Les Miserables

[Big Magilla]

Read elsewhere that the constant closeups and rat-a-tat editing are pretty annoying.

Again, all these complaints about close-ups and so on were from critics who were gunning for the film. I used to have respect for Lisa Schwartzbaum even when I disagreed with her, but after her slam-down of this and Trouble With the Curb, I've lost it. If you read my current DVD Report, it's she I'm talking about naming the Eastwood film one of the five worst films of the year, when it was actually a decent, though certainly not great, little movie. I suspect she and the other critics who slammed that one were reacting to Eastwood's embarrassing performance at the Republican National Convention, which had nothing to do with the film.

[OscarGuy]

I didn't think the editing or close-ups were at all annoying. Matter of fact, I think the use of close-up helped bring the audience into the actor's facial expressions and helped intensify the emotions making them more compassionate and compelling. The use of close-up in many conversation scenes is standard for the course. And the only time I really remember close-ups in the film are during songs and many of those are inter-cut with medium shots, so I would hardly consider it excessive. I think anyone who highlights that about this film is more likely projecting onto it their problems with Tom Hooper in general.

[dws1982]

The guy broke down in sobs at Barks' death scene and kept sobbing until the end of the film he was that moved.

What the hell was wrong with him?

[Reza]

Read elsewhere that the constant closeups and rat-a-tat editing are pretty annoying.

[Big Magilla]

I still have Zero Dark Thirty and Amour to see, but I have now seen Les Miserables and it doesn't disappoint. It is the best screen adaptation of a Broadway musical since Cabaret forty years ago and if it were up to me would garner 13 Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Director, Actor (Hugh Jackman), Supporting Actor (Eddie Redmayne), Supporting Actress (Samantha Barks and Anne Hathaway), Cinematography, Editing, Art Direction, Costume Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Makeup. We'll see how many nominations it actually receives.

I left out Best Screenplay because I honestly have no idea what the screenwriter's contribution was here. Yes, there's more to a screenplay than dialogue between musical numbers, which was minimal, but how much did he contribute to the action as opposed to the director? I also left out Best Song because "Suddenly" is so unmemorable I have no recollection of Jackman actually singing it. Aside from that, I have to say the naysayers are all wet. The close-ups, even on a large theater screen, are not obtrusive. The scope of the drama is there. The narrative is easy to follow even if you've never read the book, seen a previous filmed version or ever heard the musical score.

There is nothing wrong with the pacing. The actors are all good. Russell Crowe's solo singing is fine. It's only when his singing is mixed with the singing of the other, more accomplished singers in the cast that he comes off second-rate. Amanda Seyfried is a bit dull, but not distractingly so and her character isn't given the score's best songs by any means. The big surprise for me was Barks as Eponine. Not only is she a great singer, she's a very affecting actress as well. There was a couple two rows behind me who applauded after every song. The guy broke down in sobs at Barks' death scene and kept sobbing until the end of the film he was that moved. Other audiences members were less obviously emotional, although there was quite a lot of dabbing away of tears during Hathaway's big number and from Barks' death on.

As with any first-rate production of Les Miz, the storming of the barricades and the death of Gavroche were highlights. As with the stage production, some of the musical numbers were more memorable than others. The showstoppers remain I Dreamed a Dream, sung by Hathaway, reprised by Jackman; On My Own sung by Barks, Bring Him Home sung by Jackman and Empty Chairs at Empty Tables sung by Redmayne.

Hooper, who I thought directed The King's Speech like a TV movie, directed this one with al the gusto I expect from the direction of a story with the scope of this one.

[Sonic Youth]

Just one question, Sabin. Zero Dark Thirty is about the CIA's "heroic" hunt for "the world's most dangerous man", right? Good. So do they say, at some point during the movie, that this "monster" was given money and weapons by the CIA itself - by America? Much money and many weapons, even, and for a long time. Does the movie admit, even just quickly, though this is a major point that shouldn't be dealt with quickly, that Osama Bin Ladin was in many ways an American creation when they needed him? That he was the product of America's approach to foreign affairs?

