Matinee: The Man Who Laughs

I promise, my gritty, hold-nothing-back review of The Fast & The Furious septology (series?) is coming. I'm just not quite done all the movies yet. Instead, I'll review another movie I saw to cleanse my palate of whatever was going on in Tokyo Drift, the foreign film The Man Who Laughs (2012).
Based off the novel of the same name by Victor Hugo (L'homme Qui Rit), this French movie is set in France on the cusp of the Revolution. Our story follows Gwynplaine, a young boy whose face has been carved into a permanent Joker grin by the evil Doctor Hardquanone. Abandonded by his captor, Gwynplaine wanders the destitute winter countryside only to discover Dea, a young blind girl huddled underneath the corpse of her frozen mother. Both children are taken in by Ursus, a travelling herbalist who habitually spits profound philosophical advice and proudly boasts that he has never cried (spoiler alert: you can bet your bottom dollar he ends up crying). As the children grow, Ursus realizes that the peasants are more interested and amused by Gwynplaine's face than his naturopathic cures, and they soon start a travelling show that quickly garters the attention of the sexy and seductive Dutchess Josiane. But wait! Gwynplaine is in love with Dea! But Dutchess von Booty will not be ignored! Also Gwynplaine is actually a Marquis??? Hilarity ensues (It's not spoilers if the book has been out for 150 years).
Let's start off by talking about the character of Gwynplaine himself. Specifically, what he looks like.

This is not an unattractive man, despite his claims that he is hideously disfigured. I get it, we don't pay money to watch ugly people dance on a screen for us, but really? Also, on a completely related and interesting piece of trivia, this isn't the first film adaptation of this movie. The original, also titled "The Man Who Laughs", was released in 1928, and Gwynplaine's disturbing clown-like appearance (shown below) was inspiration for a then newbie villain hitting the Batman scene; The Joker.

Why this is interesting is that our new, hunky Gwynplaine's smile bears a striking resemblance to another Joker we've seen recently, namely, Heath Ledger's.

But see, the thing is; The Dark Knight was released in 2008. The newest adaptation of The Man Who Laughs was released in 2012. So what we have is Gwynplaine (1928) that inspired the Joker's look and the Joker (2008) that inspired Gwynplaine's look (2012). Everything is connected. Illuminati confirmed.

Moving away from the physical appearance of our dashing hero (looks aren't everything, after all), the character of Gwynplaine himself is a little too flat to be loved and adored as a big screen hero. We see and hear all throughout the movie that "fame will go to [Gwynplaine's] head", that he "loves attention", and despite all this, when his "family" (Ursus and Dea) decide that they want to leave, Gwynplaine is almost completely complacent, with only a few muttered protests to be heard. We see again later in the film; despite getting everything he could ever want (hot booty, money, etc), he easily drops everything to return to his life as a travelling performer. Gwynplaine is impulsive, but we never see his flaws develop or define him. It is also difficult to get a read on his and the Dutchess' relationship. It's clear that she represents earthly temptation and desire (her hair is red, for one thing), but we see Gwynplaine resist her tempting apples quite easily. She is dropped quickly and never heard from again, as it would be an inconvenience to the story otherwise.

This movie makes me think of a thesis presented by another French man, Voltaire, in his novella Candide; "All is for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds". Despite "hardships" presented to the characters, including another encounter with Doctor Hardquanone, the characters never face any real hardship that makes us think they are questioning their beliefs or values. We never see them tested. Things end up working too easily, everything is too convenient, plot points are dropped and never picked up. Things really are for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds.

Stylistically, the movie is remnant of Tim Burton, with intense colours but an overall dark setting, and a main character that looks like the lovechild of Sweeney Todd and the Joker. We find a lot of the easy symbolism you would expect from a stage-play present in character design, with the beautiful, innocent, angelic Dea never wearing anything darker than pale blue and the seductive, sensual Dutchess often in red or rich hues. There's nothing wrong with this, except again the problem of characters being too flat and almost cliché.

The original novel, I was surprised to discover, actually takes place in England, with this movie changing the setting to pre-revolutionary France. This doesn't affect the overall story, and actually makes a fair amount of sense, but does give Gwynplaine the chance to rant to the house of parliament about the storm that's coming in the form of monarch beheading peasants. Maybe a bit too preachy, but it did fit the tone of the story.

In conclusion, the movie itself is aesthetically pleasing, barring a cheaply shot drowning scene at the end. The story is a romantic melodrama, and it really lives up to that name. The characters are quite static, and none of them experience a change that would mark them as a dynamic, or at least three dimensional, character. The ending was a little unsatisfactory, unless you find the ending to Romeo and Juliet to be especially profound and worth repeating. Not sure I would recommend it if you were looking for anything other than cinematography, but that being said, the cinematography is quite nice and not disappointing.