He has only made one mistake in his life, and that is: he loves two ungrateful fellows too much: the motherland and me! -- Marius Penmesh, "Les Miserables"
When the first version of the trailer was just released, the TV series "Les Miserables" immediately caused widespread controversy because the style of the picture was too similar to the 2012 movie version. Later, the screenwriter claimed on Twitter that his version was adapted from the original book rather than a "trash musical", which caused a thousand waves and was scolded as a pig's head. In my opinion, people who can say such things are either abnormal in aesthetics or frivolous and snobbish, and their works must have a limited pattern and are not worth a sigh of relief. But the footage of Waterloo in the trailer made it hard for me not to take a peek, after all, this is my favorite chapter in the book, and it’s also the part that almost all versions don’t make. Even if that's the only reason, I should go and see it. So after watching the first episode for free on TV-on-demand, there was only one thought in my mind: the screenwriter was right!
I'm not in favor of musical rubbish, just a comparison of the two. Despite its significant flaws (which will be mentioned later), the BBC 2019 version of "Les Miserables" undoubtedly produced more of what I hoped to see, and I think the spirit of the original is there. Its biggest feature is that it has abandoned the practice of limiting the vision to the main line of Jean Valjean's self-redemption in the past adaptations, and spent more pen and ink to show the important spiritual core of the grass snake and gray line in the original work, which is ubiquitous.
——Les Miserables without the Republic and Empire is in the end just a castrated version .
For this reason, the first episode of the film is, in my opinion, the most exciting part of the whole story, both in terms of conception and execution. Although the original opens with the life of Bishop Bian Furu, most of the adaptations begin with the introduction of the story's actual protagonist, Jean Valjean. The 2019 version neither adopts the former nor the latter, but boldly uses the Battle of Waterloo, the first chapter of the second part of the novel, as the initial scene of the whole film. Of course, it is impossible to expect a TV series to actually film the Battle of Waterloo, and it is enough to show the tragic results of the battle. The magnificent panorama of the battlefield not only has a pre-emptive visual impact, but also shows the director's high grasp of the core of the original work. The defeat of Waterloo was the end of that turbulent era and the beginning of a turbulent era. The whole story of Les Misérables begins in the summer of 1815, the moment when history turns.
As soon as the camera turns, it comes to Paris Street View. The most eye-catching is the imperial veterans begging on the streets, who have dedicated their youth and lives to the country, and what they get is only mutilated bodies, dirty military uniforms, and forgotten glory on their chests. Echoing it is that Colonel Peng Meixu was closed at Yue Zhang's house, once a hero, now the god of plague.
A passer-by in a busy city cleverly transitions the story of Peng Meixu to the Fantine line. Fantine's history is also a passage that is easily overlooked in the adaptation. In summary, it is nothing more than the drama of a scumbag cheating a girl. However, carefully unfolding the beauty of the first love, placed in the special background of the post-Napoleonic era, seems to have another layer of symbols: "I had a dream", more than a girl's spring dream?
In the end, the story finally transitioned to the main line of Jean Valjean. This story has been repeatedly performed, so it is unnecessary to repeat it. However, it is worth mentioning that the details of Little Rielwei are also skipped in many versions, but this version was filmed. The director played a little trick. In the front, he used a lot of space to show that Jean Valjean only earned 5 sous by working hard to move bricks, so it is self-evident that the 40 sous he stole means a child who goes through a chimney. Maybe this is not the main intention of the original author, but it has to be said to have a more intuitive impact.
If the first episode was amazing, a lot of what follows has to say how disappointing it is. The most regrettable thing is that the Peng Meixu line hastily ended in the early stage. The film tediously explains every aspect of the original book, but whether Marius misses the last meeting with his father, learns the truth at the church, consults the past of the empire, or breaks with his grandfather, it is far from the strength it should be, let alone. Cut off Nogiman to discover the truth and Marius weeps at his father's grave. If the space is limited, any of the above points can be used as the main body to supplement other details. For example: Marius did not go to see his father at all, and the direct will was handed over by the maid, and then he learned the truth in the church; or do not directly let Marius sweep the tomb. Crash and showdown; it can even be simple and crude, and Marius unfolds everything when he sees his father. These treatments are better than not each one is clearly explained now.
