Les Miz, darkness, and light


(Warning: The post is full of spoilers. You may want to avoid it if you don’t know the story already!)

Every so often you come across a work of art that reminds me of just why art is so necessary. Generally your initial reaction is to simply get lost in the creation--whether it be a wonderful painting, an excellent book, or a grand musical composition. Once you find yourself again, however, you feel as if your soul has been transported. Your eyes have been opened, and you see more clearly. You own the truth that you may have already known...because it was presented in a way so fundamental to who you are as a person that it becomes a part of you.


Most recently, I had this experience in a movie theater, when Mark and I saw the long-anticipated film adaptation of Les Miserables. I confess that I saw it two weeks ago, but I’ve only just gotten over the stage where all I can say is, “Wow.” Luckily for you, my thoughts are a little more coherent at this point!

As in any story or work of art, the first thing you notice about Les Miz is the tone. It’s dark. Very dark. You hear it in the music, you see it in the blacks and greys, the mud and the bruises of the opening scene. You feel it in the moral depravity of the main character: Jean Valjean, a newly released convict who has been blinded by hate, who resents the world for the injustice it has shown him. 

But then: light. Jean Valjean, lost and unwanted everywhere he goes, is shown generosity and mercy by a kindly, gentle bishop. This one moment of pure goodness has the power to change Valjean’s entire perspective on life. The bishop exhorts him to be a become a better man--and he is so moved that almost against his will he obeys.

Of course the darkness returns. Valjean has chosen holiness, and you see his struggle to be saintly in every choice he makes. But that doesn’t make his life any easier. The world is full of evil, and the movie portrayed it just as it is: terrible and ugly and dark.

It’s not easy to watch. You cringe at the living conditions of the French people. You retch at the sight of the prostitutes, who despite trying to make the best of a terrible situation have all but lost their humanity. There is nothing beautiful or alluring about them, and they know it: they are selling themselves as bodies without souls--and some brilliant costume and makeup artists decided to make them look just like that: if you’ve ever seen an image of a zombie, that is the first thing that will come to your mind when you see the “Lovely Ladies.” 

Yet even these most depraved of characters let rays of light shine through. They see the desperate Fantine, who joins their ranks of the walking dead in order to earn money to save her daughter, and they offer her consolation. They’re wrong in what they offer--but they really are trying to help her. That moment was one of the most touching of the entire film. It’s one thing to be kind when you are a bishop, whose life would be comfortable but for his own radical generosity. It’s even understandable to be kind when, like Valjean, you have been shown goodness and mercy yourself, when your life has been changed for the better. But these ladies had nothing. Their lives were ruined and the only logical emotion for them to feel would be hate. Yet...they show superhuman pity and love. Gives you shivers.

These stark contrasts of light and dark continue throughout the film, and make it the work of art it is. As difficult as it was to watch the moments of depravity, they were necessary. Pope John Paul II made an important point in his must-read Letter to Artists: "Even when they explore the darkest depths of the soul or the most unsettling.aspects of evil, artists give voice in a way to the universal desire for redemption." If it was hard for me to watch, I can only imagine how hard it was for the actors to portray, for the director to conceive. They had to plumb those blackest depths with their imaginations--and every writer knows how painful and grueling that is...but without showing us the darkness, we would be unable to see the heroic virtue and Divine grace it requires for a character to move toward light. And they did so with an admirable restraint; by showing the squalor, they portrayed prostitution and objectification of women in its proper light: as something that can only invoke pity and repulsion in the heart of the viewer. I could shout, “Women should be treated with love and respect!” from the housetops every day for the rest of my life and never get at the truth as well as those few scenes did.



