Tumgik
#hugo is the main villain of les mis
kenobihater · 10 months
Text
javert is WRONG: the thesis of les mis is that legality and morality aren't synonymous!
i just found the internet's most unbelieveably dogshit hottake that makes anything woobifying javert written by Die Girlies Auf Tumblr Und Twitter galaxy brained in comparison. rest is below a cut because i got Wordy in my goal of ripping this motherfucker a new one.
Tumblr media
The point about “fault” is very important here. Following Rousseau, Hugo believes that the poor become criminals out of necessity. They “fall” (i.e., become poor) and then become morally “degraded.” Therefore, our response to crime should be “charity,” not punishment. This is a classic Romantic view that became the basis for modern liberalism. According to Rousseau, people are basically good and are corrupted by society, committing crime only out of ignorance and desperation; the solution to crime, then, is education and welfare. Christians obviously worry that this view has no place for the doctrine of original sin, and conservatives object to this view because it leaves out personal responsibility for crime.
i know this is a christian publication but the concept of original sin even factoring into criminality and criminal justice genuinely pisses me off. stop forcing your shitty worldview that everyone is popped outta the womb an evil sinner, i beg. the seperation of church and state is a vital part of democracy. also, you can believe people are shaped by society and driven to crime through desperation without taking away personal agency. those two things are not contradictory.
If I am right about the Rousseau subtext, then Javert is not necessarily a villain; he’s just a conservative, albeit a liberal caricature of a conservative. There are two good examples of a liberal bias in Les Mis. First, notice that Valjean’s position in his society is roughly analogous to an illegal immigrant in our society. When he leaves the prison, Valjean can’t get work because he doesn’t have the right papers. He’s an undocumented worker. In a scene from the musical cut from the film, a farmer allows Valjean to work for him, but then only pays him half as much as the other laborers. The farmer reasons, “You broke the law….Why should you get the same as honest men?”
i've never seen anyone, even javert fans, try and argue he isn't a villain. this is breaking new ground here, folks. it's a hell of an assertion, but it's demonstrably false. jean valjean is the main character. we root for him and wish to see him succeed. javert is hunting him for the entire narrative. thus, he is the antagonist. there may be some moral ambiguity on both their parts, but he structurally is the villain and that is a narrative fact.
next, as an american i am fucking BEGGING on my HANDS and KNEES for other americans to learn about the differing political terms for different countries and times if they are speaking about them with any supposed credibility. i'm not asking you to memorize every country's parties and political intricacies, but at least acknowledge that even if there is some overlap between 21st century american conservatism and 19th century french politics, that there is no one-to-one analogy!! modern american christian conservatism is a consequence of hundreds of years of unique geopolitics and religion stewing together, and you can say similar things about french politics of the time! you CANNOT just say shit like "javert is a liberal caricature of a conservative" without sounding like an utter clown because hugo was not an american liberal and javert is not an american conservative. now, if you were to alter your language a bit and say something like "javert is a leftist caricature of an arch-conservative," you'd sound less foolish (hugo's politics are hard to pin down but leftist is i believe the best label for him at the time of LM's publication. and to my understanding javert isn't really a fervent arch-conservative but it is at least a plausible reading bc he's a traditionalist, deeply religious cop and 19th century french arch-conservativism actually existed in 19th century france (shocker, i know!)). but that change in language would require actual intellect and effort to learn about other times, places, and worldviews on the part of the author, and judging by his ignorant politics, something tells me he's lacking that!
then there's the bit about illegal immigration. hoo BOY is this fucking stupid. jean valjean is a white, culturally catholic, working class french male citizen. he's an everyman of the time, his name and story of class struggle couldn't be more generic unless he was named john doe or jean dupont (the french equivalent) from nowheresville, france. hugo had a point here, and that is that as a member of the wretched poor, les misérables, valjean, representing a large swath of the french populace, is so removed from education and self reflection and truly living life that he's more akin to an animal or an object, that he's so beat down by the daily grind that he verges on inhuman. this is only magnified by his time in toulon. i'll stop there, but it is very important in jean valjean's story that he's impoverished, yes, but a french citizen. he is as french as the king, but treated like dirt because of his social status and criminal record. this sets up a dichotomy in the france of 1832 between the wretched poor and those with privilege, which is an important part of the novel.
the issue of "illegal immigration" both in france and america is a modern one. there was still bigotry and xenophobia, obviously, but the discourse around the intersections of border control, the nation state, and citizenship is a very modern one. to say "valjean's position in his society is roughly analogous to an illegal immigrant in our society" is ignorant. yes, both jean valjean and many undocumented immigrants are faced with similar abuses, but that does not mean it's intended by hugo to be a reading of the text or political commentary because let me restate this: 21ST CENTURY AMERICAN POLITICS DIDN'T EXIST IN 19TH CENTURY FRANCE!
also, valjean is the opposite of undocumented. he has his yellow papers, which are quite literally documents that are the root cause of the daily discrimination he faces, hence why him ripping them up is a radical act of freeing himself from the control of an unjust state. i don't even know how you miss this, it's stressed in the movie musical multiple times.
“Men like you can never change,” he tells Valjean. But Javert is not simply being prejudiced here. He knows from his own experience that it is possible for the poor to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Javert, too, was born in poverty. He is “from the gutter,” as he puts it, but he embraced law and made something of himself.
oh, of course the bootstraps ideology rears its ugly head. not even gonna waste my breath on this one other than to call it stupid and wrong. all javert made himself was a class traitor and a bootlicker, and that's honestly tragic.
Consider a second example of liberal bias. The character of Fantine is designed to elicit the viewer’s sympathy for “welfare mothers.” Fantine, a young, unwed mother in Valjean’s factory, faces persecution from her coworkers. The factory foreman expresses a conservative attitude toward charity: “At the end of the day, you get nothing for nothing.”
this part. this part was so unbelievably cruel and so far removed from the empathy that this narrative bleeds that i had to step back from writing this and take a smoke break. firstly, fantine is NOT a stand in for "welfare mothers", which is, once again, a modern conservative strawman! the welfare state did not exist in 19th century france. there was little to no support for mothers in fantine's position, and to my knowledge, none stemming from the state. hugo was writing her character to bring to light the unfairness of her position. she had a lover who left her flat out, with a child to care for and no financial support. she was ostracized, eventually fired, and resorted to survival sex work.
Fantine shouldn’t expect special treatment, but rather should take responsibility for the consequences of her own sexual license.
fuck you, john. where in the text did she ask for "special treatment". where in the text did she do ANYTHING but take responsibility for her child. she sold her hair. she sold her teeth. she sold her body. she got sick because of her living conditions. she died. all out of love for her child. also, framing children as "a consequence" is disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself and reflect on why you think that's an alright way to view a living, breathing, human being. if you don't wanna take my word for it, psalm 127:3 clearly states "children are a gift from the lord; they are a reward from him," so your stance is decidedly unbiblical. children aren't punishment.
Likewise, when Fantine turns to prostitution to feed her child, Javert is unmoved by excuses. Valjean’s family was starving, and Fantine’s daughter was sick, but these facts don’t excuse them for breaking the law. Theft and prostitution are wrong, and it is Javert’s duty as police officer to arrest them.
how is theft to feed a starving child immoral. how is sex work to ensure your child lives immoral. give me ONE reason aside from your and javert's religious worldviews that either of those things is wrong. "but the bread didn't belong to valjean!" and would inaction, watching his nephew die simply because a windowpane and empty pockets separated him from a piece of bread be more moral? is watching a child die when you believe you can save them the better option? the whole point of this damn book is that legality is NOT synonymous with morality. javert may have the legal high ground, but he does NOT have the moral high ground, and when he realizes this, the thesis of the book, he fucking kills himself! for an example outside the text to perhaps get it through your thick skull: slavery was legal. biblical, even! does that mean it's morally right? no!
Thus Les Mis is designed to get us to see Javert’s conservatism as cruel and to elicit sympathy for Hugo’s liberal social policies. It should be noted, however, that Les Mis is a caricature of the conservative position. Conservatives agree that we ought to treat the poor with dignity and compassion. They think that compassion programs, however, should be administered by the church instead of the state, and they think true dignity requires personal responsibility and submission to the law.
how can javert both be an exaggerated, cruel conservative caricature and be right? i'd argue he's both an accurate portrayal of the inherent cruelty and misanthropy present in the politics of the political right, and that he's decidedly wrong as proven in the text. jean valjean is a good man, despite it all, but javert couldn't see that because of his worldview and chose to relentlessly hound him until he finally realized his mistake, a realization that overcame him so strongly that his only solution in his mind was to kill himself!
and do conservatives actually agree they should treat the poor with dignity and respect? it's in the bible, sure, which christian conservatives hold as the absolute truth, but in this very article you, a christian conservative, have expressed nothing but contempt and cruelty for undocumented immigrants, for unwed mothers, for thieves and sex workers. for les misérables - the wretched poor. and why shouldn't the state handle "compassion programs" as you call them? the gov't is electable and manageable (in theory), unlike the beast of untraceable wealth and power that is the church. we don't live in a theocracy, so the only reliable way to ensure people get the help they deserve is through the state, which can actually be held accountable for these expectations (again, in theory). that's more than you can say for the church.
The fact that Les Mis contradicts evangelical theology does not mean apologists shouldn’t use it—on the contrary. We can help non-Christian fans of the musical see how the vision that draws them toward the story can only be fulfilled in Christ.
his conculsion is LAUGHABLE. personally, the "vision that drew me to the story" at age twelve was my attraction to men. i'm a flaming homosexual, you see, and a transgender one at that. the overwhelming majority of musical theater fans i've encountered are some variety of queer. at age 22, ten years later, i'm drawn to the story still partially because i find these characters attractive and magnetic, but much more so for the literary and socialist political value i find in the narrative. i'm an unrepentant leftist as well, as are literally every other les mis fan i've ever met (besides yourself, of course). i've found more fulfillment through reading les misérables than i have in my exploration of the new testament, and i'm not even done with the book yet!
i don't really know how to conclude this other to point and laugh at john and his publictaion, because somehow i stumbled upon a conservative fan of les mis and the lack of self awareness is more baffling than i could have ever imagined it being
75 notes · View notes
Note
001- Les Mis
Or/And
003- Elmer from Newsies
Ok so I'm currently trying to avoid doing homework so I'm just gonna do both and this is gonna be a long post deal with it
001 - give me a fandom and I'll tell you :
All my answers are based on the brick btw
Favorite character : any ami de l'abc like I can't choose
Least favorite character : out of the main characters Cosette :/ but also this soldier who shot Gavroche
5 favorite ships (canon or non-canon) : Enjoltaire ; courfeyrac x Jehan; combeferre x Jehan ; courfeyrac x combeferre ; Valvert (as a crackship)
Character I find most attractive : Enjolras and Courfeyrac
Character I would marry : Courfeyrac
Character I would be best friends with : I think Jean Prouvaire
A random thought : I read the brick for like the tenth time two months ago and I actually thought that Victor Hugo is really good at saying everyone is having a sexuality crisis without saying they are having a sexuality crisis (do whatever you want with that info)
An unpopular opinion : I don't really like eponine that much ? I know lots of people love her bc she is brave and everything but I just can't manage to like her character
My canon otp : Enjoltaire (pretty sure they are inherently canon but tell me if I'm wrong)
My non-canon otp : Courfeyrac x Combeferre
Most badass character : Gavroche or enjolras
Most epic villain : my first instinct would be to say javert or thenardier but actually is there an actual villain in les mis ?
