Being totally honest, I must admit that I have never read Victor Hugo's classic novel, so I really don't know if any of the versions are true to it. I also must admit that this 70's version is the first one I ever saw. I rented it from Blockbuster in 2004 (on VHS), and I was so moved by it, that I watched it for three days in a row (until I had to return it). I then bought the DVD and probably watched it at least a half dozen more times before ever seeing the two earlier versions; therefore, when I finally got around to the earlier versions (in 2007 or 2008), my heart had long since accepted Richard Jordan as Jean Valjean. While I would like to one day watch the 90's adaption (with Liam Neeson), that hasn't happened yet, so this 70's version remains completely intact on my top 10 list of favorite movies.
I'm pretty sure most eveyone knows the story of Les Miserables, but in the event I'm wrong on that, I'll give a brief summary. In late-18th century France, Jean Valjean (Richard Jordan) steals a loaf of bread and is sentenced to five years in prison. Because Jean attempts to break out of prison on two different occasions, additional years are added to his sentence, until he ends up having to serve twenty years. Before the end of the sentence, though, he does manage to escape, and he sets out to begin a new and honorable life. Inspector Javert (Anthony Perkins), one of the prison guards, who lives by the absolute letter of the law, makes it his life's work to track Valjean down and return him to prison...no matter if it takes decades. Javert is totally obsessed with re-capturing Valjean, and it is, of course, destined that the paths of the two men will cross again.
As I said, this adaption of Les Miserables, is by far my favorite...it's easily on my top 10 list and a 5-star film for me. Here are some of the reasons why: Anthony Perkins is totally beyond fabulous in the role of Javert. Neither of the other versions had him as devious and cruel as this version, and Perkins played the role to absolute perfection. Additionally, the way they aged him here was amazing...it truly showed how his obsession had made him ugly through the years. Neither of the other versions aged Javert. (Charles Laughton portrayed Javert in the 30's film; Robert Newton [who I have never heard of] portrayd him in the 50's version. While both men were adequate in their roles, neither, in my opinion, came close to doing the brilliant job Perkins did.)
The repentance scene at the feet of the bishop was very touching in this movie, far more than in the 30's and 50's versions. Valjean was totally broken and sorrowful for his crimes, and that sorrow was very evident in this version.
The escape scene with Cosette was exciting and suspenseful, and neither other version had that scene. (Perhaps it wasn't in the book, but that doesn't matter to me---it made the movie exciting.)
Finally, I thought Richard Jordan's sensitive portrayal of Valjean was wonderful---better than Michael Rennie (50's) or, much as it pains me to say it, Fredric March (30's). As a huge Fredric March fan, I somehow feel disloyal to him by preferring someone else's portrayal to his, but being brutally honest, I know it's true. This version---and Richard Jordan's portrayal of Valjean---moved me in a way the earlier versions did not.
This film is out on DVD (as are the earlier versions and the 90's version), so it should be fairly easy to track down. I'd be interested in hearing everyone's thoughts about this magnificent story. Which version do you prefer? Have you even seen this 70's one? And what about the Liam Neeson version? Has anyone seen that one? What did you think? Please share your thoughts with me.
Happy viewing!!