Why do I dare to say that? Because Marius' Awakening has only two key points, the indifference and numbness before knowing the truth and the outburst of remorse after knowing the truth. In today's bland, the performance certainly takes a little responsibility. Although the original book claims that Lu Si is cold on the outside and hot on the inside, the darkness is so oppressive, the sunshine is so dazzling; Personality is not the reason for facial paralysis. However, the performance problem is not fatal. Despite the ambiguous expression of Marius in the old house of Gorbe, we can still clearly feel the impact of his heart. It is because of the director's clear-cut lens language and artistic atmosphere.
The real flaw comes from a fundamental fact: the show was made by the British.
The British can photograph the good and evil of human nature, freedom and equality, revolutionary blood and love between children, but the British cannot photograph the deep-rooted love of the French for their motherland's thousand-year history. 马吕斯可以爱他的父亲，但不能爱那个被英国暴揍于滑铁卢的战争疯子，不能爱那些践踏人权法制的断头台情郎。
I don’t expect any adaptations to restore the place names that the author has mentioned time and time again: Marengo, Jena, Eylau, Leipzig, etc.; some have even been deeply integrated into the streets of Paris. , from the Bridge of Austerlitz, to the Invalides, to the Street of Warriors and even the Luxembourg Gardens; the names of Angoulême, Valois and other people who seem to be mentioned casually also show another color after understanding the stories. There are also the lengthy political debates in the original book about republicans, royalists, and Bonapartists. "The audience won't watch it", but these are the content that made the hearts of Hugo readers back then.
What has been deleted is not only the passion contained in the form, but even the soul-stirring cry at the beginning of this article. (How I love this quote) And all this we can't even blame, no doubt, how could it be possible to ask the British to show French nationalism?
After complaining about the background line, let’s talk about the traditional main line.
The first thing to say is the hero Jean Valjean. It is difficult to describe Dominic West's version in a single word, but I have a lot of recognition for the actor himself. His rendition of Jean Valjean is arguably even better than Hugh Jackman's .
What to say? One of the difficulties with Jean Valjean from a performance perspective is that he shows two sides of the contrast in the story, a cynical convict and a gentleman and a decent mayor. Uncle Hugh undoubtedly regarded the former as a challenge, and with the help of the modeling, he perfectly showed the anger and pain of the convict; as for the latter, it seemed that there was nothing wrong with it at the time, but after reading this version, the problem was very serious. clearly contrasted. To put it simply, Uncle Hugh's Jean Valjean is too elegant to be a nobleman. This is unreasonable for a man of poor background who was not well educated when he was young, and who has just been freed after serving nineteen years in prison.
And with Dominic West's version, you can not only see two sides of Jean Valjean, but at the same time something inherent is consistent. The scene in which he was elected mayor was particularly obvious. The promotion of social status did not allow him to directly have the elegance and eloquence of that class, but his dignified status allowed his dullness to be interpreted as modesty and simplicity. And when he's flashing, you can still see the suffering prisoner in his flushed face and bulging veins. For Jean Valjean, there is a contrast between the two sides, but they are not two different people. It is important to show "difference", but "same" cannot be ignored.
On the other hand, the director gave the character some new settings. He brought the question of class to the table. Jean Valjean's anger is not only a chaotic instinct, but a definite resistance. He clearly recognizes the difference between the bottom and the upper classes, and has an instinctive resistance and aversion to the latter. When he ran away, he knew very well what he was running from and against, not just the situation.
Such adaptations are possible. But from the results, it is unnecessary, and I don't see any special chemical reaction to the story, and it has nothing to do with the character's climax transformation. The director seems to be trying to use that old metaphor: when Jean Valjean escapes from the sewers of symbolic production on his shoulders, the metaphor is actually reborn. But what did he realize? It is not so much for the audience to think, but for the audience to open their minds.
If Jean Valjean is still quite impressive, Javert can be completely described as broken, and many people also feel that this version is worthless. This kind of anger is not incomprehensible.
The issue of race is by far the least problematic issue, although it does bring some bugs. For example, after becoming the mayor, Jean Valjean showed discomfort when he first met Javert, but Javert, who did not recognize the other party at first glance, seemed to be guilty of being a thief, rather than the other party being racist. The fundamental breakdown is that this version of Javert is a lunatic and illogical .
The so-called madman is literally a madman, how crazy is it? Paris is going to revolt, the police are so busy they are dying, but Sheriff Javert doesn't even want to look at the relevant documents, he just wants to arrest Jean Valjean; Sheriff Javert is undercover barricades, no reason and no evidence, and when he arrests someone, he says Ran Valjean Valjean was the mastermind of the uprising—I'm really curious what impression Jean Valjean had in his mind.
