Why this deleted scene from Les Mis (2012) would not have fit well in the film:
I have some feelings about this little bit of the Les Mis 2012 commentary.
I feel like if anyone were to have killed the soldier who murdered Gavroche, it should and would have been Courfeyrac or Grantaire.
Marius is not the type of character to react in anger, and that's what's special about his character.
Marius is a character that is full of passion and strong emotion, but what makes him special is that he isn't vengeful or short-tempered. He's calm and compassionate in a way that sets him apart from other characters similar to him or his archetype.
Marius is the type to be less concerned with vengeance and more concerned with the grief of the loss of Gavroche. Revenge would certainly not be the first thing on his mind when faced with Gavroche's death, but shock and grief would be.
Courfeyrac or, more fittingly, Grantaire in this case, seem like they would be more concerned with vengeance than Marius. Courfeyrac less so because he would be so shaken with the loss of Gavroche. However, he was the most attached to Gavroche in the film, and more likely to act in anger than Marius would be. However, Grantaire would be a fitting choice for this action because firstly, Grantaire is attached to Gav in the book and the musical. Secondly, Grantaire would be the most likely to seek vengeance in any case. He's petty, vindictive, cynical, moody. He would seem, when looking at his character, that he would be the most likely to do this. (However, after looking through some of your comments, It's possible that Grantaire was asleep during this part of the battle. At least, in the book he certainly was)
Whilst I'm not sure if it should have been included at all, it is an interesting concept, and thanks for reading this post, I know it's long but I wanted to blab about my funny little guys and how they act.
Got to see one of the 40yr anniversary Les Mis amateur performances!! I enjoyed it, thought it was good, and the cast did really well. Thank you frens who came with me <3 <3 <3
Just putting down some thoughts, a bit of a ramble, some stuff related to LM musical more widely. It’s great that they did these amateur productions! Having more productions overall is lovely, as I’d hope it’d allows for new ideas, new stagings, etc.
- Wasn’t sure about the electronic screen backgrounds at first. Obv understand there are more limitations with this production, i.e. how many set pieces they can have, and I did think they ended up using it well, not being too reliant on it
- It did feel like a remarkably white cast. Not saying anything against the actors ofc but I felt it was noticeable, especially as productions I’ve seen tend to have far more POC, especially in the bigger roles
- Petit Gervais inclusion! Is it standard to include him now? I haven’t seen enough productions to know but he’s appeared in several
- I don’t know if it’s my favourite song overall but ‘I Dreamed a Dream’ is prob my favourite to watch performed
- They had a really big cast, but I do have mixed feelings on it. Generally, think it’s a good thing (also more employment!) but at times I felt it made things a bit crowded in this production (maybe bc it’s a smaller theatre?) – have written more on this below!
- More open flames, though not as overboard as Paris & whoever was on lighting absolutely flashbanged the audience at one point (/lh)
- They did a transition with little Cosette & Eponine becoming their older versions either side of JVJ. Really liked that, never seen it done before – also emphasises the changes in social position between them
- idk if I’ve talked about it before but I never know how to feel about the bit in Master of the House where Thénardier takes advantage of a blind patron. They’re antagonists, but because they’re comic characters in the musical, the line between humour at their behaviour and criticism of it becomes blurred? Like are we laughing at the disabled patron? Thought about it especially as here the patron was played by a disabled actor
- A very Valvert adaptation lol (/pos)
- They had quite a few bits off beat (idk the proper musical term). I think it worked better in some places than others, didn’t feel it worked so well with JVJ’s lines for example but did with Javert’s – but someone who understands music theory could probably explain it better than I
- Cosette & Marius shared a very passionate kiss during their garden meeting, which felt a bit jarring. Not that it’s necessarily bad! I just haven't seen it before and I'm obv more familiar with their novel counterparts (where it feels unlikely)
- The sniper bit was incomprehensible in how it was staged, so it does seem like Enjolras just gives JVJ their prisoner for no reason? Idk I feel like it could be made clearer, esp for people who aren’t familiar with the story
- Poor Enjolras was really struggling with those French names (/lh)
- I felt the lack of politics. To me it felt almost tacked on & absent of any real context (some cockades do not a political message make), so like can you blame people for not knowing which historical event LM is set during if they’re not familiar with French history/the source material? Bar the Lamarque line, there are no context clues for what rebellion/what they’re fighting for apart from something vaguely progressive (I do think the changes to Gavroche’s lines in 2012 help a bit with this). I’m not blaming the actors or this performance, I think it's issue with the musical generally!