If they mention this, I'll respect the filmmaker's balance (and I hope they do, like Argo does when it explains America's connection with Reza Pahlavi's regime). But if they don't, I don't even need to see the movie - I'll know from now that it's a movie for Americans only, or maybe I should say for those Americans who stubbornly want to believe in lies, for those (there were many on this board even, including Sonic Youth if I remember correctly) who partied all night when the "bad guy" was finally killed.

And a merry Christmas to you too, but instead of trying to remember, why not ask me?

[ITALIANO]

Thanks for your answers.

[Sabin]

Italiano wrote
But I wasnt talking about the torture now... I was talking about the CIA's involvement with Bin Laden... I hope it is mentioned in the movie, just this. Am I asking too much?

Why are you asking me?

EDIT: sorry, I was being presumptuous. Are you asking me?

[Sabin]

Italiano wrote
Just one question, Sabin. Zero Dark Thirty is about the CIA's "heroic" hunt for "the world's most dangerous man", right? Good.

No. There is nothing as unheroic you will see all year as the raid on the Bin Laden compound.

Italiano wrote
So do they say, at some point during the movie, that this "monster" was given money and weapons by the CIA itself - by America? Much money and many weapons, even, and for a long time. Does the movie admit, even just quickly, though this is a major point that shouldn't be dealt with quickly, that Osama Bin Ladin was in many ways an American creation when they needed him? That he was the product of America's approach to foreign affairs?

No.

Italiano wrote
If they mention this, I'll respect the filmmaker's balance (and I hope they do, like Argo does when it explains America's connection with Reza Pahlavi's regime). But if they don't, I don't even need to see the movie - I'll know from now that it's a movie for Americans only, or maybe I should say for those Americans who stubbornly want to believe in lies, for those (there were many on this board even, including Sonic Youth if I remember correctly) who partied all night when the "bad guy" was finally killed.

Zero Dark Thirty, a movie that I think I like but find very frustrating and am confidant that I do not love, is a movie that you should not see. It is no more a movie for you than a Harry Potter movie is for me, and both opinions mine and yours should be taken with a grain of salt for it will be impossible to believe we went in with an opinion mind. You're already convinced of what will make this movie criminal and what won't.

OscarGuy wrote
I doubt there's a history displayed for Zero Dark Thirty. It worked for Argo, because that film was made by a left winger. I don't know Bigelow's politics, so I can't say she's a true left winger, but she's hardly been at the forefront of political discussions, so it's more likely that ZDT will try to stay out of the political morass. It seems like an "American" film made for "Americans." I'm using quotes because it's a stereotyped definition of what all Americans are.

I don't know Bigelow's politics either, but the audience I was with most assuredly did not love the movie and I'm not sure most Americans are going to like it either. I'm not talking about as a work of politics. I'm talking about as an entertainment. Critics are not Americans.

Italiano wrote
You are probably right - Sabin will tell us. Still, if you make a movie about this subject, you ARE being political, intentionally or (less probably) unintentionally, and you can't, you shouldn't, ignore the past (it's a recent past after all) - it would be criminal, really. But - maybe I'm being naive now - this movie won Best Picture in New York, and I don't think they'd be so superficial. At least I hope there aren't American flags in it.

No, Kathryn Bigelow cannot make a movie about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden without being political. Zero Dark Thirty is political in the sense that it clearly passes judgment on what they are doing. Torture becomes a part of their job that they choose not to see and Jessica Chastain is certainly not a likable presence in the film. The American flags indirectly ask "Does this operation reflect our country?" By the end of the movie, their task has been completed and it's not so much the question of "Where do we go now?" but rather "What can we do now?" I never felt any kind of good about what I was seeing and the audience I was with found very little to root for, but Bigelow will not be politically astute enough for you.

The arguments after Zero Dark Thirty are going to be unbearable! Like Argo, the problem for me is that I'm going to find political conversations somewhere between needless and exhausting.

Also, the New York Film Critic's Circle in recent years has proven itself to be one of the most artistically conservative groups in existence. The Los Angeles Film Critics Association and the National Society of Film Critics are the ones that go out on a limb more.

