Remember that iconic character Fantine Thibault? No? Characters with no other purpose than to be expositioned at are also invented whole cloth, it's all truly amateur. On the topic of Hugo, I suppose this writer never considered that he didn't give his characters full names for a reason, and has decided to amend that grave error. It would've also thoroughly stripped both lovers of their innocence rather than just the one, instead I'm left pondering why Cosette gets the opposite treatment compared to every other role. To complete the insult I'm surprised there was no implication that the couple would go on to be unfaithful and embittered with eachother, just to really hammer home that all of Fantine's sacrifices were for naught and Jean Valjean would have been better off leaving her with the Thénardiers (their children seem a lot happier with their lot in life). Why? Because degrading everything is what makes good TV? Writer didn't like Marius and/or Cosette? They got mixed up and accidently read a fanfiction and used that as source material? No idea, but considering the autobiographical details he added to this part of the novel Hugo is spinning in his grave. Rather than realising that one day love affairs only work in musical theatre and taking the opportunity to flesh out this part of the story with scenes from the novel, instead a large age difference and a couple of off-putting scenes (suggested by nothing in any other version of the story that I've come across) have been introduced making it clear this Marius does not have eyes only for Cosette. She's styled like a golden-locked fairy princess, however simultaneously her love story is ruined. Bizarrely, amongst this relentless "realism" Cosette sticks out like a sore thumb. Les miserables full movie trailer series#In fact if this series called itself "The BDSM Love Story of Inspector Javert and Jean Valjean" I'd be a lot less harsh, it does sort of work as a very boring parody. Oh, and horrible characterisation, to almost parodic levels. The only things it has to differentiate it is is added violence against women (realism!), a depressingly pessimistic ending (which goes against Hugo's message), sexualisation of child prostitute Éponine (fairly certain this writer has a virgin-whore complex and learnt nothing from Fantine's story), racist casting (cringe-worthy in the case of Thénardier who becomes a slave trader), no empathy for the dispossessed (Fantine is apparently stupid for seeing becoming a prostitute as a last resort) and poor depiction of LGBT people as deviant (they are in the background of a completely unnecessary and added brothel scene, but otherwise absent). This isn't an adaptation of Victor Hugo's book, it's a remake of the 2012 film, which makes it an adaptation of adaptation of an adaptation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |