Postscripts to Les Miserables

[jo]

There were so many publicity clips that I missed some of them, including this one --

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q5MQCoRSxs

Such camaraderie and regard for each other. I think they bonded more than the Days of Future Past cast did - maybe because the filming of Les Miserables was incredibly challenging and the sense of artistic accomplishment was more pronounced.

[jo]

I was just reading the pre-show developments when Trevor Nunn was preparing to stage Les Miserables for the first time in an English version.

Interesting that the casting of Colm Wilkinson was second to the last to have happened. Tim Rice had suggested his name after hearing Trevor's description of his casting ideal -- he wanted "someone who looked like a convict, is very strong, could carry a man weighing around 13 stone on his back around the stage , and could still sing beautifully".

*He found his Valjean in Colm Wilkinson who auditioned so well for the role, singing ANTHEM from CHESS

*The composers had to rewrite large chunks of the score because the role of Valjean was written for a deep baritone and Colm had a tenor range.


That casting became the template for the portrayal of Valjean...until Hugh Jackman came along.

Jo

[jo]

Hugh is/was in Paris during the weekend, near many of the streets where places linked to Les Miserables were located (such as the Chocolate Museum which is supposed to be near Rue Saint Denis).

I just found these Wiki notes on Victor Hugo and Les Miserables.

Hugo and Les Misérables[edit]


On June 5, 1832, Victor Hugo was writing a play in the Tuileries Gardens when he heard the sound of gunfire from the direction of Les Halles. The Gardens were deserted and the park-keeper had to unlock the gates to let Hugo out, but instead of hurrying home, he followed the sounds through the empty streets, unaware that half of Paris had already fallen to the mob. All about Les Halles were barricades. Hugo headed north up the Rue Montmartre, then turned right onto the Passage du Saumon, and at last turning before the Rue du Bout du Monde (World’s End Street). Halfway down the alley, the grilles at either end were slammed shut. Hugo was surrounded by barricades and flung himself against a wall, as all the shops and stores had been closed for some time. He found shelter between some columns. For a quarter of an hour, bullets flew both ways.[12]

In his later novel Les Misérables, first published in 1862, Hugo depicts the period leading up to the rebellion, and follows the lives and interactions of several characters over a twenty-year period. The novel begins in the year of Napoleon Bonaparte's final defeat and climaxes with the battles of the June Rebellion. An outspoken republican activist in the 19th century, Hugo unquestionably favored the revolutionaries.[13]

Scenes of Parisian students and the poor, planning the rebellion upon the eve of the benevolent General Lamarque’s death, are portrayed in the novel through the activities of the fictional "Friends of the ABC" (a pun on the French term abaissé, or "oppressed"), led by the charismatic character Enjolras and portrayed as a sub-group of the Rights of Man Society. The erection of barricades throughout Paris's narrow streets is also described. The ABC organize the building of a barricade in the Rue de la Chanvrerie, a side-road running into the Rue Saint-Denis, near a wine shop which they use as their base of operations. During the climactic battle the main characters all come together and many of them are killed.

Although a fictional work, Les Misérables has given the relatively little-discussed rebellion widespread renown. The novel is one of the few works of literature that discusses the June Rebellion and the events leading up to it.[14]

[birchie]

Yet another new movie will feature live singing! For those of us who long for good movies featuring women over a certain age, this sounds like it could be terrific! It's a good article but for this board I'm only highlighting this part:

Band boot camp comes courtesy of director Jonathan Demme, who insists all the film's songs be performed live. Says Cody, "Everything you hear, the band has to play and Meryl has to play." While Streep's character's lifeblood is classic rock, she isn't above dipping into the catalog of a certain dance-floor diva to fill a room: "You might hear some Lady Gaga in there," adds Cody.

This is the full article: Meryl Streep Learning Guitar for Diablo Cody Movie
Sue

[jo]

Reposting from the Hugh social media thread --

Hugh Jackman @realhughjackman · 3h

Yep ... a beach on the river Seine!!! Love it.

http://instagram.com/p/rSPz-OihJa

Henk Hover ‏@henkhover · 1m
@realhughjackman we were there last week and we were at that spot discussing Les Mis. Wondering from what bridge Javert killed himself?

I thought of the same thing, too.

In the novel, Javert had gone to the area by the Seine between Pont Notre Dame and Pont-au-Change, near Place du Chatelet where there was an unusual kind of current.

Could that bridge on Hugh's right side in the photo have been one of those bridges?


Pont-au-Change

It's one of the least elaborate-looking bridges crossing the Seine -- some have grandiose designs and lighting.

Here's a larger photo of Pont-au-change




This was the one scene that I thought they could have filmed in Paris itself, instead of going to Bath in England.

Did Hugh think of the Javert suicide scene when he was in the area?


Jo

[jo]

This performance is rarely seen --

On its 21st anniversary ( 2006), the original London cast of Les Miserables reunited at the Palace Theatre and delivered an impassioned version of ONE DAY MORE. I get the impression that they were singing from their emotions and not purely for vocal vanity reasons. This gives us a flavor of how the original cast created the the long-term loyalty and patronage of this dramatic musical!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MSrA9KJZWk&feature=youtu.be

Patti Lupone, who was the original Fantine, did not have much to sing but her presence also recalls her Olivier-winning portrayal of Fantine.

Colm Wilkinson - Valjean
Roger Allam (absent due to other stage commitments) - Javert (sung by someone else)
Michael Ball - Marius
Patti Lupone - Fantine
Rebecca Caine - Cossette
Frances Ruffelle - Eponine
David Burt - Enjolras
Alun Armstron - Thenardier
Susan Jane Tanner - Mme Thenardier

At the end, the original cast was joined by the current cast then of the stage musical for a rousing finale part!

[jo]

When he was a guest emcee at the Walmart shareholders meeting ( which included a lot of employees who were also shareholders) in Arkansas, he sang a very unlikely song choice ( given the audience demographics). It was WHO AM I -- some of us may have seen bits of this performance ( maybe as uploaded from a cellphone) -- but this is a very clear upload:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMUNVx-qzE

*Interesting that in some of the comments, they much preferred this version to the performance in the movie ( because they say it is much closer to the stage version smiley-rolleyes010) - but someone had a better appreciation of why the film version is the more dramatic adaptation of the song.

