'The Vow' - Of Memories Once Lost (A Claire Osborne Movie Review)

*This review was done by Claire Osborne (my beautiful fiance). Enjoy.

The Vow (2012)

Of Memories Once Lost

Reviewed: 14 March 2012

Claire Osborne

What would you do if you forgot a chunk of your past, a month or a year? Do you take this as an opportunity to have a fresh start, a clean slate, to start over? Do you continue like nothing was lost? Or do you try anything and everything to get those memories back? What if that part of you never comes back?

These are the thoughts I was left with upon leaving the cinema having just watched Michael Sucsy’s The Vow (2012). The story goes a little something like this: Following a horrific car accident Paige (Rachel McAdams) loses the memories of the past five years, including the memories of her marriage. Her husband Leo (Channing Tatum) tries to help her reclaim those memories and maintain their relationship. Of course, the road to recovery is difficult and wrought with many challenges, Paige’s family history for one, yet Leo is determined to help his wife through the better or worse parts of their circumstance.

A Memory Lost

This is not an uncommon occurrence, however. Today couples face the difficulties of maintaining a relationship, or what they once had, especially in the case of those suffering dementia. This was my thought anyway. According to Alzheimer’s Australia, there are over 321,600 Australians living with dementia and an estimated 1.2 million Australians who are caring for someone with dementia. Having a sister who has worked in aged-care I’ve heard a great number of stories about the disillusionment and confusion brought on by the decaying of the mind. How can, say a husband, sit by and watch his wife potter away in the kitchen, only to have her one moment later turn and scream because she doesn’t know who he is? Imagine if they’d been together for fifty years or more, and she didn’t even recognise him! Leo was lucky in a way that they’d only lost the five years.

But even then, having lost something like five years or fifty years worth of memories, it’s still something lost. And memory is a lofty thing as it is.

What would you do if you had lost a memory? Would you try and recreate it? Recreating the atmosphere, sound, touch and look of something to try and trigger an awakening? Would you try to relive the memory all over again? Knowing that although the memory wouldn’t be precisely the same, but still a simulacrum of a memory? Or would you create new memories?

Piecing the memories together…

Paige has to try and rediscover herself and who she is, having forgotten a major turning point in her life, and important changes she had previously gone through. Almost to relive them again, but this time knowing that it’s happened already! Confusing or what?!

It also made me think then, how do others cope? Through the surrounding characters, not just Leo, but Paige’s parents, friends and ex-fiancé the different responses and approaches to coping with memory loss becomes apparent. Leo tries to recreate the past, hoping to spark a flare in Paige’s mind and have her recover her memories of them. With no other family Leo is reluctant to lose his wife. He remains positive and optimistic that his wife’s memory will return, and they will go back to how things were. 

“Her life with me is our natural routine."

Paige’s family try to ignore what has happened in the past, to reassert themselves into her life. Secrets are hidden, the past now literally forgotten; they lie about it and continue as if nothing had happened. Admittedly I found the script to be clunky and a little cheesy, however some parts were done excellently, for example when Paige confronts her mother after finding out about their lies. Jessica Lange plays Paige’s mother, Rita Thornton, as a woman seeking nothing but to have her daughter close regardless of past occurrences.

“I chose to stay with him for all the things he's done right; not the one thing he's done wrong. I chose to forgive him.”

Each person around Paige has some sort of input as to how Paige should remember them… Clean the slate and let’s start again.

Would that be a good thing? In some cases I suppose yes, but I guess that depends on whether or not you take past decisions, experiences and learning to bear on current and future situations? When Paige’s memories don’t seem to be coming back, Leo battles with the notion that things will not be the same as it once was.

“How do you look at the girl you love & tell yourself it’s time to walk away?” 

The Vow, a love story revolving around memory loss, much like The Notebook (2004), is based off the true events of Kim and Krickitt Carpenter. Channing Tatum plays Kim well as the husband still deeply in love with his wife, even though she sees him as a stranger after the accident.

