Have we talked about Les Miserables?

[DaffodilDreams]

Possible spoiler alert:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been debating seeing the movie w/my dd, too, so I have researched parent guides online. One of the things an article mentioned that bothers me is the scene where some of Fantine's teeth are removed and the blood smeared on her face. It sounds horribly graphic and scary w/o having any other info to go off of. Can anyone provide more insight into that scene? Why does this happen to her? How drawn out is the scene? How in your face is it? What else is going on at that time? And, when does it happen - in case I want dd to close her eyes then?! My family has seen the musical several times, but we haven't read the book so I was surprised when I read this online.

 

Thanks so much!

[Forget-Me-Not]

No, I don't think so. Russell Crowe can carry a tune - his voice just isn't big enough for the role.

 

I agree. He carried a tune pretty well. I felt he didn't have the dynamic range that I wanted for Javert. But he didn't spoil the movie for me either. :).

 

I thought Hugh Jackman did pretty well. But he was really out sung by some of the smaller players and it was noticeable in parts.

 

Anne Hathaway kind of blew me away. I thought she did an incredible job of conveying how pathetic and desperate Fantine was.

[newlifemom]

Possible spoiler alert:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been debating seeing the movie w/my dd, too, so I have researched parent guides online. One of the things an article mentioned that bothers me is the scene where some of Fantine's teeth are removed and the blood smeared on her face. It sounds horribly graphic and scary w/o having any other info to go off of. Can anyone provide more insight into that scene? Why does this happen to her? How drawn out is the scene? How in your face is it? What else is going on at that time? And, when does it happen - in case I want dd to close her eyes then?! My family has seen the musical several times, but we haven't read the book so I was surprised when I read this online.

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

It wasn't bad at all. I was pretty nervous about it, but they don't show anything.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Possible spoiler alert:

I have been debating seeing the movie w/my dd, too, so I have researched parent guides online. One of the things an article mentioned that bothers me is the scene where some of Fontaine's teeth are removed and the blood smeared on her face. It sounds horribly graphic and scary w/o having any other info to go off of. Can anyone provide more insight into that scene? Why does this happen to her? How drawn out is the scene? How in your face is it? What else is going on at that time? And, when does it happen - in case I want dd to close her eyes then?! My family has seen the musical several times, but we haven't read the book so I was surprised when I read this online.

Thanks so much!

 

She sells her teeth and her hair to send money to her daughter. It's been a long time since I read the book, but that part surprised me too. That being said, it definitely wasn't overly graphic. It just shows a dentist coming at her face with a scary looking tool and then the chorus sort of closes in around her. Later you see her with her mouth looking a little swollen and bloody, but not horribly so. When she sings "I Dreamed a Dream" you can see that one of her teeth (a premolar) is missing--in fact I'm still trying to figure how they made it look so realistic.

[Elinor Everywhere]

Possible spoiler alert:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been debating seeing the movie w/my dd, too, so I have researched parent guides online. One of the things an article mentioned that bothers me is the scene where some of Fantine's teeth are removed and the blood smeared on her face. It sounds horribly graphic and scary w/o having any other info to go off of. Can anyone provide more insight into that scene? Why does this happen to her? How drawn out is the scene? How in your face is it? What else is going on at that time? And, when does it happen - in case I want dd to close her eyes then?! My family has seen the musical several times, but we haven't read the book so I was surprised when I read this online.

 

Thanks so much!

 

It happens during the scene where she sells the locket and her hair. They don't show the teeth actually coming out, but they do show a guy bending over her and sticking a large tool in her mouth, then there is blood on her face. She is afraid, and it seems they are taking the teeth against her will, but she's just so destitute she doesn't know what to do or how to fight it.

 

It doesn't last long, if I remember correctly.

[DaffodilDreams]

You all are fast! Thank you so very much for the quick responses. This helps!

[Seasider]

It is about redemption. It is about balancing justice and mercy. The French Revolution is the backdrop of the story, and it plays a much bigger part in the book.

