Y
yellowbird
Guest
Yes. :crying:
- Status
Mary_Gail_36
New member
They do! The youngest Oscar winner to my recollection was Tatum O’Neal at age 9 for Paper Moon.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
It’s interesting - I grew up listening to musical theater and opera, and worked backstage in a theater for a short time, so I have no problem with watching a musical. Many guys do. Yet talking with my male friends, all said they were resistant to going with their wives to watch a musical (“Do they, uh, sing all the way through it?”) yet all said they were surprised by how much they liked it and most admitted they were weeping by the end. It touches strongly on fatherhood, and redemption, and faith, subjects with which most men are concerned.
Wives, if you tell them that “The Fugitive” was based on the story (which it was), and it has the stars of “Wolverine” and “Gladiator,” it may help you to get them to go.
Wives, if you tell them that “The Fugitive” was based on the story (which it was), and it has the stars of “Wolverine” and “Gladiator,” it may help you to get them to go.
P
Phemie
Guest
It’s at that point that I lost it. I cried from there until the end.
We were late arrivals at the theater and ended up having to sit in the second row. Now I’m a second row person at Mass but at movies I’m a last row person. I found it difficult getting into the movie (unlike the play where I started to blubber at the first “Look down…”) because I was always looking in someone’s ear or seeing the snot threatening to flow from Anne Hatheway’s nose (although it did show the tears weren’t fake). But once I got into it it had a death grip on my emotions.
K
KCT
Guest
Same here!
I
irishpatrick
Guest
I was interested in seeing the movie, yet I came upon the following review. Any comments?
I saw Les Mis this weekend and I don’t think it’s worth seeing.
*
I don’t recommend the movie because, at least while it’s in theaters, you can’t skip over the gross sexuality on display, and on such a huge scale. In addition to the general sexuality within the first part of the movie (completely through “Master of House”), there were two sexual scenes/shots – one could have been cut entirely and the other didn’t have to be nearly as explicit as it was. [Spoiler alert] –> Silly me, I didn’t realize what would be involved on-screen once Fantine sold herself into prostitution, especially once Hollywood got a hold of it; even setting her tragic situation aside, the blatant immodesty among other characters (both main and chorus) was already too much, but was then further emphasized by cinematography. How many shots of overly revealing attire do you need?? Les Mis, as a movie, was poisoned by both significant and subtle exploitation of sexuality and the human body; and what could have been a beautiful story purely portrayed left a bad taste of “it was ok, but…” It’s a genuine tragedy since so many Catholic themes are presented throughout the rest of the film, including a monsignor who shows remarkable compassion and mercy. Thank God I can find this actualized elsewhere.*
thecatholicwife.net/2012/12/31/the-les-mis-movie-a-drop-of-poison-spoils-the-cup/
I saw Les Mis this weekend and I don’t think it’s worth seeing.
*
I don’t recommend the movie because, at least while it’s in theaters, you can’t skip over the gross sexuality on display, and on such a huge scale. In addition to the general sexuality within the first part of the movie (completely through “Master of House”), there were two sexual scenes/shots – one could have been cut entirely and the other didn’t have to be nearly as explicit as it was. [Spoiler alert] –> Silly me, I didn’t realize what would be involved on-screen once Fantine sold herself into prostitution, especially once Hollywood got a hold of it; even setting her tragic situation aside, the blatant immodesty among other characters (both main and chorus) was already too much, but was then further emphasized by cinematography. How many shots of overly revealing attire do you need?? Les Mis, as a movie, was poisoned by both significant and subtle exploitation of sexuality and the human body; and what could have been a beautiful story purely portrayed left a bad taste of “it was ok, but…” It’s a genuine tragedy since so many Catholic themes are presented throughout the rest of the film, including a monsignor who shows remarkable compassion and mercy. Thank God I can find this actualized elsewhere.*
thecatholicwife.net/2012/12/31/the-les-mis-movie-a-drop-of-poison-spoils-the-cup/
D
dixieagle
Guest
Les Mis, as a movie, was poisoned by both significant and subtle exploitation of sexuality and the human body…
thecatholicwife.net/2012/12/31/the-les-mis-movie-a-drop-of-poison-spoils-the-cup/
The above quote from that blogger indicates to me that she may have missed a cogent point; that poor Fantine and her body were “significantly and subtly exploited” by unsavory characters and that the cinematography is used to underscore that fact. A very significant part of the plot and character development, to my mind.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, there are darn few Hollywood productions with a message of “To love another person is to see the face of God”, and where a Catholic bishop is portrayed as a catalyst for positive transformation. I have not yet found the time to see the movie, but most certainly plan to.
