Submitted by: Mike Spindell. guest blogger
On New Year’s Eve my wife and I saw the movie “Les Miserables”. We’d seen the musical on Broadway and had been enchanted by it. The music from it is superb and this musical fully deserves all the acclaim it has received through the years. As much as I loved the stage version of “Le Mis”, the movie took all of the greatness of the stage and added something to the mix that lifted it into subversive social commentary. That is what I’m going to write about, but first for those who are unfamiliar with either the source book, or the musical adaptation, a very brief synopsis is needed to set the scene.
The story begins after the French Revolution and the defeat of Napoleon. The Royal Dynasty has been restored to power and the freedoms of the Revolution have been lost. The protagonist of this work is Jean Valjean. He was sentenced to twenty years of hard labor because of the ramifications of his stealing a loaf of bread for his starving sister. Imprisoned he is noticed by one of his Jailers, Javert, who notes Valjean for his almost super-human feats of strength. Valjean is paroled after serving his time and subsequently breaks parole. He is chased by Javert for the rest of the tale. The plot of the 1,900 page (in French) novel is summarized in detail at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Mis%C3%A9rables Details of the play and the movie are available here: http://www.lesmis.com/.
The ingredient added to the movie, which couldn’t have been done on stage were scenes depicting the abject poverty of the common people and the poor. With the visual nature of film and what will probably be Academy Award makeup, costuming and art direction, you can see a recreation of the life of the French lower classes in the 18th Century. These descriptions run true to the original novel which was so rich with detail. The book “Les Miserables” was intentionally revolutionary for its time as best summed up by the author Victor Hugo in the preface to the novel:
“So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth, and complicates a destiny that is divine, with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age—the degradation of man by poverty, the ruin of women by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night—are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this cannot be useless.”
Hugo’s eloquence above and its implications for our current time is the subject that I want to discuss.
Having spent a career working with those in poverty in NYC, I am quite familiar with the conditions, mental states and environment of people who are deemed “the underclass”. The movie I saw portrayed conditions somewhat worse than those I encountered in my work, but remember that now when indoor plumbing is commonplace and the wonders of technological advance have become affordable to most, we should expect better living conditions. Yet in other places in our country, perhaps Appalachia and in the rural South, conditions are not that much better than what was portrayed in this film. Certainly, in many countries around the world analogous conditions of poverty and human degradation exist. Yet in many other countries there has been considerable progress made to elevate the general human condition. The rich construct of a social safety net in most European countries ensures the amelioration of condition of those deemed the “lower classes”. The various European social safety nets actually began in the latter half of the Nineteenth Century, partially as the result of books such as Hugo’s masterpiece and the works of other artists like Charles Dickens.
Understanding how much progress has been made in the last one hundred and fifty years towards better living conditions for most people, with the knowledge though from personal experience of how far we still have to go to ensure an equitable life for all, I am disturbed by what I see as a trend among many to turn back this progress. Our country was born in Revolution, but our Revolution differed significantly from the French Revolution. Our American Revolution was fomented by the excesses of an imperialist power, exploiting the resources and the economy of overseas colonies to their detriment. The French Revolution came about because a small, privileged class exploited the resources of an entire nation via a tyranny of law from which this “Nobility” was exempt. Whether or not Marie Antoinette’s words were apocryphal: “Let them eat cake” was indeed the philosophy of the French royalty and nobility. Nevertheless, a short a time after the French Revolution the dreams of its’ participants were again shattered and the country was again under the tyranny of an elite social class.
