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 ...
No "snuff" entertainment from the likes of Quentin Tarantino for me...
I encourage you all who haven't learned the story of Victor Hugo to do so....it is a beautiful story of redemption and God's grace, acted out in human lives.
I suppose the faith of most of the actors in this film isn't in Christ...but He is able to use their talents to tell a story about God's love anyway!!
another amoral Hollyweird product
Name recognition is through the roof, the film's cast features some of today's most charismatic actors and the production is unlike any other film currently playing in theaters.
The minds behind the film's marketing efforts took one extra measure to ensure its success, and its paying off handsomely.
The story in "Les Misérables" is heavy with Christian themes of grace, mercy and redemption. The line everyone seems to remember is "to love another person is to see the face of God.”
NBC Universal looked to capitalize on those components and promoted the film to pastors, Christian radio hosts and influence-makers in the Christian community.
The pimping of the daughter at the INN is an awesome example of libertine morality
The banality of evil.
The banality of evil.
I’m not sure I understand your post. Are you claiming this film is amoral, or that it depicts amorality and evil for what they are?
My impression, having actually seen both the play and the film, suggests that it has amoral elements. These elements are always depicted as amoral. Most importantly, the character Jean Valjean is a surprisingly (I would say heroically) moral person.
It depicts the triumph of good over evil, the importance of true love, and making a sacrifice for the good.
If that is amoral, than what is your definition of morality?
I found it to be one of those rare gems: a diamond in the rough from Hollyweird.
wow, so a kiddie porn snuff film where the story has a moral message at the end would be a great thing?
There is no kiddie porn in the film. What are you talking about???
There are many things in “Les Mis” that are immoral, I don’t trust Hollyweird not to exploit them for prurient reasons. Plus this book was originally a big recruitment device for the communists, so I am suspect doubly.
I watched Les Miserables and saw people killing people with muskets, pistols and cannon.
I left LM and watched the last 45 minutes of Django and saw people killed with pistols, dogs, rifles, shotguns, fists nd dynamite.
In Les Miserables the killing certainly was not the center theme. In Django the killing was basic Tarantino does a cartoon with real people as characters. It was silly ans stupid and embarrassing if you gave it any thought.
Les Miserables was art. Django was fart. One was Opera and the other rap. One was intellectual and the other mentally challenged. But I have no problem that either film was made because I did not have to watch either of them if I did not want to. Note that I paid for the first movie and not for the second and after seeing them both that made sense to me.
I take it you have not actually seen the film and have therefore made a judgment on hearsay.
The immoral elements you describe are necessary for the story itself. You cannot have a man imprisoned for 20 years without him having first stole a loaf of bread. You cannot have a story of repentance if there was nothing to repent from. Stealing something is immoral, except under certain extreme cases.
The horrible things other characters are forced to go through are also part of that same story of redemption.
Also, communists twist the wrong meaning out of many stories in order to make them support their position.
Would you refuse to believe the words of Christ when he says “blessed are the poor,” because some group misinterpreted what he says to suggest that they should overthrow the bourgeoisie? Some Communists have even attempted to use even the Gospel to support their cause.
Its wrong to condemn a work because you don’t know what is in it, and think you know without having checked. The film itself is morally OK.
Les Mis justifies the Revolution, but we should remember that the French Revolution, for all its horrible atrocities, was fully justified.
The American Revolution was made because the colonists thought, in all likelihood not entirely accurately, that the British government intended to reduce them to the level of powerlessness and subjugation the lower classes in France were already at.
So if revolution was justified to prevent such tyranny, how much more to overthrow it?
You cannot have a man imprisoned for 20 years without him having first stole a loaf of bread
lol, and if there is a 20-minute graphic scene of the thief raping the bakers wife and daughter, does that not change anything?
You cannot have a story of repentance if there was nothing to repent from.
So, then the 2-hour graphic child rape scene would be justified by a repetence at the end?
Stealing is always immoral. Having exceptions is why the commies used this story for recruiting.
Sorry, I should have said “a” French Revolution was fully justified.
The one that actually happened, not so much.
right, who am I to judge without trying it myself?
lolz. I will never ever ever watch this film even if I live for 50 more years.
mrcantilism, the stamp act and the intolerable acts were justification enough.
Uh, yes....because it IS a Christian story. ;)
I was speaking of their intentions. Just finished a rather lengthy book on the subject. The colonists worked backward from what the British government did to what their intentions were.
The colonists apparently weren’t fully aware that incompetence often explains actions that are otherwise assigned to malice. And it is abundantly clear that the British pols of the time were thoroughly incompetent.
Today we have the advantage of access to the British government records of the time, which the colonists didn’t have, and its quite obvious they had no intention of “enslaving” the colonists. Had the colonists not rebelled, we would more likely have wound up with a Canadian or Australian type of system than a tyranny.
While I’m a fan of the Founding, Canada or Australia are a lot better than just about any of the alternatives.
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.