The boyfriend may not enjoy this films predictable plot line, but the girlfriend most likely will. A film about “moments of impact”, The Vow is a well acted romance, one which will not fade from memory, or at least not from the DVD shelf for a while.

7.5/10

'Life of Pi' - Review

I knew putting Yann Martel's Life of Pi on the bookshelf after receiving it at my 21st would come back to bite me (pun intended). Once a book hits the shelf it mentally gets added to the "short list". Who am I kidding though, I had years to read it. ZOUNDS! (that's Shakespearean for, 'bugger'!) 

So what did I think? Well I think I've finally come to understand why they brought 3D to the big screen! I avoided 3D in the past because it added nothing but a few extra bucks to my ticket... and it's annoying wearing 3D glasses over my already thick rimmed glasses. "A gimmick!" That's what I would've called 3D before this - but Pi sunk that boat (yes, that pun was intended too). 

Was there anyone who thought a novel which predominantly takes place on a life raft between a scrawny Indian lad and a Bengal tiger just wouldn't work on the big screen? Perhaps you are someone who thought the adaption wouldn't possess the magic of the book? Or maybe the lofting unanswered questions would pass over the movie? Well after rushing home from the cinema and turning on my bedside lamp, which hums like an over-sized fly from a Tolkien novel, I frantically danced through the boat book. Yes, the book has a lot more depth (especially when it comes to the religious allegory and faith theme) but I thought Lee's adaption was equally as eloquent and heart-breakingly poetic! David Magee produced a script which stays true to the novel and allows for the cinematic brilliance. I do wonder why Mr. Kumar's polio morphed into Pi's already atheist father though... perhaps for emotional affect? Or perhaps to emphasize the Darwinian side of the film? As a Christian I resented the whole there's no reason behind faith idea but that's something the author actually addressed in the novel,

It was my first clue that atheists are my brothers and sisters of a different faith, and every word they speak speaks of faith. Like me, they go as far as the legs of reason will carry them - and then they leap.

It seems I've gotten so caught up in my viewing and reading experience that I've forgotten to give a plot summary. Alrighty, well our protagonist, Pi Patel (played by three different actors), is a young Indian boy when we are introduced to him but by the end he's something of an international everybody. Pi was lucky enough to live out all of our dreams and grow up in a zoo surrounded by 3D animals! Pi isn't your usual kid though, his great passion is God and religions. So after following his unorthodox upbringing (where he praises Vishnu for introducing him to Christ!) Pi's parents decide to move to Canada in search of a better life. So like Noah before them, the family board a giant vessel with their animals and set out on a never ending journey across the great expanse. And sure enough this is when tragedy strikes as the beast of a ship hits rocky waters and inexplicably sinks - leaving the sixteen year old Pi and a crew of misfit animals (if that's the story you choose to believe) as the only survivors. So ensues Pi's greatest adventure across the ocean with Richard Parker. 

Richard Parker?

To the victor goes the spoils... a life raft in the middle of nowhere...

Richard is the Bengal tiger that takes a liking to the life raft! So after a hyena slays a zebra and an orangutan, and Richard Parker devours the giggling hyena, we are left to witness the standoff between the two lone survivors - Richard Parker and Pi. Their relationship will have you hollering, laughing and before long crying.

How stupid did I look though when I exclaimed after the film, "How did they get a tiger to do all that?"

"Most of it was CGI," my fiance graciously whispered.

That tiger looked fair dinkum to me! 

Learning the truth behind Richard Parker's CGI existence only made me appreciate the acting more. Suraj Sharma had to act with nothing real around him!

Richard Parker was stunning and I have to admit that I also teared up when he "unceremoniously" left! And if my cat-loving fiancé ever buys a feline then you can guess what we'll be naming him.  There were times when I felt I was on the raft with them. My heart ached with them, my skin burnt with Pi's, and I got to the point where I wanted to call a 30 second timeout and retreat to another cinema! I was also battling sea sickness from my not-so-comfy-seat in the second row. From the second row I felt like I was one of the fish in the ocean staring up at the boat. It's all too much of a rush to really pull apart specific scenes - although I do think after surrendering to the temptation of reading the book that the dialogue of Pi is simply "exquisite". 

