|
|
Post by klenotka on Aug 4, 2013 5:05:28 GMT -5
Jo, I would add a few things to Wolverine and Les Miz. I think this is where you can see an actor working on his craft. I mean, compare Hugh with any movie before 2005 (because I think The Fountain and Prestige is still his best work along with Les Miz) and now. His Wolverine really is the best in the last movie and as incredible as it may sound to people who dislike action or comic-book movies - this type attracts more and more respected actors and Hugh just works on himself to get better. I feel with some actors, they are still the same but not Hugh. I remember how he spoke about things he did before Hooper told him not to - a certain movements or face expressions that he repeated. I actually noticed he had this strange...hmm, twitching he used to do with his head (not sure if it is the right thing to describe). EVERY actor has something like that. But Hugh got rid of it in Les Miz and he certainly was very different in the last Wolverine.
I am excited to see Prisoners because it seems to me that it could be a very different performance from all the others we saw and show how he matured as an actor.
|
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Aug 4, 2013 6:22:43 GMT -5
Very insightful, Lenka!
In all the reviews of The Wolverine ( or practically all), Hugh's performance was cited as special, whether the reviewer was fully impressed by the film or not! It was such a pleasure to read so many people acknowledging how much he has advanced with his acting!
Also, James Mangold might have honed Hugh's acting skills further . James has been known to extract award-worthy performances from his actors ( Angelina won an Oscar for Girl Interrupted, Reese won an Oscar for Walk The Line, Joaquin Phoenix got a nomination for Walk the Line...and when Hugh was just a Hollywood newbie, James directed him in his Golden Globe nomination for Kate and Leopold).
If Prisoners deliver as we are all looking forward to, especially with Hugh's dark portrayal -- it is going to be his best acting period ever!! Ever!!
Jo
|
|
|
|
Post by klenotka on Aug 4, 2013 9:47:43 GMT -5
You are right about Mangold. I think he was the best possible replacement for Aronofsky. I wouldn´t mind to see Hugh work with him in the future again. There were hints that Hugh actually showed the best acting in Prisoners yet so we´ll see. Too bad the movie opens here in the end of October  |
|
|
|
Post by birchie on Oct 12, 2013 9:56:15 GMT -5
Just taking a few moments on this happy day that we're all so grateful for...the day our Hugh was brought into the world to get a little serious.
You may remember a few months ago I mentioned that a local theater group was finally going to do Les Miserables. Well the show is tomorrow. The production has gotten great reviews too. A group of us are going. The group is all those who were closest to my BFF who passed away last month including her daughter. It's the final performance of the production. I had purchased the tickets when Gina was still in the hospital but we were all hoping she would make another rally and would be able to attend with us...that's why I got tickets for the last performance. We're all going and we can all cry and know that it'll be OK because everyone will be crying. But I think Les Miserables also gives a way to celebrate her life and maybe feel some peace about her final journey.
I was looking to see if there were any new video insights offered about the movie and discovered these two videos. They're part sermon/part review but mostly concern the spiritual aspects of the final scene. They brought comfort to me and I guess I'm hoping for that tomorrow for all of us.
Les Misérables: Empty Chairs and the Desire for Heaven:
Les Miserables: The Holy Bishop and Pope Francis:
I'm also anxious to see if they incorporated any of the changes that were done in the movie. Most especially, I'm hoping to see the Bishop in the final scene instead of Eponine. I was never a fan of having that character in the final scene so...fingers crossed.
