#remove that and you lose a major facet of what make Bishop Bishop

[adelrambles]

Idk if you’ve ever fully answered this on your blog but: DO YOU THINK Bishop fully redeemed himself in the future? By becoming president and uniting all races? Or is he still 🗑️

Oh man no, I don't think Bishop's Good Guy act is all that genuine. I think there's some change, but at his base, beneath all the subterfuge, he's still the same guy. I may have gone over this on the blog before, but like ey what am I gonna just get handed this opportunity to ramble ad nauseum and not take it? NEVER

There are a few pieces of evidence we can read into regarding the faux-ness of Bishop's new persona. First and foremost, for me, is the two instances where he presents the turtles with his "origin story," so to speak. In each instance, he keeps the details vague, and is very hesitant to admit to any direct wrong-doing on his part. The first story is so vague on the details that it feels like he's trying to brush past the turtles' concerns as quickly as possible. The SECOND, though. Bishop consistently dances around going into any detail about what he did or why it was wrong. And he goes on to push all of the blame onto Stockman! I mean honestly, he says Stockman "took things too far." Like dude!! We already know nothing is "too far" for you! It's very suspect to me that the subsequent lab collapse could have been ALL Stockman's fault. Bishop also elevates his own accomplishments and takes full credit for the success of the PGA. Idk but there's something really insidious to me about how he presents the information to make himself look as good as possible-- and the way he's able to convince at least a few of his former enemies that he's trustworthy.

There are other little inconsistencies in his behavior, like him writing off the turtles' warnings about Sh'Okanabo. The Bishop I know is a paranoid freak, he would never in a million years brush off a lead on a possible threat without checking it at all. And if we assume that, then that suggests Bishop said as much to give the turtles the impression it wasn't something worth looking into, meaning he was probably trying to direct their attention away for some reason. All of this tells me (if we just. ignore the possibility of it being a writing flaw agdhgshd) that Bishop is still a very cold and calculating personality, fully willing to throw others to the wolves for his own purposes, but he is WAY better at manipulting, now.

I've said before that I find it likely Bishop's weakest point is his social skills; we see that his superior officers (i.e. the president) dislike him-- which, frankly, is a detriment to his cause as it put his funding in jeopardy at least once that we know of-- and everyone he meets tends to come away some level of discomfitted. So what FF presents us with is a Bishop who needed to improve these skills for the sake of his ultimate goal. If the safety of earth requires friendly relations with aliens, then he needed to become an ambassador, and if he needed to become an ambassador, then he needed to be less overtly unpleasant. Thus, he changed tack. As a result, we have someone who appears trustworthy and is very good at lying and directing your attention, but is just as utilitarian as ever under the mask. That's just his job, after all.

Other details include:

- His intro. We see Bishop personally taking time out to go through monitors all over the city. He apparently has a very thorough surveillance system that he reviews himself. Again, paranoid freak.

- When addressing the turtles, we sometimes see him slip back into snarkier comments. This usually happens when he's frustrated (snapping at them for not attacking the Mouser fast enough for his tastes,) or when he's not being obeyed (making a snide comment about Cody having nightmares when they refuse to exclude him from a mission briefing.)

- As my friend Trauma pointed out to me recently, when storming the moonbase Bishop's men had their guns defaulted to lethal force, he had to give the order to switch to non-lethal. He was fully ready to wipe that place out.

- His willingness to include the turtles and later Cody on missions strikes me as, yknow, very utilitarian in its own right. Cuz those are teenagers, yeah. It could be argued that Bishop can't tell how old the turtles are but he definitely knows Cody is young, and knows well enough that he shouldn't be in a combat situation. But in the finale he praises Cody's decision to defy him and fight anyway. So what changed? In essence, Cody was effective. Bishop is fine with child soldiers as long as they do a good job (and can't be publicly traced back to him.)

Also like did you see that car chase? He ran civilians off the road and did not give a FUCK. That's the same guy.

[angedemystere]

My Rewatch of Les Miserables, 1998

Ah, yes, I have decided to revisit that much panned film version, directed by Bille August and starring Liam Neeson, Geoffrey Rush, Uma Thurman and Claire Danes (and Hans Matheson and Toby Jones thrown in for good measure). This movie holds a complicated place in my heart by being the adaptation that introduced me to Les Miz, inspiring love for these characters and spurring me to look into the musical and the Brick itself .... only to then earn my distaste for all the inaccuracies from the original text.