M
marytk
Guest
I liked the movie. I didn’t think those scenes were exploiting. We did see how the character was exploited. The scenes were there for a reason. We saw evil and we saw good.
I would not take that review as a reason to miss the movie.
I would not take that review as a reason to miss the movie.
I was so pleased to see the bishop as such a positive figure and force.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
I saw the movie and really liked it. I don’t think it was exploiting sex at all. Quite the contrary; it was showing how depraved humanity can be in all its ugliness (just like the novel did–I had to read it in French when I was in college). It does a good job of showing the life of the poor during that century and the injustices they had to endure. It also shows how even some of the poor were wretched creatures, choosing evil themselves.
The movie is a wonderful story of salvation and redemption, showing how one man’s kindness (the bishop) led to the main character completely changing his life. I love musicals and the music is great here. I have read some general media reviews and it is amazing to me how they do not comment on the redemption story line–there is no way you can miss it!
The Master of the House scene is meant to be funny–you can’t really take it as exalting sexuality–it shows its ridiculousness in the extreme misuse of it, just like the extreme drinking and stealing that you see there. Just look at how the characters are dressed and made-up–it’s a parody on the ugliness and sin of humanity. The rape/prostitution scene is awful, but so is rape. The point was well made by the way the scene was filmed, that the woman had no choice. Go see the movie unless you are young or overly sensitive.
The movie is a wonderful story of salvation and redemption, showing how one man’s kindness (the bishop) led to the main character completely changing his life. I love musicals and the music is great here. I have read some general media reviews and it is amazing to me how they do not comment on the redemption story line–there is no way you can miss it!
The Master of the House scene is meant to be funny–you can’t really take it as exalting sexuality–it shows its ridiculousness in the extreme misuse of it, just like the extreme drinking and stealing that you see there. Just look at how the characters are dressed and made-up–it’s a parody on the ugliness and sin of humanity. The rape/prostitution scene is awful, but so is rape. The point was well made by the way the scene was filmed, that the woman had no choice. Go see the movie unless you are young or overly sensitive.
G
GEddie
Guest
By all means see it.
But if you have a significant other, see it with them. This flick is fifty times more emotional than the stage show, book, or the 1990s film version (I’ve done all of them).
I don’t agree that this picture demeans the human body. Prostitution demeans the body, and the picture shows that. Expecting a film to depict prostitution modestly is unrealistic, and the prostitution (or rather, the human desperation that leads to it) is a significant part of the plot line.
Although not in the book, the sequence surrounding the death and “afterlife” of JVJ more than compensates for any negatively-slanted content, IMNAAHO.
Happy New Year and ICXC NIKA
But if you have a significant other, see it with them. This flick is fifty times more emotional than the stage show, book, or the 1990s film version (I’ve done all of them).
I don’t agree that this picture demeans the human body. Prostitution demeans the body, and the picture shows that. Expecting a film to depict prostitution modestly is unrealistic, and the prostitution (or rather, the human desperation that leads to it) is a significant part of the plot line.
Although not in the book, the sequence surrounding the death and “afterlife” of JVJ more than compensates for any negatively-slanted content, IMNAAHO.
Happy New Year and ICXC NIKA
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The plot requires us to understand the horrors she went through to stay alive and have the money to keep her child alive. Master of the House on the other hand is meant to be a parody of the ways of dishonest innkeepers. The movie was very good; I recommend it.
D
dixieagle
Guest
Excellent points.
I also want to say - with regard to the blog post quoted by the OP - that prudery is not the attitude towards the human body taught by the Church. We are not required to hide our heads in the sand and cover our eyes when the desperate actions of characters such as Fantine are depicted. Well-catechized Catholic adolescents and adults should understand this.
B
Baelor
Guest
The review sounds like the screeching of an agitated banshee who did not understand what she just saw.
That being said, if you are willing to sit through over two hours for brief appearances Anne Hathaway and the girl who plays Eponine, go see it without hesitation. But the movie is very mediocre otherwise – mediocre singing, straight-up bad direction, etc. The libretto is generally good.
That being said, if you are willing to sit through over two hours for brief appearances Anne Hathaway and the girl who plays Eponine, go see it without hesitation. But the movie is very mediocre otherwise – mediocre singing, straight-up bad direction, etc. The libretto is generally good.
G
GEddie
Guest
In all fairness, the songs are taken almost verbatim from the stage show. Songs written for dozens of voices won’t sound as good on one. Nor does music composed for the acoustics of the stage translate as well to stereo.
