Our modern times aren't so modern. If we ever overcome disparity then we'll be in 'modern times'. Until then we'll just be repeating history.

to just say it is about capitalism does a great disservice to it and to Victor Hugo

btw-Jackman and Crowe are professional singers, Crowe has released many records over the years. No surprise either of them can sing here.

And Anne Hathaway could have a second career as a singer. Her Dreamed a dream last night is already #53 on the ITunes top 100.

and Seyfried was in Mama Mia.

I hope she wins the Oscar. Jackman did a good job, and Crowe sounded good when he was not singing with Jackman. Crowe and Jackman together was ok. The rest of the cast was great. The visuals are stunning. It is easily the best musical ever filmed in my opinion.

eddie redmayne surprised the hell out of me, as well as the gal who played eponine.

Les Miserables (kind of done in fun). A big one for me was usually the woman who plays Eponine is more attractive than Cosette not to mention being far more resourceful and interesting. If you have steak in front of you, why go look for a lamb chop. Marius is an idiot. I would have told granddad I was kidding and ask for an advance on the inheritance and move away with Eponine - setting up a new life for her. That is just me.

a singing prop, although being played by amanda seyfreid probably didn't help

but here is the list. He makes some good points. Not to slam the musical because it is my favorite, but it does have some issues which he brings out.

Then there's South Pacific, Oklahoma, Carousel, The Music Man. Stiff competition in the "best musical" category.

That is the nice thing about opinions - everyone has one. I would throw Man of La Mancha on that list as well (watched that this evening via Netflix). Fiddler on the Roof and even Phantom of the Opera (Masquerade with its choreography and visuals is probably the best large cast dance/singing number) . I won't argue - everyone has their own personal favorite.

Phantom of the Opera...it's really really good, but I'd put it lower on the list than a lot of others. It's operatic, which is not my favorite. Plus, I've seen it on TV and the play, but not the movie. Don't know how good the movie is.

different races back then in Hugo's France. It's more a classism, with the rich looking down their noses at the poor.

in any age since capitalism arose in history.

Nope, I haven't seen the movie or the play, but I AM a Marxist and we know some things never change.

means using capital (money) to make money. Back then, it wasn't so much capitalism as complete lassiez-faire libertarian anarchy backed by acceptance by the monarchy or whatever ruling system. Basically, it was the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

I'm not a 100% fan of capitalism, but what Marx and others were fighting against wasn't so much capitalism as it was plutocracy and fascism. When the rich use their capital to buy votes and legislators to write laws in their favor, that's not capitalism. It's fascism. True capitalism allows for people's monetary bets to lose and a capitalist has to accept that potential loss. Those who are too scared to lose use the capital to buy legislators to modify the rules to help them not lose the money. Well, bullshit and Marx, et al, was right to call on their demise.

expecting it to be superseded by the next historical stage, i.e., socialism and then eventually communism. And this period was a transitional time between monarchism/feudalism and capitalism. Marx would have said (and did say) that capitalism was an advance over feudalism.

But I will disagree with your second paragraph. Once capitalism became entrenched as THE social, political, and economic system du jour, AT THAT POINT HE WAS AGAINST CAPITALISM. AND he didn't expect capitalism to go away easily. He thought that the next historical system, socialism, would HAVE TO BE BORN REVOLUTION. I DO agree that he would have also been against plutocracy and fascism.

and after I see them . I will read the books. I have read the Hobbit a long time ago but never les Miserables.

It's a new translation that is much closer to the intent of the original French than the older one.

Some people don't like the Rose translation because the language feels modern, but as someone who has read LesMis in French (senior year of HS) the Rose is much cleaner, and it reads better. It also lacks the late Victorian circumlocutions and obfuscations.

Skip the ebook versions -- the ones that are well programmed have lots of typos, the clean edits are badly scripted, and all rely on the somewhat bowdlerized late Victorian translation.

Most books were written in the current vernacular, not in some archaic version of their language.
In order to get the effect the author intended a modern translation should, in theory, be the most accurate.

English books are the exception.
If it was written in 18th century English we continue to read it that way in spite of the language making it seem more distant and foreign than it was to contemporary readers.