Sue
|
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 12, 2013 16:26:09 GMT -5
Someone who contributes features to Broadwayworld posted his comments on the latest Les Miserables staging - the official revival in Toronto this/last week, with R. Karimloo. I inquired whether the new song Suddenly was incorporated to the production. He said it was not, and that the production was based on the 25th anniversary current tour staging ( no changes that were incorporated to the movie). He also added that any licensed production ( such as probably what you are seeing, Sue) is also based on this 25th anniversary revised production ( no turntables, with stage projections instead). In a way, I find this personally satisfying because it gives the movie version its own identity and special touches. Interestingly, there are already many versions of the novel - onstage (from the original French musical stage production to the original English musical stage production to the current staging, plus the two anniversary concerts) or on film  Jo |
|
|
|
Post by birchie on Oct 12, 2013 16:36:16 GMT -5
Someone who contributes features to Broadwayworld posted his comments on the latest Les Miserables staging - the official revival in Toronto this/last week, with R. Karimloo. I inquired whether the new song Suddenly was incorporated to the production. He said it was not, and that the production was based on the 25th anniversary current tour staging ( no changes that were incorporated to the movie). He also added that any licensed production ( such as probably what you are seeing, Sue) is also based on this 25th anniversary revised production ( no turntables, with stage projections instead). In a way, I find this personally satisfying because it gives the movie version its own identity and special touches. Interestingly, there are already many versions of the novel - onstage (from the original French musical stage production to the original English musical stage production to the current staging, plus the two anniversary concerts) or on film Jo You're probably right, Jo. You may recall from the IMDB days that as much as I like the stage show, it did have those quirks that are a bit grating & Eponine in the death scene is one of the biggest! Oh well, I still love it and will love it even more tomorrow since I'll be watching it with my heart. Sue |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 12, 2013 16:46:17 GMT -5
The inclusion of Eponine in the finale scene with Valjean has always been a complete mystery to me, since I first saw it decades ago. Valjean did not even know Eponine personally nor is the story of Eponine even relevant to Valjean himself. Until there was gossip that it was a way for assistant director John Caird to boost the career of Frances Ruffelle who was the original Eponine in London and on Broadway ( I should not be gossiping, but this is relevant) because it became known later on that they were having an affair ( Caird was married to somebody else), although they eventually got married and divorced. I saw some rehearsal clips of the Broadway original production and Frances seemed to be acting as if she was indeed the principal player of the cast, although maybe because she was an original cast member from London . Colm was the only other one allowed by American Equity. Hooper did go back to the novel a few times to give more credibility to the movie and the scene at the finale, while not in the book ( only Cosette and Marius were there), seemed more appropriate. Jo |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 15, 2013 18:23:07 GMT -5
He sings WHO AM I, supposedly in an event in Lafayetteville, Arkansas? Was this the Walmart appearance? The clip was uploaded a few days from that event in June. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRMUNVx-qzE&list=PLF83906058A1A826C&index=4Hmmm... dramatic bliss! There were some comments on the feedback that he had some sharp notes ( totally misunderstood -- this is the way it was acted out in the film, more conversational or more soliloquy-wise, than hitting the musical note as it was written for the stage) -- and that there are better singers. Ha, again the theatre purists completely misunderstanding the way Hugh delivers the song! I do not think that Hugh Jackman should veer away completely from the iconic movie interpretation and become one of the stage Valjean clones! I listened to it ( for the second time) without looking at the clip as he is too much of a distraction -- and I do think this is becoming his signature interpretation of the song, as he now performs it live. He was still doing an acting interpretation ( which I love!), while vesting the song with its powerful notes from the stage towards the end! Can't get any better! Jo |
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Oct 16, 2013 6:29:06 GMT -5
Yes, Jo, that was from the Walmart event. Good as that performance was, I think he even outdid himself at the MPTV benefit. I just wish the key for "Bring Him Home" had been lowered in the film. I really think he'd have had a much better shot at the Oscar if there hadn't been so much criticism of his rendition of that song.
