Watching Les Miserables

Earlier in the year, I read Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. It was LOVE. I knew I wanted to see several film adaptations. I've since watched four adaptations: the 1935 adaptation starring Fredric March (Jean Valjean), Charles Laughton (Inspector Javert), Cedric Hardwicke (Bishop Bienvenu), Rochelle Hudson (Cosette), Florence Eldridge (Fantine), and John Beal (Marius); the 1952 adaptation starring Michael Rennie (Jean Valjean), Robert Newton (Inspector Javert), Edmund Gwenn (Bishop Courbet), Debra Paget (Cosette), Sylvia Sidney (Fantine), Cameron Mitchell (Marius); the 1998 adaptation starring Liam Neeson (Jean Valjean), Geoffrey Rush (Inspector Javert), Peter Vaughan (Bishop), Claire Danes (Cosette), Uma Thurman (Fantine), Hans Matheson (Marius); the 2012 musical adaptation starring Hugh Jackman (Jean Valjean), Russell Crowe (Inspector Javert), Colm Wilkinson (Bishop), Amanda Seyfried (Cosette), Anne Hathaway (Fantine), and Eddie Redmayne (Marius).

Essentially, I wasn't satisfied with any of the adaptations I saw of this film. There were things I enjoyed about each of the adaptations. But there wasn't one definite version I'd recommend above the others. My least favorite was the musical; the musical was tedious and required you to suspend your disbelief for hours. (Who would really sing a song WHILE being chased by the police? Who would sing when trying to hide?) My favorite characters in the musical would be Eponine (Samantha Barks) and Fantine (Anne Hathaway). In some ways the musical was truer to the book than the others.
I am glad I watched it once, however. The two black and while film adaptations I saw were quite pleasant. The story is horribly condensed in both, and everything is so rushed, but, they were pleasant experiences. They don't do justice to the book...at all. The 1998 film was very nice. I thought Geoffrey Rush was great as Inspector Javert, and Liam Neeson was believable as Jean Valjean. IF this adaptation had followed the book, been a bit longer perhaps, then it could have worked for me.

© 2013 SukaYuka.com of SukaYuka's Book Reviews

Invention of Hugo Cabret (2007)

Invention of Hugo Cabret. Brian Selznick. 2007. Scholastic. 525 pages.

I hadn't really planned on rereading Brian Selznick's Invention of Hugo Cabret, but this year I joined the book to movie challenge. I'd been curious about the film, Hugo. This "review" will share what I thought about both the book and the movie.

I found the movie wonderful. I found it very compelling. I was drawn into the story--the time and place. This is a movie (and a book) where setting is just as important if not MORE important than the characters. Because it is set in a train station in Paris, France, in the early 1930s, because it focuses on such an intriguing orphan who is desperate to make sense of the world and fix what needs fixing, because it was a story with such a strong emphasis on friendship and making your own family, it worked for me. The book and the movie are different from one another. The movie adds characters and even gives them story-lines. The movie changes some of the relationships as well. But I thought some of the changes--at least--worked better. I liked the Hugo of the movie better than the Hugo of the book! While the novel's focus on old cinema was interesting, on film it meant SO MUCH MORE. This book was meant to be filmed.

I originally read the book in 2007. I watched the movie a few weeks ago and then decided to reread the book. I definitely preferred the movie to the book. But the book is a very quick read! It takes longer to watch the movie than it does to read the book!

© 2013 SukaYuka.com of SukaYuka's Book Reviews