So, now that I’ve revisited it with fresh eyes and a barometer by which to compare it to other adaptions, is it as bad as everyone says?

Well ... it depends.

Let’s start with how this stands as a movie.

First, the cinematography. In terms of setting and sets, this film is gorgeous. It starts with nature scenes (opens early on with a shot of the river ~ooohh~ foreshadowing) and provides a strong sense of location and space. Now I think in certain urban scenes, especially when the story moves to Paris, there’s a lot of washed-out grey that kind of blends together. It does have a purpose: to portray the desolation plaguing the poor that’s stirring l’ABC to action. Even so, it can be harder to focus on the details when color blends too much. Other than that (and some not necessary close-ups), the filming is dynamic, easy to follow, and overall really nice to look at.

Next, the script and pacing. The scenes within themselves are for the most part effective at getting across character and important information and making interactions feel natural. (The one bench scene between Cosette and Marius might be the exception - can no one write romantic banter well? Or is this true to how awkward romantic banter is in real life? Tell me, I have no idea). Of course you’re dealing with characters like Javert (and lovestruck teens) who make natural dialogue a challenge, but in the movie’s first half, there’s a strong reliance on exchanges from the book itself to make it work. 

Pacing within scenes keeps at a steady clip while giving time for important moments to breathe. But then the movie has to deal with time jumps, which can be awkward since we the audience are forced to reorient ourselves. The first jump works better because we’re meant to feel some suspense about what’s happened to Valjean between his encounter with Bishop Myriel and his being mayor. We instead meet Javert and follow him to his new post in Montreuil-sur-Mer I’ll ... get to that later. When he’s introduced to the mayor, we realize it’s Jean Valjean! That’s pretty satisfying. This movie most succeeds in the first half in giving us enough about Valjean, Javert and Fantine to get who they are, what their situation is and why we should pay attention. 

The next time jump brings us to 1832 and teenage Cosette. This time we’ve missed out on seeing Valjean and Cosette’s relationship grow, and not a whole lot is shown to solidify what their relationship has been like in the convent and what they stand to gain or lose by leaving that environment. We do get some insight, just not as much as I would’ve liked. 

Now, how are the actors? Everyone does at least a decent job, even sometimes a brilliant one. Liam Neeson brings warmth, shy awkwardness, and humanity to the character in ways that feel genuine. The awkwardness is most endearing when he’s interacting with Fantine, which is a deviation from the novel that I really don’t mind because, damn it, they’re just so cute! Speaking of which, this addition of a mild Valjean/Fantine romance (don’t worry, it’s as raunchy as kindergartners holding hands) actually plays a role in how Valjean handles Cosette and Marius’s romance. There’s a bit of lampshading when Cosette acknowledges that she has pretty strong feelings for a guy she’s known only a few weeks and it’s not rational, but her feelings are no less real. And Valjean respects those feelings because he experienced them in his own way with Fantine.

Hang on ... hang on a sec ...

Okay, I’m fine. BBC 2019 miniseries, eat your heart out.

Uma Thurman captures Fantine’s vulnerability without overselling it. She pleads for her case while flip-flopping between honest frustration and appeasing servility. But I must ask this: when her hair was cut, why wasn’t it cropped shorter? Maybe a clause in her contract? Also, no tooth removal. The filmmakers probably wanted Fantine to still look attractive enough for the little romance budding between her and Valjean. Points off for accuracy but still effective in pathos.

I remember not being a fan of Cosette when I first saw this film, not through any fault of Claire Danes or the writing but because I cared more about the Valjean-Javert dynamic than her romance (not predictable of me at all). And she can be pouty, but that poutiness is often justified by her cooped-up existence and a desire to live more freely. I also have renewed appreciation for the fact that Cosette 1) stood up to Valjean when he slapped her, especially given her abuse at Mme. Thenardier’s hands, 2) stayed fairly calm while lying to Javert’s face, and 3) held Javert at gunpoint while she freed Marius. For her sheltered upbringing, girl’s got nerves of steel.

This Marius, while still foolish (slipping out of the barricade that he’s supposed to be in charge of to visit Cosette and being not at all subtle while stalking her), has more sense than book!Marius. Granted, he’s undergone a fusion with Enjolras, but I understand the decision, which I’ll address shortly.