Ellen
|
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 16, 2013 8:11:01 GMT -5
Nah - once TIME Magazine released that cover story on "the greatest actor in the world " smiley-rolleyes010( aka Daniel Day Lewis) and Spielberg was able to arrange that White House screening of LINCOLN -- I already lost heart ...Much as I did not want to believe, the Oscars are very political <boo>... I could not believe that there was another White House screening ( this time for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK) through the persuasive abilities of Harvey Weinstein, supposedly because the film dealt with mental health, an important national issue...I was even afraid that Hugh might lose out on the Golden Globes to Bradley Cooper <rant> Hugh could have sang Bring Him Home to satisfy the theatre purists and that still would not have had an impact on his chances. It was an honest interpretation of the emotionality of the scene, so I don't necessarily want the singing changed! If I remember right, the barricade boys and Samantha Barks loved his version during filming (their tweets were all fulsome praise!). And recently one of them was interviewed ( Fra Fee who played the movie Courfeyrac and who has just landed a lead role at the famed theatre Menier Chocoloate Factory in London) and he said that " Hugh Jackman's singing is unstoppable!". But his first nomination did put his name along with the select few whose work has been recognized, so another strong performance may surprise us with another nod or maybe even a win. Pete Hammond did mention in the Deadline report that Hugh is a possible Best Actor contender for PRISONERS. Hmmm... if politics works again this time, who knows -- that generous gesture of support for the MPTF may just unlock the key. But if it doesn't, I am quite convinced now that Hugh has increased his chances of being offered first-looks at excellent scripts henceforth. Some actors never get an Oscar but they have earned the respect of colleagues because of their body of work. I am sure there will be a form of recognition someday! Personally, I am happy that he portrayed the role of a lifetime in my favorite musical  ...No one can take away my pleasure of watching the movie again and again with my biased eyes and ears smiley-happy082 Jo |
|
|
|
Post by mamaleh on Oct 16, 2013 9:14:24 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Hugh would have won--just that he'd have had a better chance. I don't know how close in votes they were, but given that most of the annoyingly negative criticism mentioned BHH, I have a feeling the vote would have been closer, that's all. Reportedly there was a groundswell of support for Hugh based largely on his performance but also on his extreme popularity in Hollywood and a desire not to grant a third Oscar to DDL. If he'd have been perceived as nailing BHH, it might not have turned the tide, but the contest might have been more competitive. Just my take after digesting all the rumors/reports/speculation.
Ellen
|
|
|
|
Post by birchie on Oct 16, 2013 10:14:43 GMT -5
I'm not saying that Hugh would have won--just that he'd have had a better chance. I don't know how close in votes they were, but given that most of the annoyingly negative criticism mentioned BHH, I have a feeling the vote would have been closer, that's all. Reportedly there was a groundswell of support for Hugh based largely on his performance but also on his extreme popularity in Hollywood and a desire not to grant a third Oscar to DDL. If he'd have been perceived as nailing BHH, it might not have turned the tide, but the contest might have been more competitive. Just my take after digesting all the rumors/reports/speculation. Ellen I read a couple comments specific to BHH but I don't recall it being more than the annoying comments about everything else...the general "they didn't do it right in the movie blah blah blah" which actually started long before the movie even came out and it was about everyone & every number. If you listen to the BHH combo video...I think there are two of them...on YouTube with Hugh & Colm singing at the same time, there's really nothing wrong with his singing. Aside from a couple of different pauses and slightly different emphasis in some spots...like "he is only a boy" I was quite surprised at how similar they were. I do agree with Jo that the Oscar was lost when the Time cover came out. That was the most blatant ploy for an award that I ever saw. Very disappointing! One thing that surprises me since Les Miserables came out, is that he never sings the song that was written for him, Suddenly! Maybe when he revamps his one man show someday he'll add it, but the fact that he never sings it makes me think he doesn't like it. Aside from the couple of lines thrown into the One Day More number at the Academy Awards performance, there have been at least 3 concert type situations since the movie where he had an opportunity to sing it but...Does anyone else find it surprising? Sue |
