MOVIE: Les Miserables 2012

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I was interested in seeing the movie, yet I came upon the following review. Any comments?

---

I saw Les Mis this weekend and I don’t think it’s worth seeing.
*
I don’t recommend the movie because, at least while it’s in theaters, you can’t skip over the gross sexuality on display, and on such a huge scale. In addition to the general sexuality within the first part of the movie (completely through “Master of House”), there were two sexual scenes/shots – one could have been cut entirely and the other didn’t have to be nearly as explicit as it was. [Spoiler alert] –> Silly me, I didn’t realize what would be involved on-screen once Fantine sold herself into prostitution, especially once Hollywood got a hold of it; even setting her tragic situation aside, the blatant immodesty among other characters (both main and chorus) was already too much, but was then further emphasized by cinematography. How many shots of overly revealing attire do you need?? Les Mis, as a movie, was poisoned by both significant and subtle exploitation of sexuality and the human body; and what could have been a beautiful story purely portrayed left a bad taste of “it was ok, but…” It’s a genuine tragedy since so many Catholic themes are presented throughout the rest of the film, including a monsignor who shows remarkable compassion and mercy. Thank God I can find this actualized elsewhere.*

thecatholicwife.net/2012/12/31/the-les-mis-movie-a-drop-of-poison-spoils-the-cup/

Disagree completely.

First of all, what you actually see is not that explicit. There’s no nudity whatsoever as far as Fantine is concerned.

However, the film still makes it quite clear what is happening. Why is that a bad thing, though? It would be bad if the film glorified it in any way, but it doesn’t: it presents it as horrific, disgusting, vile, degrading.

As others have said, the film isn’t degrading; prostitution is, and the film does justice to that.

To ignore that is, I think, terribly misguided.

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?

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.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[irishpatrick]

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.

A side point (not realted to the film). How do we know that was Judas’ sin? To my memory of the text, Judas never said a word about not believing he could be forgiven.

 

[dixieagle]

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

I disagree; certainly the USCCB a “Catholic authority” and it has assigned the task of “judging” or rating films to CNS.

From the USCCB website itself:

*MISSION

The media reviewing division of Catholic News Service aims to provide the public with a spiritual, moral and artistic evaluation of the products of visual mass media – films, television programs and related media content – based on the standards of faith and morals preserved and transmitted by the church’s teaching authority. Thus, the most basic principle used to calculate a film’s worth is the extent to which it affirms, challenges or rejects Judeo-Christian values.

CNS reviews and classifications are intended as a guide for parents – to aid them in choosing what is most appropriate for their children – and for adult viewers who wish to make informed decisions in accord with Catholic teaching.* Italics and bolding mine.

So, a “Catholic authority” has, indeed, rated Les Miserables as a film suitable for adults, no matter how you try to ignore the fact.

 

[dixieagle]

A side point (not realted to the film). How do we know that was Judas’ sin? To my memory of the text, Judas never said a word about not believing he could be forgiven.

He went off and hanged himself in despair, believing there was no forgiveness for him. Here is a good discussion of the subject by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Read the last 3 paragraphs, particularly:

semperficatholic.com/page29.html

 

[irishpatrick]

I disagree; certainly the USCCB a “Catholic authority” and it has assigned the task of “judging” or rating films to CNS.

From the USCCB website itself:

*MISSION

The media reviewing division of Catholic News Service aims to provide the public with a spiritual, moral and artistic evaluation of the products of visual mass media – films, television programs and related media content – based on the standards of faith and morals preserved and transmitted by the church’s teaching authority. Thus, the most basic principle used to calculate a film’s worth is the extent to which it affirms, challenges or rejects Judeo-Christian values.*

CNS reviews and classifications are intended as a guide for parents – to aid them in choosing what is most appropriate for their children – and for adult viewers who wish to make informed decisions in accord with Catholic teaching. Italics and bolding mine.

So, a “Catholic authority” has, indeed, rated Les Miserables as a film suitable for adults, no matter how you try to ignore the fact.

