Section 8 Notes to accompany the study of some French films and literature

Section 8         Viewing, reading and writing

Notes to help understand and write about a variety of French films and some literature

 Notes and sometimes review notes are available on:

Professeur Holland (Mr Holland’s Opus)

Le Dîner de Cons

Molière

Luc Besson films

Jean de Florette

Les Enfants du Paradis

Les Misérables (extended notes)

Notre Dame de Paris

Cyrano de Bergerac

Les Choristes

La Rafle

Attila Marcel

Oui, mais….

Les Fleurs du Mal

Please scroll down to find the desired area of study.

Extended viewing, reading and writing played an integral part in studies at National 4 and 5, Higher and Advanced Higher levels.

In an attempt to improve standards of writing, we introduced the study of films and related texts to S3 and S4, though films were also viewed and discussed in S1 and S2.

As a first step towards improving writing (and listening) skills, a film was played in French (with subtitles in English) and pupils answered questions which were written in French. The answers required were generally simple, perhaps even one-word answers, but pupils were then asked to write answers up in complete French sentences.

The first film used for this type of exercise was an American production, "Mr Holland's Opus". It was chosen because the context and content were appropriate and of interest to our pupils. The film and questions were intended for pupils in late S2 or S3, though S4 may also have benefited.

Questions covering all 16 chapters of the DVD are provided below. While the answers themselves are not too demanding and are generally accessible to most pupils (especially with the help of subtitles!), the full written answers in French are prepared in advance - help may be given in respect of particular vocabulary and structures, but the main point is that by and large pupils can use the structures contained in the questions to provide answers.

In S3 and later, learners were invited to view a film, discuss its plot, themes and character development, and were given notes (consisting of discussion in English, guidance on writing, and questions and vocabulary in French).

After discussion and preparation, pupils were asked to produce a fairly brief piece of writing on the film in keeping with the guidance notes they had been given. These notes/writing also served as preparation for a presentation or as an element in a talking assessment.

Mr Holland’s Opus (Professeur Holland)

Professeur Holland (Mr. Holland’s Opus)
Chapitre 1
1) 1) À quelle heure est-ce que M. Holland se lève?
2) 2) À quelle heure est-ce qu’il commence son travail?
3) 3) Comment se sent M. Holland, son premier jour?
4) 4) Quand est-ce qu’il va voir l’orchestre?
5) 5) Il doit préparer ses cours pour quels mois?
Chapitre 2
1) 1) M. Holland demande une définition de quoi?
2) 2) Est-ce que les élèves s’intéressent à son cours?
3) 3) D’après M. Holland, pourquoi est-ce que l’orchestre est là?
4) 4) Qu’est-ce que M. Holland a fait avant d’enseigner?
5) 5) Pourquoi est-ce qu’il est devenu professeur?
6) 6) Il doit rester dans l’enseignement encore combien de temps?
7) 7) Gertrude joue depuis combien de temps?
8) 8) Quand est-ce que M. Holland va la voir?
9) 9) Que pense M. Holland des notes de sa classe?
10) 10) Pourquoi est-ce que M. Holland dit à Gertrude de s’arrêter?
Chapitre 3
1) 1) Quand est-ce que la première séance du comité doit avoir lieu?
2) 2) Qu’est-ce que M. Holland ressent pour l’enseignement?
3) 3) Sa femme lui parle de quelle complication?
4) 4) M. Holland avait quel âge quand il a découvert John Coltrane?
5) 5) Qu’est-ce qu’il a pensé de sa musique au début?
6) 6) Ses élèves aiment quelle sorte de musique?
7) 7) Quand est-ce que Bach a composé la musique jouée par M. Holland?
8) 8) M. Holland et sa femme, qu’est-ce qu’ils décident d’acheter?
9) 9) Comment est-ce qu’il décrit jouer de la musique?
10) 10) Qu’est-ce qu’elle aime le plus en elle-même, Gertrude?
11) 11) Pour l’aider à mieux jouer, qu’est-ce que M. Holland conseille à Gertrude?
Chaptres 4, 5, 6
1) 1) Que dit M. Holland quand son élève lui dit que c’est une rue à sens unique ?
2) 2) M. Holland a un fils ou une fille ?
3) 3) Comment s’appelle l’enfant ?
4) 4) Qu’est-ce qu’il pense de son enfant ?
5) 5) Pourquoi est-ce que les directeurs n’aiment pas le rock n’roll ?
6) 6) Pourquoi est-ce que M. Holland est prêt à utiliser le rock n’roll et les autres types de musique ?
7) 7) Qu’est-ce qu’on demande à M. Holland de monter ?
8) 8) Qu’est-ce qu’ils ne savent pas faire, les musiciens ?
9) 9) Bill va aider – à condition que MH accepte qui dans la fanfare ?
10) 10) Où en est le problème ?
11) 11) Qu’est-ce que Lou décide d’étudier ?
12) 12) Qu’est-ce qu’il n’arrive pas à trouver ?
13) 13) Pourquoi est-ce que MH finit par le féliciter ?
14) 14) Est-ce que la fanfare est nulle ou un succès ?
15) 15) Qu’est-ce qu’il a, Cole ?
Chaptres 7 – 10
1) 1) Comment Glenn et Iris, doivent-ils traiter leur fils?
2) 2) Qu’est-ce qu’il ne faut pas utiliser pour communiquer?
3) 3) Qu’a fait Beethoven pour prouver que les gens avaient tort sur lui?
4) 4) Quelle est l’explication pour comment Beethoven a pu distinguer les notes musicales?
5) 5) Pourquoi est-ce que Glenn est inquiet pour l’école privée?
6) 6) Qu’est qu’Iris veut faire?
7) 7) Donnez les détails pour les cours – quand, pour combien de temps, et combien de fois par semaine.
8) 8) Quel est le meilleur moyen de s’occuper d’un casse-pieds?
Chaptres 11 et 12
1) 1) Qu’est-ce que Madame Jacobs va faire ?
2) 2) Quelle est la surprise qu’elle a pour M. Holland ?
3) 3) Qu’est-ce qu’on propose comme spectacle cette année ?
4) 4) Quelle est l’idée de Bill pour que le spectacle gagne de l’argent ?
5) 5) Qui va apprendre aux joueurs de foot à danser ?
6) 6) Que pense M. Holland de Rowena Morgan ?
7) 7) Cole – qu’est-ce qu’il veut devenir dans la vie ?
8) 8) Pourquoi est-ce que M. Holland n’écrit pas sa propre musique ?
9) 9) D’après M. Holland, la chanson de Rowena parle de quoi ?
10) 10) Qu’est-ce que Rowena a apprécié dans les cours de M. Holland ?
11) 11) Qu’est-ce que Rowena aimerait faire dans la vie ?
Chaptre 13
1) 1) Que pense Rowena de la musique de Monsieur Holland?
2) 2) D’après M. Holland, qui est Rowena?
3) 3) Le spectacle est un échec ou un succès?
4) 4) Où va Rowena, et quand?
5) 5) Qu’est-ce qu’elle propose à M. Holland?
6) 6) Qu’est-ce que M. Hooland a prévu pour Rowena?
7) 7) Est-ce qu’il l’accompagne?
Chaptre 14
1) 1) Cole accuse son père de quoi?
2) 2) Selon M. Holland, qu’est-ce qu’il essayait de faire?
3) 3) Que fait M. Holland pour se racheter aux yeux de son fils?
Chaptre 15
1) 1) Le Principal doit economizer 10% de son budget – comment est-ce qu’il va y réussir?
2) 2) M. Holland vient d’avoir quel âge?
3) 3) Que pense M. Holland des efforts du tribunal?
4) 4) Il dit qu’il est trop vieux pour faire quoi?
5) 5) Qu’est-ce qu’il ressent?
6) 6) Qui arrive?
7) 7) Qu’est-ce qu’il entend en sortant?
Chaptre 16
1) 1) Qui est le Maître de cérémonies?
2) 2) D’après Gertrude, qu’est-ce que M. Holland avait espéré faire de sa vie?
3) 3) Quel effet a-t-il eu sur les spectateurs?
4) 4) Qu’est-ce qu’il doit diriger pour la première fois?
Fin du film


Le Dîner de Cons

 “Le Dîner de Cons”, a French comedy made in 1998 starring Thierry Lhermitte and Jacques Villeret.

This is the story of a group of men who seek out “idiots” and invite them to a meal so they can have a laugh at their expense. However, things don’t go according to plan when Monsieur Brochant invites Monsieur Pignon to his flat …

“Le Dîner de Cons” is a tale which is at times hilarious and at other times quite sad and touching.

Monsieur Brochant, a successful publisher, is in the habit of seeking out “idiots” and inviting them as guests to regular dinner parties, which he attends with several friends. The purpose of these evenings is quite simply to have a laugh at the expense of their guests as they discuss their hobbies and passions – such as boomerang throwing or building intricate models out of matchsticks.

Monsieur Brochant makes a grave error, however, when he invites Monsieur Pignon as his arrival triggers a series of events and misunderstandings which will eventually cause M. Brochant to review the whole direction of his life …..

While wonderfully entertaining, “Le Dîner de Cons” also provides for reflection on the ways in which we look on and judge people, and emphasises the importance of tolerance and respect for others in our everyday dealings with them.

Nobody is perfect, but perhaps we should make more effort to see beyond the surface, and to consider the fairness of our own attitudes toward others.

The Writing Task

You should aim to produce 150 – 200 words. To help structure your writing, you should use the following bullet points:

• Give a brief outline of the story

· Describe the main character(s) in some detail

· Say what happened in your favourite scene

· Choose a theme from the film and discuss it

· Give your general opinion of the film

When you come to write about “Le Dîner de Cons”, apart from making use of the vocabulary lists provided, you should pay attention to the structures and vocabulary contained in the questions, and use some of them in your answers.

In giving an outline of the story it might be a good idea to use the present tense. This is often used in French to describe events in a book or film.

When describing characters, you should be aware of a variety of possible responses to them, and use a selection of adjectives to describe them. Avoid simple lists and you might want to provide a brief account of some events.

The description of your favourite scene could be written in the perfect tense.

Discussing themes and your general response to the film provides the opportunity to develop your own ideas and your own language to communicate these ideas. Remember to express yourself as clearly as possible.

Questions

1) Pourquoi est-ce que Monsieur Brochant et ses amis invitent des “idiots” à dîner?

Se moquer de

Un passe-temps

Une passion

Discuter de

2) Comment est-ce que les choses se compliquent?

Avoir mal à Un malentendu

Finir par Se tromper de

Quitter Un numéro de téléphone

Essayer de Une série de

Aider Devoir

Considérer comme Voir

3) Comment est-ce qu’on peut décrire les personnages principaux?

J’ai trouvé intelligent

À mon avis rusé

Il faut avouer/dire que séduisant

Idiot sûr de lui

Bête prospère

Enfantin insensible

Altruiste égoiste

Honnête cruel

Obsessionnel méchant

Sensible spirituel

Compatissant superficiel

Anxieux

Ouvert

Peu intéressant

Peu attrayant

Pas méchant

4) Quelle était votre scène préférée?

Ma scène préférée était celle où …

Person + avoir/être + past participle

5) Choisissez un thème et discutez-en.

Plusieurs tenir compte de

Il ne faut pas la personne en entier

On ne doit pas regarder au-dessous de la surface

Juger comment on traite les gens

Se moquer de faire réfléchir à

6) Comment avez-vous trouvé ce film en général?

J’ai trouvé ce film ….

(peu) intéressant ridicule

(peu) amusant décevant

rigolo touchant

hilarant émouvant

divertissant exagéré

dans certaines scènes … dans d’autres ..

c’était à la fois

ce film m’a amusé

déçu

diverti

touché

fait rire

fait réfléchir

c’était trop … simple

compliqué

Je ne peux pas dire que

Je le recommanderais à mes copains

Je crois qu’ils le trouveraient ….

Molière

Reflections on "Molière"

Welcome to my page of thoughts on the film "Moliere" (2007, written and directed by Laurent Tirard and starring Romain Duris in the title role). This is not intended as a full review of the film, but rather a look at some of the themes the film and Moliere's work in general touches upon. 

Initially well received by critics and public alike, the film went on to be criticised, at least in the UK and the USA, for being a little shallow - criticism I find somewhat ironic and largely unjustified as Moliere accuses himself of just such a fault quite early in the film, and the film then deals with this issue more than adequately, in my opinion.

It does seem a little unfair to criticise a film for not being something reviewers think it should be. "Shakespeare in love" was much appreciated for its clever combination of historical fact, transposition of character and imagined biographical detail. Critics and public were happy to celebrate the witty creation of an intriguing and light-hearted sortie into historical fiction. "Moliere" uses the same conceit and actually takes shallowness as one of its themes, yet it is accused of lack of depth despite delivering an involving and entertaining package!

  

Personally, I found "Moliere" intriguing, involving, and of considerable historical interest. It brings the celebrated author and the content and context of his plays to life. Human and amusing, the film reveals the themes of the time, most of which remain relevant to society today, such as an examination of social strata and class superiority, the value of sincerity and genuine love as opposed to adopting manners or airs and graces in order to please others or to try to advance socially, religious zealotry and how principle can be manipulated to achieve one's own ends, and the vagaries of parental interference in children's lives, to name but a few of the themes touched upon.

It would be short-sighted to consider that the seventeenth century setting of Moliere's work means that it is not relevant to today. Moliere's reading of human nature and society is so acute that he sees beyond the immediate context of his play and touches on universal themes and problems.

The bourgeois or middle classes aspiring to the heady heights of the aristocracy who in turn are doing their best to avoid the depths of having to work in order to acquire money can surely be simply replaced with different players aspiring to different positions. The fundamental truth remains that there are those who (may be forced to) fawn to those considered superior, or those who treat their "inferiors" with contempt. Religious zealots can be seen as any group claiming moral or spiritual superiority, yet who manage to improve their own physical lot along the way.

  

Moliere clearly invites us to consider our true worth, value and place in society, to value what is genuine and not to take people or position for granted.

There are, of course, many different ways of assessing the value of literary work. According to the film, Moliere wished to be regarded as a great writer - someone with things to say about life - but he himself does not recognise the value of comedy (which he regards as light and frivolous) in the drive toward fulfilling his aim. He appears to believe serious points can only truly be made through serious drama and tragedy, dramatic forms for which he has little or no talent.

Moliere is presented as a man dogged by a sense of his own lack of worth or value. Success is not enough - he wishes to leave behind something meaningful and serious. Yet he is given hope and inspiration by one he loves and respects and who is about to die. He is given a new perspective and insight into the possibility that through his comedy he can indeed deliver a meaningful and worthwhile "message", and a commentary on society and life.

Pointing out society's and various individuals' foibles in a witty and entertaining manner is perhaps more engaging and thus can be more effective than a "serious" play on the same theme. Man's nature is examined indirectly through a comedy of manners and social etiquette.

The plays Moliere admired undoubtedly contained many truths and insights into human nature (often taken to extreme), but Moliere's plays remain accessible to readers/viewers. There is a familiarity and comfort in his settings and situations and readers/viewers are more likely to identify and associate with these events and characters, ultimately perhaps lending them greater value and impact than other more "serious" works. 

This film really brought Moliere's world alive for me. The historical context and pervading humanity allow the viewer to enjoy and appreciate Moliere's work with a fresh eye. Emotionally engaging as well as entertaining, I thoroughly enjoyed all the performances, though especially Fabrice Luchini and Romain Duris who managed to be amusing and touching, much like the film as a whole, as befits a work inspired by the works of Molière.

Luc Besson Films

Characters and Themes in

Luc Besson's "Le Dernier Combat", "Subway",

"The Big Blue", "Nikita", "Leon"

and "Angel-A"

Main characters and society

The principal characters in "Subway", "The Big Blue", "Nikita" and "Leon" all have at least one thing in common - they are all loners or outcasts from society. They do not fit easily into the conformist society that is the experience of the majority of citizens, but then the societies depicted in the films may also be considered extreme and outside the experience of most.

The worlds explored in these films (with the possible exception of "Big Blue") are dark and uncertain places where conventional views of what is right and wrong are challenged, and indeed where only the principal characters (in spite of appearances) show any real "integrity". It is in the conflict between these characters and the societies in which they live that we witness interesting and challenging observations on life, morality, and personal development. These worlds are extreme, as are the actions and reactions of the characters, but then that is the basis of drama, and extremity may lead to greater clarity.

We shall look, then, into the nature of these principal characters, their development, and their relationships with other characters. We shall also look at the nature of the societies in which these characters interact.

Grey reality beneath the surface

In each of the films it is worth noting that we are led below the surface of society. This is true quite literally and also metaphorically.

In "Subway" we are taken into the underground system in Paris where Fred encounters a group of misfits who clearly have no desire to lead a conventional life, but whose "integrity" is beyond question. Like Fred, they are true to themselves and do what they feel they have to do to survive. They do not doubt or question themselves. They lead their lives as they see fit, even if this means breaking society's laws. While we do not approve of their actions or admire them, we may have some respect for their refusal to lie down and conform to society's expectations of them.

It is in this context that Helena falls for Fred. She and her husband's henchmen pursue Fred into the underground system in an attempt to regain some papers he has stolen from her husband's safe. She is tired of her gangster husband's scams and shady dealings and she appreciates Fred's openness and sincerity. He is what he appears to be and Helena finds this refreshing. Her husband and his cronies are shallow and superficial, but worst of all are lacking in personality or character. They have conformed to one side of society, playing their parts in accordance with what is expected of them, doing and saying whatever they have to do to make a "killing". Their purpose is simply to make money and whatever they achieve is achieved by deceitful or unscrupulous methods, thus diminishing its value.

The police are equally dull and disappointing. At best they are hollow and disillusioned, having faced the endless onslaught of the criminal element all their working lives, going through the same motions every day, knowing that they make little real difference to society and its problems. At worst they are young, mindless, and over-confident, believing without question or doubt that they do a good and worthwhile job, playing the part of the protectors of society.

By comparison, Fred is exciting and attractive. He is spontaneous and daring, and is not afraid to act on impulse, following his instincts.

Although he shows himself to be quite amoral, he is at the same time "honest" in that he does nothing to deceive, shows a high degree of sensitivity and understanding, and is perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions, criminal or otherwise.

His declared ambition is to form a rock group and manage it, and he uses the money obtained from an armed robbery to that end. The money is a means to this end, rather than an end in itself - he is quite sincere in his desire to form a group and believes in the talent of those he has gathered together to form the group who want to express themselves musically and with integrity.

Fred shows little respect for the law or for the property of others. He steals Helena's car at the start of the film, having blown up her husband's safe and stolen some papers. Again this appears to be a quite spontaneous act - he explains later that he simply doesn't like safes and that's it! He tries to sell the papers back and alters the price on an emotional whim, in return for a photo of Helena when she was young.

Clearly this is no master criminal. He acts on impulse and tries to turn events to his advantage, but basically we are dealing with a young man who is an independent, free spirit. He does not recognise the constraints of the law, not because he has rejected them, but because he is simply being himself and does not appear to consider the consequences (legally speaking) of his actions. He is what he is and he accepts it. He is "natural". That this conflicts with society's laws and expectations is the basis of the film.

He appears to believe in chance (or fate?) and that one should give in to one's feelings. He meets and falls in love with Helena very quickly but is certain of his feelings for her. He makes no attempt to explain or resist his feelings - he simply accepts what he feels and acts accordingly.

This is perhaps a suitable point to discuss the quotes at the very start of the film:

"To be is to do" - Socrates, "To do is to be" - Sartre, "Do be do be do" - Sinatra

These quotes provide an essential key to understanding the film and what Besson is trying (I think!) to say.

Philosophers have tried since the beginning of time to capture the essence and meaning of life, and summarise it in a few brief words. Besson, it appears, is saying this cannot be - life cannot be summed up and explained. We do what we feel we have to do, in accordance with our nature, if we are honest with ourselves. Society may have imposed its laws and customs, but below the surface we are at the mercy of our nature, which contains a stronger force than any artificially imposed structure of law and morality.

It is suggested we cannot fully account for what we are or the way we act. Nature cannot be fully explained in spite of our attempts to analyse and master it. This conflict between civilisation and man's nature is one of the key themes of the film. We are all under pressure to conform, one way or another, be it as an exploiter of society or one of its protectors, but Fred manages to go his own way, incurring the wrath of both sides in the process.

We are not entirely sure what to make of Fred, but we find him more attractive than his opponents. Perhaps this is because he appears so innocent and direct. He appears to bear no malice to anyone - he simply acts on what is in his heart. While we recognise the necessity for laws, our encounter with him may cause us to question our own place in society, indeed the very nature of society.

Within this society there is no reference to an ultimate authority, no immediate and unquestioning acceptance of the superiority of society's protectors. Each character does what he or she feels he must do - each acts in accordance with his nature. Here there is no morality. We are all free, though we may concede to pressure and end up playing a role in life rather than leading the life we might choose for ourselves if we had the courage and strength to do so. Helena has become dissatisfied with her life and is looking for something, or someone, more spontaneous and original. Gesberg (chief inspector) is equally disillusioned, though perhaps for different reasons - he has lost faith in and respect for the system, and is rewarded with only fleeting moments of success. The rest of the time he is reminded of the robotic nature of his job, or he is faced with a picture of a system in decay in which the criminal element seems to be gaining the upper hand.

Most of the other characters are relatively content with their lot and simply get on with the business of living, apart from Fred who is in search of fulfilment through music. Here we have a young man who is relatively untainted by society, and who dares to try to impose his will upon it rather than seek a place within it. This attitude inspires attraction and admiration in some, and perhaps some jealousy in others.

What we have, then, is a film noir in which the characters are painted in various shades of grey, and a world which causes us to reflect on society and our place within it. It is a modern play on existentialism, in which the nature and very existence of morality is called into question and each character exercises an influence on the lives and fates of the others.

From grey to blue

"The Big Blue" is significantly different from "Subway" in that the structure of society is not so much criticised as investigated with regard to the place within it of Jacques the misfit diver who has seemingly supernatural powers, or rather whose very nature is called into question.

"Big Blue" has a different and gentler feel to it, perhaps not least because it is based on a true story and is therefore stranger than any fiction Besson might have dared attempt to put on screen. Here he does not have to struggle to make his characters believable or acceptable - he is not responsible for their development as he is simply recounting their story as it happened (more or less).

Once again we are taken below the surface to see things as they really are.

Jacques Mayol is happiest when he is underwater. He is often ill at ease when having to deal with others, and prefers the company of dolphins to that of men. Indeed he appears to regard dolphins as something of a kindred spirit. He dives professionally, helping salvage crews and working with insurance companies yet he appears to take little real interest or pride in the work - he does it because he loves diving. This is his talent, his nature, and he uses his talent as much to indulge himself as to help others. To him, diving is an end in itself and working while diving is a means of making ends meet.

For Enzo Molinari, a fellow diver and world champion, diving is also a way of life - it is how he makes his living, but his principal concern is with proving himself the best. He is a gregarious and sociable character with a great zest for, and love of, life. He is also very competitive.

Within society there is an overwhelming need not so much to succeed, but to defeat others. Achievement seems to count for less than winning, and Enzo must defeat Jacques if he is truly to consider himself world champion.

Into this world comes Jacques who is entirely natural and is unmotivated by greed, ambition, or jealousy. He appears to wander from one job to another, with no particular end in mind, and no real sense of ambition.

Enzo is world champion but he is haunted by the fact that he knows Jacques may be capable of beating him. He feels the need to prove himself to the most important judge of all - himself. However, when invited to take part in the championships Jacques asks simply, "Why?". He then assures Enzo that he is the best, but with a moment's hesitation reminiscent of the time in Greece when, as youngsters, Enzo proves himself by diving for a coin in place of Jacques. He is tempted to compete against Enzo, not so much because he feels the need to confirm his superiority - he knows, quite simply, that he can out-dive his friend Enzo, but he really does not want to get involved in the social circus surrounding these events. Becoming champion is not a priority for Jacques - he has no need to prove himself, and no desire to hurt his friend or take his place as world champion. Yet he knows within himself that he is the better of the two.

