Letter to Tom Hooper

Open letter from Jesse David Corti to Tom Hooper
“Concern for Les Miserables, Mr. Hooper”

17 September 2011,

Hello Tom Hooper,

Your film "The King's Speech" was a wonderful picture, and though the cast was formidable, at the end of the day--without a great director, the casting would be merely in vain. Kudos to you and your superb work. I am also quite a fan of the series "John Adams". Again, we are indebted to your artistry for giving those works the right touch and thoughful, engaging, intelligent, tasteful entertainment.
In light of hearing the news that your next project was to direct an adaption of the musical "Les Miserables" for film,
I was at first shocked, and then somewhat flabbergasted. Then I grew worried.
And as such, this letter is one of care and caution. With nothing but the best in mind for both the audience and the artists.

I implore you to redirect your focus, and find another story to realize and bring to the screen.
I fear that making a cinematic version of the brilliant Cameron Mackintosh Stage Production of Les Miserables can only reap you rewards of strife, grief, and lack of appreciation.

I say these things not to poo-poo your ambition, I say these things to encourage your efforts and artistry to serve another work; where it would be utilized best.
Detailing a bit, I hope the concerns expressed below will not only reach the organs that operate, but stir your soul as well.

Thank you for your consideration,

First, Les Miserables as a book is nearly un-adaptable. The other 9 adaptations since the brilliant 1934 french version (4 hr. 40 minutes) haven't done justice on screen to the source material.

Watering it down with a less epic vision and incorporating unnecessary elements like stars in the equation, turn this treasured book and beloved musical into something less. and for a work of such magnitude it's not merely injustice, it's outright wrong and wasteful.

The themes of revolution, redemption, brotherhood, love, loyalty, grace, mercy, the law, social injustice in 19th century France, transformation, resurrection, compassion, among others that one more scholarly than I can attest to, cannot adequately be addressed on the screen for the running time that Universal Studios would demand for the film.
(I'm presuming that a running time close to 2hr 20m would be ideal for the maximal amount of screenings)

Two. Jean ValJean

Rule one of Casting Jean Valjean is you don't cast a star. The second rule of casting Jean Valjean, you don't cast a star. The third rule of casting jean valjean, you cast a man who can sing the part, act it out, and not be glamorous/hollywood handsome. The appeal of Valjean is that it's someone you know is a man who's been downtrodden, not given the appropriate chance, etc. Not someone who's just "playing the part". It needs to be felt, not viewed. The attatchment of Hugh Jackman (who's not a box office draw--but is handsome and can sing all the notes, and act fairly) playing Valjean work as anathema (who wouldn't recognize him as the same individual in the town? he's tall, handsome, and has a physique that would have the town scoffing at his questioning for anyone to lift the cart--which is an extremely powerful moment in the piece). The character is better fitted by someone akin to Gary Oldman, someone not handsome per se, but someone who showcases the acting chops, raw power and intensity required for Valjean. I am not aware of his abilities vocally, but I trust you understand my meaning in using him as an example. He's not a star, he's recognizable, but not held with the leading man lens that liam neeson and hugh jackman are perceived through--which is exactly what that character needs. Without this sort of "common man" to have the audience rally behind, the film will be lugging dead weight. Tom Hanks used to have this appeal, but he became so visible to the audience as tom hanks they became aware that it doesn't matter what happens to tom, he still has what, millions of dollars and schmoozes with politicians? common man my butt! And hollywood won't take the risk to have Colm Wilkinson or any of the adroitly able individuals who have portrayed the part of Jean Valjean on stage exceptionally because they don't have "box-office draw" or "understand how to act with the camera"

Three. The Musical and Movie Split.

ONE of the subplots of Les Miserables involves the French Revolution! Which means battle sequences. Which means singing after/before battle. Which will not resonate with a movie-going public! This is better accepted through the medium of the stage, because when you're watching it on stage you have the expectation of oh that's the set for this part of the work. Whereas with film-goers, the audience watching the film starts questioning--why are they singing right before and after battle? The audience now is so split from those who attend stage shows and those who attend the films. And the expectations of what to expect have diverged tremendously. The box office receipts for movie musicals have dwindled, because those who love the stage won't go to the theater, and those who love the theater won't go to the stage. Before, there were fewer places to see great musicals performed, but now--one can see a musical through a tour, and how many high schools/theater companies/colleges put on performances of shows? A lot more than before. Which means this film currently under pre-production will not reap the mega-blockbuster rewards that they're expecting it to be on screen. Because one can see a good production of it a lot easier than it was to see a good production of a musical back in the days of Julie Andrews and Bob Fosse. This in turn means people aren't in the same sort of rush to see a film-version of this musical as one would before.

Four. The Most Powerful Parts of the Musical will be reduced or lost through film.

One Day More is impossible to film.
The way it's staged is brilliant, and there are fewer surer things in life than knowing when you see that number on stage, with the background of everything you have witnessed before, it is an experience so cathartic and powerful and brilliant--that can't be done any better. Even watching it on youtube leaves one a bit wanting because it cuts to people's faces and different areas of the stage, whereas when you're watching it on stage, your eyes do the directing of attention while the number is presented flawlessly. Javert's final song and Stars will be seen as lagging moments in the film, but they're absolutely perfect in the way they're realized on the stage. Falling from a bridge dramatically looks hokey on film, but looks like magic on stage (and even then--you're granting the license of "it's being done live" for the production). The way ghosts are employed on stage is artful and affecting. On film, the ghosts would be the equivalent of Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. Neat gimmick, but not powerful.

Five. Marius and Cosette.

This has always been the weakest part of Les Miserables (the musical), because frankly--their love story is intentionally underdeveloped; Hugo's bigger point about letting the young ones find their true love, younthful, beautiful, and for all time. But Marius' character is weak, and you wish that Cosette had met Enjolras or another member of the Societe de la ABC, because Marius is wimpy and whiney. However, in order to attract the younger demographic--more time will be allotted for this side-story. For Cosette--you want the best for her, and when she wants marius over the littlest meeting--it's acceptable on stage (because their songs together are pretty) but would come across as trite and dragging on screen.

Six. So we're singing this in English...even though this takes place in France with french people?

The box office of Inglorious Basterds and Valkyrie proved something very important. Audiences will read subtitles and resonate better with films that are not only true to the circumstances but to the very language and setting of their situations as well (Valkyrie failed to resonate because they were for the most part speaking english the entire film--it's a film about germans in germany in WW2!). Which means when in France as a frenchmen in the 1800s, you speak french. You sing french. Why is this forgivable with the musical? Why do people not mind it on stage? It's one of those things that separates film from stage. You go along with it on stage. With film? it's just lazy/unbelievable/not as resonating an experience.

I implore you and Universal, once again--to reconsider your efforts whilst still in pre-production and focus on a project that will succeed artistically and satisfy individually. Perhaps, revisiting "East of Eden" or, as I understand Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway have shared interest in realizing "Carousel" which is already starting off on the right foot with the cast involved...

Nevertheless, thank you again for your time and consideration to read this, and I truly do wish you the best with whatever it is you decide.

Sincerely,
Jesse David Corti

Author: Jesse David Corti