dbdumonteil Raymond Bernard was certainly the most underrated director of the thirties ;his name is almost never mentioned along the usual suspects :Renoir,Carné,Duvivier,Pagnol,Christian-Jaque,Grémillon,et al;he nevertheless produced two classics in this golden era: his gigantic "Les Miserables" and his work about WW1 slaughter, "Les Croix De Bois "which compares favorably with Gance's "J'Accuse" or Kubrik's "paths of glory".People interested in his Hugo adaptation (and they are numerous) should try and watch other works : a prolific director,he made forgettable movies (like everybody else) but "Cavalcade d'Amour " (1939) which tells three love stories in the same place but at different times;"Un Ami Viendra Ce Soir" a curious movie about the French Resistance - which might have inspired De Broca for his highly praised "Le Roi De Coeur ";"Le Jugement De Dieu" , a brilliant melodrama in the Middle Ages poorly remade later as a sketch of "Les Amours Célèbres with B. Bardot and A.Delon;a black comedy " Le Septième Ciel" ,all these movies worth seeking out;there's also a silent version of "Le Miracle Des Loups "(1924),later remade by André Hunebelle in the sixties.Forgive me for this long introduction,but it's really a pity this director should be ignored even in his native country (among the many comments,how many come from French users?).In the thirties ,it was a titanic task,actually an equivalent of Gance's "Napoleon" of the twenties;it's the only French thirties work which features three parts :at the time,in Paris, it was possible to see the whole in one day,for the theaters did not show the same film;later on,with the staggering exception of "Les Enfants Du Paris" ,the two-part movies (such as "Le Comte De Monte Cristo" and Le Chanois's much inferior own "Miserables" ) were released several months apart.The male cast is close to perfect:Harry Baur is considered one of best French actors of all time ,the extraordinary lead of Duvivier's first talkie "David Golder "and was made to portray Valjean ;his restrained but highly intense acting works wonders in the scene with bishop Myriel and in all his scenes with Javert played by the always reliable Charles Vanel ,the only French actor enjoying 2 movies in the IMDb top 250- 'Le Salaire De La Peur " and "Les Diaboliques" - by the way!matching them all along the way is Charles Dullin - a great stage actor whose portraying of Molière's Harpagon has remained memorable-as Thénardier ,with his face ravaged by greed;Jean Servais the French audience mainly remembers for his later parts and often forgets there was a time when he was young,and he is a very good Marius.On the other hand,the female parts are more uneven ;Florelle as Fantine is deeply moving ,the destitution's child who endures the unwed mother's fate;the great Marguerite Moreno shines as La Thénardier ,the actress was as convincing as a shrew as she was as a Grande dame;Pagnol's Orane Demazis is less talented as Eponine although she fortunately forgets her Provençal accent and has a good final scene (the part was intended for Arletty ) ;as for the forgotten actress who plays Cosette,she is totally bland (the part was intended for Danielle Darrieux)Although Waterloo is not included -represented here by a painting and some Thénardier's lines- there are imposing scenes on the barricades ,and the death of Gavroche ("this little soul had flown away") is really moving,with a young actor with more screen presence than his sister;more intimate scenes such as these with bishop Myriel go straight to the heart ;and "the tempest in the skull" shows Bernard's virtuosity ,here in a league with Abel Gance .Neither Le Chanois's nor Hossein's versions ,let alone American effort starring Liam Neeson can hold a candle to Bernard's Magnum Opus.

richard-1787 Les Misérables is not War and Peace, and as a novelist, Victor Hugo was not Tolstoy. There is a lot of filler in the novel. Bernard does a good jog of focusing on only the important scenes and simply ignoring the rest - he made this movie for an audience who knew the novel and did not have to be filled in on a lot of the exposition. Those scenes that he does choose to film, especially the revolution on the barricades, are often very well done.By the last third of the movie, however, he becomes too self-indulgent, and spends too much time on scenes that, given the length of the movie, would have been better passed over far more quickly.The star, without any question, in this movie is Henry Bauer as Jean Valjean. He's not a handsome man, but he's a big and powerful one as Valjean was big and powerful. And an actor capable of conveying great emotion just with his face.This is not always easy to sit through. If you don't know the story well, you may feel lost at times. But at its best, this movie gives a remarkable account of Hugo's novel, less the story of les misérables - the poor - than of one man who was asked to bear more sorrow than any man should have to bear, yet who never complained and just kept forging ahead.

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

futures-1 "Les Miserables" (1933): This film on DVD comes in three parts, totaling 279 minutes. Audiences were appreciative of long, complex stories. They didn't need everything stated and resolved in 22 minutes. They had an attention span. This is THE definitive interpretation of Victor Hugo's novel. The photography is flawlessly inventive and artistic. The scoring is everything from subtle to emotional and sweeping. The story is, of course, HUGE. Like other authors of that time, the use of irony was a major, and wonderful, device (no, it is not an invention of 1990s films). DO expect IT to expect YOU to keep up. The acting is all over the map, from superb and aware, to stiff and overstated (from the only-then-dying silent film era). The set room sets and costumes are great, the landscapes & "cityscapes sometimes contrived as flat sets. This film, like All Quiet on the Western Front, are must-see examples of what powerful, early film making can be.