Jacques and Johana are drawn to one another from the start. Once again we see the theme of love or attraction being inexplicable and unstoppable. Johana goes to considerable lengths to pursue her "prey", and Jacques is delighted to see her again though he is somewhat ill at ease and awkward with relationships. Again the chemistry between characters is difficult to define and their love endures hardships until the end when Jacques must give in to his nature and follow his heart.

Jacques cannot cope with a serious and long-term relationship involving responsibility. He is not "made" for that aspect of social life. His spirit belongs to the sea. The sea is his home and there comes a point where he must choose between "acting" in a society in which he feels uncomfortable, or following his instincts.

Johana, sadly, is equally drawn to Jacques and can do little to combat her attraction. She is in the unfortunate position of coming second to Jacques' true love.

Once again we are invited to consider the place of the individual in society, though not so much as a challenge to the structure of that society, but more from the point of view of the capacity of society to cope with those who are unconventional or whose nature does not allow them to conform to the norm. We are equally invited to consider the capacity of those "misfits" to cope with the demands and pressures placed upon them by society.

As Jacques becomes increasingly involved in competitive diving, this leads to greater social pressure and accentuates the questions concerning his nature and his place in society, and above all it raises questions concerning his relationship with Johana. With this pressure Jacques appears to withdraw ever more deeply within himself to the extent that he begins to confuse mental images with reality.

Could it be that Jacques is slipping steadily into a deepening depression? (The "big blue" of the title?). He appears less and less able to cope with social demands such as those incurred by his relationship, while he becomes increasingly obsessed with going deeper and for longer than ever, to the point where he feels he "has to know" - but what remains unspecified. Is it how far he can go, or does he want to know his true nature, or is it simply to gain knowledge of what is unknown? What we do know is that he was previously happy with his lot - he didn't know how to ask questions, but being surrounded by people has fired his thirst for knowledge (about the world and himself), but this knowledge has led inexorably to a loss of happiness and innocence.

The clash between these characters whose lives are entwined in spite of themselves forms the basis for this tragi-drama in which each main character exercises a considerable (if unintended) influence on the others, and is pushed to the limit of his or her endurance as they follow their instincts.

Once again we have an examination of the influence we have on one another's lives, though on this occasion concentration is maintained on this issue rather than the issue of morality.

Nikita - back to black  

With "Nikita" Besson returns to familiar territory, questioning the nature of society and morality, the place of the individual within that society, and the potential for personal growth and development.

Once again we are taken underground - Nikita is trained in an underground establishment and she certainly has to deal with the underworld, a world most of us have little opportunity to see, yet which forms a basis for the world in which most of us live.

Nikita is recruited to serve with France's secret service. It is suggested they make use of criminal types to protect the interests of the State. Those in authority are portrayed as ruthless but dedicated to their task. They have complete and blind faith in the sanctity of their mission, to protect the State at all costs. Clearly morality has little place in this world as they do whatever they feel they must do to defend the interests of the citizens of France.

To help achieve their aim, they must use people who are willing to kill or at the least whose consciences are unlikely to trouble them. It appears that Nikita fits into this category as she was responsible for the death of a policeman in a burglary at the age of 19. It is assumed she is psychologically suitable for the necessary work, and she is trained with considerable success after a decidedly weak start after which she is threatened with death.

We feel great sympathy for Nikita and the situation in which she finds herself. Thrown onto the streets at a tender age by an uncaring mother, Nikita has learned to survive in the urban jungle, but has got involved with a group of addicts who will stop at nothing to feed their habit. When she kills the policeman she is clearly under the influence of a foreign substance and is therefore less responsible for her actions, though we would certainly not wish to condone her actions - we do feel a degree of sympathy.

The representatives of the State offer Nikita a second chance - to serve the State. At first she is uncooperative, but she learns discipline for the first time in her life, and learns how to learn and develop. It is worth noting that the State is responsible for her development. Of course the authorities wish to use her talents for their own ends, but nonetheless the State provides the education and direction she has lacked and which she sorely needs.

However, it appears the State has sorely underestimated Nikita and her capacities. She accepts her position at first, accomplishing a variety of missions for the benefit of the State, including assassinations. There is a sense of duty and perhaps more importantly a sense of debt. She must pay her debt to society - both for the death of the policeman and her second chance. Unfortunately for the State she evolves into something more than the psychopath tool they thought they were creating. She develops into an independent and self-respecting young woman who has developed a greater sense of morality than her masters. She is willing to perform the tasks set her, but on her own terms, and without violence.

Eventually she gains freedom from the secret service by using the very techniques in which they trained her, but at a price - she must lose her fiancé Marco and her immediate superior, Bob for whom she had deep feelings.

Yet again love is seen as uncontrollable and perhaps impossible. Nikita enters into a happy and stable relationship with Marco, but at the end of the film we discover that her heart belongs to Bob. She is aware that a relationship with Bob would be dangerous and doubtless hurtful to both, so she avoids a physical relationship. However, she can do nothing to prevent the feelings and emotions within her, and she reveals her feelings in a letter left for Bob.

Fred lost his life as a result of pursuing his nature and love for Helena. Jacques abandoned his love for Johana to pursue his nature. Now Nikita has learned to contain her feelings and pursue her future as an independent woman taking control of her life while recognising her sentiments but refusing to give in to them. There would appear to be something of a progression in these characters, going from blindly following one's nature to making a conscious choice, to taking control and exercising maturity. The main characters share certain traits but display an increasingly mature way of dealing with what life throws at them.

"Nikita" is perhaps as much about growing up as it is about the place of the individual in relation to the State, or the nature of love. Nikita evolves more than either Fred or Jacques in the course of the film - she goes from being a lost, animal-like creature doing what is necessary for survival, to a mature, disciplined, and thoughtful individual who has learned from her experience and who has developed beyond the level of her hypocritical but determined masters.

It is interesting to note that Bob, the State's representative also controls his feelings for Nikita, though he does not develop in any other direction. He remains the same cool professional he was at the start of the film, his faith in the State and its activities completely intact.

It is also worthy of note that just as the principal characters appear to develop and grow, the societies in which they evolve appear to deteriorate and decay (morally speaking).

In "Subway" society is seen as a morally grey place, with everyone doing what they have to do to survive, but with a fairly clear delineation between "goodies" and "baddies". In "Nikita", however, things have become decidedly darker, with the authorities using the same tactics as their enemies to gain the upper hand, albeit in order to fulfil their mission to protect the public. While in "Leon" police activities are subverted to suit the ends of the evil police officer Stansfield - the forces of "good" being used to advance criminal activities, Leon, a professional killer, becomes the protector of the innocent.

Leon - from black to grey again  

The world in which Leon operates is the blackest of these four films. He is a professional killer employed by the underworld to resolve its problems in a particularly direct manner.

The police, traditionally seen as the protectors of society, are used by the manipulating and cynical Stansfield to promote his criminal plans. No-one is innocent in the film (except perhaps Mathilda), but there is no recourse to justice. Actions are therefore left to the individual's sense of duty and fairness, and it is at this point that Leon discovers within himself feelings of which he was previously unaware, and he takes on the mantle of protector, undergoing the transformation from robotic killer to defender of the innocent.

Leon inspires considerable pathos. He is somewhat child-like himself in that he is uneducated, loyal and unquestioning toward his "family" in the underworld. He accepts without doubt his missions and exists purely to fulfil his contracts. He appears to have little life beyond his professional activities. He has been trained as a killer and is entirely devoted and obedient to his "family".

It is only when he encounters Mathilda, a relatively "innocent" 12-year-old whose dubious family falls foul of Stansfield and is to be executed, that Leon's inner feelings of paternal care are awakened. At one point he considers killing her himself, but he cannot bring himself to do so - for perhaps the first time he is listening to his own heart and concedes to his own feelings. He is becoming his own man, independent and thoughtful.

Once again we witness the themes of personal growth and development, the questioning of the existence of morality, and the evolution of feelings of love in spite of ourselves, though in this case there is an even stronger bond. This time the love is more akin to that of a parent and child, with the parent being willing to do anything to protect their child - to the point of self-sacrifice.

Love is a catalytic factor in this growth and leads to the discovery of morality and deeper feelings than either is accustomed to. This leads equally to increased self-respect and doubts over past actions, while paternal devotion replaces the previous emptiness of Leon's life and gives him a much-needed purpose and sense of responsibility.

It is curious that it is through a man who made his living dealing in immorality that Mathilda should discover love and respect as the death of her family inadvertantly provides her with the opportunity of growing and developing - rather like a young Nikita, but one who was fortunate to have found affection and guidance early in her life. In the same way Leon is very similar to Victor in "Nikita", though more human and touched by love and a sense of responsibility.

Leon - the director's cut

I have just seen the director's cut of "Leon" (October 2009), and there are substantial additions to the original version that I saw some fifteen years ago. These additions amount to approximately 20 minutes, and focus largely on Mathilda’s training with Leon, and her contributions to his work. We learn more about Mathilda's feelings for Leon and there is considerably more black humour.

Overall, I would say that the added footage serves to emphasise rather than alter what we already know and feel about the characters, but it also serves to give the audience a smoother ride. Developments in character and transition in narrative are clearer and contain references to previous scenes and dialogue. Changes are summarised more clearly, and the narrative unfolds at a more comfortable pace.

Le Dernier Combat

Several years after encountering Besson's films, I have finally acquired his first full length feature!

Made on a smaller scale and (perhaps as a result of this) more symbolically poetic than his later films, "Le Dernier Combat" nonetheless establishes the pattern developed in his subsequent work.

We see society in disarray and moral decay. We question the place of the individual in that society, and we study the integrity of the potentially amoral "hero". The amorality/immorality of the "baddies" reflects the existential nature of life in this post-apocalyptic world.

The characters here are more clearly representations of attitudes or differing elements of society than the more idiosyncratic and finely honed characters developed in his other films, though it could be argued this lends the film greater clarity of intent.

Setting a film which invites its audience to reflect on society, freedom, morality and individuality in a post-apocalyptic future has numerous advantages, the principal advantage being that the facade of civilisation has gone and we are left with man's true nature. This situation again lends simplicity and clarity, allowing the film's "messages" to come across all the more clearly.

Besson's later films are more complex and daring in that they deal with the apparent disintegration and decay of society while the facade remains intact. This subsequent setting also allows (or demands) more complex development of his characters.

"Le Dernier Combat" sets the pattern and makes clear where Besson wants to go. It is a remarkable first feature length film which is a worthy addition to collections in its own right, but it is made all the more interesting when viewed "retrospectively" and compared to Besson's later films.

 Kiss of the Dragon

Co-written and produced by Besson (directed by Chris Nahon), this features many of the elements we have already seen in Besson's earlier films.

 The main character is once again an "outsider" (this time a highly principled and caring Chinese police officer) brought to Paris to help investigate a Chinese drugs connection. Once again the hero remains true to himself when pitted against a corrupt Parisian policeman who uses his position and influence to further his own (criminal) activities.

The fight scenes are quite superb, indeed the whole is well directed and played by Jet Li, Bridget Fonda and Tcheky Karyo (of "Nikita" fame). If there is a weakness, it is in what is usually a strength in a Besson film - the character development. They are undoubtedly well drawn, but in this film no-one really develops. There are no real changes in position or attitude. There is plenty of drama and action, but there are few thought-provoking observations of life and this makes it that bit less engaging and perhaps less successful as a whole.

It seemed to me that there were numerous references to previous Besson pictures - shots of the Metro ("Subway"), shootings in hotels/restaurants, the laundry chute escape, the reference to the girl's possible escape through the toilet window, Fonda's unwillingness to kill (all in "Nikita"). More markedly, there were resemblances to "Leon" with Richard being a Parisian Stansfield, the abuse of his power, the extreme reaction and fire-power of the police, as well as the involvement of a child whose life Liu Jian must save.

I found the film very entertaining and exciting, if a bit derivative of Besson's previous efforts.

Angels in black and white (*spoilers*)

While “Angel-A” may not be a crowd pleaser or a big money spinner, it is a most worthy addition to M. Besson's filmography as a director. I found it entertaining, funny, absorbing, touching, thought-provoking and above all, interesting. It is also an abnormally intimate film. The focus is firmly on the two main characters. While the other characters may be in turn amusing, intimidating and even to some extent memorable, they are merely there to shed light upon the main characters or to advance the story line.

I wondered if such a long absence from the director's chair meant that M. Besson had said all he had to say on the themes outlined above, but I am reassured to find that he has once again delivered an interesting take on the themes of personal growth, love, morality, society and even existentialism.

There is, however, an essential difference. In his films discussed above, the main characters were outsiders or loners who challenged society's rules and who struggled to find a place in that society while remaining true to their natures. In "Angel-A" Andre has succumbed to social pressure and has tried to fit in, only to find himself in trouble. He is an insider trying (or needing) to get out. He has not been true to his (honest) nature and he has become involved in amoral business dealings, doing deals with shady characters in order to survive. He has tried to fit in and has lied in order to please, and as a result he has lost any sense of worth - in his own eyes as well as in others'.

 Angela arrives when he is at his lowest ebb, when considering suicide, and sets about helping Andre both directly and by helping him to recover his self-respect.

Andre does not seek to impose his will on society, nor to attack it - he is encouraged by Angela to seek freedom from the imposition of others' wills and not to be controlled. This freedom is to be gained through self-respect and the rejection of others' views of him. Andre is persuaded by Angela's belief in him - not by the fact that she is an angel. Indeed, the implications of this (morality, soul, afterlife) are largely ignored. At the end of the film the situation is rather turned on its head as Andre asks Angela to gain her freedom from God. He invites her to leave God out of it, and to make her own decisions and follow her own feelings. Once again God and religion are set aside in favour of following one's heart and nature.

Both Andre and Angela need "saving" and redirection - he from the emptiness of lying and scheming, and she from the emptiness of having no attachments or any sense of real value. Once again love leads to freedom and self-respect, and in this case freedom from being “owned” or intimidated by others. They end up belonging to themselves and one another. It might even be suggested that in the end Andre acts in the same way as an angel, thus the "A" after Angel could also stand for Andre.

Of course, on the way to this end there is a process of self-discovery with life lessons galore, the whole being told with an entertaining mixture of humour and purpose. Wherever he turns for help - be it the American Embassy or a police station - he is faced with red tape and lack of warmth and caring. Andre is invited to keep things in proportion and to keep his eye on the "bigger picture" rather than become over anxious about relatively minor problems. He is reminded of the values he held, but which he lost sight of in his desire to succeed in society, and he is reminded that "success" in an amoral and self-centred society is perhaps success without value.

Angela wants Andre to cease living in fear and to see beyond the projected self-image of others, and to recognise equality among men. We all role-play in society - we all play parts in others' lives, but Andre has allowed himself to be governed by others' perceptions and has compromised to such an extent that he has virtually caved in and given up on himself.

Angela helps him gain self-respect and recognise weaknesses as well as strengths in others, thus he no longer feels inferior. In the end he has been freed from fear and the need to accommodate others. He has learned to recognise his own value and break from his former vision of society and his place in it.

An entertaining and intriguing mixture of "traditional" angel tale and Besson's common theme of the nature of society and the place of the individual within it, this film is set against the stunning black and white backdrop of Paris, and the story is told with his usual energy and humour. Luc Besson's direction is totally assured - he knows what he is doing and where he is going with this story. He addresses serious issues, but uses a very light touch to deal with them, thus the whole is playful and entertaining, yet thought-provoking and interesting.

The Family (2013)

Dismissed by many on its release as weak, one-joke fare with obnoxious characters who commit even more obnoxious acts while in hiding in the north of France, “The Family” fits well with Besson’s work as director/writer, with one amendment. Here, he has made a comedy/drama rather than a drama with humour while turning his usual pretext on its head by having his group of criminal outcasts refuse to concede to social pressure and continue to impose their will on society - no matter the consequences.

Besson’s film remains an account of a witness-protected family supposedly trying (not very hard) to find a place in society, and once again society is portrayed as very imperfect. Few of the family’s new acquaintances offer anything approaching a warm welcome, unless it is to try to take advantage of them or dismiss them as ignorant American incomers.

As a mob family on the run, pursued by other mob figures out to kill them, the Blake family (father Fred, Robert De Niro, mother Maggie, Michelle Pfeiffer) shows some integrity (in the form of unity) in the face of adversity, this time represented by numerous gangster-clad mobsters out to gain revenge on them.

There is certainly conflict between the family and society at large as the Blakes refuse to bow to any pressure, and normally resort to direct action (or violence) to deal with situations and assert themselves.

Personal development is conspicuous by its absence - daughter Belle (Dianna Agron) seems to be on the brink of such development as she falls in love, but she is left broken-hearted and reverts to type fairly quickly. Son Warren (John D’Leo) simply applies and develops his criminal skills, while father Fred and mother Maggie remain exactly the same throughout the film. However, I think Besson is playing with conventions established in his previous films and sets out to create “in jokes” in this film.

As detractors have pointed out, it is difficult to have any sympathy for this family as they respond with excessive aggression to any perceived lack of respect. Belle deserves a modicum of sympathy as her maths tutor uses her and dumps her, but that situation seems to fizzle out. Their son is badly beaten by bullies, but this appears to have been contrived to allow the son to gain his revenge.

Fred and Maggie deal violently with minor transgressions against them, thus doing away with sympathy we might have felt for them had they been in serious danger or under threat.

Curiously, when the mobsters arrive to kill the family we remain on their side - they are outnumbered and through the comic style of violence meted out on those who have done wrong to them, we can understand their standpoint, but now the danger is “real”.

Besson has painted a strange and difficult picture of society where everyone seems to want to take advantage of this family (with only a few exceptions), and where we are supposed to have sympathy for a group of psychopaths who respond violently to each offence committed against them.

In playing with his own conventions, I fear M. Besson has omitted the very elements that made his previous films work so well - change and personal development, and with them the emotional engagement of the audience. That said, there is a lot to enjoy in the film - the acting is of a high standard and there is no denying the comic impact of the family’s excessive reactions, but this does become somewhat repetitive and is probably not sufficient to carry the film.

Lucy (2014)   

While incorporating several well-established elements from previous films, “Lucy” is also something of a departure.

Society is once again shown to be in moral decline, with our heroine forced to act as a drug mule for some totally ruthless and bloodthirsty Japanese hoodlums who choose innocent “civilians” (apparently quite at random, thus emphasising and reinforcing their total lack of scruples and empathy), stash drugs in their intestines and threaten their families if they don’t comply with their demands to transport their goods across Europe.

Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is a fairly typical intelligent and relatively innocent young woman, working toward a college qualification but not finding it particularly easy, happy to travel and expand her knowledge of the world and herself, trusting to some extent but wary of the unknown, seeking adventure but showing common sense and refusing to get involved in potentially dangerous situations. All of this we can gauge from her conversation with boyfriend Richard as he tries to persuade her to deliver an attaché case on his behalf. It transpires she is right to be wary of Richard who handcuffs the case to Lucy and gives her instructions on what to do next.

Needless to say, Lucy is quickly exposed to a nightmarish situation during which she displays very human terror and panic, the outcome of which is that she is knocked unconscious and awakes with the drugs implanted in her intestines.

All of the above has taken place in plush penthouse surroundings and given a veneer of civilisation by the polite instructions and organisation of “The Limey”. This is in direct contrast with Lucy’s surroundings after she is handed over to her “handlers” - a dingy basement where we meet the lower level enforcers for the hoodlums. One of her handlers makes unappreciated advances to Lucy who firmly rejects his interest, but in a fit of temper he kicks Lucy in her abdomen, causing the drugs to leak into her system.

So far, a fairly typical Besson film with numerous elements revisited, though on this occasion the heroine has been forced to join a most unpleasant element of society.

However, the main difference between this and Besson’s other fare is in the realm of personal development - the drug (CpH4) causes cells in Lucy’s body to “communicate” with one another, allowing her to develop brain usage and all the potential contained therein well beyond our normal 10%.

This is, in fact, something more akin to an inward-looking version of “2001, a Space Odyssey”.

With some scientific explanation provided by Morgan Freeman, we are led to believe that Lucy represents the (much accelerated) evolution of mankind as she develops use of her brainpower, gaining dominance of her own body, then the bodies of others, until ultimately achieving some kind of spiritual conversion and doing away with her body completely. All of this is set against a time limit (Lucy’s rapidly approaching death) and pursuit by the Japanese hoodlums who (understandably) want to regain their property.

Love in its traditional form is largely missing, but in its place is a love of knowledge and a desire to gain ever greater insight into the human adventure.

When considered in these terms, the film and its premise seem far-fetched and ridiculous, but Besson makes it all work! By giving it a quasi-scientific premise and by keeping it all human and laced with humour, Besson has made his investigation into the ultimate in personal development entertaining, intriguing and thought-provoking. At the same time as concocting a tale involving societal corruption and pursuit by immoral hoodlums, he has invited his audience to consider mankind’s potential and where we might end up by looking within ourselves in the ultimate quest for knowledge rather than travel ever farther afield.

It is worthy of note that despite the context of creation and evolution, no mention is made of God or religion.

Scarlett Johansson played Lucy very well, displaying very human reaction in the early part of the film in contrast with the cold and calculating Lucy driven by determination and a lust for knowledge after her “transformation”, yet retaining an essential human and vulnerable element.

All in all, this is a happy return to form and a worthy addition to Besson’s filmography.

 Conclusion

As I have already suggested, it seems to me that these films present various takes on the principles of existentialism. They are set in extreme conditions or are played out with extreme characters, but that only serves to accentuate the points being made. The films present interesting and thought-provoking observations on life and society and as such are to be highly commended.

It seems to me that there is a progression in the development of these themes in the course of these six Besson-directed films, with society (and morality) depicted as being in a steady decline, while the main characters develop their own sense of morality and justice, perhaps suggesting that ultimately society depends on the values of the individuals within it and every man (or woman!) must learn to reflect on what is important to him or her.

It is also worth noting that religion plays no obvious or major part in the proceedings.

Jean de Florette

Notes for the study of

"Jean de Florette"

Below, you will find notes on themes and characters in the film "Jean de Florette" and its sequel "Manon des Sources". Some years ago I studied the films with pupils at Higher Level (in Scotland), and with a view to returning to them, I thought I might find notes on them on the Internet. To my great surprise I found very little about them, and so I thought I would write up my thoughts on these wonderful films to share with any other potential students. However, it should be noted that several ideas are little more than touched upon.

As the films are painstakingly faithful to the books on which they are based, I hope the notes will be equally applicable to a study of Pagnol's "originals" (which were adapted from his own treatment for the original 1952 version which Pagnol wrote and directed, starring his own daughter).

This is an apparently simple tale of greed and prejudice among French peasants in the 1920s. However, the apparently simple premise of blocking a water source in order to force a landowner to sell his property soon leads to a complex series of moves and countermoves with life-changing consequences.

The tale also provides the basis for many observations on life and an interesting interpretation of the ways in which our lives are intertwined, making it a rich source for reflection on a variety of themes such as morality, devotion, family, town and country living, the importance and value of land, but perhaps above all else, fate or destiny and the way in which events can catch up with choices one makes in life.

These themes are of course interdependent, and it would be difficult to discuss one without reference to the others.

A good starting point might be to state the obvious, that land and its cultivation are the "first principles" of the story and are the reason or catalyst for all the subsequent events. It is essential to understand not just the potential monetary value of the land in dispute, but the principle that everything comes from it, and the land is eternal.

Next to the land, Cesar (or Papet)'s great love is family. Unmarried and childless, family and the family name are everything to Cesar. Ugolin is his fairly simple but hard-working nephew. Together (as a family unit) they form a formidable team with Cesar hatching the plot to drive Jean Cadoret from his land, while Ugolin puts it into action.

Cesar's plan is not, however, simply some "get rich quick" scheme, but rather a means to the end of ensuring the continuation and success of the Soubeyran family and name. Cesar is a "principled schemer" - he is acting for (as he sees it) the best of reasons. If he were acting out of pure greed it would be easy to hate him, but as we can understand and even sympathise with his motives, we have decidedly ambivalent feelings toward him.