- But at certain points it seemed too many people were on stage, so the revolutionaries became an amorphous group. And with so many ppl on such a small stage, some of the dynamism & movement was lost/not present, which usually adds to a). the revolutionary fervour, b). atmosphere of Paris, thus the suffering of the people, and c). the individuality of these characters/the people of Paris. E.g. no real preparations for the armed resistance during One Day More or Do You Hear the People… - which dampens the impact of their deaths/sacrifice if they aren't 'characters' i.e. people, at all
- Some of this is probably preference ofc, how much can you fit in a 2-3h play, but imo it’s important that LM is a collective story/epic about society not only individual characters – so imo they could have maybe had a less crowded & thus more active staging at these points. I did really like the fall of the barricade and the final image we were left with! It was very evocative (again though, less people on stage by that point)
- You cannot make me like English Turning (Turning in general). Obviously, this isn’t anything to do with this performance!! I just kept thinking about it. I know it’s been beaten into the ground, but it does damage to the message of LM. I know I was talking about a collective story, but you get the aspects of grief & hopelessness from Empty Chairs... so why keep stressing it after the political aspects have already been watered down (the musical also gets rid of the horror of Fantine’s poverty)? It just serves to weaken it. Which means the only political message left is in Beggars at the Feast a song I like! But crossed with comedy feel it can get lost. And the finale I suppose but the EN lyrics are also mixing with the religious overtones (the good future will be in Heaven). I do like the musical, but I think that’s why I nitpick it!
- I liked the costumes worn by the Thénardiers in Beggars at the Feast! Very faux-riche, almost mocking the bourgeoisie, felt different to other costumes I’ve seen. Similarly, Bamatabois’ costume was so over the top, almost like he came from a different show /pos
- Marius was giving it his all in Empty Chairs. Great rendition!
- They kept the original queer line but noticed they got rid of the ‘Jew’ part and replaced it with ‘from Peru’. Idk how I feel about the latter. I get the impression they’re trying to change these lines to remove the prejudicial elements, but again, these are antagonists, are we not meant to find their behaviour uncomfortable? Also, it feels like you can either read the Peru line as a). a non sequitur, or b). xenophobic. If we’re going for the latter, then we’re just changing Thénardier from being anti-Semitic to racist. Or is it to avoid the iffy implications of a Jewish person being member of the (social) elite? Am I overthinking this? Probably
I feel like I came across really harsh! That wasn’t my intention, I was a great production, I’ve just used it as a jumping off point for my wider thoughts on the musical!
My thoughts on Fannie by Rebecca F. John, the LM Fantine retelling
(for the folks in the discord server :))
All just my opinion! But would be interested to hear anyone else’s thoughts too. It’s a retelling of Fantine’s section of LM, author stating her aim as was to have Fantine as the focus of her own story, which is so defined by the men around her, and give her more agency. It is very much a musical based book! There is a mention of Fantine/Cosette’s hair colours which made me think the author might have been familiar with the source material…But in the end I don’t think so, it’s solely based on the impressions you get from watching the musical.
I wanted to like this, I went in with as open a mind as I could…but unfortunately, I found it pretty lacking. A LM retelling focusing on Fantine could be really interesting I think, and there’s plenty within Hugo’s original that you could criticise, e.g. ugliness = evil, the slavery thing… I know this is based on the musical, but I couldn’t help thinking about it in connection with the original novel…This could have had more depth if it was in discussion with that imo. John says it was written as a vent of frustration, sympathising with Fantine after watching the musical, and I see that, but it feels like it could have done with some more depth to it.
I won’t go over all the differences in canon, but basically everything not specified in the musical is the author’s own, which is fine I suppose, it just feels strange when there are already answers to lots of these things. E.g. what job Fantine had, how she met the Thénardiers, etc. Like I suppose it’s fine, but some of it didn’t feel very thought through. She’s living in the same place she lived with her ‘gentleman’ and where she had Cosette for several years – yet no-one is supposed to know she has a daughter? Also, no Marguerite :(
Because it is based on the musical, it goes very, very fast. It’s like 2 days between getting fired and the end. The musical I understand doing this, it’s a limit of the form, but if you’re writing a book surely you could draw it out more? In the original novel, there is the slow but unavoidable decline, the relentless struggle of poverty… It’s just so rushed, it almost doesn’t feel realistic. And it feels a bit silly when she sells her hair and teeth immediately after being fired, and then tries to look for a job afterwards, complaining now no-one will hire her when she looks as she does.