*Btw, he introduced Patrick Vacariello as his pianist at the end.


Jo

[jo]

When he was a guest emcee at the Walmart shareholders meeting ( which included a lot of employees who were also shareholders) in Arkansas, he sang a very unlikely song choice ( given the audience demographics). It was WHO AM I -- some of us may have seen bits of this performance ( maybe as uploaded from a cellphone) -- but this is a very clear upload:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMUNVx-qzE

*Interesting that in some of the comments, they much preferred this version to the performance in the movie ( because they say it is much closer to the stage version smiley-rolleyes010) - but someone had a better appreciation of why the film version is the more dramatic adaptation of the song.

TheKillerCatt10 months ago
in reply to migrev

In a motion-picture adaptation it's important to hear the emotion and acting they put in to their singing, which is something that can transform a song from that of a recording artist, to that of an actor. Les Miserables movie cast acts and sings (live) at the same time and they're on the film set, not on stage. The Tony Award winner Jackman won a Golden Globe and got an Oscar nomination as Valjean.

TheKillerCatt10 months ago
in reply to migrev


F*cking snob. Tom Hooper's Les Miserables is a movie not the play, two different things and it's with this in mind that must be watched and judged, comparisons with any theatrical version doesn't make sense, he did not want mannerisms and theatrical virtuosity for his movie, he asked for realism, because what works in theatre cannot work in a movie.

*Btw, he acknowledged Patrick Vaccariello as his pianist at the end.


Jo

[jo]

Apropos to the comments from YouTube re interpreting WHO AM I --

this past quote from a Hugh interview :

"As an actor, you have many tools, your body, your voice, your emotions, mentally. In film, you have your eyes because they communicate your thought process. In fact, generally in film, what you don't say is more important than what you say. That's not so much the case for stage."

He must have thought through how he would interpret the film Jean Valjean guided by this professional dictum.

How would he have interpreted the stage Valjean had he wanted to do that musical theatre role?


At any rate, Cameron Mackintosh said it best when he said Hugh Jackman embodied "a strong sense of spirituality", which would have worked for either the film adaptation or the musical theatre staging.


Jo

[jo]

I never realized that Les Miserables and its cast and creative team had won/been nominated in quite a few regional critcs association or other minor awards bodies --

www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/awards?ref_=tt_awd


Jo

[jo]

Someone looked at Les Miserables once again or has just discovered this film adaptation --


www.examiner.com/review/les-miserables-is-a-film-that-defines-the-essence-of-an-epic-masterpiece?cid=rss

'Les Miserables' is a film that defines the essence of an epic masterpiece


Rating: 5 of 5 stars


September 2, 2014


Les Miserables is stunning. There is no other word that would so perfectly describe this epic masterpiece of exceptional music, powerful emotion, and stellar acting. Set in Paris, the movie follows the life of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) as he transcends from the bondage of slavery under the iron fist of the cruel and tyrannical Javert (Russell Crowe) to become a fugitive, forever fleeing from the grip of societal law. The story identifies a common bond between the characters in that they all have secret burdens to bear, particularly in the cases of Jean Valjean and Fantine, but it also liberates the characters from their personal suffering and allows each of them to obtain what they so desperately long for: peace.

Fantine (Anne Hathaway) portrays a young woman whose strength shines through the darkness which shrouds her because her actions are driven by the purest of motives: the love she has for her daughter, Cosette. Fantine’s character has a double purpose in the movie. Initially, she is cast into the most malevolent of circumstances for women because society refuses to accept that her motives are borne out of love and not lust. Despite the hopeless circumstances that she has been cast into, Fantine demonstrates her strength and resolve to protect her daughter by giving the most precious part of herself in order to insure her daughter’s security. Fantine entrusts her daughter’s life to Jean Valjean, allowing him to bring her peace as she journeys to her death. In doing so, she becomes something of a guardian angel to Jean Valjean and ultimately, she breaks the painful burden that he carries in his heart and in its place offers him peace.

Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is a man of honor and compassion who is trapped in a fragile stalemate of circumstance by a choice he made in his past. Valjean’s character begins his journey as a man haunted by darkness and suffering. After an eternity of living in darkness and struggling with the cruel nightmares of his past, Jean Valjean’s broken spirit is given a chance at redemption and peace by a kind stranger’s act of compassion.

The irony of this second chance is that it becomes almost a burden for Valjean to bear instead of a means of liberation. His chance at redemption allows Jean Valjean to change the path of his life and become a better man, but his heart interprets this chance at redemption as a penance that he must do in order to gain that which has so freely been bestowed upon him. In spite of everything, he feels he can never quite reach the point where he is truly worthy of being forgiven. He is hunted by Javert, a policeman who is determined to cast Jean Valjean back to the darkness of slavery and pain despite Jean Valjean’s efforts to elude the determined lawman. Jean Valjean’s compassion leads him not only to change the path of his life, but also to honor a promise and offer Cossette, a lonely orphan, a better life than circumstance and poverty has given her.

There is an interesting love story woven into the fabric of Les Miserables which is beautifully portrayed and allows the audience a glimpse of the softer side of a harsh and uncompromising world. At the heart of the love story is Cosette (Amanda Seyfried), Jean Valjean’s adopted daughter, whose attraction to the dashing Marius conflicts sharply with the devotion she has for her adopted father. The web of romance becomes more tangled when Eponine also finds herself attracted to Marius and tries desperately to keep the fragile love between Marius and Cosette from becoming an impassioned flame. A tender resolution is reached when Jean Valjean surrenders his beloved Cosette to Marius, allowing the couple to have his blessing as he finds his own peace with the beautiful Fantine.

Les Miserables is a film that defines the essence of an epic masterpiece and leaves one of two impressions on the audience. The powerful storyline, complex characters, and predominantly sung dialogue will either draw the audience into the story or repel them because it is so overwhelming. The casting for this movie is perfect, especially in the choice of Anne Hathaway for the role of Fantine. If you enjoy an excellent period film, then this is a movie you will want to see.

Maybe I am not biased after all -- everytime I watch the movie, I feel that more artistic elements and acting highlights emerge! It is indeed on the way to becoming a true film classic!

