On April 18, 1938, Superman made his first appearance in Action Comics No. 1. Just in time for his 75th birthday, we have the new trailer for Man of Steel (2013), which has me excited about the upcoming Superman movie. The trailer shows young Clark Kent struggling to find his identity, beginning with the young child being held by his Krypton father Jor-el played by Russell Crowe and talking to his earthly father played by Kevin Costner.
With Henry Cavill as the adult Superman, Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Michael Shannon as General Zod, the new Zach Snyder film shows a lot of promise for the franchise that has not had a great film since the last time we saw Superman battle General Zod in Superman IIin 1980. Check out the trailer.
Man of Steel comes to your local theater on June 14.
What is your favorite Superman film? Leave your two cents in the comments.
The play Les Misérables is one of the longest running Broadway productions of all-time as well as an international phenomena. So, for better or worse, the film Les Misérables (2012), directed by Tom Hooper, is always going to be compared to that legacy. While some of the singing in the new film may not live up to major productions of the play, it is a worthwhile addition to the Les Miz canon and a fine way to bring a great story and exciting music to a wider audience.
In the interest of full disclosure, while I have not seen the play 957 times, I have seen it a few times and have owned the soundtrack from the original London production. So I went into the movie with certain expectations. If you have similar expectations, you may or may not be disappointed, depending on how flexible you are willing to be in what you want out of the movie.
Hooper’s decision to film the actors singing their parts live instead of lip syncing studio recordings was bound to result in less than perfect singing. The two major roles played by Hugh Jackman (Jean Valjean) and Russell Crowe (Inspector Javert) are the least spectacular in their vocals, generally singing on key but with less-than-powerful voices. Some, including singer Adam Lambert, have been critical of the singing in the film.
Yet, any decrease in quality in singing from stage to film is more than made up for in the emotional power of skilled actors playing the roles on screen in close up shots that you do not get on stage. Hugh Jackman may not get a Grammy nomination on his own, but he more than deserves the Academy Award nomination for Best Actor and his Golden Globes win last night.
Further, most of the other roles are played by excellent singers, including Anne Hathaway. Hathaway, whose mother was an understudy for the same role as Fantine in the first U.S. tour of the play, gives an outstanding singing performance, earning her a well-deserved Best Supporting Oscar nomination and a Golden Globes win even though she is only in a small part of the film. Hence, her vocal skills may be why her voice is the one featured in the trailer below on the song Susan Boyle helped make famous on Britain’s Got Talent.
The actors in the important smaller roles help make the film. Colm Wilkinson, who played Valjean on stage in London and New York, here plays the bishop. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen provide comic relief as the Thénardiers better than one could do on stage because this comedy generally works better with small details you cannot see in a play. Samantha Barks gives a moving performance as Eponine, as do many of the youngsters in the cast. In short, those who are fans of the play, therefore, most likely will also enjoy seeing the story on screen and in repeated DVD viewings.
Those who have never seen the play who do not have certain expectations about the songs may like the film even more than those with heightened expectations. Of course, some people will refuse to see the movie because they “don’t like musicals.” But those who are open to the experience will be pleasantly surprised how a powerful story can be told entirely in song.
The film, of course, is based on Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel Les Misérables, which is a long but terrific story about life, forgiveness, love, faith, and hope. The story focuses on a former prisoner haunted by the law and the past despite the fact that he is a changed man. The book, musical, and film all touch on timely themes including a sub-story about a fight for economic justice. The world would be a better place if every human being watched or read this story at least once every year. The book has been made into a non-singing film several times, including a 1998 version starring Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean.
Even though the play premiered in its English language form in 1985, it took more than twenty-five years for the musical to make it into a film. Seeing what these actors and this director accomplished, it was worth the wait.
Conclusion? If you are open to watching a musical, or even if you are not, you likely will be drawn in by the combination of a great story with memorable music. If you have seen the play before, check your expectations and memories at the ticket window and just relax and enjoy the ride.
Other Reviews Because Why Should You Trust Me? Rotten Tomatoes has a 70% critics rating and an 84% audience rating for Les Misérables, somewhat reflecting the fact that the play was always more popular with audiences than with critics. Roger Moore at Movie Nation notes the underlying economic themes of the film and says that the movie is one of the best of the year. Bill Cashill at Popdose writes, “aside from some budget-conscious CGI and the inherent, inescapable staginess of some of the material,” there was little that he did not like about the movie. By contrast, David Jenkins at Little White Lies claims the movie is “nut-smashingly awful.” Meanwhile, Forbes Magazine discusses the political and ethical themes about law and grace in the story. Finally, if you would like to see the stars of the stage perform the songs from Les Misérables, the entire Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Concert is available on YouTube. Note, though, it is a concert and not a full-blown stage production.
What are or were your expectations of the film version of Les Misérables? Leave your two cents in the comments.
The new full trailer for Man of Steel (2013) has been released. From the trailer, you can see that the latest Superman movie takes us back to the origin story. Some have compared the look of the trailer to Terrence Malick’s The Tree of Life (2011), but the music with the images make me think of Gladiator (2000), which starred Russell Crowe who just happens to play Jor-El in Man of Steel. Check it out.
Man of Steel is directed by Zack Snider and stars Henry Cavill as Superman and Clark Kent. Others in the movie include Amy Adams as Lois Lane and Kevin Kostner as Jonathan Kent. General Zod from Superman II (1980) returns in this film and is played by Michael Shannon. Man of Steel is scheduled to be released on June 14, 2013, so you only have six months to wait for yet another reboot of a film about a classic superhero.
Will you see Man of Steel? Leave your two cents in the comments.
