In Defense of Russell Crowe

The reviews are in for the long awaited film version of "Les Miserables." People either LOVED it, or HATED it. Those who hated it had their reasons. Some who dabble in film making themselves profoundly disagreed with director Tom Hooper's choice of using jump-cuts, close-ups, jump-cutting close-ups, Close-up jumping, or whatever. Other haters hated because they were all singing and stuff. Some even disliked how dark and depressing the story was. I mean, what were they expecting? The movie isn't called "Les Happy People of France," it's called "Les Miserables."

Whether you thought it was an abomination against all things cinematic, or the most glorious event to happen to film since the wrestling scene in Borat; everyone can agree on one thing: Russell Crowe was the weak link in the film.

It's not his fault, really. Everyone else was a real singer. Hugh Jackman's been on Broadway. So has most of the rest of the cast. Crowe, while being a great actor, is more of a rocker. With his band "30 Odd Feet of Grunt", he's terrible. He's got that kind of affected terrible voice that makes so many emo rock bands popular. (Click the link, you'll see what I mean.) His voice is all wrong for the part of Javert, just as Gerard Butler was all wrong for the part of the Phantom in "Phantom of the Opera."

But I have to say a few things about this performance. First of all, like Nick Jonas in the 25th Anniversary Concert, he CLEARLY trained for this part. You can palpably sense the vocal technique in his performance. You can almost hear his coach saying to him from behind the camera, "Open! Watch your pitch, Russell! Support the tone!" And THAT, I believe was his undoing.

Russell Crowe is NOT BAD in the film. He's bad in exactly two parts: "Stars" and "Javert's Suicide." Unfortunately for Crowe, these are the two defining moments for the character. And I don't even think he sang the songs badly. On the contrary, I think he was in very good voice for those two scenes. The biggest criticism of those performances was that it was Emotionless and One-Dimensional. The dramatic pay-off of these two songs is lost. I think that Crowe was so focused on his vocal technique, that he forgot to give his all into the performance. You've seen his other films, you KNOW he's capable of more depth.

So there's the irony of Russell Crowe's performance: he sang it so well, it sucked. I actually may have preferred if he scream-sang it but delivered the emotional punch that it needed.

But in the scenes with other actors; the Confrontation, the opening scene when he releases Valjean, the attack at the baracade; he's fine! He acts well, he has a bit of a naturalness to his vocal tone, he's in tune, which is more than I can say for his performances with "Grunt." And never forget, unlike in Phantom, Crowe had to do it LIVE! They could pitch corrected a lip-synched performance. Crowe was really preparing for a theatrical performance, and I say, compared to his level of vocal talent, and considering the rest of the film, he held his own against a powerhouse ensemble.

So, like the film, don't like it, I don't care. But give Russell Crowe credit for working so hard to deliver a pretty good performance when it could have been a disaster of Gerard Butler proportions! You either hated the movie and his performance was one of the many reasons why, or you loved the film, and his performance did not take away from your enjoyment of it.