Les Misérables 1934
Dallas Themshirts
mile Genevois was born in 1918 in Barlin, France. He made his film debut as Gavroche in Les Misrables (Raymond Bernard, 1934), a film adaptation of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel of the same name. The film lasts four and a half hours and is considered by critics to be the greatest adaptation of the novel, due to its more in-depth development of the themes and characters, in comparison with most shorter adaptations. It was released as three films that premiered over a period of three weeks. Gavroche is a boy who lives on the streets of Paris. His name has become a synonym for an urchin or street child. Gavroche is the eldest son of Monsieur and Madame Thnardier. He has two older sisters, ponine and Azelma, and two unnamed younger brothers. Hugo never provides his given name but says Gavroche has chosen his own name. His parents show him no affection and send him to live in the street, where he is better off than at home. During the student uprising of 1832, Gavroche joins the revolutionaries at the barricade. After an exchange of gunfire with the National Guards, Gavroche overhears Enjolras remark that they are running out of cartridges. He decides he can help. He goes through an opening in the barricade and collects the cartridges from the dead bodies of the National Guard. In the process of collecting the cartridges and singing a song, he is shot and killed.
In 19th century France, Jean Valjean, a man imprisoned for stealing bread, must flee a relentless policeman named Javert. The pursuit consumes both men's lives, and soon Valjean finds himself in the midst of the student revolutions in France.
Harry Baur Paul Azas Florelle Josseline Gal Jean Servais Orane Demazis Charles Dullin Marguerite Moreno Gaby Triquet Charles Vanel Max Dearly mile Genevois Henry Krauss Georges Mauloy Lucien Nat Robert Vidalin Albert Broquin Maurice Schutz
I haven't come close to seeing all the film adaptations of Victor Hugo's doorstop novel, but from those I have, this version by Raymond Bernard (co-written with Andr Lang) probably deserves its reputation as the best of them all.
The first sound version of Les Misrables. And it's a major piece as Raymond Bernard makes it into a 3-part movie lasting a total of 4 hours and 40 minutes. And even with that length it didn't feel long at all. Bernard quite simply directs a superb movie! He gets the symbolism across perfectly. While some of the revolution sequences in the 3rd part leaves a bit to be desired, the rest manages to make such a strong impression that it more then make up for a little slump.
It's funny. I've sat through 70 minute films that felt like an eternity. And movies that threatened to run into perpetuity, which sailed by like a breeze. Les Misrables -a nearly 5 hour epic- was mostly a breeze.
i'm a sucker for sturdy period adaptations like this. retains the novel's compassion in its warm, often histrionic performances and unhurried intimate pacing. the camera is often canted or handheld throwing everything just a little off balance, hinting at the story's class issues without sacrificing the more heavily melodramatic moments. then you've got the stunning miniature work and battle scenes straight out of Delacroix.
Victor Hugo's Les Misrables is an incredible work of storytelling. In this 1934 film adaptation, Bernard takes advantage of the story when adapting it to the screen, forming it into a three-volume film epic that clocks in at four hours and forty minutes. It's incredible film making in every conventional department, to the point that it is surprising the film actually exists, and exists like this.
To call this a single five-hour epic would be to bend the truth slightly, not least because it clocks in at a mere 4 hours 40 minutes. Actually, it was released as separate films in an episodic manner over a period of three weeks starting on 9th February 1934.
The first and longest part, Une tempte sous un crne (Tempest in a Skull) tells the story of Jean Valjean (Harry Baur) as he finishes his prison sentence, then becomes increasingly frustrated that his past life as a convict blights him (his only crime being stealing a loaf of bread), having to hand in his prison documentation every time he enters a new town and constantly being pursued by Javert (Charles Vanel). Seeking a new start, he disposes of his papers and assumes a new identity, beginning a new life as Champmathieu.
It's time for us to start our three-episode look at Victor Hugo's Les Misrables, which concludes in our 100th episode! With today's episode 98, we're look at the book, and six major French- and English-language adaptations from 1934 to 1967.
We're also on Patreon! You can find us at patreon.com/adaptcast. We have multiple reward levels, which include access to a patron-only community and a patron-only, biweekly bonus show! We hope to see you there.