Pairing I am not a fan of : Marius x Cosette : Marius x Eponine
Character I feel the writers screwed up : none ? I think hugo did a perfect job in building characters
Favorite frienship : Courfeyrac x Marius, also all the amis de l'abc friendships
Character I most identify with : either grantaire or gavroche
Character I wish I could be : Jehan
003 - give me a character & I'll tell you
How I feel about this character : I LOVE HIM he is cute and sweet and deserves the whole world I love you sweetie
Any/all the people I ship romantically with this character : I headcanon him as aroace so none
My favorite non-romantic relationship for this character : elmer and buttons or elmer and jojo
My unpopular opinion about this character : I don't think I have one ? Idk it's too late I can't think of anything rn
One thing I wish had happened with this character in canon : literally should have had more screentime and lines because "it's bound to rain sooner or later" is iconic
Favorite frienship for this character : JoJo and henry
My crossover ship : none
7 notes · View notes
xhades-aidoneusx · 3 years
Text
A thing I did for Lame Mis collab (sound courtesy of @kaaaaaaaaaearl)! Fantasy Victor Hugo, the ultimate villain boss. There were legends, rumours about the powerful sorcerer who lived in the catacombs. Not many people were brave enough to descend to the sewers and find the man but those who did never came back, either lost in the labyrinth, killed by various traps left by the clever sorcerer or they have met a fate said to be far worse than death — they became mere puppets.
For the sorcerer had his books and with them came a terrible, terrible power. He was able to control the fate of people. Poor, innocent men and women who were none the wiser to the ending that was waiting for them. Every tragic event, every tough decision, every death even, was treated like a coincidence but it was not so, for all of this was written down long ago.
You see, the sorcerer was, in fact, a great writer, maybe the best of them all. He enriched people's lives by making them a part of something greater. Sadly, the general populace did not appreciate his efforts and his genius.
But then something strange happened and whether by coincidence or wilful action remains unknown. A group of people became aware of this man's machinations and decided to stop the "evil sorcerer". Despite their differences, their animosities they decided to oppose the man before they, too, became nothing more than a story in his book.
The sorcerer was waiting in his lair, surrounded by the labyrinth of sewers and aware of every move they made. A smile appeared on his face as he looked down at the thing he was writing.
And who knows, maybe I've already written the end of this story?
33 notes · View notes
hhawkeye · 3 years
Note
Hold up, something didn't make sense, but, wasn't Javert the bad guy who was anti-revolution and hated Valjean and is the main cause of Valjean's suffering? Why are we shipping them? Is there something in the musical that I missed because I only watched the 2012 movie and that was once a long long time ago?
okay i mean. technically. i guess. but also javert isnt actually the bad guy in les mis, he's not... great, he's not a GOOD GUY but he's not the villain either and i mean a lot of the point of les mis is that yknow people are not wholly one thing or the other
anyway. valjean and javert are deliberate parallels and mirrors of one another and are compared, both in the book and in the musical, to one another over and over again, sometimes more explicitly than others -- for example their soliloquies in the musical have the same lyrics and music and themes, stars and bring him home are merged at points, their characters are entwined because they play off and complement one another
and anyway. in the musical specifically. the part where valjean frees javert at the barricade "i'm a man no worse than any man" and "there is nothing that i blame you for, you've done your duty nothing more" etc like. valjean isnt... ok i'm not saying he's not mad but he isn't dwelling on it like oh that javert. the bane of my existence that fucking asshole i hate him so bad. yknow? he does actually forgive javert and understand that. well. it's not javert that's tracking him really it's just... the entire penal system. which ok "i am the law" is there even a difference ? well. that's the question isnt it.
but javert is Complicated really and i mean. hes a fictional character so im allowed to say this but he straight up was basically just following the moral code he had upheld his entire life and yknow. when faced with the fact that that code is perhaps Wrong he deals with it in a way that is... not ideal. but he's not the actual cause of valjean's suffering. the cause of valjean's suffering is the law itself and yknow, poverty and capitalism and the monarchy and also napoleon and and and etc etc like. much of the point of les mis is there isnt actually one specific thing that damns people or ruins their lives yknow?
and i mean! the book is good! you should read it if you get a chance like it's long as fuck and there are a lot of digressions my god victor hugo was just like i will be writing every thought that comes into my head and then acting like im Not doing that, but it does provide a bit more insight into. The Whole Thing esp if all you've seen is the 2012 movie. it's good! and in a book where yknow there are literal awful people javert is really just some guy and also my best friend. like he's a fictional cop in 19th century france he's not a GOOD DUDE but he's my BEST FRIEND.
also
Tumblr media
you know.
just sexy to have a nemesis who tracks you down for, like, decades, and you change his worldview so much he has to kill himself to deal with it. there's just something hot and kinda fun about that. is there not.
43 notes · View notes
thedreadvampy · 3 years
Text
rumi you got me thinking about Les Mis and hhhhhhhh
I know it's kind of a slog to read and I'm glad I didn't read it when I was younger bc trying to read 19th century novels at 12-13 ruined Brontë, Dickens, Hardy and Eliot for me BUT
uh
reading it as an adult was a Good Shout because Victor Hugo's ideas about prison reform, redemption and forgiveness are....Good Actually. Like he's really explicitly talking about like. how difficult it is to retain your humanity and moral integrity in a system designed to marginalise and dehumanise you, where you're unable to ever move past past mistakes (and they're more likely to be acts of desperation than mistakes, like Valjean stealing to eat, or things that were done to you, like Fantine being manipulated into sex or Gavroche and Eponine being abused and dragged into their parents' schemes). And unlike a lot of 19th century authors he's not writing about the need to rise above that through sheer moral fortitude - by making all his protagonists marginalised people whose most moral actions involve things considered immoral by contemporary society (like going on the run, like doing sex work, like lying and theft) he's rejecting the idea of the Deserving Poor that was very popular among reformists (and in his earlier work tbh)
and he has the main antagonists be a) people who think they're better than others and choose to embrace the role they're put in and discard people who aren't useful to them (when society says to Thenardier 'you're a criminal' he says 'yeah and I am going to get what's mine, fuck everyone else') and b) somebody who lives by a rigid, inflexible moral code with no nuance. Javert is the very image of a 'good cop' (doesn't tolerate corruption, is fanatical about the efficient and correct working of the police, is willing to be proven wrong about people's guilt, and is honest to a fault) and that is his character flaw. His character flaw is moral fortitude that comes without empathy or nuance. Javert is fundamentally a good man and a good cop which is why he's a villain, because motivated by his desire to do good, he is the backbone of a fundamentally evil system because if the root of all evil is a refusal to empathise with or forgive criminals and 'sinners' then evil is created and upheld by a system of carceral justice and policing. Les Mis is an active refutation of the 'good cop' argument - Javert literally cannot be both a good man and a good cop and that's why he eventually kills himself when confronted with the fundamental flaw in his worldview.
Hugo contends that three things are the underlying structure of goodness; generosity, forgiveness and faith (both in god and in people). But he also doesn't shy away from the fact that those qualities aren't enough on their own without systemic change, or from the fact that systemic change is hard and actively resisted. The revolution is crushed despite the common people around them largely being on the revolutionaries' side. But one by one people change and the world changes with them; Marius' uncle softens, Javert understands what he's done, Valjean himself is changed through the bishop's kindness, and that's not enough but sometimes it's the best you get.
idk I uh. Outing myself as a Person With Les Mis Opinions I guess.
97 notes · View notes
Text
Literally fuck everyone who tries to tell you what to write and how to write it or else blank will happen. Most of what we could consider masterpiece writing nowadays is the most bullshit thing ever. Victor Hugo wrote about a buff man named John McJohn who steals bread and dies. Half of the story is dedicated to meaningless information on Waterloo and Parisian sewers. He killed off half of the characters in one page and spent 70 pages on one side character. And yet Les mis is still considered a classic literature masterpiece. Taking writing seriously is just another hoax by the miserable old sods trying to find something to make younger generations feel worse about their self worth k, nothing is real so yes go write that book you've always wanted to and yes you can do whatever you want with it. Have your main character fall of the side of a fucking bridge. Make the villain the most hilarious bastard in the whole story. Kill a man if U wanna. Just have fun and go fucking wild okay life is too overexagerated to be worrying about what some old white man at a publishing company is gonna think of your word sentences
6 notes · View notes
amurder-ofcrows · 3 years
Note
I would like to know the answers for question 1 and 24.
1: what would you consider the best book you’ve ever read and why?
it’s gonna sound like a total cliche for me, because my friends already know exactly what i’m going to say, but i genuinely think Les Misérables is the best book i’ve ever read. i think it’s critiques on what morality is is very interesting. you have an ex-convict as your main character and from the beginning you’re told he didn’t deserve it, and that a lot of convicts don’t deserve it or even if they needed to be punished, they get overly harsh punishments, and the real evils going on in the world remain free (a lesson we really need to learn to this day). but it also doesn’t villainize javert. jean valjean constantly forgives javert and literally spares his life at one point when he could have totally ended it there. he knows javert is just following what he thinks is right and he has some valid reasons to think this way so valjean doesn’t feel the need to punish him. it also has very interesting dynamics regarding les amis de l’abc. you have these group of boys, i can barely call them men because they’re so young, and they’re so full of hope and belief for a better future. some of them, like enjolras, come from upper class backgrounds and they learn to see the pain that the upper class government is imposing on them. they want to fight for the people, and they’re willing to lay down their lives to do so. grantaire is a really interesting character because his belief in enjolras is so strong, but he doesn’t believe in his cause at all. he would follow enjolras to the end of the world, but he would complain the whole time. i think grantaire keeps enjolras in check. enjolras expresses frustration at grantaire, but grantaire is basically feeling what the people in paris are feeling; love and support for enjolras but not his cause. they’re not going to join and fight at the barricades, but they feel love for the boys fighting. and then there’s marius, cosette, and eponine. marius’ love for cosette is pure, and unlike the musical, they spend almost a year getting to know each other and really falling for each other. cosette feels anxious about what marius likes about her, but marius just loves cosette so truly and deeply it doesn’t matter to him. he literally thinks that a handkerchief is cosette’s when it’s actually valjean’s and he keeps it on him all the time. eponine loves marius but she understands that she can’t have him, but that doesn’t make her resent him or stop caring for him. she loves marius to the end, and marius loves her too, but in a different way. she also doesn’t resent cosette because they were children together and she just wants marius to be happy. in so many books this could have turned into a girl on girl fight, but it doesn’t which is amazing! and valjean cares so much for cosette too. cosette is loved from the moment she was born, but was handed bad situations. fantine couldn’t take care of her because tholomyés leaves her, so fantine does the best she can to provide for cosette, and unfortunately that means putting her with the thenardiers. fantine works so hard to provide money for cosette, which the thenardiers are scamming her out of, and in her dying breath she gives cosette to valjean because she knows cosette will never want for anything when she lives with valjean. valjean never had a romantic interest, his love is shown through his love for cosette. he wants to protect her, and at first he’s weary of marius, but at the barricade he sees how much he loves her and literally pulls his dying body out of the sewers so that cosette can be happy. he knows his time is running short, and he wants cosettes pain to be eased when that happens and wants her to continue experiencing the love of her life. basically, the interactions between all the characters make this book the best book i’ve ever read and i highly recommend that everybody read it. victor hugo goes on long tangents about things that only sorta matter, but it’s ok because what does matter is done so beautifully that i can’t even fault him.
i could go on and on about les mis but it’s so good. if you want more les mis content (not as analytical as this but just some fun stuff about the book and musical, follow my main @probably-enjolras )
24: do you prefer happy endings or sad endings
i don’t really have a preference. i prefer realistic endings. if a book ends and it’s sad because that’s what makes sense to the story, i prefer the sad ending and vice versa for happy endings.
22 notes · View notes
neroushalvaus · 4 years
Text
@starlene tagged me to share five of my favourite male characters. Thank you for the tag ♥ Like her, I’m going to tell you in detail why these are my favourite boys. Bear with me! These are not in any strict order, except for the first one, he will always be the number one in my heart.
1. Javert, Les Misérables
When I first read Les Misérables I was so fascinated by Javert’s character. Javert is the complete opposite of "a bad cop antagonist”, he follows the law to a fault and in a book like Les Mis, in which the society is the real villain, that is his personal failing. 
