User Reviews

I have seen five different versions of this Victor Hugo film, read the book and even seen the play--so it's obvious that I love the story and have different insights than the typical viewer. Clearly of the films I have seen this is the best version for many reasons. The biggest reason is that at almost five hours, it comes closest to Hugo's vision, as "Les Misérables" is a huge and complex story--and most films skip major portions of the book in order to squeeze it into a normal format. However, with this version, the film was broken into three distinct full-length segments and most of the important elements of the film are present (even if they did change the ending and a few other portions of the story). The second reason is that although it is a black & white film, it is the most artistic of the bunch--with some of the best cinematography of any film of the era. The way the shots are framed is brilliant--beautiful, unique and lovingly recreated. It was directed and filmed by masters. Third, I liked the guy who played the lead character, Jean Valjean. Unlike the 'pretty boys' who often play this man (such as Richard Jordan, Frederic March or Liam Neeson), Hary Baur was the hulking man the character was in the book--Neeson and the rest simply didn't have the physical look of Valjean and Baur had a nice, restrained performance.

So why if it all looks so great do I only give the film a 9--after all, it is a wonderful film. The fact is that I rarely give 10s. To me a 10 must mean something--that a film is essentially perfect. This is a great film, but not perfect. Although a tiny quibble, Fantine was supposed to be missing her teeth but here it's obvious they were blacked out instead. Now I am NOT suggesting they should have knocked out her teeth, but they could have been more careful in the filming (which was otherwise perfect) to make sure it wasn't obvious they were blackened. And finally, my biggest complaint was about the relentless Inspector Javert. To me, he was THE most important and complex character in the story. Here, however, he's more of a minor annoyance and the depth of his presence was minimized. Plus, while his suicide could have been interpreted the way the film suggested, I always felt Javert killed himself not because of his failure at his job (as the film states) but because of his realization that his entire legalistic life was for nothing. Still, the movie is amazing and I suggest you see it and read the book--it's one of the best stories I've read and one that has many deep philosophical questions--questions that just aren't always present in the films.

If they made any more versions of this famous Victor Hugo tale I think I'd go mad and rush around the streets spouting French gibberish and tearing everything apart in a frantic search for cider apples or a loaf of bread. It's all reminiscent of Charles Dickens in that it's a sketch -- a long sketch -- of what can happen to you when you don't have enough money for fundamental things.

Well, briefly, Jean Valjean (Baur) is a convict released after 19 years in prison for stealing bread and trying to escape. He's a real slob. When a friendly bishop invites him to a meal and puts him up for the night, he steals off with the silverware.

But he reforms, after violating his parole. He works in a glass factory, discovers a new means of producing cheap glass, prospers, and becomes a good man who is finally elected mayor. The problem is that the local chief of police, Inspector Javert (Vanel), thinks he recognizes the new mayor and job-creator-in-chief as the escaped prisoner, Jean Valjean. The inspector used to be a corrections officer at Valjean's prison and he is, of course, right, though he can't prove it.

In the end, Valjean gives up his real identity and loses his status in order to save an innocent man who has been mistakenly identified as Valjean. After exposing himself in court, Valjean escapes with a little orphan girl he has more or less adopted and takes off for the city.

What follows is almost an entirely different story, connected to the first part by the thread of Inspector Javert's obsessive pursuit of Valjean and his little girl, Cosette. Towards the end there is a revolution and some exciting action, including a scenic tour of the city's cloaca maxima. If Vienna in 1948 had had such a filthy sewer, not even Harry Lime would have used it as an escape route. And there is a heart-tugging scene in which Valjean stands out on the street, listening to the music, as the aristos, now including his beloved daughter Cosette, dance the cachelot or the cucaracha or whatever it is.

I haven't seen all the other versions of "Les Miserables." Compared to the two I remember best -- the versions with Frederic March and Liam Neeson -- this evidently sticks closest to the original novel. The makes it quite a longie, almost four hours.

