Well I finished watching the 1933-34 masterful French version of "
Les Misérables" directed by Raymond Bernard (281 minutes in all) and this is what I felt upon watching it:
First of all I must admit that my interest in watching all the film versions based upon Victor Hugo's book (which I have never read) that I can -especially the older ones- comes from my huge curiosity about my dad's sudden fondness for it -I'd dare to say "fixation"- ever since he saw the Broadway show based upon it. It is undoubtedly his favorite show, movie et al of all time.
This version is by far the longest I have witnessed and it's divided in three parts: "Tempest in a Skull", "The Thénardiers" and "Liberty, Sweet Liberty".
Although I have not read the book I feel that this film must be the nearest in spirit to the novel. It's devoid of the "glamour" present in some aspects of the other versions I have seen; it's closer in the depiction of the harshness and grittiness of its subject theme and the hardships endured by most of its characters.
This film shows in a more detailed way all the implications of the plot in relation with the "Thénardiers" or "Jondrettes" (especially in its second part), including their two daughters and son, most notably the doomed Eponine, who as played by Orane Demazis is so different from the glamorous, beautiful and fancy character, that beautiful Frances Drake impersonated in the 1935 film by Richard Boleslawski.
There are also other characters and events which are scarcely mentioned or omitted in the shorters versions, like the 1935 and 1952 Hollywood films, starring Fredric March an Michael Rennie, respectively; ie: Marius' grandfather.
On the other hand, certain parts or scenes which are included in those shorter versions are not showed in this 1933 classic film, because I understand that they were not featured in the book, like the first scenes in which Valjean was condemned and his stay at the prison.
Although I'm not sure, I feel that most of the actors featured in this version had a strong theatrical background, which shows in their skilled performances, which for that same reason are maybe less "cinematic" in a way.
I also think that cat and mouse chase of Valjean by Javert is not as strongly displayed as in the 1935 film; maybe it's more close to the spirit of Victor Hugo's book, but I feel that in that respect this version lacks the oppressiveness I felt upon watching Javert's obsession (as played by Laughton and featured in that film's script) with duty and capturing Valjean. Maybe the Hollywood version can be regarded as too far-fetched in that respect, but it worked for me. Charles Vanel hasn't the commanding screen presence of Charles Laughton.
Harry Baur, though, is the definitive Valjean in all aspects and is brilliant. His performance is by far the best in the film. Simply superb! It's a pity to read about all the hardships this actor endured under the Nazi occupation of his native France that ended in his murder by the Gestapo.
Legendary Marguerite Moreno and Charles Dullin are sublime as the utterly despicable and repelent Thénardiers. They were really frightening to behold! Mme. Moreno would have been perfect as Madame Defarge or La Vengeance in "A Tale of Two Cities".
The little boy who plays Gavroche, who we learn here is the youngest son of the Thénardiers, gives a truly memorable, spirited, impressive performance, full of energy and dramatism.
The final scenes featuring Baur are very touching and realistically played.
In all, an excellent work, a tour-de-force by Harry Baur and maybe the closest film version in spirit and detail to its source. A must-see.
Thanks again Chrstine for recommending this work of art to me!