Cesar's motives may be honourable, but in terms of the lengths to which he is prepared to go to achieve his objectives, he is morally reprehensible. At best he is quite amoral and self-centred as he inadvertently causes the death of the original owner of the land he covets, and indirectly brings about the death of Jean Cadoret who inherits the land. He is a determined, strong, and intelligent man who is driven by his obsession to preserve his family through the possession of rich and eternal land. While doing this, he tries to give value to his own life, which appears largely empty. He seems rather calculating, unfeeling, and unwilling to recognise the feelings and needs of others (though tempted on occasion, as when he feels sorry for Jean when he struggles to plant his crops), beyond those of his family, to which he is devoted, though this may be based on thoughtlessness rather than ruthlessness.

Ugolin is not so determined, but is willing to go along with Cesar's plan as it will clearly benefit him. He is more staightforwardly greedy, yet is more "human" and aware of the feelings and suffering of others. He sees things less clearly than Cesar, or at least does not seem to grasp the implications of their plan, while Cesar is aware, but turns a blind eye in the name of his family's future.

Jean is seen as equally determined, but is more open and tolerant than his country neighbours. This leads to what is often viewed as one of the film/book's main themes - town versus country living.

Jean is educated, appreciates beauty and culture, and sees the "bigger" picture. He tries to apply science and learning to farming, while his neighbours apply experience and tradition. Jean may represent man's determination to master nature through knowledge, while the country folk understand nature through living with it, and try to work with it.

Another trait of country life to come to the fore is that history (especially in the shape of arguments or disputes) means more and continues to play a part in the present. Events are not forgotten since the community in which they occur is relatively small. According to the films, country people tend to be less tolerant and compassionate than townsfolk. There appears to be greater prejudice, greed and secrecy behind the veil of friendship as relatively minor events take on considerable importance within the confines of village life. It is interesting to note something of a role reversal in respect of the more traditional view of country folk as unspoiled, open, friendly, tolerant, and hard-working, while townspeople are generally viewed as seduced by greed and corruption as they are swallowed by the anonymity of city life. Role reversal is usually a device used to clarify things by changing a situation round so that what may have been acceptable is suddenly seen for what it really is.

In many ways this was an age of innocence relatively "undamaged" by communication and all that implies. That small community represented the world to its inhabitants, and any interference would be regarded as a potential threat, allowing Pagnol to investigate all the more clearly the themes of tolerance, morality, and progress (by means of comparing tradition to a more modern approach).

Clearly the farmers of the region use traditional farming methods based on experience, working knowledge, and even superstition. The village and the surrounding area are virtually their entire world as it is untouched by communication and age-old rivalries still apply, largely because of lack of experience and knowledge of other "cultures". This is probably an accurate depiction of life in rural France at the time, and it was indeed something of a struggle to get these communities to embrace more modern methods and ideas. Naturally there was suspicion of any stranger who showed up - particularly one who had no experience of farming but who was willing to apply science and learning to cultivation of the land, rather than age-old and proven techniques. The existing farmers would feel threatened and perhaps even more importantly, humiliated, by this new approach. Clearly they felt little in the way of loyalty or compassion for Jean as he appeared to have little regard for their more traditional methods, thereby creating something of a divide.

This division is not, of course, restricted to traditional v. modern approaches to agriculture. It can (and should) be broadened to incorporate other themes, including the social divide between villages, between country and town, and also the divide between education and an insular approach to life. Set at a time when there was little movement and when there was great pride in local traditions and history, this is also a story of intolerance - both of people and modern ideas.

In my opinion, "Jean de Florette" and "Manon des Sources" are less about the differences between town and country living than about the differences between, on the one hand, narrow-minded prejudice and selfishness, and on the other, tolerance, respect and consideration for others (or an inward-looking mentality as opposed to outward-looking). By the end, Ugolin has committed suicide because he has fallen deeply in love with the adult Manon, Jean's daughter. She, of course, will have nothing to do with one of those responsible for the death of her father. Ugolin cannot live with the love he feels for Manon and the knowledge she hates him for what he did. He is thus led from his inward-looking existence, in which he was relatively happy and without pangs of conscience, to share and suffer the results of his own actions on those outwith his narrow existence, but whose suffering allowed him to succeed.

Similarly, but even more devastatingly, Cesar must face the results of, and the pain caused by his actions when he discovers that Jean was actually his own illegitimate son of whose existence he was entirely unaware. With blinding irony, and in the name of his family, he killed the one thing he had pined for and missed all his life - a son and heir. He dies filled with remorse in the knowledge that he is responsible for the death of his own son, whom he now sees as a human being who had aspirations, a family of his own, and a future of which he was deprived. Previously, Jean was merely a pawn in Cesar's machinations, but discovering he was his son led to his (and our) appreciating the value of life - all life, whether related to us or not.

The country folk, however, had to share responsibility for Jean's death (at least to a certain degree) as they were all vaguely aware of Cesar and Ugolin's activities and chose to mind their own business unless they became directly involved. Manon pushed them into recognising their responsibility by ensuring they were all involved in the payback, by blocking the water supply to the entire village, thus forcing them to search their consciences as superstition leads them to seek a cause for their apparent bad luck.

The implication seems to be that we are all responsible for one another, whether through our actions or our inaction in the face of events of which we might disapprove.

One of the main themes, and one I find most interesting, is that of fate or destiny. It is strange that so often one suffers as a result of one's own actions. Cesar and Ugolin suffered and lost everything as a result of their own selfish and destructive greed. The old adage, "Do unto others ..." etc., was never truer as Manon displays the same Soubeyran cunning and determination in blocking the water source to the village, though this time toward the end of seeking truth and justice.

It has been suggested that the characters were predestined to act as they did. This calls in to question the definition of destiny or fate. For some it means there is an inevitability, that we are bound to do certain things at certain times, but for others it suggests some sort of justice where people face a "comeuppance", or where events even themselves out to produce some kind of balance.

Of course the answer is not simple, and that is what makes it interesting.

As far as the first is concerned, I think the characters (and people in general) are predestined to do things only in the sense that we are all prisoners of our character and genes. We are predisposed toward certain behaviour and actions, but we still have a choice, and that choice becomes interesting when we come in to conflict with others. Do we persist in our action, or do we see things from the point of view of others? How far are we prepared to go in order to ensure the success of our ventures?

Papet and Ugolin tinker with fate. They establish obstacles, but do not act directly enough for them to feel real guilt. They do not intend to kill, but they push Jean in the right direction to fulfil their objective. Are they truly guilty? They certainly make a major contribution to the circumstances which led to Jean's death. Were they predestined to do so? They could have stopped at any time, if they had shown some thought and consideration for others, but to continue was their choice, so although they followed their natures, they did indeed have free will. However, they would have had to break with their natures to do so.

Interestingly, Jean shows the same determination to succeed, but he is not trying to influence others, while Papet and Ugolin are playing with the fates of others.

One of the major elements of the story is irony which is dependent on the element of free will, and the question of the choices we make as far as their influence on others is concerned. Irony is used to accentuate that importance, especially in the shape of the "twist" whereby both Cesar and Ugolin suffer the consequences of their own actions.

The contrast between the two "sides" is considerable, with Jean the long-suffering idealist, and Cesar and Ugolin the cunning, greedy, and selfish peasants after his land. If that were all there was to the story, it would have little appeal. What makes it wonderfully tragic is the fact that the "villains" of the piece are human and likeable. We share their aspirations and understand their motives, but it is the realisation that any one of us could fall into the same trap that makes this such a powerful story.

Fairly recently I received an email asking about the role of the female characters in the story. As part of my response I wrote the following:

"In a very real way it is Florette's relationship with Cesar (or his reaction to it) that is the basis for the entire story. We feel that Cesar has never recovered from his relationship with Florette. No-one can compare and his disappointment leads indirectly to him cutting himself off (sentimentally) from the rest of the world to look inward and concentrate on his family. We get the impression that she was a very strong woman who would have been a rock to Cesar. Things might have been very different if they had married. It would appear that the women are catalysts for the action undertaken by the men. Ugolin's strength of reaction on his rejection by Manon may also reflect the strength of feeling Cesar had for Florette, and may explain his "going off the straight and narrow". It would appear that women might offer a steadying influence on the men, with, perhaps, a voice of reason and understanding lacking in the men of the family. Without women in their lives they appear dissatisfied and aggressive, and there is no calming influence to hold them in check."

The key to "Jean de Florette"'s success as a film lies in emotion, sympathy, and simplicity. It is a deceptively simple tale and for that reason was likely to appeal to a broader and more adult base than many of the other films around at the time. It contains "realism" in that it's principally about people, their lives, and the implications of choices we make, and can therefore apply to anyone's life - as opposed to science fiction, wild adventure etc.. The story and the way it's told arouses feelings of indignation, anger, compassion, injustice etc., but all tempered with sympathy and understanding for the main "culprits", and that is the real genius of the piece - revealing a far more (morally) complex tale than it at first appears to be, and revealing far more existential implications about the impact of our actions on others.

By and large the "great" films are those which tap into the audience's emotions, and "Jean" certainly succeeded in that respect, while managing to say something about the human condition.

 These films are extraordinarily gripping and touching with excellently drawn and multi-facetted characters and attention to detail. The performances simply don't come any better than this - the three leads are totally convincing and affecting. Depardieu gives Jean dynamism, desperation and dignity, while Montand and Auteuil are superb in making their villains contemptible yet human and likeable all at the same time.

The direction by Claude Berri maintains pace, interest and sympathy - even, as I indicated above, for the "villains" of the piece, while the music brilliantly captures and enhances the mood and remains memorable long after the end of the films.

"Les Enfants du Paradis"

"Les Enfants du Paradis" has received many accolades, including that of being "the greatest French film ever made". Quite how such claims are evaluated, I find impossible to understand, but I think it can be said with certainty that this film deserves its place among the greats of world cinema.

I first discovered "Les Enfants du Paradis" several years ago while helping a pupil who was studying SYS (now Advanced Higher) French in Scotland. I found it most intriguing and discussed various themes with my pupil, though I didn't commit these ideas to paper.

On rediscovering the film very recently on DVD, I searched the internet to read others' ideas of what this marvellous film is about, but found very little about it. I therefore decided to write up my own ideas and share them on the internet with others who might be interested. My apologies in advance for the rambling nature of my notes! 

BACKGROUND 

Directed by Marcel Carne, scripted by Jacques Prevert, and starring Arletty, Jean-Louis Barrault, Pierre Brasseur, Marcel Herrand, and Pierre Renoir (among many others!), LEdP was a huge critical and financial success in post-war France. Filmed intermittently during the Nazi Occupation, it became something of a monument to French artistry on its release.

STORYLINE

The storyline can be summed up fairly simply. Set in the mid-19^th century, it is the story of a free-spirited young woman, Garance, and four men who fall for her, one way or another. However, the story should be regarded as a means to the end of a broader investigation into the nature of life, love, chance, society, and the ways in which people's lives are interwoven.

The action takes place in or around the 1840s. This was a period of development for the Enlightenment Movement, a philosophical movement which caused people to question the existence of God, the nature of society, and their place within it. It was this movement which led indirectly to the French Revolution, and it evolved into the 20^th century's Existentialism. (Carnes own "Le Jour se Leve" is a dark examination of the impact on one individual of the disintegration of a relationship).

WHAT IS IT ABOUT?

To look into the nature of relationships, love, freedom and responsibility, society, and even morality, Carne and Prevert chose the world of the theatre, mixing three genuine historical figures (Baptiste Debureau, Frederick Lemaitre, and Lacenaire) with characters of their own fabrication to illustrate the complexities of life. The world of the theatre is perhaps the ideal domain as, at their best, actors aspire to seek and reveal the "truth" about the human soul and condition.

Underpinning the film is the premise that we are all actors, doing what is expected of us in society, playing out our roles on the stage of chance, though with certain conventions to respect. Each of the male principals provides a different "take" on life, love, and one's place in society. The common thread running through each of their lives is Garance and the feelings she provokes in them.

THE CHARACTERS

Garance is pivotal, but does little to advance the narrative herself, acting instead as the inspiration for emotion and the catalyst for action in the male principals.

She prizes her freedom above all else and is true to herself, behaving as she wants, when she wants. She leaves Lacenaire's table at the "Ruby Throat", telling him she is bored and he is obsessed with death, while she desires laughter, dancing, and gaiety. She cherishes her freedom and seeks no ties or responsibilities.

Our first tantalising sight of Garance is on the Boulevard du Crime in a side show where she symbolises nothing less than truth (sitting naked in a revolving barrel of water, staring into a hand mirror). Use of mirrors is made later in the film to suggest almost a mask, a "face" which one chooses to present, but here it is tempting to suggest that truth may be found by looking within oneself, or, indeed, that truth is whatever you happen to believe, or choose to see.

Within just a few minutes we are very cleverly introduced to three of the four male principals, Frederick, Lacenaire, and the mime artist Baptiste - all in a short walk along the boulevard.

Frederick is an actor par excellence, seemingly playing a role at almost every moment. We meet him outside a theatre, just after he has caught sight of Garance in the crowd, and he confesses a great love for her, putting into practice his skills as an actor to try and win her over. As soon as he sees he has failed with Garance, he turns his attention (using exactly the same lines) to another pretty girl he has spotted. From this encounter and his conversation outside the theatre we see Frederick is charming, pleasant, talented, ambitious, ego-driven, but not altogether sincere! He is a sort of charming and shallow rogue who knows what he wants and is determined to achieve it, though he is harmless and has a very attractive zest for life. His principal motivation is self-promotion - he does not seek the truth through the characters he wishes to play, but seeks simply the public's attention and admiration in playing these roles, though the role of Othello eludes him as he has never experienced jealousy.

Lacenaire is an intelligent gentleman criminal. He is one who, from appearance and apparent learning, belongs to the upper classes (or is this yet another "role" he chooses to play?), but he has long since declared war on a society he considers vile and false. He is a man of great pride who believes only in himself and his particular view of morality and society. He makes his living by theft, violence, and even murder. He has rejected the standard view of morality and does what he pleases and considers necessary to survive, yet he maintains an outward aspect of "civilisation" and social grace. His true vocation is that of dramatist, and he does not shy from acting on his own plots and schemes. Where others merely act and discuss or threaten, Lacenaire takes action. Thus he is an author not just of drama, but of fate, with others playing parts in his works. He seeks to create chaos and disorder where there was order.

Baptiste is a mime artist who takes his art very seriously. He is not ego-driven, nor does he question the structure of society. He wishes to please his public by touching them with truth about the human soul and condition. This he achieves by expressing inner feelings outwardly through physical gesture and using no words. His performance perhaps best sums up what an actor tries to do - his purpose is to clarify and explain reality - achieved, paradoxically, through fakery. Baptiste seeks truth. He is innocent, sincere, insightful, and spontaneous. When he sees Garance and she throws him a flower she was wearing, he falls for her almost instantly and permanently. He can't really offer an explanation, but this "coup de foudre" tells us that love is uncontrollable, and that Baptiste is genuine and guileless, to the point where he can act impulsively on his feelings.

The fourth and final male principal is Count Edouard de Montray, a member of the "upper classes" who makes a proposition of sorts to Garance after seeing her in a show. He is stunned when she turns down his offer of all things material. Garance has previously made it clear she appreciates being appreciated and she considers the Count a sort of "chasseur" out to add her to his collection. He has shown her little real respect or affection, but offers his help if ever she needs it. Once again, it seems almost as if the Count is playing a role. He conforms to various conventions and behaves as is expected of a man in his position. He is, of course, a man accustomed to wealth and is proud of his possessions and position. He treats Garance like one of his prized possessions, and although he undoubtedly has genuine feelings for her, she is effectively a prisoner in a gilded cage as she turned to him for help and she now lives with him to pay her debt, and the Count is happy to take advantage of the situation.

There are, of course, many other characters whose presence sheds light on the main protagonists. Nathalie, who becomes Baptiste's wife, is clearly devoted to him from the outset, but she is well aware that Baptiste does not share these feelings. She is desperately hurt when she discovers he has fallen for Garance, but that doesn't prevent her loving him. Later in the film her wifely devotion is compared to the romantic and sexual appeal of Garance.

Another intriguing character who turns up regularly in the course of the film is Jericho, the ragman. His is an unpleasant and unpopular character whose purpose and nature are difficult to define. He is known by many names and appears parasitic. He is apparently known as an informer and is distrusted by all. Quite apart from representing an unpleasant and parasitic aspect of life (as opposed to the others who remain true to themselves and their characters), it may be that he represents the hated collaborators during the Nazi occupation of France in World War 2.

THE CROWD

There are several crowd scenes - notably at the beginning and end of the film. As the film opens and the curtain literally rises on the production, we are met with a huge crowd gathered on the Boulevard du Crime, and gradually we zoom in on the particular individuals whose interwoven lives we are going to follow. The point, however, seems to be that while chance brought these individuals together out of the crowd, given the nature of their work and the desire of the crowd to see their work, all, (performers and public) are to some extent interdependent. The one cannot fully exist without the other - they are linked to form society, a society made up of all sorts of individuals.

At the beginning, Baptiste is decidedly the odd man out, in dress and manner, and at the end, though he is lost in the crowd, he remains different because a large number of people are dressed as mimes, yet he is now dressed ordinarily. He has exercised an influence on the crowd who know his work and seek to emulate his dress, yet he has now developed - he no longer plays at interpreting drama, he is experiencing it first hand. He has grown and is now living the emotions he has previously sought to express as a mime artist. Paradoxically he has become a "man", a member of the crowd, just as the crowd appears to have learned something from him.

There is probably one character more than any other who symbolises the idea that we are all actors, one way or another, in society - the blind beggar met by Baptiste outside the "Ruby Throat". Once safely inside the inn (a sort of haven where all are welcome), the beggar reveals he can, in fact, see perfectly well - this is simply a role he plays in order to make some money. Baptiste is astonished, not just at the insolence of his "scam", but also at how well he carries it off. Baptiste admires his skill - after all, here is an actor making a living out of his skills!

LOVE

Apart from dealing with differing attitudes towards life, morality, and society, the film is largely concerned with love and relationships.

Differences in the nature of love and relationships are expressed through Garance and the four male principals.

Baptiste falls for Garance immediately. His is a romantic, poetic, idealistic form of love. Garance is willing to sleep with him, but he leaves her, saying he wants her to truly love him as he loves her. He seeks something more spiritual, something Garance warns him she may not be able to give him. She thinks love is simple and she is not as he thinks she is. He is a dreamer, while she is more of a realist who loves life and wishes to extract happiness from the moment, appreciating the advances of those who genuinely like her.

This is something of a reversal of roles for Baptiste, who has had a remarkably similar conversation with Nathalie, using virtually the same dialogue but of course from the opposite point of view.

Very similar dialogue is heard later in the film as Edouard tells Garance he would like her to love him as he loves her, though by this time Garance has learned to seek more from a relationship than she feels the Count can give her.

When Baptiste leaves Garance she is disappointed, but hardly heartbroken as she finds solace in the arms of Frederick almost immediately after his departure. This would seem, on the face of it, the perfect match as neither is seeking anything more than the pleasure of the other's company, and each is boosting the other's ego through the compliment of finding one another attractive. However, their relationship is fairly short-lived as Garance points out to Frederick that they are not really happy together, but are just using one another. Clearly she feels a depth of feeling is missing, and it is at this point we learn Garance has been saying Baptiste's name in her sleep.

Lacenaire would very much like to have a relationship with Garance, but she refuses his advances as there is no warmth or depth in his feelings for her. She sees he desires her, but she likes to be appreciated. She appears to feel much the same towards the Count, whom she accuses of being a sort of "collector of beauty". However, circumstances dictate that she must turn to him to maintain her freedom (her most precious possession), yet that is exactly what she must give up as, indebted to him, she becomes his consort.

Love, or "true love", is seen as a relatively rare commodity which can bring great joy but also sadness as it "erupts" between two individuals, releasing emotions over which they have no real control, and which can strike at any moment. At the end of the film it is Garance who shows the greater strength by leaving Baptiste as they are reminded of the reality of responsibility and everyday family life, which requires a different and more demanding form of love. Garance appears to understand and is willing to turn her back on their relationship, but Baptiste pursues Garance (and the ideal of romantic love), calling out her name as she disappears into the crowd.

EXISTENTIALISM

Relationships can have, then, several bases for their foundation. The most attractive and fulfilling is also perhaps the most elusive, but it must be mutual. Although we are not in control of how others feel about us, we have a duty to respect others and their feelings. Garance appears to recognise the sense of what Nathalie says in the final scene - Baptiste has a family and responsibilities which should be placed above his personal desires, desires which Garance cannot allow to be fulfilled at the expense of others.

This is one of several nods to existentialism in the course of the film. The recognition and burden of responsibility towards others, the insistence on chance, the doubts concerning morality (Lacenaire will face justice only of his own volition) are all essential elements of existentialism. Yet beneath this apparent emptiness there is the possibility of love which offers hope among the myriad of complications it also can evoke.

The title is generally considered to be a reference to the public in the cheapest (and highest) seats "in the gods" of the theatre. I cannot help but wonder if it is not also some reference to heaven, with some divine entity looking down on us on Earth and finding our stories of love, life and death entertaining, as if we are playing out some drama for the amusement of others. I don't know what Carne and Prévert had in mind, but I am indebted to them and their excellent cast for producing this fine, thought-provoking, and enduring film.

Les Misérables

Reflections on Victor Hugo's

"Les Misérables" 

Contents

        The storyline     Hugo's inspiration     A symbol of its time    

Jean Valjean         Javert, and a comparison to Valjean

Justice and society     Love     Tolerance     Death

Hope for the future     Writing style and symbolism   Coincidence

Film versions     The musical

  

The storyline

Jean Valjean was an honest man who, through force of desperate circumstance committed the relatively minor crime of stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, and paid a price out of all proportion with the severity of his crime.

Captured and sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment, Valjean spends nineteen years doing hard labour as a result of four failed escape attempts. He emerges from prison on parole, a hardened and bitter man, having encountered little kindness in the course of these nineteen years, and having adapted to the company he was forced to keep.

Because of his criminal record he encounters problems in finding employment, lodgings, and indeed any place in society. Exhausted and demoralised, he finds comfort and accommodation at the home of the Bishop of Digne who shows Valjean kindness and compassion. However, during the night Valjean surrenders to his experience and degradation of the previous nineteen years which, combined with a sense of hopelessness and worthlessness he has felt since his release, lead him to behave as he has been condemned to do - he steals the Bishop's silverware.

He is captured and returned to the Bishop who, contrary to Valjean's expectations, not only tells the police that he gave Valjean the silverware, but insists that Valjean should take two silver candlesticks as well.

This is the first act of kindness and generosity Valjean has encountered in all those nineteen years. Accustomed to having to fight for his very survival, this act of compassion and understanding (whose existence he has long since abandoned and then forgotten) causes him confusion and bewilderment.

While still dazed by his meeting with the Bishop, Valjean reacts once again in an animal-like fashion, doing what he feels he has to do in order to survive, when he steals a coin from a passing young chimney sweep.

This act, contrasting violently with the kindness he has just been shown, brings home to him just what he has become and how far he has fallen.

With a clarity missing for some nineteen years, he sees he has a choice to make - continue on the path of petty crime and self destruction upon which he is set, or start afresh and follow the example set by the Bishop. He can view people as a means to an end, as potential victims in his quest for survival, or he can live by compassion and understanding, offering help to others, just as he received help from the Bishop.

He determines to start a new life, adopting a new identity and a new mentality in the process.

While Valjean is clearly the principal character and our tale is largely concerned with his efforts to lead a worthwhile life, his destiny is inextricably linked with a whole gamut of characters whose lives become intertwined. This is equally the story of, among many others, Javert (the policeman who pursues Valjean in order to protect society from someone he regards as a dangerous criminal), Fantine (the tragic factory girl who sacrifices herself for the upkeep of her daughter), Cosette (the daughter of Fantine used and abused by the innkeepers into whose care her mother entrusted her), the Thenardiers (the self-centred innkeepers and petty criminals), Eponine (the daughter of the Thenardiers and victim of unrequited love), Marius (an idealistic student who falls in love with the adult Cosette), and the revolutionary students (who seek to incite rebellion against a heartless and uncaring government).

