Most of the examples under Rule of Symbolism (all but the first, in my view) don't fit there at all. Should they just be under Symbolism?
I don't know if this really counts as an example of anything, so I'll just leave this here: this is the only film I think I've ever seen at the cinema where audiences almost inevitably applaud at the end.
Hide / Show Replies
If it counts as something, it wouldn't go on the main page — it's an Audience Reaction. That happened in the theatre I went to too. For me, it was the second time, since people also did it after The Kings Speech.
That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.
I loved this film. It had its problems but what film doesn't, really? Even Titanic had moments of bad acting. I thought Russell Crowe did a fantastic job. Is he the world's best singer? No but he was good in this role. People have too high expectations for films. This is a musical and they didn't cast all professional singers. They wanted to emphasize the acting and I think it was a good call and I thought the actors all did a wonderful job playing their parts and with singing as well. I think the people who have a problem with the actors singing went into the theater and expected it to be like a Broadway production. Clearly if you were expecting that there would be some disappointment. I think the best way to go into this movie is to have an open mind and to not have sky high expectations.
In what way is Valjean's religiosity "trumped up" in the film? In the novel, he seems to ask himself "What would the Bishop do?" or at least imagine the dead bishop is watching him make his choices.
If anyone's religiosity is trumped up in the film, it's Javert's. In the novel, Javert realizes he is subject to God for the first time just before his suicide. Until then he has worshiped only earthly authority, so it's quite jarring to see him in the film singing "Mine is the way of the Lord". In the novel, the way of the Lord (mercy) is what upsets his world view and leads to him handing in his resignation to God.
What's with the comments about the finale reflecting the success of the Communards in 1860, in the Crowning Moment sections? As I remember, the two big revolutions after the one in Les Mis (which was actually rather minor in French history) were the one in 1848 and the Paris Commune in 1871, and neither of them could really be considered successes by the standards of the the book or musicial - each produced a republic (the Second Republic, 1948-50, only lasted a few years before being replaced by the Second Empire; the Third Republic, starting in 1971, lasted several decades), but not improvements in the lives of the poor/working class; the governments of both republics repressed the poor and anyone seeking economic equality heavily. So I'm not sure what's being referred to.
Also, I don't get what supports the assumption that the finale is supposed to reflect that.
Edited by 216.99.32.45
The "Enjolras and Loudhailer were probably childhood friends" was actually already revealed by Hadley Fraser in a panel around December, iirc.
Edited by Synchronicity
Here are my personal thoughts on this film: I enjoyed it, in spite of its noticeable flaws. I got a bit tired of the singing after a while, though most of the singing was really good. I suppose it was my first time watching the story all the way through. I loved Hugh Jackman; he had a lot of expression and I've always liked that. I also like his singing voice. He warbles a bit, but that's not a problem for me. Russell Crowe, while a bit flat in terms of acting, was not as bad as I thought he'd be. Not absolutely brilliant, but not terrible. As for the dutch angles and the close-ups; they were an interesting choice. I wasn't sure what to think of the closeups and the Inelegant Blubbering, but I guess that Hooper wanted sort of a unique look to the film, the actors were expressing emotion more than anything else (It ain't called "Les Miserables" for nothing), and... what was I going to say? Oh, I also thought that the pacing was a bit rushed. It just skipped through parts of the story without allowing it to breathe. In any case, I enjoyed it. I liked the acting, the singing, and the story. There were odd things about the film, but I wouldn't exactly gripe about them.
Antagonist in Mourning and Backstory Horror, which are right next to each other alphabetically, both contain the trivia bit about Hadley and Tveit playing it like they knew each other as kids. Part of each example are clearly word-for-word the same. What should be done to resolve this? Rewriting them so there's no overlap, or cutting one of the two?