Posted on 12/28/2012 7:25:39 AM PST by Borges
Revolutionary fervor in seizing the barricades for change makes for great theater and grand cinema, but seldom produces the positive results that young idealists desire. Those constructive consequences come much more reliably from middle-aged, middle-class virtues, patience, planning, deferred gratification, hard work, incremental improvement—with far less flash and glory.
That’s the problem at the very heart of the magnificent new movie version of Les Miserables, an obvious front-runner for nominations in every major category in this year’s Oscar race. In faithfully adapting the hit stage show, which in turn followed the classic outlines of the revered Victor Hugo novel of 1862, the movie hands audiences an inescapably disturbing and ultimately dishonest conclusion. It’s unsettling rather than uplifting—not at all what the heroic filmmakers (led by director Tom Hooper, who previously did brilliant work on The King’s Speech) intended.
The final segment of the sprawling story focuses on a bloody incident of French history: the failed “June Rebellion” of 1832. Following the wrenching disruption and slaughter of the original French Revolution (beginning in 1789), the constant warfare of the Napoleonic era, the emperor’s exile and brief return (1815), re-institution of the monarchy, and another violent uprising in 1830 that installed the “Citizen King” Louis-Phillipe, the short-lived revolt dramatized in the novel and movie would be largely forgotten were it not for Les Miserables. The failure of the student-led uprising, culminating in nearly 200 deaths in two days of street battles, produced only more repression, and then more grisly turmoil, until another Revolution in 1848 gave way to another Emperor (Napoleon III). That imperial episode collapsed after disastrous defeat in a major war with Prussia (1870), and the brutal failure of the world’s first Communist revolution (1871), yet another forlorn and violent attempt to bring on a glorious new day.
No one can expect a movie or a stage show to portray or even hint at the turbulent, dysfunctional, corpse-ridden course of French history throughout the 19th century. But as grand entertainment with a passionately personal focus, the movie version of Les Miserables almost entirely ignores historical context while glorifying the revolutionary inclination, regardless of results. A reprise of the stirring song “When Tomorrow Comes” concludes the epic journey of the story’s long-suffering characters with unbridled utopian visions:
“The chain will be broken and all men will have their reward!
Will you join in our crusade?
Who will be strong and stand with me? Somewhere beyond the barricade Is there a world you long to see? Do you hear the distant drums? There is a life about to start When tomorrow comes!”
Astonishing visual splendor accompanies these rousing lyrics, with tens of thousands of impassioned revolutionaries (provided through the magic of computer graphics imagery) joining back-from-the-dead characters on screen, waving red flags on huge barricades vastly more formidable than those portrayed in the film’s extended sequence showing the doomed, minor rising of 1832. The implication? That the youthful and handsome true believers may have failed to win a brave new world in the episode dramatized on screen but their revolutionary cause ultimately succeeded when future generations rallied to the call of “distant drums” and rushed to other barricades to make sure that “the chain will be broken and all men will have their reward.”
This glorious deliverance never occurred, of course: the violent revolutions that wracked Europe and Asia in the spirit of Les Miserables only served to make humanity more miserable, not to produce some glorious worker’s paradise. Does anyone still believe that the Russian or Chinese revolutions, with their tens of millions of slaughtered civilians, actually succeeded in bringing about “a world you long to see?”
Sure, Russia and China today offer vastly more benign and productive societies than the corrupt feudal days of the czarist or imperial past, but that’s because they followed the inspiration of the American revolution, not the French version. The founders of this country–nearly all of them merchants, planters or commerce-oriented lawyers–extolled the power of business and the profit motive, and the benefits of disparate centers of individual enterprise, rather than grand utopian and collectivist visions leading armed youth to the barricades. George Washington never made himself an emperor or a dictator, and the new nation never followed his eight-year presidency with an era of revolutionary violence and instability. Two hundred and fifteen years after the Father of His Country left his presidential perch we may wince at the dysfunctional politics at the edge of the fiscal cliff, but we should still feel thankful that we’ve always avoided the chaotic and devastatingly destructive discontinuity that has characterized all nations with a more radical revolutionary past.