One thing that the reviewer might have missed is the second epiphany of Valjean. True, the discovery of a chance at redemption given by the Bishop imposed almost a burden to Valjean that left him with a very strong sense of duty. But his second epiphany, of discovering love for an adoptive daughter, has brought new meaning to his life ( the moment of discovery of filial love more stunningly highlighted in the film)!

Jo

[jo]

I don't know why the appeal of the film is so enduring for me -- but when HBO here in our region showed LES MISERABLES once again -- I watched it all over again.

Did I notice or realize something new?

Yes! I know Hugh was a dramatic success in the film adaptation ( an Oscar nod and a Golden Globe award) but as I watched his portrayal I realized that his performance is almost a marked departure from other Valjean performances.

*There are quite a few stage portrayals ( and even the concerts) I have seen, but in almost all of them, Jean Valjean was portrayed as someone who was completely benevolent and almost saintly in manner and speech. Of course, much of this is conveyed through singing ( and some of the recitatives) and maybe because the actors were more conscious of hitting those notes rather than displaying dramatic chops that he was a bit of a bland character. Check out Valjean's Soliloquy as an example -- I could hardly wait for it to finish! And which is why Bring Him Home will always be delivered with an angelic voice! Ha - can't afford not to show off the falsetto!

*Of the film adaptations, the most recent memory is Liam Neeson's performance - what stays with me is his relationship with his spunky daughter Cossette ( which was a directorial departure from the musical and the book although the film adaptation shows Cossette hinting to his father that she has grown up and should be allowed to be more independent). I have no enduring memory of how Liam portrayed Jean Valjean - simply as the Frenchman from Victor Hugo's book. Forgetable!

On the other hand, Hugh has portayed Jean Valjean as a forceful and strong-willed character, and not quite the ascetic and mild-mannered Le Maire from the novel of Victor Hugo. He showed how strong his character was ( emotionally- and vocally-speaking) --

*His initial compunction-less robbing of the Bishop
*His defiant fleeing from his chains/ticket of leave, after the very intense redemption scene during the Soliloquy
*His battle with his conscience until he rushed to free the wrong Valjean
*His physical confrontation with Javert when Fantine died.
*His encounter and bargaining with the Thenardier
*His decision to leave ( One Day More) born out of pragmatism.
*His strong apprehensions about the boy his daughter fell in love with and then the realization that if Cossette loved him, then he as her father must love him, too...and even sending out an impassioned and ragged plea to God to save his life ( hence his Bring Him Home represented these warring emotions).

*His trek through the sewers with Marius reflected another forceful action on the part of Valjean, including how he settled it with Javert.
*His Confession to Marius - he was completely relentless in his decision to save Cossette from future scandal and harm
*His final word with God - even that showed his strong emotional feelings!


Was Hugh very forceful, too forceful? But this is how I have always viewed his acting persona ( even in movies like Kate and Leopold or Scoop or Someone Like You ) - you can feel the undercurrent that there lurks a very strong character underneath. I think this is why a lot of people view him as a very manly persona.

His Jean Valjean has become memorable and iconic because of this!

Jo

[jo]

There was so much publicity going around re Les Miserables at that time that I am not sure anymore if I have come across this or not --

entertainment.time.com/2012/12/27/hugh-jackman-les-mizs-leading-man-talks-to-time/

Q&A

Hugh Jackman: Les Miz’s Leading Man Talks to TIME

The Renaissance man chats about playing the good guy, singing without grimacing and why Jean Valjean reminds him of his dad

By Jesse Dorris Dec. 27, 20120


It’s beginning to look like Hugh Jackman can do anything. He has played an Elvis-singing penguin, a posh mouse who’s flushed down a toilet, a cutthroat magician (in Christopher Nolan’s magnificent The Prestige) and, of course, Wolverine. He’s hosted the Tonys three times, once while actually winning one. And now he’s triumphed in the role of a lifetime, as the thief turned savior Jean Valjean, in Tom Hooper’s Les Misérables. Another thing he can do? Give a great interview. TIME talked to the actor about everything from his years as a selfish teenager to the perils of playing a saint.

TIME: What has your relationship to Les Misérables been?

Jackman: I was a late teenager when it came out, so I knew the score really well. Everybody did, it was playing everywhere, and my mate used to blare it in his car all the time — he was one of my only friends who had a car, so we heard it nonstop. I’ve seen it about five times. I’ve always been a massive fan. One of the first auditions I had for a musical was for Beauty and the Beast, and I sang “Stars,” and the guy said, “Well, you can throw that away — you’ll never be in that! So there you go.” Actually Cameron [Mackintosh, Les Misérables’ producer] did ask me to play Inspector Javert several times in the past, so there!


How’s it been playing Jean Valjean, then?

To me, it’s a much better role for me than Javert. I think I was the first person Tom [Hooper, Les Misérables’ director] auditioned, so it was more like a workshop — he was still getting his head around it. He picked up his chair, moved about five feet from me and said, “Imagine I have the camera. Let’s just make it work here in this intimate space.” One thing all of us needed to work on was that sometimes when you’re singing, you contort your face in some weird ways. In a close-up on a 40-ft. screen, that can be very distracting, so that took some practice. It was more important to make the songs work in this intimate space — especially the solos, which are intensely personal, and private, really. We didn’t want to make them declamatory, big, operatic arias, but still make sense of the lyric.


Your father raised you and your family more or less on his own. I wonder if you see any of Valjean in your own father?

I was the youngest, so from when I was about 8. My oldest sister was 16 or 17, so from that point on, yes. It’s funny you mention that. The more I looked into Valjean, the more I saw him in Dad. The really admirable thing I see in both of them is that real humility. I’ve never heard him say a bad word about anyone. When I was growing up, I thought he was quiet, uncommunicative, he didn’t talk much. But in the end, I suppose he had no need to talk about himself and what he’s done. He’s done many great things, and didn’t have the need to fish for compliments or any kind of acknowledgement of the incredible job he did. He never bemoaned or whined at any point, and what he did was Herculean, to bring up five kids with a full-time job. I don’t think he ever had time for himself.

