Die Elenden

The worst of the four versions I have seen. Gabin is dull, uninspired--and look at the director, Le Chanois, no more than a journeyman when an artist is required for one of the great classic novels. Bourvil is excellent as the supreme hypocrite Thenardier, while Delorme has some touching moments as the unlucky Fantine. You can pass this one up, watch Fredric March and Charles Laughton instead; Laughton gives another of his superb performances as Javert.

To me, the best versions of Les Miserables- a literary classic, and "the great French novel" for a reason- are the ones from 1935, 1978 and especially 1934. Apart from some draggy pacing, staid directing and the very unexciting barricade scenes, this film was still very good and as an adaptation is better than the 1952, 2000 and especially 1998 adaptations. The film looks very detailed and beautiful if at times too clean, and the photography is very skillful and mostly fluid(if clumsy at times in the scenes with the barricade). The music is haunting and dynamic and occasionally playful, while the script is very literate and maintains the brusque nature of Hugo's prose and the story is faithful in spirit to the book with some parts expanded on like with Valjean and Javert- though things were changed to accommodate the age difference between the actors- and Valjean and the bishop, which none of the other adaptations or even the book for that matter did. The storytelling is still poignant and the message of the book is there and it resonates. Of the cast the standouts are Jean Gabin, Bernard Blier and Bourvil. But that is not to dispute Daniele Delorme as a touching Fantine and while Béatrice Altariba achieves some pathos if not being entirely successful at overcoming Cosette's blandness. Gabin is a noble and understated Valjean with a lot of charisma and emotion, his change from immorality and redemption is portrayed very convincingly. Blier's Javert is cold-blooded, obsessive, strong-principled but there is vulnerability and a conflicted side he brings to Javert as well, which stops him from becoming too much of a one-dimensional antagonist. Bourvi's Thernadier is very slimy and funny, one of the best in the role actually, he manages not to be too sadistic or buffoonish, for a comic-villain role that Thernadier is those are a danger and Bourvil doesn't fall into that trap. In conclusion, a very good film and adaptation but from personal perspective it's not a first choice. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

I have seen numerous film adaptations of Les Miserables. This 1957 French version (directed by Jean-Paul Le Chanois) is the best one I have ever seen. I watched the version that was produced by The Bridgestone Group in 1992 with English audio (ISBN# 1-56371-044-7). It aligns closely with the plot of the novel, and the cinematography is outstanding.

In the middle 1950s two film versions of Hugo's best remembered novels appeared and disappeared very quickly in movie houses. This French version of "Les Miserables" was one. The other was a French/Italian version of "Notre-Dame De Paris/The Hunchback of Notre-Dame". That one starred Anthony Quinn as Quasimodo and Gina Lollabrigida as Esmarelda. Both films were actually quite good, and were the best straight versions of the novels to try to get most of the stories onto the screen. However, both were too long for most audiences, especially this version of Les Miserables. This ran over three hours. As pointed out in the other review that I wrote about the 1935 version of Les Miserables, that film version is the best normal screen length film version. But the performance of Jean Gabin as Jean Valjean in this film is superior to the performance of Fredric March in the same role. I would also note that the performance of Bourvil as Thenardier is the best I've seen (even better than Ian Holm's in the 1978 version). Thenardier is an even slimier villain than Javert is, but Javert's single minded pursuit of Valjean in the novel makes the antics of Thenardier look secondary, and they are usually dismissed in the filmed versions (though not in the musical version). Check out the scene where Thenardier and his goons kidnap Valjean for ransom, and the latter demonstrates how tough he is effectively thwarting the plan. It does not appear in the 1935 version.

Jean-Paul Le Chanois,as anyone past infancy knows ,at least in France ,was the "Bête Noire" of the Nouvelle Vague .More than any other director,Godard and his clique were ruthless when they used to speak of him.Unlike Carné ,Duvivier,Clouzot and Grémillon- other victims of the Young Turks who were better than their persecutors anyway- ,he was never restored to favor even by the contemporary critics.Jean Tulard writes in the "Dictionnaire des Réalisateurs" ::" He represents the mediocrity of the fifties cinema (...)He made the worst of all "les Miserables" versions(..) " Objections to Le Chanois's version remained: the pictures are too clean,the characters (particularly Danielle Delorme's Fantine) seem well-fed .Bourvil is miscast as Thenardier:he is too gentle ,too nice to portray him successfully.Cosette is forgettable as a girlie,she is totally bland as Marius's love.How can a director be wrong with the famous scene of the doll,which every French schoolboy and every schoolgirl in my country know by heart? Such is the case here.Waterloo battle and the scenes on the barricades are not really exciting .(But Hossein's slow motions in the 1982 version starring Lino Ventura were not really an improvement on it.

On the plus side,Gabin is a good Valjean -he does not equal Harry Baur in the Raymond Bernard version though- and Bernard Blier is the best Javert I've ever seen.The Valjean/Javert relationship would inspire lots and lots of screenplays,"the fugitive" for instance.Also worthwhile is Silvia Montfort's portrayal of Thenardier's daughter:she easily outclasses Beatrice Altariba's Cosette.

People complain because there are scenes in the novel that were not filmed.Let's not forget that it's a mammoth novel:only a miniseries could do Hugo justice.And anyway it's better than the Liam Neeson version and its happy end.

NB:When the movie was released in France it was divided into two parts (called "epoques" (=eras)) which was the word they used at the time and the audience was invited to come back and thus pay twice to see the whole.