 

It blows my mind that people would decide not to go because Russell Crowe isn't the best singer. As a lover of the book (and I have never seen a stage production), I think he did well depicting the character of Javert. I don't really care if he can sing. I felt differently about Gerard Bulter as the Phantom of the Opera since the singing is integral to the plot.

 

 

:iagree: (Except for the part about Gerard Butler. He can be my phantom any day.)

 

I think that with a screen production, facial expression is also a viable reason for casting choices. Few I can think of beat Crowe's self righteous/convicted/troubled expressions.

 

Someone said they didn't care for Enjolras. I liked him. He's always been one of my favorite characters. I do think he was upstaged a bit by the other dark-haired rebel (don't know his name). That ensemble of young men was IMO the best bit of singing in the film. And Anne Hathaway, her performance was just terrific. I can't imagine how exhausted she must have been after filming that.

 

Am I the only one that felt that the vocal range of nearly all the men to be rather on the high side? There were a couple of spots in Empty Room that Marius went down low, but I am thinking that one of the reasons Amanda Seigfried (sp?) was cast as Cosette was because her ultra high soprano was needed for those ensembles with ValJean & Marius / Marius & Eponine. Just my amateur opinion...

 

Someone upthread didn't think Hugh Jackman nailed Bring Him Home, but it totally gripped me and had me in tears in the theater. It wasn't all about the performance, but about the story - what a sacrificial life Jean shows us! What a life of devotion, a life balanced between prayer and action, saturated in mercy and grace! I'll put up with a bit of less-than-stellar singing any day to watch such a thing on the big screen, as rare as such a story line is these days.

 

And as for a recording of "highlights"? They're calling that a sound track? WTH??? This is a story told in song. Leaving out a song is like dropping out a chapter of a book. Incomplete. Thanks for the heads up.

[Forget-Me-Not]

Someone said they didn't care for Enjolras. I liked him. He's always been one of my favorite characters. I do think he was upstaged a bit by the other dark-haired rebel (don't know his name).

 

 

I agree 100%. That dark-haired guy had an incredible voice.

[Wendi]

It's actually not the French Revolution (1789-1799); it's the Paris Uprising of 1832, a much smaller (and unsuccessful) revolt.

[Mrs Mungo]

It's actually not the French Revolution (1789-1799); it's the Paris Uprising of 1832, a much smaller (and unsuccessful) revolt.

 

 

That is true of the musical, but not the book. The story of The French Revolution is woven through the book. There are several chapters on Waterloo. Part of the reason that the judge is harsh with Valjean is that the judge is a royalist and Valjean refers to Napoleon as "the Emperor." There is a lot of that in the book. Just to clarify.

[LizzyBee]

I didn't take my 11 yo, and it was the right choice. The sex and violence weren't graphic, but seeing the dead soldiers and revolutionists lying on the ground and then the women cleaning the blood off the street is a bit heavy for a child. Also, the scenes with Fantine weren't graphic, but they were very emotional. It was obvious that she was traumatized.

 

I may be in the minority, but I liked Russell Crowe's performance. His inner conflict was subtle and nuanced. None of the music was great simply because music in a movie can't measure up to a live performance, but Crowe's acting was very good.

 

The highlight of the movie for me was Jackman's performance of Bring Him Home. I was not the only person in the theater crying during that part.

[thebacabunch]

I wasn't in love with Russel Crowe in the movie, but he didn't detract either. I thought that Hugh Jackman was fantastic. I really liked it. I would take my 12 year old, but I think it is a case by case thing.

 

Also, Gerard Butler is so awesome as the phantom. Never understood the conflict for Christine before. There are better sounding phantoms, but they were soooooo not sexy. ha ha ha.

 

I went to the movie of Les Mis not expecting great singers but great actors with reasonable sounding voices. I was not dissapointed. I see the movie as a different medium than the stage and, therefore, had different expectations

[Stayseeliz]

I saw the musical when I was in middle school and really loved the movie. The last scene is amazing. I think Eddie Redmayne was my favorite. I can't wait to see it again!

[Wendi]

That is true of the musical, but not the book. The story of The French Revolution is woven through the book. There are several chapters on Waterloo. Part of the reason that the judge is harsh with Valjean is that the judge is a royalist and Valjean refers to Napoleon as "the Emperor." There is a lot of that in the book. Just to clarify.

 

 

Oh, I see what you mean. Napoleon came to power at the end of the republic established by the Revolution, so I thought of his time as post-revolution. But it's not like history works in neat little boxes; obviously the struggle between royalists, republicans, various factions, etc., continued. But a lot of people get confused and think the battle at the barricade depicted in the story is part of the French Revolution. It's a generation later. I need to re-read Les Miserables; it's been awhile. I remember pages and pages of political discourse. Should I re-read an unabridged version, or try an abridged translation this time?

[FaithManor]

It is about redemption. It is about balancing justice and mercy. The French Revolution is the backdrop of the story, and it plays a much bigger part in the book.

 

It blows my mind that people would decide not to go because Russell Crowe isn't the best singer. As a lover of the book (and I have never seen a stage production), I think he did well depicting the character of Javert. I don't really care if he can sing. I felt differently about Gerard Bulter as the Phantom of the Opera since the singing is integral to the plot.

 

I can understand your viewpoint because you haven't seen a good stage production. If you've seen Les Mis on Broadway and experienced the music at that level, then if someone is out there screeching out parts they truly can't sing (ala Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia, although he isn't the only one that has seriously botched music in Hollywood), then it is very unpleasant. All I wanted to know was how bad it was. It's one thing if it was a just a hair out of someone's range, it's quite another when that person really cannot sing the number at all.

 

Faith

[Jenny in Florida]

Hmmmmm......Russel Crowe, Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway...what are the chances? I'm a professional musician and my ears are sensitive to the cremation of good music. Should I skip seeing Les Mis?

 

Hugh Jackman is a theatre guy, originally. However, the clips I've heard in the trailers sound pretty . . . bad. Again, judging from the trailers and clips alone, Anne Hathaway's voice sounds thin but pretty. Russel Crowe? I really just can't help wondering if film producers will EVER learn they can't just toss some big names into a movie and expect us all to notice they can't sing. I mean, didn't they learn their lesson with Gerard Butler in the Phantom film?

 

On the other hand, based on the rave reviews here, I guess there really is no lesson to learn.

 

As I said, my daughter the aspiring Broadway performer, who has the soundtrack for the stage version memorized, has decided she can't see the film. Although I love musicals, in general, I don't care much for Les Mis. And I find most of the clips I've heard of the singing in this one (with the exception of Anne Hathaway) alternately laughable and painful. So, it's no hardship for me to skip it.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

 

I can understand your viewpoint because you haven't seen a good stage production. If you've seen Les Mis on Broadway and experienced the music at that level, then if someone is out there screeching out parts they truly can't sing (ala Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia, although he isn't the only one that has seriously botched music in Hollywood), then it is very unpleasant. All I wanted to know was how bad it was. It's one thing if it was a just a hair out of someone's range, it's quite another when that person really cannot sing the number at all.

 

Faith

 

Maybe I should clarify a bit more. I have seen plenty of stage productions of other musicals. I play an instrument. I appreciate music and what it means to be out of key. It is just that I care a lot more about the characterization based on the story than the singing in *this particular* movie.

 

To me, Russell Crowe was not terrible, but singing is definitely not his forte. He was not Pierce Brodnan bad, lol. I would rather have him as Javert than John Malkovich any day of the week, even if John Malkovich sang like an angel. ;)

[TXMomof4]

It's actually not the French Revolution (1789-1799); it's the Paris Uprising of 1832, a much smaller (and unsuccessful) revolt.

