Hugh Jackman gets serious in first official still from 'Les Misérables'
Tom Hooper's film of the blockbuster musical hits screens in December
Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean in the first official still from "Les Miserables."
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
A reader asked yesterday why we haven't yet updated the sidebar with Oscar predictions for the 2012 season. In truth, neither Kris nor I think it's a particularly healthy practice, and with Kris about to set off on his honeymoon, I like to think that the question of who will win Best Supporting Actress in 11 months' time is the furthest thing from his mind. My mind, meanwhile, has a less ironclad excuse, but refuses to go there all the same.
For those that are daring to put their necks on the block with such projections, however, I imagine that one title is very much in their thoughts. "Les Misérables" is the umpteenth screen version of Victor Hugo's beloved doorstop of French literature, but the first of the blockbuster 1985 stage musical that ranks as the third longest-running show in Broadway history. Alongside the no-introduction-needed source material, the cast (Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway et al) is starry, the director (Tom Hooper) recently if unpopularly Oscared, the release date (December 14) in the prime of awards season. Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching -- for those who regard Oscar punditry as a kind of mathematical process, this adds up to a frontrunner.
I've been more sceptical than most about the project, as I tend to be -- sometimes rightly, often wrongly -- off prospects that sound a little too perfect on paper. (Hey, I doubted "The King's Speech" for that same reason, and look where that got me.) Though he has form in period epics for TV, this is a heftier assignment than Hooper has ever undertaken before; with the backlash against "The King's Speech" having swelled since last year's Oscar triumph, there are plenty waiting for him to fall.
Meanwhile, there are always going to be nerves surrounding a cultural behemoth like "Les Mis" that has somehow gone 27 years without reaching the screen; the similarly long-awaited "Chicago" overcame the pressure, but "The Phantom of the Opera" cracked fatally. (It doesn't ease matters that, for all the attempts at doing so, Hugo's novel has never yet translated to film with complete success, Claude Lelouch's overblown but involving 1995 meta-adaptation representing perhaps the nearest miss to date.)
Whether or not the film hits its marks, however, all eyes will be on Jackman in the supersized heroic role of Jean Valjean -- one of those beefily iconic parts that will draw the attention of awards voters to even a merely serviceable performance in a high-profile adaptation.Jackman's song-and-dance skills, demonstrated to the world at large during his hosting stint at the 2008 Academy Awards, are beyond reproach; as a thespian, generally relegated to twinkly-eyed romantic or action-hero duty in Hollywood fodder, he's rarely been handed roles of such range or gravity.
The Australian charmer will therefore be looking on this role as an opportunity to surprise people with his dramatic chops, so it's no accident that the first official still, introduced via the actor's own Twitter feed, from the film finds Jackman in the most committedly against-type form imaginable: his matinee-idol features masked in facial scars, a moth-eaten buzzcut and a scraggly hedge of a beard, his trademark Colgate smile replaced with an earnest scowl, he may as well have "LET'S GET SERIOUS" tattooed in flowing calligraphy across his forehead.
After posting the photo, he tweeted that his look will be changing soon -- not a fact that will surprise anyone familiar with the story, but there's a reason they've led with Valjean's most severe guise. This is the kind of calculated instigation of awards buzz that makes self-fulfilling prophecies of certain roles, particular for actors as well-liked (though as-yet-unawarded) as Jackman. We know a Golden Globe musical/comedy nod (if not win) is in the bag; the film would have to be a colossal disappointment for the Academy not to follow suit.
For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.
Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention!
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
Where will 'Star Trek Into Darkness' fit in?Thursday, May 16, 2013
-
The 'Drunken Master' filmmaker's spin goes into production next yearThursday, May 16, 2013
-
Ari Folman's 'Waltz With Bashir' follow-up opens Directors' Fortnight at CannesThursday, May 16, 2013
-
The actress's directorial debut goes on sale at the Cannes Film Market this weekThursday, May 16, 2013




Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupJonnybon
March 28, 2012 at 8:30AM EST Reply to Comment"with the backlash against "The King's Speech" having swelled since last year's Oscar triumph..."