His integrity is also kind of touching to me. The way he will believe a nun that’s known not to lie, even when he should be doubting her words, and the way Javert himself never tells a lie, even when he’s supposed to act as a spy. He really has “nothing ignoble about him”, as Hugo says. Also how when he sees the error in his ways, his last act is to criticize the system he has upheld. 
Javert is such a sad character. His parents were possibly as downtrodden as Valjean, so he grew up to be someone who believes he’s doing the right thing, even when he’s trampling the ones society has already abandoned. That is a true tragedy and it never stops being interesting to me.
2. Lehto, Tuntematon sotilas
Oh boy. Possibly my worst son. He is a character from this one Finnish war novel, who doesn’t like anything or anyone and has a giant chip on his shoulder from god-knows-where. He is considered grim and nasty by his peers, he hates the authority and gets anxious when anyone talks about spirituality or patriotism. In other words, I love him.
Don’t get me wrong, once again we have a bad person here. He torments this one guy simply for being scared (and like, they are in war so what the fuck my dude), once he kills someone just because, and he in general never does anything nice for anyone. But then again, he’s only twenty-one in the book and he does not live long enough to learn and I would like to see him growing. I’m also interested in his past of which we only know that he has been “alone” since he was a child. And there is something very appealing about his defiant personality. As my psychologist mother said after seeing 2 minutes of Lehto in one movie adaptation, “boys like that are not good at expressing themselves that well, he needs understanding and support”. So yeah... I have a soft spot for this guy.
3. Hercule Poirot, Agatha Christie’s Poirot
I really don’t know what this sweet little man is doing on this list. I’ve liked Poirot since I was a child but I feel like I for a long time didn’t quite understand how well written his character is. I’m mostly talking about the books and David Suchet’s iconic portrayal, but I also really really liked the new ABC Murders with John Malkovich. Poirot’s backstory really did it for me, it made so much sense and put a whole new spin in this character.
In general I just love Poirot’s manner of speaking and his little quirks - how persnickety he is, his pickiness with food, how polite he is and his dramatics, especially when he gathers all the suspects together and lets them hear it. I love how in Christie’s novels he uses people’s prejudices against foreigners to his advantage, kind of like Marple uses the fact people usually are not too cautious around little old ladies. My favourite thing about Poirot, especially in Suchet’s portrayal, is his empathy and how that makes him a better detective. He can feel for victims and culprits alike, and he is great at figuring motives because he talks to people and sees what makes them tick. I love this man and his little gray cells.
4. Thomas Barrow, Downton Abbey
Bad boys are back, alright! Or you know... Misunderstood boys. Silly boys. Boys who get hurt every time they let someone in and that feeds their rage so they say “I’ll do it on my own”... Julian Fellowes really thought he could make an evil gay servant and people would just be like “okay so that one’s a jerk, can we see more of Lady Mary’s love life now?”. But he went and cast RJC and accidentally wrote the most interesting character in the whole Classist Propaganda: The TV Show.
Thomas Barrow is a complicated character and that makes him so appealing to me. He seems to be tough and cold, but he’s also very sensitive and many of the bad things he does are motivated by jealousy or hurt. He is clever and driven, but he can and most certainly will make bad decisions. Characters in the show think he’s heartless, but he likes being around children and when he falls in love with someone, he falls hard and fast. He’s also hopelessly devoted to those near him. I guess one of the big reasons I like Thomas so much is that he’s so severely mistreated by the show. He gets repeatedly punished for even small things he does, whereas other characters can do worse things and other characters and the mainstream audience still like them. I guess that makes me kind of protective of him, and willing to read a thousand fics about how he gets everything he has ever wanted in life.
5. Gregory House, House M.D.
I’m on my House binge once again and let me tell you - Season One Dr House is actually a good guy? Like sure he’s sarcastic and irresponsible and wants to do things his own way and throws a hissy fit when he doesn’t get his way, but in so many ways he is actually nice. That, of course, changes when the show marches on, but who said all character development has to be positive?
I like hospital dramas and I like detective shows, therefore I love House M.D. And this is a rare case in which the main character in a series is the most interesting one. I also love Wilson, but I relate to him a bit too much in certain ways (the internet says it’s because we’re both INFJ) for him to be that enjoyable for me. But House is interesting and once again, complicated. Making this list is making me once again face the fact I like characters who have a strict set of rules for themselves. House is a textbook example of Chaotic Neutral, but like it’s said in the series, his work is motivated by doing what he thinks is right. And it’s really important to him to be right himself. What I also like about him is that even though he is a typical “genius jerk”, he actually consistently gets called out on his behaviour. We get to see how his behaviour is the reason he has only a handful of meaningful relationships and why being like him is nothing to be proud of. A cool drinking game, take a shot every time he’s described as “miserable”. Have fun. 
*
Huh, that was a lot. Let’s tag some people! @obiskus , @juniper-pompadour , @trevardes and @violasmirabiles , share your favourite boys, if you feel like it! Feel free to either just say the names or ramble like I did :’)
23 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas (trans. Robin Buss)
"'I have heard it said that the dead have never done, in six thousand years, as much evil as the living do in a single day.'"
Year Read: 2019
Rating: 3/5
Context: Last year’s year-long Les Mis read went so well, I decided to choose another intimidating classic to tackle in the same fashion this year. I know myself, and if I don't deliberately pace out a book like this, I'll try to read a thousand pages in a week, and it will just be a miserable experience. (That's not to say some classics aren't miserable experiences regardless of how you read them, but that's another issue entirely.) The Count of Monte Cristo was calling to me from the shelf, and by pure luck, I already owned the edition I wanted to read (plus a B&N abridged version that promptly went into the donation box). Reviews overwhelmingly praise Robin Buss’s translation for ease/modernity, and the Penguin Classics haven’t let me down yet.
For my less coherent updates in real-time: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX. My review is spoiler-free, but my updates are not, so read with caution if you’re not familiar. Trigger warnings: In a book with a thousand pages? Everything, probably, but for sure death, parent/child death, suicide/suicidal thoughts, severe illness, guns, abduction, poisoning, slavery, mental illness, sexism, ableism, grief, depression.
About: When forces conspire to have sailor Edmond Dantès arrested for a crime he didn't commit, he spends years in a hellish prison, fighting to stay sane. Through bravery and good fortune, he manages to escape, and he assumes a new identity for himself: The Count of Monte Cristo. Under this guise, he inserts himself into the lives of the French nobility, vowing revenge on those who wronged him.
Thoughts: Like most thousand page novels, there's no reason this novel needs to be a thousand pages, but the one thing I can say about them, collectively, is that I come away feeling like I have a relationship with them that I usually don't get from a shorter book unless I've read it multiple times. And it makes sense: I've been reading this book for a year. I've had relationships with actual humans that were much shorter than that. Dumas's prose (helped along by Buss's translation) is accessible and not overly dry, if not quite as humorous as Victor Hugo’s. Thanks to both of them, I now have a rudimentary understanding of the French Revolution and the difference between a Royalist and Bonapartist (because truly the only way to make me read about history is to put it in a novel).
Dumas proves himself more capable of staying on topic though, with one or two exceptions. The only margin note I cared to write was, apparently, "Horrible digression", and I stand by that. As soon as the novel leaves Dantès’s perspective, it gets less interesting, beginning with Franz encountering Sinbad the Sailor on Monte Cristo and continuing with the Very Weird and Terrible Side Anecdotes about bandits in Rome. Otherwise, much of the storyline is more or less linear, without the intricacies of Waterloo or the Paris sewer system. It grows more chaotic as the book goes on though, with frequent digressions into every character's backstory.
The plot takes such a drastic turn that it's almost like reading two different novels with two different main characters. At the beginning, it’s most like an adventure story. There are sailors, prison breaks, and buried treasure. Yet, for all those things, it’s surprisingly un-suspenseful. Dumas has a very stolid way of story-telling. The pace is almost supernaturally consistent, so that even things that probably should have tension in them are presented as a matter of course. (Or maybe I’m just hugely desensitized by media.) I wasn’t as excited as I thought I should be during some of the more compelling parts, but there’s something reassuring about Dumas’s relentlessly straightforward story-telling.
The middle takes a major dip in interest. Cue a lot of long and tedious backstories, plus Monte Cristo's elaborate set-ups to take down his enemies. It basically devolves into a soap opera of the various dramas of Paris’s rich and powerful families. Monte Cristo barely needs to lift a finger to destroy these people, since with a few mostly harmless suggestions, it looks like they're all going to self-destruct at any moment without outside help. The ending never really recovers from the action of the beginning, thanks in large part to the characters. There are more than it's worth keeping track of, including a lot of side characters, family members, and name changes. A detailed, spoiler-free flow chart of how everyone is connected to everyone else would have been helpful. (But be careful about Googling those because spoilers.)
Edmond Dantès is an easy hero to pull for, since he’s honest, good, and capable, and he has a kind of earnest faith that things will work out that’s endearing. He goes through a fair amount of character development in prison, and his father/son relationship with Faria is especially moving. On the other hand, it's difficult to like his alternate persona, The Count of Monte Cristo. Dumas goes a bit overboard in making him filthy rich and knowledgeable about literally every subject, and no matter how generous he is to his slaves, they're still slaves. Whether he’s playing the part of a pompous ass or is actually a pompous ass is sort of irrelevant by the end. There are a couple of flailing attempts at character development in the last sections where he wonders whether he had the right to do everything he did, but it's too little/too late to make much of an impact.
The story wouldn't work without some Shakespeare-level villains. Danglars is Iago whispering in Othello’s ear, and Villefort is even more insidious because his upstanding citizen act is so convincing. Caderousse is just a coward, and it’s interesting to see how jealousy, ambition, and fear all play an integral part in condemning an innocent man. Mercédès is a bland love interest; Valentine and Morrel are basically the Cosette and Marius of the novel, but at least there are some decent people on the page to pull for. Much as I dislike all the descriptors of Eugenie as “masculine” (because she must be less of a woman if she has a mind of her own), she's a powerhouse, and I was living for her lesbian relationship with her piano instructor.
It's clear Dumas has no idea when to end a story, since every time I thought we'd wrapped up a plot with a certain character, they'd resurface a few chapters later to spin it out a little further. Though everything (and I do mean everything) moves much more slowly than necessary, I was satisfied with the way it all played out. It's hard to come back from a main character I can barely stand though, and I happen to not like novels where nearly every character is terrible. While I found Les Mis surprisingly relevant on its social commentary, I’m struggling to see why Monte Cristo has stuck around. Only the first parts could reliably be called an "adventure novel," and the rest is purely middle of the road.
11 notes · View notes
zevlogofamiserable · 4 years
Text
Meta #3 Postcolonial issues of a modern Les Mis AU
Tumblr media
Hey first thing’s first, I’m a white person and don’t hesitate to call me out if I say shit, really. I mean it!
Second, let’s talk about Hugo’s racism.
Hugo’s racism
Because yes, the dude was a racist. Like many big names of his time, true. Like, to be honest, most of us today still (we inherited colonialism after all), true, but he’s not just any racist, he’s like one of the pillars of French culture, a supposed defender of freedom who was EXILED for his ideas (calm down people, look at his house in Guernesey… his exile was preeeeetty chill). Truth is… if he was so successful in his time, you can imagine he wasn’t the radicalest of the radicals (like surviving in the XIXth century in France as a public figure when you have political ideas you can’t compromise… mmh… gotta have VERY good connections). But he’s presented as THE hero of freedom in schools which is part of our Republican/actually pretty conservative and status quo propaganda and like, I’ll develop on that in a later meta about Alexane Ozier-Lafontaine but it creates a cognitive dissonance when you’re taught about that great man and then you discover his discourse about Africa. 
Erh. 
Hugo’s not so political
Now, many people here discovered Les Mis with the Musical and I love the fact that the book is called “The Brick” here because fuck it’s way too long and some parts are hella boring let’s be honest for two secs. Stop wanking on Napoleon, Totor!! Stop! 