 

Which I didn't know until I started reading the book and was all sorts of lost - this after seeing the stage production twice and working backstage at it. Hmmmm - my education was definitely lacking! I would have sworn to you that Marie Antoinette was waiting in the wings - completely wrong time frame for the action in the play.

[Slartibartfast]

I thought it was well done. It was better than I expected.

 

I am glad we went to see it, I would pay to see it again.

 

I did see the trailer and was concerned about Anne Hathaway's voice, however she basically left her guts on that screen. Anne Hathaway is always so perfect and perky (yes, I did see that movie where she was a drug addict) but I think I walked out of there respecting her a bit more than I did previously. She did not do the "pretty version" she did the "blood and guts" version and I was very impressed.

 

You see amazing singers sing "I Dreamed a Dream" with famous orchestras and they sing it very well but in their perfection I don't always feel they leave their guts all over the stage like Anne Hathaway did. I think she is likely to win an Oscar.

 

I was also concerned about Russell Crowe, Stars is my *favorite* bit of Les Mis and I was rather worried about him being able to pull it off. His acting was subtle and while he wasn't *perfect* I enjoyed his performance. It is probably my favorite performance of his. I don't care for Russell Crowe but I liked his Javert. He was definitely NOT Peirce Brosnan bad. I also do not think he was AS bad as Gerard Butler.

 

I guess my problem is that Stars is such a huge blockbuster of a song, it just explodes off the stage. You want to be COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY during Stars and I wasn't blown away. That was my problem with the performance. He sang the part, I wasn't stupefied.

 

I have seen stage productions and I have played instruments, very difficult ones actually and so I appreciate pitch I also appreciate the emotions being projected on screen.

 

Enjolras was very pretty. I quite liked looking at him. :lol:

 

I loved Hugh Jackman. He was excellent. I don't think they could have made a better choice.

 

I think it is very different from seeing a stage performance. I have never been able to see someone's facial expressions while at a stage production but in a movie we are looking right up their nose while they are singing. I think what we need from someone acting a part in a movie is very different from a stage production. Many people who CAN sing CANNOT act. If someone buys a movie ticket they expect someone to act, not just belt it out to the nosebleed seats. IMO Les Mis is a very vulnerable score and a movie makes it even more so. Those who walk into something looking to be displeased will be displeased. If one buys their ticket prepared to look at an old favorite from a much more intimate perspective then they will feel their time was well spent.

 

That said, I don't think there was anyone there who flat out could not sing their part.

 

There are always people who will never be happy. But I was pleasantly surprised. It was better than Phantom and Mama Mia.

 

It is starting to feel like Helena Bonham Carter is typecasting herself.

[creekland]

I wasn't in love with Russel Crowe in the movie, but he didn't detract either. I thought that Hugh Jackman was fantastic. I really liked it. I would take my 12 year old, but I think it is a case by case thing.

 

...

 

I went to the movie of Les Mis not expecting great singers but great actors with reasonable sounding voices. I was not dissapointed. I see the movie as a different medium than the stage and, therefore, had different expectations

 

This is me too. I've been to theater and I love theater. I love great music both singing and instrumental. However, when I go to cinema I want great acting more than great singing. I thought Les Mis was fantastic even if I'd want different singers on an MP3. I rarely go to a movie twice, but this one is tempting. The acting in this was superb IMO - and better than I've seen on stage mainly because you can't see the close ups on stage. One experiences far more of the feelings and "life" in this movie IMO.

 

I thought it was well done. It was better than I expected.

 

I am glad we went to see it, I would pay to see it again.

 

I did see the trailer and was concerned about Anne Hathaway's voice, however she basically left her guts on that screen. Anne Hathaway is always so perfect and perky (yes, I did see that movie where she was a drug addict) but I think I walked out of there respecting her a bit more than I did previously. She did not do the "pretty version" she did the "blood and guts" version and I was very impressed.