No, I fully disagree. Bishops do not review the films. Those reviews are done mainly by lay Catholics, who really have no more authority than we do. One of us can easily meet the requirements of that mission statement…it carries no binding authority of any kind. The reviewers “try” to remain true to the faith–yet that does not mean they always get it right.

I do not expect the Church to get into reviewing films, it has many other things to do. I am just saying that Catholics must not let themselves think that those reviews are always correct.

For example. CNS gave a highly favorable review of the new Bond movie, “Skyfall.” I would say those movies are miles away from upholding the CNS and Catholic mission statements.

 

[irishpatrick]

He went off and hanged himself in despair, believing there was no forgiveness for him. Here is a good discussion of the subject by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Read the last 3 paragraphs, particularly:

semperficatholic.com/page29.html

Where, in tradition, or Scripture, do we find Judas thinking he could not be forgiven? I suspect that is true, I just wonder where this is coming from.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I disagree; certainly the USCCB a “Catholic authority” and it has assigned the task of “judging” or rating films to CNS.

Irishpatrick is right.

The USCCB is no longer even affiliated with those reviews. They belong solely to the purview of the Catholic News Service. Even when they were under the USCCB, though, they still weren’t intended to be authoritative.

Recall the controversy years ago over their initial, glowingly positive review of Brokeback Mountain. Even without that, they’ve always been inconsistent. I encourage you to consult some of the older threads about these ratings; you’ll see that they’re pretty useless.

 

[irishpatrick]

Irishpatrick is right.

The USCCB is no longer even affiliated with those reviews. They belong solely to the purview of the Catholic News Service. Even when they were under the USCCB, though, they still weren’t intended to be authoritative.

Recall the controversy years ago over their initial, glowingly positive review of Brokeback Mountain. Even without that, they’ve always been inconsistent. I encourage you to consult some of the older threads about these ratings; you’ll see that they’re pretty useless.

Yes, very close to useless, and no guarantee of being Catholic.

 

[dixieagle]

Irishpatrick is right.

The USCCB is no longer even affiliated with those reviews. They belong solely to the purview of the Catholic News Service. Even when they were under the USCCB, though, they still weren’t intended to be authoritative.

Recall the controversy years ago over their initial, glowingly positive review of Brokeback Mountain. Even without that, they’ve always been inconsistent. I encourage you to consult some of the older threads about these ratings; you’ll see that they’re pretty useless.

CNS is “a division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops”, sharing the same address. As this is about as “authoritative” a Catholic rating system as exists in this country, I’ll stick with it. (I don’t care so much about reviews, as such; it’s the rating system for suitability that interests me more.)

Frankly, I put more credence in these ratings than in some blogger who seems unable to distinguish between a movie which glorifies something unsavory and this movie, in which the scene in question portrays prostitution as the degrading, dehumanizing thing that it is.

The OP seems to have set up a straw man here, as he clearly isn’t interested in any opinions which suggest that the review to which he initially referred is prudish. There is nothing in this movie that should be problematic for any Catholic adult, and much to recommend it.

 

[Irishmom2]

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.

Yes, I remember that rating (CNS.) My father refused to let us see anything that was not rated for our age despite what the film industry rating was. When I had children of my own, I understood why.

 

[dixieagle]

Yes, I remember that rating (CNS.) My father refused to let us see anything that was not rated for our age despite what the film industry rating was. When I had children of my own, I understood why.

We rarely went to the movies when I was a child (50s-60s) but I well remember the old Legion of Decency ratings published in The Pilot, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Boston. The LOD was succeeded by the USCCB Office for Film and Broadcasting, which continued and refined the ratings, and, for the last year or two, the ratings have been done by CNS (Catholic News Service), a division of the USCCB.

We consulted the ratings when our girls were growing up, but they weren’t inclined to see anything objectionable anyway, thank heavens. A very helpful - if imperfect, as are all human institutions - service.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I walked out in a bit of a daze like I was somewhere else entirely then found myself walking out of a cinema. I’ve never seen it on stage but heard the music and I thought the singing was fine. I forgot for a time that I was watching Wolverine and the chick who’s boobs predict weather changes.

And I did note with a smile that every character was Catholic. Maybe not all shinging examples, just like in real life.