But like, the Musical in itself is, although relatively faithful in its structure, heavily disconnected from the political subtext of The Brick which makes it way more digestible and universal. The Brick itself isn’t like, again, the radicalest of the radicals. It basically says: since Napoloeon nobody was so cool/rad in the government. Society treat poor people like shit, they’re human too (except the Patron Minette anime villains, those are eeeeeevil). Even in its time, the Goncourts brothers (and they weren’t like the radicalest of the radicals themselves) were like: “Hugo’s making shit tons of money by talking about the poor, isn’t he?” And he was criticized for his lack of observation, realism, body… like, when you compare the Brick to other contemporary texts (even just Balzac) he’s pretty… symbolic in his approach. I’m no literary critic anyway. Point is…
What do we do with that shit in our alternate universe fanfictions?
So there’s a fandom around les Mis… mostly composed of non French people not so familiar with French problematic/colonial history, and they enjoy and have fun with all this and it’s great. You can be in fandoms formed around problematic stuff without being a Nazi (I mean, I’m still kindah in the Shingeki No Kyojin Fandom and we all know its author is… problematic to say the least ><). 
And there’s all the alternate universe in contemporary contexts trend around Les Mis and of course, we supposedly live in a postcolonial society so you racebend characters and it makes sense. You wanna update l’ABC to have them talk about contemporary political issues and postcolonial issues are a huge deal and I bet there are also many POC in the fandom who just want to appropriate this material and make it their own and I think it makes a lot of sense. 
But… 
I started writing this webseries with that in mind: let’s talk about modern day young leftist people politics in France and let’s racebend some characters and collaborate with the friends who’ll portray them to talk about postcolonialism in France. I had… erh good intentions I guess. 
However… a friend pointed out to me that it was out of the question for her to play a character initially written by a racist author such as Hugo as a black person talking about postcolonial issues and I also think it makes a lot of sense and I must thank her again for the discussion we had then. 
So… I found a compromise in a way. I think it would be really weird to evacuate postcolonial discussions from modern leftist discourses. It’s everywhere even though… some leftist really try to evacuate it (which will also happen in ZeVlog because I have little imagination and when I see stuff, I just project it in my writing). But… I decided to include characters from other novels written by authors who came from old French colonies (and happen to share the nationality of the people who portray them in two cases) to discuss these postcolonial issues (and not give them to Hugo’s characters)… and that’s why my Lesgle doesn’t live with Joly (it was supposed to be Joly at first because Aaliyah Xpress is a real life doctor) but with Bê, a character created by Dương Thu Hương, a Vietnamese dissident.
youtube
Bê and Lesgle’s first apparition
Bê comes from the book, Journey in Childhood (not sure if it’s available in English alas). I’ve read other books by this author to prepare this webseries and all of them have a real political weight and evoke the French colonization, but I chose this one because I really liked the main character who resists an abusive authority. I hesitated because it’s a child character and I read Asian people tend to be infantilized (?) but despite the “Childhood” in the title, Bê is a really mature and pragmatic character and I really recommend this book! Also, apparently, Bê is also the main character in Story of an Actress but the book is not translated. Well. Read some Dương Thu Hương tho, you can find some in English and she’s good!
Anyway, I’ll tell you more about the two other books I picked for this weird crossover in future metas.
Till then, tell me what you think of all this questioning. I’d like to hear your opinions. I think the issue is very complex and I didn’t even outline it properly here!
15 notes · View notes
darkspellmaster · 5 years
Text
The Role of the Gentleman or Lady Thief and their Detective/Cop/Agent Part 1
With Carmen Sandiego 2019 starting to heat up I figured that it would be a good time to explain why characters like Chase, Julia, and formerly Ivy and Zack were important to the over all story and why these dynamics are key in telling the story of the idea of Cops and Robbers. 
To start with we have to go all the way back to the days of the Highway men and the likes of Robin Hood.
Tumblr media
So let’s start with that. The myths around Robin Hood have grown over the years, most of which had the elements in there of him being a free spirited outlaw that was in Nottingham and being the enemy of the Sheriff came from earlier poems such as the Robin Hood and the Monk show that while he’s got some good in him, he’s not friends with the King, and that his robbing maybe more selfish, and the actions of the Merry Men are more in line with that of a thriller than the more epic adventure that we see later. 
Robin’s stories changed over time from darker stories with thriller like plots, to comedic at times, and over time grew to show Robin changing from a character that simply robbed because of the fun of it, to someone who was robbing for the people, and that he could be outwitted by others and then they are invited to join with him. 
Tumblr media
Robin representing the lawful outlaw, the thief that while forceful to those that don’t fit into his moral code, can be gallant and kind to those that he finds right and just. He’s a Chaotic good type character in this case, leading into the Sheriff who falls under the idea of the dull witted idiot at times who get’s tricked and had by the clever robber. Over time Robin became a noble over a commoner, where as the Sheriff was always seen as part of the rich nobles that caused issue for the lower classes. 
Thus a lot of the idea of the noble thief and the arrogant detective came into being. Though this dynamic wouldn’t stick around for long with these two as the Sheriff became more and more of a villain and Robin more of a heroic person who was only robbing to return the wealth to those that needed it.
Stories about Robin and his ways of stealing, namely their ballads, over time, influenced later writers who wrote about the exploits of real Highwaymen: 
Later robber heroes included the Cavalier highwayman James Hind, the French-born gentleman highwayman Claude Du Vall, John Nevison, Dick Turpin, Sixteen String Jack, William Plunkett and his partner the "Gentleman Highwayman" James MacLaine, the Slovak Juraj Jánošík, and Indians including Kayamkulam Kochunni, Veerappan and Phoolan Devi.
These robbers were seen as heroic due to their bold actions robbing people face to face. A lot of the actions of later Gentle thieves can be attributed to the legends of these Highwaymens’ characters. 
Tumblr media
James Hind -Was a royalist who apparently helped other Royalist escape from troubles, gave money to poor royalists and also refused to rob cavaliers. A lot of his exploits were embellished, painting him as a Royalist Robin Hood. 
Tumblr media
Claude Du Vall - According to popular legend, he abhorred violence, showing courtesy to his victims and chivalry to their womenfolk, thus spawning the myth of the romantic highwayman. -from Wikipedia. Du Vall is most known for inspiring a lot of the legends around the “Romantic Highwayman” legends. 
John Nevison - with the nickname Swift Nick, due to a dash of 200 miles from Kent to York to create an alibi after a robbery, Nevison was known for never using violence against his victims, always polite, and only robbing the rich. 
Tumblr media
Dick Turpin - was nothing like his legend, and was over time turned into an almost robin hood like figure. The reason that his name is used so much and linked with the other gentlemen Highwaymen is due to the book Rookwood, where he’s used as part of the plot and comes off as far more lively than the mains. 
Tumblr media
Sixteen String Jack - was known for his colorful costumes, wit and charm and typically robbed so he could afford said expensive clothing. 
William Plunkett -wore a venetian mask and tended to be polite to women and only stole because he “was obliged to do so” not out of wontoness. He actually escaped with his life. 
Tumblr media
John MacLaine -a former son of clergy who became a grocer and, after his wife died three years after their marriage, went bankrupt and became the partner of William Plunkett. He, like Will, was seen a courteous and restrained when they were holding people up. 
Tumblr media
Juraj Jánošík -the Slovakian Robin Hood, who’s stories became more legend and was later used as a symbol against oppression. After helping another robber escape from jail, the two started a band, which Juraj became leader of at the age of 23, when the former leader left to settle down outside of the kingdom of Hungary. “ Most of their victims were rich merchants. Under Jánošík's leadership, the group was exceptionally chivalrous: They did not kill any of the robbed victims and even helped an accidentally injured priest.[5] They are also said to share their loot with the poor and this part of the legend may be based on the facts too.[5] -Wikipedia”
Kayamkulam Kochunni -is India’s Robin Hood. Like Juraj, Kayamkulam has become a legend and a bit of a deity as well. He was said to have robbed from the rich to give to the poor, focusing mostly on merchants that were wealthy. What’s interesting is that he’s one of the first to be well known and have a detective that is following him around, by the name of “ Arattupuzha Velayudha Panicker” who was a known warrior and defender of the oppressed, and who supposedly captured Kayamkulam, leading to him being placed in jail for a year where he died. 
Veerappan -a more modern day version of Robin Hood in India, who was active in the late 1960s and into the early 2000s. Unlike the other members of this, he was not known for giving back to the poor, rather his status comes from the fact that he was elusive. 
Tumblr media
Phoolan Devi -a lady bandit who’s last name was used as a title for her. Her history in India was well known, and she later was released from jail after she and her gang were arrested for the massacre of a rival gang that had captured and raped her. However publically she was somewhat praised for her actions. She later was elected to the Indian parliament but was assassinated in 2001 by a former member of the gang that she had killed. 
Other Highwaymen tended to do so for revolution or rebellion based actions, such as those in Ireland during the 17th to the 19th Century. 
In 17th- through early-19th-century Ireland, acts of robbery were often part of a tradition of popular resistance to British colonial rule and settlement and Protestant domination. From the mid-17th century, bandits who harassed the British were known as tories (from Irish tóraiḋe, raider; tóraí in modern spelling). Later in the century, they became known as rapparees. Famous highwaymen included James Freney, Count Redmond O'Hanlon, Willy Brennan, and Jeremiah Grant.[10][11] 
James Freney - originally lost his family lands in 1650, after being a well off family that was considered a noble. As a young man he wound up working as a servant to another well off family, married, and had a family.  He joined with a gang after the towns fees caused him to close up his pub. Like a number of other Highwaymen he was known for being polite for the most part, and saw his actions as a way to get back at the English. 
Count Redmond O’Hanlon - his family at one time was a favor of Queen Elizabeth the first, however due to them siding with the Catholics during the events of the Irish Rebellion, his family got their lands seized during the Act for Settlement, where in they lost all their status and lands to England and it was given away to other land holders. Redmond was known for being an excellent actor, mimic and persuasive speaker who used these skills. Again he’s seen as a bit of a Robin Hood figure. 
Using this as a base we can see how these men and women of reality became a sort of base for fictional characters, who later became part of the genre of the Gentlemen thief. Furthering the evolution of these characters was the idea of the opposition of the thief in the form of the rival police officer, typically either a detective/cop/Agent of Interpol who has been sent out to stop the likes of the Heroic thief. 
Tumblr media
Subsequently, a change happened between the time of the Sheriff from Robin Hood to the time of someone like Zenigata, from Lupin the third. The first changes could be seen in the idea of making the opposite of the thief be someone that has a more personal reason to want to capture the thief, or have a more sympathic reason behind their being the rival to the thief. 
Another aspect added to this was that, in some cases the detective had it wrong about the thief and their heroic actions were being read wrong by the law. Best example of this early on was is the character of Javert from Victor Hugo’s Les Mis. written back in the 1860s. 
Tumblr media
Javert’s story focuses a lot on how he wants to capture Jean because Jean ran from his parole,  and Javert feels like he must catch him, even after years of the man reforming his life. One of the aspects about this that draws into the modern day Phantom Thief idea, is that of the character that at all costs, MUST, capture the thief. Javert devotes his life to it, dealing with the fact that he grew up inside a prison and can’t for the life of him deal with the idea that a criminal can change. This leads to his death, and the obsession of capturing Valjean. 
The idea of the obsessive detective focusing their life on the chase digs into later day characters that are like Javert, but less suicidal. 
The famous Scarlet Pimpernel deals with one such character. While the Pimpernel is no thief in the normal sense, he seeks to “steal” the lives of innocent nobles from the gallows during the french revolution.