[ITALIANO]

The only film I've seen it compared to, other than Boal/Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, is Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers which looked at the Algerian revolution from both sides.

As the Italians say, "magari"...

But I wasnt talking about the torture now... I was talking about the CIA's involvement with Bin Laden... I hope it is mentioned in the movie, just this. Am I asking too much?

As for the flag, I dont know, I certainly don't get any kind of emotions from seeing the Italian flag... If the American flag has a different effect on Americans, good for them. I personally find it annoying.

[Big Magilla]

I don't expect to see the film until mid-January when it goes wide, but whatever else Bigelow's film is, it is not an American flag-waver, although every time I hear someone complain about flag-waving I can't help but recall that great liberal actor Robert Ryan's show-stopping line from "This Is a Great Country", the song that closed Irving Berlin's Mr. President on Broadway during the Cuban missile crisis: "if this is flag-waving, flag-waving, do you know of a better flag to wave?"

Zero Dark Thirty is said to be morally ambivalent. For example, there's a scene in which the CIA operatives are having a discussion with Presidential candidate Barack Obama on TV in the background railing against the use of torture; the operatives pause momentarily to look at the TV screen, then go back to their conversation as if what Obama was talking about had nothing to do with them.

The only film I've seen it compared to, other than Boal/Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, is Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers which looked at the Algerian revolution from both sides.

[ITALIANO]

I doubt there's a history displayed for Zero Dark Thirty. It worked for Argo, because that film was made by a left winger. I don't know Bigelow's politics, so I can't say she's a true left winger, but she's hardly been at the forefront of political discussions, so it's more likely that ZDT will try to stay out of the political morass. It seems like an "American" film made for "Americans." I'm using quotes because it's a stereotyped definition of what all Americans are.

You are probably right - Sabin will tell us. Still, if you make a movie about this subject, you ARE being political, intentionally or (less probably) unintentionally, and you can't, you shouldn't, ignore the past (it's a recent past after all) - it would be criminal, really. But - maybe I'm being naive now - this movie won Best Picture in New York, and I don't think they'd be so superficial. At least I hope there aren't American flags in it.

[OscarGuy]

I doubt there's a history displayed for Zero Dark Thirty. It worked for Argo, because that film was made by a left winger. I don't know Bigelow's politics, so I can't say she's a true left winger, but she's hardly been at the forefront of political discussions, so it's more likely that ZDT will try to stay out of the political morass. It seems like an "American" film made for "Americans." I'm using quotes because it's a stereotyped definition of what all Americans are.

As proof of how it may not do well around the globe: The London Film Critics Circle clearly saw Zero Dark Thirty as it was nominated for 3 awards, but they didn't name it as one of the Best Pictures of the year. Kathryn Bigelow was one of the best directors, Jessica Chastain one of the best actresses and it was one of the best written, but why not one of the best pictures? It may speak to the limited appeal a film like ZDT has in countries where the whole affair wasn't a constant reminder of their own failures. But that's a superficial observation. For all I know, it was the sixth film on their list that wasn't announced.

[ITALIANO]

Just one question, Sabin. Zero Dark Thirty is about the CIA's "heroic" hunt for "the world's most dangerous man", right? Good. So do they say, at some point during the movie, that this "monster" was given money and weapons by the CIA itself - by America? Much money and many weapons, even, and for a long time. Does the movie admit, even just quickly, though this is a major point that shouldn't be dealt with quickly, that Osama Bin Ladin was in many ways an American creation when they needed him? That he was the product of America's approach to foreign affairs?

If they mention this, I'll respect the filmmaker's balance (and I hope they do, like Argo does when it explains America's connection with Reza Pahlavi's regime). But if they don't, I don't even need to see the movie - I'll know from now that it's a movie for Americans only, or maybe I should say for those Americans who stubbornly want to believe in lies, for those (there were many on this board even, including Sonic Youth if I remember correctly) who partied all night when the "bad guy" was finally killed.

[Sabin]

You will have a very difficult time, my friend.