Jean Valjean brings himself up out of the gutter by his own efforts to become a successful businessman.
His business creates jobs for hundreds but the government keeps persecuting him which destroys his business and eliminates all the jobs.

The Thenardiers, Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter who steal money from everyone, will be seen as Republicans by Democrats, and as Democrats by Republicans.

The revolutionaries will be seen as the gun loving conservatives who try their best to protect themselves but the government destroys them.

It's a perfect metaphor for the Extreme conservative viewpoint as well as the liberal on

of 5 years for stealing a loaf of bread. That sounds big time conservative to me. The folks at the barricade want to see society enforce justice - that is a liberal idea as well. The idea of personal charity is neither conservative or liberal, but the fact that an elite class exists who does not consider the needs of the poor is a conservative paradise. To not have redemption or forgiveness or help for a woman with an illegitimate kid - that is conservatism - no welfare or foodstamps for you classic. Sell your hair, sell your teeth, sell your body - just don't expect society to help.

if it was his "third strike"..

It's shocking how relevant it still is.

I own a copy of the epic trilogy of films of Les Miserables in French that lasts about four and a half hours and is said to be the most accurate depiction of the book. I love Frederic March in the 1935 English language version you mention, but as great an actor as he was, I think Harry Baur was better. Baur was considered one of the greatest actors who ever lived and was Rod Steiger's idol. Unfortunately, Harry Baur, a Jew, was tortured and murdered by the Gestapo during World War II. The three part French version of 1934 played on TCM just a few nights ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables_%281934_film%29

Now I've got something to look forward to.

Last edited Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:43 AM - Edit history (1)

When the stage play Les Misérables appeared on Broadway in NY, onstage were players showing the tragedy in the lives of the poor in France. Outside were people from the Martinique, an early effort at housing the homeless and those with low or no income. Some of the more enterprising would go beg outside the theater when it let out.

The owners and other tenants had police arrest and harass them to keep them away.

There's probably security around the movie theater, keep 'em at a safe distance.

in France in French, came to the UK in 85 or so in an English version, at the Barbican Center. It was not performed in the US for about 6 years after the premier in France.
The film version is produced by a British company, directed by a Brit and has almost no Americans in the cast.
And of course, when Hugo first published the book, it was too expensive for the poor to buy. The story has always been directed at those who have more, and it is about what they should do about that fact. Perhaps you think that audiences well off enough to spend money on entertainments should only be offered fluffy, empty fare? That there is no value in showing them a larger world than their lives offer them?
It is a piece of entertainment, a work of art. It is not a program to solve the problems the government can not, which charity can not address fully, such works do not claim to be such things. The objective is that the viewer might think, might feel, and thus be moved to action, to evolution, to solution.

play... THAT was an incredible experience.

The 1% should beware of the rest of us and we should be aware of the power we possess.

It's set (or at least its latter half is set) during the Paris Uprising of 1832 (43 years after the French Revolution), sometimes called the June Rebellion. It was an uprising of anti-monarchist students protesting the monarchy of Louis-Philippe, and it only lasted for two days, June 5 and 6.

Which was a direct result of the Napoleonic empire, which was a direct result of the Revolution.

There's a reason that the book spends about 60 pages describing Waterloo.

Jean Valjean initially goes to prison just as the Terror is winding down (about 1796) and just before Napoleon begins his rise. Keeping Jean (and all prisoners) in prison is a matter of state security because prisoners of the French state were either galley slaves or used for ship building and from 1799 to 1815, the Fench needed their naval capacity at peak production.

Jean is released just after Waterloo (late 1815, while Britain and Prussia are administering France under the weak rule of Louis XVIII and Napoleon is headed to St Helena). He is released as a means of damaging the Fench naval capacity. He builds his business in the post-war years; Fantine was born during the wars and has Cosette in the early post-war years.

Under Napoleonic rule, the French made huge leaps towards a more equitable system of justice and equality (see Code Napoleon), but that suffered under the return to monarchy. It took about twenty years for the next generation to rebel... Which were the Paris uprisings. (There were several.)

reluctantly:


I so wanted to love the musical "Les Miserables." Trouble started in the first, oh, 30 seconds. Director Tom Hooper has his stars perform the songs live instead of lip-synched to pre-recorded tracks. And HE WON'T LET YOU FORGET IT!