I was unaware of that. And I adore The Social Network as much as the next film fan, but people seem to find The King's Speech to be an equally satisfying film experience (at least in my circles).
CaptainCanada Yeah, I haven't noticed any big backlash from people who weren't already rooting for "The Social Network" at the time the race was on.
March 28, 2012 at 12:00PM ESTDuncan Houst Maybe "backlash" was the wrong term. Perhaps "indifference" would have been better. It's just more difficult to take seriously "The King's Speech"s win than it was for "No Country for Old Men", "The Hurt Locker", or certainly "The Artist".
March 28, 2012 at 3:00PM ESTAndrej
March 28, 2012 at 8:46AM EST Reply to CommentYep, it's far too early to announce any early predictions, but all things considered I guess this one here's pretty safe: Hugh Jackman will be nominated for a Golden Globe.
The movie doesn't even have to be any good to be up for a GG, and I really don't think they'll let this massive cast go away completely unnoticed (ditto The Great Gatsby, to some extent).
JJ1
March 28, 2012 at 9:33AM EST Reply to CommentI love the source material. I really enjoy the actors involved. Tom Hooper was proven to be an effective director (personal opinion of The King's Speech aside). And it just looks like the type of film to garner 10+ nominations come Oscar time.
That doesn't mean I don't think it could miss. It's a behemoth of a production. Poor writing/directing/tone could kill it. BUT, having said that, I actually do believe that with Hooper at the helm, he won't give us a wildly disappointing product. Box office? No clue. Reviews/precursors? No clue. But I am hopeful that it will be quality.
JJ1 *has* proven, not was.
March 28, 2012 at 9:34AM ESTSilencio
March 28, 2012 at 11:06AM EST Reply to CommentActually X-Men already had me sold on his dramatic skills. Laugh if you will.
Tye-Grr
March 28, 2012 at 11:18AM EST Reply to CommentI thought Jackman was damn good in both Aronofsky's 'The Fountain' and Nolan's 'The Prestige'. 2006 was quite a good year for him.
JJ1 very much so
March 28, 2012 at 1:27PM ESTCasey Fiore Yeah I think he would be my best actor winner for The Fountain in 2006
March 28, 2012 at 2:25PM ESTCaptainCanada
March 28, 2012 at 12:02PM EST Reply to CommentA lot can change nearly a year out, obviously, but this movie seems like an obvious candidate to supply the customary two supporting actress nominees from the same movie. Mostly likely Hathaway and Barks, based on past reception of their respective roles.
d
March 28, 2012 at 2:05PM EST Reply to CommentI feel that this will be Hooper's "Memoirs of a Geisha"...it may gain some major awards traction, but will end up getting nominated only in the techs.
We have an up-and-coming tv-turned-film director who has been groomed by Harvey Weinstein to turn in a Best Pic winner, but follows it up with a great technical film but with no spine to it. Let's hope that I'm wrong.
DylanS
March 28, 2012 at 3:26PM EST Reply to CommentI think people are being somewhat unfair about Hooper's capabilities as a director. Sure, he comes from a TV background, but he has livened the films he's made with interesting and unconventional aesthetic choices, whereas other Weinstein oscar baiters like Minghella or Marshall were both incredibly by the numbers. I'm not saying this automatically makes him a good director, but I think it somewhat unfair to simply lump him in with those other directors because he made a film that was successful with the academy.
JJ1 agreed
March 28, 2012 at 3:38PM ESTCaptainCanada Marshall's aesthetic approach to "Chicago" was pretty distinctive (his attempts to reprise the same format in subsequent musicals didn't work, however).
March 28, 2012 at 5:21PM ESTGuy Lodge Minghella was a more "by the numbers" stylist than Hooper? When Hooper makes his Talented Mr Ripley, we'll talk.