 

You see amazing singers sing "I Dreamed a Dream" with famous orchestras and they sing it very well but in their perfection I don't always feel they leave their guts all over the stage like Anne Hathaway did. I think she is likely to win an Oscar.

 

I was also concerned about Russell Crowe, Stars is my *favorite* bit of Les Mis and I was rather worried about him being able to pull it off. His acting was subtle and while he wasn't *perfect* I enjoyed his performance. It is probably my favorite performance of his. I don't care for Russell Crowe but I liked his Javert. He was definitely NOT Peirce Brosnan bad. I also do not think he was AS bad as Gerard Butler.

 

I guess my problem is that Stars is such a huge blockbuster of a song, it just explodes off the stage. You want to be COMPLETELY BLOWN AWAY during Stars and I wasn't blown away. That was my problem with the performance. He sang the part, I wasn't stupefied.

 

I have seen stage productions and I have played instruments, very difficult ones actually and so I appreciate pitch I also appreciate the emotions being projected on screen.

 

Enjolras was very pretty. I quite liked looking at him. :lol:

 

I loved Hugh Jackman. He was excellent. I don't think they could have made a better choice.

 

I think it is very different from seeing a stage performance. I have never been able to see someone's facial expressions while at a stage production but in a movie we are looking right up their nose while they are singing. I think what we need from someone acting a part in a movie is very different from a stage production. Many people who CAN sing CANNOT act. If someone buys a movie ticket they expect someone to act, not just belt it out to the nosebleed seats. IMO Les Mis is a very vulnerable score and a movie makes it even more so. Those who walk into something looking to be displeased will be displeased. If one buys their ticket prepared to look at an old favorite from a much more intimate perspective then they will feel their time was well spent.

 

That said, I don't think there was anyone there who flat out could not sing their part.

 

There are always people who will never be happy. But I was pleasantly surprised. It was better than Phantom and Mama Mia.

 

It is starting to feel like Helena Bonham Carter is typecasting herself.

 

:iagree: You sum up my feelings well!

[FaithManor]

He was not Pierce Brodnan bad, lol. I would rather have him as Javert than John Malkovich any day of the week, even if John Malkovich sang like an angel. ;)

 

Agreed! The big issue for me is that frankly, I'm not paying $8.50 each for dh and I to hear "Pierce Brosnan bad". :D This could be out new way of characterizing horrible performances - "That was Pierce Brosnan bad!"

 

As for John Malkovich - :ack2:, I know EXACTLY what you are saying.

 

Okay, you've all convinced me. I'm going to go give it a chance.

 

Faith

[Lolly]

She sells her teeth and her hair to send money to her daughter. It's been a long time since I read the book, but that part surprised me too. That being said, it definitely wasn't overly graphic. It just shows a dentist coming at her face with a scary looking tool and then the chorus sort of closes in around her. Later you see her with her mouth looking a little swollen and bloody, but not horribly so. When she sings "I Dreamed a Dream" you can see that one of her teeth (a premolar) is missing--in fact I'm still trying to figure how they made it look so realistic.

 

 

 

:smilielol5: This struck me as funny. One of my dd's is an aspiring make-up artist. The scene where you can see the missing tooth drove her crazy. In fact, it was one of the first things we both mentioned as we left the theater (I've learned a lot from her!). What drove us crazy was how poorly it was done. Miss Hathaway has had her teeth all whitened. They are BRIGHT! They darkened the front 4 for this movie, which is all you would normally notice. But, when she sang you saw them all. It made for a very distracting set of teeth. We are somewhat accustomed to seeing the back teeth a bit darker than the front (many people have only the front 4 veneered and in a lighter color). To see the opposite was odd. The missing tooth was well-done though. I do agree with that.

[Chocolate Rose]

Maybe I should clarify a bit more. I have seen plenty of stage productions of other musicals. I play an instrument. I appreciate music and what it means to be out of key. It is just that I care a lot more about the characterization based on the story than the singing in *this particular* movie.

