Could you see any of the cast members...
of this movie version of "Les Miserables" playing the same role in the musical, IF the musical came out in their time(which it didn't)?
shareProbably not. I hate this movie with a passion because it is not at all accurate and the actors cannot act. The Javert looks like a cartoon character. The Eponine is too old and totally out of character. It isn't like the book at all. Two thumbs down!
For the wretched of the earth there is a flame that never dies.
[deleted]
I like the Javert from the book/musical a lot better... when I saw this one, I went... 'who is HE'????? Not a bad actor, just don't think he fit the role.
share[deleted]
Who is he? That was Charles Laughton, who also played in another Hugo adaptation, The Hunchback of Notre Dame. He was Quasimodo. He was one of the greatest actors of his day, and it's plain to see why. I think he would be as great if he were alive today.
sharei personally dont find it my favorite interpretaion of the book for it really cuts down the size of my favorite charecters if not cutting them out completely. fantines part was very small, eponine was completely misinterpreted, and gavroche didnt even exist. this movie had absoulutely NO emotional impact on me or any of my friends. I have read all 1342 pages of the book and i have yet to find a good film adaptation.
shareI've got to agree that this film doesn't accurately reflect the book. I've also read it. I'm not sure whether one could do a proper job of creating a film version of the book in this day and age. First off, it would have to be about 16 hours long. Second, Victor Hugo created all sorts of larger than life characters in a florid ultra-Romantic style which I don't think is fashionable in movies these days. Speaking for myself, I still retain a fondness for this movie. Largely, I think for the bravura acting jobs of Laughton and March. I've got to chuckle at the fact that the producers (and 20th Century Fox was a very conservative studio in those days) managed to turn the Revolution of 1835 into a student protest about bad prison conditions. But the chase through the sewers, the confrontations between March and Laughton and the death of Javert still work for me.
This weekend I saw an astonishingly well done version of "Les Miserables". It's a French film of that title filmed in 1934. The director was Raymond Bernard. An actor named Harry Baur (who appears to have ended his life tortured to death by the Gestapo during WWII) takes the role of Jean Valjean. It's almost 6 hours long (although these are broken up into three parts). Anyone who is a fan of the book owes it to him(or her)self to see this movie. Criterion released it recently in a set with another movie by the same director. Here's the citation:
http://www.amazon.com/Eclipse-Raymond-Miserables-Criterion-Collection/dp/B000PKG6P8/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-8394464-9420652?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1190661014&sr=8-1
It's got the works. Gavroche, the Thenardiers, Gillenormand, Enjolras and the whole gang. Even the Savoyard that Valjean robs after the incident of the bishop's candlesticks. Excellently acted and highly recommended.
cinefreak
The Harry Baur is the definitive version. I hope if we talk about it enough we can get more people to see it. It's the only Les Misérables version that comes close to capturing the essence of the book.
I don't pray, really, because I don't want to bore God.
In 65 years of movie watching and an only slightly shorter time of reading books, yours truly has developed a policy, which if practiced by others would save so much spilled ink, bitterness, and inappropriate criticisms: if you have read a book you liked very much, do not watch the movie version. Conversely, if you have seen a movie you liked very much, do not seek out the novel upon which it is based.
This 1935 version of Les Miserables in widely considered an inspired classic. Those who did not like the acting probably would not like any classic era picture. Never heard of Charles Laughton!!! -- Likely never heard of Woodrow Wilson, either. Those expecting an hour-fifty-minute movie to present a page by page adaptation of Hugo's eighteen-pound novel are living in the Twilight Zone.
------
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good... St. Matthew 5:45
[deleted]
I love this movie. I have read the book (more than once), seen two movie versions, and seen the musical a few times. Each is different. The book is so long; there is no way to fit everything in. Anyway, I thought this movie was a masterpiece and I thought Charles Laughton, one of the greatest actors of his time, was incredible in this. Did he look like Javert as Hugo describes him? No. Was he Javert? Yes. There really isn't a lot of that 30s overacting in this. Laughton is subtle. The last scene, when Valjean asks to see Cosette to say goodbye, and Laughton says, "The law does not allow it," you can just tell by his voice that he has undergone a radical transformation. His next words, "It's the law, not me you understand," are delivered in such an altered voice and manner that the viewer can see that his change is complete. I thought he was a genius and I loved Fred March, too. Excellent film. I highly recommend it. Were changes made? Yes. It still works. It's wonderful. Oh -- and is IS like the book. Sure, there are changes, but the heart of Hugo's message and the struggles of the main characters are there.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]