As much as I hate to use the word in any assessment of a film, especially a French film, this one is pretty "arty" for its time, 1934. The sets are very well done. The direction is as good as can be expected. The movie moves at a good pace. At dramatic moments the camera is delicately tilted from the horizontal. Baur is good as Jean Valjean. As the dying girl Fantine, Florel is almost unbearably extravagant in every move and utterance. Vanel's Javert is icier than most or, one might argue, wooden. I preferred Geoffrey Rush in the Liam Neeson version. Rush was deliciously neurotic.

You know, though, that though I've made some fun of this movie, it was light years ahead of most of the features being ground out in Hollywood.

After watching this first adaptation of Les Misérables, I'm afraid the bar is set high. Raymond Bernard achieved what I thought was impossible: he took this gigantic and epic masterpiece of a book and turned it into a great film that works incredibly well within the medium.

This long-lost masterpiece was shot during difficult times, forgotten too fast, re-cut, re-released, cut again, and finally let aside to sleep on a shelf at Pathé. The admirable initiative of Criterion, Eclipse, finally restored it and brought it to the public in a form that is believed to be close to the original. Raymond Bernard, after his WWI success Les croix de bois, was allowed a big budget to make this three-parts film. With a running time of almost five hours, it gives itself the time to capture the essence of the story. The very few changes that were made to the plot make perfect sense. They are mostly around the ending, which they shortened more than I thought they would, given its emotional power. Still, the book is pretty intact.

As I said before, this is a great film, whether you've read the book or not. Some people disliked the extreme angles the director used through the film, especially during intense scenes. I thought they gave a creative and atmospheric touch to the film and worked really well within the context. Don't let them fool you, though: this isn't a purely visual experience, it's got a heart. Harry Baur is perfect as Jean Valjean, everything that I thought he would be. His performance makes you respond emotionally and involves you with his character, one of the greatest and most interesting of literature. Harry Baur once had the potential to become the equivalent of Jean Gabin is France, but he was arrested by the Nazis and tortured for information in 1943 because his wife was Jewish and suspected of taking part in the anti-Nazis activities in France, and died shortly afterward. He was a great actor that deserves more recognition, and he's at the top of his game here.

The rest of the cast fit their roles perfectly. Jean Servais as Marius and Josseline Gaël as Cosette are as innocently annoying as they should be, playing the two young lovers and the least interesting characters. Charles Vanel is pure evil as Javert. The child-actors who play Gavroche and Cosette are pitch-perfect. The young girl looked like the "gravure" (I don't know the English word) used to promote the Broadway musical. Orane Demazis, though, is miscast as Eponine. She was 40 and playing a teenager, in a not so memorable performance. Eponine was one of my favorite characters and so I was a little disappointed. She is the only thing I would change about this otherwise fantastic cast.

The memorable scenes of the book preserve their power. The insurrection made an impressive action scene. The sewer bit is as stressful and oppressing as it could be (The Third Man, anyone?). The convoy of convicts almost made me cry, as did the death of Gavroche and many other moments.

All in all, this is not only a great adaptation, but a great film in itself, and is definitely amongst my favorites. Any thoughts for this epic film that my boss once said "puts Les enfants du paradis to shame"?

The beginning of this movie finds its hero, Jean Valjean, as a prisoner in Toulon, where he has been incarcerated for stealing a loaf of bread. As in Hugo's novel, Valjean demonstrates his strength by lifting one of the caryatids supporting the balcony of the Toulon City Hall. When freed from prison, Valjean faces discriminatory treatment as an ex-convict. He finally finds food and shelter with a bishop. But he repays this hospitality by stealing the bishop's silver ware. When local police capture him and bring him back to the bishop with the silver ware, the bishop exonerates him, gives him two silver candlesticks, and tells him to become an honest man. Valjean assumes a new identity as M. Madeleine, and makes a new life for himself as an entrepreneur and Mayor of Montreuil.

