Not a drama review, just talking about the aftermath

I am the original party.

Although objectively speaking, it is very unfair to compare novels with film and television works or musicals-after all, every way of presenting art has its advantages and disadvantages-but as a TV series based on the original work, it is necessary to have the original work. It's really hard for fans to skip the novel completely.

So let's talk about some aspects of what I think the BBC version is doing well and badly.

The good things (including my personal favorites):

1. The casting of some characters (of course there are also dissatisfied, I will talk about it later), including Jean Valjean, Cosette, Marius, some supporting roles such as Madame Thenardier, Master Ginoman, and they are even outstanding , when these characters appeared on the scene, I almost had a feeling of "it's him (her)". In terms of image and shape alone, the actors selected in this edition are better than those in the 1958 and 2012 editions. It fits the imagination in my mind when I read the book;

2, take the road. There seems to be nothing to fault with this. After all, it is produced by the BBC. The level of sophistication and sophistication is there, and it is quite knowledgeable about taking advantage of its strengths and avoiding weaknesses (the computer effects of some scenes in the 12-year version are really too ordinary, and the production traces are obvious, which is a bit of a drama), almost They are all shot in real scenes, and the sense of substitution is relatively strong;

3. I personally prefer the plot adaptation, let me talk about two main aspects. The first is the opening, which seems to start from the 1958 version of the movie. The subsequent movies and musicals basically continued the beginning of Toulon Prison, but the BBC cleverly started from Waterloo, and used three narrative lines in parallel - Jean Valjean + Fang Ting + Peng Meixu - start the whole story. Anyone who has read the original book knows that the book is developed in a flat and straight-line narrative style. If the film and television works are to be copied completely, it is actually very unfriendly to the audience who have not read the book, but this time the adaptation is very clever. The strengths of the TV series are: focused on the main characters and main contradictions in the shortest time, and also laid a good foreshadowing.

The second is the end. To be honest, if the ending of the original book is copied, it will definitely not reach the level of turbulence in the novel on the surface, because it requires a lot of careful layout; the BBC's handling gave me a pleasant surprise. ——The pair of wandering brothers who were given bread by Gavroche (actually Gavroche’s brother in the book) appeared on the street begging. My personal understanding of this is that the future has its own beauty and hope. But there is always a dark and tragic side in reality, which can never be ignored. From this ending alone, I would be more satisfied with the BBC than the 12-year-old films and musicals (just me, of course).

Negative aspects (which I personally dislike and dislike):

1. Some actors and performances. Javert must be number one. Choosing a black man to play Javert certainly has the correct factor of BBC's ZZ, but at least it has to fit the description of Javert in the original book, right? Besides, in France in the early 19th century, could a black police detective really stand out? This in itself also brings with it a question mark. There are also dark-skinned Gavroche, red-haired Eponine, "old" Enjolras with a beard, and Fantine, who is still young and exudes "I am aristocratic" temperament. The problem really makes the audience play, although I also don't like Anne Hathaway, but at least Fantine in the 12-year version of the movie still has a bleak misery, and Lily Collins hardly understands it.

In addition to the choice of characters, there are also problems with the actors' performances. Jean Valjean is certainly not perfect, but several times in the show I feel like he's out of control (like driving Fantine away, getting impatient with the nun after learning about the Shang-Made affair, not letting Cosette go out, etc.) ; Javert's performance is also, the Javert described by Hugo should be a politicized, autocratic and ruthless slave of the system, but Javert in the play only makes me feel maniac; As for Cosette, she is a fool , but she is obedient to Jean Valjean, at least she has a gentle and generous attitude, what about in the play? Raging a lot and only thinking about men; and Marius, I actually really like Josh O'Connor, but why is his Marius always deadpan? In the revolution, in love, in hearing the confession of Jean Valjean, in the end of the truth. OMG! You are obviously not an actor with facial paralysis! How amazing you were in Kingdom of God! I don't know if it's the script or the director, or the actors themselves, but overall, most of the performances fail to capture the complexity of Hugo's characters.