Tumblr media
 Created by Baroness Emma Orczy, Sir. Percy Blake is our lead (and shares with Carmen the love of Red) who through out the story plays up his foppish image to cover for the fact that he is the head of a ring of men and women who are covertly, under the black sky of the night, going to France to break out and save various people from death during the French Revolution. Blake is in a lot of ways the first user of the secret identity. But he also has a lot of the qualifications of being a Gentlemen Thief, including not harming people unless they attack first, and being ever so delightful to those he’s “robbing.” He’s a skilled fencer, an excellent actor, a master of disguise, an intuitive improvising and imaginative planner, and a quick on his feet escape artist.  
Counter to him runs Citizen Armand Chauvelin, a cunning and ruthless man that is for the most part fearless and doesn’t care for his own safety -save where he figures that death is the only outcome of a situation. He’s highly intelligent and, in the past, was a close friend of Percy’s wife. During the stories we see him become the rival or counter to Sir. Percy, figuring out that the man is the Pimpernel but never having a chance to catch him, as Percy always eludes him, causing their conflict to keep dancing around all through the series. 
Tumblr media
Being the opposite of Percy, Armand plays up the darker aspects of the Agent. He’s shown wearing dark clothing, that he tends to brood more, and certainly while having some sense of mercy and sympathy, he feels that Percy should be stopped as he’s breaking the law in France. Much like Javert, Armand becomes slightly obsessed with capturing and outwitting Percy, but he never gets the chance to win. 
Tumblr media
This brings us to the idea of the inversion of the detective for the thief in the form of A.J. Raffles. Raffles was created by Sir. Arthur Conan-Doyle’s brother-in-law, E.W. Hornung, a poet and author. Raffles was created as a opposite to Holmes. Like Holmes there is a sharpness to his character’s look, though unlike Holmes, Raffles is far more of a social man and lives competing lives as a gentleman and a thief. It’s interesting to note that Doyle did not particularly like Raffles as he felt it was a slight to his character. Although of the two, Holmes has been used more frequently. Raffles also seems to share the whole “playing a role” to set up for his crime, but also feels that while he steals for himself, he tries to pick on people who can spare the theft. 
This becomes important as later day thieves tended to play the part of hero and villain all in the same story in some cases. 
The biggest and most well known though of all these Thieves and the most heavily inspired for western writers, is Arsene Lupin. 
Tumblr media
Pulling from  Pierre Alexis Ponson du Terrail, Rocambole (an adventure hero that starts off as a thief like character and later became a heroic person), Arsene acts as a thief, stealing things that he deems worthy and always leaving some form of calling card to where he’s going to strike next. However he’s usually not the bad guy and the true villain of the story is far worse than he is. Lupin traditionally didn’t have a counter until his creator Maurice Leblanc decided to pit him against Sherlock Holmes (changed to Herlock Sholmes due to Doyle requesting it). This placed the two master minds against one another for several stories. Pairing them up in some cases to solve a crime or having Holmes go against Lupin to catch him and the other villain. 
Tumblr media
This pairing later lead to the creation of other characters that have bad guy like reputations but are really heroes, such as the Shadow, and Judex -from France (who probably inspired the Shadow). 
Tumblr media
One of the Key elements to come from these thieves is that there is always a code of honor, which seems to stem all the way back from the days of the Highwaymen. This code seems to be: 
Be charming, well mannered, and courteous to your target and others. 
Avoid the idea of physical or emotional force or violence to steal
No intimidation when stealing
Only fight to defend yourself
Some thieves are already wealthy, others will take for material gain, but a good majority of them will steal not for wealth of money but for knowledge or appreciation of the object. A good number of modern thieves tend to steal things already stolen and return them to their rightful home, or correcting a moral wrong. In most cases it’s only from a wealthy or corrupt person, and only stealing one rare thing or as a challenge, typically leaving some sort of message saying they were going to take it. And once in a while they will give it back, because it was a “for fun” thing. 
Tumblr media
With the rise of other Gentlemen thieves in the west such as: The Saint, Thomas Crown, Jimmy Dale, Filibus, Danny Ocean, and various characters from comics (Gentleman Ghost, Catwoman, Penguin, Gambit, Black Cat) and many others, it doesn’t surprise me that Arsene Lupin became influential to Japanese writers. 
Kaito Kid, Dark Mousy, Lupin the Third, and Saint Tail, all have their own opposing rival detectives, and each seem to steal in some way for good (save for those that also take for themselves). 
Tumblr media
Looking at Arsene Lupin III you have a similarity to the original character. someone who is mostly stealing for fun, but also he’s  “ Acknowledged across the globe as the world's number one thief, Lupin is a master of disguise and deduction, marksman, and inventor of numerous handy gadgets. His fun-loving, foolhardy incongruity covers a brilliant mind always extemporizing and re-evaluating. As such, he has been responsible for heists no right-minded individual would believe possible. While occasionally arrested and jailed, typically by his ICPO nemesis Inspector Koichi Zenigata, he always succeeds in escaping unharmed.”
Lupin’s personality over the years has changed as the various versions of the anime has over time cooled his harder edges and made him more of a chivalrous goofball, who can get away with things. In some cases he’s doing it for the thrill, but in several situations from the anime and movies he tends to do it because he wants to do the right thing, and maybe earn some side cash. In any event in the anime he’s not without his side kicks, and of course there’s Zenigata. 
Tumblr media
Monkey Punch, the creator of Lupin the Third said that Koichi Zenigata and Lupin have a Tom and Jerry aspect to them, and the only way the series will end is when they are equals. Either they both lose, they both win, or they both retire. Zenigata is more in line with the idea of the detective following a life long passion. He is, much like Armand and Javert, obsessed with capturing Lupin and has shown over various shows that he cares for the younger thief. 
The origin of Zenigata's and Lupin's mutual regard was based early in the series when Lupin had the chance to shoot the Inspector, but instead wished him well and escaped. Since then, an unwritten understanding exists between the pair where neither will attempt to cause the death of the other. Further, the two are best referred as unacknowledged friends; several occasions have occurred where Lupin and gang aided Zenigata out of a life-threatening situation. When a woman the Inspector loved was killed by a criminal gang, Lupin participated in avenging her murder. And when an old enemy of Lupin's shot Zenigata point blank while he helplessly watched, a wild motorcycle chase began to apprehend the killer, partly for Lupin to conclude affairs with the adversary, partly to avenge the (supposed) death of the Inspector.
On the other end for the pairing you have the Kaito Kid and Detective Conan. 
Tumblr media
Now unlike Lupin who steals because it’s his way of life, Kaito Kid (aka  Kaito Kuroba -yes that is his real name) does so to follow up on his family legacy and try to find the men that killed his father. The reason he steals isn’t for money or for fixing issues, no this is more of a personal thing. After taking the gemstones Kaito tests to see if they, under the moonlight, to see if the Pandora gem (a stone that has the ability to grant immortality) is inside for the express purpose of destroying it and keeping it from the hands of the organization that killed his dad. When he takes the stones, or any treasure he typically leaves a calling card, so the bad guys know what he’s going after so he can confront them, and later returns the items to their places. 
Kaito doesn’t have an exact opposition, but normally if he is a bit of an antagonist in a story, that role goes to Detective Conan (aka Jimmy Kudo). Sometimes Conan is out to stop him from stealing something, but a number of times the two have teamed up as the organization that killed Kaito’s father was also connected to Jimmy becoming a small boy from a teenager. Kaito has played Jimmy from time to time, confusing friends and enemies for the young detective and also helping out when Lupin III showed up for his own heist in a movie. Jimmy though knows who Kaito is, yet he can’t pin any crimes on him. 
Tumblr media
The interesting thing about their conflict is that while Jimmy wants to stop him, he also knows that there’s more to Kaito’s actions than just being a thief, so unlike where Zenigata legitimately wants Lupin to reform, Jimmy knows that once Kaito finishes what he needs to do he’s likely going to stop being a thief, thus, while the chase is fun, unlike with Richard (the detective that Jimmy tends to knock out in order to explain the case) who sees Kaito as a thief, Jimmy knows that it will end and that in the end no one’s going to be hurt save the bad guys that killed Kaito’s father. 
On the other side of things where in you have this idea of a pairing that has magic, you have Dark Mousey/ Daisuke Niwa and Krad/Satoshi Hiwatari. 
Tumblr media
Where as with Kaito who uses tricks to preform magic, Dark/Daisuke actually uses real magic to pretty much create a situation that has a lot of real magic in their thefts. See in the case of D.N.Angel, the story actually revolves around a curse. Dark is a being that may, or may not, have been a real person at some point in time. He is part of Daisuke, a middle-schooler who’s family has this curse placed upon them, where the first born son will inherent Dark and become a thief. The goal, to steal items that have a magical curse that was created by the Hikari family. Long story short if Dark and Daisuke fall for the same girl then Dark goes away from Daisuke and he waits till the next person or the curse is lifted (I can’t remember because last I read they were liking two different twin sisters, and keep switching who likes who.) 
Tumblr media
Opposing Daisuke is Satoshi Hiwatari, who is actually the adopted son of the Police Chief and the heir to Krad, Dark’s opposite. He has little control on Krad and is the descendant of the man who made the cursed items. Satoshi cares a lot for Daisuke seeing him as a friend and wanting him to stop using Dark, but the fact is that it’s not a possibility until the curse is broken for both. Both boy’s have their “specials” (I don’t know what they’re called) come out when they react to emotions. Daisuke is to feelings of love from a special girl that he likes, and Satoshi has it when Dark comes out and there’s a sense of challenge coming from Krad. 
The thing that’s interesting with this cat and mouse game is that Daisuke and Sataoshi general want to be friends, with Satoshi being the cold character to Daisuke’s more warm and genuine personality. While Satoshi wants to stop Dark from stealing thing, Daisuke wants to find a way to release Dark and Satoshi from the curse that’s upon them because he knows Krad is hurting his friend. The point of the thefts though comes down not to robbing the rich, nor returning something for justice but for the sake of canceling out something dangerous in human hands. The idea that the art piece is cursed by an emotion and that the feelings of that piece need to be fixed, usually something to do with love and sadness and that sort of thing. 
Tumblr media
Similarly in the actual magical thief department we have the character of  Meimi Haneoka aka  Kaitō Saint Tail or just Saint Tail in English. Like another magical girl thief Phantom Thief Jeanne, there are aspects of the magic girl series here. However unlike PTJ, Saint Tail deals more with the actions of actually stealing art rather than cleansing it and making it vanish. The difference here is that unlike Jeanne, Meimi is just using stage magic, much like Kaito Kid, so her actions are done with her own wit and guile. What’s interesting is that unlike the other thieves mentioned, Saint Tail is a thief that takes back what has been stolen. 
Meimi’s goal is helping those who have had things taken from them or ease their troubled hearts, as her friend who is a nun in training gets to hear these issues and goes to ask Saint Tail for help in taking back what was stolen. Meimi, like the others above, has a rival detective in the form of  Daiki Asuka who is also a classmate of her’s whom she classes with as he’s obsessed with catching Saint Tail. 
Tumblr media
What’s interesting about this set up here is that unlike all the others, where it’s male vs. male, this is male vs. female and, because it is a shojo series, there’s a romantic undertone to this story. Daiki, for his part, does seem to have a bit of a crush on Saint Tail but ultimately wants to bring her to justice, and in Saint Tail form Meimi does flirt with him. However the conflict comes down to the idea of her and Daiki not seeing eye to eye in their civilian lives, as Meimi has a bit of a tsudare sort of mask so that others don’t know she’s Saint Tail. Thus the two butt heads a lot, as both are stubborn, and Meimi is constantly grappling with her own jealousy for her alter ego having Daiki’s heart. 
It’s not that often that you see this set up with the Detective and the thief eventually ending up as a couple (Yes this is a spoiler) since in most cases the thief usually has a side love interest that has nothing to do with his or her crime career (either the person is doing an alter ego thing, or the love interest doesn’t pay mind to their crimes) or they are working with them on their criminal sprees. 
