I miserabili

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.

Being a diehard Les Miserables fan, I first learned the musical and then read the book. The musical, though wonderful, was nothing in comparison to the book; there was just so much material in the book that it couldn't all be put in the musical. In this movie adaptation, however, much effort is made in accuracy to not only the plot of Victor Hugo's novel, but the atmosphere and characters. Scenes are filmed as near to where they actually took place in the book as possible, and characters reflect the Hugo's original intentions. The plot is concise enough to be understandable, but full enough to give the viewer a true sense of Hugo's message. Overall, it is a wonderful adaptation and an excellent film.

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.

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

the best version of a book like Les Miserable is an impossible mission. because this is the fate of a great novel. this adaptation has the gift to be correct. and memorable. and impressive. and each of this are more than precious virtues. because it is Les Miserable of Jean Gabin, Bourvil and Bernarb Blivier. because the atmosphere, the music and the respect for novel are admirable. because the spirit of one of the French literature masterpiece is preserved and presented in inspired manner. and this does the film more useful for the readers of the book of Victor Hugo because Jean Gabin gives a magnificent Jean Valjean. not only at the level of image but as wise exploration of the gestures, fundamental change and generosity. and Bourvil is Thenardier more than you imagine. a film who use the lines of text as impeccable clothes. so, not ignore it !