2. Adapt, still adapt. The most dissatisfying thing is the neglect of Bishop Bian Furu. If musicals and movies have to be cut due to the overall length (in fact, even 5 minutes can be reserved), then this time the BBC's short dramas always have relatively ample time, right? Yet the presence of the bishop was still meager.

In the original work, Bishop Bian Furu was only a supporting role, but Hugo used a whole volume to describe this character. In my opinion, if Jean Valjean represents Hugo's belief and ideal that all kinds of people at all levels can be saved, then Bian Furu represents Hugo's ultimate goal and highest yearning. At the end of the novel, Jean Valjean still cherishes the teachings of Bian Furu, and this echo of the beginning and end, separated by more than 1.2 million words, directly gave me a heavy blow and was defeated.

Who is Bian Furu? He is the mentor who eventually led Jean Valjean to the right path. He is the central idea that connects and condenses Hugo's entire novel. He is the embodiment of truth, goodness and beauty, the light that pierces the darkness, and the hope that, although vague, will always exist. . Without him, there would be no such auras on the protagonist, and how could such a character not give enough foreshadowing?

Followed by ABC and Gavroche. The revolution that Hugo enthusiastically sang about is a very concentrated manifestation of this group of young people. They are young, passionate, and impulsive, but in the author's pen, they are definitely not revolutionaries with faces, but have their own characteristics, but the BBC is still too stingy in depicting and portraying these characters, just like movies and musicals with limited space. Therefore, in the original book, Grantaire wakes up in drunkenness and proudly went to death with Enjolras. There is no such soul-stirring feeling in the book, and the whole revolutionary shooting also seems perfunctory, simple and rough.

The same thing happened to Gavroche, which I liked very much. Since this character was retained and his origins were explained, why didn't he take the time to set up his character and growth? The crowning touch of the book is that Ma Baifu disappeared inexplicably. The place where the character should have been plump jumped directly to his participation in the revolution, so why did he take this road? Such illogical adaptations are really unsatisfactory.

Finally, let’s talk about some feelings:

1. After watching "War and Peace" by the BBC, and then "Les Miserables", the most intuitive feeling is that the BBC is really more suitable for adapting Western classics, and the most suitable is documentaries;

2. Regarding the fact that my favorite original work was put on the screen, I went from disgust and opposition in the early years to some expectations and approval in the near future. In fact, it is mainly because of the slow adjustment and change of my concept. As mentioned at the beginning, Novels and film and television works have different communication media, and their areas of expertise and characteristics are inevitably different, and there is no comparison in many places, so despite the resentment, when you see your favorite book fragments and characters are restored on the screen. There is still an inexplicable satisfaction and gratification in my heart, and every time I watch other people's adaptations, I can help myself to think about the plot and idea of ​​the original from multiple angles and in various ways;

3. Absolute sneering and ineffective criticism is actually not helpful to the adaptation of the work. Instead, it is better to discuss what can be improved and why there are problems. It seems that it is also useless, but the process of serious thinking will actually eventually lead to benefit oneself;

4. I see a saying that if the descriptions of history and revolution in Les Miserables are removed, Hugo is almost the French Qiong Yao in the 19th century. I thought it was new at first, and then I thought it was interesting. First of all, love in literary works is indeed one of the sources of creation, because love is also a part of human nature, and things are normal in this way; secondly, the part involving love in "Les Miserables" actually only barely accounts for 1/ 10 (There is a high probability that there is not even this point), but in this version of the BBC, the love scene of Fantine and Cosette is too long, and it is suspected of weakening the theme; Besides, Qiong Yao's romance is purely romantic, right? I think the friend who speaks like this must be joking, eh;

5. There is one thing I have never figured out. Why did Thenardier, the No. 1 villain, escape legal punishment and finally go to Africa to sell slaves? According to Hugo, shouldn't this villain be punished? After all, he is defiant, and the death of his wife and child will not cause any blow or hurt to him at all, right? A wicked person who has no evil retribution is considered a miserable composition in a miserable world?

above.