Utterly ridiculous. If you love diversity and want to give black actors a chance, then why not adapt a story with actual black characters? Or better yet, make up a whole new story yourself. Why are they so afraid to do that instead?
shareI had no problem with it. The entire production was excellent. Great acting all round.
shareCouldn't disagree more.
Anyway, if they love diversity and want to give black actors a chance, then why not adapt a story with actual black characters? Or better yet, make up a whole new story themselves. Why are they so afraid to do that instead?
Couldn't agree more. It's a fake representation of history.
shareJavert shouldn't have been black and you're right that it makes no sense, but I don't see how you could disagree that it was overall an excellent production with great acting.
I saw it, noted that Javert was black and was slightly annoyed by this, but otherwise loved it (and thought that David Oyelowo did a fine job with the role that he had been given). In fact, I loved it so much that I bought it on Blu-Ray and purchased a DVD copy for my parents, who also enjoyed it.
The Les Miserables musical is garbage. The 1998 version is good but lacks the run time to explore the story in great depth. This version, however, is a masterpiece. Despite being a six-hour time commitment I've watched it twice.
I'm not at all fond of the novel, but this production suffers from the same problems as most period dramas these days. From the casting to the acting, the sets, the cinematography, the directing and the script (with all the usual unnecessary changes to the story), it just doesn't feel historical. It all feels so modern, if takes you out of the story.
shareI have not yet read the book, but I do intend to at some point. It's just so fucking long and I'm a slow reader.
If you haven't seen it, perhaps you would appreciate the 1998 film. Liam Neeson plays Valjean and Geoffrey Rush does an excellent job as Javert. And, I think, it feels sufficiently historical.
Never read the entire novel either. I concluded Victor Hugo is not for me.
I already saw the French version with Gérard Depardieu years ago. That was enough.
I didn’t see it as a “diversity thing”. I saw Javert was being played by the talented David Oyelowo and was excited to see what he’d do with the part.
If you want REAL historical authenticity then it should start with the whole story being told in French.
Maybe they should've cast a woman? Or a midget? Or a child? Or even a very talented dog? Javert being black simply doesn't make sense. Some roles just aren't meant for some people.
I'm not sure if you're really that naive, but they're putting minorities in every single period drama these days. This is not simply a coincidence.
Telling the story in French would certainly add a lot of authenticity and I actually believe the French are most suited to adapt the story (which they have already). But having the characters speak English is just a communication device. Changing race is a whole other thing.
It’s not a documentary. Watch it, don’t watch it. Whatever, you’re choice. I still give it my recommendation.
share"It’s not a documentary"
Please don't use the same lame argument the folks back on IMDb always did. It's reasonable to expect historical accuracy not to be sacrificed for something silly like "diversity". It's also reasonable to expect an adaptation to not unnecessarily deviate from the original source.
It's certainly my choice not to watch the rest of the show. It's also my choice to express my opinion about the show and NOT recommend it.
The setting is historical, but the characters are fictional so I don’t get the sacrifice. If I wanted to know about the French Revolution, I’d read a historical account or watch a documentary. Les Mis is a classic novel because it has themes that transcend it’s setting. By taking a non-traditional approach, the director invites the viewer to explore those elements, or not.
shareSo you wouldn't mind those fictional characters walking around in a historical setting with cell phones???
If you want to know about the French Revolution, you definitely shouldn't read Les Misérables, because it has absolutely nothing to do with that.
If the director wanted a non-traditional approach, he could've set it in modern times or in space. Changing a character's race adds nothing to the exploration of the story's themes.
Well I found it to be a good show and the actors were all decents but it definetly seemed a diversity thing.
It's very obvious to me that any novel written or cultural production created before 1970-1980 was done with what I could called a "default ethnicity". If it's a French novel, all the characters were obviously white because almost everyone was white at the time in France. When the character is non white, it was specified. It's like saying it wasn't specified it was a french person so it could be an English or an Italian person. Of course not, it was a french person by default and it was specified if it was not.
So it seems to make more sense to cast people of the right color in historical productions. Of course, it's not always possible so you got to use talents around you. I mean if you're in Japan and you want to make a shakespeare adaptation, well you will use japanese people cause that's what mostly there. It's less authentic but well it is what it is. I don't know in England today if there is that many black people but there sure seems to be still a lot of white people so they should focus on white people for such an adaptation.
But, sure, people of other ethnicities have the right to work too. It's just for historical productions like this, I feel it's less authentic. It seemed to me a diversity agenda from the productions. I mean, nothing prevent them to put a lot of different ethnicities in a new production/creation. Another reason making me very annoyed by such a casting choice is would that be the contrary, I feel like people defending a black Javer would go hysterical. What I mean is if we were doing a movie on let's say a zulu tribe or on Saladin, I don't think the same people would appreciate to see white actors playing ethnic characters. In fact, we can actually see that kind of people saying it's "racist" and it's "white washing". So for me it has to be one way or another but not both.
Anyway, Javer obviously wasn't a black character nor an English person speaking English in French countryside so I took it that way : a white Frenchman Javer speaking french was played by a black Englishman speaking English. At the end of the day, it's ok, it's a movie, an actor tries to play a role.
I blame Hugo for not writing more black characters.
share