I agree with Wild Rose about the singing. I never saw either Russell Crowe or Hugh Jackman as singers, anyway. How did they end up getting the parts, I wonder?

Actually, Hugh Jackman has a history of doing stage theater, including musicals. His involvement in a production of Oklahoma! is part of why we know him today (it helped people outside Australia to know and recognize him).

Incidentally, I had a professor who saw this production, and he said it was a bit strange, given Jackman's image in Hollywood films, to see him doing all those song-and-dance numbers.

Note: I apologise in advance for the length of this post, and the amount of emoticons in it. Ok, proceed!

wrose, no worries! Everyone has a right to their own opinions... especially when it comes to well-loved stories!

I agree with Wild Rose about the singing. I never saw either Russell Crowe or Hugh Jackman as singers, anyway. How did they end up getting the parts, I wonder?

Actually, Hugh Jackman has a history of doing stage theater, including musicals. His involvement in a production of Oklahoma! is part of why we know him today (it helped people outside Australia to know and recognize him).

Yeah, in fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all, if Hugh Jackman had done theatre before entering film acting! (think he did, actually) As for Oklahoma! I saw him in that when PBS showed it once, years ago. I remember thinking "Wolverine can sing? SWEET!".

I'm not saying he's the best singer I ever heard, but he's definitely talented. I mean, the guy has won several theatre awards, including the Tony Award... the highest theatre award you can get! I don't think he'd have gotten that if he wasn't qualified, so I have no problem with him being cast as Valjean.

Not sure what Mr. Crowe's background is though. I'd have to do some digging.
...........
Ok, I guess it's my turn now:

1) How (and when) were you introduced to the story?

Gosh, I forget. Though probably the musical? Or a song or two from it before that? I wish I could answer this for you all, but my mind is blanking.

2) Do you prefer the musical or the book? Or are they equal?

From what I've read of the book, I'd say that I would like them equally. But I'd have to read the whole book to be sure.

3) Which characters do you like best, and why?

a) Jean Valjean- It's his story, and I love seeing the power of God in his life.
b) Gavroche- The kid is hilarious, and has a good heart.

I think I like most (or all) of them on some level, for various reasons. But those are my top two, for sure!

4) Have you seen the musical? If so, how many times?

I know I asked about the musical, but I'm going to add in the regular movies too. (my question, I can add to it if I like! ) So, let's see...

Films/Concerts
1) the Liam Neeson one... at least once or twice.
2) an old one, that I never got to finish. I think it was from the 50's?
3) parts of the 25th Anniversary Concert on youtube
4) the 10th Anniversary Concert... lost count how many times

Live Performances
1) The Muny- twice... a couple days apart. The first time, I went with friends and the barricade didn't turn. I forget who took me/how I got there the second time, but, I do know the barricade turned that time! This might have been in 2007?
2) My old high school- it was the spring musical in 2010, and a really good friend of mine was Valjean. (I have since watched it again at least twice on dvd)
3) A high school in a nearby town- sometime recent... like, 2011 or 2012. And let me tell you... they had one of the best Gavroche's and best Eponine's I've ever seen! (counting live, and seeing tons of youtube videos)

I think that's all? I forget.

5) What did you think of the new movie?

Um, I haven't seen it since December 29th, and I only saw it the once. Can I wait til I've seen it again before I answer? All I know, is that I was immensely happy on the way home, so much so that my sister yelling the whole way home didn't phase me... rather, it amused me!

6) For my fellow theatre people out there... if you could be in the musical, who would you want to play... and why?

As much as I love the girls parts, I think all the best parts in this show are for the boys. I mean... Enjolras, Javert, even Marius! But in all seriousness, the ones I'd most want to get in the heads of... to be... would be my fave characters, Valjean and Gavroche.

-I mean, Valjean has some amazing songs and moments, it'd be fun to explore his life's story. The range of emotions he goes through is incredible!

-As funny as it is, though, I think I'd have the most fun with Gavroche. I mean, awesome lyrics, hilarious attitude, quick wit and mind... and he even has a huge depth to him, though his cockiness hides it well.