The scope, then, of "Les Miserables" is vast.

Hugo invites his readers to reflect upon the spirit, morality, justice in society, the very structure of that society and its values, love, faith, tolerance, youth, age, parenthood, conscience, duty, change in the light of experience, and many other facets of life.

It is difficult to characterise "Les Miserables". This is not an escapist adventure story, but a novel about life and how people live it in the guise of a tale of adventure. Reading the book is essentially a spiritual experience as we are led on the same journey Valjean himself undertakes, and we are invited to learn Valjean's lesson and treat others with compassion and tolerance.

Hugo's inspiration

The first point to make concerning the writing of the book is the fact that it is far from being a work of pure fiction. Indeed it is based largely on historical fact (the attempted student uprising of 1832 is quite genuine), incidents lifted from Hugo's life, and characters Hugo met in the course of his life.

The Bishop of Digne was based on a genuine Bishop, and Javert was based on a high-ranking policeman of Hugo's acquaintance.

Valjean was based largely on Claude Gueux (see chapter on justice and society), and doubtless several other convicts Hugo met during his frequent prison visits.

The adult Cosette is clearly based on Hugo's wife Adele, while Hugo himself served as a model for the love-struck young idealist Marius.

The incident involving Fantine and the Bourgeois she strikes is taken from a genuine incident witnessed by Hugo in which a young prostitute was to be summarily sentenced to six months' imprisonment after striking a "gentleman" in self-defence. Hugo stepped in and explained the facts to the police, using his fame and position to help free her.

With a little research many of the multitude of characters in "Les Misérables" could doubtless be traced back to people Hugo met on his travels, but what purpose does this device serve?

By using genuine events and characters, then mixing them with situations and characters of his own fabrication, Hugo has created a particularly real and affecting story in which character traits are recognisable and convincing as his characters face a variety of challenging (though realistic) circumstances. It is especially by trying to evoke familiarity and an emotional response that Hugo hopes to persuade his readers of the need for change in society at that time.

A symbol of its time

To truly understand some of the main points of the story, I'm afraid a brief historical and philosophical digression is necessary!

The eighteenth century was a time of philosophical turmoil and growing political unrest, with increasing awareness of social injustice fuelled by the published works of radical and challenging writers such as Voltaire, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Rene Diderot. The ideas contained in their works encouraged their readers to challenge the very core of society and its foundations, leading indirectly to the French revolution and the Napoleonic era which form the backdrop and historical context for the events of "Les Misérables".

These events may well be considered a reflection of further political, social and indeed philosophical change in the course of the nineteenth century. This was a period of continued profound change in society summarised, perhaps, by the move from faith and tradition to reason and social conscience. This was a society in revolution as it veered from dogma, rigidity and heartlessness toward a more human, caring and tolerant approach.

This movement was called the "Enlightenment Movement" and it evolved into a more extreme form in the twentieth century, called "Existentialism". Although a satisfactory and complete definition of the ideas behind these movements is virtually impossible to find, these are concepts which are essential to the understanding of a great deal of nineteenth and twentieth century French literature.

Very roughly the suggestion is that God and therefore morality do not exist (at least not in their traditional biblical form), and so the only truth is that we are morally free. However, this freedom brings with it its own restrictions. If we are free then it is "wrong" for anyone to deprive us of that freedom, yet we all exercise influence on others virtually every moment of every day, often by virtue of the mere fact of our existence.

What implications does this have for the way we live?

Hugo appears to suggest we start by recognising our responsibilities toward others, both individually and collectively as a society, and act upon this recognition. After all, society is nothing more than the sum of its individual parts and if each individual saw and accepted his impact on others, society may well become more thoughtful and caring.

The world of "Les Misérables" is peopled by a vast array of characters, most of whom have varying degrees of influence on the events of the novel. All are so well drawn that even if at first one has difficulty in seeing what import they will have for the narrative, one becomes interested in their story perhaps before we are shown their connection to the main narrative.

The life of each character is influenced and affected by several other characters. Their destinies are entwined and to some extent at least, they are dependent on one another.

Hugo appears to be suggesting that our destinies are not set in tablets of stone, but are instead changed most profoundly by what may be chance encounters. People exercise influence on one another - that is inevitable, but the key issue lies in the recognition of one's influence and the acceptance of responsibility for it.

Valjean feels he is responsible for Fantine's fall from grace and sets out to make amends by taking her daughter Cosette under his wing.

Taking the argument one step farther, Valjean endeavours to ease the burden of the less fortunate by undertaking good deeds (the building of schools and hospitals, and providing a good standard of pay) for the benefit of the common people - thus helping them to avoid situations such as he and Fantine have known.

In this way Hugo does not limit his theory of responsibility to the individual, but extends it to the whole of society. It is surely better to offer preventative measures than to wait until one is in need of help.

If "Les Misérables" is a plea for and a symbol of philosophical, social and political change, nowhere is the difference between the old and the new better encapsulated than in the clash between Javert and Valjean. Javert is frequently viewed as Valjean's evil adversary, but this is a quite erroneous and simplistic interpretation. He is a highly principled and well-intentioned officer of the law, but he is dogmatic and rigid in his thinking. He may well represent the Ancien Régime, with its authoritarian and hierarchical, if ultimately divisive, approach to government, based on the principle of the superiority of the wealthy ruling class who believed they had divine authority to govern.

Valjean, on the other hand, may represent the Enlightenment Movement which invited people to question the very existence of God, morality and therefore the very authority of those in power. Valjean is no revolutionary - he deals only with people and events which touch him personally, yet he represents a danger to the established order because he has learned to challenge the traditional view of justice, both legal and social, as the result of his imprisonment and his encounters with a variety of characters. He offers an alternative to traditional thought in the form of reason (as opposed to dogma), and the promotion of compassion and humanity (as opposed to a rigid social order).

Hugo is generally regarded as a champion of the Romantics, a literary movement which promoted freedom from traditional forms and rules of writing (and their inherent restrictions), and laid greater emphasis on psychological depth and understanding of characters. Clearly, with its constant emphasis on such elements, "Les Misérables" is the very embodiment of this move towards an age of understanding and compassion, and a step away from a time of rigidity and dogma.

Jean Valjean

Identity is a very complex matter and is dependent on a number of factors, though primarily character and experience. Jean Valjean is the product of the society he lived in, both in terms of the social conditions that led to him stealing a loaf of bread, and the excessive sentence he received as punishment for his crime. He went into prison a simple and devoted brother and uncle, and left it filled with despair, hopelessness, bitterness and anger at the injustice of his treatment. He also became accustomed to doing whatever was necessary to survive, with little thought of dignity and principle.

Thus, in reflex acts of desperation he stole from the Bishop and the young chimney sweep. These acts, in direct contrast with the kindness shown to him by the Bishop, cause him to focus on what he has become - the very creature he was accused of being all these years before, and which he has resented for so long. This realisation, combined with the realisation that any man could suffer what he has suffered as a result of social injustice, inspires him to treat people with tolerance and understanding. He has seen what can become of men as a result of their circumstances and experience, and is determined to help others by providing a reasonable standard of living for the workers in his factory, and the creation of a caring community through the construction of schools and hospitals.

It should be noted, however, that it was only as a result of his act of theft, his imprisonment and degradation, and of course his pivotal encounter with the Bishop that he developed into this wise and selfless benefactor.

We are told that as a young man Valjean was honest and hardworking, but otherwise quite unremarkable. He was a woodcutter by trade - a path he would doubtless have pursued for the rest of his life but for the crime that was to change the direction of his life forever.

Clearly the potential for good must have been contained within him, but what becomes of us depends on various catalytic factors such as the choices we make at different times, the influence of others on our lives, and events which occur around us, over which we have no control. Thus it can be argued that Valjean would almost certainly not have fulfilled his potential if he had not been condemned to an unjust term of imprisonment and suffering, as a result of which he learned to truly appreciate the value of compassion and understanding.

Apart from experience and the people whose paths we cross on our travels, our identity is dependent on our character, and what sets Valjean apart from others who might have shared similar experiences is his determination not to allow the bitterness of the past to cast its shadow on the future. This, combined with a willingness to accept responsibility for his actions, allows him to accept the past, learn from it and go on to help others avoid situations similar to those he has encountered. Nor would he have become this man without having met Monseigneur Myriel, the Bishop of Digne whose kindness saved and inspired him. It is essential to note that an ordinary man serves as Valjean's inspiration. It is not God, it is not because he is a man of God, but it is a man displaying extraordinary kindness in exceptional circumstances whom Valjean takes as his inspiration, and it is this kindness and understanding that he, in turn, will show to others he perceives as being in need.

If who we are and what we become is in good part dependent on experience and the influence of others, there is clearly an element of chance in our destinies, or is it perhaps fate, with some influence being exercised over our lives?

The events of Hugo's tale are open to both interpretations and the way in which we choose to interpret these events will depend largely on our own convictions. It is said that god works in mysterious ways and the numerous coincidences and encounters in the narrative may indeed derive from God's influence as He guides certain events, but whether these events are due to God's influence or are due simply to happenstance is really quite irrelevant. What matters is the way in which we react to these circumstances.

Valjean has become an independent thinker - he professes a belief in God, but does not spend his time pondering the unfathomable and waiting for divine inspiration. What defines Valjean is the fact that he has learned from his experience and acts on it. He tries to help people by his own initiative. He sees what is needed, takes control, and sets about creating circumstances which will help resolve the situation.

There are any number of examples of Valjean's "heroism" (a willingness to help others, even at his own expense), all inspired by love and a sense of responsibility. Yet these acts are tinged with - and accentuated by - tragedy, as Valjean is driven not only by a sense of responsibility, but by a lack of self-respect. He is motivated by the need to compensate for his "misdeeds" of the past. He is ashamed not so much of the nineteen years he spent in prison, but rather that on his release he was willing to prey on those weaker than himself in order to survive.

While he learned the importance of understanding and learning from the past to improve the future, Valjean shows himself little of the sympathy and compassion he is willing to bestow on others. He has seen his own dark side. He has seen what he could become in the right circumstances, and he knows that suppressing this selfish creature to selflessly help others requires effort and determination.

When Valjean discovers Cosette is in love with Marius he becomes almost insanely jealous. He is enraged by Marius's "interference" in his life and his "theft" of his happiness. Indeed Valjean rejoices at the prospect of Marius's death.

However, after a brief period of reflection during which he realises Marius reciprocates Cosette's feelings, he understands he has no right to intervene. He sees Cosette and Marius must fulfil their destinies together and he has no right to expect Cosette to sacrifice her future for him. He therefore sets about ensuring Cosette's future happiness by setting out to protect and save Marius at the barricades, but at the expense of his own happiness.

This existential realisation triggers a second, and perhaps more far-reaching reaction in Valjean. He is reminded of the truth of his situation, that he is not, in fact, Cosette's father and has no moral right to impose his will upon her. He sees that he has no right to expect happiness, or that the happiness he has known need not necessarily continue. He sees also that all that he has achieved is the result of a tissue of lies and falsehoods - he remains an ex-convict who has broken his parole and is on the run.

He continues to be a prisoner of his past and decides to withdraw, largely, from Cosette's future in order to protect her from potential disgrace and embarrassment. Valjean undertook to care for Cosette out of a sense of duty - that is now fulfilled, as her husband will take his place as her protector, and as he has no legal or moral right to remain in her life, it is better to protect her and withdraw.

It is interesting to note that Hugo offers no real explanation of Valjean's feelings as he leaves to protect Marius at the barricades. He offers no insight into Valjean's change of heart at this point, nor at any other point in his involvement in the action on the barricades. Perhaps he is emphasising Valjean's shock, and certainly his guilt, at his realisation he had revisited the selfish and reactionary member of the chain gang he had left behind all these years before. Perhaps Hugo had no need to describe Valjean's feelings at this point as he had already effectively described them shortly after Valjean's theft of the coin from the passing chimney sweep - shock at what he had almost become, and determination to redeem himself.

Thus reminded of his past, he is equally reminded of his present and his purpose in life - Cosette. Her happiness is all that is important to him. He appears to deny himself any self-centred emotion or thought of danger for himself as he helps those wounded at the barricades. Hugo is careful to point out that Valjean does not participate in the battle, but instead helps those who have fallen, culminating in his rescue of Marius. Valjean does not have the arrogance to participate in a fight which would involve the imposition of his will upon others.

Valjean ended up in prison as a result of the questionable system of justice in operation at the time. He committed a relatively minor infringement of the law in trying to help his starving family, and paid the same price as one accused of a major crime. This situation, combined with a number of extensions to his original sentence as the result of a number of failed escape attempts, leads Valjean to question the fairness and validity of the system of justice, and indeed the very foundations of the structure of society.

Deprived of hope and freedom, these doubts turned to bitterness and resentment. It is only after meeting the Bishop that Valjean is able to see a way forward to help others who might also have fallen foul of a society which was not always sensitive to the needs of all its members and was dismissive of those who committed any infringement of its rules, with no heed given to circumstance, and no offer of compassion or understanding.

Javert, and a comparison to Valjean

Both Valjean and Javert spent a considerable length of time in the "bagne" (penal colony) - Valjean as a prisoner and Javert as a warder. In Javert's case he was born in prison as his parents were both criminals. He has therefore grown up in an environment where the laws of the land are held as sacrosanct. Inmates were sent there to learn respect and acceptance of the law and so there was no room for discussion or debate. In this environment there was also a clear division between "them" and "us", the plunderers of society and its protectors, thus encouraging an unequivocal attitude with right being clearly on one side and certainly not on the other. One even wonders if Hugo saw prison as a metaphor for society itself with the imposition of its rules and restrictions, and more importantly the imposition of a frame of mind which cannot function out with these rules and regulations.

Thus convinced of his parents' wrong-doing, Javert sets out to prove himself worthy of society's appreciation rather than its condemnation. He is determined to rise above his background and pursues his ambition through a rigid application of society's rules, which he accepts totally and without question.

This is in stark contrast to Valjean who learns to question the nature of justice in society and appreciate the value of tolerance through his experiences, while Javert is determined to uphold the values of society without recourse to thought and consideration.

Both, then, wish to help and make a worthwhile contribution, though in markedly different ways. Javert seeks to protect society from the criminal element, while Valjean has first-hand knowledge of what can bring problems about and sets out to help avoid these problems. For Javert society remains something of an abstract notion, while Valjean is more concerned with the individuals who make up society.

In Montreuil, Valjean sets about helping the townsfolk through employment at his factory (where he insists on a reasonable standard of wage), but also in the building of a school and hospital. Javert also tries to help in his own way, through the strict application of the law and in trying to protect members of society from criminal elements. It is as the result of this fundamental difference in stance that there arises conflict between the two.

Fantine is known to both Valjean and Javert - Valjean feels responsible for her situation and is determined to help her as he feels he has contributed to her "fall from grace" (by allowing her to be fired from his factory). Javert has also played a part in her degradation, by arresting her on flimsy grounds and insisting on imprisoning her for six months. Once again the fundamental difference in attitude between them brings them into conflict, yet both are doing what they consider "right" and just. Valjean recognises his responsibility towards her and wants to act to alleviate her suffering, while Javert is interested in protecting society from what he sees as an irredeemable criminal.

Javert has total faith in the system of rules he represents, and by extension, total faith in himself. Unfortunately he is a man who allows his faith in his principles to overwhelm him. There is no place for doubt, thought, or understanding in his world. Such considerations would only threaten the very fabric of the society he is sworn to protect. He chooses to follow the letter of the law, not its spirit, thus displaying his complete faith in God and his own principles.

Valjean, on the other hand, doubts and questions himself at virtually every turn. His strength of will is derived from the fact that he feels he has seen his own black side - he knows what he is capable of, given the right circumstances, and because he has seen an alternative, he is determined to avoid any repetition of this "black side".

When Valjean releases Javert at the barricades, Javert is forced to call into question his own judgment (and that of the whole of society). Javert, however, doesn't have the tolerance or forgiveness to accept his own mistakes and move on. He sees that he may have been mistaken in his judgment of Valjean, but because his philosophy is based on application of rules rather than thought and consideration, he sees no way forward for himself - for him it is a choice between believing in what is "right", or believing in nothing. Doubt may lead to clarification, but Javert sees no alternative to his principles which he has just seen overturned. He has, in effect, lost faith in his own ideals and cannot accept an alternative based on nothing more than respect for fellow human beings.

Javert is frequently viewed as Valjean's evil adversary, but this is a quite erroneous interpretation. He is a highly principled and well-intentioned officer of the law, but he is dogmatic and rigid in his thinking. His death is a tragedy for he had much to offer society, but in a changing world, with an increasing emphasis on compassion and accountability, Javert and his like no longer fitted. Total faith in the hierarchy and the rule of law in society meant that he was unwilling to reflect and see the bigger picture. While his devotion and dedication to duty are entirely admirable, his stance (and by extension that of the governing bodies of France) was becoming philosophically, morally and even politically unacceptable.

Valjean's transformation and redemption are underpinned by love and tolerance, qualities which Javert fails to embrace in his life. Javert cannot understand a world without guidance or some kind of standard set by a higher power. He hasn't enough love or respect for others to see that a system of conduct and morality may be based on humanity. For him there must be some authority, and when that authority is challenged and is shown to be fallible, the whole basis and purpose of his life is shattered.

Because he represents the law he feels he must rise above the common people he serves to protect. He forgets common humanity in favour of playing the part of a policeman in society. In many ways he becomes his role, abandoning sympathy and compassion which he regards as weaknesses in his task to protect society from the criminal element.

Justice and society

Hugo prefaces his book with a statement in which he says that as long as there remains ignorance and misery on the Earth, books such as his will not be useless. He also suggests that many of the problems facing men women and children in society are created by the very laws and traditions of that society.

Society is a man-made structure and as such has the same capacity as each and every man for achieving great heights, but also for plumbing considerable depths. By working together and showing understanding and tolerance toward one another great things may be achieved. However, the result may be quite the opposite if divisive and arbitrary laws and customs are introduced and accepted by those who stand to gain, and who may hold the balance of power.

Society in nineteenth century France appears to have been sharply divided between the "haves" and the "have-nots", with the ruling bourgeois class happy to make as much profit as they could from the relatively poorly paid, but hard working, factory workers who saw healthy profits go into the pockets of the middle-class owners while the common people struggled to get by on the pittance they were paid.

The sense of injustice had come to a head in the late eighteenth century and resulted in the French Revolution. Now, although conditions had improved to some extent, the aristocracy had been replaced by the middle classes (who undoubtedly aspired to the position and power of the late aristocracy), and who proved little better in terms of the provision of living and working conditions for the working class, than those they replaced. The King himself even dressed like a member of the middle class. Worse, they showed the same haughtiness and indifference towards those they considered their social inferiors.

The whole question of justice in society is closely linked to the very structure of that society. How can the principles of objective justice be served if society itself is divided into the rulers and the workers, with laws being formulated and administered by the self-serving ruling class?

In his book, Hugo sets out to depict circumstances and situations to challenge the thinking and attitudes of the time (but which, sadly, may still apply today).

He was particularly preoccupied by the issue of the appropriateness of the punishment to fit the crime, the social reasons that may lead to crime in the first place, and of course the treatment of inmates in prison. He made regular visits to prisons and discussed such matters with inmates whom he befriended. Clearly he would take a keen interest in cases he would consider miscarriages of justice, and indeed he was inspired to produce a booklet about the case of Claude Gueux, a convict executed by guillotine in Troyes in 1832. Gueux was executed because he killed one of his warders while in prison, and while we may not wish to condone this act, Hugo's telling of his story reveals a far more morally complex case than is suggested by a rapid look at the facts of the case.

Hugo gives us a picture of an unemployed man who burgled a house to steal bread in order to feed his starving family. Captured, he was condemned to several years' hard labour and was persecuted by one of the warders who told Gueux his wife had resorted to prostitution to make ends meet and, seeing he had forged a special friendship with one inmate in particular, he separated them. He refused to reunite them, even after Gueux pleaded with him and so, pushed beyond the limits of his endurance, Gueux committed the act for which he was eventually guillotined.

In telling this story, Hugo produced an element of doubt and a desire to consider the justice not only of the final outcome, but also of the whole series of events leading to his arrest and imprisonment in the first place.

Clearly Gueux's story contains some of the base elements for "Les Misérables" and in telling his tale we see an early example of Hugo's preoccupation with justice and society.

As a factory owner Valjean is ahead of his time, offering reasonable wages and conditions to his workers and doing much to improve the standard of living for the entire town. In this respect Valjean might even be seen as something of a forerunner of a socialist, recognising the need for mutual respect and support between proprietor and worker. This of course is in stark contrast with the attitude which was prevalent at the time.

Poor living and working conditions led to the attempted uprising of June 1832 when idealistic young students tried to rouse the people to rebellion. Hugo himself was in favour of revolution if this was the only way to change things for the better, for it was quite clear that those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo were unlikely to change things of their own volition. Thus Hugo calls in to question not just the appropriateness of the punishment to fit the crime, but also the appropriateness of the government to fit the people.

In many ways this is an early feminist work, presenting a sympathetic and admiring picture of women and what they have to tolerate in society. This is exemplified by Fantine and her suffering. She is seduced and then cold-heartedly dropped by her bourgeois boyfriend, more or less as an experiment. Pregnant, she must find a means of supporting herself and her child in a society that dismissed unmarried single mothers as scum. In order to obtain a job, she must entrust her daughter to the care of a couple she meets on her travels. At this time there was no social security, no welfare system and no adoption checks - it was a matter of survival and it was each man (or woman) for himself. Through Fantine, Hugo bemoans the plight of young women and unwanted pregnancies, and condemns society for its superior (and hypocritical) moral stance.

Eventually Fantine loses her job because of her child and she is forced into prostitution to pay for the upkeep of her daughter. She has therefore been transformed by society into the very thing it haughtily accused her of being in the first place.

Through young Cosette, and also Gavroche and the young chimney sweep, we see the abuse of children apparently abandoned by parents, and who are virtually slaves, deprived of education and forced to work long and arduous hour for an often unsympathetic "master". Again Hugo implies criticism of society in tolerating these conditions and practices toward children.

Love

It is particularly in its depiction of love, and ultimately its appeal for tolerance that "Les Miserables" excels. Love is perhaps the key theme in the book. Love is depicted in many different forms, and is shown as the principal means of fulfilment and redemption. In the same way, the lack of love leads to unhappiness and misery.

In the Bishop of Digne we see pure, spiritual love. The Bishop is entirely devoted to God and his works. He is determined to see only the potential good in man, believing this to reflect God's wishes and intentions for mankind. The Bishop follows the spirit of the Bible, not the letter of the written word. Nor does he follow the example of other eminent ecclesiastics - he has renounced wealth to the point of renouncing almost all comfort. He has within him a love for God, but also an innate love for man, according him a respect not always shared by others. He is an optimist and sees himself merely as an instrument of God's will.

Fantine represents maternal love and the lengths to which a mother may be prepared to go to in order to protect and save her child. Although she abandoned her child Cosette, this was done with the best of intentions and was the result of pressure applied by society in the form of prejudice and hypocrisy. She is, in her way, devoted to her child and is willing to sacrifice her own wealth, health and dignity in order to protect and save Cosette. Her efforts to raise money to pay for the upkeep of her child indicate a selflessness few could contemplate, suffering as she does any number of physical and psychological indignities before losing her life to illness (brought on as the result of poor living conditions).

In Marius and the adult Cosette we see youthful passion and undiluted love. Two young people who have found their first, their only, their all-consuming loves. They are totally devoted to one another to the point of being able to think of little else. Their youthful exuberance causes problems in other areas of their lives - Marius appears, until the last minute, more concerned with Cosette than with helping his friends on the barricades, and Cosette begins to question her father's authority. Distraction and challenging of parental authority are of course natural consequences of falling in love and will be familiar to the majority of readers, inspiring a degree of compassion and even complicity Hugo might not otherwise have achieved, especially when placed against a background of heroic struggle against repression, adding even more to the pathos and apparent impossibility of their situation. Cosette, like Esmeralda in "Notre Dame de Paris", serves as the catalyst for events and emotions. Also like Esmeralda, her character is perhaps less important than the emotions she provokes in others and the events for which they, in turn, are responsible. Neither Cosette nor Esmeralda actually contribute a great deal to the advancement of the narrative, but serve instead as the inspiration for others.