And Javert .... Javert is probably the hardest major Les Miz character to pin perfectly in any adaptation. This is for a couple reasons. One, because films have limited time, certain scenes that can establish an otherwise unseen facet of a character are often cut. This frequently happens with Javert’s later scenes: the police station (where he burns his coattails) and the Gorbeau house (twice - one when he’s disguised as a beggar, the other when he jokes about offering his hat and rebuffs Mme. Thenardier’s assault with his “claws of a woman” comment). Two, his frequent run-ins with Valjean are altered from being coincidences to international face-offs orchestrated by him, making him much more fixated, even downright obsessive, about catching Valjean. On both fronts, Rush’s Javert suffers from these cuts or alterations. But when it comes to the performance he delivers? 

This is the silhouette of a man who makes criminals wet themselves.

Is he my definitive Javert? Oh no. That dream has yet to come true for me. But I rank him in my top five preferred Javerts. I do have issues with some of his actions, like toppling the mail coach (just .....why?), smacking Fantine, and pointing a gun in Cosette’s face. That’s the wrong kind of asshole or creep for him. I do think it interesting, on this rewatch, to be reminded that this Javert’s mother was a prostitute, and when Fantine is harassed by Bamatabois and then retaliates, he first holds back from interfering (and stops the captain from interfering) and then “takes care of this” by slapping Fantine when she tells him the gentlemen started it. I don’t see Brickvert doing any of these things, but the purpose of this moment is to give us a glimpse into the depth of his hatred for the class of people his parents came from. We don’t know why he hates them so much apart from his overall moral and philosophical perspective, but you can’t help but wonder about what he experienced in his early life that would make him act violently toward a woman with the same occupation as his mother, but ONLY when she lashes out (understandably) at a member of good society. This outburst could also explain why he fixates on Valjean, a thief like his father. It’s not just his commitment to his ideals; he’s living a morality play with his parents as the criminals he needs to punish in order to prove he’s not one of them, that he’s risen above them, that he will not and CANNOT fall to their level. The fact this movie captured that nuance and had it carry out in subtext is a credit, even if I don’t agree with all the actions this version has him do.

No surprise that, given how much attention has clearly been given to Javert’s character by the film, this adaptation chooses to keep the center of narrative focus on Javert and Valjean, sacrificing a lot of other characters in the process. Eponine? Gone. The Thenardiers overall, gone in the second half once Valjean has rescued Cosette (except for Gavroche, but you wouldn’t know he’s a Thenardier in this). The Les Amis exist as a collective but have no individual identities apart from Marius and, arguably, this movie’s Enjolras, who is reduced to a team lieutenant and stripped of all other book!Enjolras characterization. Again, a good chunk of Enjolras’s charisma and commitment to the cause is lumped into Marius. The writers were likely interested in making Marius a more dashing love interest. This doesn’t always jive with the moments he’s actually Marius: stalking Cosette, writing her pages of love letters, ducking out of meetings early to see her when he’s supposed to be heading the planning of the uprising. The clash can be distracting. Still, Matheson tries to balances these two sides as well as he can.

This is where a lot of Les Miz fans have or will have problems with this version. If you’re anything other than a fan of Valjean, Javert, Fantine or Cosette, you’re going to feel deprived. I don’t actually consider this a major flaw of the film because the filmmakers were at least consistent in their focus, preferring to develop a few characters than stretch too thin with more characters who would have ended up with shallow portrayals anyway. But I will highly suggest that if you’re a diehard Les Amis or Eponine fan and are annoyed when adaptations reduce those characters, you might want to skip this version.

Now that the issue of character omissions or reductions has been dealt with, let’s get to what I have problems with that are actually on screen:

Valjean’s outbursts toward Cosette - this aspect of his character isn’t as prevalent as I remember, to be fair. There is one scene where he snaps at her as a child (and he immediately apologizes) and two scenes where he yells at her as a teen and/or hits her. Nonetheless, the notion that physical assault was necessary in his character toward Cosette of all people--please no. There’s no reason for it. In fact, there’s better reason to go against it to show contrast with how Valjean reacted to stressful situations in the past. Yes, those knee-jerk reactions can be hard to shake, but Cosette’s presence in his life is meant to show how much he’s grown. Granted, Cosette acknowledges that his outbursts are out of character, that he’s “acting so strangely,” and we do see tenderness between them most of the time. Still, it taints the relationship when his and Cosette’s book relationship, while plagued by secrecy, is entirely wholesome. Any hint of violence makes me wary of when Cosette says she needs to be there for him after learning about his past and plans to flee the country.