 

I totally agree with this. I also have a musical background. I have degrees in music performance and education. But, a performance doesn't have to be stellar musically for me to enjoy it. Everyone going to this movie knows that it is not going to be the same as a Broadway production. I LOVED this movie and can hardly wait to see it again. I think that the emotion of the characters was really well portrayed. I was totally caught up in it.

If you go to this movie expecting to see an awesome stage production and nitpick all the musical flaws, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. If you go expecting to see a great story well done, you will probably enjoy the ride.

[Kathryn]

 

 

That is true of the musical, but not the book. The story of The French Revolution is woven through the book. There are several chapters on Waterloo. Part of the reason that the judge is harsh with Valjean is that the judge is a royalist and Valjean refers to Napoleon as "the Emperor." There is a lot of that in the book. Just to clarify.

 

The French Revolution is generally said to have ended with Napoleon's coup in 1799. While France's government was far from stable for quite a number of years still, those years aren't referenced as the "French Revolution." That ended over a decade before the story begins.

[Slartibartfast]

The French Revolution is generally said to have ended with Napoleon's coup in 1799. While France's government was far from stable for quite a number of years still, those years aren't referenced as the "French Revolution." That ended over a decade before the story begins.

 

The French Revolution is actually referenced extensively in the book.

 

It is not a book about a brief period, it is a "history" book. . He spends excessive pages describing Waterloo in such detail that it becomes tiresome. He has SERIOUS digression issues, he goes off on tangents about politics, religion, he discusses the street urchins of Paris and he spends an entire chapter just talking about the sewers.

 

If you don't think the French Revolution is in the book then you have not read it.

 

In '93, according as the idea which was afloat was good or bad, according as it was the day of fanaticism or of enthusiasm, there came from the Faubourg Saint Antoine sometimes savage legions, sometimes heroic bands.

Savage. We must explain this word. What was the aim of those bristling men who in the demiurgic days of revolutionary chaos, ragged, howling, wild, with tomahawk raised, and pike aloft, rushed over old overturned Paris? They desired the end of Opressions, the end of Tyrannies, the end of the sword, labour for man, instruction for children, social gentleness for women, liberty, equality, fraternity, bread for all, ideas for all. They were savages, yes; but the savages of civilisation.

 

The Parisian is among Frenchman what the Athenian was among the Greeks. Nobody sleeps better than he, nobody is more frankly frivolous and idle than he, nobody seems to forget things more easily than he; but do not trust him, notwithstanding; he is apt at all sorts of nonchalance, but when there is glory to be gained he is wonderful in every species of fury. Give him a pike and he will play the tenth of August; give him a musket, and you shall have an Austerlitz. He is the support of Napoleon, and the resource of Danton. Is France in question? he enlists; is liberty in question? he tears up the pavement. Beware!

 

From Les Miserables

[Kathryn]

 

 

The French Revolution is actually referenced extensively in the book.

 

It is not a book about a brief period, it is a "history" book. He spends a chapter just talking about the sewers in Paris. He spends time describing Waterloo in such detail that it becomes tiresome.

 

If you don't think the French Revolution is in the book then you have not read it.

 

 

From Les Miserables

 

 

 

The story begins in 1815. Of course, the French Revolution affected characters and setting leading up to that point and after, but the narrative begins years after the end of the Revolution. Many people (like a pp's husband) mistakenly believe that the action in the book is the French Revolution. It's not. That's what I was addressing. And yes, I've read it. And studied this particular period of French history.

[Slartibartfast]

The story begins in 1815. Of course, the French Revolution affected characters and setting leading up to that point and after, but the narrative begins years after the end of the Revolution. Many people (like a pp's husband) mistakenly believe that the action in the book is the French Revolution. It's not. That's what I was addressing. And yes, I've read it. And studied this particular period of French history.

