6/10
Decent if underwhelming
22 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is a classic, a very rich and emotional story but also one that is difficult to adapt, all too clear in how mixed the numerous adaptations of it are. This is not a bad film, far from it. As an adaptation, it's not great, but when judged on its own it's one example of a film with many merits but falls short.

Debra Paget makes one of the least interesting characters of the book even blander, if she wasn't so beautiful she would have been completely forgettable, while I do agree that Cameron Mitchell is similarly stiff. The film suffers also from too much of the film being focused too much on Cosette and Marius and not enough on Valjean and Javert(whose story is much more interesting and important, seeing as Paget and Mitchell are so unconvincing in their roles it does hurt the film. Valjean and Javert do have some good tense chemistry together but you wish there was more.

Some may say the film is pedestrian, I personally think the opposite and that it's rushed, it maintains the pacing of the book well but the effectiveness of the different subplots is mixed and the characters don't ring true as much as other adaptations because the film does feel rather superficial at times. The ending was abrupt- I missed the emotion and irony that the 1935 film's had- and made Javert's suicide almost pointless, Marius' accusation seemed out of character and unnecessary and the omission of Enjolras and Eponine, the waste of Gavroche(better than omitting him like the 1935 film, a much better film, but still) and the addition of Robert(who didn't add a whole lot) added to the lack of story depth.

You might think reading all this that Les Miserables(1952) is a bad film. As said already, it isn't. It is very handsomely mounted with authentic sets and costumes and lovely cinematography. The final shot is a notable example. The music score from Alex North is a mixture of rousing, haunting and beautiful. The script is a very thought-provoking one that respects Hugo's writing. The story did lack a fair bit but it did have its very good moments. Fantine's story is still very poignant(though much more so in the book and in other adaptations), the film is set up very well, Valjean and Javert's conflicts make for some good tension and the sewer chase is thrilling. The storytelling also may be lacking in detail but the spirit of the book is present.

Michael Rennie is a very noble Valjean who also gives the character real truth and emotion, which makes him one of the film's most sympathetic characters(the other being the bishop). That goodness doesn't always come easy to Valjean is not absent either. Robert Newton's Javert is equally excellent, he is menacing and authoritative but like with Valjean the film doesn't forget to give a sense(though not the most powerfully depicted) that Javert can't catch Valjean despite getting very close-especially at the end-without breaking what he stands for, and also that Javert cannot accept that Valjean has changed. James Robertson-Justice does have a warm presence and makes an effort to make Robert like he was part of the story already, it doesn't work in that respect but Justice still gives a good account of himself. Sylvia Sidney is affecting as Fantine, and Edmund Gwenn brings humanity and benevolence to the bishop.

In conclusion, a decent film that could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed