MOVIE: Les Miserables 2012

[dixieagle]

6 reasons Catholics should see this film:

Too many modern films show sex as morally neutral, to be graded only on whether it was pleasurable or not. Les Miserables may be the only movie of 2012/2013 that shows sex without love as ultimately degrading to the individual. Fantine’s song, where she sings of broken dreams after a degrading and loveless sexual act she does to stay alive and provide for her child, is heartbreaking. How many hit pop songs about going to the nightclub to party night after night will teenage girls hear with THAT message?

Every cleric and nun shown in the film is shown in a favorable light. Every church, church home, abbey, and hospital is shown as a place of refuge and healing. The crucifix is omnipresent and is always shown and treated with reverence, and living with faith, charity, hope, and obedience to God is treated as THE most important thing in life. When was the last time you saw all THAT in a Hollywood film?

If you liked “The Fugitive,” this is much better. The creator of the original series based it on Les Miserables. (The film even included its own version of the chase through the sewer.)

The end of the film could function as the equivalent of the Voight-Kampf test used to detect unfeeling replicants in “Blade Runner” - if you don’t tear up a little, what’s wrong with you? A good cry is good for the soul.

After watching umpteen films last year about superheroes wearing spandex, you can see that Jean Valjean is the Catholic superhero - he has a secret origin and a secret identity, he has super strength (forced labor will do that for you, if you survive) he is continually tested morally and makes the right decision even when it is difficult and life threatening, he has a powerful and implacable arch-nemess, and his superpower is his desire to live his life in accordance with Christ and do right by his fellow man.

This film could inspire endless discussions about theology among Catholics. For instance, the comparison between Javert and Valjean - both characters are called upon not only to forgive, but to accept the forgiveness of others - Valjean accepts the forgiveness of his actions and the mercy shown by the Bishop (and through him, by Jesus), forgives those who sinned against him, and is redeemed through his love of others, by the grace of God. Javert, who is explicitly shown as Christian as well (but of a very ascetic cast more focused on justice more than mercy) cannot forgive others, cannot accept the possibility of the mercy and forgiveness Valjean offers him, and breaks (trying to avoid spoilers, here). Javert’s sin is that of Judas, whose greatest sin was not the betrayal of our Lord (Peter did that too, on a lesser scale), but whose sin against the Holy Spirit lay in failing to accept that even he could be forgiven. Sometimes, accepting the possibility that we could be forgiven is harder than forgiving others.

Simply wonderful analysis!!!

 

[beehumble]

The point is: it is gratuitous, totally unnecessary, as evidenced by it not being in the play. The movie would have been better without the pelvic thrusting. The scene could have ended with him approaching her closely and then faded out and faded in again with her lying there, and then she sings her song.

God bless you.

 

[beehumble]

In all fairness, the songs are taken almost verbatim from the stage show. Songs written for dozens of voices won’t sound as good on one. Nor does music composed for the acoustics of the stage translate as well to stereo.

It is still powerful music. And the film takes the plot where even the stage couldn’t. Even the marvels of stage technique couldn’t convey the desperation of JVJ hauling on a ship’s rope in the snow, or Fantine’s zoomed-in grief, etc.

ICXC NIKA

Yes I agree that Fantine’s song in the movie was the most powerful rendition of I Dreamed a Dream because of her emotion, more powerful than the play (and the play was powerful, but the closeup emotion worked well in the movie for this scene, although it did not work so well in other scenes - maybe cause Hathaway’s singing also was very good whereas some others were mediocre and thus distracted from all their acted emotion instead of enhancing it.)

Hathway hit both the emotion and the notes. I think she just might win an Oscar for this.

God bless you.

 

[Baelor]

The point is: it is gratuitous, totally unnecessary, as evidenced by it not being in the play. The movie would have been better without the pelvic thrusting. The scene could have ended with him approaching her closely and then faded out and faded in again with her lying there, and then she sings her song.

I disagree – she is a prostitute. Conveying the horror of being in that position is an important artistic element of the material. It was done without nudity and without pornography, but let us not bowdlerize reality too much.

 

[beehumble]

I disagree – she is a prostitute. Conveying the horror of being in that position is an important artistic element of the material. It was done without nudity and without pornography, but let us not bowdlerize reality too much.

But let us be sure to bowdlerize it enough, like the play did, in the name of decency. The fact that the play was one of the biggest worldwide hits ever and did not go too far with that scene proves beyond all argument that** it is not at all needed** for the successful conveyance of the story. Enough said.

God bless you.

 

[GEddie]

That much was clear from the film! I also think Broadway would provide stronger singers.

That is true, but there were two main issues I had with the movie:

1. The cinematography/direction: EXTREME CLOSE-UPS every scene, every song, for almost the entire time. This was inexcusable.

No, just a not very good judgement call. ISTM they were trying to recreate the stage show on camera. The one thing that a camera can do that stage crews cannot is to zoom in.