I remember very clearly, a distant cousin came to stay with us, and he pulled me aside and said, “You guys are out of line!” — meaning me and my brother. “Your father got home from work at 7 o’clock and went straight into the kitchen to cook for you. And never did you say, ‘Hi, Dad, how was your day?’” It was a real wakeup call for me. I was about 14, and it really struck me what my father had done and what he did every day in his life. And the other thing they had in common is that my father is a deeply religious man. He was converted in the Billy Graham crusade, and he didn’t have deep exposure to religion until then. So church was a big part of our lives, though I don’t think I ever really heard my father talk about God or religion necessarily. He was just one of those quietly religious people who believed actions spoke louder than words.



I was struck in this iteration of Les Miz by how religious a story it is.

I like to think of it in modern-day sense — of course Hugo talks about Valjean undergoing not just a transformation but a transfiguration. He transforms in such a complete way that it’s religious in nature, not just emotional or physical. I think in some ways Hugo was attacking the church at that point, for being so exclusive. For Hugo, the line was “To love another person is to see the face of God” — that religion needed to be less about rules and sermons and more about practical love and the example of Jesus Christ. That’s the last line in the musical. I think it really annoyed the church! It was quite an attack.


Is Valjean someone we should learn from?

Yes, and for me, it’s the same example I got from my father. It’s a great honor to play someone like Jean Valjean, but it’s a daily reminder of how far you have to go as a person. It’s a really weird thing, playing Valjean and in between breaks going to your luxurious trailer just off set, like, Where the hell is my Evian? [Laughs.]

Tom Hooper said that it’s always difficult to play the good guy. How do you introduce complications to a character like that?


The trap with Valjean is that he can become kind of boring and saintlike after the first 10 minutes. He has a pretty massive transformation early on, going from being wrongfully imprisoned but still a kind of animal-like, voracious figure, and stealing from the man who gives him clemency and feeling the shame of that. The easy thing would be to play the saintlike figure throughout. That’s kind of dull. One thing that Hugo writes about at incredible length in the second half is Valjean’s relationship with [his adopted daughter] Cosette, and how complicated it is. Here’s this man at 51 who experiences love for the first time in his life — an avalanche of feeling and all the complications that come with that. As we all know, as human beings, once you know happiness, you’re terrified of losing it.

Hmmm...

One thing all of us needed to work on was that sometimes when you’re singing, you contort your face in some weird ways. In a close-up on a 40-ft. screen, that can be very distracting, so that took some practice. It was more important to make the songs work in this intimate space — especially the solos, which are intensely personal, and private, really. We didn’t want to make them declamatory, big, operatic arias, but still make sense of the lyric.

That explains why and how he got his personal stamp on the role, acting- and singing-wise!

The trap with Valjean is that he can become kind of boring and saintlike after the first 10 minutes. He has a pretty massive transformation early on, going from being wrongfully imprisoned but still a kind of animal-like, voracious figure, and stealing from the man who gives him clemency and feeling the shame of that. The easy thing would be to play the saintlike figure throughout. That’s kind of dull.

I thought he embued the persona with a strong and forceful character ( see my previous post ) so the Valjean we see is not a bland and saintly persona but a real person forced by adversity to be strong and utterly committed. His blessing was that he found filial love amidst the adversity.

One of the first auditions I had for a musical was for Beauty and the Beast, and I sang “Stars,” and the guy said, “Well, you can throw that away — you’ll never be in that! So there you go.” Actually Cameron [Mackintosh, Les Misérables’ producer] did ask me to play Inspector Javert several times in the past, so there!

I'm curious why his baritonal range and powerful voice would not suit the song STARS, according to the musical director?

Re Cameron Mackintosh - I guess this happened after he had worked with Hugh in OKLAHOMA! and CM saw Hugh's potential as a box office magnet - and maybe he thought that Hugh's very masculine persona and baritonal range would be more suitable for the Javert role ?

But what a turnabout for CM when they finally cast Valjean in the film adaptation. He said Hugh had the sense of spirituality that the Valjean role called for and that they would not have made the film adaptation without him. Ha - he was echoing what Hooper said...plus maybe he had no choice but to agree to the film financier, Universal Pictures, choosing Hugh Jackman smiley-rolleyes010...We all know how CM had promised the role to someone else until Hooper et al convinced him that was a lost cause! I think he did not really fully appreciate that movie musicals are a different breed compared to stage musicals.





Re " To love another person is to see the face of God" -- I have to say that this line actually reinforced what my own faith has taught me. According to Catholic teachings - we have to love our neighbor as we love ourselves; we have all been made into the image of God and to love another person is to really love God himself.



Which other actor has been called ( at least by Time) as a Renaissance Man? Film and stage ( name the genre!) and entertainment! One of these days, I will not be surprised if he added another talent to that - scriptwriting ( his other profession of journalism has prepared him for that and he had actually started on a Bill Bixby script a long time ago...maybe in the future?


Jo

[suefb]

Hi, Jo - I enjoyed reading your analysis of Hugh's JVJ, and yes, I also find something new to admire about it every time I watch. I agree with most of what you've written except I'd argue that Hugh's portrayal is more in line with Victor Hugo's vision of Valjean and not at odds with it. In the novel, I don't think Valjean wasmild-mannered at all ... only by force of his own will when it was necessary for a given situation. All of your point-by-point listings are pretty much how the character was described in the novel.

Of course, for this, I give Hugh and Tom Hooper the utmost praise because it DOES vary significantly from how Valjean had previously been portrayed on stage and film.

For instance, the film captures in a song split through four "scenes" (first in the factory, then Valjean's apartment, a quick snippet on the carriage, and finally the courtroom) what Hugo described in 30 pages ... Valjean's long and intense grapple with his conscience about what to do upon hearing of the wrongly-charged man. In the novel, he was still in doubt even as he stood outside the courtroom door. Even when he was IN the courtroom, he was still not sure he'd speak up! I don't even recall this scene in the Liam Neeson version, if indeed it was included. There was such a departure from the novel in that film, I hardly want to think about it. He punched the Bishop. Enough said.

The strongest difference between the (musical) film and the novel is in who initiates the schism between Valjean and Cosette in the end. In the novel it is most definitely Marius, after Valjean has confessed to him, which makes for very tough reading toward the end. I can't blame any interpreters for wanting to make it a bit more palatable for audiences by having Marius be less of an ass before he (eventually) discovers that Valjean was his savior in the sewers that night.

