012)

Director:  Tom Hooper

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, Russell Crowe, Amanda Seyfried, Sacha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter

Review:

Poverty stricken times call forth films about poverty stricken people and no other film is more suitable for today’s borderline depression era days than Les Miserables, a film that truly explores the sadness and desperation that comes with being less fortunate, actually, to be more accurate it truly wallows in it. But I’m of the mind that even the sadder parts of life have to be explored, life is bitter sweet and to say that life is all peaches and cream simply isn’t true. There’s a lot of sadness out there in the world we live in and it is important we talk about these sad parts of life, it is important that we don’t ignore the darker issues, for how are things to get better if we ignore problems? Les Miserables focuses in on one of the saddest elements of society: extreme poverty.

On this one we meet Jean Valjean, an ex-con who went to jail for stealing bread. On the particular day we meet Valjean he is set free and tries looking for a regular job, but due to the fact that he’d been in jail, he gets rejected left and right. He soon ends up in a church, screaming at god in anger, asking God why his life so miserable. But then a twist of fate makes Valjean reconsider his life and so he decides to reinvent himself and a few years later, Valjean becomes the owner of a sewing factory. Unbeknownst to him, Fantine, one of his female employees gets fired for no good reason. Unable to care for her little baby child, Fantine ends up on the streets, selling her body in the seediest parts of town. It isn’t long before death comes knocking at Fantines door and Valjean, feeling guilty for her death swears to take care of Fantine’s little baby daughter,  Cosette. What happens when Cosette grows up and wants to live her life, apart from Valjean? 

Right away, from frame one you know this movie is epic; we see Jean Valjean and hundreds of other prisoners pulling a boat into shore with ropes as they sing, and I just knew this one was going to be special. First thing you notice when you see this film is that the actors are singing for real, the songs aren’t dubbed or pre-recorded, which takes a little getting used to because normally musicals pre-record every song and actors are simply lip-synching as they sing and dance, but not on Les Miserables; here the actors really sing on set, live and this is the way you’ll hear it. I was pretty blown away by Jackman and Hathaway specifically, but really, everybody does a bang up job here. Anne Hathaway sings a song that just might bring you to tears, and win her an Oscar. I’d say maybe Russell Crowe was the only one a little off at times, but even he did a commendable job. So be ready for a musical that feels just a little bit more realistic then others, every breath, every sob between songs is heard, the pain and the feeling in the performances is projected more efficiently because of this technique.

As I watched this version of Les Miserables, I noticed how similar the story is to films like Annie (1982) and Oliver! (1968). All of these films are musicals and all three are about little orphan kids living in poverty. All three films have kids living with horrible step parents who want to take advantage of the child, and in all three films, the child is rescued by a genuinely good person looking to give the child a chance at a better life. But I guess in scope and tone, Les Miserables is closest to Oliver! The only thing that makes Les Miserables a bit different then these other two films is the element of romance, a love triangle that developes and the French revolution! The people of France in Les Miserables are on the verge of rebellion and this theme of the oppressed being sick and tired of being treated like garbage is an important one on this film because the misery of the people is often simply a reflection of what’s going on with its government. Are people just gonna sit back and let their government trample them? Or are they willing to die fighting for their freedom? Interesting themes no doubt. I found the character of Javert, the policeman following Valjean interesting. He is torn between serving the government and doing what his human side is telling him is right. This character has an interesting duality there.

The Oscar nominations are in and both Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have been nominated for their work on this film, which isn’t really a surprise. Les Miserables has also been nominated for Film of the Year, so this lets you know there is something special about this film. Plus with a cast like this one, wow, who wants to miss this show? Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonhan Carter who worked together previously in Tim Burton’s Sweeny Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) reunite here with great comical effect, playing the evil step parents of poor little Collette. But screw the Oscars, The Film Connoisseur is telling you this one is awesome, a cinematic experience of the highest caliber; a film that will move you to tears. Not to be missed!

Rating: 5 out of 5

The King's Speech (2010)

Title: The King’s Speech (2010)

Director: Tom Hooper

Cast: Colin Firth, Helena Bonham Carter, Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce

Review:

The King’s Speech was the big winner on Oscar night 2011. It won four Academy Awards: Best Actor (Colin Firth) Best Original Screenplay (David Seidler), Best Director (Tom Hooper) and Best Film of the Year. I thought it deserved the awards that it got, because it is a good film, with excellent performances and a well written screenplay. Personally, I was rooting for Darren Aronofsky to win the Oscar for Best Director for Black Swan, but whatever, as it turns out The King’s Speech was the big winner of the night. You know how The Academy loves an inspirational film with characters conquering their fears and achieving their goals. Black Swan was probably too dark a movie for The Academy, who we all know likes their winning films to be happy, shinny and up lifting. The King’s Speech certainly fits those prerequisites.