It is still powerful music. And the film takes the plot where even the stage couldn’t. Even the marvels of stage technique couldn’t convey the desperation of JVJ hauling on a ship’s rope in the snow, or Fantine’s zoomed-in grief, etc.
ICXC NIKA
B
beehumble
Guest
First, as a rule, when I haven’t seen a movie, I don’t comment on it since I am not qualified to do so.
Second, in the movie the final moments of the scene with Fantine, as the blog review stated, are unnecessary - the play made the point without going that far, and so did the movie, but then the movie kept going with it, to its own detriment. Let me be clear - the sexual act is depicted and it could have been completely eliminated - this was not needed at all, as witnessed by its not being in the play.
God bless you.
B
Baelor
Guest
That much was clear from the film! I also think Broadway would provide stronger singers.
That is true, but there were two main issues I had with the movie:
- The cinematography/direction: EXTREME CLOSE-UPS every scene, every song, for almost the entire time. This was inexcusable.
- The plot/pacing. It made little sense. Characters come and disappear before they are developed (e.g. Eponine) and there is no real reason for us to get invested in Cosette’s character as an adult. This is not the problem of the movie, but of the play – but a movie was made, so…
S
Sarabande
Guest
I plan on seeing the movie this week as I am interested to see how mostly untrained singers handled performing in real time rather than recording the song beforehand. In regards to critique in the OP, since I haven’t seen the movie yet, I cannot comment. I loved the movie version of the novel with Gerard Depardieu. I believe it was one of the film adapations made in the 90s. That one was in French. (The other one had Liam Neeson as the main character and was in English.) I did enjoy the musical when I was a teenager. As a professional musician, I am not looking forward to hearing mediocre singing. I heard some of Anne Hathaway and the actress who played Cosette and did not enjoy it, especially knowing how the music can be with trained singers. I know that Hugh Jackman was originally a stage performer/singer (he apparently did a great job in Oklahoma), so I’d be interested to hear him.
I do agree with everyone who mentioned the power of the redemption story. I remember being so moved by it as a 13-year-old when I first saw the musical. Seeing a bishop portrayed in a positive light is refreshing, especially during this time.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
6 reasons Catholics should see this film:
Too many modern films show sex as morally neutral, to be graded only on whether it was pleasurable or not. Les Miserables may be the only movie of 2012/2013 that shows sex without love as ultimately degrading to the individual. Fantine’s song, where she sings of broken dreams after a degrading and loveless sexual act she does to stay alive and provide for her child, is heartbreaking. How many hit pop songs about going to the nightclub to party night after night will teenage girls hear with THAT message?
Every cleric and nun shown in the film is shown in a favorable light. Every church, church home, abbey, and hospital is shown as a place of refuge and healing. The crucifix is omnipresent and is always shown and treated with reverence, and living with faith, charity, hope, and obedience to God is treated as THE most important thing in life. When was the last time you saw all THAT in a Hollywood film?
If you liked “The Fugitive,” this is much better. The creator of the original series based it on Les Miserables. (The film even included its own version of the chase through the sewer.)
The end of the film could function as the equivalent of the Voight-Kampf test used to detect unfeeling replicants in “Blade Runner” - if you don’t tear up a little, what’s wrong with you? A good cry is good for the soul.
After watching umpteen films last year about superheroes wearing spandex, you can see that Jean Valjean is the Catholic superhero - he has a secret origin and a secret identity, he has super strength (forced labor will do that for you, if you survive) he is continually tested morally and makes the right decision even when it is difficult and life threatening, he has a powerful and implacable arch-nemess, and his superpower is his desire to live his life in accordance with Christ and do right by his fellow man.
This film could inspire endless discussions about theology among Catholics. For instance, the comparison between Javert and Valjean - both characters are called upon not only to forgive, but to accept the forgiveness of others - Valjean accepts the forgiveness of his actions and the mercy shown by the Bishop (and through him, by Jesus), forgives those who sinned against him, and is redeemed through his love of others, by the grace of God. Javert, who is explicitly shown as Christian as well (but of a very ascetic cast more focused on justice more than mercy) cannot forgive others, cannot accept the possibility of the mercy and forgiveness Valjean offers him, and breaks (trying to avoid spoilers, here). Javert’s sin is that of Judas, whose greatest sin was not the betrayal of our Lord (Peter did that too, on a lesser scale), but whose sin against the Holy Spirit lay in failing to accept that even he could be forgiven. Sometimes, accepting the possibility that we could be forgiven is harder than forgiving others.
