From Sasha's most recent post:
No, it's not. Les Miz is about a failed student uprising in June of 1832. The French Revolution was in 1789-1799. No wonder she was confused.Les Misérables is about the student uprising that eventually led to the French Revolution, the underclass unseating the monarchy in France.
Last edited by steve4922; 11-27-2012 at 06:42 PM.
Les Mis fanatics!
Can Eddie Redmayne win? Can be start a new babe factor for the men?
They won't give Deniro a 3rd after decades of crapola! Arkin already got 1 lame win this decade, 2 is not allowed! The Master buzz has fallen faster than Lindsay Lohan's career so that might hurt PS Hoffman! And Tommy Lee Jones stole Ralph Fiennes Oscar! And Russel Crowe is being laughed at in the credits!
It could just be the stars are aligning here!
This is why Julianne Moore has never won an Oscar
I think that since the just rewarded a super-veteran last year, they'll go (at least statistically) for a first time winner and normally someone a bit younger. However, I think that this year that'd most likely be DiCaprio, with Redmayne behind him. However, buzz wise I'd say TLJ has it right now.Originally Posted by DameMelissaLeo
Les Mis fanatics!
Can Eddie Redmayne win? Can be start a new babe factor for the men?
They won't give Deniro a 3rd after decades of crapola! Arkin already got 1 lame win this decade, 2 is not allowed! The Master buzz has fallen faster than Lindsay Lohan's career so that might hurt PS Hoffman! And Tommy Lee Jones stole Ralph Fiennes Oscar! And Russel Crowe is being laughed at in the credits!
It could just be the stars are aligning here!
Obviously not, since the Academy is made up of balding, saggy old men. His looks are actually a hindrance!
Poland hating Les Mis was written in from day one. After his hideously embarrassing "Phantom" love in, I knew he would react like this to save his own ass from embarrassment again.
Oh Lord Jesus, Anne Hathaway's winning an oscah
To be fair, this is something the musical has knowingly danced around for years. It (arguably wisely) plays down the specifics to make the whole thing feel more like the revolution audiences know.
Well, perhaps the film is different, but every stage production of Les Miz I've seen always begins with a projection of the phrase "1815 Toulon" on a scrim. So it's pretty obvious that the story is not set during the French Revolution. So if you're publishing an article describing the movie, it would be nice if your basic facts were correct.
Sad to see Russel won't get a nomination however, excited that Seyfried has a chance.
as good as it gets
I mean, Sasha apparently didn't understand why Javert was looking for young Cosette either, so...
This of course assumes that most people know the French Revolution was not in 1815. I think this assumption is wrong.
The question is: does it matter for the story if this is set in the French Revolution or during student protests or whenever. I honestly don't know, I have never seen any production of this, nor read the book.
I will marshall all the forces of darkness to hound you to an assisted suicide - Peter Capaldi, In The Loop
Well perhaps it's not essential to Jean Valjean, but the difference between a people revolution like the original one and student protests is pretty much the whole reason why Marius, Enjolras and the ABC Club exist. These are bourgeois kids fighting for the masses as opposed to an uprising of the masses themselves.
You should watch the 1934 French film, Au, it's amazing.
He has great interviews on his channel. I don't read any of his reviews.
In the script that was leaked, there were even more explicit captions. It apparently starts with something like "1815. The French Revolution is only a distant memory. Monarchy has been restored and blah blah blah". Maybe thos captions described in the script haven't made it to the final cut, but maybe Sasha was just not paying attention...
I disagree with Ciro about the students being bourgeoise, lol. Hugo clearly said that the 1834 revolt was the seeds of the 1848 one (that finally threw monarchy away for good) and makes clear that the students are also poor and besides supported by part of "the masses". Not enough part of "the masses", or else the revolt would have succeeded, but he certainly doesn't paint them as rich boys playing revolution alone, and the show doesn't go that route either. Enjolras even sings about that, exhorting them to take things seriously and not as a game "for rich young boys to play".
I take back the bourgeoise part, that was a poor choice of words. Bourgeoise implies wealth, which is not true for all the kids of the ABC. What I actually meant was that this was a new class fighting, not a rich class, but definitely one that grew from the ideals of the first revolution and because of the first revolution could get an education that was never a part of the big masses that moved the 1789 fights (of course there were many exceptions, there were students in 1789 too, it's just that historically the more relevant part of the French revolution seems to be left-wing politicians and peasants). So it's more like an "educated" class rather than a bourgeois class, I guess? I'm not sure I'm expressing exactly what I mean and I read the book almost 15 years ago so I could be wrong. But I feel that this being set during student protests is essential to characters like Marius and Enjolras, characters that I can't see playing major roles in a 1789-1799 setting. So, to answer Au's question, I do think that understanding exactly when this takes place is important to get at least the second part of the story. But of course that is only true if the audience actually knows what exactly happened during the first revolution.
Last edited by Ciro; 11-28-2012 at 03:54 AM.
This I agree with!
BUt I still don't think it's essential to get the second part of the story. People have always loved the show without knowing all this.
Marius and Enjolras would not have played a major role in the the French Revolution (that starting in 1789) mostly because they were not mass murderers. The original French revolution of 1789 was first a revolution against "privileges" and keen to proclaim "human rights" but ended up engendering a terror regime which indulged in mass executions everywhere in France - hundreds of thousands were killed. The French revolution was led by "bourgeois" and intellectuals in Paris not by peasants.
The 1832 insurrection was first a political protest by some representatives that was accompagnied by popular unrests in the streets of Paris.
I think the spectacle of the show is so big and moving and entertaining that people (myself included) would have loved it even if it included Cleopatra fighting Napoleon riding an unicorn.This I agree with!
BUt I still don't think it's essential to get the second part of the story. People have always loved the show without knowing all this.
To continue this side note: Hugo's novel is great because of Hugo's literary genius. He had a gift for creating strong and memorable characters and, of course, was an incredible writer and poet, whose lyricism can transport the reader. Some chapters of the book are incredibly powerful. However, les Misérables is not a realistic book - Hugo is not Balzac in this respect. Because Les Misérables is a melodrama and not a realistic book, it is not especially subtle as a political commentary on its time. It is a bit manichean. Hugo viewed it as a rant against poverty. Also, Hugo is not always consistent or coherent in his views. Les Misérables is a book against poverty and against violence. And yet, Hugo's lyrical description of Waterloo shows that he was fascinated by Napoleon and war - while the napoleonic wars had ruined France.
That being said, Les Misérables is one of the most extraordinary books ever written and if one gets bored with the description of the Picpus convent, here is my advice: skip the chapter. Better skip Hugo's digressions than not finish the book.
Last edited by Semp; 11-28-2012 at 04:16 AM.
I haven't read Les Miserables, but the long sections of the nunnery and the Napoleonic Wars, it reminds me of Michael Douglas in Wonder Boys. "It's beautifully written, but I don't think we need to know about the race horses dental records".
I'm with CocoActual Items
In the Year 2000
As more and more people start having sex with robots, it will become increasingly embarrassing to buy a can of WD-40.
Posting Permissions
