Claire Danes in Les Miserables

[NIGHTJESSI]

I had taped this movie when it aired on Bravo a while back, but I didn't have a chance to watch it until now. Having just seen the musical live last month, I was curious to see how the movie would fare.

*
*
*
*
*
*

SPOILERS

*
*
*
*
*
*

Claire Danes as Cosette was a fun role to watch since this came after MSCL. There were shades of MSCL's Angela, especially when she was enamored with Marius. I do think she did a good job of bringing life to the character and showing what it was like to be sheltered and later to find love.

Has anyone here seen this movie? I'd be interested to hear what you thought of Claire's performance.

"When you drink from the cup of life, chug." ~ Citibank billboard

[So-Called Loon]

Highly underrated show.

Found it to be a very good version of the story and Claire fit in nicely, if a bit Angela-ish.

The performance to watch, however, was Uma Thurman as Fantine.

[NIGHTJESSI]

According to Zap2It.com, this movie is slated to air on Bravo Wednesday, 11/6, at 7 p.m. EST and Thursday, 11/17, at 4 p.m. EST.

[Greybird]

Claire was luminous in this version of the story, and a convincing grown-up (at 17 or 18) yet unworldly daughter Cosette to Uma Thurman's earlier, even more accomplished Fantine. Their physical resemblance is remarkable, as you may know if you see the video cover art or a poster. (They never appear together, of course, on screen.)

It is well worth a video viewing. The story is not really "Les Miserables," though, in many respects: Javert's demeanor is different, Paris has a wall, Valjean and Cosette did not settle in an abbey, the Paris revolt comes off quite differently in the streets, Marius and Enjolras are combined into one less interesting character, and there's a happier ending for a younger Valjean. If you've seen earlier film versions, you may be disappointed at the differences.

(It also is not like the musical, which took its own smaller liberties at compressing and combining events. The most striking difference here is the nearly complete absence of the Thenardiers, the brigand husband and wife, and an effective dramatic counterweight on the musical stage -- they might have been too obtrusive here.)

Liam Neeson is almost too compassionate a Valjean, but Geoffrey Rush is a more convincing Inspector Javert (still, once again, not Hugo's obsessive-unto-death Javert). The flavor of the time is evoked by the settings, mostly in the Czech Republic, though that wall around Paris -- dramatic help though it may be -- interferes with the authenticity of the plot events.

Claire's passion and expressive eyes carry her through the plot, even with the lapses in her English accent -- the motive for which is obscure, really. (Neeson and Thurman are Americans, Rush is Australian.) The callow fellow who plays Marius(/Enjolras), unfortunately, doesn't have the political or romantic fire to be memorable.

Not the definitive modern "Les Mis," which may wait for a fleshed-out film version of the musical ... but it's worth a rental, certainly, especially for Danes fans.

[NIGHTJESSI]

Wow, Greybird, you really put some thought into your post and it was interesting to hear the detailed differences. I have seen the musical live, but I'm not familiar enough with the story to really look at all the different nuances. Still, I loved seeing Claire in this, simply because she did so well in the role. Then again, I have a feeling that I would say that about anything I saw Claire in.

[Natasha (candygirl)]

I haven't seen the film version that you guys are talking about, but I totally understand where Greybird is coming from - I inevitably compare the book to the movie, and the book usually comes out on top. I'm sure that the film, like the musical, had to make cuts due to time constraints - the book has so much going on that it would be impossible to show everything without doing a mini-series (like the Thorn Birds) - but it's always disappointing when you notice what has been left out.