In Eponine we see the tragic consequences of deep but unrequited love. Eponine is devoted to Marius, but his heart belongs to Cosette, and he is hardly aware of Eponine's existence beyond that of a friend. Eponine's love for Marius takes on heroic proportions when she dies at the barricades, having selflessly delivered a message to him from Cosette. She dies wishing to be near her love, and it is this love which has led her to escape the self-centred mentality of the Thénardiers and commit selfless acts of love and devotion.

In Valjean we see a man who has all but lost his self-respect and who is tempted to become the creature others accuse him of being. He is saved by one man's kindness and compassion, and sees that there is another way to lead one's life, based on respect and love. Love to Valjean is essentially a spiritual affair. He has no physical loves, but gives of himself quite freely, allowing others to maintain the self-respect and dignity he himself had lost. He shows paternal love for Cosette, and even before that he shows devotion in stealing bread to feed his sister's child. Sadly he has little or no love for himself, choosing instead to devote himself to the provision of materials for others. He considers himself a thief, unworthy of others' affection, and spends his life trying to redeem himself - in his own eyes. He feels he has a debt to pay - not to society, but to himself, for he has seen what life can be like without honour, dignity, and love, and is determined that he at least will make a stand against such a life, both for himself and others. Although he has been twisted by his experience in prison, Valjean is saved by love and shows that love, combined with determination, can lead to change in man and also, by extension, in society.

In the students at the barricades we witness love of a different sort - love of a cause. They put belief in a principle above their own self-love. So immersed are they in the battle for social justice that they are willing to lose their lives to act as examples for others to follow. In this respect they prove to be tragically mistaken as few of the people they are trying to assist are willing to offer them any kind of support. This only serves to accentuate their courage, strength and idealism as they battle with government forces in an attempt to stir the people into action.

Valjean and Javert, though poles apart, share a belief in something greater than themselves. Thénardier, however, appears to believe in nothing and is a prime example and warning of the dangers of egotism and a refusal to recognise the needs or rights of others, whether through plain humanity or respect for values based on God's reported word and "morality".

Perhaps the most interesting and complex character when viewed from the point of view of love is Javert. While the others are driven principally by love, Javert is driven mostly by duty. Love, and by extension respect for others, is an alien concept to Javert. Indeed he appears to be striving to gain or maintain some degree of self-respect throughout the book. He endeavours to achieve this through applying the letter of the law - the law which was flouted by his own mother and father. He was born in prison and appears to spend his entire life trying to make up for the deeds of his parents. In many ways he resembles Valjean - he is faced with similar problems of trying to live with his past and he is driven by a sense of duty. What is missing is any feeling of love - for himself or for anyone else. When faced with the same situation as Valjean -facing his past mistakes, and given the opportunity of seeking redemption, he lacks the strength of character and respect for others to be able to achieve "salvation". He cannot see a way forward for he cannot grasp that a code of conduct may be based on mutual respect and love. An openness to respect and love would have allowed him to see man's potential for good, but his upbringing and consequent attitudes have denied him that possibility and he chooses to commit suicide rather than face the errors of his past and attempt to change.

Tolerance

If love is a key theme of the book, its overall purpose is surely a heartfelt plea for tolerance and understanding.

Hugo raises awareness of various aspects of society which contributed to the gulf separating the haves from the have-nots, and perpetuated the cycle of division and resentment which fired thoughts of rebellion and social revolution.

These problems were based largely on intolerance and a lack of willingness to recognise the common thread of humanity we all share. We are all responsible for the society which we share by virtue of the fact that our actions (or inaction) impact on others.

In drawing attention to the consequences of examples of intolerance in society, Hugo hopes we will see the importance of exercising tolerance and understanding.

In the course of his book Hugo discusses, among other examples, living and working conditions, social reasons for committing crime, the treatment of convicts and the plight of ex-convicts who seek to rehabilitate themselves in society, the frustration of working women and the victimization of those who fall foul of society's moral code, and of course the abuse of children deprived of education and forced into virtual slavery.

Perhaps the best and most touching example of political intolerance lies in the killing of the rebellious students on the barricades. These are idealistic young men who seek to improve the lot of common working people. This is in stark contrast to those in positions of authority willing to profit by others' efforts, but who refuse to acknowledge the plight or concerns of the common people.

Spurred on by the contemporary ideology of challenging the whole basis of the government's authority and the demand for accountability, emotions spilled over into rebellion and an attempted uprising.

Tragically, the students did not receive the support of the very people they tried to defend. The people may not have had much, but they had too much to lose and memories of chaos in the aftermath of the revolution were still relatively fresh. The unwillingness of the people to join the students' stance serves to make the students' actions all the more heroic.

If society's ills (based on intolerance and lack of compassion) are not to be perpetuated, man must learn to move forward and be willing to forgive.

Hugo provides us with an example of forgiveness when Valjean releases Javert at the barricades (and saves him from certain death). So, why does Valjean show tolerance toward Javert when he could so easily have taken revenge for all that Javert made him suffer?

The answer to this question surely lies in what Valjean learned from his encounter with the Bishop of Digne. Valjean discovered a different way of looking upon one's fellow citizens. Accustomed to having to fight for every scrap of dignity he could muster, Valjean was shocked to be treated with kindness and respect simply because he was there. The Bishop sowed the seed of humanity and compassion in Valjean as he realised that life did not need to be as hard, cruel and egocentric as his experience had taught him. Here was another way to live. A way based on understanding and a desire to offer a helping hand - be it due to God's will, or through recognition of a common bond between men. Hugo does not make it entirely clear whether it is God or more simply a "good" man who was responsible for this transformation, but either way this encounter changed Valjean's life and attitude toward his fellow men.

Valjean faced his past, recognised his wrongs and the wrongs done to him, but moved on, learning from his experience. Javert faces a similar situation when Valjean releases him at the barricades, and he is forced to call into question his own judgment (and that of the whole of society). Javert, however, doesn't have the tolerance or forgiveness to accept his own mistakes and move on. He sees that he may have been mistaken in his judgment of Valjean, but because his philosophy is based on application of rules rather than thought and consideration, he sees no way forward for himself - for him it is a choice between believing in what is "right", or believing in nothing. Doubt may lead to clarification, but Javert sees no alternative to his principles which he has just seen overturned. He has, in effect, lost faith and confidence in his own ideals and cannot accept an alternative based on nothing more than respect for fellow human beings.

Death

By having the vast majority of his characters die in a variety of ways, Hugo is emphasising not only the inevitability of our demise, but also the importance of life and what you do with it.

Death is the ultimate demonstration of our lack of control over our destiny - whether it is by God's will or through force of circumstance, most of the characters meet their end unexpectedly or with regret. They die in the pursuit of their principles or in the name of love - except Javert who seeks his own death as a result of the overturning of his principles.

Their death can be seen almost as a reflection of a positive aspect of their character, though ultimately their death may have no obvious positive effect, calling into question the meaning and value of life in the broader sense.

What matters is what each person has made of his or her life and the worth they have given it through their actions.

Most of Hugo's characters, including Fantine, the students, Eponine and Gavroche, die as a result of selfless love, and their actions and motivations are to be admired.

In the end Valjean dies of a broken heart, the result of his selfless devotion and heroic actions to promote Cosette's happiness. This is in stark contrast to Javert's death which, while tragic in its own way, is ultimately a selfish act and reflects a life lacking love and genuine respect for others.

It is worthy of note that one of the few survivors is the totally self-centred Thenardier who goes on to thrive in that most miserable and despicable of occupations, the slave trade. A long life, yes, but one that is worthwhile?

Our time on Earth is limited and we can choose, to a large extent, how we are going to lead our lives. Valjean and the others set an example based on altruism and love. Death is inevitable and when the time comes to be judged, or perhaps more importantly to judge ourselves, and there is no point in hiding from the truth, Hugo asks us to consider whether our lives will have been worthwhile.

Hope for the future

Valjean devotes his life to bringing up Cosette. She becomes his focus, his purpose, his entire life.

Cosette can also be viewed in broader terms as representing the future of society. Children are the key to the future and it is the responsibility of those living in the present to endeavour to improve the lot of those who will eventually inherit society and what we have made of it.

The best/most effective means of changing society is through education, and Valjean sets out to provide Cosette with the best education he can provide, both in terms of schooling and as a father, emphasising the value of compassion and understanding.

Parenthood is indeed central to "Les Misérables" - not just in the shape of Valjean doing his best to bring up the young Cosette, but its importance is emphasised through Fantine and her selfless devotion to her daughter, the negative influence of Thénardier on his offspring, the void left in Marius's life created by never knowing his father, his relationship with his Grandfather (whom he calls "father"), and the shame Javert feels concerning his own parents. Valjean's own early life is affected by the death of his parents, and he more or less takes the place as head of the family when his brother in law dies.

It was as a result of protecting a child that Valjean ended up in prison, and stealing from a child (the young chimney sweep) led to his breakdown and resolution to change for the better. Children, then, are integral to the story and its "message". The young are seen as innocents to be protected and nurtured, or as a means of hope for the betterment of society, and essential to that end is education, upbringing, and of course love.

Hope is present also, and perhaps more obviously, in the very fact that Valjean recognises his shortcomings and problems, and shows great resolve and selflessness in his pursuit of redemption. The suggestion is clearly that we need not submit to our circumstances or past experience. The human spirit is such that, given strength of character, determination, and sensitivity to the plight of one's fellow men, everyone is capable of extraordinary feats of compassion and tolerance.

Writing style and symbolism

As has already been suggested, the book is based largely on historical fact and incidents lifted from Hugo's own life or witnessed by him. This adds a sense of depth and "realism" to the characters. There is a humanity pervading Hugo's characters - we feel his descriptions more closely resemble observations of genuine personalities rather than products of his imagination. Their thoughts and feelings are familiar to us all.

Another reason for the inordinate grip the novel exerts on us is the way in which Hugo describes each of his characters in extraordinary detail. We cannot, we are not allowed to accept these people at face value. They are not simply used by Hugo to advance the narrative which appears, at times, almost side-tracked in favour of exploration of the characters who people it. We are made aware of the life and background of each of these characters so that it becomes more and more difficult to react simply to an action, or judge it, when we have come to understand their motivations and inner feelings.

This is not to suggest that Hugo is not totally in command and leading us in the direction he wishes to take us. He knows exactly what he is doing, but he is all the more successful because his characters are convincing and he encourages the reader to have ambivalent feelings about some of them. We may not approve of Javert's pursuit of duty, but we can understand it and may even experience a degree of sympathy for him. We are thus led to exercise tolerance and understanding, the very qualities that Valjean himself strives to embrace.

Hugo is frequently accused of digression from the narrative, and it must be said, this is fair criticism. In later editions of the book Hugo's lengthy digressions on Parisian slang and life in Convents were relegated to appendices, and while his descriptions of the battle of Waterloo and the sewers of Paris remain an integral part of the text, it must be said they offer little in terms of advancement of the narrative.

The very descriptions and characterisations, so rich in detail, which allow the reader to empathise and reflect on various aspects of life, can also be tedious and frustrating as the progress of the narrative is sacrificed for increased knowledge and understanding of the characters.

Hugo also adopts a certain moralising, almost paternal tone with his readers. He has very set ideas about what he wants to say and where he wants to lead his readers, and frequently overstates a case to convince them, perhaps because he feels he has considerable prejudice to overcome.

However, the book's various faults and difficulties in style are more than compensated by the power, depth and scope of the narrative and its characters. We are gripped from the outset as Hugo unfolds his tale of love, faith, tolerance and redemption.

If the reader can overcome resistance to the style and learn to appreciate what is there, he will find it a most rewarding and stimulating experience.

Hugo was first and foremost a poet. He was a wordsmith who used symbolism and imagery to express ideas and lend clarity and poetic beauty to the events and characters he describes in "Les Misérables".

Part of the appeal of reading any even vaguely poetic work is the thrill of interpreting the writer's words and images - to feel you have deciphered an almost hidden message which allows you to share an idea or see characters and events more clearly through the author's use of simile or metaphor, which are devices intended to transmit ideas or emotions more effectively than by verbal description.

Of course, because we (the readers) have to see and interpret the symbolism we feel greater ownership of the story and characters. We feel part of the process intended by the author - the process of reading, which requires a great deal more than the mere following of a story.

Hugo would, I believe, plan his writing very carefully and deliberately. This was a man used to choosing words and rhymes with great care for his poetry - how could he not exercise similar care in his prose writing?

We shall look at (briefly) just a handful of  events and the symbolism that can be inferred in them, primarily because to discuss every possible interpretation of every event would require an entire book in itself, but also because to examine any more would be to deprive the reader of their "ownership" or "participation" in the book.

Just about the best-known event of the story of "Les Misérables" is the giving of the candlesticks to Valjean by the Bishop. The significance of the candlesticks goes well beyond their monetary value and the very fact that they were given to him. They may be seen symbolically as lighting Valjean's path through the darkness of his past to the path of goodness. Indeed he is following a path when he meets the chimney sweep - the path to self-destruction as he steals the boy's coin, but he chooses a different path (and therefore way of life) when he realises what he has done and symbolically tears up his yellow passport, thereby turning his back on his past.

When he builds his highly successful business and becomes mayor of Montreuil sur Mer, it is under the name of Monsieur Madeleine. Surely the resemblance to Mary Magdalene is more than accidental - she too was saved from a life of "sin" by a good man.

The fact that Valjean was helped by a good man who also happens to be a Bishop introduces the whole question of fate and spirituality. Is God working in a mysterious way to influence Valjean's life, or is Valjean influenced by nothing more than the deeds of a good man? Hugo is, I think, deliberately ambivalent and leaves it to the reader's interpretation.

When Valjean meets Cosette for the first time and he lifts her water bucket, he is also alleviating her life of other burdens. He is lightening her load with his friendship and help.

As has already been suggested, Valjean and Javert may even symbolise the very changes in attitude undergone in the course of the nineteenth century.

"Les Misérables" contains some profoundly spiritual aspects - discussion of duty, conscience, humanity etc.. Hugo is also, however, clearly opposed to ecclesiastical dogma and his works even contain passages on what Hugo regarded as the unnatural and untenable roles in society of nuns and members of the clergy. This point is made very forcefully through the character of Frollo in "Notre Dame de Paris", though it is toned down considerably in "Les Misérables" with the Bishop of Digne who, Hugo points out, is atypical of the clergy and appears pure, inspired by Christ and uncorrupted by the dogmatic church.

Hugo appears to believe firmly in the power of the spirit and a code of morality based on humanity. He appears to believe in God and may even be suggesting that dogma and tradition have derailed man from the true path of Godliness and goodness.

In keeping with this, it has frequently been suggested that Valjean may be viewed as something of a Christ figure.

Valjean was a woodcutter by trade. He goes to an Inn on Christmas Eve to see a child who is going to change his life. He appears to have no association with the opposite sex, but has a relationship (of sorts!) with a prostitute. He even manages to rise from the dead at one point! Though Valjean is not their leader, the students may be seen as disciples, and clearly Javert represents the accepted (and threatened) order of things.

There are countless other similarities to be quoted or thus interpreted, but surely such points of similarity cannot be purely coincidental.

Hugo was apparently a profoundly religious man. There are certainly countless references to the church, faith, God, fate and destiny not just in Les Misérables, but in several of his other works. Yet so much of his work challenges the very core of religious thought that it is hard to accept he was religious in the orthodox and accepted sense. It appears he believes in the existence of some powerful force capable of exercising a profound influence on our lives, yet he does not appear to subscribe to the traditional, ecclesiastical approach to God and worship. It may even be that he did not fully know or understand exactly what he did believe in, but he was certainly opposed to the attitude and domination of the church and its interpretation of faith and justice.

So why the similarities to Jesus?

Valjean is no superhuman or Heaven-sent figure, indeed his appeal is in his decidedly human nature. He is the product of society, events, choices and of course his own character. His acts of heroism are accessible to us all and can thus serve as a source of inspiration for us all without necessary recourse to the ultimate form of moral authority. Valjean may believe in God, but he does not depend on Him for inspiration or authority. He does what he feels he has to do, based on compassion, for the benefit of others. As such he is a model for what can be achieved in society without necessary reference to the church and its orthodox concepts of morality.

Valjean does not deny God's existence, but he does not fully understand God's will, recognising only some form of Divine influence. He gets on with the business of living and making his own decisions based on what he has learned in his life. If there is a conflict, it is with the church and society's interpretations of God's will as they impose their interpretations through organised religion, faith, law, order, and politics. In contrast, Valjean simply recognises the value of helping others, and love and respect.

Hugo believed in the perfectibility of man. He believed that man could rise above his experience to achieve selfless acts of kindness. In Valjean we are presented with a model for such change - change which appears entirely feasible as we can trace its evolution, but change which requires enormous willpower and determination. It is based on humanitarian inspiration leading to spiritual enlightenment, while ecclesiastical, political and legal dogma is rejected.

Coincidence

"Les Misérables" is often accused of being over-dependent on coincidence, and this is undoubtedly true. The number of coincidences does somewhat defy belief, but does this necessarily detract from the book as a whole?

Let us look at just a few of these coincidences before considering the effect.

The Thénardiers seem to crop up quite regularly and are links common to most of the main characters. It is with the Thénardiers that Fantine leaves the young Cosette, later in Paris their neighbour happens to be Marius who is in love with the adult Cosette and with whom the Thénardiers' daughter Eponine happens to be in love. Of course Marius feels he owes a considerable debt to Thénardier who was credited with saving his father's life at the battle of Waterloo. The loveable rogue Gavroche is their son, and two children Gavroche finds in the streets of Paris happen to be their offspring also. Being in the criminal fraternity, the Thénardiers have come to know Inspector Javert who has also come to Paris to advance his career. While escaping through the sewers after the failed coup, Valjean encounters not just Thénardier but Javert as well.

On the surface it certainly appears true that the book contains an excess of coincidences, but is Hugo not using these events to accentuate points about the existential nature of our lives? These characters' lives are inextricably linked to one another. Each has played, and continues to play a vital, indeed formative, role in the others' lives, in keeping with the theory of Existentialism mentioned earlier. He may be overstating his case, but Hugo is emphasising the fact that our lives are not just linked, but are dependent on one another.

Given what they stand for, it is inevitable that they will clash, and this is the other reason why coincidence is not overly damaging to the whole - the main characters can be seen as metaphors standing for conflicting principles and so the clash is less between the characters themselves than between their points of view. Let us not forget that Hugo was a poet, using metaphor and symbolism to make his point.

Indeed that the book is accused of an excess of coincidence is a tribute to the strength of the writing since the characters are so individual, well drawn and "realistic" that we find probability stretched beyond what we find acceptable. However, the point is that we all influence one another and we all share a common bond by virtue of the fact we share our society and indeed our lives.

Film versions

There have been many attempts to bring the story of "Les Misérables" to life, with well over twenty cinema adaptations and of course the world-renowned musical.

The quality of the cinema versions has varied considerably, naturally enough, with writers and directors focusing on certain elements often at the expense of various others. In general the fuller the adaptation the more successful it is. However, to my great surprise I have found the musical by Boublil and Schonberg (produced by Sir Cameron Mackintosh) to be the most successful adaptation I have seen.

Below, you will find brief reflections on just a handful of the film versions and thoughts on why the musical has been so successful.

Les Misérables 1934

I got my first glimpse of the 1934 version while watching the 1995 adaptation with Jean-Paul Belmondo. The clips to which we are treated there intrigued me and after considerable rooting around the internet I managed to obtain a copy on video (though it has recently been released in Britain).

I was not disappointed. This is quite the fullest and most satisfying cinematic version of Hugo's extraordinary tale yet produced.

Some may find the running time of around four and a half hours quite daunting, but I found that I hardly noticed the time pass.

The reasons for its success are manifold. Firstly the detail and therefore the strength of the original are largely retained. Characters are properly fleshed out, and just as in the original we feel we share the characters' lives and get to know and care about them. The depth and number of characters are not sacrificed to considerations of time and commerce.

Although some of the photography appears dated by modern standards, Raymond Bernard's literate script and direction are stimulating and advance the narrative at a steady pace (despite the impression created by the running time). He is masterful in the creation of atmosphere in both intimate and crowd scenes. For example the film is quite spectacular in its depiction of the 1832 uprising, yet it is deeply moving in the scenes involving Valjean and the Bishop.

The music (by Arthur Honegger) has great dignity and is entirely apt to the tenor of the film and the themes it embraces.

However, if the real strength of the piece is in the depth and conviction of its characters, their cinematic success is due in no short measure to the quality of the acting. Fantine (Josseline Gael) is perhaps a little melodramatic for modern tastes, and Javert (Charles Vanel) lacks a truly tragic quality, but all told the performances are faithful to the original and convincing, and none more so than Harry Baur as Valjean. His immense physical presence and slow, controlled delivery, combined with his ability to express his inner feelings with little more than a look or a moment's hesitation command our respect and sympathy, making him the perfect incarnation of the tormented but determined Valjean.

It wreaks sincerity and a genuine desire to transfer not just the story, but the spirit of the original onto the big screen.

Les Misérables 1935

Probably the best known of the cinematic adaptations, with Fredric March as Valjean and Charles Laughton as Javert, this is nonetheless a somewhat sanitised and flawed version.

Short on detail and lacking in grit, this is a fairly blinkered if well-intentioned version, concentrating on legal injustice and the plight of released convicts. Even Marius delivers a speech criticising the State for its treatment of ex-cons rather than broadening the canvas to discuss other social issues.

Fantine's lamentable situation is sanitised to avoid all mention of prostitution, and while we still feel considerable sympathy for her, the "cleaning up" of her plight also has the effect of lessening the depth of our feelings for her.

The poetry and tragedy of the original are not well served as the storyline itself is cut short and characters disappear completely or are significantly altered to suit the "new" framework.

Fredric March is sincere, but perhaps lacking in gravitas. Laughton (an actor I have greatly admired in other productions) is just not right as Javert. Whether this is due to the script or his playing is open to debate, but to have Javert display emotion (the trembling of the lip!), and to have him attempt to place blame on the law rather than accept responsibility for his actions is to miss the point.

A more adolescent version than the altogether more rounded, complete, and adult French version which immediately preceded it.

Les Misérables 1957

This version is the first widescreen and full colour adaptation of the novel (adapted and directed by Michel Audiard). It is also the result of a Franco - Italian collaboration undoubtedly intended to broaden the appeal of the film throughout Europe, but which may in the end have done it no great favours. The actors appear to deliver their lines in their native tongue and are later dubbed into French, causing a certain lack of spontaneity in both the delivery of the lines and in the interaction between the players.

Fairly theatrical in its conception, the film is rather heavy and has a somewhat "staged" feel to it, with little camera mobility, and a general feeling that the subject matter is being treated with a little too much reverence or even awe.

That said, Jean Gabin is an excellent Valjean - he is quiet and thoughtful, giving the impression he has suffered but is handling his torment with great dignity and stoicism. He is particularly strong in his scenes with Bourvil (Thénardier) and Bernard Blier (Javert), lending authority and sincerity to the part.

Bernard Blier as Javert is convincing as a man devoted to his work and who believes utterly in the principles he defends, but lacks any element of sympathy or tragedy when Valjean releases him from the barricades and when he discovers Valjean has saved Marius by dragging him through the sewers. This turning point, marking Javert's doubts about the direction of his entire life, is dealt with somewhat summarily in the film, and must be considered something of a weakness.

In contrast, we have perfect casting and playing in Bourvil as Thénardier. Here is a Thénardier who is at once amusing and vicious, cunning and intelligent. It is to the director's great credit that Thénardier's part has not been as significantly reduced as it so often is in film versions, and Bourvil certainly gets under the skin of the character.

There is much to savour and enjoy, but I find it a little staid and too self-aware for my taste.