As the Nineteenth Century progressed even the privileged classes in Europe began to dimly recognize that the state of utter misery of ninety percent of their people was unsustainable. Haughty aristocrats, such as Otto Von Bismarck in Germany realized this and he created the first system of “social security” for the aged. The devastation in Europe caused by depressions and two world wars led to an understanding that there needed to be a modification of the economic caste system. This is why today most European Countries have a strong “social safety net” to care for their citizens. As we see though, there are forces in the economic world, such as the World Bank, the IMF and the Council of Twenty who are trying to destroy this safety net in the name of an “austerity” that doesn’t work. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rajan-menon/austerity-failed-in-europe_b_1926097.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/austerity-wall-street_n_1690838.html
In the United States, as a result of our Revolution and of our Constitution, a different course was followed. We had no King and we had no “Noble Class”, at least according to our leaders, opinion makers and to the history that was being written as the country lived it. We were a “free society” and “All men were created equal”, or so we were told. That perhaps ten percent of the population existed as slaves and weren’t considered human, was a fly in the ointment of freedom, but this was the way of the world. That another percentage of the population, the “Native Americans”, were being lied to and conquered, their treaty-granted land stolen in a continued search for wealth, was merely the sad side effect of progress. We opened our “blessed shores” to wave after wave of immigrants and they became virtual wage-slaves, which was merely another by-product of the need for progress, in this land of the free and home of the brave. When these “free” workers began to form themselves into a Union Movement to uplift their conditions of employment they were attacked and murdered, with their leaders thrown in jail on specious charges. Nevertheless there was tangible “progress” for many and there developed a strong “middle-class” which those on the bottom strove to join. That uplifting of class was of course not open to the “freed” slaves, Native Americans and to certain ethnicities that were deemed sub-human. The African Americans were still constrained after slavery and that was as much a matter of law, as it was of social isolation. They are constrained today, even after the end of “Jim Crow”, even though our President is a Black man, as I illustrated here: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/26/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/
By the beginning of the Twentieth Century a solid middle-class had been established in America. People could advance beyond their ethnicity and beyond their social caste. Our educational system emphasized this middle class dream; our literature generally proclaimed it and the amazing upward growth of our economy seemed to prove it. There were some, like Sinclair Lewis who saw with more clarity that all was not well with our emerging middle class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis There were “Muckrakers” like Upton Sinclair, who exposed the dark underside of an economic system running wild: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis And there were labor leaders like Eugene V. Debs and Joe Hill, who fought for economic justice for the working class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Myths die hard and especially in the dreams of average people trying to get ahead in life, who need the hope that they could by the dint of their own energy “pull themselves up by their bootstraps”. Besides, even for the lowliest of Americans there was the rage of the movies, that everyone could afford and that painted fantasies to ease their troubled lives. Our country was literally “slapped in the face” by the “Golden Age” of the “Roaring Twenties” that ended on the “oh so” sour note of the “Great Depression” accompanied by the “Dust Bowl”. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/11/24/humanitys-hubris/ These complementary calamities shocked most of the American people into the realization that the “American Dream” wasn’t as constant a reality as they were led to believe. Successful entrepreneurs lost their businesses and their homes. As the 1932 election drew near, our country was at a tipping point where the sheer hopelessness engendered by the “Great Depression” could well have led us to totalitarianism, as represented by either fascism or communism.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from radical nihilism politically, despite what historical revisionists now claim. His success wasn’t about the effectiveness of his programs, but about the re-invigoration of hope and belief in the Country and its system. The creation of Social Security now assured that the average working man, toiling at low wages until too infirm to work, would have some income available to stave off starvation. From the 1930’s to the1980’s this nation for the most part had unimaginable prosperity and rose to become the most powerful nation on Earth, both economically and militarily. During that time it was understood that for our nation to continue to prosper its citizens must see it as a land of opportunity. The populace must believe that any American, no matter how humble their origin, could achieve greatness. That this was mainly mythology really is beside the point. The comity and purpose of this nation required such a belief as a means of maintaining social order. http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/06/american-dream-not-american-reality/
The reason which I related what I saw in the movie “Les Miserables”, to our situation today is this. The portrayal of the degradation of the French lower class was so heart rending, that I began to see the historical progress since as an outgrowth of the realization that with such human misery comes the sense that if all is hopeless, then any action is justified to keep a person going. When you’re starving, stealing a loaf of bread, even if there might be dire consequences, is a justified activity. This action in the face of hopelessness was put so well by Bob Dylan “When you ain’t got nothin….you got nothin to lose”. The lesson that was learned in Europe and in the United States was that there needed to be some basic protections to keep the average citizen from the kind of poverty and degradation that leads to massive social unrest. As the French Revolution taught, violent social unrest is a bloody affair which nobody wins. As I wept all through this movie, such is the emotion its dark beauty arouses in me, there was a part of my consciousness pondering why are they letting it happen again?