Tumblr media
This means that Daiki and Meimi are a bit of a rare pairing, the only other one that springs to mind is Batman and Catwoman (though that has it’s own issues) and Sly Cooper and Carmelita Fox from the Sly Cooper games. However their cat and mouse game mirrors a lot of other Detectives and thieves. For Daiki the idea of catching Saint Tail means that he can prove himself to his dad who could never catch the “Fallen Angel” thief, who happened to be Meimi’s mom, and he feels that if he can catch her than it makes up for his dad not getting Fallen Angel. It’s interesting too that, as with Kaito Kid, Dark Mousey and Lupin III, Saint Tail leaves calling cards but with different reasons. Where as with Kaito it’s to lure out the villains who killed his dad, and Dark as a PR thing for Satoshi, or Lupin just to annoy Zenigata, Tail’s game is so that Daiki and the cops can arrest the person that stole the object in the first place and get them proof so that they will go to jail for their crime. 
It makes their relationship far more complex than your traditional thief and detective. 
The thing is that the role these two play opposing one another is a game of cat and mouse that is designed to thrill the audience. Viewers watch, or readers read, as the characters have to outwit one another. The thief must always be one step ahead of the detective. But never too far ahead, and the detective must always be one step behind but know the truth even if they can’t prove it. 
This leads to some interesting dynamics in regard to the idea of the thieves that don’t steal for their own goal. While it does, at times, make the detective question if they are doing right by chasing them, the thief needs to always reaffirm to the detective that they should try to catch them. The thrill is in the chase for the thief too, and in some cases it is not just the fun that is being had, but also the goal in allowing the detective to become a friend and in some ways a companion to the thief. 
Without the detective doing the chasing the challenge isn’t there, and, on top of that in the case of a robin hood like thief where they want the police to capture a worse criminal, then they feel like they are actually doing some law abiding things as well. In other cases, they only agree to give up to that detective or rival, and will only become lawful again once their mission is completed, or they feel like the two are then equals. 
Part of the game for the gentleman or Lady Thief is that they will show a great deal of compassion for those that they are taking from in some cases, and also feel the same for the detective. In a few cases, as with Lupin and Sherlock/Conan, there’s a sense of admiration and appreciation for each other’s skills and intelligence. Or in other cases as with Sly and Carmelita or Tail and Daiki, there is genuine love and affection there that leads to romance. 
It’s the sense of almost flirting and a chance to change the other persons view of the world. In a lot of cases the detectives can see the good in a person, as with Zenigata regarding Lupin, but also they know that what they are doing in in the wrong according to the law, and they want that person who could be an amazing good guy and ally to them to join them on the lawful side of things, rather than the chaotic good side. 
So how does this all fit into Carmen and the others? Well this has gone on too long I think, so I’m gonna do that as a part 2. 
165 notes · View notes
bbclesmis · 5 years
Text
MASTERPIECE: LES MISERABLES: Actor and executive producer David Oyelowo on the new PBS series – Exclusive Interview
The actor talks playing the obsessed Javert
The new six-part drama LES MISERABLES on PBS MASTERPIECE, currently airing Sunday nights (it will repeat at an earlier hour in June), after premiering earlier this year in the U.K. on BBC1. David Oyelowo (pronounced “oh-YELLOW-oh”) plays the fanatical Inspector Javert. Oyelowo is also an executive producer on this non-musical adaptation of Victor Hugo’s massive 1862 novel set in France as revolution is brewing. Reformed convict Jean Valjean (Dominic West), a genuinely good man, devotes his life to helping others, but Javert is determined to track him down.
Oyelowo is also an executive producer on this LES MISERABLES, although it is not in conjunction with his Yoruba Saxon Productions company. Oyelowo, originally from Oxford, England, was a regular on the British espionage thriller MI-5. His film credits on both sides of the Atlantic include SHOOT THE MESSENGER, AS YOU LIKE IT, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, LINCOLN, JACK REACHER, LEE DANIELS’ THE BUTLER, NIGHTINGALE (for which he received both Emmy and Golden Globe Outstanding Lead Actor nominations, and was co-produced by Yoruba Saxon), SELMA, QUEEN OF KATWE, THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX and A WRINKLE IN TIME. Oyelowo has also starred in the features CAPTIVE, FIVE NIGHTS IN MAINE, and A UNITED KINGDOM, all of which Yoruba Saxon was involved in producing.
Series adapter Andrew Davies says at a press session for LES MISERABLES that he had initially thought that it might be interesting to have a black Jean Valjean and a white Javert, but Oyelowo says he was only approached to play Javert. “We have seen the reverse of that dynamic numerous times. And the truth of the matter is, contrary to some popular belief, not every black man living in Europe in the early 1800s was some kind of slave or subservient in some way. Napoleon had black generals in his army, again, little-known fact. I am always looking for ways to shake things up for myself. And so what was actually of more interest to me was, I had had the opportunity to play a number of virtuous, good men in my career, and I was fascinated by this character who is so obsessed in his pursuit of another human being, down to what he deems to be his own moral compass, in a sense. He is not, in his own mind, a villain. In fact, he is the hero of his own story. In relation to Jean Valjean, I’m the righteous one. I’m the one doing God’s work. I’m the one who is the law keeper, the law abider. And that was a very fascinating thing for me to get to play, knowing, as David the actor and the fan of the book, that’s not necessarily how everyone else would perceive it. But how do you stick to that for six episodes? And that’s the opportunity that Andrew afforded, in that you have so much more context around that over the six episodes than you could ever have with the musical, as it were.”
It hadn’t occurred to Oyelowo before that he’d like to play Javert or that he’d ever be approached to do the role, he says. “But the thing that really struck me about him was his Old Testament quality, in relation to Jean Valjean’s New Testament quality. Javert thinks he is judgment. He is the law. He is what he deems to be righteous. And I think, on the other hand, Jean Valjean is hope. He is faith. He is the pursuit of redemption. He is love. And those two things not necessarily should be at odds, but they are in the context of this piece. It’s really interesting to find out that Victor Hugo based both Javert and Jean Valjean on the same person. This man, who he based his characters on, embodies these qualities, and that was the clue for me. And Javert sees himself in Jean Valjean, and it’s the part of himself he hates. Javert was born in prison to criminal parents, and that is part of his identity. So when he sees this man, who is the embodiment of that side of him he hates, he feels the need to destroy him. And that’s what he is going to do until that window through which he sees Jean Valjean turns into a mirror, and he realizes that the person he hates is himself, which is the reason he ends up destroying himself. So in many ways, those were the things that really drew me to this story.”
And then, in response to a question, Davies declares firmly that he hates the very popular musical version of LES MISERABLES.
“Noooo!” Oyelowo cries, and proceeds to expressively mime someone in slow motion trying and failing to prevent a terrible accident.
Later, Oyelowo discusses this and much more about the new LES MISERABLES.
ASSIGNMENT X: You’ve done press sessions for the new LES MISERABLES before. Had you ever before heard Andrew Davies say that he hates the musical LES MIZ?
DAVID OYELOWO: I’ve read it. I haven’t been there while he’s said it live.
AX: I’m wondering how they’re going to transcribe your reaction to that …
OYELOWO: I’m wondering, too. That was my inside voice coming out. [laughs] The truth of the matter is, there are many people who love the musical. And we want people who love the musical to watch the miniseries, because they’re going to get so much more context for these characters they love, and this story they love. Can I just say that I love the musical, for the record. But then there’s the other side – there are people who have read the book and love the book and don’t like musicals and haven’t seen any sort of tele-visual or cinematic rendition of it, and they also hopefully will get to see made flesh and blood those characters in this story that they love.
AX: You’re known for a lot of film work and a lot of stage work. You’re not so much known for television, though you’ve done some episodics here and there. Is this a form that you’d like to do more of, or is this a one-off, or how do you view it?
OYELOWO: No, it’s just the way things have gone. I just look for great material, and this was certainly that. The writing was indisputable, the story is indisputable, the iconic nature of the story is indisputable. So it’s less for me as to whether it’s TV or film, it’s more, am I going to be challenged by it, is it something that I feel could be good, to be perfectly frank. Probably a long-running series isn’t something I’m in a hurry to do yet, if I’m totally honest. But now, with cable and ten-episode arcs a year, there are all sorts of great ways to do television that doesn’t take you away from film and theatre, which is something that’s very important to me as well.
AX: Is part of what’s appealing to you about playing Javert, not just that he’s like this Old Testament burning bush fury, but that he’s got these issues of projecting his persona onto another man, and the self-hatred, and the unawareness of the self-hatred?
OYELOWO: Yes, exactly right. I think that’s the thing that makes a character truly interesting, is when you watch them in real time finding things out about themselves, and about the world around them, especially when those things are at odds with their own beliefs. Because I think that, again, is what it is to be a human being.
AX: Have you seen any of the previous non-musical film versions of LES MISERABLES?
OYELOWO: No, I didn’t, and to be perfectly honest, one of the things that appealed to me so much about LES MIZ, when you think about this 1,500-page novel, to boil that down to two hours of a film, it just seems inconceivable to me, in a satisfying way. I think with a musical, by virtue of that form, you know that you’re kind of seeing something in more primary colors. It’s more of a riff on the story, as opposed to the meat, but that was the thing I felt reading these six episodes, is that, my goodness. It’s actually extraordinary, talking to Andrew, because you’re still going, “I still don’t know how you did it. I’m talking to you right now, and I don’t know how you took this tome and distilled it down to these six episodes.” That to me is the satisfying thing, that it’s more than just what a film can afford you as well.
AX: Had you worked on an Andrew Davies script before?
OYELOWO: No. It’s the first time I’ve seen a lot of him, obviously.
AX: You have a production company, and you are an executive producer on LES MISERABLES, but your production company is not involved …
OYELOWO: I have a production company, Yoruba Saxon, but I’m on this as a freelance EP. One of the main things I did was bring [LES MISERABLES] to PBS, was to make that happen, because I was very keen to make sure that the North American roll-out was robust, and was going to be one whereby people who may not otherwise see this story will get to see it.
AX: Did you have a preexisting business association with MASTERPIECE executive producer Rebecca Eaton?
OYELOWO: Yes. Because we’d worked on SMALL ISLAND together, and we’d become friends doing that. And the truth of the matter is, [the producers of LES MISERABLES] considered a lot of companies, and we wanted to make sure we went with the company who was going to have it be one of their flagship shows, a place where they were going to get the word out. There are so many channels now, there are so many outlets doing great work, and to peak your head above the crowd is something that requires passion, belief, money, and intention, and this was the place that felt like our show was going to get the best treatment.
AX: What else are you working on right now?
OYELOWO: I’m about to direct a film called THE WATER MAN. We start that in May. That’s a story about a young boy who’s looking for this mythic figure who he believes can save his mother from cancer. That’s going to be my directorial debut, so I’m very excited about that. That’s [being produced by] Yoruba Saxon.
AX: And what would you most like people to know about LES MISERABLES?
OYELOWO: Well, that the story they already know, but maybe don’t have the full context of, I believe we bring that context, and the musical that people love, they are going to see more depth than maybe they knew was there. And for those who know nothing about LES MIZ, it’s a timeless story that really looks at one man’s journey towards redemption and hope through real adversity, and I think that’s a pretty universal story. [And another] man’s descent from what he deems to be the moral compass into a reflection of himself as actually being amoral in relation to this very moral man.
This interview was conducted during PBS’s portion of the Winter 2019 Television Critics Association (TCA) press tour.
https://www.assignmentx.com/2019/masterpiece-les-miserables-actor-and-executive-producer-david-oyelowo-on-the-new-pbs-series-exclusive-interview/
2 notes · View notes
princesssarisa · 6 years
Text
Weird things people say about “Wicked”
Tumblr media
I’ve never been a huge fan of the musical Wicked, although I respect its quality and sometimes enjoy listening to its music. I’ve only seen it once onstage, and believe it or not, I found it too bleak and depressing for my taste. After all, under its sparkly diva-vehicle facade, it has just as much biting socio-political criticism as Les Misérables and twice as much cynicism, and both Elphaba and Glinda’s journeys are ultimately tragic ones, even if the ending is hopeful. I don’t care for “friends who become enemies” stories either, even if they do reconcile in the end. Still, I think I remember the show’s plot and characters reasonably well… and I think I can tell when people’s comments about it are slightly off. Or extremely off. Even though I’ve only dabbled lightly in the show’s fandom, I’ve still repeatedly heard or read comments from fans that either rely on false equivalence or seem to miss the whole point of the story. Here are my thoughts on the iffiest things I’ve heard people say about this musical.