Fannie goes on and on about how ugly other women are, especially those working at the docks. Fantine was naïve, not very worldly, maybe a bit proud, but I never got this impression from her. The supervisor hates Fannie specifically because of her personality here. It is noted that the supervisor extols the morality of working…but this commentary in the novel, with Mme Victurien’s religious prejudices, felt more in depth. Fannie comments on the supervisor 'should she choose to frown a good deal less, she might be quite beautiful', which…’Just smile more and you’ll be pretty’, said Fantine? Sure, Hugo links ugliness to bad character, but why are we doing it here?
Later, Fannie says about herself 'however ugly she is now, she need not lower herself to bad habits' and, even if all this ugliness stuff is her inner monologue/self-deprecation, the latter bit is weird...just bc she has manners she's not better than others suffering… Later: 'will she be taken on her merit rather than judged on her appearance? Might she [...] be taken seriously? Fannie stifles a snort of bitter laughter. A picture of the dock women has entered her mind'. So, to some extent Fannie is aware that it’s not about appearance: ugliness/dirtiness doesn’t make a person ‘bad’. Even if the intention is that Fannie has to unlearn this, I feel this issue could have been better dealt with, or actually have Fannie reflect on this prejudices she holds directly. Fannie does eventually come to see that the sex workers are not bad people, but this insistence on ugliness continues to be so present. For a feminist novel, it just felt…lacking in commentary.
After getting her hair cut/teeth removed, Fannie ‘feels safer somehow, knowing that they will not desire her'. This line just made me feel a bit icky, probably not the author’s intention, but SA isn’t about appearance, rather power…
I’m going to go on about agency, and I feel that’s fair enough, if the author wanted to make a version of the story where Fantine had more of it. I just…don’t think she succeeded. Fannie is supposed to have more agency in this, but honestly, I don’t see it. She often doesn’t do anything herself/decide on her own. Tbh I feel like her having agency/character is more present in the Brick…
Before she is fired, Fannie hits the supervisor but doesn't retaliate verbally as she does in the musical or try and explain herself. She leaves with her head held high and won't beg. But would trying to explain herself make her lesser somehow? Would it be less agency? I note as it’s a direct change from the musical, but I don’t feel it adds anything? Her voicing her complaints/the injustice is equally valid as a response. Fannie appears to feel that showing emotions is bad, she has to stay strong & proud…The musical Fantine arguably put up more of a fight for herself compared to this version where she ‘has more agency’. The book does comment on the unfairness of situation and how it's other people forcing her into this (her lack of agency is so interlinked to the themes…) but feels like very basic commentary
The character of the ‘Mother’ I struggled with, I’m not sure what the author was aiming for. The Mother is a figure who comes along and convinces Fannie to sell her hair/teeth, gets her work as a sex worker, etc. But she just ends up making the decisions for Fannie instead (imo). There’s also a scene of her being very violent towards Fannie, just to prove a point. I could never decide whether she was supposed to represent something positive, this courage of women, or negative; it’s suggested she’d skin a cat for clothing and is compared to a gaoler. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t know what the author was going for here.
Towards the end, Fannie is 'relieved to have even these small decisions [...] made for her'. And I empathise with the feeling, but...like Fannie has never had enough agency to make decisions shown for this to be a point? Sure, she verbally consents to having her hair removed, doing sex work, but it’s still a forced decision, because what other option does she have (esp when encouraged into it as her only option by this mystic Mother figure). I think you could very much write about Fantine and her (lack of) agency, but it’s hard to give her agency in any true sense when the story is about how her situation becomes what it is because of that lack of agency (through poverty, lack of social power, etc). You can comment on it, definitely, but imo how it was done here was lacking.
At the end, Fannie 'knows that she - she alone - can effect change'. Can she though? How? It’s a societal problem, not an individual one. And yes, they do gain their freedom (possibly) at the end (see below), but…hm…
The author purposefully doesn’t give anyone but Fannie/Fantine a name. As a narrative choice, I don’t have a problem with that, but it then feels strange to refer to various sex workers exclusively by their (sex) work personas and not give them names, or at least some other way to refer to them? It’s even commented on by one of the women - 'our names are the first thing they took from us'. (there is no doubt more to be discussed on this, but as I have never done sex work, I don’t feel qualified to comment on the representation of it in this book).
