Two years ago I was browsing Criterion releases and I came across an early version of "Les Miserables" on their Eclipse label. This version, made in 1934 by French director Raymond Bernard, was packaged as a double feature with Bernard's "Wooden Crosses"(1932), a WW1 saga. Having never heard of the director, I checked his IMDB. Both films had high ratings, with "Les Miserables" receiving a whopping 8.2, very rare for an older film. The price was right - about twenty bucks for the set - so I purchased it from Amazon. I proceeded to watch "Wooden Crosses" as soon as it arrived, and I was blown away. It was one of the greatest war films I've ever seen, and I surely must've reviewed it here at the blog. That would've been in early 2019. So why did it take me almost two more years to watch "Les Miserables"?
Simple. It's almost five hours long. I saw right away that it was broken into three parts, and spaced over two dvds, but I'm kind of a purist about some things, and I figured that Bernard meant it to be watched all in one go, so I wanted to do that. I had no idea how it was released in theaters, in parts or as a whole, but I wanted to watch the whole doggone thing, all 4hrs 41mins of it, all in one sitting. But as you can imagine, I kept putting it off. I obviously couldn't watch it on a work day, but even when I wasn't working I found myself making excuses for not watching, after planning to do so. "Well, I wanna work on my drawing tonight", or read my book.........and in my mind was the truth : ("it's a five hour movie, there's no way I can sit that long").
But I still didn't wanna break it up, even if Criterion had arranged it that way. So it lingered on my dvd shelf for 23 months until tonight, when I finally threw in the towel and decided to watch it in parts.
Up until now, my short list for Greatest French Films (prior to the New Wave), would include "Children of Paradise"(1945), directed by Marcel Carne, and "Diary of a Country Priest"(1951) by the great Robert Bresson. Both films are legendary and would make many "all-time" lists from critics or other directors ("Country Priest" is Scorcese's favorite film.) And now, after seeing only the first part of Raymond Bernard's "Les Miserables", I am ready to place it in the French Pantheon, or simply the Cinematic Pantheon of the greatest films ever made. And I've only seen Part One.
Update : It is now Tuesday November 24, and I have completed the film. I watched parts two and three today.
Now, you may be a "Les Miz" veteran for all I know. Not only have there been just shy of a million movie and tv versions made over the last 90 years, but the Broadway adaptation was one of the biggest hits in stage history, and is probably running on other planets by now. So yeah, you may have already seen it somewhere, in one version or another, on stage or on screen. You may have even read Victor Hugo's book, and if so, I'll ask you to please ignore my "newbie naivete" and my enthusiasm for the plot, which I only just discovered. It's not just Hugo's writing or his creation of indelible characters (as memorable as those of Shakespeare or Dickens), but his uncanny ability to weave together multiple plot threads to create dramatic crescendos in the story and give it an epic rhythm. I didn't watch it all at once (though I did watch it in a 24 hour period), but even though the film runs 281 minutes, it doesn't lag for a single one of them.
That alone has to be one of the greatest feats in filmmaking history.
Now, yourself probably already knowing much about Les Miz, you are aware that Jean Valjean is the main character, a man locked up for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread, and subsequent escape attempts. As the movie opens, he is finally set free, but he's so inured to prison life, and his self-image as a convict, that he robs the first man to help him : a priest (you could even call him a Country Priest, at that!). This circumstance will introduce the story's second main character, Inspector Javert, who collars Valjean shortly after he absconds with the priest's silverware. But at this point, only ten minutes into the film (and I assume, the book), the story takes a 180 degree turn. Instead of standing idly by as Valjean is taken back to prison, the priest lies for him, telling Javert that he gave the items to his visitor. Valjean is spared, but even this kindness doesn't set him on the right path. As he leaves the priest's home, it isn't until he stoops to stealing a coin from a small boy that he finally feels a pang of conscience.
The next we see him, years have passed. Valjean has transformed his life and is now the mayor of a small town. He's also amassed considerable wealth from his invention of a glass jewelry making process. Now, he has become a beloved benefactor, trusted by the townspeople, and especially the poorest among them, to do right. It has become his life's mission.
However, he is living under an assumed name, because his theft of the boy's coin eight years earlier is still on record with the police, and Inspector Javert is a man who never gives up. There will be many encounters between the two men throughout the film, which usually end with Valjean (under whatever name) giving Javert the slip.
But that's only half the story, or really only a third. Part two introduces us to little Cosette, a waif who is under the care of a decrepit innkeeper and his witch of a wife. She's been entrusted to them by her indigent mother, a penniless woman who's been forced into prostitution as a last resort after selling her hair and front teeth. Les Miserables, indeed. But the inkeepers treat Cosette as a virtual slave, the wife in particular constantly hounding the tiny girl into chores of labor that are only suited to an adult. Such were the ways in which poor children were treated in Europe in the 19th century, as noted by Charles Dickens.
At any rate, Cosette becomes the film's third main character. Jean Valjean will rescue her from her plight, when - in his new persona - he happens to stop at the Inn.
So much happens in this movie that to call it an epic is an understatement. Part three deals with the Second French Revolution of 1830, which was really no more than a street battle, yet a brutal one at that. By this time Jean Valjean has taken up another guise, and Cosette - whom he has unofficially adopted - is now 16 and ready to be married. All of this is set against her fiancee's commitment to the revolution, and a host of other dramatic concerns. As noted, "Les Miserables" is one of the greatest stories ever written. I am new to it, but it's easy to see why it keeps being told over and over again.
This version also looks incredible, and features sets and photography reminiscent of German Expressionism. The orchestral score is tremendous, nuanced in all the right places. But most exceptional of all is the acting. Harry Baur, whom I'd never heard of until this film, is amazing as Jean Valjean. He exudes a quiet strength and resolve, as well as enormous physical strength simply as a man. Some of his feats have to be seen to be believed, as when he carries a very tall young man through the sewers of Paris, over his shoulder and even up and down ladders. For me, Baur's performance is one of the greatest in motion picture history, and the other lead characters and supporting cast do equal justice to Bernard's impeccable direction.
I'm all out of words for this film, it's simply one of the greatest movies ever made. All you have to do is check out it's IMDB reviews, pretty much everyone gives it a 10/10.
Supposedly, the 1935 version with Fredric March and Charles Laughton is also tremendous, so I'll have to check that one out too. But I am certain that this is the definitive version. You couldn't make a better film than this, in any genre, in any era. See it whatever you do. /////
That's all I know for tonight. See you in the morning. Tons and tons of love!
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment