Victor Hugo

  • Les Misérables (1935)

    Les Misérables (1935)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, March 2020) A few reasons explain why Hollywood was churning out so many adaptations of classic works of literature in the 1930s. For one thing, it suddenly could—the arrival of sound meant that dialogue could be used without interrupting the flow of the film with title cards. For another, keep in mind that the movie industry had been born out of vaguely disreputable origins by moguls marginalized from the more respectable sectors of American industry—as a result, they were eager for cultural recognition as purveyors of fine arts, and adapting classic novels was a shortcut to that. Thirdly, such films were great showcases for the many disciplines of studio cinema—set-building, costumes, makeup and classical actors. Fourthly, but not lastly, such films had a built-in audience: the classics were part of the curriculum, audiences could recognize familiar titles and Hollywood made money. Considering all of the shortcuts that were often taken at the time (simplification of plotting, if not outright amputation; iffy special effects; acting taken straight from the stage), it’s a wonder that many of them turned out to be quite good, even to today’s audiences. And that finally takes us to the 1935 version of Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, which somehow manages to cut down the massive original novel into something adequate within 103 minutes, featuring great production values and able actors like Fredric March and Charles Laughton in lead roles. While this is in no way a faithful adaptation, it’s a well-executed costume drama for the masses, and part of the film’s fun for those familiar with the Hugo novel are spotting the ways in which the story was cut to fit. While purists will howl, the result is rather entertaining—even today.

  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (YouTube Streaming, November 2019) As much as it won’t please its fans, silent cinema is often an ordeal to watch: if you’re not interested in the history of cinema, there’s not a lot in there to like other than a few comedies. So it is that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a struggle to watch. Let’s not deny its importance: It was a box-office hit in 1923, it was a large-scale production that clearly warranted much of Universal Studio’s confidence, it featured Lon Chaney and it’s considered by some as the start of the Universal Horror line-up. But if you’re looking for straight-up entertainment, well, there’s the 1939 version with sound and Charles Laughton to watch. Even then, the silent version is not that unbearable—as mentioned, a lot of effort has been made in bringing this version to the screen (recreating Paris in Los Angeles with thousands of extras), and you can at least appreciate that kind of craftsmanship. It’s historically important, at least, and you can chart the evolution of the Victor Hugo novel into its later, much streamlined adaptations by using this as an early data point. If you can get into the mindset of silent movies, this one is significantly more interesting than average by virtue of production means and horror-adjacent moments. But this should not be anyone’s introduction to silent film—so keep The Hunchback of Notre Dame in reserve for after you’ve built up your tolerance to the slow pacing and title cards.

  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)

    The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (On Cable TV, October 2019) I’m clearly showing my age when I say that it’s weird to see a big-budget live-action version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame when it’s so readily compared to the Disney version. I know—it’s an unfair comparison, especially to the original Victor Hugo novel or the 1923 silent film. But it’s not entirely without foundation: The 1939 version, after all, codified many of the elements that even the 1996 Disney version reappropriates for its own use. There are a few other interesting things as well: Charles Laughton is quite good as the titular hunchback, even in the grotesque makeup he has to wear for the entire film. Meanwhile, Maureen O’Hara is spectacular as Esmeralda. Then there is the lavishness of the production, which doesn’t skimp on the massive crowds and the expansive sets that its premise requires, revolving around Notre Dame Cathedral and the rest of Paris as it does. (It was, at the time, one of the most expensive movies ever made by RKO studios.) There’s a little bit of weirdness in having the story interrupt itself to explain the power of the printing press, but that’s forgivable in its own way. This 1939 version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a big-budget spectacular in all senses of the word, and that quality does make it watchable even today.

  • Les Misérables (1998)

    Les Misérables (1998)

    ByChristian Sauvé Movie Review

    (In French, on Cable TV, April 2017) The most famous big-screen version of Victor Hugo’s novel Les Misérables has to be the 2012 film which adapted the musical on the big screen. I thought it was annoying, boring and exasperating, but I’m far more upbeat about the straightforward 1998 version. Featuring no less than Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush in the lead roles (with some assistance by Uma Thurman and Claire Danes, plus a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it minor role by a then-unknown Toby Jones), Les Misérables cleverly focuses on the essential aspects of the original, convincingly re-creates the historical period and manages to wring a lot of emotional impact out of its dignified treatment of the subject. It’s not exactly a thrill ride, but it unfolds at a steady pace for a historical drama, and it doesn’t overstay its welcome through repetitive musical numbers. While the 2012 version does have a few more spectacular moments (helped along by the state of special effects circa 2012 versus 1998), the non-musical version feels more focused on the story and more satisfying as a result.