Another striking contrast of darkness and light was in the way the characters viewed and spoke to or about God. You don’t usually get to watch movies in which God is a character...though He may have been invisible throughout Lis Miserables, you can’t deny His presence. Almost every character says His name. In the darkness, the loathsome Thenardiers throw the words “God” and “Jesus” about like ping pong balls--they’ve tossed Him aside--and boy, does it show in their misery. But in the light, Jean Valjean invokes His help. The name of God again breaks through the darkness at the moment of Fantine’s death, when she recognizes rightly that Valjean was “sent from God in heaven.” Later, His name is sung out in prayer by the gentle sisters who unknowingly provide Valjean the sanctuary that saves Cosette’s life. 

But by keeping God invisible--leaving us in darkness, as it were--the great artistic point of the story was made. It’s summed up in one of the last lines of the film: “And remember the truth that once was spoken: to love another person is to see the face of God.”

Talk of art conveying truths... Talk of light breaking through darkness... The character who sings that line--sings it from Heaven.

And this is the power you have as writers and artists. Even if you do so in a small way, you have the power to lift your audience's minds to greater things.

Comments

  1. That was simply one of the best reviews of this movie I've read. Incredibly well done. Now I really want to see the movie. I had a chance to see the musical in London and didn't go, so now I must rectify the situation by at least watching it on DVD!

    I love the last point, too, about artists and our power to show our audience so many different things, both good and bad.

    Thanks for this. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sticking through to the end of a very long post! I think with your flair for history you would love the movie for the setting details alone.

      Delete
  2. Yes! What a wonderful review. Some parts were very hard to watch, but they were necessary. There can be no light without the dark. We took our whole family to see the movie (after telling them the basic story so that they could follow it).

    ReplyDelete
  3. And oh, I love Victor Hugo ... a master. We had an interesting discussion about classics with the kids. No, not the latest neon-shoe fad, but that which endures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is interesting to see what makes a classic, isn't it? I confess that I haven't read the book--only about 75 pages of it in high school before I gave up. But it's on my shelf now so I think I'll dig in again.

      Delete
    2. Well, I got to 50 pages twice and set is aside, but the next time was the perfect time and I could not put it down. It helped we were living in Belgium and I'd seen some of the places mentioned in the book.

      Delete
  4. I think I like the movie better now after reading your thoughts on it, Faith! Beautifully done!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A masterful review - now I have to go see the movie!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have never cried so much during a movie, but I cried when I read the book, too. This is a beautiful analysis of what makes the story so powerful. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Myrna! I cried a lot, too...and I don't cry during movies much.

      Delete
  7. Thank you so much, Faith for this amazing review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're welcome, Mom. :) Thanks for teaching me to write literary analyses!

      Delete
  8. Wonderful review! I haven't seen this movie yet, but I will!

    ReplyDelete
  9. My husband and I saw the movie several weeks ago. Wonderful review. And yes -- that we can lift our readers' minds to greater things.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What a beautifully written review! I haven't yet seen this movie, but how you describe it, it seems that most if it was truly amazing and such a rare grace from Hollywood.

    But I must also say this: evil is never necessary, never okay, and pornography is always evil. I admit, one probably doesn't think of the word "pornography" when describing those scenes you mention! But they actually do fall under that term, as the Church defines "pornography" for us in the Catechism (paragraph 2354). Something need not be glorified, endorsed, or encouraged to be pornographic; it need not even be real. Even a simulated sexual act (i.e. the actors not truly performing it in reality), filmed in a way so as to try to avoid intentionally arousing viewers, and included only to be depicted as evil and discouraged, still falls under the Church's categorical condemnation. To utterly reject this movie in its entirety because of those scenes would no doubt be to throw out the baby with the bathwater... but to go so far as to defend even its problems is to fail to baptize it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for leaving this comment. Certainly pornography is a great danger in our culture, and we should always be on our guard against it. I do wish you had seen the movie, because I'm afraid you will have to take my word for a few things in order to understand my point.
      If the movie had actually shown a sexual act, I could see where you're coming from, but it did not. The act may have been implied, but only the actress's face and shoulders were shown (to show how she was sobbing, and if you didn't know the situation you could have guessed it was something else); it was less than simulated, it was implied. So...there was no "graphic"--no image of sex, which would seem to me a requirement.
      Again, I know you haven't seen it, and I don't want my words to come across as pontificating, so I'll keep my own comments limited. Here, however, is an excellent article by a prominent Catholic reviewer than loved the movie: http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0411fea1.asp
      You can find an excellent video review by him, and another by Father Robert Barron, among others who know a lot more about what they're talking about than I do!