 

[AthenaC]

SPOILERS
(In case you’re like me and walked into the movie without really knowing the plot)

This was my first experience with the story and I felt like the movie was made just for me to hit me with the maximum emotional impact. It’s true that with the way they shot the singing, as a viewer you kinda have to let go of the expectation of perfection. It’s about the emotion. With the singing combined with the close-ups, I was a weepy mess pretty much the entire time. Of course, I am 4 months pregnant, so that might have had something to do with it.

I think it’s a mistake to look too closely at the lack of development of supporting characters. There really wasn’t time for that, considering the story was all about Valjean, his redemption, and the completion of his purpose. For me, it was agonizing to watch Valjean hit rock bottom (stealing the silver?!), and then watch the monsignor bless Valjean with, “I claim your soul for God.” Wow. And that’s when Valjean really comes alive in a spiritual sense. I love how we see those candlesticks and a crucifix at every point where Valjean has a decision to make as a reminder of why the character is the way he is. And then his purpose in life is to fulfill his promise to Fantine, which he did by safeguarding Cosette into adulthood and seeing her married (and into the care of her husband). So I wouldn’t look too closely at the supporting characters and subplots required to make that happen, since it’s all about Valjean fulfulling his promise anyway. Speaking of fulfilling his promise, I thought it was absolutely beautiful that Fantine came for him at the end to let him know he was forgiven; also that the monsignor was there to greet him to let him know that he fulfilled the blessing he was given years before.

I have seen many opinions that Russell Crowe’s performance is lackluster; that is absolutely correct. However, I think a case can be made for him. The difference between Javert and Valjean is especially pronounced when they duel in the hospital. Javert sounds dead and Valjean sounds alive. Which is kinda the point. Javert was dead long before he jumped off the bridge. Valjean and Javert look at the crucifix and they see two totally different things. Valjean sees his redemption, while Javert sees the God who created the beautiful, powerful order of the universe. And he’s absolutely correct. However, Javert is so focused on the order that he becomes a slave to the unjust order created by man. Even to the point where he is ready to turn himself in for mistakenly filing a false report (as far as he knows). So while Valjean begins the story a slave (both literally and spiritually (stealing the silver?!)), Javert remained a slave, ultimately destroying himself.

That, to me, what was what was most tragic about Javert’s death. Such finality, and no possibility for redemption of that character. Valjean’s death, on the other hand, was a beautiful death. He looked so ragged and tired; so ready for death. That entire song was one long “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.” He had fulfilled his purpose.

Anyway, I thought the whole thing was amazing. So emotional, so many good messages, so many good contrasts, good motifs, excellent development of our hero (Valjean), and some good peeks at the underlying psychology of Javert.

 

[sirius25]

I’ve just watched the movie today. I’d like to see more similar movies. By similar, I mean portraying Christian teachings as the main message. Any suggestions?

 

[Cat]

Absolutely!

“To love another person is to see the face of God.” If we turn our noses up at a movie with this as its central message - in this day and age - then we deserve the rot that Hollywood often turns out.

Well, I guess I deserve rot, then, because I turn up my nose at this phrase.

I think we have to be really careful not to become too enamored of this phrase. Here’s why:

In this day and age in the United States, many many people, including many young people, think “love” is the same as “making love,” or to put it bluntly, having sex.

So if they take this phrase seriously, a lot of naive and theologically-ignorant people will think that when they make love to their latest “honey,” that they are “seeing the face of God.” (Nonsense, of course.)

And then when the relationship goes bad, they wonder what happened to God.

IMO, the rather vague philosophy of this phrase could cause modern people (U.S.) to become even more hostile towards God and religion.

I don’t really get the phrase at all. I don’t think it makes any sense. I know plenty of people who truly love other human beings, without sex even, but yet they are atheists, or at best, believers in God but hostile to the Church and any other form of “organized religion.”

I’m reminded of a very sweet-sounding phrase that came out of another tear-jerking movie decades ago: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Very clever-sounding phrase, but of course it’s utter nonsense. There are a lot of divorced and separated people in the world today who wish that they or their ex had been willing to say, “I’m sorry” and mean it.