There’s a point where Fannie walks past and ignores another girl being physically assaulted because it’ll mean the girl will lose out on payment. I only note this because it reminded me how, at least in the musical (at least the one’s I’ve seen), the women usually try and help Fantine when Bamatabois/Javert attack/harass her – in contrast to the factory women.
On Valjean, who gets like two mentions (fair enough). He is 'well-intentioned [...] but too busy to notice their discomfort'. Idk, I think that makes JVJ pretty bad? But it’s never commented on any further. The foreman is not only sexually harassing his workers, but he also makes them work in bad conditions & is just generally cruel. The predatory aspects come from the musical ofc. She doesn’t ever seem to place any of the blame for her situation on JVJ. But when I went back through the Brick, Fantine does feel anger towards JVJ, and I think that’s justified. He was in part responsible, but it was through his (religious) prejudices/ideas of morality, which didn’t account for the complexities of real situations, is still unjust to some people in society, etc.
Referring to Fannie: 'she has never been properly loved', 'none had wanted her for what she was, only what she could offer them'. Even her parents explicitly didn’t ‘love’ her. It’s a valid enough sentiment, especially if we’re commenting on how women are only wanted for what they can provide, as objects, etc, but this just stuck out to me, as love is such a core theme in LM. And I’ll get onto Cosette later.
I’m not trying to be mean. Maybe if you were just kind of familiar with the musical and wanted something easy to add to, I guess it might be a nice little read. And I did like some aspects! The last few chapters were probably the strongest. I liked her writing a note directly to Cosette! The Cosette stuff in general was good! (she does refer to Cosette as a Swan when the Lark was right there, but that’s me nitpicking) I wish there had been more of that though, especially as compared to how much she reminisces on her ‘gentleman’ it seems unbalanced, particularly as a book supposed to not be about the men. And I agree with some of the social commentary, i.e. one needs money to be free, patriarchy, etc. The description of her alienation from her own body. I just wish it went further, because it’s not saying more than what you get from just watching the musical.
The ending is strange (spoilers). I take it to be like a fever dream or something? Fantine, the Mother, & the other sex workers at the docks steal a boat, going towards ‘freedom’. There was a ship = freedom motif already ongoing, & so I think the ending’s fine. Apart from her deciding to abandoned Cosette! Granted, it’s just ‘for now’ but…idk it gave the impression Cosette was one of the things taking away Fantine’s agency. Sure, having children will do that, but I don’t think that is this (Fantine’s) story, her love & sacrifice for Cosette is such a big part of LM!
I hope this made some sense. Again, this is just how I felt, I suppose mostly underwhelmed at the lack of any real substance, and some stuff which almost felt regressive for a ‘feminist’ novel. But ofc, if anyone else fancies reading it, it’s not very long, maybe others would get something else out of it
I’m always reminded of the first time I saw Les Mis in the West End when it rains. Partly because carriehopefletcher singing a little drop of rain was fracking gorgeus, but mostly because 18 months later, my ankle still like to remind me when I sprained it really badly falling off my heels on a kerb in soho
i'm entertaining myself with trying to get down all my modern au les mis headcanons on paper
it's a bit of a mess especially everyones love life
and grantaire knows like 7 languages which is more than even jehan (who knows 5 but is learning 3 more) and most likely no one realize that he speaks more than english
oh yeah enjolras and cosette are the only actual french in the group and everyone lives in london
about two years after i first started watching it, i started to watch shoujo cosette again
because there wasn't enough les miserables in my life
so eh anime enjolras is a hottie and has my headcanon hairstyle from him
and i just love courfreyac
but i have yet to recognize the rest of the abc friends - except for comberferre and marius (who have a serious lack of freckles) - and honestly i barely know who is who in the movie either
can have something to do with the lack of name mentioning, but makes it hard to picture them when i read fanfics
which is literally all i do
So, during my math lesson, I was listening to one day more, and then I just started to imagine who in my class would be singing which part and I ended up where I alwys end up no matter what I'm thinking about. I want to put up a les mis musical at my school. I really really want to. And I want to be in it, even if I can't really sing... WILL YOU JOIN IN MY MUSICAL WHO WILL BE STRONG AND STAND WITH ME??!! oh god I'm pathetic... But I just really want to be in a les mis flashmob. Or a play. Yeah okay, now I'm actually gonna do my homework. Bye. And sorry for the rambling.