1. The plot/pacing. It made little sense. Characters come and disappear before they are developed (e.g. Eponine) and there is no real reason for us to get invested in Cosette’s character as an adult. This is not the problem of the movie, but of the play – but a movie was made, so…

Eponine was at most a minor character even in the book (I read it so long ago I hardly remember her). Her importance in the performance versions, ISTM, is so that we can feel for somebody dying on the barricade.

The importance of the adult Cosette is the issue of her falling in love. Without that, it would make no sense to us that JVJ would risk both neck and freedom to go to the barricade, and the sequences involving his forgiveness of Inspector Javert and the latter’s suicide would just not fit.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Baelor]

No, just a not very good judgement call. ISTM they were trying to recreate the stage show on camera. The one thing that a camera can do that stage crews cannot is to zoom in.

It was an inexcusable cinematographic error and bad judgment call. There is no reason that the desire for extreme close-ups for 2.5 hours should have lasted throughout all stages of the project.

Eponine was at most a minor character even in the book (I read it so long ago I hardly remember her). Her importance in the performance versions, ISTM, is so that we can feel for somebody dying on the barricade.

Which we saw with all of the other people who died on the barricade. Why did she love Marius? Why did he not love her back? What was their relationship? How long had they known each other? What was her life like? I understand the concept of a minor character, but her appearance begged those questions; questions that were answered more satisfactorily in the book.

The importance of the adult Cosette is the issue of her falling in love. Without that, it would make no sense to us that JVJ would risk both neck and freedom to go to the barricade,

Which is bad plotting. If a plot-driving character exists in order to drive the plot and is incomprehensible otherwise, then the character is badly-developed.

and the sequences involving his forgiveness of Inspector Javert and the latter’s suicide would just not fit.

Javert’s suicide was ridiculous anyway. It made no sense. I almost laughed in the theater when he jumped into the Seine and the reaction of my family was the same as mine. In no way was that decision compelling.

Again, I did like the movie. But the plotting had major issues, as did the cinematography.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It sounds like you just don’t like the story at all.

 

[Baelor]

It sounds like you just don’t like the story at all.

Again, not true. There were just issues with the adaptation of the story.

 

[Sarabande]

Again, not true. There were just issues with the adaptation of the story.

I think that many adaptations of stories, especially for musicals or operas, are never really as good. In musicals, operettas, sing-spiels, operas, etc. plots are always a little or extremely ridiculous, character development isn’t as deep, acting often times over-the-top. These forms of entertainment rely more on the music to get emotion across and sometimes to go much deeper than what words can do… if it is a well-written score. Some story lines are better than others. “Les Miserables” has an incredible story to go on, but you can’t really get too deep into it for a musical with a novel that is almost as thick as the Bible. It touches the surface. The vocal music for any form (opera, musical, etc.) have “tricks” to encourage and conjure up all kinds of feelings. Most of the time the singers’ tenchniques are perfected to sometimes help with the emotionality of the music. I say this as someone whose profession is in vocal performances, mostly in opera and classical vocal repertoire, but have also done a number of musicals and children’s operas. I say it with no malice or dislike for the form as I love this kind of music. I can and have found a lot of depth in the repertoire, but I also know that there are many tricks in the music to induce emotion in a show otherwise not so deep.

I guess my point is, most of the time you can’t go looking too deeply into the story lines of musicals or other forms of theatrical singing. You try to find it on the music and enjoy it for pure entertainment value even if there isn’t even any depth in the music. If the story is based on history or a famous novel or story, you need to go to the source to get the real meat of it. In this case, reading Victor Hugo’s novel and doing some research on the 1830 rebellion/revolution.

Again, since I haven’t seen the movie yet, I can’t comment on the level of depth it went into, but I do know the musical well enough to know that it conjured enough emotion as a girl to cry for the people who died during the rebellion, to feel for JVJ and to look up more about the story and time period. I knew then that there was something more to it than what was displayed because it did bring up so much emotion in their tricks. If anything, maybe it will get more people interested in the novel and the history, along with just enjoying the movie and musical for what it is, and that’s a good thing.

 

[irishpatrick]

First, as a rule, when I haven’t seen a movie, I don’t comment on it since I am not qualified to do so.

Second, in the movie the final moments of the scene with Fantine, as the blog review stated, are unnecessary - the play made the point without going that far, and so did the movie, but then the movie kept going with it, to its own detriment. Let me be clear - the sexual act is depicted and it could have been completely eliminated - this was not needed at all, as witnessed by its not being in the play.

God bless you.

Those are the underlying main points of the review. I think the person blogging the review understood the major points quite well–it is just a question of whether or not the film needed to go so far.

Take for example something like, “The Dick Van (Dy ke) Show.” Having seen those episodes, there are many times when Rob makes very subtle hints about why he finds Laura attractive, we get the point loud and clear and we know his background thoughts without the need to have the camera follow the couple into the bedroom.