The camera rushes in on actor's faces, tilts 30 to 40 degrees, gets in real close - it must have been hard for them to keep their composure as they went flat or sharp or, in the case of Russell Crowe, into an uncanny fog of atonality.

But I admired Crowe's - all of their - gumption. The movie will be a monster hit, and many will weep at the plight of Hugh Jackman's Jean Valjean as he labors to shake Crowe's unshakable lawman Javert while forced to sing an octave too high.

Meanwhile, an emaciated Anne Hathaway performs the unforgettable - alas - "I Dreamed a Dream" in one take in close-up, looking like a plucked chicken, and earns every award that will surely be hurled at her skinny head.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57560643/holiday-movies-offer-a-few-lumps-of-coal/

I thought Jackman embodied Valjean BRILLIANTLY.

Seriously...can't stop crying. I've always cried at the thought of Valjean but now it shall be sobs.



Edit to add I agree that Anne Hathaway was also stunning. Raw emotion. Absolutely brilliant.

Eddie Redmaine stole the show: he is one hell of an actor and singer.
And adorable, vulnerable and strong all in one.

Russell Crowe should turn in his singer's equity card: this rigorous role was above
his questionable singing talents, but no one says 'villain' like Crowe....
Even Hugh Jackman, a Broadway musical veteran had to stretch way above
his considerable talents.

The woman playing Eponine was a winner: I had a melt down at her death scene;
The Thenariere's (?) played by Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter
(hadda have 3 names to get those roles?) were perfect comic relief.

However, visually this film is a feast, a banquet. Just puts it out there.
Bring lots of tissues, and do not bring a large drink with you:
as this is a long movie, you won't last.

Altho this is often stated as a revolutionary/love story movie, this is really about the
tension between grace vs. the justice of the law.
AND the social tension between the haves and have-nots.
The ending, after ValJean dies, when they reprise the barricade scenes
with lusty singing about 'tomorrow comes..' there is the seed planted
for future change and revolution, that I believe hands on the urge
for social change to us. The last words sung by Eponine are:
rain causes a seed to grow... and that seed.. is us.

I was surprised about Crowe's singing. It's not as strong as Philip Jast, but it was good. I chuckled a few times while Jackman was singing (his choices were odd). Marius was iffy up until Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, where he was allowed to belt and did great. Gravoche was...Gravoche (which is good).

The thing to remind any rw'ers is that Valjean gives the brick factory to the workers. (Rats...where are the red flag smilies?)

The movie's well worth the time. If you don't have it, get the 10th Anniversary Concert to see what it can really be. Don't bother with the 25th (although you'll probably be able to see it at PBS pledge time - it's the one with Nick Jonas as Marius (Blech)).

VI saw the 25th and recorded it on DVD. I liked the 25th Anniversary as well. Though some of the voices are weaker. There was NOT a single weak voice in the 10th anniversary special. Colm Wilkinson had great range and I watch that one sometimes.
Alun Armstrong was the original Thenardier in the London version. He owns that part like Joel Grey owns the master of ceremony in Cabaret.

I expect he's far more than credible, he has an amazing voice and musicality. He was fantastic as Peter Allen in 'The Boy From Oz'.

I couldn't recommend it enough - its such a different thing from the broadway production...the people are real, like you'd find out on the streets any time, any city. Not young and beautiful, not perfectly groomed with perfectly trained voices, just made it so much more real...well worth seeing, it just wrecks you and forces you to look at the whole world through different eyes.

I'm glad I took my daughters, tough it was a long movie and some of it was hard. They're only complaint was "did they have to make us cry so much?"

Les Misérables: After Recession, More Young Adults Are Living on the Street - NYT

From The New York Times - 12/19/12

Across the country, tens of thousands of underemployed and jobless young people, many with college credits or work histories, are struggling to house themselves in the wake of the recession, which has left workers between the ages of 18 and 24 with the highest unemployment rate of all adults.

Those who can move back home with their parents — the so-called boomerang set — are the lucky ones. But that is not an option for those whose families have been hit hard by the economy...

These young adults are the new face of a national homeless population, one that poverty experts and case workers say is growing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/since-recession-more-young-americans-are-homeless.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121219&_r=0