Note: Thanks to @anghraine for the term “false equivalence.” I had never quite known what to call what I was hearing, until I read her post about Star Wars prequel fans who say “You just don’t want Anakin to have flaws!” to fans who object to his mass murder of the Tusken Raiders. This sort of thing happens in a lot of fandoms, it seems.
1. “It’s just a piece of fluff.”
This was the first response I got when I first mentioned that the show depressed me. “Don’t take it so seriously. It’s just a cute, clever perspective flip of The Wizard of Oz.”
Now I think most people will disagree with that. Just because it takes place in Oz and has a fairly light, cartoony surface doesn’t mean it can’t contain real, pointed socio-political commentary about corrupt leaders, racism, bigotry, rebellion vs. conformity, and the way public opinion creates our “heroes” and “villains.” It most certainly can and does. Its commentary is even more brutally relevant now in Trump’s America than it was in Bush’s when the show debuted.
In a similar vein is “Stop focusing on the politics. It’s all about Elphaba and Glinda’s friendship/love story.”  But that’s like looking at The King and I and saying “It’s not about East/West relations or feminism. It’s just Anna and the King’s love story.” That’s total nonsense; their whole relationship is inextricable from the bigger themes. I do think most fans realize this, but now and then you find fans who don’t.
2. “Both sides have good and bad traits, nobody’s perfect.”
This one is about Elphaba vs. the Wizard and about the show’s whole overreaching message.
“Neither Elphaba nor the Wizard is either a villain or a hero,” I’ve heard people say. “They’re both morally gray. That’s the whole point. There are two sides to every story.” If I’m remembering right, even parts of the show itself promote that view more than its actual plot supports: e.g. in the song “Wonderful” (although the Wizard is being generous to himself there). But while it’s true that they’re both morally gray, I can’t buy the implication that neither is any better or worse than the other. That’s massive false equivalence.
True, the Wizard has some sympathetic traits, but his rule over Oz is still a totalitarian regime that manipulates the masses and brutally oppresses innocent minorities. Elphaba’s rebellion against him is absolutely heroic and her vilification by the people of Oz is absolutely unfair. True, she eventually decides to be “wicked” and does the truly bad things we know from The Wizard of Oz, but only in the midst of a mental breakdown when she’s lost hope for her mission and apparently lost everything and everyone she ever loved. That still doesn’t make her as bad as the Wizard or Madame Morrible, nor does the Wizard’s better side come close to matching hers.
Some people seem to honestly think that in the Wicked universe, the original Wizard of Oz portrait of the Wizard as a harmless lovable rogue, Oz as an idyllic fantasy land and Elphaba as a monster is still basically true and valid, just “not the whole story.” I don’t understand how they can think that way. It disturbs me slightly that they can see the Wizard and co.’s persecution of the Animals and just shrug it off with “There are two sides to every story,” or worse, “Nobody’s perfect.” Would they say that about comparable real world leaders, from George W. Bush, to Donald Trump, to… others whose names don’t even need to be mentioned? I hope not!
3. “Glinda is a loyal friend.”
Now maybe I’m misremembering, or maybe my definition of “loyalty” demands too much. But doesn’t a huge part of Glinda’s character arc rest on her failure to be fully loyal to Elphaba and on the lessons she learns when her disloyalty leads to disaster? Is it loyal of her to serve and uphold the oppressive regime that Elphaba sacrifices everything to fight against? Is she loyal when she turns against Elphaba because of the love triangle with Fiyero, however temporarily? Yes, she’s sympathetic, but as is often the case with popular characters (no pun intended), some fans seem to love her so much that they forget about all her flaws and growth. Even though said flaws and growth are central to her role.
4. “All loved ones fight sometimes.”
Continuing on the above theme of idealizing Elphaba and Glinda’s relationship. When I’ve mentioned that I personally don’t ship Gelphie because of the catfight scene, I’ve gotten this response: “Haven’t you ever gotten mad at someone you love? That’s part of every relationship!” But this just reeks of false equivalence.
Yes, of course I’ve gotten mad at loved ones. But I’ve never tried to get them captured by their worst enemies, let alone taken advantage of their relative’s death to do so, or gotten into full-blown catfights with them. No matter how beautifully Elphaba and Glinda reconcile in the end or how beautifully they change each other’s lives, how can anyone view that genuinely vicious fight, or the genuine betrayals that lead to it, as just a typical spat between friends or lovers? You can like their relationship arc yet still admit that their conflict goes beyond a healthy level. Especially the physical violence. The double standard astounds me when people despise any man who slaps a woman, yet see nothing wrong with two women slapping and lunging to attack each other.
This reminds me of Padme responding to Anakin’s mass murder confession in Attack of the Clones with “To be angry is to be human.” Not nearly as bad as that example, of course, but all too similar.
5. “Glinda was right.”
“It’s not aptitude, it’s the way you’re viewed.”
I’ve seen this a few times on TVTropes, both on the show’s own YMMV page (under “Family-Unfriendly Aesop”) and elsewhere. To sum it up concisely in my own words: “Glinda is right that popularity matters more than actual good qualities. She’s right to choose outward conformity over blatant rebellion; to achieve anything in politics, you need to please the crowd. Elphaba’s rebellion fails miserably, while Glinda is the one who changes Oz by joining the Wizard, endearing herself to the masses and gaining power, then reshaping the system from the inside out. Glinda might seem shallow, but she’s ultimately wiser than Elphaba.”
Now of course this whole statement is partly true, maybe even mostly true. I agree that “Public opinion matters more than real merit or truth” is indeed a main message of the show: cynical and sad, but true. But since when does the show support that fact and not criticize it? Doesn’t the story stand up for underdogs and rebels like Elphaba? Doesn’t it encourage us to question popular narrative of “heroes” and “villains” and to resist oppressors? Hasn’t Winnie Holzman said in at least one interview (I know she has - I’ve heard it) that the show’s main theme is Elphaba and Glinda “standing up to power”? And while it’s true that Glinda uses her status and popularity to succeed where Elphaba failed, would she ever have been inspired to do so without Elphaba’s overt rebellion in the first place?
To come away from this musical with an anti-rebellion, pro-conformity mindset seems to be completely missing the point. I wonder how many people with that mindset are the same ones who see Les Mis and think Victor Hugo’s message was “Revolutions always fail and society will never change”?
Maybe if I saw the show again, I would see aspects I’ve forgotten and agree more with these statements. But I doubt it. I haven’t heard any of these remarks too often, but the people who do make them seem to have seen a different version of the show than I did.
13 notes · View notes
drakorn · 6 years
Text
My Current Top 10 Musicals
So, I thought I’d just make a little list of the musicals that I personally consider to be my absolute favourite ones at this point in time. This list will obviously change again when I find a musical that I like more than one on this list. Anyway, here’s my list, if anyone’s interested XD (Btw, I’m only talking stage musicals here, so if you see any musical that was also a movie, I am talking about the stage version).
But first...some honourable mentions that I still adore but didn’t make it into my Top 10: The Phantom of the Opera, Anastasia, Ludwig II, Mozart!, The Lion King and Jesus Christ Superstar.
PS: All of this is opinion-based. Of course, you will disagree with me at some point, that is just natural. And it’s great that everyone has different tastes!
10 - The Lord of the Rings: A LOT of people have not heard about this musical, but it actually exists. It’s nothing fan-made or anything, it’s an actual official musical adaptation of The Lord of the Rings, not the Peter Jackson movies but the actual Tolkien epic. It ran in Canada and the UK and was even supposed to make its way to Germany. Of course, it has changes in it because adapting the entire story into a three-hour stage musical is an impossible task. It’s also the only musical I know of that consists of three acts rather than two. There is actually a cast recording available with the main songs in it. Like, honestly, I personally just love this musical. For instance, take a listen to Galadriel’s big solo:
youtube
I know, I’m most likely in the minority here, but for me personally, The Lord of the Rings is one of the best musicals out there and it’s an absolute shame that it’s not performed more often.
9 - Wicked: I am an absolute fan of seeing the story from the antagonist’s point of view and understand all of their motives. Wicked is one of the best examples out there as it takes the classic tale The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and gives it a darker and more serious spin, mainly because the Wicked Witch of the West is now the protagonist. I know, this musical is loved by everyone and makes it into pretty much everyone’s top list, but...honestly, it really deserves it. The songs are amazing and the story is very touching, especially the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda. I love villain origin stories, and to this day, the part where Elphaba decides to embrace her role as the antagonist of the story still sends shivers down my spine. No Good Deed still counts as one of my favourite villain songs. I have seen this musical twice and would gladly go again whenever I get the chance to do so!
8 - Rudolf - Affaire Mayerling: Ok, so this is a little bit of a controversial situation for me. I LOVE historical musicals. I just love them. However, this musical is REALLY not what you would call historically accurate. However, to me, it doesn’t really matter. When I look at it from a musical theatre point of view, it’s actually really entertaining! I have never seen this musical live, only watched the DVD and listened to the cast recordings but I would LOVE to see it live once. The songs are so good! While the story is not the best, the music is phenomenal in my opinion. And it also has one of the most catchy villain songs to be ever put on stage: Die Fäden in der Hand. Yes, this musical has MANY flaws, I don’t deny that. The cheesy and historically non-existent romance between Rudolf and Mary is not really the best thing to watch (seriously, why didn’t they include Mizzi Caspar instead of Mary, that would have made MUCH more sense for the love aspect). But it also has a lot going for it, like the actual songs. It is still one of my favourite musicals.
7 - Dracula: Many people consider Frank Wildhorn’s best piece to be Jekyll and Hyde. I personally think that Dracula is that best piece. Sure, it had a very wonky start and the majority of the good and memorable songs came along when the musical came to Austria, but it’s also the Austrian version that I got to hear and see first (not live unfortunately but hooray to cast recordings). It’s an adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula...but more the Francis Ford Coppola film rather than the actual book. The romance aspect between Dracula and Mina is not the strongest part of the piece by far, however, when the story isn’t about the romance, the music is actually really fantastic! Oh, and it also has my favourite ever confrontation song: Zu Ende. I REALLY want to see this musical live. Why does it never come to Austria again? It had a fantastic run in Graz! And why can’t there be one German-speaking version of this musical that actually sticks to the gothic aesthetic? Oh well, a man can dream.
6 - Artus - Excalibur: Frank Wildhorn seems to be getting on this list very often, eh? Oh well, what can I say? I just love a lot of his source material. Artus - Excalibur is by no means an accurate representation of the Arthurian legend. However, what it does good is: it gives the tale its own spin. It doesn’t even try to be a step-by-step recreation, it’s completely its own thing. And I liked it. A lot actually. I saw it two times, one time in St. Gallen and one time in Staatz. Both times I absolutely loved it. It has great music and a solid story. However, the songs are by far the best part of it. It also has one of my favourite ensemble pieces: Morgen triffst du den Tod. This is one of those musicals I could watch over and over again without getting bored at all. Whenever it gets put on again, I will try to be there!
5 - Les Misérables: Ok, of course this was going to be on here. Les Mis is just the definition of an epic and emotional megamusical that is guaranteed to touch everyone’s heart at some point. Now, the fun thing is, the first time I saw Les Mis was in the cinema...when the movie came out in 2012. I know, shame on me, but I actually really liked the movie. When I was in London, I went to see the stage musical and I was blown away! It was so amazing and powerful! Javert is my personal favourite character. But I also saw Tam Mutu as Javert in London and this guy is just having a total blast in this role. Needless to say that Stars is probably my favourite song in the musical. Also, this musical is very relevant, even in today’s world, just like Victor Hugo said himself. The melodies are great, the story is great and the characters are great. What’s not to love?