Fantine, an innocent young woman, engages in an abortive affair with a man and the result of their dalliance is a daughter, Cosette, whom she leaves with the Thenardier family, while she works in Valjean's factory. But she is fired when the supervisor discovers that she is an unwed mother. Without a job, she resorts to desperate measures-selling her hair, her teeth, and finally her body-to raise money for Cosette. She is arrested after getting into a fight with a man who has abused her, and faces a prison sentence. But Valjean saves her, and promises to care for her and Cosette.

One day, a man is caught under a large cart, and Valjean releases him by raising the cart. When police inspector Javert witnesses this amazing display of strength, he begins to suspect that the Mayor is actually Valjean. Javert's suspicions are put to rest when an innocent man, Champmathieu, is mistaken for Valjean. Following a long scene in which he anguishes over the fate of Champmathieu and the custody of Cosette, Valjean testifies in court to save Champmathieu, then visits the Thenardiers and rescues Cosette.

There is a gap in the movie at this point. When the story resumes, the action has moved to Paris. Cosette, still living with Valjean, has developed a love interest in Marius, but has yet to tell Valjean. Marius asks his grandfather, M. Gillenormand, for financial support so he can marry Cosette; but Gillenormand says, "Never." When the Thenardiers plan to ambush Valjean, Marius overhears their plan, and unsuccessfully tries to warn him, then warns Javert. The Thenardiers carry out their plan, but Valjean is saved by the arrival of the police.

In the 1934 movie, unlike others, Cosette persuades Valjean not to go to England. He even plans to speak to M. Gillenormand on behalf of Marius and Cosette. But this film does little to show Eponine's feelings for Marius. In the novel, but not in the film, Eponine agrees to find Cosette's house, diverts her father's gang from attacking the house, leads Marius to it, risks her life to protect Cosette and Valjean from the gang, and later warns Valjean of a possible further attack. In short, her actions are never inspired by jealousy. From Hugo's previous narrative, we might expect Marius to go to the barricade, not because of Eponine, but because his previous decision to be poor prevents him from marrying Cosette or following her to England. He has sworn to kill himself if he cannot be with her. Now he is going to the barricade to fulfill that promise, and Eponine follows him, and reflexively grabs the barrel of a gun aimed at him. But, perhaps feeling that Eponine has become too admirable, instead of this logical denouement, Hugo pens a hasty and dubious narrative in which Eponine, driven by jealousy, plots to lure Marius to the barricade so he and she can die together there. When a soldier aims his weapon at Marius, Eponine grabs its muzzle and directs it at herself. Dying, she gives Marius Cosette's note, and says it was she who lured him to the barricade where she wanted to die with him.

In the novel, Cosette gives Eponine (disguised as a boy) her note to Marius. Eponine does not read it or destroy it. What will she do with it other than deliver it to Marius? But in this film, Cosette sends her note to Marius' room, and Eponine finds it, reads it, and removes it, replacing it with another note telling Marius to join his friends at the barricade. In Hugo's novel, Cosette's note includes her new address, and warns Marius that her father intends to be in England within a week. But in the film, her note reads, "I spoke to my father. He gives his consent. Forget his anger. He's expecting you. Come back quickly." Marius reads the note and says, "It's too late." Just then, Valjean appears and tells Marius, "Come. She sent me." But Marius says, "I can't." Valjean responds, "It will kill her."

When the battle seems inevitably lost, the insurrectionists blow up their barricade. Two of them die before an impromptu firing squad. Valjrean carries wounded Marius through the sewers to the river, where he is intercepted by the police; and Javert, who has softened considerably, provides a carriage for Valjean to take Marius to Gillenormand's mansion. Then Javert allows Valjean to make a brief visit to his own house. While Valjean is inside, Javert walks off wondering out loud why he is not arresting Valjean.

