Posted on 01/12/2013 6:10:25 PM PST by SoFloFreeper
The release of the film Les Misérables is a remarkable achievement, not only for its ambitious cinematic scope but also for its inspired cast and stunning dramatic and musical performances. A key driver of the ongoing popularity of the musical play over the better part of the last three decades is the source material’s deep moral and spiritual seriousness. The narrative focuses in large part on the transformation of Jean Valjean, who after nineteen years of hard labor as a violent criminal is released on parole to see “what this new world” might bring. The dynamics of sin and salvation, despair and hope, rigid legalism and the grace of the gospel, resonate with audiences, who are all able to find in this story something of themselves and their own experiences. This narrative is an exercise of the moral imagination at its finest.
(Excerpt) Read more at acton.org ...
I was in the theater there was no 20 minute rape scene. You’re making things up now.
Looking at your comments, you are morally in error. First, you’ve misrepresented the film. Anyone who has seen it would agree with me.
Second, you misrepresented my comments. I have not claimed that a child rape scene is justified. Please, read my comments without reading into them what you want them to say.
Third, you are in error on stealing. Hypothetically, stealing a loaf of bread to stave off the threat of death can be stealing under civil law, but not immoral under moral law. Context is very important in these cases.
Speaking hypothetically. If I was alone surviving on a deserted Island and I had a few packages that were marked U.S Mail, but they also might have food in them. Opening them would be theft and yet not wrong, because I needed food. That is called an extreme case.
LM does not seem to justify the French Revolution. The story takes place after the revolution and shows the population is NOT better off afterwards.
The FR, I am sure you realize, was a very amoral event, unlike ours.
What am I missing from your point?
-PJ
I did not say there was. I using a hypothetical. If all that matters if the "repetence" at the end to make it a moral film, then that was my example.
If you actually took a look at the film you would notice that it takes place after the French revolution.
I’m not the one to paint broad historical generalizations. Jean Valjean was a successful business man in the film. He was not a leader of a revolutionist party, and specifically avoided the french revolutionists because they were doomed.
I've seen several stage productions of this play, and the ending always has a scene where the dead revolutionaries once again stand alongside their surviving friends. I think it possible that for those who wish to interpret it thus, that scene may imply that eventually "the cause" will succeed - even though it failed in this instance.
And that failure is certainly evident. The cost of the revolutionaries' failed struggle is one of the clearest messages in the story, second only to the story of religious redemption (apparently another part that the Commies skimmed over). The minister’s kind act changes Valjean’s life forever. It causes a domino effect which along the way, includes a focus on productivity, middle-class respectability and charity.
I've read the original book, over 1,000 pages worth. IMHO, one would have to be a Communist in order to read anything there as some sort of positive affirmation of that ideology. The revolution's leaders needed the people of Paris to rouse themselves and join the fight, and it didn't happen. No glorious "workers' paradise" for them. C'est la Vie.
I was arguing whether or not REPETENCE of the main character makes it a “moral film”
The one scene that disappointed me was in the end.
In the stage show, when Valjean dies he's met by the redeemed Fantine and Eponine. In the movie, only Fantine is there. The final duet of "Come To Me" with Fantine and Eponine as they lead Valjean to heaven is sweet.
I can only assume that Anne Hathaway didn't want to share the final scene with Samantha Barks.
-PJ
Your making mental midget arguments here.
The best one is a begging the question argument you posted there. Movies and sodomy are different things, so to are airplanes and Saturdays.
A movie may depict sodomy, an airplane may fly on Saturday, but that changes nothing about what is truthfully depicted in the movie in question.
You don’t know whats in it. You have assumed and judged a film. You sound like Inspector Javart.
You don't know the context, nor the story, so you cannot argue a case about this particular film. Go and check up on it before making judgments.
My example was not this particular film, obviously.
I was talking about what makes this a “moral film” and using generalities as examples. I do not trust Hollyweird, I do JUDGE them and they are ALL guilty.
Then it isn't relevant to what I have written. It is not relevant to the movie.
Sorry to see that. You’re denying yourself a wonderful tale of redemption and grace.
Perhaps you can check out an older version for free at the library....several versions exist. I recently saw one from 1952 and found it to be just as true to the ideals Victor Hugo seemed to embrace in the original story.
A 1998 version starring Liam Neeson was also made....
If you search imdb.com you’ll find several versions over the years. Give it a shot, I don’t think you will be disappointed.
The first time I saw it, I went to the stage musical and my feet were DRAGGING. But the deeply moving script and story have stayed with me. Well worth the time, made me want to be a better person.
I have less than zero interest in this film. I do not like musicals or opera at all.
By the way, with all the back and forth about the film...did ANYONE read the Acton Institute article?
Acton IS a Christian organization that embraces capitalism...the thinking thereof might be worth considering. :)
I guess that depends on what defines a "moral film."
I suppose you could have a film that depicts a wholly moral person from birth to death. Would that be Forrest Gump? Chance the Gardner?
I suppose you could have a film that depicts morality by contrasting it with immorality by showing the conversion from one to the other. That is Les Mis.
Or you could have a "moral of the story" film that shows a totally immoral person who gets what he deserves in the end. Jimmy Cagney in The Public Enemy?
-PJ
Those two films I mentioned are not musicals or operas. They are adaptations of the novel.
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.