I miserabili

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 !

I have seen a number of film and TV adaptations of Les Miserables: this is by far the best. It has the required grandeur and outstanding performances by Jean Gabin (unbeatable as Jean Valjean), Bourvil (a very sly Thenardier) and Bernard Blier (a great Javert). Silvia Montfort is a striking Eponine. Quite long but doesn't feel it, it has enough scope to do justice to the story.

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.

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.

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.