Too many modern films show sex as morally neutral, to be graded only on whether it was pleasurable or not. Les Miserables may be the only movie of 2012/2013 that shows sex without love as ultimately degrading to the individual. Fantine’s song, where she sings of broken dreams after a degrading and loveless sexual act she does to stay alive and provide for her child, is heartbreaking. How many hit pop songs about going to the nightclub to party night after night will teenage girls hear with THAT message?
Every cleric and nun shown in the film is shown in a favorable light. Every church, church home, abbey, and hospital is shown as a place of refuge and healing. The crucifix is omnipresent and is always shown and treated with reverence, and living with faith, charity, hope, and obedience to God is treated as THE most important thing in life. When was the last time you saw all THAT in a Hollywood film?
If you liked “The Fugitive,” this is much better. The creator of the original series based it on Les Miserables. (The film even included its own version of the chase through the sewer.)
The end of the film could function as the equivalent of the Voight-Kampf test used to detect unfeeling replicants in “Blade Runner” - if you don’t tear up a little, what’s wrong with you? A good cry is good for the soul.
After watching umpteen films last year about superheroes wearing spandex, you can see that Jean Valjean is the Catholic superhero - he has a secret origin and a secret identity, he has super strength (forced labor will do that for you, if you survive) he is continually tested morally and makes the right decision even when it is difficult and life threatening, he has a powerful and implacable arch-nemess, and his superpower is his desire to live his life in accordance with Christ and do right by his fellow man.
This film could inspire endless discussions about theology among Catholics. For instance, the comparison between Javert and Valjean - both characters are called upon not only to forgive, but to accept the forgiveness of others - Valjean accepts the forgiveness of his actions and the mercy shown by the Bishop (and through him, by Jesus), forgives those who sinned against him, and is redeemed through his love of others, by the grace of God. Javert, who is explicitly shown as Christian as well (but of a very ascetic cast more focused on justice more than mercy) cannot forgive others, cannot accept the possibility of the mercy and forgiveness Valjean offers him, and breaks (trying to avoid spoilers, here). Javert’s sin is that of Judas, whose greatest sin was not the betrayal of our Lord (Peter did that too, on a lesser scale), but whose sin against the Holy Spirit lay in failing to accept that even he could be forgiven. Sometimes, accepting the possibility that we could be forgiven is harder than forgiving others.
B
beehumble
Guest
(1)Note - I saw it in a digital theater, so every pore was visible!!
yes, basically this is like watching the play from the first row or the stage lights. The so called movie is really the play wrapped in some cinematography (cinematography done well, I admit, when the camera held steady and centered the shots properly without cutting off part of a head!). So for all those who never saw the play, now is your chance! (and for a lot cheaper too!)The play conveyed heavy emotion with the feeling put into the songs. Bring Him Home for example, in the movie was a fail compared to the play - Jackman just did not get the emotion or intensity in his lyrics (nor the falsetto).
(2) the plot/pacing makes no sense, agree - it is ragged. The director kept virtually every stage scene from the play, and in the same order, However, Hooper did not add proper transitions between these scenes such as fade outs, fade-ins etc. Plays have natural transitions such as the stage going dark, curtain closing and re-opening with a changed set etc that are supposed to be emulated in film with those fade-in/out transitions etc.
In that regard it seems like the editing was only 90% done or something - the challenge in putting the play on film verbatim, so to speak, is to develop such transitions and plot development in the film that are not in the play. Plays do ‘jump’ from scene to scene in that characters come and go , and then pop up again later etc - those attending a play expect this since it is part of the medium. In a movie this is jarring.
Crowe as Javert was a mistake - characters Javert and Val Jean are opposites, but balanced lead characters - one plays off the other. So the two voices must be equally powerful (they were in the play and its CD soundtrack). Vocally, Crowe cannot match Jackman, and it detracts from the movie. This seems to have also flowed into Crowe’s acting -he played Javert too stiff - yes the man Javert has a heart of stone, but at his end he is very emotionally torn - it didn’t come out.
If you’ve seen the play, the movie will be very very familiar. And if you haven’t, now’s your chance!!
I would watch it at least once in the theatre.God bless you.
D
dixieagle
Guest
I was fortunate to finally get to see the movie this evening… just got back. As I had surmised previously, I believe that the depiction of the degradation of Fantine underscored the horror of her situation and was certainly in keeping with plot and character development.
Here is a link to a Catholic News Service review: catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv150.htm
And to the “Decent Films” (Christian) website review:
decentfilms.com/blog/lesmiserables-60sec
BTW, the Catholic News Service (and former Office for Film and Broadcasting of the USCCB) classification is A - III; suitable for adults.
I think it is therefore, safe to say that Catholic adults should have no qualms about the suitability of this film.
- Status