Les Misérables 1978

Although much admired by some, I'm afraid I find this a rather workman-like production.

Produced as a television film by Sir Lew Grade in 1978, it shares the weaknesses of many of his other excursions into the cinema in the late seventies and early eighties - a lack of sparkle and decent script. The whole production gives the impression of going through the motions rather woodenly, rendering a well-intentioned and undoubtedly sincere version which, sadly, is quite lacking in spirit. Perhaps this version also suffered from an excess of admiration, bordering on awe, for the original, but for me the actors never really "become" their roles, but "play" them.

Richard Jordan is earnest and sincere, but is too young for the part and appears limited to just one register as Valjean ages, while Anthony Perkins plays Javert as heartless and unbending, and lacks the spark of ultimate understanding and humanity necessary to suggest tragedy rather than jubilation on his death.

Many of the other roles are played by well-known actors whose presence would appear to be of more significance than the parts they play.

Once again Thénardier is almost non-existent, and various liberties are taken with characters and events, the most glaring omission being Valjean's heartbreak and death (replaced by a happy ending!). The lack of emotion, however, is due principally to the script which, while relatively faithful to a large number of the events of the book, does little to relay the emotions aroused by these events. I felt the direction was uninspired and left the viewer curiously uninvolved.

For all that, it is an honest and genuine attempt at putting the story on the screen, and deserves credit as such.

Les Misérables 1995

Claude Lelouch's 1995 film is more an adaptation of Hugo's tale, rather than a filmed version of it. He explores the universal themes of the book and the pertinence of Hugo's "message" to our history, here applying them to the French experience of Nazi Occupation during the Second World War.

This is the story of Henri Fortin (an excellent Jean-Paul Belmondo - what a Valjean he would have made!), who sees parallels between his own life and the stories of Valjean et al. It is also a tale of intolerance and love as told through the experiences of a Jewish family forced to flee Nazi persecution, and how they are helped by Henri Fortin whose evolution into a caring humanitarian forms the core of the film.

Told on a grand scale, Lelouch captures the essential humanity of his characters and has produced a gripping and moving film which is a fitting tribute to the original, a tale which gives us the story of an era through the lives of a myriad of characters, touching on themes of love, faith, revolution and tolerance, among others. He takes these universal themes and creates parallels between his own characters and those of Victor Hugo while giving us the story of a different era, but one which shares similar problems, thus emphasising the continued relevance and validity of Hugo's original.

Some parallels are more successful and complete than others - here, the Javert character blindly follows orders, and may have doubts, but he is cruel and selfish, and it is difficult to have any sympathy for him. World War 2 replaces the 1832 attempted revolution, and the experiences of the original characters are mirrored in the experiences of the 1995 characters, though not always by their direct equivalents. M. Lelouch succeeds in tapping our emotions better than most of the more recent "straight" adaptations, and we have the fun of trying to "spot the parallel".

That Hugo's themes/points should be equally applicable to an era 100 years after that of the original is testimony to Hugo's insight and the strength of his narrative. However, it can also be regarded as a sad reflection on 20^th century European history.

The music by Francis Lai (among others) brilliantly captures and enhances the film's themes and emotions.

Les Misérables 1998

The most recent English-speaking version, Bille August's film is spectacular and lovingly produced, but the director has taken various "shortcuts" (even liberties?) with both the characters and events.

Apparently filmed entirely on location, there is a coldness, even at times an unpleasantness, pervading the film.

The tormented but determined Valjean is well played by Liam Neeson, indeed the acting is of a high standard throughout - my main quibble is with the "shortcuts" (made, perhaps, due to considerations of time and commerce?).

I find it hard to accept that Valjean would strike the Bishop - in the book he considered violence but shrank from it.

There should be no hint of romance between Valjean and Fantine - both are lacking in self-esteem, and Fantine is far too ill!

Javert would not beat Fantine - this is quite unnecessary as he is the law, and he would not allow such personal weakness to affect his duties. Furthermore this encourages the audience to hate Javert, therefore losing audience sympathy and understanding at his death.

Marius does not have the strength or ambition to lead the student revolt.

Thénardier has all but disappeared! This is a mistake common to most English-speaking versions. The removal of Thénardier only accentuates the contrast between Valjean and Javert, diminishing our sympathy for Javert who is seen as Valjean's evil enemy rather than the principled (if mistaken and flawed) defender of society he is.

The film ends with Javert's death, and there is little sadness or regret as Valjean witnesses the event. It is probably wrong to have Valjean witness the event at all - Javert's suicide is the result of inner turmoil which is weakened by having him explain himself to Valjean. It should also be recalled that Valjean had spared/saved his life at the barricades, and so he is unlikely to accept Javert's death without argument or some attempt to dissuade him from committing suicide.

Having said all that, I found the film enjoyable in its own right, but I don't regard it as a very true or complete version of Hugo's tale.

 Les Misérables 2000 (French Television adaptation)

One of my favourite versions, second only to the 1934 adaptation.

Six hours in length, Depardieu as Valjean, Malkovich as Javert, rich in detail and emotionally engaging - what more can one ask?

As with the 1934 version, this treatment is very full, rich in detail, and therefore retains the strength of the original. It contains a number of alterations to the narrative, but remains faithful to the essence of the characters, though I found Valjean's obsessive behaviour toward Cosette a little exaggerated, and too little emphasis laid on his sense of duty, responsibility, and lack of self-esteem, as his motivation. The direction is crisp, the script intelligent and engaging, and the acting convincing and moving.

Depardieu is an excellent Valjean, articulate and ultimately tragic, while Malkovich is entirely convincing and unusually "human" as Javert. Christian Clavier is splendidly scheming, selfish and low, while Virginie Ledoyen is suitably appealing as Cosette.

This is a confident and intelligent production which is not afraid of its origins.

The 1934 version remains, and I suspect will always remain, my favourite. The key to "Les Misérables" is love, and the '34 version succeeds in appealing to the heart better than any other I have seen. It is undoubtedly melodramatic in places, but this is perhaps a style which is not unsuitable for the recounting of Hugo's tale, and this may explain why more modern and realistic versions have fared less well in transferring the story to the big screen. This may also account for the inordinate success of the musical which appeals to the heart and the spirit.

The musical

In my opinion the musical version of "Les Misérables" is the perfect union of material and medium.

First and foremost, this is musical theatre and not a "show" as such. Music is used by the authors to tell Hugo's tale, and it is the story that remains the most important element in the musical version. This is no star or even character vehicle. It has integrity and is so well structured that each scene advances the plot or deepens our knowledge of the various characters involved. Many musicals have a few good scenes and songs, but seem to contain "padding" elsewhere. "Les Mis" appears carefully crafted throughout so that each scene remains memorable and of interest and importance.

In some shows the players/singers remain fairly static, but in "Les Mis" there is considerable movement - movement which is linked to the developing storyline. In other shows you may have quite spectacular and entertaining dance routines frequently built around relatively flimsy storylines. "Les Mis" appears to have struck the perfect balance between storyline and theatrical movement.

Above all, Hugo was a poet who wrote a book about society's ills, injustice, and the ways in which we (humanity) treat one another. He deals with a huge variety of themes, but to achieve his goal he tries to engage emotion, invite reflection and perhaps more than anything else, incite compassion and serve as inspiration.

Of all the film versions, really only the 1934 version with Harry Baur comes close to achieving Hugo's aims.

However, music is far and away the most effective means of communicating emotion and imparting the need for compassion and love. Music can make you feel in an instant what it might take many words to impart, and if the key to "Les Misérables" is emotion and compassion, surely the most effective means of expressing the story is in music.

This is, I think, why "Les Mis" has been so successful. The music and storyline complement one another perfectly to provide an adult and reflective entertainment which touches the hearts of its audience and which inspires them to think about their own lives.

The musical creates atmosphere, informs the audience of the personalities, motivations and feelings of various characters, and can even remind the audience of past events through the repetition of various themes - all through a few bars of (very carefully crafted) music. Many find Hugo's rather verbose style difficult or unappealing, yet here they are immediately seduced by his storyline which has simply been adapted to a different (and perhaps more immediate and compelling) medium.

The musical is, indeed, a masterfully structured piece weaving artful songs and melodies with superbly crafted staging. But of course, there would be no show without Hugo's original material, material which was so strong it inspired Boublil and Schonberg to produce their version.

This musical has touched many people's lives. It has inspired many, and continues to affect those who have seen it, and for considerably longer than the duration of the show itself. It is an achievement of which Boublil, Schonberg, Sir Cameron Mackintosh and all those involved in its production and performance can be rightly proud. It is also a rendering of which I imagine Victor Hugo would heartily approve.

Review notes for “Les Misérables”

Les Misérables                                                 Writing Task Notes 

Probably the best known of Victor Hugo’s tales, this is the story of a whole gamut of characters (Jean Valjean the ex-convict who seeks redemption, Javert the devoted policeman who seeks to bring him to justice, Fantine the factory girl forced into prostitution to provide for her daughter, Cosette who is deprived of her childhood by her greedy guardians, Marius the idealistic young student, and the Thénardiers who take advantage of everyone) whose destinies are intertwined and whose actions impact on one another’s lives.

“Les Misérables” deals with a great variety of themes in the guise of a tale of adventure, but at its core it looks at life and the nature of society and relationships.

So, what is it all about? This is the tale of a decent man who spends 19 years in prison as the result of stealing bread, and three failed attempts to escape. Bitter and angry on his release, Valjean meets a Bishop who changes his outlook on life and he spends the remainder of his life trying to help others in various ways. This is also the story of the various people he meets on his journey through life.

It is a story of redemption, love, devotion, duty, principle, selflessness and the very structure of society.

Valjean is the touching anti-hero, Fantine the tragic heroine, and Javert the highly principled but flawed policeman.

Through this tale, Hugo describes various facets of society and human nature. He invites us to reflect on the way we lead our lives, and to consider the way we think of others.

The Writing Task

You should aim to produce 150 – 200 words. To help structure your writing, you should use the following bullet points:

·                     Give a brief outline of the story

·                     Describe the main character(s) in some detail

·                     Discuss the themes

·                     Give your general opinion of the film

When you come to write about “Les Misérables”, you should make full use of the vocabulary lists provided, you should pay attention to the structures and vocabulary in your answers.

In giving an outline of the story it might be a good idea to use the present tense. This is often used in French to describe events in a book or film.

When describing characters, you should be aware of a variety of possible responses to them, and use a selection of adjectives to describe them. Avoid simple lists and you might want to provide a brief account of some events.

The description of your favourite scene could be written in the perfect tense.

Discussing themes and your general response to the film provides the opportunity to develop your own ideas and your own language to communicate these ideas. Remember to express yourself as clearly as possible.

Outline:

C’est l’histoire de                                            condamner

Il s’agit de                                                       le bagne

Un ancien forçat                                              poursuivre

Un policier                                                      abandonner

Un évêque                                                      élever

Des étudiants                                                  rencontrer

Characters:

Pourtant                                              j’admire

Cependant                                          j’apprécie

Des fois il paraît ….                            Je n’apprécie pas

Il a un côté …

Comme                                               Je le trouve ….

on découvre …                                   Je la trouve …..

je trouve que

ce que je trouve admirable/détestable chez …, est …

Il / elle est …..                                    

Souvent / parfois                                 un peu ….

Il / elle peut être ….

Valjean

Amer                                       aimant                                     tourmenté

Fâché                                      sérieux                                    torturé

Perdu                                      spirituel

Accablé                                   résolu

Désespéré                               sincère

Déprimé                                  gentil

Javert

Intelligent                                sérieux                                    

Rusé                                       fort d’esprit

Rigide                                     tourmenté

Résolu                                    torturé

Fidèle à ses principes              l’esprit fermé

Fier                                        pas ouvert

Thèmes:

L’amour                                  l’autorité

La liberté                                 la rédemption             

La justice                                

L’humanité

Personal reaction:

Passionnant                 laisser indifférent                    certaines séquences

Touchant                     long                                       certains passages

Émouvant                    lent                                        certaines chansons

Triste                           ennuyeux                               d’autres étaient …

                                                                                 plus              moins

Notre Dame de Paris

Reflections on Victor Hugo's

"Notre Dame de Paris"

There have been a number of filmed versions of Hugo's tale, though few have remained very faithful to his original storyline. The musical version by Luc Plamandon and Richard Cocciante, starring Bruno Pelletier, Helene Segara and Garou, is probably the most faithful and one of the most touching.

The questions set out below are intended to help readers/viewers clarify their own thoughts about its main characters and themes. I have supplied my own responses below the questions.

1)       What is the nature of Quasimodo's relationship with Frollo?

2)       Describe Quasimodo's and Frollo's feelings for Esmeralda. How do they contrast?

3)        What does Quasimodo's attempted kidnap of Esmeralda tell us about Quasimodo and Frollo?

4)        Esmeralda offers some water to Quasimodo after his torture - what effect does this have on him?

5)        What are we to think of Phoebus and Fleur-de-Lys?

6)        What are we to make of Frollo's conduct?

7)        How does Quasimodo change in the course of the story?

8)        How is the architecture of Notre Dame used to support the story?

9)        What are the main themes?

10)      What role does fate play in the proceedings?

What is the nature of Quasimodo's relationship with Frollo?

Quasimodo appears to have a great variety of feelings toward Frollo. He has an overwhelming sense of debt towards him as it was he who took him in and brought him up when his own parents abandoned him. He also fears and respects Frollo, perhaps because Frollo has always maintained a certain distance and has avoided the emotional bond Quasimodo needs. Although Frollo is a father figure to Quasimodo, there remains a certain detachment, even a business-like quality on the part of Frollo in their relationship. Above all else, perhaps as a result of recognition of all he owes him, Quasimodo has an unquestioning allegiance toward Frollo, similar to the faith Frollo expects as the result of the position he holds - that of moral guardian.

Quasimodo displays intelligence, sensitivity, and a desire for love, but he receives no real love in return. Frollo allows Quasimodo to feel this way - he encourages him to feel a debt rather than offer unconditional love, which causes us to question Frollo's feelings for Quasimodo. Frollo saved him and has treated him relatively well, but there is no closeness on his part. He appears to have acted out of a sense of duty rather than as an act of charity or love.

Quasimodo is open to love, indeed he offers love and clearly wants to please. Frollo, however, does not offer love. For him, love is replaced by principle, duty, faith and pride in his position.

 

Describe Quasimodo's and Frollo's feelings for Esmeralda. How do they contrast?

Quasimodo clearly finds Esmeralda very attractive, but he is under no illusion that she could feel the same way about him. Quasimodo shows intelligence, understanding and respect for Esmeralda. He also displays self-awareness and humility, provoking the reader's sympathy and compassion. He is treated as a figure of fun at the "Fete des fous", but he reveals a tender heart, intelligence and sensitivity.

Here we, the readers/viewers, are made aware of the difference between inner and outer beauty, one of the major themes of the piece. Clearly Quasimodo is a "nice" guy trapped in a deformed body, which causes a certain reaction in others. Yet he does not react in kind. He retains the capacity for love and understanding despite his treatment at the hands of others, which is another of the work's major themes - that of compassion and optimism in the face of adversity and injustice, as a result of the capacity for love.

Frollo's reaction to Esmeralda is quite different, however. He treats her like dirt and suggests she might be responsible for putting good men's souls in danger through temptation, though all she has done is dance and have fun. The temptation is in the eyes and minds of those who behold her. Frollo shows her no respect or understanding, in stark contrast to Quasimodo. Frollo overreacts somewhat to Esmeralda's very presence. He sees her through the eyes of the protector of public morality and, in his mind, seeks to protect society from the danger she represents.

What does Quasimodo's attempted kidnap of Esmeralda tell us about Quasimodo and Frollo?

The very idea of kidnapping Esmeralda is a vast overreaction. As protector of public morality, Frollo should act in accordance with the law, whose objective application should serve to protect all of society. Here Frollo shows he is acting on personal impulse as he instructs Quasimodo to kidnap Esmeralda. This is not for public protection, but for personal gratification and he is willing to make use of Quasimodo as an instrument of achieving this end. Frollo is showing a vindictive side to his character. He abuses his position, and shows no respect for either Esmeralda or Quasimodo.

Quasimodo shows devotion to Frollo by undertaking to kidnap Esmeralda. He doesn?t really understand why, but he accepts Frollo's authority, and assumes Frollo is acting in good faith and for good reasons.

Esmeralda offers some water to Quasimodo after his torture - what effect does this have on him? 

Esmeralda shows compassion and sympathy for the man who tried to kidnap her. She shows the capacity for love and humanity. Quasimodo is stunned by Esmeralda's act of charity, and this only increases his admiration for her on a spiritual level. At the same time he begins to question and doubt Frollo's motives and character.

Frollo is revealed as a cold and calculating man who sees his protege Quasimodo's suffering and does nothing to help him, in spite of knowing the truth. Frollo undoubtedly realises he has done wrong, but he is acting to protect his position and order in society. His total belief in himself and his purpose mean that pain and suffering caused to others who may be innocent, in order to deflect attention from his own weakness (which may offer a threat to stability and order in society), is seen as acceptable.

What are we to think of Phoebus and Fleur-de-Lys?

It is hard to feel much sympathy for Phoebus. We understand his attraction to Esmeralda, but from the outset she is a "plaything" for him. It is a purely physical attraction for him and he pursues his lustful feelings for Esmeralda as he claims he still loves Fleur-de-Lys. Clearly he has little real thought or respect for either Esmeralda or Fleur-de-Lys.

Esmeralda finds Phoebus physically attractive and appears to impute something more spiritual in her desire to make it so. She is undoubtedly flattered by the attentions of one she herself finds attractive, and thus fails to see clearly the full picture.

All sympathy for Phoebus evaporates when he participates in Frollo's conspiracy against Esmeralda. This is a way out for him as well as for Frollo. Neither accepts responsibility for his actions and is content to see another suffer for their actions, if that means they can avoid repercussions for their own deeds.

Fleur-de-Lys is driven wild by jealousy as she schemes the death of Esmeralda in order to ensure the security of her own future.

Esmeralda's death suits Phoebus and Fleur-de-Lys. They are willing to sacrifice an innocent to cover their own moral or political weaknesses and misjudgements, and allow them to pursue their own ambitions.

Phoebus and Frollo both occupy positions of some moral authority in society, and they will not allow those positions to be compromised by personal feelings or weaknesses. Phoebus is driven largely by ambition, but Frollo feels that his feelings for Esmeralda will compromise the very position he holds in society - thus society itself is in danger of being damaged as a result of Esmeralda's "tempting" of Frollo.

What are we to make of Frollo's conduct?

As suggested above, Frollo's position as moral guardian is both a source of pride and a problem for Frollo. He must remain impartial and fair as he represents a mixture of law, morality and religion. In order to be able to judge impartially, he must be above mere temptation. He must, at least to some extent, share the traits and principles of God himself. Frollo is stunned to discover a weakness - his attraction to Esmeralda, which he cannot control. She comes to represent a threat not just to Frollo himself, but to his very position in society. In his mind she is the criminal, threatening to undermine the very fabric of society. As such she must be done away with.

In a way, then, he is protecting society by trying to get rid of Esmeralda. However, he becomes truly monstrous in offering her freedom if she will sleep with him. He is no longer the protector of society, but a man abusing his position and authority.

Of course, Hugo is also criticising what he considers the unnatural position of a priest with respect to the allure of the opposite sex. He appears to be suggesting that it is unnatural and probably impossible to try to rise above nature, and in so doing Frollo has left himself open to human weakness - weakness which neither he nor his position can tolerate. It could also be argued that for Frollo the religious aspect of his position is little more than a "front". It should be borne in mind that the church of the time was very much a political organisation, wielding great power in the secular world and open to corruption. It also offered virtually the only means of education for those wealthy enough to take advantage of it. Frollo could quite easily have followed a career within the framework of the church without necessarily sharing the qualities we now associate with the priesthood.

Perhaps Frollo's conduct represents a more general weakening of the position (and authority) of the church as its position of strength and influence deteriorates while reason and scepticism are spread by the production of printed material accessible to all (who could read).

While the very stonework and glassware of the cathedral recounted and reinforced the "official" version of the Christian story and morality with immense and overwhelming size and authority, these could now (with the invention of the printing press) be challenged to the point of destruction by the ideas contained on a piece of paper. All the characters are thus at the mercy of, and perhaps even victims of, the times in which they lived.

How does Quasimodo change in the course of the story?

Quasimodo is transformed from an obedient and faithful servant of Frollo, respectful and afraid, to an anarchic participant in a revolt against Frollo and his position.

How and why did this happen? In a nutshell, it is due to love. Quasimodo's love and respect for Esmeralda opened his eyes to injustice and the lack of love and respect shown to him (and others) by Frollo. Love brings with it a sense of worth and self-respect which he has hitherto been denied. In a way he is liberated by these feelings. He has come to respect his own inner beauty, and spiritual love for others - in direct contrast to the supposed spirituality of Frollo who is so consumed with lust and desire that he has turned his back on the very principles he was supposed to uphold. Rather than embrace these feelings and try to grow, he decides to quell them. He has turned his back on humanity and has become his position rather than a man fulfilling a role in society.

In many ways Quasimodo's development and turning against Frollo's authority is akin to the Enlightenment Movement of the 17^th and 18^th centuries - challenging the authority of those in power and holding them accountable for their actions. This movement represented compassion and humanity as opposed to the dogma and rigidity of those in authority at the time.

How is the architecture of Notre Dame used to support the story?

The Gothic style of architecture, in contrast to the preceding Romanesque style, is a much freer style and represents a certain dissent from other rather dogmatic styles, suggesting dissent from authority and control.

Height is also used to suggest man's aspirations towards ever-greater heights (climbed with considerable ease by Quasimodo, while Frollo dies as the result of a fall).

What are the main themes?

I have touched on a variety of themes above. These include:

Love and its power to bring about great change, as well as potentially causing great pain. It can inspire acts of jealousy, but also acts of courage, and bring about personal development.

Revolt against injustice and authority where justice is not seen to be done.

Inner and outer beauty.

The Enlightenment Movement and dogma.

What role does fate play in the proceedings?

This is a recurring theme in Hugo's work. "Notre Dame" was supposedly inspired by a Greek word, 'ANRKH (anarkia in the musical), which Hugo found scratched on a wall in the cathedral. 'ANRKH means fate, and from this word found in Notre Dame cathedral, combined with fragments of other experiences and people he had met, Hugo created the story of Quasimodo, Esmeralda and the others.

There is no definitive answer to the question, but clearly Hugo felt it was important to encourage us to think about the way in which our destinies are intertwined, just as the destinies of Quasimodo, Frollo and the others are dependent on one another. Do events occur purely by chance, or is there some element of fate involved? Are we to believe in chaos, divine order, or some power which exercises influence over events?

Review notes

Notre Dame de Paris

A viewing of “Notre Dame de Paris”, the French-Canadian musical based on Hugo’s tale, is suggested as a suitable start point.

Like most Victor Hugo tales, this is the story of a whole gamut of characters (Quasimodo the bellringer, Frollo the priest in charge of the cathedral, Phoebus the soldier in charge of public order, Fleur-de-Lys his young fiancée, Clopin the “king” of the gypsies, Gringoire the poet who recounts the story, and of course Esmeralda the gypsy girl with whom most of the male characters fall in love) whose destinies are intertwined and whose actions impact on one another’s lives.

In many ways Les Misérables resembles this tale and deals with similar themes, though Notre Dame preceded Les Misérables by some 30 years.

So, what is it all about? This is the tale of a young man, dreadfully disfigured and handicapped, whose inner beauty, kindness and compassion drive him to rebel against the order and faith he has known since childhood. Love drives him to try to save a young woman, falsely accused of murder, from the gallows.

It is also a story of principle, temptation, faith, greed, jealousy, love, abuse of power, corruption and compassion.

Quasimodo is the touching anti-hero, Esmeralda the tragic heroine, and Frollo the contemptible yet human villain.

Through this tale, Hugo describes various facets of society and human nature. He invites us to reflect on the way we look on others, and to consider the impact our actions have on the lives of others.