I’m wondering if perhaps the phrase loses a deeper meaning when translated from French into English? (I’m assuming that this phrase was part of Hugo’s novel.) Or perhaps it loses something when it’s taken out of context and put on a t-shirt.

 

[Cat]

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

That’s me! You’ve nailed it!

I really don’t like the story at all! Novel, play, musical, dramatic reading, or movie–it’s all the same boring, meandering story, and I don’t like it! I think it’s deadly dull!

But I understand that there are only about five of us in the entire world who don’t like the the story in Les Miz. Oh, well. I love Peeps, and only about five of us in the world love Peeps. It takes all kinds, doesn’t it?!

 

[dixieagle]

Well, I guess I deserve rot, then, because I turn up my nose at this phrase.

I think we have to be really careful not to become too enamored of this phrase. Here’s why:

In this day and age in the United States, many many people, including many young people, think “love” is the same as “making love,” or to put it bluntly, having sex.

So if they take this phrase seriously, a lot of naive and theologically-ignorant people will think that when they make love to their latest “honey,” that they are “seeing the face of God.” (Nonsense, of course.)

And then when the relationship goes bad, they wonder what happened to God.

IMO, the rather vague philosophy of this phrase could cause modern people (U.S.) to become even more hostile towards God and religion.

I don’t really get the phrase at all. I don’t think it makes any sense. I know plenty of people who truly love other human beings, without sex even, but yet they are atheists, or at best, believers in God but hostile to the Church and any other form of “organized religion.”

I’m reminded of a very sweet-sounding phrase that came out of another tear-jerking movie decades ago: “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Very clever-sounding phrase, but of course it’s utter nonsense. There are a lot of divorced and separated people in the world today who wish that they or their ex had been willing to say, “I’m sorry” and mean it.

I’m wondering if perhaps the phrase loses a deeper meaning when translated from French into English? (I’m assuming that this phrase was part of Hugo’s novel.) Or perhaps it loses something when it’s taken out of context and put on a t-shirt.

How does “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me” sit with you, then? Because, in the context of the movie or play, that’s really what is meant by the phrase you so dislike. It refers to the bishop’s kindness towards Valjean, Valjean’s treatment of Fantine, Cosette, Marius and even Javert.

It seems that you have simply missed the point of the story and that phrase within it.

 

[Cat]

How does “Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do unto me” sit with you, then? Because, in the context of the movie or play, that’s really what is meant by the phrase you so dislike. It refers to the bishop’s kindness towards Valjean, Valjean’s treatment of Fantine, Cosette, Marius and even Javert.

It seems that you have simply missed the point of the story and that phrase within it.

You’re probably right.

The phrase from the Bible sits just fine with me.

But I’m talking about American society, not me. For many Americans, love doesn’t mean “doing good works for those less fortunate than me.” Love means a warm fuzzy feeling for someone that eventually (usually sooner rather than later) leads to sex.

Many Americans will take the catch-phrase out of context and think that if they have sex with the one they “love” (and aren’t married to), they will “see God.”

 

[dixieagle]

You’re probably right.

The phrase from the Bible sits just fine with me.

But I’m talking about American society, not me. For many Americans, love doesn’t mean “doing good works for those less fortunate than me.” Love means a warm fuzzy feeling for someone that eventually (usually sooner rather than later) leads to sex.

Many Americans will take the catch-phrase out of context and think that if they have sex with the one they “love” (and aren’t married to), they will “see God.”

I agree that the meaning of the term “love” in today’s society is often badly twisted. However, as we are discussing Les Mis, it is pretty near impossible to assign it that connotation within the context of the play or movie.

 

[GEddie]

That’s me! You’ve nailed it!

I really don’t like the story at all! Novel, play, musical, dramatic reading, or movie–it’s all the same boring, meandering story, and I don’t like it! I think it’s deadly dull!

But I understand that there are only about five of us in the entire world who don’t like the the story in Les Miz. Oh, well. I love Peeps, and only about five of us in the world love Peeps. It takes all kinds, doesn’t it?!

Peeps???