Chapter 1102

The word-of-mouth of "miserable world" has met Waterloo, unexpected but reasonable.

Tom Hooper started shooting TV series. He is an excellent TV director, and his capture of actors' performance is worthy of recognition. However, the camera scheduling, atmosphere building, light application and image extension are not his strong points.

"The king's speech" is known as the most outstanding work of Oscar best director after the millennium, which is not groundless; Similarly, "crash" defeated "Brokeback Mountain" to win the best picture Oscar, which has always been controversial and criticized, because the former has too much TV sense, and the director can hardly see the control of the film.

The "miserable world" by Tom hob strictly follows the context and pattern of the stage version, which means that Tom's shortcomings are further magnified and completely exposed to the audience; On the other hand, Tom's advantages can't be brought into full play, which is completely covered up by the actor's personal performance and play.

It's like putting multiple cameras in the Queen's theater, recording the All-Star version of "les miserables" and then releasing a DVD to become the movie version that goes into the cinema. Such a drama is amazing and praiseworthy; But such a movie, however, can't make people feel the same.

After the London premiere, the first batch of comments on "les miserables" ushered in a nightmare. Fourteen media released comments, and the media comprehensive review only scored 59 points, or even failed.

In fact, such a terrible score is not the end of the world. There is only one critical comment, and only one praise comment. All the remaining 12 comments are not good or bad, and the scores are generally between 50 and 70, which leads to the failure of the average score.

Among the first reviews, "empire" magazine's film review is undoubtedly the most representative.

"Cameron Macintosh's version of" les miserables "is undoubtedly a wonderful work, with excellent script, excellent role and excellent connotation. But Tom hob's problem lies in:

This work gathers a group of talented actors. The wonderful performance once again gives the role vitality, but it is always separated from the film itself. It seems that it only appreciates the performance of another drama, but it does not have the texture of the film and the interpretation of the director.

What's more, with the passing of hobo's grasp of details, the plot breaks down and the characters become simpler. The original grand and profound theme is not only not improved, but also weakened, and finally evolved into the current version——

A film made purely for the Oscars season, there is no more above the passing line. Can it win the Oscar nomination? This is a high probability event; But is it a good movie? The answer is yes, No

Empire magazine gave 60 points, just passed, no less, but no more, which also represents the view of most film critics.

People are praising Anne Hathaway's performance, and the Wall Street Journal even claims that "Hathaway can now prepare her Oscar winning speech, and her wonderful performance is worthy of the best performance of her career; There are also performances by Sasha Byron Cohen and Helena birham Carter

People are also holding hands that Hugh Jackman has not been given more performance space, "variety" magazine said, "he is completely confined to a framework, all his talents can not be displayed. In front of the brilliant version of Langley hall, it is suddenly eclipsed. It's not fair to Jackman, but it's true. And Tom Hooper is the one to blame. "

People are still condemning Russell Crowe's terrible performance. Ten of the 14 media have launched a verbal attack, "bad aria, bad performance, bad walk, and bad role. Crowe's rigid and clumsy, stupid and boring performance completely destroyed the whole role."

There is no doubt that Russell Crowe has been the most criticized actor in the cast of CASS. This "why is the six hour version of Almeida theater a success? Or further, why does the three hour version of the Queen's Theatre last forever?

The reason lies in: they have given the most wonderful performance, full roles and solid scripts in the most appropriate way. Under the wonderful interpretation, they have given Victor Hugo the understanding and sublimation of his own version of the original novel. This is the reason for their success, and also the reason for the failure of the film version.

When people mention the lengthy six hour version of Almeida theater, they will remember every role, every detail, and even talk about their understanding and reflection; When people talk about the film version, they seem to leave nothing but Fantine's "I had a dream" and the Thenardiers' house owners.

People are discussing whether hall is a better Jean Valjean than Jackman; People are discussing whether it is a better choice for hall to play Marius in the film version; People are still debating whether it is a more sensible choice for hall to give up film and choose drama.

From the existing results, all the answers are in the affirmative. "

The comments of the times are undoubtedly interesting and representative. In addition to the 50 point evaluation, they really made a horizontal comparison of the two different versions, which also represents the mainstream view of the industry.

There is an eternal law in life. There is no harm without comparison; After the horizontal comparison, the high and low stand.

There is no doubt that Hugh Jackman is a well-known actor, although in the field of film, Wolverine's role image restricts his way of acting; But in the field of drama, New York, London, Melbourne and other major cities have left his legend, which is worthy of the affirmation of the industry.

This time, playing the important role of Jean Valjean, Hugh once again showed his solid foundation, excellent singing skills and outstanding performance, all of which have been objectively affirmed by the film critics, but comparatively speaking, there are too few breakthroughs, which can only be said to be in order.

If there is no horizontal comparison, Hugh may receive more praise. After all, he is the most important core of the film and successfully completes his task; However, there is no if in real life.

Now, people in the industry generally believe that, in contrast, lanli's performance immediately stands out. All the excellent qualities that sue shows are possessed by lanli; Furthermore, the quality and level of Langley's performance present more possibilities, especially the tension and explosive force on the stage, which endows Jean Valjean with new vitality.

Among them, the most widely discussed play, not surprisingly, is the play of "taking him home" - Jean Valjean going to the barricade to try to save Marius.

There is no need to say more about Hugh Jackman's excellence, but the fact is that his performance in this play and this song is completely inferior. He just presents the content of the song in a straightforward way. He has no emotion, no details, no echo, no taste, and even, to a certain extent, is divorced from the plot, and his dull performance completely loses his soul.

What's worse, Tom hob's camera schedule completely misunderstood and distorted the meaning and soul of the original song. Even the core of the theme passed away inexplicably. Without Marius, Enjolras, barricades, let alone sublimation, people even began to doubt who should be taken home?

After the London premiere, a film critic was so surprised and surprised that he couldn't believe his eyes. He went straight to sue and asked him what was going on, what was wrong, and why the effect was so disastrous?

Later, on this matter, both parties did not respond, as if it had never happened. But industry rumors, after hearing the problem, Sue spread his hands, shaking his head, said helpless, "sorry, I don't know what happened." Confused, regretful, helpless, "maybe, my ability is limited."

No matter how good an actor is, if he meets a mediocre director, he is helpless. In the final analysis, in the film, the actor's performance needs the director's lens to capture and present; Unlike on the stage of drama, what an actor has is what he presents.

However, Hugh is a gentleman with polite personality. He never likes to talk ill of others behind his back. Even if he has no choice, he doesn't blame anyone, but humbly takes the fault to himself. He thinks that his strength is still insufficient and fails to live up to the important task of the play. But the lines between the sigh and strangle, or regrettable.

In contrast, lanli's "take him home" is regarded as a classic, which has been praised by professionals in the industry. Some people even think that lanli has renewed the soul and faith of the song, and the wonderful performance is absolutely worth collecting.

From lyrics to tune, from figure to eyes, from posture to momentum, lanli truly shows the essence of performance, which even the most critical critics and directors can't find fault with.

It is said that many senior actors of Jean Valjean, including Claude Michel Schonberg and Alfie BOE, have personally arrived at the Almeida theatre to watch the performance of Langley, and have given quite excellent comments.

Art is not high or low. Everyone has his own understanding and interpretation, but the quality of performance can be divided into good and bad. As the times said, the answer is "yes".