Nate: So Lowell, after watching the movie, which did you like better, the novel or the
movie?
Lowell: After watching the movie, and reading the book I have to say that I have found
good in both. They were both different, yes. However they both touched me and made
me think. I also feel that the movie didn't follow the novel very well, but was a very good
show non the less.
Nate: Yes, I agree, the movie did have its good spots, and I became confused with the
movie, as I watched it after reading the book. My pet peeves are that they can make a
movie based on a book, and not follow the book. I liked the book much more, but the
movie did give me some insight to the novel as well.
Lowell: Well, in every film there are directors interpretations, along with all the ideas of
how to make it better, and more interesting to the viewer. If the movie followed the book,
it would have been many, many hours longer
Nate: So, let us start at the beginning. In the first little part of the movie, what did you
notice was different between the book and the movie?
Lowell: Ok, all throughout the movie I saw differences. It started when Jean Valjean was
entering the city. The first thing was how he stole the silver and such from The Bishop.
And then it even skipped Petit and the coin incidence.
Nate: The one thing you missed there was the fact that when he entered the town, he
didn't stop at any inns. It just started with him asking that old lady where he could stay.
Another thing that I noticed, was that they skipped the whole area where Jean goes back
to the galleys, and his identification number changes.
Lowell: Ok, not all the points are shown, but some are implied. First of all, Jean is lying
in the street and the lady asks him if he tried the inns, he says yes....and then she asks if
he has checked the houses....then she tells him to ask in "that house over there," and
yes, they made Jean run away and take Cosette, not him escaping on the ship.
Nate: Good point Lowell, the one thing that I also saw, was that they spent no time
talking about the old Gorbeau house. In fact, it didn't even exist in the movie!
Lowell: Yet again another big part missing from the story.
Nate: Even the whole story of the Thenardiers, they were finished when Jean picked up
Cosette!
Lowell: Yes. I think out of anything, that was the worst change for me. Thenardier was
done then....in the book, they have SOOO much to add to the meaning of the play. And
Without Eponine and the link for Gavroche it made it hard. So much was missed and
changed without Eponine, it was hard seeing it again after reading the book, because
Eponine becomes such a part of it all, and so many people can relate to her.
Nate: The most of Jean Valjean's position as Mayor, was very close though. It showed
his whole fight with Javert, and even brought a good insight to the story.
Lowell: Yes. I cannot diss the movie at all. I first watched it before I read the book, and I
was in awe. I loved it soo much! It made me think, and it hit most of my emotions.
However after watching it again for the second time, I saw so much missing, and so
many holes. But there were still those parts that they did an excellent part of. The whole
Fantine part, it was excellent, even if she didn't pull her "PEARLS", which would have
been disgusting!
Nate: Also, Chapmathieu brought serious comic relief to the movie, when Jean went to
the courtroom to turn himself in. Except, instead of going to jail, escaping, and rescuing
Cosette--He runs away, and rescues Cosette, and goes straight to the convent.
Lowell: Yes, but I like how they portray Cosette in the movie. They do make her out to be
shallow, and spilled. This is how I felt about her in the novel also. And again, they had
Marius be the leader of the ABC's, not Enjolras. That is a disappointment, because I
really liked him, and his character
Nate: I felt annoyed that they skipped the whole part about Marius' life, with his
grandfather, and how they were fighting. This was a disappointment, because it takes
away from Marius' character. The one thing I did like, was that they didn't make him
such a chicken when talking to Cosette in the movie.
Lowell: I think we could pick at minor details that were changed until we have come up
with MANY pages, but that takes out the fun in it all. I think that part of literature, and
learning is accepting all things, and taking them for what they are. If you sit through the
movie, or musical for that matter, and only look for the differences, you will miss the
similarities, and the whole message of the change.
Nate: I like your thinking Lowell, I agree with you. The movie does have its similarities to
the book, but the differences are what makes the book the classic piece of artwork, and
the movie, a directors opinion.
Lowell: Correct. The book is the classic. And if you are wanting the true effect try
reading the full book. And if you care to, watch the musical. This is a different way of
looking at the same story. It tugs at different emotions, and you sit in awe and
wonderment. I hope some day that a movie will come out that follows more closely the
real thing. And yes I do agree.....Marius becomes a very shallow character in the movie.
He has no depth, he has no reasons for doing anything. Victor Hugo did such a good job
of telling of his history. Although you have to read through tons of pages on war and
such to find this out! haha
Nate: The part that blew my mind, was the whole area where Marius had the chance to go
to Cosette instead of fight, and he chose to fight.
That brought the most depth to his character
Lowell: Ok, yes, that is one thing about reading, imagination. And I think that Hugo
wanted the reader to use theirs! He was constantly giving new detail, and more and
more of it. But for those poeple without that, the movie did a good job of making it
realistic. Yes, Marius knew what he had to do, and what he was fighting for, and he had
to stay and fight. Again, the book does it better. Marius is fighting because Cosette has
left, and he has nothing to fight for, other than the cause.
Nate: And this is where Jean escapes from Javert. He first frees him, and then Javert
captures him, by following him through the sewer. After Jean takes Marius through the
sewer, Javert captures them, and orders guards to escort Jean to where he needs to take
Marius. Then they were instructed to bring Jean back to them. This is where the book
differs so much from the novel. Jean first told Javert where he lived after freeing him.
Then, Javert let Jean take Marius alone to get care for him.
Lowell: Well, that whole part was different yes, but nothing that changes it to major. But I
think the movie doesn't show enough reason into why Javert kills himself. The novel
has a lot to say about that.
Nate: Yes, the movie shows Jean witnessing Javert's suicide, because of Javert freeing
him at that moment. I thought this was a poor ending, because, as you said it doesn't
give enough reason to justify Javert's death. The book made that one case of suicide
look noble, even though suicide is wrong.
Lowell: Ok, Nate, I have a question for you. Do you think that jean Valjean was in love
with Fantine in the movie?
Nate: Yes I do, but it was an unrequited, brotherly love toward her. Jean saw that Fantine
had had a really rough life in the past, and was prepared to help her get a better one
(provided she stayed alive). This love for her was not a “sexual” love if you will, but it
was more that he cared for people now, and he felt bad for neglecting to deal with
Fantine's problems, when he was faced with them.
Lowell: Yes, some people say that he loved her passionately, because of his line when
he is talking to Cosette "I Loved her" But in the book it says that he had not loved for 20
years or so, and the first person he loved again was Cosette
Nate: Well, I think that we should now rate the book and movie, based on our synopses.
What do you say to a two thumbs up on the book, and a one thumb up for the movie?
Lowell: ok, well...can we have 5 thumbs!? hehe
Lowell: yes, LOWELL and Nate give Victor Hugo's "Les Miserables" 2 very large and
wacky looking thumbs up!
Nate: there is 4 between us.
And on the movie?
Lowell: Yes, 4 for the book!
Lowell: And 2 for the movie....well, I say 1 or 2 for me, how many for you? 2 for book for
me, and 1-2 for movie! hehe
Nate: So as you can see, we both really like the book, and the movie, will rank below,
unless they bring out an unabridged version of it.
And on the movie, NATE and Lowell give a one thumb up, and one heavily warted thumb
sideways! Hey Lowell... now that we have done the Siskel and Ebert thing, lets try to
direct the unabridged version 6 hours of Les Miserables.
Lowell: Oh brother!!!