Of course, having Valjean waltz away free and alive and thrilled to be so at the end - as in the Neeson movie - took the desire for a happy ending way too far, in my opinion, and went against almost everything Hugo was trying to say. I am not a highly religious person, but clearly Victor Hugo was, and his story had to end with his hero - a man, not a saint, but a man who survived with his integrity intact and left the world better for his simple presence - ascending to heaven.

[jo]

Thanks for your insights, Sue

Re the Valjean of the novel - I guess because he led an ascetic life and was very simple in dress and demeanor ( quiet life, alms-giving and helping the poor) which made me think that that Valjean was a quieter character compared to Hugh's Valjean. Of course, the manner of dress of the Hugh Valjean went against the novel - and maybe that created the stronger impression of a man who was assertive, self-assured, and strong in character. But LOL -I need to re-read the novel again, or passages from it.

Jo

[suefb]

It's true, and that's a great point, that in the novel Valjean dressed shabbily in Paris - to maintain his low profile and disguise as a poor man just scraping by - while in the movie, Hugh continued to dress up per his status as a (former) mayor. Even when Valjean first encountered the Thenardiers (in the novel), they mistook him for a peasant and tried to shoo him along ... he only revealed his means slowly. A really great scene in the novel. I still smile thinking about it although I would not change one second of the bartering scene in the film, one of my favorites as well (are any of them not my favorites?), with Hugh's elegant Valjean straining to remain patient with the cretinous couple in order to achieve his sole aim of rescuing Cosette.

But even the ascetic Valjean of the novel barely held certain violent instincts inside of him. He would go out at night (usually only at night!) and bait thieves to attack him, only to turn the tables and quickly subdue and then lecture them to change their ways before sending them on their way. Ha! And of course, the kidnapping scene in the novel was much lengthier and more involved and extremely intense and violent compared to its very brief depiction in the film. Thenardier - having seen through the humble disguise - assumed that Valjean would be in fear for his life and cower and quaver and give away his and Cosette's home address (she was not present at the abduction in the novel). Of course, it didn't turn out that way. To top it off, his hatred of Marius knew no bounds. He was definitely not a one-dimensional man, our Valjean.

And I am in full agreement that Hugh's portrayal captured all of this great character's conflicts and multiple layers. I sincerely fell in love with the man ... Valjean first, then Hugh ... in the course of being introduced to him across those two hours and 38 minutes.

[jo]

Valjean of course was not without his faults. His intense dislike and distrust of Marius in the novel was borne out of his love for Cossette and his fear that he might lose her someday. I remember reading pages of discussion in the novel of his overly-possessive feelings towards Cossette.

But the film adaptation laid the groundwork so much better on how his affection and love for her grew, compared to the stage musical. In the stage musical, all we saw was his few moments with young Cossette ( "la..la..la..la"). Even when she had grown up, there were no memorable moments between adoptive parent and daughter.

In the film --

*His gentlemanly manner reassured Cossette that this stranger could be trusted ( "And what is your name?" "I am called Cossette" " May I carry your bucket?"). By the time they reached the tavern of the Thenardiers, Cossette was playfully hanging on to his arm

*When he triumphantly took Cossette away from the Thenardiers, he was so fatherly with her. His reassurance that he will be both a father and mother to her gave Cossette the warm words that she has been missing. The new doll was a nice touch.

*"Suddenly" was the song at the right moment -- of his full realization that now he has another chance in life. The Bishop allowed him the grace of redemption while Cossette was showing him that pure love can exist! I am still peeved that the Oscar voters chose a song without dramatic context to its film to win the Oscar ( Skyfall).

*Their escape from the pursuing Javert showed his ability to take care of things - a fatherly trait that sons and daughters always appreciate under less dire circumstances. Hugh's athleticism ( and to some extent his action hero persona) gave strong credence to that scene as he scales the wall with Cossette to escape a Javert in hot pursuit. This escape into the convent was one strong scene that was never illustrated in the stage musical, which left a gap as to what happened to them during her growing years.

*One stray thought - it was Valjean who first sang the melody of EMPTY CHAIRS AT EMPTY TABLES as he appreciated the sanctuary that they have fortunately found through Fauchelevent. Many years later, the connection with Marius will happen as he escapes with him through the sewers...which will allow Marius to think of his fallen comrades through EMPTY CHAIRS.


In the stage musical, he was never harsh with Cossette. In the film adaptation - Valjean's suspicious manner when Marius first came to the garden and where Valjean admonishes Cossette to be less trusting hinted at a father/daughter disagreement on how to run her life outside of their very close relationship. Even his attempt at leaving the emerging volatile environment ( One Day More) showed an abrupt manner in reassuring Cossette that what they were doing was for the best. How many times have we felt resentful when a parent seemed to be too restrictive and overly protective, especially when we were not yet fully grown?.

The novel is much more obvious re his intense feelings of love and overprotectiveness of Cossette, to the extent that he almost became irrational about dealing with her love for Marius. Although in the film, when he received  the Marius letter meant for Cossette he briefly expressed his deep reservations ( oddly, some people in the cinema thought it was a funny scene because Valjean has become jealous of Marius - arghh!!).

Yes, Jean Valjean is a much more complex character than the fairly bland interpretation onstage. Maybe it had something to do with embuing his character with a more fatherly image and a tenor's voice when the English stage musical adaptation came about?  ( In contrast, the character of Javert was actually more one-note, without the conflicts that the Crowe interpretation showed in the movie)...  If you have read the book by Edward Behr on the making of the stage musical, there were strong hints about Trevor Nunn et al wanting to explore the religious link more closely. That eventually gave rise to Bring Him Home being written, with its more saintly interpretation by the tenor Wilkinson! In Paris, in 1980, the first stage musical adaptation had seen the role written as a deep baritone! Come to think of it -- wouldn't a gruff baritone sound more like a rough convict

But Hugh ( and of course Tom Hooper) had rewritten the portrayal when he took on the role of a lifetime! His Valjean was strong, assertive, and forceful, yet tender and caring! One can feel the range of emotions that this man had undergone in his life...and blessed with a song playbook ( and recitatives) that was so much better dramatically interpreted in the context of the man's character!

Bravo, Hugh!