The King’s Speech is a film that focuses on the pressures and stress that fall upon a political figure. You and I (read: the common man) can’t really grasp what it means to suddenly become such an important political figure for a whole nation, so the movie does a wonderful job of doing it for us. It’s interesting to note that King George VI (played by Colin Firth) became king only when his brother, King Edward VIII (played by Guy Pearce) renounced the thrown. When King Edward VIII inherits the throne, moments after his fathers death, the first thing he does is burst into uncontrollable crying. At first we think he is crying over his fathers death, but it soon becomes clear that he is crying because he doesn’t want all the responsibility that comes with the title. Apparently, all King Edward VIII wanted to do was have a good time through life, partying, falling in love, he didn’t care about being a King, which is why after a short tenor as the King of England, King Edward VIII renounces the thrown and hands it over to his brother King George VI. Problem is, King George VI has a speech impediment, he stammers and the stammering gets worse when he has to addresses the nation. Enter Geoffrey Rush, speech therapist, to help him with his problem.

The most interesting aspect for me about this film was how The King of England has to come down from his royal palace to meet with a common man to help him out of his dilemma. Geoffrey Rush’s character Lionel Logue isn’t a high class aristocrat, nope; he is just a common man who is good at what he does. He doesn’t even have a degree! Yet here he is; the kings’ last hope. The film constantly questions the seat of power; it literally tries to bring the high and mighty King, the ultimate representation of political power, down to a more human level. Lionel Logue constantly tries to humanize The King, begging for him to come off his high horse. I think the movie quite cleverly squeezes these themes in the film, sort of reminding governments, hey, you know, you wouldn’t be up there if it wasn’t for the help of the common man, the poor guy who has a family to feed and does an honest days work. And I really liked that about the film. It’s the king actually listening, spending time, and thanking the commoner for his services. I liked that idea, because it’s something that those in power sometimes forget: that the governed are real people, with real situations, they aren’t just statistics. So kudos to the movie for that.

It also questions the power that a political figure actually has. I mean, just how powerful is a King or a President of a nation? In certain cases, and this holds true for the United States as well, the King or the President is just a symbolic figure, the big honchos making the decisions are really back stage, while the king or president is just there to talk to the people. One scene has the King saying: “If I am King, then where is my power? Can I declare war? Form a government? Levy a tax? No! And yet I am the seat of all authority because the people think that when I speak, I speak for them” There is another scene where Lionel sits in this royal chair where only kings and queens have sat in. The king gets his panties all up in a bunch over this telling Lionel to get off the chair, that he is trivializing everything. Lionel tells the king: “I don’t care how many Royal assholes have sat on this chair, its just a chair.” I liked this aspect of the film because sometimes people tend to deify political figures and forget that they are just humans, with fears and limitations, same as you or I.

I enjoyed the film mainly because it’s a film that begs governments to show a thread of humanity with its ‘loyal subjects’. It bets for governments to treat their subjects, however common they maybe, with the dignity and respect they deserve. Because who knows, maybe one day they might need us for something. It’s a movie that gives value to the common man as an important part of society. I loved the performances; Geoffrey Rush plays such an adorable, goofy and candid character. I love it how he confronts the king, brings him down to a more human level. Colin Firth starts out as a stubborn guy who hates himself and his stammering, a guy who is filled with anger. He slowly, with the help of Lionel, learns to deal with his anger, conquer his speech impediment and finally addresses the nation in the proper way. It’s the reason why the film won four Oscars, it’s an uplifting tale, where a man goes through this whole evolution, and conquers his fears. In the process, he learns a thing or two about humility, sympathy for others and true friendship.

Speaking of conquering ones fears and all that, the screenwriter for The King’s Speech, David Seidler also stammered when he was a child, and King George’s story motivated him to over come it, so the film has a bit of authenticity to it when it comes to the whole psychological process of overcoming a speech impediment. Another Interesting thing about David Seidler is that up to this point he had been working mostly on writing straight to dvd and television films like the David Carradine vehicles Kung Fu Killer (2008) and Son of the Dragon (2006). His only brushes with theatrical releases were his scripts for Tucker a Man and His Dream (1988) and an animated feature film called Quest for Camelot (1998). He’d always wanted to write a film about King George VIII, so he started working on the screenplay which he’d always had in the back of his head. Low and behold, years down the line he ends up winning an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and the film itself is the big winner of the night! Seidler isn’t exactly a young pup (he’s well into his seventies) yet here he is in his Golden Years, winning an Academy Award. When he received the award he said “My father always told me I’d be a late bloomer!” He gave a great acceptance speech at the Oscars, without a bit of stammering to be heard! Hooray for late bloomers!

Rate: 5 out of 5