LC and I watched the BBC's adaptation of "Les Miserables" over the course of last week, culminating with the final episode on Saturday. In truth, midway through the first episode I had inklings that we were wasting our time, but we stuck with it on the grounds that it might pull together by the end.
We might as well not have bothered. I wonder at what point those involved realised that they'd gone to all that effort and all that expense, and produced something that was less true to the novel than the musical, if indeed they did at all?
In fairness, I do have to give credit where it's due: the cast were actually almost uniformly excellent, and did a very good job with the material they were given. And the production itself was lovely - the costuming, the settings, the music... all great.
But the problem was that the cast did a very good job with the material they were given, and I'm afraid that material just sucked. Next time, maybe they could employ someone to do the adaptation without changing the antagonist into a caricature of himself, without turning a tragic death scene into a melodramatic farce, and without inserting a highly inappropriate not-quite-incestuous relationship between the hero and his adoptive daughter.
Two other things:
In the book, Fantine's degradation comes about entirely as a result of being an unwed mother - as a consequence of that she can't find work, is abandoned by all her friends, can't show her face in polite society, and yet is expected somehow to feed both herself and her daughter. It is this problem, and the utter desperation that results, that leads to her leaving Cosette with a seemingly-sympathetic stranger. And it is this stigma that leads to her supervisor sacking her from the factory when she finally does find work.
The adaptation dances around that stigma against unwed mothers, which makes Fantine's decision to leave Cosette, and especially her decision not to go back for her, looking positively insane. Now, I could just about understand that, since times have changed and hopefully so too has the stigma against unwed mothers... except that that's the whole damn point! One of the key themes of the book is that Valjean is absurdly criminialised, losing 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread; and Fantine is absurdly victimised for a foolish misadventure in love.
The other great theme of the book is the redemption of Valjean, the outsider who nonetheless represents the Christ-figure * in the story; as contrasted with the Pharisee-like Javert who represents the established order. And the story is highly critical of the organised church with its empty ritual, as contrasted with the living faith of the Bishop of Digne and Jean Valjean.
So to produce an adaptation of the book without actually mentioning God is an... odd choice. (The adaptation does have plenty of the trappings of religion, with plenty of churches, nuns and convents, people taking Mass, and so on. But God himself was absent from proceedings.)
* Actually, it would be more accurate to liken Valjean to St Paul, after his Road to Damascus conversion. Almost literally, in fact, given that his turning point comes after his encounter with Petit-Gervais on the road from Digne. But that requires a bit more knowledge than the Christ/Pharisee contrast.
Oh yes, and they missed out the elephant. Inexcusable!
#11: "Pathfinder: The Dead Roads", by Ron Lundeen
No comments:
Post a Comment