In this film, Gillenormand speaks with Vajlean who has just brought Marius home to his mansion. Presumably, Marius and Cosette learn of Valjean's heroism from Gillenormand, thus this film lacks a dramatic scene in which Marius and Cosette discover the identity of Marius' rescuer. And there is no drama associated with Javert's suicide. All we see of his death are bubbles rising to the surface of the river. Back at headquarters, two police officers discuss his suicide, and one remarks that Javert was "a little blinkered." Meanwhile, Marius and Cosette are married and feted at a large celebration. Valjean avoids the wedding and watches the celebration from outside. On the following day, he reveals his true identity to Marius, and almost immediately succumbs to his final illness. He gives the two candlesticks to Cosette, and says, "I hope he that gave them to me is satisfied with me. I did the best I could." He provides an obiter dictum for the entire story: "God is just. It is man who sometimes is unjust." Asked by Cosette if he wants a priest, he remembers the bishop and tells her, "I have one."

Roughly 30 minutes of the original film have been lost, so current copies cannot be regarded as complete. We do know much of what is missing on the Criterion film-all the approximately eight years from the time Valjean rescued Cosette from the Thenardiers until Cosette's 16th birthday. During these years, Valjean takes Cosette to Paris, where they are driven out of the Gorbeau House by a police raid, escaping to a convent, where Cosette spends the rest of her childhood. Also missing are their move from the convent to Rue Plumet, Cosette's initial meeting with Marius, the activities of Eponine in locating Cosette, guiding Marius to her, and thwarting Thenardier's attempt to rob Valjean and Cosette. Perhaps the missing film would explain how Marius knows Javert, how Cosette knows Marius' address, and how Valjean and Cosette know Eponine.

Harry Baur gives a dominant performance as Valjean. Baur looks like a man who has done hard time and suffered constant fear of discovery, and gives a powerful emotional performance, not only as Valjean, but also as the slow witted Champmathieu. He may be the best of those who have played this role, and deserves the respect he is generally accorded.

Charles Vanel, with bushy sideburns like Hugo's Javert, effectively portrays the French police inspector as unemotional, gruff, unsympathetic, and driven by the law-even when it is directed at him. His suicide is not pictured in this movie, so Vanel is denied that dramatic scene. As Fantine, Florelle delivers some of the most emotional moments in the movie. Unlike many actors who have played Thenardier, Charles Dullin fully captures his shifty and sinister nature in one of the best portrayals of this character. Whereas Hugo's Eponine was thin and tall, Orane Demazis is short and stocky, but her elfish performance seems to fit this character. Her role was limited because the movie omits many of her activities described in the book. Josseline Gael and Jean Servais are effective as Cosette and Marius. Emile Genevois, who was 15 during the filming, but looks younger, has a large and impotant role as Gavroche, He went on to a long film career. Gaby Triquet did not, but she is convincing here as young Cosette.

Subsequent years were unfortunate for two members of the cast. When his wife, suspected of espionage, was arrested in Berlin in 1941, Harry Baur sought her release. The Germans arrested Baur and tortured him. He died mysteriously shortly after his release in 1943. During the war years, Gael broke up with her husband, actor Jules Berry, and kept company with Antonin Saunier, who worked with the French Gestapo. After France was liberated, both Saunier and Gael were arrested. He was convicted and executed. Gael, evidently thanks to the pleas of Berry (who was more loyal to her than she was to him), was fined and barred from French citizenship.

The 1934 movie is noteworthy for its length, its scale, its acting, and its cinematography. Most of the filming was done in specially constructed sets near Nice; these sets are impressive, but they don't look lived in. On the other hand, the Luxembourg Gardens scenes were actually shot in the Luxembourg Gardens. But Bernard's film still contains vestiges of earlier years in which many of these actors had honed their skills on the stage or in silent films. Thus they occasionally overact, exaggerate physical gestures, and register surprise with wide open eyes. Despite these shortcomings, many still regard this movie as the best screen presentation of Les Miserables.