From my pov, I do not see how we can ever hope to change the culture if we are not willing to actually change the way we think. Just my two cents.

 

[irishpatrick]

I was fortunate to finally get to see the movie this evening… just got back. As I had surmised previously, I believe that the depiction of the degradation of Fantine underscored the horror of her situation and was certainly in keeping with plot and character development.

Here is a link to a Catholic News Service review: catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv150.htm

And to the “Decent Films” (Christian) website review:
decentfilms.com/blog/lesmiserables-60sec

BTW, the Catholic News Service (and former Office for Film and Broadcasting of the USCCB) classification is A - III; suitable for adults.

I think it is therefore, safe to say that Catholic adults should have no qualms about the suitability of this film.

All fairly meaningless since they are just personal reviews and the Church never comes out for or against films. Catholics must make their own choices.

Having said that, if the play managed to get across the same themes without going so far, than how come the filmmakers could not do the same? It does seem gratuitous.

Again, we have no hope of changing the culture if we cannot change our own thinking. We Catholics are supposed to be leading the world, not folllowing.

 

[Baelor]

I guess my point is, most of the time you can’t go looking too deeply into the story lines of musicals or other forms of theatrical singing. You try to find it on the music and enjoy it for pure entertainment value even if there isn’t even any depth in the music. If the story is based on history or a famous novel or story, you need to go to the source to get the real meat of it. In this case, reading Victor Hugo’s novel and doing some research on the 1830 rebellion/revolution.

Thank you for your informative and thorough response. I love musical theater and opera (although I am hardly an aficionado), and I do agree with you. That being said, I think some adaptations – Phantom of the Opera, Wicked – manage to pull off compelling stories with intelligible characters and have awesome soundtracks to boot!

 

[GEddie]

Thank you for your informative and thorough response. I love musical theater and opera (although I am hardly an aficionado), and I do agree with you. That being said, I think some adaptations – Phantom of the Opera, Wicked – manage to pull off compelling stories with intelligible characters and have awesome soundtracks to boot!

Is your criticism with LM as stage show or film?

I thought the stage show was awesome; my main disappointment in the film was that the same songs just could not sound as good.

I do not critique the content in either, because I am aware that you could not put all of the book into either. No one would work on or watch a sixteen-hour stage show.

It would be cool to see Wicked, but for me that would involve going to another city. Probably not going to happen.

ICXC NIKA

 

[dixieagle]

All fairly meaningless since they are just personal reviews and the Church never comes out for or against films. Catholics must make their own choices.

Having said that, if the play managed to get across the same themes without going so far, than how come the filmmakers could not do the same? It does seem gratuitous.

Again, we have no hope of changing the culture if we cannot change our own thinking. We Catholics are supposed to be leading the world, not folllowing.

The Church actually did “come our for against films” for quite a long while. Have you heard of the old Legion of Decency? In the US, it is now the Catholic News Service (CNS) with the responsibility for designating suitability for various audiences.

The fact that the CNS rating is A III (unobjectionable for adults) is enough for me.

 

[GEddie]

All fairly meaningless since they are just personal reviews and the Church never comes out for or against films. Catholics must make their own choices.

Having said that, if the play managed to get across the same themes without going so far, than how come the filmmakers could not do the same? It does seem gratuitous.

Again, we have no hope of changing the culture if we cannot change our own thinking. We Catholics are supposed to be leading the world, not folllowing.

We do not lead by being neopuritans, however.

The Gospel is not about necklines or square inches of hidden skin. It is about human life, tragedy and redemption, which the performance versions of LM depict in scads, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[dixieagle]

We do not lead by being neopuritans, however.

The Gospel is not about necklines or square inches of hidden skin. It is about human life, tragedy and redemption, which the performance versions of LM depict in scads, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

Very well put, GEddie!

 

[Baelor]

Is your criticism with LM as stage show or film?

I have not seen Les Mis staged. My criticism is with the movie I saw, which I consider as an isolated piece. If some of those criticisms extend to the stage production, then so be it, but I have no way of judging those.

 

[irishpatrick]

The Church actually did “come our for against films” for quite a long while. Have you heard of the old Legion of Decency? In the US, it is now the Catholic News Service (CNS) with the responsibility for designating suitability for various audiences.

The fact that the CNS rating is A III (unobjectionable for adults) is enough for me.

Not accurate. The films are reviewed by Catholics. They are not judged worthy or unworthy by any Catholic authority.

 

[irishpatrick]

We do not lead by being neopuritans, however.

The Gospel is not about necklines or square inches of hidden skin. It is about human life, tragedy and redemption, which the performance versions of LM depict in scads, IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

I agree 100%.

However, it seems to me that if there exists a less gratuitous way to get a point across, that way should be taken. It also seems to me that a great many Catholics hold a great many opinions and rarely do they ever place those same opinions upon things THEY do.

Catholics really so next to nothing to change this culture–yet we are called to be the salt and light.