Posted on 01/13/2013 7:01:45 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Scant days ago, in that chilly time after Christmas, I strolled into our local theatre in the expectation of being entertained by an established well-loved musical that had just been rendered to film. I had no idea I would emerge from the darkness three hours later a scarlet-eyed blubbering wreck. Having bargained for diversion, I instead reaped a bounty of cinematic moral lessons wherein intense human ugliness runs headlong into the arms of sublime beauty and breaks our aching hearts in a fair exchange. Welcome to the spectacle of Les Miserables.
In retrospect, one could not ask for a more philosophical-moral biscuit to chew upon. Its sweeping themes of: justice and injustice, the law, mercy, forgiveness, courage, hopeless cruelty and redemption all congeal into that rare and breathtaking aesthetic wherein we travel beyond ourselves and hopefully examine our own stories against the adamantine First Principles of transcendence. While it is impossible to fully plumb the depths here of this masterpiece's grand totality, with your indulgence I will clumsily attempt to examine a few of its gems.
In the figure of Jean Valjean, we witness a man nearly broken by the untempered blade of justice. Having spent half his life serving penance in the galleys for the crime of stealing a loaf of bread and escape, the harsh exactness of the law administered in the personification of the relentless Javert has stripped Valjean of much of his human veneer. Answering for so long to the number 24601, Valjean, when eventually released, is only hardened in his hatred for what he has incurred at the hands of justice. His salvation, however, comes from a priest whom Valjean robs of a fortune in silver following the former's show of Christian charity.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I posted a story about LM from the Acton Institute yesterday.
Great story, great film. Even from Hollyweird, we can see God’s truth shine through.
Grace. Redemption. Love. Excellent rendition of Les Mis.
I thought Rusell Crowe was outstanding.
If a book is good enough to inspire a movie...read the book. The movie is always a disappointment in comparison. (and it was the Bishop of Digne, not a “priest”)
Good analysis. I’ll be seeing it this week. Have to see the Hobbit first. But I’ve read LM several times, most recently an audio version what was wonderful. I prefer the 10th anniversary concert version to the 25th. I saw the stage version with the original cast but had a migraine at the time so barely remember it. This story has been part of my life for forty years.
I used to think that the book (of whatever story) would always outshine the movie until I saw the first scene of the Fellowship of the Ring and after reading the LOTR several times, I cried with joy at being able to see the Shire on the big screen. Perhaps you are better at visualizing things. I know that my sons and my husband are but I’m pretty much a left brained personal so a good visualization of something can only enhance the experience. I recently saw the Screwtape Letters performed by Max McLean. Wonderful. Put meat on the bones of the book.
I would also submit Silence of the Lambs as a movie which quite exceeded the book in quality. Anthony Hopkin’s performance as Lecter was so amazing that it changed the way the author wrote him in future books.
All the rave reviews of Les Miserables (the new movie) make me wonder about one thing.
Les Miserables (the new movie) is the same Les Miserables that’s been on Broadway for years, was made into a movie with Liam Neeson (non musical), many years ago, and Hugo’s story was writtten in the mid 1800’s and I would have thought was on the reading list of most high school, or at least college students.
But it’s as if suddenly, this story appears and people are surprised by it’s spiritual overtones of law/grace, etc.
It’s not Hollywood that made up this story, although they seem to be getting all the praise. It’s Hugo that penned the masterpiece years ago, and the story is timeless because it lays out one of the basic conflicts of humanity.
I was astonished at how well Jackson used the landscape of New Zealand to recreate Middle Earth. It was exactly as I had seen it in my mind’s eye after reading the books four or five times. The costumes and set design too.
My one and only regret about the LOTR movie was that there was no room for the Scouring of the Shire. Well, that and the loss of Tom Bombadil.
I guess my blanket statement suffered the deficiencies of most blanket statements. Any movie derived from classic literature always disappoints me with Les Miserables, The Count of Monte Cristo, A tale of Two Cities and War and Peace being shining examples.
I saw the stage show twice.