The trailer for the upcoming movie, Les Misérables, has been released. As a fan of Victor Hugo’s book and of the musical who always wondered why it took so long to put the play on film, I am excited about the release, which stars Russell Crowe (Javert), Hugh Jackman (Jean Valjean), Anne Hathaway (Fantine), Amanda Seyfried (Cosette). Also, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thénardiers.
The movie is directed by Tom Hooper, who directed the Oscar-winner The King’s Speech. In the upcoming musical, due to be released around Christmas, Hooper had the stars sing live for the filming instead of lip syncing the words to recorded tracks. That is Hathaway’s voice you hear in the trailer. I am guessing that Hooper’s attention to detail will pay off big in Les Misérables. Even if you do not like musicals usually, you might want to give this one a chance.
What do you think of the “Les Misérables” trailer? Leave your two cents in the comments.
In Part One of this two-part series on redemptive violence in American Westerns, we considered how the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma significantly changed the ending from the 1957 film. In making the change, the movie embraced the myth of redemptive violence, a concept explained by writer Walter Wink in several books.
“The Myth of Redemptive Violence” appears in the media and popular culture to teach the lesson that violence provides redemption. In these scenes of redemptive violence, the audience feels a release and joy that the hero, often in an apparent beaten state, rises up in a flurry of violence to save himself or herself, save another, or save an entire town.
It is through the act of violence that the hero and society is redeemed and saved.
{Note: This post and the previous post discuss the ending of classic Western film and thus include spoilers.}
Classic Westerns: Shane, High Noon, & The Searchers
Although redemptive violence seems more common in today’s action films like in the updated 3:10 to Yuma, it has been present throughout film history. Many classic Westerns perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence.
But the best of them add a layer of complexity and avoid the simple violence-as-redemption lesson. For example, the classic Shane (1953) fits Walter Wink’s pattern of redemptive violence with Shane beaten until he rises up to redeem himself through violence. But the movie adds something more. Shane’s acts of violence do not bring him a happy life, it was not done out of his own vengeance, and it also may have brought about his sacrificial death.
Similar underlying complex themes are present at the end of High Noon (1952). The movie at first glance ends with a typical redemptive violence shootout, where we are relieved that Gary Cooper killed the bad guys. But his redemption comes from his fulfilled duty more than the violence. Ultimately, he rejects the violence when he throws his badge on the ground at the end and rides off with his Quaker wife to be a farmer.
Similarly, Robert Altman’s beautiful McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) still offered a nod to redemptive violence with the killing of the bad guys. Yet, it also showed us the hero’s tragic death and the consequences of violence.
The Searchers (1956) bucked the redemptive violence myth further. Although the film promises violence at the end, instead we get mercy. The hero then is left with a troubled future because of his violent past.
In the scene below, we see Ethan Edwards, played by John Wayne, finally capturing his niece stolen by the Native Americans. Edwards is an angry violent man who hates the Indians so much he plans to kill his niece who was taken into their culture. But near the end of the film, his character finds redemption through a small nonviolent act.
Naked Spur (1953), starring Jimmy Stewart, features a similar ending. Stewart’s Howard Kemp is angry and seeks revenge throughout the movie, only to break at the end to find himself in something besides violence.
Modern Westerns: Unforgiven, Appaloosa, Dances with Wolves
In this new century, movie makers often create movies that fail to grapple with the complexities of violence and instead offer violence as redemption. Even in the highly regarded “anti-Western” of Unforgiven, where many critics praised its realistic treatment of violence, the movie ends with acts of redemptive violence just like other Clint Eastwood Westerns. The movie promises more, but in the end it slips back into the pattern of redemptive violence as we enjoy watching Eastwood kill the wounded and unarmed Gene Hackman.
Similarly, Appaloosa (2008) offers us a complex vision of the West. But it still settles on a final shootout so viewers are satisfied that the bad guy is killed.
Dances with Wolves (1990) attempted to get out of the cycle of redemptive violence. It does have flashes of it though, such as where the white men – whose evil is shown by the fact they kill Kevin Costner’s horse and the wolf – are killed in a battle at a river. Had the movie ended there, it would have been a redemptive violence lesson: Good guys kill bad guys.
But the film continues and the ending is something different.
After the bad white men are killed, Kevin Costner’s character remains troubled by what the future might bring. And the movie ends with him and Stands With a Fist, in effect, sacrificing their lives living with the tribe to leave on their own to protect the tribe. Thus, the movie ends with an act of sacrifice rather than an act of redemptive violence.
The ending of Dances With Wolves, though, is somewhat unsatisfying. Perhaps it is because the movie led us to believe that it would provide us with redemptive violence due to its previous acts of violence. But at the end there is no big act of violence to put an end to the bad guys and make the good guys heroes. Maybe because the good guys of the movie are the Native Americans, and we all know they do not win, the movie could not end differently. Costner and the tribe never get their redemptive violence because the Native Americans of history never did.
Conclusion
The themes of Shane, High Noon and The Searchers — with their ambiguities and troubled heroes – almost seem too complex in comparison with the modern version of 3:10 to Yuma. The modern movie says, “the bad guy is now good because he killed the bad guys.” But in these older movies, it was not enough to vanquish the bad guys. There was something troubling that lingered even after the final acts of violence.
Of course, not all old Westerns were as complex as The Searchers, so maybe it is unfair to make a comparison across time to a few classics. Still, watch for redemptive violence messages in any modern action film you watch.
Because so many films teach us that redemptive violence solves problems, we must consider what our entertainment teaches us. And we must consider how that entertainment may reflect our society today.
What do you think about the use of violence in film? Leave your two cents in the comments.