 

 

 

The time period has nothing to do with it.

 

One theme is the failure of the French Revolution in addressing the very real social issues. The book makes heroes of those who commit crimes due to unemployment or starvation.

 

How long was he imprisoned again? He was imprisoned in 1795, Jean Valjean is a *victim* of the French Revolution as was his family.

 

Gavroche mocks, "I have a cheerful character. It's Voltaire's fault. Misery is my bridal gown. It's Rousseau's fault"

[Wendi]

I'm so confused. You keep mentioning Waterloo, but that's not part of the French Revolution. Napoleon becoming emperor ended the republic the revolutionaries began, correct? And by the time of the play (beginning 1815), there is a new king (whom not everyone who even accepts a king agrees is the legitimate king), correct? So although the turmoil continues, the actual French Revolution ended in 1799. When I hear French Revolution, I think Robespierre, Declaration of the Rights of Man, Reign of Terror, that guy who was murdered in his bathtub, Marie and Louis trying to flee, beheadings in the square, etc. That all happened in the 1790s. Are you saying Napoleon, Waterloo, etc., are a continuation of the same revolution? That's not what I understood.

 

And I know Hugo goes off on tangents; that's what makes me a little reluctant about my plan to re-read the book this year.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm so confused. You keep mentioning Waterloo, but that's not part of the French Revolution. Napoleon becoming emperor ended the republic the revolutionaries began, correct? And by the time of the play (beginning 1815), there is a new king (whom not everyone who even accepts a king agrees is the legitimate king), correct? So although the turmoil continues, the actual French Revolution ended in 1799. When I hear French Revolution, I think Robespierre, Declaration of the Rights of Man, Reign of Terror, that guy who was murdered in his bathtub, Marie and Louis trying to flee, beheadings in the square, etc. That all happened in the 1790s. Are you saying Napoleon, Waterloo, etc., are a continuation of the same revolution? That's not what I understood.

 

And I know Hugo goes off on tangents; that's what makes me a little reluctant about my plan to re-read the book this year.

 

 

It was an example of his tendency towards tangents. :)

[Kathryn]

 

 

 

The time period has nothing to do with it.

 

One theme is the failure of the French Revolution in addressing the very real social issues. The book makes heroes of those who commit crimes due to unemployment or starvation.

 

How long was he imprisoned again? He was imprisoned in 1795, Jean Valjean is a *victim* of the French Revolution as was his family.

 

Gavroche mocks, "I have a cheerful character. It's Voltaire's fault. Misery is my bridal gown. It's Rousseau's fault"

 

The time period has nothing to do with when it's set? Once again, I'm addressing the time period of the novel's action. Not French Revolution. As for theme, I'd argue that it wasn't *just* the French Revolution that was being presented as a failure, but the ensuing regimes as well. French society was in utter turmoil for decades.

[Mrs Mungo]

The book heavily references the French Revolution (including Robespierre, etc). There is action in the book (like the bit where Valjean turns himself into the court) that is heavily influenced by the French Revolution. IMO, it is largely about the French Revolution and its fallout. That doesn't mean that the French Revolution is contemporary with the action in the book. Does that clear up my position?

 

ETA: how much of this you get in the book will largely depend upon which edition/translation you read.

[Slartibartfast]

The time period has nothing to do with when it's set? Once again, I'm addressing the time period of the novel's action. Not French Revolution. As for theme, I'd argue that it wasn't *just* the French Revolution that was being presented as a failure, but the ensuing regimes as well. French society was in utter turmoil for decades.

 

 

I am not addressing the action in the book. I said it was referenced many times. I said it was mentioned extensively and also that a lot of history is discussed in the book.

[Word Nerd]

Finally saw it today and loved it! I thought it was very well done and think people are being a bit hard on Russell Crowe (not necessarily in this thread but in general criticism of the movie). Maybe it's because I had low expectations after reading about how bad he was, but I thought he did fine. I'll definitely see it again.