The Writing Task

You should aim to produce 150 – 200 words. To help structure your writing, you should use the following bullet points:

• Give a brief outline of the story

· Describe the main character(s) in some detail

· Say what happened in your favourite scene

· Choose a theme from the film and discuss it

· Give your general opinion of the film

When you come to write about “Notre Dame de Paris”, apart from making use of the vocabulary lists provided, you should pay attention to the structures and vocabulary contained in the questions, and use some of them in your answers.

In giving an outline of the story it might be a good idea to use the present tense. This is often used in French to describe events in a book or film.

When describing characters, you should be aware of a variety of possible responses to them, and use a selection of adjectives to describe them. Avoid simple lists and you might want to provide a brief account of some events.

The description of your favourite scene could be written in the perfect tense.

Discussing themes and your general response to the film provides the opportunity to develop your own ideas and your own language to communicate these ideas. Remember to express yourself as clearly as possible.

1) Pourquoi est-ce que Frollo demande à Quasimodo d’enlever Esmeralda?

2) Pourquoi est-ce que Quasimodo mène une révolte contre Frollo?

3) Comment est-ce qu’on peut décrire les personnages principaux?

4) Quelle était votre scène préférée?

5) Qu’avez-vous pensé de cette comédie musicale en général?

1) il trouve que représenter

dangereux(se) la tentation

avoir peur de tomber amoureux de

se débarrasser de une menace

2) accuser de essayer de

tuer assassiner

faussement innocent(e)

réfléchir à la justice

devoir plus important que …

l’amour finir par

3) laid froid

gentil intelligent

compatissant rusé

sensible peureux

devoué fier

tendre décidé

fort égoiste

humain instable

altruiste sûr de lui

4) Ma scène préférée était celle où ….

5) J’ai trouvé ce spectacle … Ce spectacle m’a

émouvant fait réfléchir

touchant plu

long ému

intéressant fait pleurer

facile

difficile

désagréable

 Reflections on

"Cyrano de Bergerac"

This is not intended as a full literary review, but simply a page of thoughts and reflections on the characters and themes in one of France's most popular pieces of literature.

Background

First produced to instant (and lasting) success in 1897, Edmond Rostand's "Cyrano de Bergerac" has been filmed several times (most recently and most successfully with Gerard Depardieu in 1990), and has been constantly revived in the theatre (including a season in 1989/1990 starring Jean-Paul Belmondo). Cyrano was recently voted France's favourite literary character, beating Jean Valjean and D'Artagnan by a considerable margin.

On a personal level, I can attest to Cyrano's efficacy as a romantic and tragic figure, and to what extent he has been taken to the hearts of the French public. At the end of a showing of the Depardieu film (in France), a lady in the row behind me was quite incapable of moving from her seat as she was sobbing into her arms, so moved was she by the final scene.

What is it about?

Cyrano is heroic (though anti-heroic at times), tragic, spirited and ebullient, but above all else he is human, and shows human failings as well as strengths. At the time of the setting of the piece (1640-1655), patronage was the norm. Writers, actors or musicians all required a patron to ensure success. There was no system of national grants, benefit or welfare. If success required funding, one had to find a benefactor - usually a wealthy individual who may well expect some kind of payment in return. At least this is Cyrano's fear. Fiercely independent and insisting on the freedom to do, say and think whatever he pleases, Cyrano rejects the very idea of patronage since it would come at too great a price.

The principal themes of poetry (or the expressive arts in general), independence, and love are intertwined, with each integral to the other, and so it is virtually impossible to discuss one without reference to the others.

Poetry

As a work of art and a tribute to the beauty and glory of poetry and the arts, it is only fitting that "Cyrano" should itself be in the form of a poem - an extended poem whose rhymes, apart from being pleasing to the ear, allow and facilitate the elaboration of feelings and emotions, and the connection of ideas, allowing language and ideas to flow and run into one another by means of association of words and sounds.

Cyrano is clearly devoted to poetry and the beauty and clarity of expression it engenders. He interrupts Montfleury as he embarks on "Clorise" at the start of our play because he thinks Montfleury is an awful actor who delivers lines badly, and because he thinks the play itself is worth less than nought. His devotion to words will not allow him to listen to what he considers poor quality poetry.

When Valvert tries to insult him and Cyrano embarks on the famous "tirade du nez", it is to give a lesson in wit and "wordsmithing" to someone he considers inferior and who should learn how to express himself before embarking on such a task as to try to belittle a wordsmith like Cyrano.

Later on, when de Giche offers him patronage and the opportunity to have his work corrected by none other than Cardinal Richelieu, Cyrano refuses point blank, not only because of the implied loss of independence, but because of his pride and belief in his own work.

When Cyrano helps Christian write letters to Roxanne, it is not simply to help Christian achieve his purpose. Cyrano is immensely proud of the beauty and clarity contained in these letters. They contain his feelings, his thoughts, and his soul. The letters are his gift (of himself) to Roxanne.

Independence

Cyrano's insistence on independence can be seen on a number of occasions - most notably at the start when he interrupts the performance of "Clorise", showing confidence in his own abilities and judgement, and his unwillingness to bow to position and reputation. He is willing to take on and argue with the entire assembly - including members of the "Academie Francaise" who are present, and of course de Guiche, whose protege Valvert somewhat unwisely challenges Cyrano to a verbal duel. Cyrano justifies his actions, giving reasons for his dislike of both the play and the principal actor, showing to what extent he is a free spirit and thinker.

Later on, when de Guiche offers Cyrano his patronage, Cyrano launches into a speech listing his reasons why he would never accept such an offer, listing the advantages of (moral) freedom and the freedom to express himself as and when he pleases.

Cyrano displays great strength of spirit and independence in terms of courage, skill with a sword, and in his literary work. However, love and a total lack of confidence in his physical appeal to women, leave him open to self-doubt, and he finds himself embroiled in a scheme to win the attentions of his beloved Roxanne (or I should say "Roxane", to be quite accurate) for the attractive but dim-witted Christian, therefore losing a great deal of his independence, which he is willing to lose if it leads to Roxanne's happiness.

Love

Love is seen in several shapes and forms in the play. Valvert is interested in Roxanne because he sees her as a means of social advancement, being both beautiful and considered witty and charming. De Guiche, although married to a relative of Richelieu, would happily see Valvert and Roxanne together so that he might ply his influence and embark on a sexual relationship with Roxanne. This is seen quite clearly later when de Guiche propositions Roxanne. With Christian the attraction is mainly physical, though Roxanne would like to believe there is more to it and even loses interest in Christian when she feels he may not be as bright as she anticipated. Cyrano's love for Roxanne is perhaps the purest - spiritual love and respect for her character, charm and wit. However, Roxanne clearly feels the need of both the physical and the spiritual, so Cyrano feels inadequate and sets about making Roxanne happy by helping Christian fulfil her requirements.

It is interesting to note that Christian and Cyrano both feel inadequate, and indeed form one complete being when they work together - Christian being the physical, and Cyrano the spiritual. Separated, each "half" is insufficient, but together they are one. Yet, in the long term, Roxanne discovers that what is important, and what touches the heart, is the spiritual.

Cyrano loves Roxanne to the point where he is willing to sacrifice his own happiness and fulfilment. He gains satisfaction from knowing that the words and sentiments in Christian's letters (which mean so much to Roxanne) are his own.

The play is beautifully crafted, combining drama, tragedy and comedy. Rostand manages to combine entertainment with emotion, and touches the heart of his readers/viewers.

However, even at the time of its first production, Cyrano's place as a valued piece of literature was challenged. Personally, I find it vastly entertaining, touching and beautifully constructed, but I do find it very specific to Cyrano and his particular circumstances and problems. Although feelings of unreciprocated love will be familiar to readers, the very wit and ebullience which we find so attractive in Cyrano are also quite intimidating and perhaps distancing. We feel we can never attain his standard of wit nor his level of devotion to Roxanne. Somehow Cyrano's story offers no solutions to similar problems we may have.

Great literature contains imagery and inspirational stories which are pertinent to our own lives - they give us food for thought, or even guidance. Personally, although I find "Cyrano" admirable, touching and entertaining, I find it difficult to see its relevance to others' lives in terms of guidance or solutions to life's problems, especially as the character traits we find so admirable can be seen as contributing to the tragedy of the piece. 

As for the Depardieu film written and directed by Jean-Paul Rappeneau, I thought it was a superb rendering of the original. I thought all the actors played their parts beautifully (especially Depardieu and Weber), but the sets, costumes, and of course the music by Jean-Claude Petit, all made a significant and essential contribution to the overall success of the film.

Addendum

In 1990 Jean-Paul Belmondo starred in a revival of the play (at the Theatre Marigny, directed by Robert Hossein). I was in France at the time, and I have always regretted not making the effort to go and see him in it. However, I recently managed to obtain a DVD of the show (on e-bay, and not without considerable difficulty!), which has forced me into reviewing my thoughts and feelings about the Depardieu film.

In the film, Cyrano often appears curt and angry. He is independent to the point of being unapproachable, even unfriendly. Then there are times when he swings from anger to something bordering on self-pity (in manner, if not in his words).

As a result of watching the theatre version, I became more aware of the speed and manner of delivery of all the actors involved, though especially Depardieu. While his delivery is ebullient and attractive in its own way, his style tends to accentuate the rhyme and rhythm of the words, rather than the words themselves. I also came to think that the cinema version overplays, perhaps, the period richness and detail. While it is sumptuous and beautiful to the eye, I now see that it may detract from the story itself.

Curiously, I have never been especially moved by Cyrano's death scene in the film, though clearly others find it profoundly moving. I have always felt it was laboured, overdirected, overplayed and focused too much on Cyrano himself while the others (particularly Roxanne) are also affected by the tragic revelation at the end. I might also say that while I admired and sympathised with Cyrano, I'm not sure I ever really warmed to him, exactly because there always seemed to be a lack of warmth and compassion in him.

In the theatre version Cyrano seems more human. He is less driven by anger, and perhaps as a result of this we become more aware of the theme of independence and individual strength.

Here we have a more controlled performance with slower delivery (the film's running time is 2 hours 15 minutes, compared to the 3-hour theatre version), as a result of which the lines have greater impact, while the resultant altered emphasis develops the impression of character and humanity. These elements are aided by the simpler theatrical presentation, adding intensity to scenes which are, perhaps, ill-served by the flamboyance of the film.

Opposite Belmondo we have Beatrice Agenin as the lovely and intelligent Roxanne. It is somewhat ungallant of me to suggest that she was perhaps a little old for the part, but her confidence and experience add much to the part and make her character more thoughtful and attractive than the younger and at times flighty Roxanne of the film.

In writing this, I feel a sense of guilt and disloyalty as I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it has so much to commend it. In the end, however, I wonder if its weaknesses are due simply to the fact that Cyrano belongs to the theatre and the medium of the cinema brings with it certain demands which do not serve Rostand's tale as well as the medium of the theatre. Perhaps because it is such a "wordy" piece, Cyrano is seen (in the film) as almost constantly "on the move" except when talking of his feelings or talking to Roxanne. While this emphasises his energy and dynamism, it also has the effect of accentuating apparent anger and tetchiness, while diminishing calm and reason. Of course, this works well when we first meet Cyrano and he virtually bursts on to the screen, but it can become a little wearing as it persists throughout the film.

For Lauren, whose enthusiasm was inspirational. What matters is not where and when the journey ends, but what you make of the journey, and the memories you create on the way. Your family and friends will never forget.

Reflections on "Les Choristes"

Welcome to my page of notes and thoughts on the 2004 film starring Gerard Jugnot and directed by Christophe Barratier.

"Les Choristes" is touching, charming, funny, poignant and thought-provoking. Above all, however, it is very French. Character driven and intrinsically human, this is the story of a new supervisor, Clement Mathieu, who arrives at Fond de l'etang boarding school for underprivileged boys and immediately comes into conflict with the disciplinarian ethos of the Headmaster, Monsieur Rachin.

When we entrust the education of our youngsters to teachers, we make assumptions about teachers' motivation, qualifications and character. "Les Choristes" challenges all three of these assumptions and presents an at times harrowing picture of the post-war education system in France. Granted, this school has its particular problems in that we are dealing with extremes - orphaned boys, or boys whose parents don't have the means to support them (financially and/or socially), but this only serves to accentuate the clash between the two styles of education drawn in the film - strict and autocratic discipline contrasted with a more sensitive, caring and human approach.

The Headmaster, Monsieur Rachin, is a particularly unsympathetic character, cold and rigid in his application of rules. He would not be out of place in a factory operated by machines, with fully functioning pupils the end product.

This is in direct contrast with Clement Mathieu, a lowly supervisor who nonetheless presents a far more attractive and human approach to the problems of educating and dealing with potentially difficult children.

Rachin's methods and approach recall the Ancien Regime, while Mathieu's methods are in keeping with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Mathieu appears to embody the watchwords "in loco parentis" (in place of parents), the bywords of the Scottish teaching profession, in that he shows a caring attitude and tries to nurture the boys, rather than simply process them. Rachin shows scant regard for his charges and clearly sees his role as one of management rather than nurturing or development.

The film could easily have fallen into a more sombre tone, given the context and much of the content, but Barratier and his actors manage to maintain a positive tone, largely by not dwelling on the more unpleasant events, but also, and perhaps more importantly, through the injection of humour and Mathieu's offer of hope in the form of positive action and a sense of progress.

The music of the film adds considerably to the tone and enhances pathos. At times deceptively simple, yet tinged with sadness and youthful spirit, the music of the film enables us to share even more keenly the emotions and reactions of the characters.

What is the key to Mathieu's success with the boys? Clearly they learn to appreciate music and sing beautifully, but more importantly they learn respect - for others and for themselves through the efforts they make and the success they gain as a result of these efforts. They learn to treat one another with consideration. Music may be the medium, but the objective and end result is humanity.

The film clearly suggests that one man can make a difference. Mathieu touches these boys' lives. Quite apart from the introduction of music (which is sufficient grounds for success!), he also introduces humanity and respect.

Like the vast majority of decent human beings, his deeds remain unsung and he will never achieve the fame and recognition he may desire, yet he has touched and changed lives in a most fundamental way - he is someone to look up to, someone to turn to, someone tangible whose "heroics" are achievable by us all. It is sad, perhaps even tragic, that he considers himself a failure, and indeed this may call in to question the standards by which society judges its heroes.

He does, of course, have one significant failure - Mondain. However, even Mondain appears to suggest that he recognises Mathieu's potential positive influence as he nods toward him when he is taken away by the police. Perhaps it is simply too late for Mondain - he is unable or unwilling to change, but perhaps also, if he had met someone like Mathieu some years before ... .

It should be pointed out that Mathieu does not suffer too much at the hands of the boys. In this respect the film could fairly be accused of being a little simplistic, but acceptably so. The boys undoubtedly respond too quickly and easily to Mathieu's style, but we should remember that this is a hymn to humanity. This is a representation, a work of art if you will. It makes its points clearly and persuasively, if manipulatively, with steady progression of the storyline and in character development.

Some thoughts about the importance of music in the film:

By its very nature, music "exteriorises" inner feelings. Contact with music allows the boys to empathise with these reflected feelings, encouraging them to recognise within themselves these same feelings, at the same time receiving a sort of validation of them. Since music is an abstraction of human emotion and feelings, hearing and feeling the reflections they have in common with others reassures them they are not alone, and enables them to give vent and expression to their own feelings.

In a situation where the boys are (quite literally) forced to concentrate on academic and physical exercise, music provides a focus for the boys (and the teachers!) which is not purely educational and involuntary. It provides a release from the "normal" pressures of the school day, and perhaps allows them to feel more personally involved.

The boys are required to perform, encouraging personal effort, team work, building confidence in themselves (and others) and relationships with others through common experience and interdependence. Their performances provide a purpose and sense of achievement, and they recognise the necessity for discipline and focus in their efforts to realise their performances.

All of this encourages growth and maturity, benefiting them in other areas both in school and in their personal lives.

The performances throughout are excellent - Rachin (as played by Francois Berleand) lacks any possibility or element of sympathy (to have incorporated such elements might have led towards tragedy), and instead we are invited to see and laugh at his weaknesses. In this way the film remains entertaining while making serious points.

Mathieu (Gerard Jugnot) is a lovely character and is beautifully played by Jugnot so that we have maximum sympathy for this underdog at odds with his time and society who becomes an unlikely hero. He has everyman appeal, and seems to suggest that any man can be a hero by being human.

The direction by Christophe Barratier is brisk and emotionally engaging - we feel real sympathy for these characters and come to care about their fates, though it would have been nice to hear and see how Le Querrec, Boniface, Corbin and the others had fared in life, as well as Morhange and Pepinot. However, such criticism is trifling in the face of such a touchingly told and affecting tale of humanity.

La Rafle

Reflections on "La Rafle" (The Roundup),

 dir. Rose Bosch,

 starring Jean Reno and Melanie Laurent

This is the true story of the roundup by French authorities of some 13,000 Jews living in Paris in July 1942, initially gathered in the Velodrome d'hiver and then transported to concentration camps to be "disposed of".

In a film of this type it is the events themselves that are the "stars". The depiction of these events is the focus of attention, and their import and impact are served by the characters and their reactions.

The first half hour or so shows Jewish families at home dealing with their daily lives in the face of ever-increasing social limitations and threats to their safety. Of course we have seen this kind of thing before, but here the disturbing revelation is that it was the Vichy government and the French police (under the direction of the Nazis), and some ordinary citizens who treated the Jews with the same contempt as the Nazis themselves.

  

The treatment of the Jews (forbidden entry to parks, loss of jobs and eventually expulsion from their own homes) is all the more shocking, realistic and striking because the "enemy" is not the traditional one we have come to expect and thus we share the shock, outrage and sense of injustice of the Jewish families.

We are further stunned at the ways in which the representatives of authority took personal advantage of the plight of the Jews to steal and otherwise benefit from their situation.

The ease with which members of the police and public can be subverted is somewhat unsettling, or is it indicative of something more profound and disturbing? Do people join in persecution in order to survive themselves? Is this a form of self-protection by distancing ourselves from those being persecuted, and siding with the strong rather than the right? Are principle and morality abandoned in times of difficulty?

Of course not everyone will consider common humanity and compassion as niceties that can't be afforded in bad times, and there are several examples of such (which might be regarded as acts of heroism given the potential consequences for being willing to help) from a variety of characters - neighbours who try to save children, firemen who flout their orders to provide water to the malnourished detainees, citizens willing to fake papers to allow detainees to escape, and even the odd policeman who is willing to turn a blind eye to these attempts to escape.

  

The protestant nurse Annette Monod (Melanie Laurent) is perhaps the best example of humanitarian compassion. She is willing to volunteer to care for the detainees and forms a particular attachment to the children (who numbered some 4,000). She pushes herself to the physical and mental limit, wishing to accompany the children on their final journey, but dissuaded by Doctor David Sheinbaum  (Jean Reno), a Jewish doctor who will share the fate of the detainees.

However, there appears to have been little or no defiance at the top - those in authority offered no leadership except to pursue their instructions.

Of course, various other topics are touched upon in the course of the film - the living conditions forced upon the detainees, the persistence of hope in spite of circumstances, and the personal guilt of a father who feels he didn't do enough to protect his family. These and many more themes are explored in the film, but the overwhelming "message" is the complicity of not just the Nazis in this dreadful crime against humanity.

  

By recounting this true story (and it is all the more sobering and terrifying to remember this is based on genuine events and people), the film is surely offering us an awful warning (by use of dramatic extremes) of the dangers of putting race, creed, nationality, religion, political ambition and self-advancement at the expense of others above humanity and civilisation.

I have to say I had doubts about the film during the first half hour when we are presented with homely scenes, sweet and cute kids, the gradual deterioration in living and social conditions, but faced with stoicism and some humour - all a bit manipulative. However, I then realised this was done not just to introduce and familiarise us with the various characters, but to contrast violently with their harsh and heartless treatment at the hands of the authorities.

The direction and writing (Rose Bosch) are very effective - the audience feels a sense of injustice and recoils in horror at various actions, and feels emotion and devastation at other moments. There is a beautifully crafted opposition of humanity and inhumanity made all the more chilling because of the apparent indifference to the fate of the victims, the casual application of the law without reflection or consideration of what it all means for the detainees, and a certain avoidance of responsibility as the authorities were only following orders and not initiating them.

There are many touching and powerful performances - Jean Reno and Gad Elmaleh are convincing and moving. Melanie Laurent has more to do and delivers an at times heart-rending performance as Annette Monod who represents the voice of reason and humanity ignored by those in authority.

The film belongs, however, to the children who are affecting and natural.

This is a worthy, engaging and memorable film which shares some of Annette's traits - it may have been largely ignored, but it also shows the value of perseverance and hope.

Review notes

Writing task on “La Rafle”    

               

Write 150 – 200 words on the film “La Rafle”.

Below, you will find some questions (in French) and some vocabulary to help you structure your piece.

1)      Il s’agit de quel film?

Tourné en …..                                           

Avec …..

Mise en scène de ……

Scénario de …..

2)      Ce film parle de quoi ?

L’histoire de …

Il s’agit de …

L’expulsion

L’incarcération

Avant de

Transporter

Eliminer

3)      A votre avis, quel est le but principal de ce film ?

A mon avis

Le thème central

Montrer

L’injustice

L’humanité

Le manque

L’inhumanité

De la part de

Le gouvernement

Les autorités

Non seulement

De l’époque

4)      Qui était responsable de cette opération ?

Etre responsable de

Suivre les ordres

Sous la direction de

1)                5)       Comment as-tu trouvé les personnages ?

Les juifs                                             

Les soldats                                         

Les policiers                                       

Les pompiers                                      

Ils étaient ….                                      

Humains                                             

Gentils                                                

Ordinaires                                           

Certains étaient ….                              

D’autres étaient ….                             

Compatissants                                    

Serviables                                           

Insensibles                                          

Manquaient de considération                

Cruels                                                 

Même                                                 

Touchants                                           

Tragiques                                            

J’ai surtout aimé ….                           

J’ai surtout détesté ….                                   

Qui était ….                                       

Jeunes                                                 

Le petit garçon                                   

Mignon                                               

Qui suivait ses ordres                         

Sans réfléchir                                     

2)            6)         Comment as-tu trouvé ce film en général ?

En général                                          

J’ai trouvé le film …..                        

C’était ….                                          

Emouvant                                           

Touchant                                            

Inquiétant                                           

Troublant                                            

Instructif                                            

Certaines scènes étaient …                

D’autres étaient …                             

7)      Est-ce que les Juifs n’ont pas reçu d’aide ?

Certains

Citoyens

Voisins

Pompiers

Policiers

Essayer de

Aider à

S’évader

8)      Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé après le camp de concentration ?

Transporter

Eliminer

9)      Est-ce qu’il y a eu des survivants ?

Peu de

Un survivant

Moins de

Dont

Seulement

Apparaître

Reflections on "Attila Marcel" (2013), directed and written by Sylvain Chomet

Starring Guillaume Gouix, Anne le Ny, Bernadette Lafont and Helene Vincent

  

Traumatised into silence in his youth, Paul is a 33-year-old pianist who lives with and is thoroughly spoiled by his two maiden aunts who live in an old block of flats in Paris. His life is governed by habit and he is clearly unfulfilled.

One day, by way of a mutual acquaintance, Paul meets Madame Proust, a hermit-like mysterious neighbour from two floors below who recognises a potential source of his mutism and introduces him to her memory-inducing tea and cake (madeleine). We share several confused memories from his extreme youth (about two years old) and we witness the effect these memories have on him, until finally the complete story of the death of his parents (and the source of his mute-inducing trauma) are revealed.

In the process Paul's behaviour is altered as he meets a girl and gains recollections until his memory is complete, whereupon he appears to reject the piano (his source of self-expression and employment), but later takes up another musical instrument which will allow him to express himself. 

Much criticised in France on its release (several critics felt Chomet had lost his fluidity compared to previous animated efforts), it should be borne in mind that this film was always going to be "different", "quirky" and even "difficult". Chomet is clearly an artist who wishes to share his vision and own take on life. His film is comedic, playful and light yet is also thought-provoking and deals with fairly serious themes. Personally, I felt this first "live action" film from Chomet was more focused and accessible than "Belleville Rendez-vous", with greater clarity of purpose and execution.

