I’m all for artistic license, but you can’t just cut an
entire verse from “Castle On A Cloud”
Fire up a batch of popcorn, kids. Jeremy's been to the movies again!
Every now and again, Hollywood decides to take in a play, realize that show is a better idea than anything they've come up with in quite some time, and adapt the play to the silver screen. This has happened with stage musicals on more than a few occasions, and some even recently. They've met with widely mixed results.
Dreamgirls was a smash hit, Rent was a fiasco. Chicago won some awards, Jesus Christ Superstar didn't translate very well into movie form. The Producers won four Golden Globes, while every casting decision in Phantom of the Opera, with the certain exception of Emmy "Awesome" Rossum was questionable at best. I was curious what would happen when Hollywood took its shot at Les Miserables. They started off with Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway, so they were off to a good start.
At the end, we're left with a very mixed bag. The film certainly did justice to the story and all of the music, but for some reason, the emotions fell a little flat. I don't know if there was just a lack of power or passion in the music by not being forced to broadcast to a giant theatre full of people, but I didn't get as excited about some of the songs as I think I should have. That said, they were all performed very well, with the exception of any time Russell Crowe was on screen...seriously bad casting there. Worst. Javert. Ever.
Other than that, Hugh Jackman did an admirable job with Valjean, Anne Hathaway was brilliant for the short time she's alive (By the way...if that's a spoiler, tough crap. The play's been around since the 1980's, there's no excuse for not having seen it yet), and Samantha Barks was a fine Eponine. The other actors were all serviceable to good. In a special role, Colm Wilkinson portrayed the Bishop of Digne, a slight diversion from his usual role as Jean Valjean from the original London cast, and every "Best Of..." recording ever.
As for the music itself, many of the songs were abbreviated, and at least one was removed altogether, ostensibly to save time. The film was pushing 3 hours as it was, so I don't begrudge the director for leaving out "Dog Eat Dog" or shaving a couple lines from the secondary songs. But, when Young Cossette skipped the entire second verse of "Castle On A Cloud," I became personally offended. This song is adorable and one of the light moments of the show, it's one of the show's most widely known songs, and is the kid's only chance to be on screen. You can't just hack an entire verse out of it willy-nilly. Moreso than being offensive, the music form of that song is known as "AABA" in which the music of the first verse is repeated, followed by a bridge, and the final go-through of the melody. The form simply doesn't work as ABA....it's called AABA for a reason, and it has nothing to do with Bjorn Ulvaeus
Seriously? An ABBA joke in the middle of a movie review?
It's relevant...kinda. He's from two other musicals.
Anyway, if my biggest issue with a movie is that one line of a song is missing, and Russell Crowe can't sing, I guess I'm doing okay. Overall, if you're a fan of the stage production of Les Miserables, you definitely won't be disappointed by the movie. If you're not a fan of musical theatre, this film won't make you run to the box office to get orchestra-level seats for the next curtain, but this wasn't going to be your type of movie anyway.
This has been another edition of Jeremy Is In The Theatre
3 comments:
I totally agree! I was very disappointed in Russell Crowe, he just wasn't powerful enough in any way. And "Castle on a Cloud", too short by far! I didn't even have enough time to start crying. But overally, I enjoyed it.
Samantha Barks was a DAMN fine Eponine. Oh, you meant singing, didn't you?
I recently saw the 25th anniversary touring production and it also cut "Castle on a Cloud" so it looks like the blame lies with Cameron Mcintosh.
Post a Comment