In the last thirty years we have seen the attempt to overthrow all of the programs coming out of FDR’s New Deal Philosophy. We see the Elite who think themselves nobility and with that thought there comes the desire to live fully as nobles. http://www.nationofchange.org/house-gop-taxes-wealthy-are-charity-1349010885 , http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/07/mythology-and-the-new-feudalism/ and: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/10/what-motivates-the-1 To a great degree they have already achieved that. Mitt Romney has a great family pedigree, 500 million dollars, five houses and one with a car elevator. He sees 47% of the population as unproductive and sees himself as part of that small class of people essential to the United States. He is merely the representative of a movement that would destroy the social safety net, destroy Social Security and destroy Medicare. This destruction makes little sense for the Elite from a logical viewpoint, after all why not throw crumbs to the unwashed and keep them pacified? It certainly would seem to be an easier course than outright oppression. Outright oppression though, particularly of those you deem “unproductive” can be so emotionally satisfying to some. Then to, there is nothing more satisfying to some of the people “on top” than abject submission and the prostration at their feet of those less worthy, it makes one feel so special and so powerful.
It is has long been my thought that there are those today who would see the people of the world under their boots, as much as the poor in Hugo’s novel, its stage version and finally this movie which I think equals Hugo in its’ portrayal of the underclass. For those who look beyond the mere plot-lines, such as me, there seems to be a very subversive undertone to this picture, which serves as a threat of what could come. If reason among our ruling elite cannot be restored through our governmental processes, where then are those downtrodden masses going to go and will that too end in futility?
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world yet forfeit his soul? Canibal capitalism is the Bain of our existence.
Our saving grace as a species is that there have always, in every generation, been those who choose not to worship the Almighty Dollar. It matters not into which class they are born.
As Washington Irving (commonly credited with the phrase) wrote:
“This phrase [the almighty dollar], used for the first time in this sketch, has since passed into current circulation, and by some has been questioned as savoring of irreverence. The author, therefore, owes it to his orthodoxy to declare that no irreverence was intended even to the dollar itself; which he is aware is daily becoming more and more an object of worship.”
Even Andrew Carnegie eventually recognized the dangers wealth holds for those who hold it:
“I would as soon leave my son a curse as the almighty dollar.”
Enter Thomas Paine. 💡
Going to see the movie this evening. Had to talk the other three into going as the reviews have been rather uneven It will be interesting to see how it stacks up against some of the other excellent movies that I saw last year.
It’s about people taking pride in providing for themselves, it’s about putting God back into their lives. -Sharon
No, it really isn’t about “putting God back into their lives.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/04/dennis-kruse-lords-prayer-indiana-schools_n_2410367.html
Kindred spirits, you and Dennis Kruse, Sharon?
“Dennis Kruse, chair of the state Senate’s education committee, has introduced Senate Bill 23, which would allow Indiana’s school districts to require recitation of the prayer, “In order that each student recognize the importance of spiritual development in establishing character and becoming a good citizen.””
(Mike S., No, I didn’t miss your link — I posted the Charles Blow link after seeing the reference in your article, but I wasn’t clear about it. Great posting, by the way.)
Mike,
Great job.I too am a big fan of the stage performance of Les Mis, but I have not had the opportunity to see the movie yet.
And you beat me to responding to Sharon’s pure fiction about Mitt Romney. I would go a step further and suggest that Romney was not a financier, he was a disassembler. He took and Bain today still takes profitable companies and destroys them for a profit, along with the jobs of good American people.
Great Post. I too was moved by Les Mis and noted the analogies to our current social situation, but I wasn’t able to articulate my concerns as well as you have in this post. Thank you for your insight.
A minor quibble: “Then to, there is nothing more satisfying to some of the people “on top” than abject submission and the prostration at their feet of those less worthy, it makes one feel so special and so powerful.” The sentence should begin, “then too…”
Excellent article Mike….. Hits a lot of truths….
Mespo,
Some of the poorest folks I know have money and lots of it…. You hit on a very interesting issue for me….