March 28, 2012 at 6:08PM ESTJJ1 Love The Talented Mr Ripley. Such a great film. It deserved better (awards-wise) back in '99. Though, it was a strong year.
March 28, 2012 at 6:30PM ESTDylanS "Talented Mr. Ripley" is admirably well-crafted, but still pretty conventional looking. My point was that Hooper often gets knocked for having a TV background and lacking a cinematic backbone and I think that's a very ignorant viewpoint to take on him. Whether or not you like his style, he does have a style that's uniquely his own and is attempting to make unique aesthetic choices consistently throughout his work, as small a body of work as it is. Check out his very underrated "The Damned United" and you'll recognize many of the same visual strokes you see in "The King's Speech" (namely the use of wide-angles).
March 28, 2012 at 10:48PM ESTAlso, I feel like I'm coming across as some big supporter of his, and I just want to clarify that I think the jury's still out on him and I don't have particularly high expectations for this film and could easily see it going the way of "Nine".
John G.
March 28, 2012 at 3:38PM EST Reply to CommentHard to talk about Tom Hooper without falling down a rabbit hole.
It's probably true that The Social Network will be better remembered in years to come. Hipper-than-thous will malign the 2010 Oscars for years. I just hope people don't forget that The King's Speech is a very, very good film with phenomenal performances, a great script, and confident, capable direction. John Adams can stand next to the greatest American miniseries and I haven't heard a bad word about The Damned United. Not particularly excited about a new movie musical but I still feel the need to defend Hooper when he's under fire.
DylanS I agree with everything said above. I'm not in love with "Speech", I like it just fine and no more than that, but your assessment of it is absolutely spot on. And anybody with a level-headed view of awards season can realize that it's not "The King's Speech" fault for beating "The Social Network" and that they are two films that need not be compared to each other like that, because they happened to be released in the same year and therefore must constantly bring up the one film whenever the other is brought up.
March 28, 2012 at 10:58PM ESTGuy Lodge I think you'll find there's not one mention of The Social Network (which I'm not completely nuts about) in the article above.
March 29, 2012 at 5:04PM ESTJohn G. It's been the asterisk next to Hooper's Oscar in the blogosphere. Your piece is the exception rather than the rule.
March 29, 2012 at 5:27PM ESTDylanS Wasn't directed at you Guy, I've always thought you and the site as a whole to be very level-headed in your approach and not prone to making those kind of comparisons, and I applaud you for that.
March 29, 2012 at 5:53PM ESTDooby
March 28, 2012 at 4:21PM EST Reply to CommentIn my mind, I don't see how this won't bomb - it has Nine written all over it. Similarily overrated, over rewarded director, same starry sort of cast. And frankly, I don't see how Hooper's dull aesthetic is going to give this movie any of the life it needs.
The Great Dane Nine has to be one of the biggest let-downs EVER. A record number of Oscar winners - and the thinnest, weakest musicals ever. No story (I don't care if that was the point). The legendary Day-Lewis was SO miscast, it hurt! The man can't sing. The row of female cameos were ridiculous and didn't amount to anything. Cotillard was the sole saving grace and should have been nominated in stead of Cruz. Compared to Chicago which had a lot of visual ideas, Nine was a joke. Every song performed on the same stage? IT WAS SOOO BAD!
March 28, 2012 at 4:58PM ESTDylanS "In my mind, I don't see how this won't bomb" unless Luhrman's "Gatsby" is busy stealing all of it's bomb thunder.
March 28, 2012 at 5:46PM ESTThe Great Dane
March 28, 2012 at 4:55PM EST Reply to CommentI'll bet my own neck that this will be the most nominated film for the Globes. Two for Best Actor, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Song (if there's a new one), and anything from 1 to 3 Supporting Actress (Seyfried not getting in due to her weak character, but Hathaway, Bonham Carter and especially Samantha Barks), maybe even 1 Supporting Actor for Baron Cohen.
