The Greatest Showman #1139 - See Each Other

The word-of-mouth for Les Miserables encountered a setback, which, while surprising, was also quite expected.

Tom Hooper, who started his career directing TV series, is an excellent television director. His ability to capture actors' performances is commendable. However, when it comes to elements essential to film—such as shot composition, atmospheric creation, lighting usage, and image extension—he is less proficient.

The King's Speech was hailed as one of the most lackluster works to win the Oscar for Best Director in the 21st century. Much of the criticism stemmed from the film's television-like feel, with Hooper's direction nearly invisible in terms of control.

Les Miserables, directed by Tom Hooper, strictly adheres to the stage version's structure. This only serves to highlight Hooper's shortcomings and expose them to the audience. On the flip side, his strengths in working with actors were obscured, overwhelmed by the sheer force of individual performances.

The movie felt like a collection of cameras placed around the Queen's Theatre, recording the all-star stage version of Les Miserables and then released as a cinematic product. This kind of production could be celebrated as a stage recording but fails as a true film.

After the London premiere, the initial reviews for Les Miserables were disastrous. Fourteen media outlets released critiques, and the film's overall score hovered at a disappointing 59, just below passing.

Such a score isn't catastrophic. There was only one blatantly negative review, one glowing review, and twelve middle-of-the-road responses. Most of these middle reviews landed between scores of 50 and 70, which ultimately dragged down the film's average.

Among the first wave of reviews, Empire magazine's critique stood out:

"Cameron McIntosh's version of Les Miserables is undoubtedly a brilliant production. It has a great script, strong characters, and powerful content. However, Tom Hooper's issues are clear:

The film features an array of talented actors delivering wonderful performances, but they seem disconnected from the movie itself. It feels more like we're watching a stage performance, with the texture of a film and the director's vision lost in the mix.

What's even worse is Hooper's failure to capture the finer details, causing the plot to falter, and the once grand and profound themes of the original work feel diminished. Ultimately, what we're left with is a film that seems crafted for the Oscar season, but fails to live up to its potential. Could it earn an Oscar nomination? Perhaps. But is it a good movie? No."

Empire magazine gave the film a 60, marking it as barely passable—just enough to pass, but not more. This sentiment was echoed by many critics.

The praise largely went to Anne Hathaway's performance, with The Wall Street Journal calling it "the performance of her career," while Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter were also noted for their stellar contributions.

However, Hugh Jackman was criticized for not having enough space to shine, with Variety stating, "He's completely confined in the frame; all of his talents are stifled, especially when placed alongside Renly Hall, who steals the spotlight." It was a painful but undeniable truth, and many laid the blame squarely at Tom Hooper's feet.

Russell Crowe, unfortunately, bore the brunt of the criticism. Ten out of fourteen media outlets took issue with his performance, citing his poor singing, lackluster acting, and a general mismatch with the character. Crowe's portrayal was stiff, awkward, and tedious, and it tarnished the film for many viewers.

One of the most notable pieces was a special feature in The Times, comparing the Almeida Theatre's stage production with the movie version. The article examined the differences in depth and interpretation, ultimately concluding:

"Why did the six-hour Almeida version succeed, or why did the three-hour Queen's Theatre version resonate so deeply? The answer is simple: they presented the best performances in the best way, with well-rounded characters and solid scripts. These performances, under brilliant interpretations, gave us Victor Hugo's original vision with a new understanding and depth. This is why they succeeded, and why the film version failed."

The Times went on to note that while the Almeida production allowed each character to leave a lasting impression, the film version had only a few memorable moments, such as Fantine's "I Dreamed a Dream" and the Thenardiers' comic number.

When discussing whether Renly Hall was a better Jean Valjean than Hugh Jackman, the answer was unanimous: yes.

The Times also compared the two actors, emphasizing how Renly's portrayal of Jean Valjean brought new vitality and emotional depth to the character. Renly's dramatic tension and explosive energy in his rendition of "Bring Him Home" were widely considered to surpass Jackman's, whose performance in the same song was described as dry and detached.

Industry insiders noted the lack of emotional connection in Jackman's version, particularly in the "Bring Him Home" scene, which was completely mismanaged by Hooper's direction. The scene lost its soul, with the absence of Marius, Enjolras, and the barricades undermining its emotional core. Critics found themselves asking: who exactly was Jackman singing to?

After the premiere, a critic approached Hugh Jackman to ask about the scene, only for Jackman to shrug helplessly and admit, "I don't know what went wrong. Maybe it's my limited ability." It was a humbling admission from the veteran actor, who, despite his immense talent, couldn't escape the constraints of a mediocre director.

In contrast, Renly's rendition of "Bring Him Home" was praised by industry professionals as a classic, with some calling it a soul-stirring performance that gave the song new life. The performance's depth and sincerity earned Renly high marks from veteran actors, including Claude-Michel Schönberg and Alfie Boe, who personally attended the Almeida production and gave it glowing reviews.

There may be no objective measure of art's worth, but as The Times concluded, when it comes to performance quality, the answer is clear: Renly's performance stands above the rest.