Jo

[jo]

I came across this insightful tweet --

Hanah Raquel ‏@hanahbustillo · 2h
@realhughjackman "G-d on high, hear my prayer in my need you have always been there" i always cry in that part. You're INCREDIBLE.

Because in those moments, Valjean had invested all his warring emotions and fears for the future into those first lines of BRING HIM HOME! Bring Him Home is a coming together of his fears and hopes and his relationship with the Maker - subjugating any personal desires or hopes to an act of complete selflessness!

Hugh could not have sung it simply as a meek prayer!

People were divided on this interpretation, but taken together with Hugh's portrayal of the character of Jean Valjean - with the strength of his filial love and his fears about the uncertainty of the future for Cossette made him cry out for compassion and a declaration of his faith!

It's the soaring emotions, not the soaring notes, which mattered!

Jo

[jo]

Did you ever get to read the special companion book to Les Miserables called LES MISERABLES: From Stage to Screen, written by Benedict Nightingale and Martyn Palmer, officically sanctioned by the powers that be?

It was released fairly close after the movie came out but because of the many special DVD/BluRay releases then, I probably glossed over the book ( a thick coffee table book, with all the precious historical inserts and narratives) and most likely zeroed in on the film adaptation chapters ( although I was happy to browse over the original RSC/Barbican accounts of the original London production ( a young Michael Ball in some of the photos ).

The Chapters on the film adaptation included --

*The Journey to the Screen
*The Director's Vision
*The Dream Team
*A Family Affair
*Singing for their Supper
*The Power of Les Miserables


It devoted a whole chapter on the casting of Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe and called them "The Dream Team"!


The opening sentence was quite a revelation --

"If you wind the clock all of those years, I used to think that Hugh Jackman would be Javert and Russell Crowe would be wonderful as Valjean", said Mackintosh

Mackintosh had originally planned a film adaptation project as early as five years after the Broadway opening ( 1987). Of course no solid casting ideas had emerged as yet then - CM was primarily concerned with finding the right director. Although I do remember that the name of Catherine Zeta Jones ( a British talent then who had also performed at the West End) had been announced as being cast in the role of Fantine.

CM eventually came to know Hugh Jackman from the Oklahoma! revival which he co-produced...and Russell while he did early musical theatre projects, including auditioning for Miss Saigon for Mackintosh ( CM did not even remember him), became a big Hollywood actor in the intervening years.

Why did CM initially assign the role of Valjean to Russell and that of Javert to Hugh? The Hugh/Javert alignment was closer to reality because Hugh would probably fit the baritonal range ( although Russell was actually a deeper baritone, compared to Hugh's high baritone) and maybe he thought Hugh's emerging action hero persona would be good for the role of the regiment-oriented Javert?

I think his reasons might have been --and this is pure speculation on my part:

*The image of Valjean from the novel, the French actor Maurice Barrier who originated the musical version in France in 1980, and even Colm Wilkinson who originated the English version in 1985, all looked physically more peasant-like ( Valjean's real origins), stocky, rugged, and almost homely. Nothing about having classic looks in their images!

*Plus Russell was a bigger Hollywood actor at that time compared to Hugh and would probably be interested only in the lead role of Valjean?


*On the other hand, Hugh probably would not pass the Valjean physical templates ( based on the novel, the first French production or the first English staging). He looked a little too aristocratic with his chiseled features, height, and bearing!

Ironic that vocally-speaking, it is more likely that Hugh's high-baritone could reach to the higher range for Valjean ( transposed to tenor when Wlkinson was cast) than Russell's deep baritonal voice. So, I guess that factor was not yet clear in CM's thinking.

Given that CM had toyed with the idea of reverse casting of Hugh and Russell early on -- So, I wonder whether he actually seriously thought that his stage stars could have made it to an actual film adaptation ( two different mediums, boxoffice clout, and even the lack of an acting background for some)! Maybe he was a little bemused ?


Fast forward to the casting for the 2012 film adaptation --

His casting instincts [CM] were spot on even if the roles were eventually reversed. Hooper and casting director Nina Gold believed that Hugh Jackman was the perfect Valjean, Crowe the ideal Javert.

Jackman had heard that there was to be a film adaptation of Les Miserables via his agent ( " a mad Les Mis fan") and immediately threw his hat into the ring. For both director Tom Hooper and Mackintosh, he was a natural choice with an impressive record in musical theatre and a beautiful voice that has graced the West End and Broadway.

Jackman was perfect for Les Miserables. But the question remained, for which role? " I'd always been asked to play Javert, but I started thinking.'You know what? I think I am more Valjean.' But I needed to convince Tom and Cameron. Then they told me that they were thinking the same way and that Russell was in the frame for Javert. And I could totally see that. For me, Valjean just felt better. I just felt more empathy and closer to that character and so I auditioned for Valjean."

Jackman arrived for the audition in New York well prepared. " I'd seen the musical three times. I'd listened to the CD a hundred times. I knew those songs. So I went in and there was Stephen Brooker, the musical director, a pianist, Nina Gold, the casting director and Tom. And I could see Tom thinking, 'Can this guy do it?' And we went through the songs again and again. It went on for about four hours and I said 'Tom, look mate, I've got to get home and get my kids to bed.' And he was like 'Oh, OK'. I could tell he would like to have kept going. But luckily it worked out."

Later on, some thoughts on the Javert casting -- after all the hemming and hawing over the suitability of Russell as Javert ( Jo: Sorry, too long to type )--

'However, then I have to sing 'Stars', this song that I'd never heard the way I wanted to hear it. But in that environment, with the belief that Tom had in me, the months of preparation, it all paid off and it just came exactly right. I got the notes at the end and I was flying, over the top of the notes looking down, all the sounds were being created in the same place, all the things that the other teachers and Roberta had focused on, were all there and available to me. 'Man', I thought, 'did I get away with that or what?' "

Mackintosh and the others gathered for the audition were impressed, "Russell knew that he was taking on something risky and he wanted that. And one of the reasons we loved him so much was because he can create a completely different kind of Javert," said Mackintosh. They knew, too, that they had two great screen actors who could sing in exactly the right roles. An thoughts of Crowe as Valjean and Jackman as Javert were over. With Crowe and Jackman - Hooper and Mackintosh's dream team - in place, the filmmakers set about casting the other leads.