4 - Rebecca: Not everyone’s favourite musical but definitely one of mine. I think, one of the reasons why I love it so much is the whole mystery and thriller aspect it has going for it. It truly captured the spirit of Daphne du Maurier’s novel and brought it on stage. The set design is beautiful, the music is great, you can’t go wrong with Sylvester Levay, and Michael Kunze once again delivered with a great script. Plus, the title song has got to be one of the most menacing songs in german-speaking musical theatre, especially when sung by the right actress. It’s a musical I would really like to see live...and one that I would wish, the VBW would finally bring back! Come on, what’s stopping you guys? Tecklenburg had a fantastic run last summer!
3 - The Hunchback of Notre Dame: I love it when Disney decides to just go dark for once. The movie is seen as Disney’s darkest animated movie. Well, it’s nice to see that the stage musical is also the darkest stage musical Disney has put on. While the movie still had a lot of the classic Disney tropes going for it, the musical gets rid of those and adds tragedy on par with Les Mis, meaning, keeping the actual book ending in the show. Also, a surprisingly large amount of Brecht and Greek Chorus was added to the show and it works really well! However, the Disney songs stay and it works as a great combination! Making Frollo the Archdeacon again adds so much more weight to the Hellfire song, and overall all the characters are extremely well-rounded. I have listened to the cast recordings and would really like to see this show live once!
2 - Elisabeth: As I said before, I absolutely love historical musicals. And Elisabeth is my favourite of those. It isn’t exactly told as a history piece but more of a dark retelling in a Danse Macabre style. Seeing the story being told from Elisabeth’s murderer’s point of view was a very clever idea. It also gave us the characters of Death and Elisabeth, some of the best musical theatre characters ever in my opinion. Every single character in this show has great opportunities to shine. The music is phenomenal and this piece single-handedly catapulted Austria and the VBW into the top charts of musical theatre producers. Also...it REALLY makes you want to be a history student! Honestly, it did that with me! As soon as I watched Elisabeth, I wanted to find out everything about the Habsburgs XD Also, this is probably the musical I have seen the most out of any. I believe to have seen it at least 15 times when it was last running in Vienna...and the fun thing is, I didn’t even like it that much when I saw it the first time! That WOW factor hit me later when I was listening to the cast recording...it happens.
1 - Tanz der Vampire: Was that really a surprise for people who follow my blog? Tanz der Vampire is my favourite musical of all time and will always retain this position. It is the piece that got me not only into musical theatre but in theatre in general. It got me into wanting to study Drama and Creative Writing, it sparked a lot of my current interests and influenced a lot of my life decisions. Tanz der Vampire has everything going for it: a great story, fantastic music, very good moral lessons, beautiful and lush sets and probably one of the best characters to ever grace the musical theatre stage: Graf von Krolock, undoubtedly the arch-nemesis of Erik Destler in the race for the rank of best cape-swishing gothic lover. It also has a very untraditional story, breaking clichés and tropes left and right, just as Roman Polanski intended. It has the perfect mixture of being dark and serious but also utterly hilarious. And it has probably one of the longest and most powerful solos of any musical in my opinion: Die unstillbare Gier. I want to see the musical more than I already have, which is 11. It’s just THAT good. For me personally, there is no better musical than Tanz der Vampire.
Ok, I know, a lot of people will disagree with me now, but as I said: this entire list is opinion-based. I would really be interested to know your Top 10 musicals :D 
11 notes · View notes
Text
Last Les Mis thoughts (at least for this reread)
I think it’s often overlooked that Marius rejects JVJ after he finds out he’s an ex-convict until he finds out that JVJ saved him (and made his money honestly) that though he himself killed people on the barricade, he calls JVJ a murderer for killing Javert. That being an ex-convict is so horrifying that he must push away his father in law. 
it’s unfortunate that this is overlooked because.....this is the whole point of the book. JVJ is killed bc he’s an ex-convict, that being an ex-convict is a spot on his life he can try to erase but truly he can’t. He can’t even when the people most important to him know about it and decide they don’t care. 
Another thing is I’ve been seeing a lot of Les Mis around more often, mostly the musical, and it’s all in relation to the US and what’s happening. I think this is bad practice bc yknow maybe use the music of black people to back your videos about protesting the way black people in this country are treated. Use the stories of felons in the US to talk about the way the prison system in the US is fucked.
But it’s more than that. 
Victor Hugo wrote every character of his book (okay most of them) as victims. All of the main characters are victims of French Society. JVJ is the focal point obviously, but everyone else is a victim as well. Clearly Fantine and Epinine are victims, and so too are Les Amis. I will never forget the post from 2014 Les Mis tumblr that talked about how Javert “not a villain he’s a victim” which is true that’s how he’s written.  But I think the guys of Patron Minette and then of course the Thenardiers. 
Javert is a sticky subject particularly when you’re thinking about what is going on in the US and my bit about that is just 19th century France is not 21st century America. 
But it’s the lack of sympathy for the Thenardiers and Patron Minette in the musical but also just in general is a problem for me. And do not mistake me, no sympathy for slave traders. and at that point you’re not supposed to have any sympathy for Thenardier, when Enjolras kills Claquesous you’re not supposed to have much sympathy for him.  It’s the fact that those endings could have been avoided. The tragic endings of ALL the characters could have been avoided. 
Victor Hugo argues education and love will fix everything. His whole intro to Patron Minette is about how there’s a lack of education. He constantly brings up Thenardier’s lack of education. And stresses that fixing that, that making education free and accessible would fix most of these problems. Would help get people out of poverty. I agree that’s a great place to start. I don’t think it’s the end I think you have to make sure everyone has a home, that everyone has a job, that jobs aren’t soul sucking. But I digress, true education for everyone is a good place to start.
[just a note, he does have Combeferre give a speech which includes a bit about how great it is women aren’t educated. which is less than ideal.] 
The musical however glosses over this bit of the story. Of course the musical can not include the whole of the book. Other notable bits are left out (Thenardier saving Marius’s dad, is some versions that Gavroche is Ep’s sister, or that Ep and Cosette grew up together) and don’t get me wrong, as much as I rail against the 2012 movie I do love the musical. However the way I see the musical being used at this moment, when this particular bit is left out makes it feel sour. 
The musical exhales the ex-convict turned upright citizen, and the woman forced into prostitution. But then uses Thenardier as a punch line. I get why they did it, however when you’re talking about the US and using this as your rally, you are not doing any service to the people who like Thenardier, deserve our sympathy and help despite society turning it’s back on them. 
anyways I have a lot of thoughts and feelings about the general treatment of the Thenardiers by Hugo (specifically the way Madame Thenardier is kinda just discarded) by the musical, and by the fandom. And with the rise of popularity of “Do You Hear The People Sing?” it’s all kinda come out. 
0 notes
Text
Sub Episode 6 Page S-1
Tumblr media
SONICHU: A safari, pop? You’re examining the jerkops, not an elephant!
Title: Sub-Episode 6
Subtitle: Christian Chandler’s Backyard Safari
CHRIS: Hello and welcome to another episode of my backyard safaris. I am your host, Christian Chandler. On today’s show, we will take a close up look at the carniverous jerkops. They may look like your everyday males of justice, but take my word folks, the jerkops are evil and mean.
CHRIS: Let’s look at one on this illustration. Now here, we see its head is a basic human shape, but it only thinks evil and naughty thoughts. Note, its eyes are frowning: the stay that way 24/7. With this face, they rarely attract any women. This “badge” is a phony, it’s really a cracker covered in glitter-glue. It wards away all who approach it with its out-of-date breadstick. They wear basic black pants to cover their agil, yet ugly legs; viens, hair, and sores, oh my! Some wear a black gove to cover the spot where one finger fell of as it grew up. They wear brown shoes, because they are ashamed of their sausage feet. When attacked by one, you can take it down easily, by kicking it here, in the sour-dough area.
This was the final page of the comic that was analyzed by Annotated Sonichu Mark 2, Annotated Sonichu Continued. This second Tumblr blog ran approximately between the fall of 2015 and the summer of 2016, I believe, and the site went down sometime before the fall of 2017. The final Wayback Machine for it is the July 2017 but I do know it was down before I discovered and decided to finish the Annotated Sonichu project in November of 2017.
This sub-episode is a departure from the established formula of Chris doing battle with authority figures that inconvenience him, instead examining the Jerkop “species” in the style of a documentary. Obviously, the premise of Backyard Safaris (apparently a television show in CWCVille) is already tenuous enough that Sonichu himself cameos to question it - what exactly is Chris examining? He may be looking at the Jerkops on this episode, but what about the rest? Does he examine animals like an actual documentary, or does he peep on other humans (in a gratuitous violation of US privacy laws)? From the looks of it, it appears to be more of a propaganda piece, attempting to dehumanize his enemy and force the viewers to agree with him. 
Chris’s anatomy illustration shows further evidence for dehumanization - note he describes their heads as “like a basic human shape”, implying that they are in fact inhuman. Also worth noting is that their badges and batons are actually crackers and expired breadsticks (explaining the Jerkhief’s infamously baffling line “My wooden badge was delicious!” to an extent. Why he would refer to a fake badge made from a cracker as “wooden” is anyone’s guess). This raises a whole host of questions, mostly about their dubious practicality - why would anyone believe a glitter-coated cracker to be a police badge? For that matter, how old are these breadsticks that they’ve turned completely black?
Chris then goes on to declare that the best way to defeat a Jerkop is kicking it in the groin (or “sour-dough area”, continuing the inexplicable bread motif).
~~~~~~~~~~
Before we go any further, I want to explain my treatise on the concept of “Sub-Episodes”, with the first of something I expect to become a fixture on this blog, in keeping with my predecessor’s tendencies to accidentally compare Chris to far superior comic artists – comparing Chris to actual authors! Now, in Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables, the second of the novel’s five sections begins with a lengthy, 50+ page dramatic retelling of the battle of Waterloo. The rest of the novel is set decades later and most of the leads of the novel weren’t even born yet. No characters from the novel appear in the sequence at all until the end, when a minor character and the father of one of the leads appear briefly to move the story forward and connect the retelling of the battle to the main plot. Nevertheless the Waterloo section is widely praised as a beautiful and well written piece of literature on its own merits; it’s a beloved part of literature, it’s just not a beloved part of Les Mis.
That’s a lot like what the sub-episodes were, at least the earlier ones before Chris really took over as lead. It would be a whole story with no Sonichu, no Rosechu, none of the Chaotic Combo, none of the regular villains like Giovanni or Naitsirhc. It has nothing to do with any of the other recurring plot threads like Team Rocket or Black Sonichu or Sonichu and Rosechu’s relationship. But they’re every troll’s favorite part of the early episodes, and they give us stuff like the “my love quest is finally over!” spread, the straw of fail, and as we’ll see in this episode, the fat finger.
Chris doesn’t, but pretty everyone else reading this I’ve seen starts with Sonichu’s bubble first so that’s what I’m going with.
It also seems rather jarring at this point for Chris to refer to himself solely as Christian Chandler - It just feels incomplete without his middle name, honestly.
This entire section is patterned after a nature documentary, like Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, where a documentarian would view animals in the wild from afar and describe the animals anatomy, behavior, and reproductive patterns; here Chris does this for the jerkops. I am genuinely disappointed Chris didn’t call it Mutual of CWCville’s Wild Mayorship.
Apparently the jerkops are carnivorous, meaning they consume exclusively meat, but we are never shown them having any aversion to vegetables.
I think when Chris says an “out-of-date” breadstick, I think he means expired, moldy and rotten. How one could use a rotting breadstick as a nightstick without it crumbling immediately I don’t know.
Good Godbear, that second paragraph. I’ve never had this many red squiggles on a page.
You know what the sour-dough area is.
5 notes · View notes