American audiences may thrill to the big-hearted and redemptive storytelling of the movie version of Les Miserables, but their reaction will stem in part from the confidence that the “tomorrow” promised in the movie’s conclusion has already arrived for most of humanity. Following the incomparably influential American model, France and the other developed nations of the planet have mostly eliminated the brutal squalor and oppression dramatized so vividly in Victor Hugo’s 19th century masterpiece and its latest adaptation.
That transformation occurred through the virtues exemplified by the novel’s central figure, Jean Valjean, the reformed ex-convict who remakes himself as a businessman, factory owner, and mayor of a small city. In the best traditions associated with modern conservatism—pursuing profit, productivity, middle class respectability, local community service, and even religious redemption—Valjean offers the right prescription for shaping a kinder, gentler society. Since that failed rebellion of 1832, building businesses changed the world for the better, not angry mobs mounting the barricades. Tomorrow did come, but it was through Les Biz rather than through Les Miz.
I’ve learned to really love Tale of Two Cities. Right now it’s my favorite Dickens novel. I sort of burned out on Nicholas Nickleby.
http://www.catholicleague.org/les-miserables-is-superb/
“”Raymond Arroyo, New York Times best-selling author and host of EWTN’s “The World Over,” had a chance to preview “Les Misérables.” This incredible movie opens on Christmas Day. Arroyo, who is a member of the Catholic League’s board of directors, offered the following comments on the film:
“Tom Hooper’s bold ‘Les Misérables’ is not just a cinematic achievement, but a soul-stirring experience that lingers like the melodies it contains. Hugh Jackman’s Christ-haunted Jean Valjean is a revelation. The redemptive heart of the landmark musical has been amplified and the impact is deeply moving. It is so refreshing to see a film set in a consistent moral universe that connects on so many levels. Seeing ‘Les Mis’ you will ‘hear the people sing’ in the cineplex—and no doubt, on their way home as well.”
“Every bishop, priest, pastor and cleric should be begging their people to go see this movie. It really is about the redemptive nature of man’s redemptive quest. It’s about the Cross and embracing it and putting yourself aside for the sake of others.”””
That may have been the original interpretation. But the large number of Red Rags being waved sure pointed a secular political heaven in the movie.....
Thank you. It’s a good article.
... the magnificent new movie version of Les Miserables, an obvious front-runner for nominations in every major category in this year’s Oscar race ...
The wonderful think about great art is that it allows for multiple levels of interpretation.
The book of Acts describes a communist setup among the earliest disciples of Jesus. I'd call that heaven on earth. Unfortunately, even they couldn't do it perfectly as Ananias and Sapphira showed. Heaven will be a benign dictatorship with no lack, so political and economic issues will be moot.
I don't know whether the director was trying to suggest that pure communism is heavenly (it sure is) or just create a stunning visual for the end. I don't expect barricades in Heaven.
Sad to say I didn’t like it at all. And Les Miz is one of my all time favorite stage musicals.
Bookmark
If you intend to quote the article, please put the quote in the proper context. He ACTUALLY said:
That’s the problem at the very heart of the magnificent new movie version of Les Miserables, an obvious front-runner for nominations in every major category in this year’s Oscar race. In faithfully adapting the hit stage show, which in turn followed the classic outlines of the revered Victor Hugo novel of 1862, the movie hands audiences an inescapably disturbing and ultimately dishonest conclusion. It’s unsettling rather than uplifting—not at all what the heroic filmmakers (led by director Tom Hooper, who previously did brilliant work on The King’s Speech) intended.
I used the ellipsis (...) to indicate omissions. If I wished to mislead, I wouldn’t have used the ellipsis.
I’m fully aware of the full quote. I was trying to indicate that despite Medved’s misgivings, he liked the film.
If he didn’t like the movie, he wouldn’t have called it “magnificent.” Right?
I haven't seen the film or the stage musical and I haven't read the book.
I did see the 1935 movie and the 1978 TV movie and I liked both of them.
It was poorly directed and edited. Monotonous with no sense of flow. Sloppy as well. And did I mention how they shredded up the songs (apart from cutting out one of my favorite songs and adding a mediocre new one).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.