I don't think it would ever happen, but it'd sure be funny (and fun!) Besides, girls have played boys parts before... Peter Pan anyone? (not to mention, at the playhouse... I've seen a woman play Tobias in Sweeny Todd, and a friend of mine in her late teens/early twenties being Colin in Secret Garden. and the production at my old high school? Gavroche was played by a girl)

Ok, that's enough from me. But I'll probably be back!

Hah, it WOULD be a thread about Les Mis that gets me to post for the first time in months (years?). (hiya, Narniaweb!)

Re. the movie finale:

Spoiler

Originally, the barricade was supposed to represent the success of the 1848 revolution, not be a "woohoo heaven=warfare and struggle!" sort of thing. Actually you can distantly see Marius and Cosette standing on the barricade if you look reeeeallly closely. I believe they changed it because it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for people who aren't familiar with the history, and/or because it doesn't make much sense for people who are, either (Louis Napoleon declared himself emperor three years later, which wasn't exactly what the revolutionaries in Les Mis were fighting for!). So all that considered...I guess I see why it turned out the way it did, and the history nerd in me would rather have it represent heaven than 1848. (Not to mention that that would de-emphasise the spiritual aspect of the story.) I agree that it is a little odd and doesn't totally fit the lyrics, although I can't think of any more effective ways to stage it.

Wild Rose, your line about France's heaven being a place of endless revolutions made me laugh really hard. Oh, France.

Stargazer, that video is one of my favourites! Never gets old.

Musical vs. book: The book--you get so much more backstory and depth, and I really enjoy all the historical context. Well, most of it The Friends of the ABC are one of my favourite parts and they get very little characterisation in the musical, and Musical!Eponine is a little bland IMO...Book!Eponine is dark and insane and fascinating. There are a couple things I like better in the musical than the book, though, like the way Javert, Valjean, and Thenardier's views of God are contrasted (Javert isn't really religious in the book), and Marius' PTSD/survivor's guilt.

Favourite characters: Andrea, your questions are just cruel. All of the Amis, especially Combeferre (learning, cleverness, loyalty! Love his relationship with Enjolras, and how he takes down Marius in three words. Best ever). Valjean's redemption is heartbreaking and amazing. Gavroche is brilliant and I love how seriously Hugo takes him, he's not just this cute kid like in a lot of the movie adaptations! Grantaire fascinates me, he is so complex. I sympathise with him a whole lot, and I'm glad he found redemption, of a sort, in the end. Honourable mention for Feuilly and Montparnasse. It baffles me how Hugo makes so many relatively minor characters SO INTERESTING while some of the major ones don't have a whole lot of layers to them at all.

Movie thoughts: I've seen it three times now, and it's grown on me every time. There is SO MUCH to notice! Especially if you've read the book...they put an incredible amount of effort and thought into the most insignificant details. It had plenty of imperfections, which I will probably grow more annoyed with at some point, but right now I've just re-fallen in love with the story again and I don't even care.

Okay def. time to shut up now

Wowow, Alyosha, so great to see you here again. And I really appreciated your post. I have only been a Les Mis fan for a few years (having only devoured the book for the first time maybe five years ago), so it's great to hear from those of you who have known and loved the story much longer.

I am about to head out to pick up two copies of the Deluxe Soundtrack from the film, which releases today—one for our family; the other for a friend's upcoming birthday. So eager to hear the abundance of musical pieces that the original soundtrack did not include.

(Jo! Hi!) Enjoy the soundtrack! I haven't gotten it yet, but I'm really glad they released it, because a recording that does not include Do You Hear the People Sing? is just fifty kinds of wrong.

"Only" five years? what are you talking about. I am no expert, just unhealthily slightly obsessed (may or may not have gone to see it a fourth time the day before it left theatres. Ahem. )

Anyone got the DVD yet? I've seen bits and pieces of the bonus features, looks like some good stuff! I'm looking forward to introducing it to my younger siblings, now that I can discreetly fastforward one or two parts.

I bought the DVD and have watched favorite parts several times. I've also listened to just a little bit of Tom Hooper's commentary. Trivia abounds! Here are a few highlights I've picked up:

And in the spirit of the Peter Hollens "Misty Mountains" video, here is One Man Les Miserables by Nick Pitera.

Wow! Is the DVD out already?

I agree with Wild Rose about the singing. I never saw either Russell Crowe or Hugh Jackman as singers, anyway. How did they end up getting the parts, I wonder?