|
|
|
Post by birchie on Oct 16, 2013 10:27:24 GMT -5
The inclusion of Eponine in the finale scene with Valjean has always been a complete mystery to me, since I first saw it decades ago. Valjean did not even know Eponine personally nor is the story of Eponine even relevant to Valjean himself. Until there was gossip that it was a way for assistant director John Caird to boost the career of Frances Ruffelle who was the original Eponine in London and on Broadway ( I should not be gossiping, but this is relevant) because it became known later on that they were having an affair ( Caird was married to somebody else), although they eventually got married and divorced. I saw some rehearsal clips of the Broadway original production and Frances seemed to be acting as if she was indeed the principal player of the cast, although maybe because she was an original cast member from London . Colm was the only other one allowed by American Equity. Hooper did go back to the novel a few times to give more credibility to the movie and the scene at the finale, while not in the book ( only Cosette and Marius were there), seemed more appropriate. Jo LOL, you're not gossiping Jo it's pretty common knowledge that there was some favoritism there. It's always irked me and I really wish they'd fix it for the stage show someday. I was one of biggest cheerers of Tom Hooper's incorporation of the chronology & certain scenes etc from the novel. Getting the passing of the notes right, Eponine's death, re-ordering some of the songs for better continuity etc. As for the final scene, there is a hint of the Bishop in the book, something like...one could almost see the face of the Bishop smiling down on him...or words to that effect (different versions have slightly different wording), so to me it made perfect sense to see the Bishop welcoming him into Heaven. Sue |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 16, 2013 18:38:20 GMT -5
Ellen/Sue -- I doubt that Hugh's singing style swayed the voters against him one bit when it came to his portrayal, especially as he performed Bring Him Home. Do you remember the reactions to the very first screening which happened in NYC?? It was rapturous and presumably that crowd included many Broadway goers! The initial response led to predictions that it would even sweep the awards! It was the drama and the character portrayals, expressed through music, which the crowd loved... plus maybe they were so immensely proud that a Hollywood movie musical can stand toe to toe with a beloved Broadway musical! I find that comparisons with an original Broadway musical when it comes to a film adaptation may not generally be valid or that meaningful. The movie version has more to do with how a film director conceptualizes and executes his cinematic vision! In the case of Les Miserables, I loved the way Tom Hooper presented the story and the characters, with singing simply being the means to express the dramatic depths of the plot and the individual stories of the players in the drama! It wasn't how note-perfect to the stage musical it should have been! To me, the true test was the reaction of the actors who were part of the movie but who were also involved in many West End productions of Les Miserables ( and even other stage musicals). I remember Eddie Redmayne saying how apprehensive he was because many of his film "comrades" had actually sang the role of Marius onstage before him. When we followed the day to day filming developments, via discussions on IMDB based on numerous tweets on set and other sneak reports, we knew that it was going to be a great movie, a great movie musical! To me, when the barricade boys who were actually with Hugh when filming Bring Him Home ( and even Sammy Barks who watched the filming) reacted with such praise on Twitter at the 14 takes that they heard him sing BRING HIM HOME, it was a spontaneous and real pride in what they heard! And they are not exactly amateurs ( not like most of us audiences) when it came to stage singing. One who was most profuse in his praise was not just a stage actor but was also a vocal coach! If they did not like his interpretation, they could have just been diplomatic and just kept quiet... They experienced the drama and the emotions of a father's angst about losing his daughter to a man she chose and as as a true measure of that love, his final yielding of Marius to his Cosette and his impassioned plea to God to spare Marius! Who cared that Hugh might have sung it differently - he is not supposed to be a stage Valjean clone! He was being an actor first and foremost, using the medium of song to heighten his acting and portrayal of the character!But it was interesting to see