Here, Chomet is clearly inspired by Marcel Proust's "A la recherche du temps perdu", and while the film works in its own quirky way it works even better when viewed as a homage to (or as taking its inspiration from) Proust's novel.

In Proust's novel forgotten memories are rekindled by the senses - they are brought to mind by taste, sight, smell, touch and hearing. The first of these is probably the most famous, and a memory is brought to mind through the taste of a madeleine cake - clearly referred to in Chomet's film where tea and cake are used as the means of "regressing" Paul so he can remember events that have so troubled him.

Another motif in "A la recherche du temps perdu" is the idea that it is only at the end of a story or chain of events that you can gain a full perspective of these events. It is only then that you can see the place of a single event in the chain and thus gain a full understanding of what has gone on.

In "Attila Marcel", we see the effect of recalling various childhood (and distorted) memories separately - his love for his mother, his rejection of his father who appears to have been violent, though eventually we see the whole and understand as Paul sees his father in a different light.

At the piano competition, Paul experiences memory recall without the help of Proust's tea and cake, an experience which brings about such euphoria that he plays as he has never played before, using influences and approaches he never knew he had in him, but which have been brought out by his recollections and the changes in attitude these bring about.

After the competition, Paul experiences one final recollection, the most devastating and life-changing, and the one which makes him whole, and we understand as he suddenly develops a hatred for the very piano that brought about the death of his parents and deprived him of a normal childhood. Memory (which may be distorted or incomplete) may explain who or what you are in the present. Restored memory may join with the present to make you complete.

In "A la recherche du temps perdu", art is seen as a way of preserving qualities or events beyond their "natural duration" as through music, writing or painting we draw the essence of what is depicted and thus allow that essence to continue beyond its own time.

In "Attila Marcel", art is clearly very important and although Paul rejects the piano, it is not long before he takes up another means of musical expression - his neighbour Madame Proust's ukulele, fulfilling not just his need for self-expression, but also allowing him to hold on to the memory of a good friend.

As in Proust's novel, the film's plot and development turn around memory, the part it plays in our psyche and the ways in which sometimes hidden memories are accessed and the effect they then have on our present.

Madame Proust dies prematurely, rather like Proust himself, yet she has touched others' lives and continues to do so through her influence.

  

Although I can understand why Chomet was accused of a certain lack of fluidity and clarity, surely this was part of what the film was all about? The mists of uncertainty and obscurity are gradually cleared for the audience as for Paul, and it is all done in a playful, charming and humorous way - no mean feat given the subject matter lurking beneath the surface!

The actors all acquitted themselves admirably and the whole provided a surprising pleasure to me.

Oui, mais….

 

Reflections on "Oui, mais..." ,

written and directed by Yves Lavandier,

starring Emilie Dequenne and Gerard Jugnot (2001) 

"Oui, mais..." touches on some very interesting and relevant themes concerning relationships, society and the problems individuals may have in adapting to circumstances, and responsibility.

While recounting the story of Eglantine Laville (Emilie Dequenne), her disputes with her parents and her difficulties in the field of romance and sexuality, writer and director Yves Lavandier uses psychologist Erwann Moenner (Gerard Jugnot) to share insights on the nature and complexities of relationships, social security at the expense of ambition and fulfilment, and the need to recognise responsibility in others as well as in oneself - all relevant not only to adolescents but also to most members of society!

When Eglantine approaches Moenner for a brief therapy she reveals much about her parents and their relationships with her, one another and others. Through this context we are invited to consider relationships in more general terms and in particular the ways in which individuals try to manipulate and exercise control over others.

We are invited to increase our awareness of our manipulation of others for our own ends. This may be achieved through encouragement, guilt, sympathy or playing on a sense of obligation in order to gain proof of love or affection, prove superiority or simply to have something done for us. However, the point of the "game" is to achieve this not by direct means or clear expression of desire, but rather to manipulate the thoughts and feelings of others so that the initiative appears to come from them, thus avoiding responsibility or even guilt. 

In analysing the relationship between Eglantine's parents, Moenner points out that habit, tradition and acceptance of circumstances offer comfort and stability (though perhaps not happiness) possibly at the expense of change, development and evolution. He appears to suggest we often "settle" for circumstances through fear of the unknown or fear of failure.

Eglantine's mother (Denise) manipulates and pressurises her to stay with her (she provides a source of stability, comfort and affection within a dying marriage), but Eglantine wishes to exercise her desire for freedom and experience life for herself. This situation embodies the themes of manipulation and habit, and incorporates another essential theme - that of responsibility.

By way of Moenner's analysis, Eglantine comes to realise (along with the audience)that the burden of responsibility needs to be reviewed so that individuals take responsibility for their own acts, decisions and circumstances - although others may have contributed to circumstances, their thoughts and desires need not be taken entirely into account, and ultimately the individual must accept responsibility for their own deeds and choices within their circumstances.

Thus, manipulation may have no effect if responsibility is not to be shared, and habit and acceptance of circumstance may be viewed as the individual's failure to take control and change those circumstances if they are unhappy.

In the end, Eglantine learns to stand up for herself vis-a-vis her mother (who, at the end of the film, refers to her daughter as "ma grande fille" as opposed to "ma petite fille" in the course of the film in recognition of her personal growth and development). She has broken free from the emotional restraints imposed by her mother and is free to lead her own life and make her own mistakes. 

A hugely important element of the film is Eglantine's relationship with boyfriend Sebastien (Cyrille Thouvenin). This relationship is clearly intended to illustrate manipulation (as dominance transfers from Sebastien to Eglantine) and responsibility (as Sebastien grows to love rather than just lust after Eglantine), but I fear this whole sub-plot is less successful than her dealings with her family as their motivations and reasons for attachment remain fairly unclear throughout. We witness Eglantine's attempts to assert herself and grow as a person, but these are somewhat unconvincing. Curiously, the film becomes less cogent in its dealings with other adolescents who appear to act on impulse and with little logic or reason (and as such may be representative of adolescent behaviour), yet the whole centres on applying understanding and control.

Eglantine's parents are somewhat exaggerated (they tend to be one-sided and lack sympathy), but they serve their purpose as an illustration of the relationship problems teenagers might have with their parents. Eglantine's mother requires greater depth and colour in order to be sympathetic or even tragic rather than just pathetic, while her father is barely fleshed out and really just serves to furnish problems for Eglantine and her mother.

At the beginning of the film, the psychologist Moenner is more or less presented as the principal character who explains various psychological principles and theories directly to camera, offering amusing visual examples to make his points, and Eglantine's story is clearly to be an illustration of the application of these psychological theories and methods. However, this interesting, engaging and light-hearted technique is abandoned in the course of the film and Moenner becomes more of a conduit for psychological theories providing useful explanations and guiding our understanding rather than a fleshed-out character in himself.

Eglantine becomes the main character, and indeed the film ends with a shot of her looking more at ease with herself and more self-assured and mature. Although Moenner shares a knowing glance at the camera in his final scene, it might have been more in keeping with the style and tone of the start of the film (and I rather regret that this could not have been maintained) if Moenner had once again addressed the audience and provided some words of wisdom in summary. 

Altogether, I enjoyed this film and I felt it imparted themes and thoughts that are important for personal development and growth (at any stage of life), but I can't help but feel it rather lost its way when exploring Eglantine's attempts to "find herself" and assert herself with her boyfriend, and the script appeared much more assured when dealing with family relationships and problems.

Les Fleurs du Mal

Reflections on themes in Baudelaire's

"Les fleurs du mal"

Welcome to my page of thoughts on themes in " Les fleurs du mal ". This is not planned as literary criticism, but rather a page allowing young or new readers of Baudelaire to become familiar with some of the themes and thoughts contained in the poems.

First published in 1857, "Les fleurs du mal" is a collection of poems divided into five sections:

Spleen et ideal

Les fleurs du mal

Revolte

Le vin

La mort

On its initial publication Baudelaire and his publisher were prosecuted for an "insult to public decency", and six poems were banned. A second edition was published in 1861 which contained 32 new poems and a new section entitled "Tableaux Parisiens".

The poems contained in this collection deal with a wide variety of themes and generally reflect the philosophical mood of the time, as well as Baudelaire's own feelings and torment. For a page discussing some of the philosophical ideas which were prevalent at the time of writing, and which undoubtedly exercised considerable influence on Baudelaire, please click here.

Baudelaire's poetry is remarkably clear, incisive and accessible. Although highly personal, he manages to make points which are equally applicable to all men. He considers themes such as good and evil, human nature, conflict between the spiritual and the physical, religion, death, time, discipline and self-control, boredom, destiny and artistry.

I have chosen a handful of poems (more or less at random) which illustrate these themes and ideas. However, the work which encapsulates beautifully the themes and feelings of the author is the introductory poem entitled "Au lecteur", which touches on many of the themes expanded upon in the course of the collection, and gives the reader a clear indication of the tone and content of what is to follow.

Au lecteur   (1)

La sottise, l'erreur, le peche, la lesine,
Occupent nos esprits et travaillent nos corps,
Et nous alimentons nos aimables remords,
Comme les mendiants nourrissent leur vermine.

Nos peches sont tetus, nos repentirs sont laches ;
Nous nous faisons payer grassement nos aveux,
Et nous rentrons gaiement dans le chemin bourbeux,
Croyant par de vils pleurs laver toutes nos taches.

Sur l'oreiller du mal c'est Satan Trismegiste
Qui berce longuement notre esprit enchante,
Et le riche metal de notre volonte
Est tout vaporise par ce savant chimiste.

C'est le Diable qui tient les fils qui nous remuent !
Aux objets repugnants nous trouvons des appas ;
Chaque jour vers l'Enfer nous descendons d'un pas,
Sans horreur, a travers des tenebres qui puent.

Ainsi qu'un debauche pauvre qui baise et mange
Le sein martyrise d'une antique catin,
Nous volons au passage un plaisir clandestin
Que nous pressons bien fort comme une vieille orange.

Serre, fourmillant, comme un million d'helminthes,
Dans nos cerveaux ribote un peuple de Demons,
Et, quand nous respirons, la Mort dans nos poumons
Descend, fleuve invisible, avec de sourdes plaintes.

Si le viol, le poison, le poignard, l'incendie,
N'ont pas encor brode de leurs plaisants dessins
Le canevas banal de nos piteux destins,
C'est que notre ame, helas ! n'est pas assez hardie.

Mais parmi les chacals, les pantheres, les lices,
Les singes, les scorpions, les vautours, les serpents,
Les monstres glapissants, hurlants, grognants, rampants,
Dans la menagerie infame de nos vices,

II en est un plus laid, plus mechant, plus immonde !
Quoiqu'il ne pousse ni grands gestes ni grands cris,
Il ferait volontiers de la terre un debris
Et dans un baillement avalerait le monde ;

C'est l'Ennui ! L'oeil charge d'un pleur involontaire,
II reve d'echafauds en fumant son houka.
Tu le connais, lecteur, ce monstre delicat,
- Hypocrite lecteur, - mon semblable, - mon frere !

Baudelaire immediately introduces several of his main themes within the first four lines. He lists four somewhat negative qualities of human nature and suggests they overwhelm our minds or spirits and control our bodies. He goes on to suggest that while we may "feed" regret over this, this regret in turn "feeds" off us.

Thus Baudelaire has already introduced his somewhat jaundiced and negative (yet realistic?) view of human nature, the division between the body and soul, the concept that man has little (if any) self discipline or self-control, and of course the idea that conscience serves largely to weaken man, causing him to doubt himself, though in the next verse he suggests that this has little or no effect in real terms.

In verse two he says our "sins" are stubborn and our repentance is faint-hearted. We pay handsomely for our confessions (a dig at the Catholic Church?), but then we happily return to our murky paths, thinking we have washed away stains on our characters with a few cheap tears.

Here Baudelaire makes it clear that although we are conscious of our misdeeds, we can't stop repeating them - we may try (or pretend) to alleviate guilt through confession or atonement, but that doesn't stop us re-offending. Once again man's willpower is called in to question, as is organized religion. He almost goes so far as to suggest that we are hypocritical, as we "buy" a clear conscience for a short time before once again committing the same acts.

In verse three Baudelaire personifies temptation or evil and suggests that temptation gently but steadily draws us in, and great willpower and determination of which we can be so proud on occasions is simply vaporised by this temptation.

In verse four he expands and suggests it is the devil who holds the strings which move us - man has no effective willpower or control and will always give in to his nature. In moments of clarity we may see general unpleasantness and ugliness, we recognise our wrong-doing, yet our nature causes us to see something attractive within this, and we give in to temptation. Each day we descend one step closer to Hell, without complaint, and recognising the unpleasantness and wrong-doing around us, yet we continue.

In verse five he gives a specific example of a debauched man who turns to an ancient prostitute in order to gain a fleeting moment of pleasure. He compares this act to squeezing the remaining juice from an old orange. Clearly this is a desperate act of pure physical satisfaction with no hint of love, romance or affection, and no hint of spiritual worth or beauty. This is a very clever metaphor as it not only exemplifies the division of body and soul, but also introduces the idea of "carpe diem", by which he suggests we should squeeze every drop of life from every moment and every experience.

Verse six suggests that temptation is all around us in a million shapes and forms. It is unstoppable, in much the same way as death which comes closer with every breath of life we take. Here Baudelaire introduces the inevitability of death, underlining once again the importance of making the most of every moment as life will come to an end.

In verse seven once again we have a list of misadventures which Baudelaire finds attractive and which brighten our uneventful lives and our pitiful destinies. Life is boring and Baudelaire finds such activities preferable to banal and monotonous existence. Once again there is implied recognition of "unpleasantness" involved in these activities, yet Baudelaire finds them attractive, especially given the boredom of the alternative. However, he does seem to suggest that indulgence in such activities requires considerable strength of spirit.

The last three verses run together. In verse eight Baudelaire compares vices to a list of various creatures and animals, all displaying strength and purity of purpose (while following their nature), and also representing danger. However, in verse nine he suggests there is one more awful than any other, one vice that could destroy the world. In verse ten we are told this is boredom and we, the readers, are reminded that we know this vice just as well as Baudelaire. There should be no hint of superiority on our part for we are all the same, all brothers sharing the same vices.

This is an excellent introductory poem, which was almost certainly written after the others. It expresses themes and ideas with such clarity that it almost summarises rather than introduces the ideas Baudelaire will go on to discuss in the main body of his collection.

L'ennemi   (10)

Ma jeunesse ne fut qu'un tenebreux orage,
Traverse ca et la par de brillants soleils ;
Le tonnerre et la pluie ont fait un tel ravage,
Qu'il reste en mon jardin bien peu de fruits vermeils.

Voila que j'ai touche l'automne des idees,
Et qu'il faut employer la pelle et les rateaux
Pour rassembler a neuf les terres inondees,
Ou l'eau creuse des trous grands comme des tombeaux.

Et qui sait si les fleurs nouvelles que je reve
Trouveront dans ce sol lave comme une greve
Le mystique aliment qui ferait leur vigueur ?

- O douleur ! O douleur ! Le Temps mange la vie,
Et l'obscur Ennemi qui nous ronge le coeur
Du sang que nous perdons croit et se fortifie !

In "L'ennemi" Baudelaire likens life to, or describes life by way of, weather and gardening metaphors. He has had a hard life, lightened only occasionally, and he asks if hope for the future will find some way to grow in the barren land of his life. Suddenly, in the last verse, he turns his attention to time and suggests that time consumes life and grows stronger as we grow weaker.

He goes from a beautifully (and effectively) descriptive poem to one which attaches blame and reveals anger and frustration at the thought of time consuming his life.

La destruction   (78)

Sans cesse a mes cotes s'agite le Demon ;
II nage autour de moi comme un air impalpable ;
Je l'avale et le sens qui brule mon poumon
Et l'emplit d'un desir eternel et coupable.

Parfois il prend, sachant mon grand amour de l'Art,
La forme de la plus seduisante des femmes,
Et, sous de specieux pretextes de cafard,
Accoutume ma levre a des philtres infames.

II me conduit ainsi, loin du regard de Dieu,
Haletant et brise de fatigue, au milieu
Des plaines de l'Ennui, profondes et desertes,

Et jette dans mes yeux pleins de confusion
Des vetements souilles, des blessures ouvertes,
Et l'appareil sanglant de la Destruction !

In "La destruction" Baudelaire again emphasises lack of willpower and recognises the "guilty" nature of his thoughts. Temptation is once again personified and he suggests that if he is feeling low, demons (or temptation) will take the shape of an attractive woman, knowing Baudelaire cannot resist such a work of art, and this takes him far from God's gaze and influence. Once again it seems man is incapable of offering any resistance and has no control over such matters.

Temptation transports him from the land of boredom (or is this in fact depression?). Are we to see interaction with women as a form of release from self doubt and depression?

In the last verse Baudelaire recognizes unpleasant side effects of indulgence, but this is not enough to stop him.

Yes, there is some expansion of themes treated in "Au lecteur", and some of these are expressed with slightly greater clarity, but there is little that is new, thematically speaking, although it is interesting to note discussion of depression as a possible extension of boredom.

Le reniement de Saint Pierre   (90)

Qu'est-ce que Dieu fait donc de ce flot d'anathemes
Qui monte tous les jours vers ses chers Seraphins ?
Comme un tyran gorge de viande et de vins,
II s'endort au doux bruit de nos affreux blasphemes.

Les sanglots des martyrs et des supplicies
Sont une symphonie enivrante sans doute,
Puisque, malgre le sang que leur volupte coute,
Les cieux ne s'en sont point encore rassasies !

- Ah! Jesus, souviens-toi du Jardin des Olives !
Dans ta simplicite tu priais a genoux
Celui qui dans son ciel riait au bruit des clous
Que d'ignobles bourreaux plantaient dans tes chairs vives,

Lorsque tu vis cracher sur ta divinite
La crapule du corps de garde et des cuisines,
Et lorsque tu sentis s'enfoncer les epines
Dans ton crane ou vivait l'immense Humanite ;

Quand de ton corps brise la pesanteur horrible
Allongeait tes deux bras distendus, que ton sang
Et ta sueur coulaient de ton front palissant,
Quand tu fus devant tous pose comme une cible,

Revais-tu de ces jours si brillants et si beaux
Ou tu vins pour remplir l'eternelle promesse,
Ou tu foulais, monte sur une douce anesse,
Des chemins tout jonches de fleurs et de rameaux,

Ou, le coeur tout gonfle d'espoir et de vaillance,
Tu fouettais tous ces vils marchands a tour de bras,
Ou tu fus maitre enfin ? Le remords n'a-t-il pas
Penetre dans ton flanc plus avant que la lance ?

- Certes, je sortirai, quant a moi, satisfait
D'un monde ou l'action n'est pas la soeur du reve ;
Puisse-je user du glaive et perir par le glaive !
Saint Pierre a renie Jesus... il a bien fait !

"Le reniement de Saint Pierre" offers an interesting discussion about God and Baudelaire's attitude to religion.

He appears to suggest that God is "asleep on the job", ignoring the situation of revolt against Him (a reflection of the Enlightenment Movement?), and even seems to suggest complacency.

He goes on to point out that martyrs die in the name of God, but that heaven does not appear to have had its fill of their pain and suffering. Baudelaire asks if God is listening, and appears to suggest a certain injustice and lack of caring as he uses empirical evidence of pain and suffering in God's name.

He goes so far as to suggest that God may have laughed at Jesus' suffering. Not that Baudelaire renounces Jesus - Jesus represents humanity, but he points out that God did nothing. Jesus was full of promise and hope, but Baudelaire suggests he was ultimately let down by God, and Jesus must have felt regret on his death.

This poem, perhaps more than any other, reveals the malaise felt in the late nineteenth century as the principles and challenges of the Enlightenment Movement made themselves felt. In a sense Baudelaire feels almost abandoned by God. He wants more from life - he wants direction, purpose, sense, morality. These things were in place, but they have now disappeared with the arrival of the challenge to God's very existence and the authority of those who claim to represent Him. God is not responding to this challenge, and is allowing pain and suffering - not least the pain caused by the possibility of His non-existence!

Le vin du solitaire   (96)

Le regard singulier d'une femme galante
Qui se glisse vers nous comme le rayon blanc
Que la lune onduleuse envoie au lac tremblant,
Quand elle y veut baigner sa beaute nonchalante ;

Le dernier sac d'ecus dans les doigts d'un joueur ;
Un baiser libertin de la maigre Adeline ;
Les sons d'une musique enervante et caline,
Semblable au cri lointain de l'humaine douleur,

Tout cela ne vaut pas, o bouteille profonde,
Les baumes penetrants que ta panse feconde
Garde au coeur altere du poete pieux ;

Tu lui verses l'espoir, la jeunesse et la vie,
- Et l'orgueil, ce tresor de toute gueuserie,
Qui nous rend triomphants et semblables aux Dieux !

Here, Baudelaire lists several things which can make you feel better about the pain of life, but best of all is a bottle of wine which pours hope, youth, life and pride into its consumer - it can make you feel triumphant and equal to the gods.

Clearly Baudelaire is seeking a form of escape, and this poem reveals something of how he feels about life - as a series of insurmountable problems, and wine offers a momentary release, although he recognises the fleeting and illusory nature of this solution.

La mort des artistes   (100)

Combien faut-il de fois secouer mes grelots
Et baiser ton front bas, morne caricature ?
Pour piquer dans le but, de mystique nature,
Combien, o mon carquois, perdre de javelots ?

Nous userons notre ame en de subtils complots,
Et nous demolirons mainte lourde armature,
Avant de contempler la grande Creature
Dont l'infernal desir nous remplit de sanglots !

Il en est qui jamais n'ont connu leur Idole,
Et ces sculpteurs damnes et marques d'un affront,
Qui vont se martelant la poitrine et le front,

N'ont qu'un espoir, etrange et sombre Capitole !
C'est que la Mort, planant comme un soleil nouveau,
Fera s'epanouir les fleurs de leur cerveau !

Will death allow artists to meet that which has captivated and inspired them ? Will it release their spirit from physical limits and allow them to grow? Do artists gain a glimpse of what is beyond the physical to see the truth? Will death enable them to achieve a spiritual reality?

Much in Baudelaire's poetry suggests he is lost - he doesn't know what to believe, or whether he should believe in anything. At one moment he suggests God is responsible, the next it is the Devil who is pulling the strings. Then he decides it doesn't matter anyway - he will simply seek pleasure in his experiences because life is short and should be appreciated as such. He appears confused or at least unclear about who or what is responsible for life, but he is quite clear that he finds nature overwhelming - he feels he is not in control and is disappointed that he cannot find it in himself to rise above his nature. He sees his own shortcomings and weaknesses with remarkable clarity (and extends his criticisms to the whole of humanity), so that he understands the consequences of his actions, but finds himself incapable of altering his nature.

Baudelaire makes much of the fact that death is the end. If God does not exist, then there is no afterlife. This also brings home the fact that life is relatively short and should not be wasted. Each moment is precious and should be filled with something worthwhile, yet life is also boring and repetitive, and perhaps ultimately pointless. All the more reason, then, to seek moments of pleasure to relieve the boredom and pressing feeling that time is running out.

Baudelaire frequently emphasises the temporary nature of moments of pleasure. These are fleeting moments which make life more bearable, but the pleasure he takes from them is double-edged. He is left with the feeling that physical experience is lacking in some way - he is happy to indulge in his freedom, but regrets the lack of spirituality and the depth that would lend the experience, and a sense of control over these events.

I think this is essential to understanding the torment, despair, and spirituality which underpin Baudelaire's "Fleurs du Mal". The key to understanding Baudelaire's poetry is in understanding his ambivalence toward moral freedom - his overwhelming desire to indulge in the moral and sexual freedom implied by the Enlightenment Movement (indeed his inability to resist it!), but countered by his recognition of negative aspects, and his longing for something of spiritual value, accentuating his awareness of the emptiness and fleeting nature of mere physical being. This is reflected in the very title of the collection, where he finds himself attracted to something, yet recognises its harmful effect.