I did not see the movie — but I read a hilarious review —
http://themattwalshblog.com/2012/12/28/les-miserables-taught-me-how-to-hate-again/
Malisha,
The Matt Walsh review was the work of a man without a sole whose notion of “Drama” is an NFL Playoff Game. After reading his review I think I’ll rent the “Dinner with the Kranks” movie that he also panned. It must be a masterpiece. 🙂
Sharon,
What Mespo and Gene said, plus I don’t think you understand the meaning of socialism which you seem to hate. As for Romney, he destroyed more jobs then he ever built and he wasn’t a businessman, he was a financier, which is an occupation that in the way he used it, does little for the benefit of our country’s economics.
AP,
Good links. You may have missed my own comments on the issue which I linked in this post: http://jonathanturley.org/2011/11/26/the-incarceration-of-black-men-in-america/
“Socialism has never worked throughout history, we know that.”
We know nothing of the sort.
Many successful modern economies combine a blend of socialism and capitalism through Social Democracy. A strategy that has been far more effective than the extreme capitalism of the United States as many of these countries have weathered the global economic downturn (created in large part by American laissez-faire ideals) much better than other countries including America. These countries include: Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland, France, Switzerland, Portugal and Italy.
What we do know is that many countries that were showing success with socialist policies have had their rightful governments overthrown by dictators with American backing such as Chile and Indonesia. Better a brutal dictator like Pinochet or Suharto than have reasonable market controls and policies that benefit society as a whole rather than an individuals profits. Right? Who in their right mind would say something like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. Other than that pesky socialist Jesus, of course.
“I am not a fan of creating equal outcomes because it can only be inauthentic relative to the human spirit”
Joseph,
Thank you for your complements and for your reasoned comments. I don’t believe in “equal outcomes” either. What I do believe in is that every human being should have the right to adequate shelter, food, education, clothing and health care.
“Yes, as you well know from your rich experience as a professional with the poor in NYC, there are people who for no explainable reason, choose to be homeless and live in poverty.”
Not only do I have extensive expertise in working with the “homeless” as a social worker, program director and psychotherapist, I also was the Deputy Director for Facilities Management of NYC’s massive shelter system. Even though the Director and I strove to ensure that the shelters were clean, provided good food and took care of the thousands sheltered, they were dangerous places for many. So many people who were homeless did choose not to use them. However, a significant part of the homeless population were people who had psychological issues, particularly Viet Nam War veterans who suffered from PTSD and various addictions. In a more perfect world they would have been honored and their needs taken care of, but our country has a tradition of respecting our troops when they are in harms way and forgetting and even disdaining them afterwards. The presentation of this country’s “homeless problem” by our politicians and by many who earn their living off of the “homeless” does not always present the full tale.
“I think it should sweep the acting and directing awards. Tom Hooper – Best Director, Jean Valjean – Best Actor, Fontine – Best Actress, Marius – Best Supporting Actor, Eponine – Best Supporting Actress.
And finally Russell Crowe for Most Courageous. I have to give it to him, he jumped into the deep end with some very strong swimmers. He struggled massively, but I credit him for be willing.”
Part of the brilliance of Director Tom Hooper’s staging of the movie was to cast actors, rather than strictly musical performers in the lead roles. Thus when compared to the stage production, the quality of the stage singers voices in in general better, as in the link I posted at the end of the piece. Yet using great actors and having them actually sing their songs, rather ten the standard movie technique of lip-synching added to the reality of the performances and the movie. Hugh Jackman was superb, as was Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried. Russell Crowe is a great actor and his ability there made up for the fact that he does not have a strong singing voice.
Oh that the subversion Mike S speaks of could be real again!
The French majority did not want to be slaves again.
Which means they saw things differently than their royal masters did, masters shallow enough to think they should eat cake to solve their hunger problems.
“The king can do no wrong” did not work for them any longer.
It is a great story, Mike S.
However, it has an ending, when in juxtaposition to the prophecy of Huxley, engenders questions about some of the myths of revolutions.
Karl Marx was convinced that the American people would go through the same thing the French did, because Marx said, in so many words, that capitalists would become corrupt by the power of money, and would become a new royalty (Impact of Toxins of Power on Evolution).
Going on, he postulated that the workers in America would rise up to take the reins of production, and would direct the fruits of their labor to better themselves as they bettered their fellow workers, their fellow citizens.
I am more inclined to go with Huxley rather than Marx (“people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing” – Huxley).