I have to confess that I, myself, had earlier entertained thoughts that Hugh and Russell could have played the reverse roles, maybe because from my many recollections of the the stage musical that I had seen over the years ( 9 in all!) , I thought Javert had the more spectacular songs and scenes! Everyone used STARS (and ANTHEM) as an audition song, but I have never heard budding stage actors sing WHO AM I ... I would never forget my first sight of the Javert Suicide Scene!...Neither was I a great fan of Bring Him Home - the way I saw and heard it onstage - I didn't dislike it but I felt it was simply part of the more quiet aspects of the musical score, although I thought the instrumental version reprise when the barricades fell was particularly poignant.

Little did I know that Hugh would carve out a portrayal that would put a different and  more powerful stamp on the character ( strong, forceful, and assertive... but also caring...and even more human)- not just the fairly bland Valjean portrayals that remained with me since I first saw the stage musical in 1988! Proof of this is shown so magnificently in his interpretation of Valjean's Soliloquy, a far cry from the usual stage renditions which left me wishing it to be finished asap! As someone has written, Valjean's Soliloquy was Hugh's Oscar moment!


Jo

[jo]

What a find -- you may want to look at it, especially if you are a devoted fan of LES MISERABLES.


I was just reading a thread on BWW re the brand on Valjean's chest ( found onstage in some cases) but not on film...and the googling led me to this -- an encyclopaedic analysis ( scene by scene, song by song, character by character) of the differences between the Stage Musical and the Film Adaptation!


]


www.paminasopera.com/les-miserables-stage-vs-screen-whats-the-difference-part-i/


The comparison is divided into four main parts ( please click on the links for Part II, Part III and Part IV at the bottom of the page). The blogger uses the complete libretto from the Complete Symphonic Recording and the movie screenplay, the actual film, and Tom Hooper's commentary to set up his meticulous comparisons.


The last words from the blogger --

Once again, I’m not trying to imply that either version of the musical is better than the other. In writing this, my only intent was a (hopefully) interesting academic exploration of how a beloved stage show was adapted to the medium of film. The stage version is the form in which this musical “swept the world” and still captivates audiences after nearly thirty years. And judging by its box office success, by the applause at the end of nearly every screening I saw in theaters, and by my own feelings, the film will continue the Les Misérables tradition of sweeping the world for years to come.

Jo

[JH4HJ]

Tangent: "Bring Him Home" parody from the folks at Forbidden Broadway.



(I confess to having the same thought while watching the film.)

[jo]

Blame it on Colm Wlkinson


This parody has been part of Forbidden Broadway since a little after Colm sang those notes from Les Miz ( spelled with a "z" for Broadway audiences )


Colm not only sang the impossibly high notes for Bring Him Home ( the song was written after he joined the cast in London) but the whole score for Valjean was transposed up to suit his tenor range. In the original Paris production many years before, the score for Valjean was written for a deep baritone ( who ever heard of a gruff convict singing like an opera tenor - LOL!)


Jo

[jo]

I was just responding to a post on BWW re my earlier post about a baritone Valjean. He asked if he could still find a copy of the album where Valjean was a baritone. It seems the original French Concept Album of Les Miserables is still available on Amazon ( but very pricey for a new set).

Here's an interesting reader comment from Amazon --

Valjean doesn't have many parts strangely enough, but I always thought a tenor Valjean was a bit strange. Here, he is a baritone, who sounds his age, and is very touching.

Jo

[birchie]

Oct 8, 2014 9:12:03 GMT -5 jo said:

I was just responding to a post on BWW re my earlier post about a baritone Valjean. He asked if he could still find a copy of the album where Valjean was a baritone. It seems the original French Concept Album of Les Miserables is still available on Amazon ( but very pricey for a new set).

Here's an interesting reader comment from Amazon --

Valjean doesn't have many parts strangely enough, but I always thought a tenor Valjean was a bit strange. Here, he is a baritone, who sounds his age, and is very touching.

Jo

There are several playlists on YouTube including this one:
youtu.be/h9vGfej4z-Y?list=PLmiTbrWhM0nkcZFNMG62dmB1cf6t49VsR
I had made a playlist years ago but eventually deleted it.
Sue

[jo]

There's a citation favorable to Les Miserables in this feature article from THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER on why movie musicals and other film adaptations of Broadway plays fail at the box office --


www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-why-les-miserables-740646?rr-promo

Critic's Notebook: Why 'Les Miserables' Became a Hit Movie But 'Jersey Boys' Did Not

11:00 AM PST 10/15/2014 by Todd McCarthy


THR chief film critic Todd McCarthy explains why film adaptations of Broadway plays — once a sure thing — are now a risky venture


This story first appeared in the Oct. 24 issue of The Hollywood Reporter magazine.



Why can the same material that's smashingly successful in one medium prove an utter flop in another? That's the perennially vexing question at the core of the sometimes thriving, other times strained relationship between Broadway and Hollywood.

Some of the most beloved and frequently revisited movies of all time have their origins on the stage, and there have been times when plays, and particularly musicals, were the source of many of the most popular and prestigious films; fully half of the winners of the best picture Oscar during the 1960s came from the theater — West Side Story, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music, A Man for All Seasons and Oliver!

In the 45 years since then, however, only three stage adaptations have won the top award — Amadeus, Driving Miss Daisy and the last one, Chicago, in 2002 — and while film adaptations of plays and musicals continue to be made, both the frequency and box office batting averages of such undertakings have declined significantly; a rarely lifting cloud seems to have hung over such enterprises for some time, instilling increased caution in Hollywood about pursuing them.

All the same, expectations are high for two big Hollywood musicals based on older shows that are due in theaters in December, Into the Woods and the second screen version of Annie. Both of these beloved properties appear to have been retooled with particular demographics in mind — the new wave of fairy tale fans (who tune in weekly for TV series like Grimm and Once Upon a Time), underserved African-American audiences for the latter— but with possible breakout potential in both cases.

And the bottom line is: you never know. Why, for instance, do the ongoing Broadway, Las Vegas and international renditions of Jersey Boys continue to nightly rouse mostly middle-age and older audiences to their feet when Clint Eastwood's perfectly good screen version (with the original Frankie Valli actor heading the cast) came and went so quietly early this year? Why did the screen version of the most popular (and still running) musical of all time, The Phantom of the Opera, crash like a weighty chandelier a decade ago?