and hear him reprise BRING HIM HOME in a very different context and in a very different interpretation at the finale, when he was dying. He was committing his life to God, and was retrospective of how his life has been spent. He sounded old and tired...but his faith was strong and expressed his belief that he had accounted to God for his life well. But that Cosette was not there ( yet) for the final goodbye. My eyes were in tears and my throat choked when I heard him sing the song that way, because there was a different and probably more resonant side to the revised lyrics ( "Bring ME home..."), evoking our own mortality. Did I feel that way in any stage versions - maybe because the stage cannot bring such dramatic closeups, the stage Valjean's final goodbye song was rather lost on me -- all I remember was how Fantine and Eponine reprised as ghosts - LOL! Even the reactions to Russell were very unfair! When he sang STARS ( 28 takes to get it to his and Hooper's satisfaction) - it was more meditative in style and he actually delivered a prayer of contemplation - a deeper portrayal of Javert's inner conflicts! Ha - to me, all those booming stage deliveries were one-sided! Sing to the top of your voice and impress the stage crowds! Who cares if the real drama of a man in conflict is lost??!! In the recent Fra Fee interview ( he was the movie Courfeyrac and had also sang in the stage Les Miserables),he said that he thought that Russell seemed to be the most insecure of the cast about the singing because he had sang the least stagewise, but when it came to acting, he was the masterclass! I guess many people did not like his deep baritonal voice and the way he interpreted the role vis-a-vis stage Javerts-- but eventually I am sure his interpretation will be remembered! His portrayal, all in all, moved me almost as much as Valjean...and one that makes me sympathize with his moral dilemmas! Maybe because I have not really put BRING HIM HOME as an iconic Les Miserables song -- my favorites were Do You Hear the People Sing, The Red and The Black, Empty Chairs at Empty Tables, One Day More, Who Am I...and after the movie, Valjean's Soliloquy( only because Hugh brought a completely different meaning to it -- in the stage versions, it was simply a garbled recitative that was delivered in a hurry !!). Not too keen on the female songs either ( maybe too melodramatic, although I do prefer I Dreamed A Dream over On My Own) but I kind of like the duets of romantic love. Bring Him Home has always been a meh-song to me, maybe because it was simply someone singing to a sleeping person, trying not too hard not to wake him with his notes soaring to the dark night ( oops, no pun intended) -- and wondering why his tenor notes did not! Sorry, Colm! LOL! But I respect that some people stand by that song, maybe because they heard the first interpretation in a stage setting! Re Suddenly -- it is a hard song to contextualize in a concert or a non- musical stage setting. Hugh rarely does this type of songs in a live performance, except maybe TENTERFIELD SADDLER ( because it is really the song of Peter Allen). You can't really sing a song about the love for a daughter to a concert crowd. Michael Ball recorded a cover version, but it evoked more of a lover's encounter with a new romance. Someone also suggested that it will make an excellent song during a wedding... Maybe Hugh might eventually revisit the song, but in a different context. Btw, he was immensely proud of that song written with him in mind! Again, sad to say but I do not think Oscar awards are pure artistic recognition. After keeping tab of all that was happening during the past awards season, it has made me a lot more cynical. I do remember one regular poster on IMDB whose parents were both AMPAS and BAFTA voters who said that there were many hard and effective Oscar "campaigners", but that Universal was NOT one of them! He even said there was a Meryl Streep fan club within AMPAS, which explains why they would vote for her each and everytime - yes, this guy was cynical about the Weinstein-campaigned win for her in Iron Lady. Ahhh... politics is a way of life, in the movies or even with debt ceilings (oops, sorry -- but we can breathe a sigh of relief, too, over the resolution of that latter issue, here outside America ) Jo |
|
|
|
Post by carouselkathy on Oct 16, 2013 19:08:37 GMT -5
Daniel Day Lewis gave the definitive portrayal of Abraham Lincoln. In any other year, Hugh may have won. It's sometimes just the luck of the draw.
|
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 16, 2013 19:19:50 GMT -5
Russell Crowe said it best on the reasons why one should vote for a particular actor in a particular role --
" because of the character arc and the degree of difficulty" were the reasons he gave on Twitter on why he voted for Hugh Jackman!