You quoted Dylan, who also sings “I used to care, but things have changed”, which is to say that there are dynamics at play now that were not at play then.
Current civilization is an addict to a drug, which like all such addictions, is life threatening (Peak of Sanity).
It is also prosperity threatening.
Add to that the sinister affect the drug gives (people love the drug or at least the illusory euphoria it temporarily has afforded them) and lo and behold we have a Houston problem.
Which is a much greater problem than material poverty, because we have also civilization’s poverty of soul as a problem.
The French at the time of “Les Miserables” did not have that poverty of soul.
Nevertheless, I do not intend to give up love, faith, and hope.
Sharon:
“. Socialism has never worked throughout history, we know that.”
**********************
Ever watch the NFL? It’s pure socialism: Shared profits. Drafting of the best assets by the least performing units. Combined effort for the good of the whole.
How’s that working out?
The elitist Hollywood set are just as guilty as the Romneys in this country. At least Romney built companies that hired people and gave those people an opportunity to rise up the ladder. You seem to be demonizing the rich and I think that is very dangerous. Socialism has never worked throughout history, we know that. The problem is not going to be solved by distributing the wealth. It’s about people taking pride in providing for themselves, it’s about putting God back into their lives. This country has lost its pride in themselves and its conscience. That’s the core of the problems we have.
“Today there are more African-American adults under correctional control — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.” -Charles Blow
In light of some of your comments, Mike S.:
Escaping Slavery
By CHARLES M. BLOW
Published: January 4, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/opinion/blow-escaping-slavery.html?ref=charlesmblow
“In fact, it feels as though slavery as an analogy has become subversively chic. Herman Cain, running as a Republican presidential candidate, built an entire campaign around this not-so-coded language, saying that he had left “the Democrat plantation,” calling blacks “brainwashed” and arguing, “I don’t believe racism in this country today holds anybody back in a big way.”
As the best-selling author Michelle Alexander pointed out in her sensational 2010 book “The New Jim Crow,” various factors, including the methodical mass incarceration of black men, has led to the disintegration of the black family, the disenfranchisement of millions of people, and a new and very real era of American oppression.
As Alexander confirmed to me Friday: “Today there are more African-American adults under correctional control — in prison or jail, on probation or parole — than were enslaved in 1850, a decade before the Civil War began.”
Definitely not progress.”
What mespo said.
Joseph Piazza:
“I am not a fan of creating equal outcomes because it can only be inauthentic relative to the human spirit, and I believe that people have the right to live in poverty.”
*********************
Some of the “richest” people I know live in all manner of poverty except the spiritual kind, and some of the “poorest” live in nothing but it.
Here’s a nicely ironic and life-affirming version of “I Dreamed a Dream” from what else — Les Misérables. Word has it they sing this song in Heaven.
Mike,
Your intelligence and gifted writing style always challenge me. Thank you.
I believe in some different processes to provide equal opportunity for all, but I am grateful for your rally cry for the poor. I am not a fan of creating equal outcomes because it can only be inauthentic relative to the human spirit, and I believe that people have the right to live in poverty. Yes, as you well know from your rich experience as a professional with the poor in NYC, there are people who for no explainable reason, choose to be homeless and live in poverty. I think that one of our challenges as a society is to make sure that we offer programs that support and allow those people to change their minds whenever they are ready, if they ever become ready.
My own focus is to make sure that I do what I can for the people who have not chosen their present position. Foster Children are my primary example. I think they are among the most, if not the most, vulnerable and under-served people in our society. From my experience, not from any academic study, our nation’s lack of empathy, care and structural support for them generally is one key reason we perpetuate poverty, violence and mental illness in our society. There are well meaning social workers who care for many of them, but as a society, we don’t recognize our roles and responsibilities for these children.
I was a fan of Les Miserables before the movie, and I have now seen the movie twice. Beyond its social commentary, I think it should sweep the acting and directing awards. Tom Hooper – Best Director, Jean Valjean – Best Actor, Fontine – Best Actress, Marius – Best Supporting Actor, Eponine – Best Supporting Actress.
And finally Russell Crowe for Most Courageous. I have to give it to him, he jumped into the deep end with some very strong swimmers. He struggled massively, but I credit him for be willing.