      Delete
    2. As a response to dsdoconnor, You might be interested to read the USCCB (U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) review of Les Miserables. In it they praised the film and made a point that the sexual content was not graphic and was acceptable for adult viewers. It would be a shame if you continued to inform others that something that is a moral good was evil without actually being fully informed in the matter.

      People very often are warned against calling evil good but it can be as damaging to others and the church if a Catholic condemns something publicly as evil when it is in fact a true good.

      Delete
  11. Thank you so much for your reply, Faith! My apologies if I am overstepping my bounds in offering these critiques, having not seen the scenes in question... but I do feel I must try, nevertheless (so thank you for the further details about the scene). First off, (again, I haven't seen this scene either obviously) I primarily have the so-called "Santa" scene in mind in my analysis....but secondly, I do not think even what you describe can be properly labeled as mere implication; I think it indeed is still rightly called simulation. Implication would be the case were the camera to show them both go into a room with the door closing behind them. If I recall correctly, the 1998 version of Les Mis (which I absolutely love) does a much better job portraying the depravity of prostitution, while sticking more closely to implication (as opposed to simulation) than this Les Mis does. Whether or not we personally feel something is graphic is not equivalent to whether or not the act in question is simulated. To have the camera on the actors simultaneous in time and position to the act in question supposedly taking place in the story, is precisely what simulation consists in. Anyway... I know there is room for disagreement here, so thank you from the bottom of my heart for graciously entering into a reasonable conversation on this with me!

    My dear anonymous friend - thank you for bringing that up! That is very good to know, but of course (needless to say), USCCB film reviews are not Magisterial, and I do have a track record of disagreeing with them with a clear conscience. I recall, for example, some years ago, the USCCB put out a rave review of a homo-normative movie called "Best in Show."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course, Daniel! The day I think I know everything and stop seeking the truth will be a sad day indeed!
      I'm sorry if I misunderstood you--I thought you were referring to the scene where Fantine becomes a prostitute, closer to what I was discussing in my post. The scene with Santa flashed by so quickly that I'm afraid I can't properly remember it...I do remember feeling it was rather irreverent (since Santa was dressed traditionally as a bishop) but the only image I recall is of women at the inn spinning him around in a wild dance. I think it was pretty clear what they had in mind, but that is all I can remember.
      And yes, there is some gray area, so it is important that all of us follow our conscience and inform it as best we can. I was interested to read the USCCB review, since even though I have disagreed with them as well on the overall worth of certain films, they are careful to point out objectionable topics and images, and I do trust them there... I have a great love and respect for our bishops, and they have a very difficult job, so I place great weight on what they have to say.
      There is, as you say, room for disagreement as to whether or not a scene or image is appropriate, but it doesn't seem to me that something can be be pornographic without being graphic--that defies its definition. Of course, just as the beautiful nude paintings in the Sistine Chapel and Vatican museums can portray a naked human body without being inappropriate, an image can be inappropriate without showing certain parts of the body. (Oh, have you read John Paul II's Love and Responsibility? He did an excellent job of pointing out some important differences between art and pornography...I highly recommend it!) I don't believe the image of Fantine crying was inappropriate (it was rather like the closed door analogy you used, since we don't see the man after the point he leads her away), and it was not pornographic as defined by the CCC.
      As to whether the 1998 version or the 2012 version does a better job, I can't even hope to comment rationally--I haven't seen the prior version!
      Thank you, as well, for the good conversation!

      Delete

Popular Posts