On the other hand, the most financially successful (in absolute dollars) film musical of all time is of recent vintage; Mamma Mia!, which continues to play on stages around the world, grossed an exceptional $605 million. But the key detail in this case is that a whopping 76 percent of this total was generated overseas, a fact obviously attributable to the universally popular ABBA soundtrack. It might come as a surprise that the number two big screen musical was released just two years ago; Les Miserables generated $442 million across the globe, 66 percent of which came from outside the United States.

Is there a parallel, then, between the international appeal of certain musicals — ones with catchy, widely known songs that don't, shall we say, hinge upon the linguistic niceties of a Lerner and Loewe — and the global success of sensation-dominated effects and superhero action films that are not heavily reliant upon dialogue? Again, the answer can only be yes and no. Recent history would show that, to maximize returns on a musical, it needs to appeal to an international audience and not be U.S.-set to achieve significant global success. Of the musicals that have grossed more than $140 million worldwide over the past 20 years, all but two have had non-American settings, were based on internationally successful shows and did the decisive majority of their business outside the U.S., where the box-office partially compensated for the lackluster domestic performance; The Phantom of the Opera generated 67 percent of its business internationally, Sweeney Todd and Evita 65 percent and Nine 64 percent.

The only relatively recent film musicals to buck this trend and earn more in the United States than they did overseas were Hairspray and Dreamgirls, which generated 41 and 33 percent of their box office offshore. Rock of Ages, which didn't fare well domestically, was an even bigger bust internationally. As bad as the grosses were in the U.S. for Rent, they were virtually non-existent in the rest of the world, where only eight percent of its business was generated. For the film version of the madly successful Broadway musical The Producers (itself based on a Mel Brooks film), resistance was equal throughout the world; this film, which featured some of the original cast, is a contender for the most strictly faithful screen version of a stage piece ever made, but its effect was of a pale and strained imitation of something that was once quite wonderful.

Exempting Shakespeare adaptations, of which there have been considerably more over the past 30 years or so than there were in the old Hollywood days, straight plays have come upon harder times of late, although there is a certain silver lining. Once upon a time, successful Broadway dramas and comedies almost automatically got made into films and adaptations of works by major playwrights such as Tennessee Williams and William Inge figured regularly among the most popular and prestigious releases of their years. From the 1960s through the 1980s and even beyond, a year was scarcely complete without a Neil Simon play being put on the screen and occasionally there were special cases, such as Steel Magnolias and A Few Good Men, in which ideal big-star casting made play adaptations into major hits.

Nowadays, it seems like, if Harvey can get Meryl Streep and the Oscar nomination that will come with her, fine; if not, forget about it. The most remunerative dramatic play adaptation of recent times was War Horse, which had Steven Spielberg and an epic scope but was still perceived as a disappointment compared to the theatrical experience. The Streep specials August: Osage County and Doubt performed adequately, but even something as heavily promoted and well-received as Frost/Nixon did meager business (and less than that overseas), putting a further chill in the air for other potential stage transfers.

One after the other, dramatic stage adaptations, some of them very good indeed, have hit the wall of public indifference: A Dangerous Method, Carnage, The History Boys, Bug, Rabbit Hole, For Colored Girls, Death and the Maiden, The Women. Volker Schlondorff's very fine adaptation of a French play about the last days of the Nazis' occupation of Paris, Diplomacy, has been a hit locally and will open in the United States soon.

Still, the weight of evidence forces one to at least consider that there is something about traditional theatrical conventions — the constant talk, the frequently confined settings, certain kinds of elevated or stylized language and even obvious measures taken to “open things up" — that is off-putting, perhaps just subliminally, to modern audiences.

Then there is the occasional snobbery of critics that cuts in two directions. Some theatrical purists possess a reflex muscle that makes them automatically object to any liberties taken with stage material; these are the people who will say, “Oh, but you should have seen it on Broadway” (or in London). Then there are cinephiles quick to object if something seems too stagebound, uncinematic or actory.


The two big musical films that seemed to most please their core constituencies, Mamma Mia! and Les Miserables, featured generally fine actor-singers delivering the goods in strong fashion against lushly presented backgrounds. Ultra-faithful adaptations of popular musicals, including The Phantom of the Opera and The Producers, felt constrained and hemmed in; the former also had less than an ideal cast, while the latter was so clunky it actually felt like it was made in the '60s.

Where there is hope is, of course, on television. Mike Nichols' 2003 HBO miniseries version of Tony Kushner's Angels in America is one of the greatest adaptations of any play in any era and, at full length, would have been inconceivable as a theatrical film. Related by subject matter if not entirely by quality, this year's big HBO theater transfer, The Norman Heart, enjoyed solid rating, strong reviews and considerably Emmy attention. And the great success this past season of a live broadcast of The Sound of Music has paved the way for NBC's upcoming Peter Pan Live! starring Allison Williams of HBO's Girls. As attractive as good plays always are to top actors, there's no evident reason that television shouldn't begin to accommodate more interesting and challenging theatrical pieces in the near future. And then, is it too much to imagine that, as film does, television will begin supplying the theater with ideas for shows? Surely dramatic musicals — or, better yet, operas — of House of Cards or Game of Thrones can't be far off.

Re the comment on "generally fine actor-singers delivering the goods in strong fashion against lushly presented backgrounds" --

Sorry, while I agree that summertime in Greece as a background to the storyline ( what there was of it) was a plus factor, I am not sure that the Mamma Mia! cast could be considered "generally fine actor-singers delivering the goods in strong fashion" and was really comparable to the strength of the casting for Les Miserables. One other thing, Les Miserables is based on one of the most enduring pieces of literature that is universally known, while Mamma Mia! is a jukebox musical ( a bit of a fluffy storyline made to fit the popular ABBA songbook). One thing though, the good luck piece for both must be the presence of Amanda Seyfried

More seriously, Les Miserables was recognized by the Academy and other award bodies for film awards, something which was not true for Mamma Mia! ( I doubt anyone will argue that this is one of the best work of arguably Hollywood's finest actress).

Jo