Actually, Hugh Jackman has a history of doing stage theater, including musicals. His involvement in a production of Oklahoma! is part of why we know him today (it helped people outside Australia to know and recognize him).

Yeah, in fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all, if Hugh Jackman had done theatre before entering film acting! (think he did, actually) As for Oklahoma! I saw him in that when PBS showed it once, years ago. I remember thinking "Wolverine can sing? SWEET!". .....Not sure what Mr. Crowe's background is though. I'd have to do some digging....

It seems that Hugh Jackman got his acting training through a degree course with UNSW (University of New South Wales). Russell Crowe, who is a New Zealander by birth, and who part-owns the local Sydney Souths Rugby League club, also got some training in theatre/acting in Australia, which is where he lives. Any such training, especially in Hugh Jackman's case, would involve singing and dancing plus playing a musical instrument, as well as acting in theatre, television and movies, I believe.

I didn't think there was anything wrong with the barricade at the end. It was where so many of the characters died in the story, the movie etc. In the Last Battle, there was a stable outside which there was a battle, wasn't it?

Oh, I agree that the barricade should definitely be there, especially since they are singing about the barricade, but I suppose I sort of wish that they made it not so grey and more green, like a huge garden being beyond the barricade and the people climbing down into it, or something like that.

Musical!Eponine is a little bland IMO...Book!Eponine is dark and insane and fascinating.

oh I do agree with you on this, to me it seemed Eponine wasn't really given much depth or character, she's just sort of portrayed as a girl whose hopelessly in love with Marius. I also didn't quite enjoy the way the movie portrayed her, she didn't look dirty enough. She's ragged to a certain degree in the movie, but she didn't strike me as being a beggar girl, who drinks and is so miserable, that at times she contemplates suicide, which is sort of the impression I got of her from the book. She's a person I compare with Fantine, but while in the movie, Fantine's misery and despair is portrayed really strongly, Eponine didn't come out as the book portrayed her (again, this is just my opinion)

I so agree about the Bishop coming to greet Valjean at the end of the movie, I loved that very much, Eponine really didn't make sense greeting him at all and I thought that was kinda strange in the musical, cause she isn't connected to him at all. I do greatly love the little things they put in the movie to make it more according to the book, like the escape to the convent, Gavroche taking the letter to Valjean instead of the musical version of Eponine taking it and other such things. Though I generally tend to lean more negative towards the movie that doesn't mean I don't like it. There are some parts that I really enjoyed (like the bargain scene, they played that out so well, it's one of my favorite scenes) I also LOVED the opening scene, it really gave a feel of misery and wet and cold and unpleasant, despair and hopelessness, it's my second favorite scene in the movie

I really want to reread the book again, I haven't read it in a while and I want to compare it with the movie and the musical with a fresh rereading, but I have got to finish 'Ben Hur' first

*wanders in*

Well, I can say that my knowledge of Les Mis has increased to a substantial degree!

I am currently reading the book (translation by Norman Denny) and am enjoying the read so far. I think I've said this elsewhere: there are some very quotable and beautiful lines and ideas, and others I do not like at all. But overall, the story is interesting so far. I have made it to around page 650 - so, a little more than halfway done. I might buy the book because it's a literary classics and certainly, it has many qualities that show it deserves that rank and reasons for which I would buy it, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to call it a favourite at this point.

The trouble is, I enjoy the story and the detail Hugo puts in, but the writer and the reader in me both say "You shouldn't be taking this long to tell me this story!"

Yes, that sums up how I feel about those digressions! I enjoy how he sets up certain aspects by going into long descriptions, but at some point, it's like Hugo was trying to get as close as he can to the line of the reader's impatience. I question whether the book as a whole (rather than very eloquent sections of it) would qualify as a good exposition in essay evaluations.

I got around to seeing the 2012 film. . . Before I give my opinion, I should clarify that while I like musicals, I have not actually been to many and am not used to seeing a story carried out through that medium.
So. Ahem. No disrespect meant to those who liked the film!