The first time, i was transformed into a “Scarlet-Eyed blubbering Wreck” during the “Silver Candlestick Scene”, and stayed that way for the next two hours!
It was MOST embarrassing! :-)
This was a very good analysis of the story!
Great comments everyone. I loved the write up article. He did a good job.
I too favor the 10th anniversary edition opera.
Got to see LTR last month and thought it very well done. It was my first 3D movie and was amazed by the effects of the 3D. I felt as if I was IN that Hobbit hole and a part of the movie. I even found myself jumping and turning away from things which appeared to fly into the theater lol!
Iv’e NOT read the book LM, but really enjoyed the operas I’ve seen on tape/cd/youtube etc. I didn’t like the movie portrayal years ago, but loved it on the big screen and glad I went to see it.
I think Hollywood is doing a much better job at turning books into movies than it used to. It sometimes flip flops both ways where if you read the book, the movie is a disappointment, but if you see the movie first, the book is a disappointment.
In the case of LM, the movie brought out some details that weren’t well portrayed in the opera that assisted in the visual/emotional impact of the story itself.
I brought along a friend who absolutely hates musicals. She hated the musical presentation and wished it was spoken dialog instead, but she loved the story. I happen to love the music too. I liked how they combined the acting with the music to tell the story.
Thanks for a good thread :)
Great comments everyone. I loved the write up article. He did a good job.
I too favor the 10th anniversary edition opera.
Got to see LTR last month and thought it very well done. It was my first 3D movie and was amazed by the effects of the 3D. I felt as if I was IN that Hobbit hole and a part of the movie. I even found myself jumping and turning away from things which appeared to fly into the theater lol!
Iv’e NOT read the book LM, but really enjoyed the operas I’ve seen on tape/cd/youtube etc. I didn’t like the movie portrayal years ago, but loved it on the big screen and glad I went to see it.
I think Hollywood is doing a much better job at turning books into movies than it used to. It sometimes flip flops both ways where if you read the book, the movie is a disappointment, but if you see the movie first, the book is a disappointment.
In the case of LM, the movie brought out some details that weren’t well portrayed in the opera that assisted in the visual/emotional impact of the story itself.
I brought along a friend who absolutely hates musicals. She hated the musical presentation and wished it was spoken dialog instead, but she loved the story. I happen to love the music too. I liked how they combined the acting with the music to tell the story.
Thanks for a good thread :)
The 1935 version of A Tale of Two Cities with Ron Colman is the best. In fact, I recommend it and it costs only $3 to rent it on Amazon. I don’t know about Count since I never read the book. I did love Gerard Depardeau but who doesn’t. I didn’t like the non musical movie version. I am looking forward to seeing this version. I’m happy that they even have the priest/bishop in it and it sounds like they have him in the sewers for awhile. Those are my two favorite parts. I really despise Marais. What a despicable and shallow human being.
Saw the play for the first time in the early 90’s. Have since seen the play 6 more times. Each time was terrific. I don't go to a lot of plays...maybe one every year or two. This is the only play that I have taken the effort to see more than once. I have always felt that it is a must-see experience for everyone.
Looking forward to this latest movie version.
I had lots of regrets about the movies too. I didn’t like the whole Ent part. I didn’t like the way they made Gimli into a joke. I just finished listening to the trilogy which they finally last year, got into a wonderful unabridged audio version. But the movies, whatever their flaws, provided me with a vision of Middle Earth that I will always treasure. My mother read the trilogy every year for years and I do regret that she didn’t live long enough to see the movies. Oh well, she’s living them now which is what I always think when I regret someone who has died didn’t do something on earth.
I envy people who haven’t read The Count of Monte Cristo or Atlas Shrugged...because they still get to for the first time.
Another movie that is an excellent rendition of a book is “The Leopard”, the changes made from book to movie actually improve the story I think. And....Burt Lancaster....Alain Delon....Claudia Cardinale!
I went to iTunes to find an audio version of the Count and there are several unabridged versions. Any opinion on which 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.