Hugo's novel is my bible. I remember, while I was reading the books in the course of over one year (in small portions mostly, but not rarely I had to sacrifice an entire night),one of the three volumes has been always in a striking distance to me: near my pillow, riding pillion, on my school desk or in my backpack on trips and sleep-overs. Simply put, the story was my home for that one year, Jean Valjean one of my closest friends and Cosette my own child. That's now about 10 years ago and I still return to it every once in a while, pick randomly chapters to read and still am drawn to Hugo's uniquely beautiful and powerful language (i.e. the chapter where he describes the battle of Waterloo is probably the single best piece of literature I've ever read). So, although, I love the book so much, I never dared to touch any screen adaptation, and there are plenty out there, because I did not want to ruin my imaginations of Les misérables I had in my mind for more than 10 years now. I finally did last week and what can I say? Actually, I don't want to spout too much, to run into danger to talk things to death, but it's an amazing, amazing experience when you see those pictures that were engraved in your head for a long time, now alive, in front of your eyes instead of behind. Of course, a book is, I guess, always more stimulating than its adaptation (are there actually any examples to disprove?),and Bernard's is no exception. In fact, this one is as close to the essence of literature as the medium can get. Everything that can be great about movies comes together here, and in the end, Les misérables is the first film I immediately felt home (which is mostly due to the previous history I have with the story),and when a filmmaker achieves exactly this with his very own methods, like a writer does with his/hers, the outcome is nothing less than, yes, cinematic perfection.

I have seen five different versions of this Victor Hugo film, read the book and even seen the play--so it's obvious that I love the story and have different insights than the typical viewer. Clearly of the films I have seen this is the best version for many reasons. The biggest reason is that at almost five hours, it comes closest to Hugo's vision, as "Les Misérables" is a huge and complex story--and most films skip major portions of the book in order to squeeze it into a normal format. However, with this version, the film was broken into three distinct full-length segments and most of the important elements of the film are present (even if they did change the ending and a few other portions of the story). The second reason is that although it is a black & white film, it is the most artistic of the bunch--with some of the best cinematography of any film of the era. The way the shots are framed is brilliant--beautiful, unique and lovingly recreated. It was directed and filmed by masters. Third, I liked the guy who played the lead character, Jean Valjean. Unlike the 'pretty boys' who often play this man (such as Richard Jordan, Frederic March or Liam Neeson),Hary Baur was the hulking man the character was in the book--Neeson and the rest simply didn't have the physical look of Valjean and Baur had a nice, restrained performance.

So why if it all looks so great do I only give the film a 9--after all, it is a wonderful film. The fact is that I rarely give 10s. To me a 10 must mean something--that a film is essentially perfect. This is a great film, but not perfect. Although a tiny quibble, Fantine was supposed to be missing her teeth but here it's obvious they were blacked out instead. Now I am NOT suggesting they should have knocked out her teeth, but they could have been more careful in the filming (which was otherwise perfect) to make sure it wasn't obvious they were blackened. And finally, my biggest complaint was about the relentless Inspector Javert. To me, he was THE most important and complex character in the story. Here, however, he's more of a minor annoyance and the depth of his presence was minimized. Plus, while his suicide could have been interpreted the way the film suggested, I always felt Javert killed himself not because of his failure at his job (as the film states) but because of his realization that his entire legalistic life was for nothing. Still, the movie is amazing and I suggest you see it and read the book--it's one of the best stories I've read and one that has many deep philosophical questions--questions that just aren't always present in the films.

Don't let the long length deter you, the story is such a big one that is very rich in detail and does need over 2 hours at least to tell it. This film is not just very faithful to it, the most faithful out of all the adaptations, but tells it absolutely thrillingly and with great emotion too. You are drawn into Hugo's world and in the time of the Revolution and along with the 1978 adaptation this is the version with the best characterisation(Valjean has never been this well-realised on film). While Javert is not as prominent as other adaptations his scenes do have tension and there is the feeling of he and Valjean being polar opposites as well as mirror images of one another, the sewer chase is thrilling, Valjean and Cosette's father-daughter relationship has never been more charming, the Revolution scenes have a real emotional intensity and immediacy that has been unparalleled on film and the romance is not shallow nor does it feature too much. In fact all the character relationships are explored beautifully and don't out-balance one another, one will argue that the rest of the characters pale next to Valjean here, I don't agree I think they are all convincing and it's mainly because Harry Baur's performance is so good that there may be that feeling. But it's not just how well it scores adaptation-wise that makes Les Miserables(1934) the best version of the book and one of the best of its decade but how it works so well as a film.

There are more lavish and authentic adaptations of the book(1935, 1998) but that says very little because the costumes and sets are still beautifully rendered here and the Expressionistic style the photography and lighting adopt are equally striking. Arthur Honnegar's music score adds much to the atmosphere too, it is sweeping and grand yet emotional and subtly haunting too. The film is brilliantly written and treats the story and Hugo's prose like it knows that it's a classic(and Les Miserables is). The story doesn't run out of steam, allows time for things to develop and never feels too rushed or too structurally thin. And as said early on in the review what is so powerful in the book is translated every bit as powerfully here, and you can tell that everybody connected with their roles and what they're going through, kind of like it's affecting them in a personal way. Of the performances, the best by far is Harry Baur, that he is the only actor as Valjean to properly fit the role physically(Gerard Depardieu in the 2000 mini-series comes close but not close enough) is one part of the allure but every better is that he gives a towering and in this viewer's mind definitive performance in the role, noble, emotive, tragic, charismatic, initially immoral and later redemptive. Charles Vanel is a very icy and ruthless Javert, one person you wouldn't want to cross paths with and there is a tense dynamic between the two and that Javert is very strongly principled. The only thing that has been done slightly better in other adaptations is Javert having a more vulnerable side. All the performances are fine, Fantine is deeply affecting and Cosette and Marius are the least bland their characters have often been since, the only reservation is Eponine being too old(and we're not talking a bit here) but she still is written and portrayed very convincingly so it isn't too much of a hindrance. And of course Raymond Bernard's direction is superb. Overall, a magnificent film, both as an adaptation- the best film adaptation of Les Miserables by a mile- and as a film in general. 10/10 Bethany Cox