I finally got to see Les Miserables. I'm a HUGE fan of the musical and I was dying to see it. But to be honest I was a little disappointed .
The pacing really put me off. The film just flitted between songs with very little to connect them. And this was exasperated by them cutting out portions from over half the songs. I know they did it to shorten the run time, but the film felt extremely rushed a lot of the time.
And also the cinematography was very inconsistent. Some of it was amazing, while at other times it was just plain awful.

But it wasn't all bad. The cast was great. I even thought Russel Crowe did a good job. His voice did falter once or twice. But I think his deep voice was perfect for Javert and his acting was perfect.
And a lot of the songs are so great they couldn't ruin them if they tried.

In short I liked it and I hope it brings the musical more fans. But I think with a different director it could have been phenomenal.

I know I'm now in Les Mis territory...but I found this most amusing; I haven't seen the film, but based on the story and the musical, it's very true, and extremely funny. Seriously...

AslansChild, that is a pretty good satire of the film, yes.

I watched the film a few weeks ago with my family, despite having only made it to the end of Part II. I really should made some more headway with this book. My general opinion of the book so far is that Hugo has a gift for words, but he kills his story by taking too long to tell it. I don't think the story would work as well if it were written like most books are today, but just a tad more streamlining would be nice.

That said, I still get snatches of the musical's songs stuck in my head.

Interesting points, shastastwin. I have differing opinions of the book when I read it as a reader and when I read it as a writer.

As a reader I enjoy getting immersed in Hugo's 1800s Paris (though I too found myself occasionally wishing he'd get on with the story.

I also enjoy it as a writer - his mastery of the written word - and how it's contrary to many of those "20 rules for getting published" lists one can find on the internet. I suspect those long rambling diversions would be anathema to getting published today, as we hear so much about using concise language and getting to the point in our own writing. This isn't a criticism, by the way; just an observation. And there are times I can see the influence of what I'm reading upon my own writing style at the time.

I think there is a good reason for the rambles, however. Victor Hugo, along with many of his contemporaries of the 19th century, wrote the way he did because there wasn't much entertainment as we see it today, especially for women, whose husbands' wealth dictated whether or not they worked, even around the house. A nice detailed book with plenty of imagination and description would have gone a long way.

The sort of detail that Victor Hugo and others put in their books must have compensated for the scenic effects we see in films and on TV. Even radio must have shortened many books.

AslansChild, I really enjoyed parts of that video. Thanks for sharing that.

Well, I finished the book about a month ago... I don't know if I can adequately say everything I'd like to about it, and this is just the first reading. I can say that a) the Bishop was my favourite. b) I really enjoyed Parts I, II, and half of III, but I was not generally that fond of the rest of III, IV, and V (there were parts in these I really liked, especially Valjean's growth and some aspects to the revolution, but I guess what I did not like was the primary plots being featured and I was not fond of grown up Cosette.) I'll be reading it again, but not in a while, probably.

I agree with all the thoughts above. Interestingly, my sister (who does not have much tolerance for needless frivolity in literature) said she liked Hugo's writing style, with the digressions, because some really help set up the background. (Much like a radio broadcast, the way wagga said.)
I think that helped me appreciate some parts of the books. I did like the descriptions that had meaning to them, but I was really irritated by some that I just skipped the Battle of Waterloo (All but the last chapter) and the sewers of Paris (after really, sincerely trying). But there were other more character-driven digressions that I enjoyed, like the street urchin, the Bishop's lifestyle, etc.

Like Gazer said, I enjoyed Hugo's mastery of words. At some parts, I just read them in awe and wondered how someone could think of communicating in a way that was open, poignant, and fitting.

I have differing opinions of the book when I read it as a reader and when I read it as a writer. [...] I also enjoy it as a writer - his mastery of the written word - and how it's contrary to many of those "20 rules for getting published" lists one can find on the internet. I suspect those long rambling diversions would be anathema to getting published today, as we hear so much about using concise language and getting to the point in our own writing. This isn't a criticism, by the way; just an observation. And there are times I can see the influence of what I'm reading upon my own writing style at the time.

Ditto. Seeing Hugo's writing style encouraged me to get to the point so as to not do the same to my (prospective) readers, but it also encouraged me to ease up a bit and try focus on creating a rich background. I felt like, while a good deal were tedious, some of the diversions were justifiable in explaining events. I found the book influenced how I wrote, too, in a way that I appreciated.