Javert’s suicide - again, more on Valjean’s end. Obviously this version is different from canon; Javert makes it seem like he’s going to murder Valjean and let his body fall in the river, only to free him and do it to himself, and Valjean is there to watch. And he fails to attempt saving him, which, given his actions at the barricade and the kind of man he’s become, comes across painfully out of character. So does the glee he expresses when a man has killed himself in front of him only a minute ago. Maybe if Javert had said something or done something to make saving him impossible or clearly against his wishes, Valjean’s inaction would’ve been more understandable. I do also question Javert’s wisdom in killing himself in front of a man who tried to save him mere hours ago. Why did he not consider that Valjean might try rescuing him again? Well, he seemed to make the right call.

Both of these choices point to an attempt to make Jean Valjean more flawed. This is a conversation the fandom has had before, and the question of slipping in a sharpness to redeemed!Valjean has come up in other versions, even some actors’ portrayals in the Broadway show. I see the argument on both sides--he’s human, he suffered years of conditioning that turned him hateful and willing to harm others. But it should be noted that, while Valjean is physically capable of throwing someone around like a sack of potatoes, he’s never demonstrated an inclination to do so, not even from what few details we have of his life in prison. The movie adds that violent edge to Valjean’s narrative, from when he first hits Bishop Myriel on the head to smacking Cosette in the face. Javert gets some of this treatment, too--never shown violent behavior in canon, smacks around Fantine and manhandles Cosette in the film. Maybe the filmmakers were worried a modern audience wouldn’t find a nonviolent ex-con and a non-violent policeman believable. Yeesh.

All right, some minor issues:

The changing of names - Montreuil-sur-Mer becomes Vigau. Fauchelevent becomes Lafitte. Champmathieu becomes Carnot. What’s going on? Were they scared of pronouncing French names longer than two syllables? Oh, and Valjean as the mayor never has a name. He’s just “monsieur le maire” wherever he goes. You think his alias is M. Maire? So he became Maire Maire? No wonder he was pushed to take office.

Child actors - they aren’t great. Hardly any get dialogue and it’s no surprise why. For those who do, it’s obvious they’re being prompted offscreen. The kid playing Gavroche is the exception and there’s too little of him.

Illiteracy - eh, I kind of give this a pass. It’s not book canon that Valjean is illiterate post-Toulon, and I don’t remember if book!Fantine is illiterate, but it gives them a little bonding moment and gives Neeson the opportunity to show off his first-grader-concentration face when he practices his cursive.

Having addressed the big (and not so big) problems of the film, were there good parts in terms of adaptation? Yes--I think Neeson and Rush have a scintillating Valjean-Javert dynamic. I like how they have some understated snark jousting in the Vigau scenes. The 2019 series wishes it could achieve that level of sniping. But then, Brickvert wasn’t very subtle when he brought up how he knew only ONE man, one CONVICT, who could lift the cart, and Valjean is trying to deflect or ignore him while Fauchelevant is being crushed. Maybe not book-accurate, but entertaining as hell.

Also, while I don’t ship them, the Valjean-Fantine scenes were cute and made my heart squeeze. I know it was gratuitous. Their bond provided a little spot of light in their miserable (hah!) lives.

Also also, I like Javert’s informant in the 1832 scenes. He’s funny, cynical (he complains how nauseating Cosette and Marius’s romance is and swears off having daughters), committed to his job (he catches a cold from watching Cosette and Marius in the rain on Javert’s behalf), and respects Javert without being afraid of him. They even walk together to the barricade so Javert can get in and not draw suspicion. And for some reason he doesn’t have a name! Guys, if you like Rivette from the BBC series, let’s give this unnamed informant some love. I want a buddy cop series with him and Javert.

To wrap this up, I’ll say that Les Miserables (1998) is certainly flawed as an adaptation. Jean Valjean and Javert get injected with violent tendencies, Fantine stays prettier than she should, Marius and Enjolras have undergone fusion, and 80% of the book characters have vaporized or barely exist as bit parts. But I wont say stay away from this abomination because it’s not abominable. It’s ... ok. It’s serviceable in capturing the main plot arc of Les Miserables and a couple of its crucial themes. I think Les Miserables is one of those books where you’re probably not going to get the screen adaptation you want, so maybe watch a bunch, pick a few that least offend you, and fuse them together into your own imagined adaptation. With luck, the components are more cohesive than those of Marijolras.