It's funny that you started out writing about Supporting Actress, because unless the film fails (and Barks doesn't deliver), Barks should already be called a frontrunner. The role of Éponine is one of the greatest Supporting Actress roles from any musical and originally won the Tony. If the character is nailed right, it should carry Barks to a star-making scenario and an Oscar nomination.
Voland
March 28, 2012 at 5:11PM EST Reply to CommentThe part of Valjean certainly is great, but if I had to guess, I would say Crowe in the role as Javert will deliver a slam-dunk-performance. This part has written Oscar all over it.
jepressman
March 28, 2012 at 5:37PM EST Reply to CommentA backlash against The King's Speech and Hooper? Where is this happening exactly?Mass marches? Boycotts?Perhaps only with some cinema reviewers. The people I know who saw TKS were pleased with the film.
Dennis
March 28, 2012 at 6:08PM EST Reply to Comment"Hugo's novel has never yet translated to film with complete success,"
Guy, I'm curious if you've seen Raymond Bernard's 1934 version starring Harry Baur and Charles Vanel? For what it's worth, I think it's a masterpiece and one of the very best films of the '30s.
Guy Lodge The most thorough and literate, certainly -- but I do think it's on the porridgey side. But you make a fair point: for many, it qualifies as a "complete success." I spoke out of turn.
March 28, 2012 at 6:14PM ESTEdwin
March 28, 2012 at 7:54PM EST Reply to CommentIt is indeed silly to start predicting Oscar nominations 10 months in advance, but I will at least say in regards to "Les Mis" that I would be surprised if it were to end up with no nominations whatsoever. Even if it's a critical and commercial disappointment, it will still be nominated in at least 2 or 3 tech categories, I'm sure, so it's certainly fair to say that this is a movie we will be talking about in some form next January.
I feel like between the three big "prestige" pics this year--Les Mis, Lincoln, and The Great Gatsby--my hunch is that one of them will fail, one of them will be the Oscar contender it seems to be on paper, and one of them will get unenthusiastic praise that will translate to tech noms only. If I had to guess right now, I'd say Lincoln is your Oscar contender, Les Mis is your tech hit, and Gatsby is the failure. But that could totally reverse by next year.
JJ1 I agree with your assessment, but hope for the best for all. What do we think will happen with The Hobbit?
March 28, 2012 at 8:19PM ESTEdwin There are really three big "prestige blockbusters" (if that's an appropriate term this year): The Hobbit, The Dark Knight Rises, and Gravity (although I suppose one could argue for Prometheus as well, but I'm an avowed skeptic on its chances of being a big critical hit). Again, this is all just gut feelings, but my personal hunch is that people may be overestimating the Oscar chances of The Dark Knight Rises while underestimating The Hobbit. I think people will soon have to confront the notion that the Academy as a whole just isn't quite as sold on Nolan as a lot of the blogosphere is. In a 10-nominee year, it would have a chance, but with the current system it's a bit iffy, and if they go back to 5 nominees, it's a dark horse. The Hobbit, on the other hand, seems like a much better fit for them. If anything, I think it will continue the franchise's streak of dominance in tech categories.
March 28, 2012 at 9:02PM ESTJJ1 Yeah, I may be knee-jerking on the side of caution, but I do not necessarily expect incredible things from The Dark Knight Rises (awards-wise). We know it'll kill at the box office. I trust Nolan, but I'm a tad wary for some reason; even regarding it's quality. No reason for it, just a hunch.
March 29, 2012 at 9:46AM ESTGuy Lodge "What do we think will happen with The Hobbit?"
March 29, 2012 at 5:07PM ESTMy money's on techs only, however good it is. Can't help thinking voters will feel they've already fulfilled their obligation there.
DylanS I honestly have no clue what to make of "The Hobbit" as an awards contender, regardless of quality. I'm inclined to side with Guy on this one, but we are talking about a franchise who's last effort managed to WIN a record 11 Oscars, including best picture, so major awards certainly aren't out of the question.