The original Javert is full of controversy, even a bit puzzling, but this kind of puzzling is where the various adaptations come to the rescue and express their opinions. Take, for example, the 2012 film version of Russell Crowe's Javert, although it doesn't necessarily mean what the original meant. However, when Javert faced the sacrifice of the bloody young people with a respect that transcended personal right and wrong and related to national feelings, you can fully accept what overwhelmed his obsession with Jean Valjean and the law.
Given that this version of Javert is already insane, even Jean Valjean's interpretation doesn't make him a little sober - we can totally understand his indifference to everything. However, when he saw Jean Valjean desperately saving Marius, who had nothing to do with Jean Valjean or himself, suddenly Love & Peace cured his paranoia. This unprecedented scene (apparently he completely forgot about Lao Ran getting under the car to save people) moved him greatly, so he wrote a suicide note demanding to improve the prison system, improve the treatment of prisoners, and then committed suicide.
If this is a reflection of American politics, if this is the director's understanding of the "blindness of the law", then I should really feel that two hundred years have passed, and the Western ideological civilization has declined to this point...
Marius had already complained about Cosette.
Many versions of Cosette have nothing to say, but this one deserves a lot of attention both in performance and in character. As a protected greenhouse flower, she sometimes shows ignorance and escapism from the suffering of the world. If there is a barrage version, I believe this plot will make many people call her annoying. But this is not her fault, the key is that she is not comfortable with this kind of escape, she hopes to get out of the cage and get in touch with the world, even if the truth is not so beautiful. So in any case, she is a girl with a beautiful soul and worthy of love.
However, it seems that the definition of beauty needs to be discussed with the director. It is true that Lao Ran's feelings for Cosette are quite complicated, and he is also a father and daughter as well as a lover. But if you directly let such a child play Lolita teasing scenes, won't your conscience hurt, director? Besides, Cosette grew up, a pure girl who grew up in a monastery, her beauty is reflected in the brushed and repainted eyebrows and the thick flaming red lips...
Ebony has always been an easier character than Cosette, and this edition is no exception. Although Cosette is not weak, Ebony still lives up to her expectations. Maybe many people will dislike finding an unbeautiful actor, but I think unbeautiful is more valuable.
This edition has a more in-depth presentation of Eponi's suffering. Thenardier's evil is not a musical gag, his vileness and violence are not only hunting skills, but also against his family. It was her misfortune to be born in the mud, and she did not grow into a delicate flower like Cosette, and she was completely different from the appearance alone. Compared with the musical, we can intuitively find that this is not an equal love triangle from the beginning, Ebony has no hope from the beginning, and Marius is not blind.
But that's what makes her love so heartwarming. Looking forward to the love that you know is impossible, not to get a return, but to pursue better things in the world, just to become a better self.
Unrequited love is a theme that Hugo is passionate about. Christ loved the world, Jean Valjean loved his daughter, Ebony and Norgemans loved Marius, and Pomeranian loved his country without asking for anything in return. Of course they want something in return, and not asking for something doesn't mean they don't want something in return, but if they don't, can they stop loving?
Besides, Enjolras, before watching it, it seemed that many people said that Enjolras was not handsome enough, but after watching it, it seems that this is the only version that I feel that Enjolras is handsome. In the previous version, I didn't want to comment on this character at all, because it felt like there was nothing to say. Seems like he's a heroic figure, but completely eschews all the points that touch my heroic feelings.
This version of Enjolras' appearance is mundane, just a cynical member of the small intellectual community in the tavern. Maybe in his small circle, he is the top, but for the real struggle, the struggle from the bottom, they are just passers-by rather than leaders. When the real situation broke out, the leader asked them, it can be just a game, and it is too late to quit now. Enjolras also had hesitations in his eyes, but he proved his claims with actions, not just words. He was involved in a war that did not belong to him, and it was not his own plan to become a leader, but he naturally stood out in that adversity. Various street scenes of Paris from the perspective of Arno Dorian show that the barricade struggle is not a stubborn resistance, and the so-called people are not talking in general terms. (I don't know where the budget for the movie version goes.)
The director showed Enjolras's sublime with a level approach. In the ending of fighting to the death, there is no large-area red flag to increase the visual impact like the musical, nor the heroic nailed to the wall in the original book. The face-down death method makes me very willing to guess that the director has interpreted the sad wish hidden in the sentence "Do I need to blindfold you?" in the original work.
View more about Les Misérables reviews