Hailed by film critics around the world as the greatest screen adapation of Victor Hugo's mammoth nineteenth-century novel, Raymond Bernard's dazzling, nearly five-hour Les misrables is a breathtaking tour de force, unfolding with the depth and detail of its source. Featuring stunning art direction and cinematography and unforgettable performances by the exquisite Harry Baur (who died tragically during World War II), as Jean Valjean, and the legendary Charles Vanel, as Inspector Javert, Les misrables is one of the triumphs of French filmmaking.
One of the most thrilling movie epics of all time, SEVEN SAMURAI tells the story of a sixteenth-century village whose desperate inhabitants hire the eponymous warriors to protect them from invading bandits.
Directed by visionary science-fiction animator René Laloux (Fantastic Planet) and designed by the legendary Jean Giraud (a.k.a. Mœbius) The Time Masters is a visually fantastic foray into existentialist space adventure.
Generally considered the best, most complete version of Victor Hugo's novel ever produced, I think I'm finally convinced that I just don't like this story all that much. Oh, don't get me wrong, it has its share of remarkable moments, and, all in all, it's quite a good film. The thing I've noticed with the various adaptations I've seen of it is that I'm with it up until Cosette grows up, then I kind of check out. Almost all the best parts of the story happen in the first half. This version is divided into three feature length films. The first one is by far the best, covering up to the point Fantine dies and Jean Valjean escapes to go rescue Cosette. This hits all the most important themes, particularly the horrible way society treats the destitute. The second section, entitled "The Thenardiers," after the innkeepers who have enslaved Cosette, is great at the start. Charles Dullin is amazing as Thenardier, and Gaby Triquet is so damned adorable as the child Cosette. Cosette as a teenager is fairly uninteresting, and her love interest, Marius, is a completely dull character. The third part covers the revolution portion of the novel, and, frankly, outside of Gavroche (wonderfully played by Emile Genevois), I just don't care about any of it. Jean Valjean is almost superfluous until the final act (the finale here is definitely quite moving). Harry Baur is an amazing Jean Valjean (he also plays Champmathieu, the man wrongly accused of being Valjean in the first part). Charles Vanel is fine as Javert, but the character is kind of dull in this version. Bernard's direction is frequently outstanding and the cinematography is excellent.
Since many years ago I've been a fan of Victor Hugo's novel, Les Miserables, and I can say this is one of the best and most faithful film adaptations of the story. Harry Baur is great as Jean Valjean, and all the cast in general is excellent. There is only one thing I may object about the film: the omission of the episode of Jean Valjean and Cosette in the Petit-Picpus convent and consequently the omission of the gardener Fauchelevent. This film is far much better than the one which is consider the classic version of Les Miserables, the one directed in 1935 by Richard Boleslawski, starring Frederich March as Valjean and Charles Laughton as Javert. Raymond Bernard's version of Les Miserables is only comparable to other two French film versions of the novel: the 1982 directed by Robert Hossein, starring Lino Ventura and the 2000 TV version, directed by Jose Dayan, starring Gerard Depardieu.
Hugo's novel is my bible. I remember, while I was reading the books in the course of over one year (in small portions mostly, but not rarely I had to sacrifice an entire night), one of the three volumes has been always in a striking distance to me: near my pillow, riding pillion, on my school desk or in my backpack on trips and sleep-overs. Simply put, the story was my home for that one year, Jean Valjean one of my closest friends and Cosette my own child. That's now about 10 years ago and I still return to it every once in a while, pick randomly chapters to read and still am drawn to Hugo's uniquely beautiful and powerful language (i.e. the chapter where he describes the battle of Waterloo is probably the single best piece of literature I've ever read). So, although, I love the book so much, I never dared to touch any screen adaptation, and there are plenty out there, because I did not want to ruin my imaginations of Les misrables I had in my mind for more than 10 years now. I finally did last week and what can I say? Actually, I don't want to spout too much, to run into danger to talk things to death, but it's an amazing, amazing experience when you see those pictures that were engraved in your head for a long time, now alive, in front of your eyes instead of behind. Of course, a book is, I guess, always more stimulating than its adaptation (are there actually any examples to disprove?), and Bernard's is no exception. In fact, this one is as close to the essence of literature as the medium can get. Everything that can be great about movies comes together here, and in the end, Les misrables is the first film I immediately felt home (which is mostly due to the previous history I have with the story), and when a filmmaker achieves exactly this with his very own methods, like a writer does with his/hers, the outcome is nothing less than, yes, cinematic perfection.
c80f0f1006