March 29, 2012 at 5:59PM EST
I'm currently thinking 10 nominations for The Hobbit:
March 29, 2012 at 6:01PM ESTBest Picture
Best Editing
Best Cinematography
Best Art Direction
Best Costume
Best Make Up
Best Score
Best Sound Mixing
Best Sound Editing
Best Visual Effects
Director and Screenplay are the nominations I feel voters would be least likely to revisit since they directly lead to Peter Jackson, moreso than Picture. And there's the question of Best Supporting Actor for either Sir Ian or Serkis, as well as Best Song (is Enya busy?).
As for The Dark Knight Rises, I think it could go either way in terms of award attention. If The Hobbit makes more money than TDKR and is more well-received, it could suck all the air out of the room for other big films. Something about Bane and Catwoman still seems very silly, not enough gravitas for serious award attention.
It's hard to get a grasp on things this far out BUT I think Weinstein is positioning The Master (October 12th) as the prohibitive favorite. Lincoln is a big question mark, Gatsby and Mis could be trainwrecks, Django as well. I expect Gravity to be a frontrunner for Best Editing and Best Cinematography. December is stacked, no doubt about it.
Edwin It's been a long time since I've read "The Hobbit," but doesn't Gollum have a bigger role in the second half of the book? If that's correct, I think any buzz Serkis gets for the role may be reserved for the second film. And that's only if he actually does something more with the role than he did in the LOTR trilogy, because if they didn't nominate him then, they won't nominate him now for doing the same thing. My personal feeling on Andy Serkis in general as far as an Oscar nod goes is that he's going to have to get a juicy live-action role before the Academy will be willing to recognize him. That being said, I think the fact that he's even managed to get this much attention primarily through mo-cap performances will be a significant advantage if that good live-action role ever comes to him.
March 29, 2012 at 8:18PM ESTTo sum everything up, though, it's still way too early to tell anything, and all of the big movies this year could truly go either way. Some have more going for them than others, but it's very difficult to tell at this point, because for all we know, "The Master" could be received as PT Anderson's first failure and "The Great Gatsby" could shock everyone by being received as one of the great literary adaptations.
daveylo I think Lincoln has the best chance to fail.
March 30, 2012 at 8:06PM ESTsomeperson @Edwin
March 31, 2012 at 11:23AM ESTFrom what I remember, Gollum has virtually no part in the second half of the book. In fact, I'm pretty sure he only has one scene in 'The Hobbit' and then is never really mentioned again.
lazygarfield Honestly, and no harm meant, but it feels kind of sad to compartmentalize these films with such reductive labels already.
April 26, 2012 at 4:21PM ESTAlso, where does "Anna Karenina" figure in all this?
daveylo
March 30, 2012 at 8:03PM EST Reply to CommentI'm kind of hoping this will be good. I'm not a huge fan of the musical so I'm curious if Hooper will add some grit the property and play down the bombast. The movie is well cast -- my only worry is Russell Crowe because I have no evidence he can sing a note and he has some good songs.
I actually wish Hooper had taken on Emma Thompson's adaptation of My Fair Lady instead.
Guy Lodge Actually, Russell Crowe has maintained a singing career on the side for a long time, fronting various vaguely rock-oriented bands, releasing albums, touring, etc. He's no Pavarotti, but he can hold a tune.
April 1, 2012 at 10:09AM ESTdaveylo I had forgotten completely that Crowe had played in a band. I've never heard him sing. Javert sings one of the best songs in the show so it will be interesting to see what Crowe does with it.
April 2, 2012 at 12:12AM ESTmoviefan Not only has Crowe been singing/having bands since he was 16, he's very serious about this role and has been taking singing lessons for months; throughout the summer while filming Superman, in NO while filming Broken City and he's recently tweeted he's still getting lessons.
April 4, 2012 at 11:29AM ESThttp://chicago.broadwayworld.com/article/The-Showtune-Mosh-Pit-for-January-18th-2012-20120118