Top Ad 728x90

20 June 2013

, , , ,

Les Miserables: Oh, That Crap Of Yours

When I entered college, I overly grown a love for plays. Ironically, I certainly didn't have the reason on why I love this certain niche or where this affection have uprooted. The very first genre of theater plays that caught my attention was the “Theater of the Absurd.”

The play, Les Miserables.
When I entered college, I overly grown a love for plays. Ironically, I certainly didn't have the reason on why I love this certain niche or where this affection have uprooted. The very first genre of theater plays that caught my attention was the “Theater of the Absurd.” I guess it reciprocated my love for weirdness and the connection it brings on deciphering the labyrinth of this theater. But, as I go along with this avenue, I chanced upon the noted piece of Victor Hugo, Les Miserables. This play is barely categorized in the “Theater of the Absurd”, though. 




The moment I fondled on this, there was an enigma inside me; giving me the curiosity to why this play was written. So, I took the time to read it over and over again hoping to inculcate in my mind the lesson it brings. From there, I totally understood the caboodle of the noted masterpiece. But, of course, individuals have their unique ways and/or processes of understanding certain kind of stuffs. Anyway, to make this scribble short, the thing that pisses me is when I hear people lollygagging that they don’t like the play or the movie, Les Miserables. What’s worst, they only had the chance to see it on a movie basis and not giving an effort to, at least, acknowledge the play itself. Their complaint is it mounts on a lot of singing instead of total conversation or dialogue. What a piece of Edward Cullen! I think they don’t understand the tenets of a play or, simply put, the characteristic it holds. For me, the singing parts are one of the best ways to amplify emotions and the characters really did a great job on it. The details, per se, where addressed properly and they made sure that Hugh Jackman would really play the role of the protagonist – consistently. I can really commend his acting skills and, most especially, his overall appearance; which really looked thin and miserable. As what I've heard, Jackman barely eats food and before the shooting would start, there’s a wide interval of him drinking water and the shooting proper. By this, he resulted into a very sullen individual where he looks weary and malnourished. The movie never failed in adopting the real words in the play and was correctly consistent ion how the scenes should go. There are a bunch of the latter that had to be terminated, though. 

Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway
Technically, the play is about a man trying to live the purpose of his being and imbues people to live life to the extent. From a galleon slave to a noble mayor of the town, Jackman did an inexorable jobworthy of a standing ovation and, not to mention, a Best Actor Award. Also, let’s not forget the amiable lad, Anne Hathaway, who really gave me sheer goosebumps when she decided to cut his hair. I mean, she was really beautiful with her long hair and it makes such cruelty to cut those sleek assets. However, her insurmountable acting skills made it very interesting and a notch higher than those of Bella Swan. Les Miserables, to wit, is a story of a valiant man whose heart is fueled to help the poor or, specifically, the impoverished. Sorry, if I can’t thrust lucrative details regarding the whole of the movie because I don’t want to spoil you, of course. Just come to think of it, this was a play written by Victor Hugo. Yes, Victor Hugo. If you’re not a poser and you truly recognize the power of literature, then, you would not have any regrets on watching this epic film. Cheers!

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Top Ad 728x90