Les Misérables (1935)

An adaptation Victor Hugo’s massive novel Les Misérables would be a huge undertaking for anyone wishing to do so. For the first time the classic French novel would be produced as a Hollywood feature film in Twentieth Century Picture’s film about the struggles of Jean Valjean. Twice produced in America in the infancy years of motion picture production, this talkie would attempt to encapsulate the massive story, squeezing what it can into a package a little over two hours in length. Anchored by two of the business’ most well respected actors the literary classic Les Misérables would finally have a motion picture adaptation that audiences would be able to enjoy from the comforts of their local theaters.

Les Misérables is a dramatic picture adapted from the well known Victor Hugo novel of the same name about an ex-convict desperately trying to live a normal, successful life while being chased by the unlawful past, ever reminding him that he is not a free man. Jean Valjean (Fredric March) having once served in the galleys for a decade for stealing bread for his starving family is set off to start a new life, and after a run in with faith filled Bishop (Cedric Hardwicke) is taught to serve a life of giving and not taking. Valjean becomes a well-respected businessman under an alias to hide his past, ever helping those in need, and is rewarded as appointed leader of his French community. However Valjean’s past comes to haunt his when his new chief constable Emile Javet (Charles Laughton) is led to the truth that Valjean is in fact an ex-con, sending him fleeing from justice again with the young Cossette (Rochelle) in hand, whom he had promised to care for. Together they live in hiding, but eventually get caught in a political uproar and Valjean falling into the hands of the straight laced Javet. Valjean’s ways of love teach Javet would is right in the heart versus what is right by law, ending with Javet’s suicide battling with his inner struggles of right and wrong, leaving Valjean to finally live his life of peace.

I understand that there are two different ways to look at the film, one as an adaption contrasted to the novel which directly inspired it, and the second as an individual movie on its own. If one would like to compare and contrast I invite you to view the picture for yourself, try to enjoy it as an individual art, and then have your own personal time in comparing the two. It is unfair to attempt comparison between the masterpiece novel that is Les Misérables to this or any motion picture adaption. The sheer size and depth of the literature far outweighs anything that can be attempted to be squeezed into a two hour frame. The film makes many alterations, abbreviations, and subtracts from the source material too numerous to attempt to explain in shorthand. The film does a noble attempt to bring the world of the novel to life and carries with it the spirit of core story to the big screen. For the sake of keeping to the film as an individual work by itself, I will limit my comparisons to the book to a minimum. This is a motion picture that stands on its own without one needing to be familiar to the source of the story. To itself it makes a fine film filled with all the necessary drama and emotion that makes going to the movies enjoyable.

Adaptations are never easy. It is not as simple as a one to one crossover from written word to screen. A written story has undertones that can be explained by the author, while the motion picture must try to bring to life these aspects in spoken words and visuals what the inner self of the characters are going through. For that it is commendable the task that director Richard Boleslavski took upon himself when he made this film. Boleslavski was an actor/director, but was more of an acting teacher above anything else. He would work for many years on stage and behind the camera, Les Misérables being his best known production.  The style was not flashy or overly large in scope, in fact the film feels quite contained in this much anticipated picture, but one might be able to see how Boleslavski focuses on the emotions of the face and how one is feeling by the language of his body and facial features. The acting had to be deeper in this film and he would provide an honorable product with his method of directing.

March and Laughton as Valjean and Javet.

To carry the weight of the major characters in the picture would be two very well respected Academy Award winning actors, Fredric March as Jean Valjean and the British actor with a commanding presence Charles Laughton as Valjean’s numinous Javet. March, the best actor for his work in 1931’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, was one of the greater leading men of the early 30s able to carry the emotion loads of larger films. Laughton hit Hollywood with powerful performances with his uncharacteristic look. March carries the emotional core of the film as main character, while Laughton provides the ever important menace of danger over the shoulder of our hero. The pair creates a nice balance of contrast, Laughton’s role being the more difficult of the two roles.

In a tale that spans a lifetime of adventures that is bound to be a large supporting cast. The role of Bishop Myriel, who teaches Valjean the importance of giving in life, is played by Cedric Hardwicke, a British stage actor whose stoic demeanor made him desirable for films in Hollywood. The important role of Cossette as a young lady was handled by 19 year-old Rochelle Hudson, whose youthful beauty landed her good roles leading up to Les Misérables. This also mark the first major notable films for John Beal, playing Cossette’s love interest Marius, and Frances Drake, in the abbreviated role of Eponine. Both Beal and Drake were newer faces in Hollywood at the time.

The overall production of the film would be praised for its work and execution of the literary classic. The size and quality landed the film much success and respect, including Academy Award nominations for best picture and best editing. Many critics of the time would land the film on the year’s top movie lists, including #6 on the National Board of Review’s top pictures list.

Through the passage of time the film would fade in importance to adaption of the novel, being far overtaken by the wildly successful Broadway musical first ran in 1980. Among American made film adaptations this version stands among being a highly thought of pictures. The story would be remade numerous times, both in unique versions and revivals inspired by the musical. Still this film on its own stands as a good solid piece of cinema that can be honored in its unique adaptation. Charles Laughton gives a wonderful performance in the supporting role, which lies in his long list of great roles, though somehow would be overshadowed by another performance he would have in a film released later in the year, Mutiny on the Bounty. It may not be everything the novel is, but it is a good film on its own.