|
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 16, 2013 19:27:36 GMT -5
I also think that the incorporation of Valjean's epiphany about finding Cosette ( giving life to SUDDENLY) corrected a true gap in the stage version -- that was such a wondeful passage in the book! Plus their life in the convent answered questions on what happened to them and how Cosette was raised in gentle surroundings.
|
|
|
|
Post by birchie on Oct 17, 2013 11:18:45 GMT -5
Undoubtedly, after Hugh's performance, the things I liked best were the additions that brought the musical more in line with the novel. Suddenly was a perfect transition and showcase, mirroring the contemplative, worried Valjean watching little Cosette sleeping in the book. Then, I was not only thrilled that they showed the original escape into the convent, but that they did it almost verbatim to the way it was done in the book. It's the best depiction of that part of the novel that I've seen in the many, many film adaptations I've watched over the years. Another transition that was handled beautifully was the sadness of Cosette upon learning of her Papa's departure. It was a beautiful look at not only her grief but the weakened, heart broken condition of Valjean. Using the reprise of the Suddenly music made it all the more poignant. And, of course as I've mentioned I was very happy that they got the passing of the notes correct! So many little touches that were done perfectly in this movie... I must add that having just seen a wonderful local production of the show a few days ago, the one thing that struck me was that the movie has completely spoiled me. Watching the same little irksome things that are done on stage but were fixed in the movie is much more difficult now. It was a terrific production, everyone was very good. Many of the actors were on a par with some of the professionals I've seen in the various stagings I've watched on YouTube. It was nice to see the full version of some of the numbers that were cut in the movie etc. All in all, I enjoyed the show thoroughly, but the next day I re-watched the movie!!! Sue |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 17, 2013 21:11:02 GMT -5
I never thought they could find a physical structure that would serve the purpose of the escape into the convent -- the only thing missing, as per the novel, was the tree from which Valjean descended into the convent grounds The reunion with Fauchelevent seemed so realistic and explained well how Valjean and Cosette were able to get into the good graces of the nuns and which allowed them a place for long-term refuge. The reprise of Suddenly, showing the caring and confused look on Cosette's face was poignant...and well juxtaposed with the departure of a physically weakened Valjean which was a foreboding of the finale. On another note, while many fans were admiring of Samantha Barks as Eponine ( I think because many have idolized Eponine as their poster heroine), I thought Amanda Seyfried was actually a better actress. Her facial expressions -- whether being bemused with love, disagreeing with her father, providing solace to the ailing Marius, worrying about her Papa at his abrupt departure, and the final goodbye scene were very well acted and showed nuances in Amanda's portrayal. Of the small changes but which had such great impact -- I really liked the change in emphasis in the final farewell of Valjean to Cosette -- was so much more meaningful to the whole story than the simple reference to Cosette and Fantine! |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 21, 2013 2:44:24 GMT -5
Not sure how fully accurate the reported trivia/spoilers and other fun facts on IMDB are, but they are very interesting to read -- www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trvThe only one where it seems that it was not as it had been reported was the speculation that Anne did the ON MY OWN schtick at the Oscars because Hugh refused to sing with her. Hugh said that he actually did not know it was going to happen ( see his face!) - so he was probably unaware that it was coming. The new thing I learned is that it was baby Gavroche in that basket being traded during LOVELY LADIES. |
|
suefb
Auditioning
Posts: 228
|
Post by suefb on Oct 21, 2013 8:04:09 GMT -5
Not sure how fully accurate the reported trivia/spoilers and other fun facts on IMDB are, but they are very interesting to read -- www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trvThe only one where it seems that it was not as it had been reported was the speculation that Anne did the ON MY OWN schtick at the Oscars because Hugh refused to sing with her. Hugh said that he actually did not know it was going to happen ( see his face!) - so he was probably unaware that it was coming. The new thing I learned is that it was baby Gavroche in that basket being traded during LOVELY LADIES. Yes, some of those are interesting. I was confused by your last comment since Mme Thenardier was not (strictly speaking) a whore and wasn't present during LL, so I read the tidbit more carefully at the link, and they say the trade actually occurred during MASTER OF THE HOUSE. Which makes more sense, and I'll have to look out for it next time I watch that scene! |
|
jo
Ensemble
Posts: 46,434
|
Post by jo on Oct 21, 2013 9:30:47 GMT -5
Lol - Master of the House, it was  Jo |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Oct 21, 2013 11:48:26 GMT -5
Not sure how fully accurate the reported trivia/spoilers and other fun facts on IMDB are, but they are very interesting to read -- www.imdb.com/title/tt1707386/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trvThe only one where it seems that it was not as it had been reported was the speculation that Anne did the ON MY OWN schtick at the Oscars because Hugh refused to sing with her. Hugh said that he actually did not know it was going to happen ( see his face!) - so he was probably unaware that it was coming. The new thing I learned is that it was baby Gavroche in that basket being traded during LOVELY LADIES. Yes, some of those are interesting. I was confused by your last comment since Mme Thenardier was not (strictly speaking) a whore and wasn't present during LL, so I read the tidbit more carefully at the link, and they say the trade actually occurred during MASTER OF THE HOUSE. Which makes more sense, and I'll have to look out for it next time I watch that scene! In the book Madam Thenardier was in the habit of selling off her children, actually keeping only Eponine. Gavroche knew his sister and parents but had fled to the streets, but didn't know his two brothers that he took into his protection in the elephant after they were abandoned on the street (Not really shown in detail in the movie) |
|
suefb
Auditioning
Posts: 228
|
Post by suefb on Oct 21, 2013 12:56:32 GMT -5
Yes, some of those are interesting. I was confused by your last comment since Mme Thenardier was not (strictly speaking) a whore and wasn't present during LL, so I read the tidbit more carefully at the link, and they say the trade actually occurred during MASTER OF THE HOUSE. Which makes more sense, and I'll have to look out for it next time I watch that scene! In the book Madam Thenardier was in the habit of selling off her children, actually keeping only Eponine. Gavroche knew his sister and parents but had fled to the streets, but didn't know his two brothers that he took into his protection in the elephant after they were abandoned on the street (Not really shown in detail in the movie) But they hadn't sold off Gavroche, right? He just sort of lived his own life on the streets, wandering home only on occasion and was pretty much detached from them by the time he died. Also, IIRC, Gavroche helped his dad escape from jail - speaking of things not in the movie, Thernardier was imprisoned for the detention of Valjean and attempted kidnapping of Cosette - without even realizing it was his dad he was helping! |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie on Oct 21, 2013 13:53:27 GMT -5
In the book Madam Thenardier was in the habit of selling off her children, actually keeping only Eponine. Gavroche knew his sister and parents but had fled to the streets, but didn't know his two brothers that he took into his protection in the elephant after they were abandoned on the street (Not really shown in detail in the movie) But they hadn't sold off Gavroche, right? He just sort of lived his own life on the streets, wandering home only on occasion and was pretty much detached from them by the time he died. Also, IIRC, Gavroche helped his dad escape from jail - speaking of things not in the movie, Thernardier was imprisoned for the detention of Valjean and attempted kidnapping of Cosette - without even realizing it was his dad he was helping! This was all part of what makes Gavroche such a sympathetic character. For being a "hard-bitten, street urchin" his heart was always in the right place despite the circumstances of his birth (i.e. giving the gold coin to the starving old man). In many ways he was as noble a spirit as Val Jean which made his death equally sad in a child compared to an old man who had lived comfortably for many years. Unfortunately, so much of the magnificent novel couldn't get into the musical or even a movie. Maybe we need a mini-series that features the music. :-) |
|
...No one can take away my pleasure of watching the movie again and again with my biased eyes and ears smiley-happy082