Sharma was brilliant on that raft and it was shocking to find out that he was only 17 when filming started. He humbly spoke of his acting experience in an interview, "I did one or two plays at school. ... Once I played a tree, so I never thought I would be a good actor." Well that must give me hope as in my year 8 English class we acted out Romeo and Juliet and I played the humble rock Romeo stood behind while calling up to Juliet!

The illuminating sea life had me ooohing!

Is there anyone else out there that feels fatally wounded when animals die? Yes, even CGI animals. There's something about me feeling they are innocent and in need of saving that causes this reaction. Or maybe I need to see a goat get torn to shreds by a Bengal tiger too. If Richard Parker had died I probably would've gone Othello on the theatre full of people. Speaking of which, something I really liked was how interactive the film was. Not just the 3D experience but how everyone felt the need to "Oooh" and "Ahhh", gasp and shriek! And for once I didn't mind - in fact I probably led the charge. Yes, it was something you just couldn't be a passive viewer of.

The ending was not what I expected. To tell you the truth I don't think you have to agree with all the religiosity and God centred purpose of Pi to enjoy the ride. The movie smartly followed the book in keeping it in the first person told by an older Pi who had clearly survived the ordeal. This did not detract from the movie because we find out in due time that the real question behind the story is that of the truth, meaning and purpose of Pi's story.  As a man considerably wiser than me wrote in an email, 

Is the tiger really a tiger? Does the fact that he has a ridiculously human name mean anything? One creature after another consuming each other until only one ( or 2 ) are left. Many sea faring legends contain hints of cannibalism . WE are swept along by the master story teller as he does what, describe vividly the most remarkable of sea  survival? Or cover the tracks of a dark episode in human nature? Did any of it really happen? Or is it really a story about a story teller? - Yeah, I know right? He's my Yoda.

Hats off to Ang Lee. This is one to remember, and judging from the enthusiastic international reception, Life of Pi will go down in movie folklore - along with Pi's journey - true or not.

Before I rate the movie can I just ask - did anyone notice the emotion Irrfan Khan was able to show in his eyes? I thought he was memorable as the adult Pi.

9/10

Top Movies of 2012 - LifeOfTheCam Awards!

Top 5 Movies

5. The Dark Knight Rises

4. Beasts of the Southern Wild

3. The Hobbit

2. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

1. The Master

*6th man of the year: Lawless

- If The Proposition didn't solidify the talent behind the Aussie tandem of John Hillcoat (director) and Nick Cave (screenwriter) then Lawless surely did the trick. The duo took the Aussie-outback outlaw folklore (tongue twister alert!) behind The Proposition and transformed it into prohibition America. The two movies are brother films of sort - both take gratuitous violence to the next level, both are gritty masculine films, and they both are littered with eccentric characters and dialogue. So the lingering question is, what will they do next?

*Just missed the cut: Sherlock Holmes: A Games of Shadows, Les Miserables

- While I had been anticipating the Sherlock sequel, I was not anticipating (or wanting to see) Les Miserables. They are both slick (although you'd have to give the Slickest of the Slick Ricks award to Sherlock) yet accomplished in their own right. They also do a credible job of slotting the narrative into a historical context (something which movies like X-Men First Class do a very poor job at) and using the history of the time to really enhance the characters. 

*The one(s) I missed out on seeing due to my impoverished university existence: Moonrise Kingdom, Killing Them Softly, Argo, Lincoln

- You'd think Moonrise Kingdom and Killing Them Softly would make wide/popular release in Australia... nup! 

I'm anticipating all these flicks for different reasons: Moonrise has a director I've never been able to understand but am intrigued by, Killing Them Softly is an Andrew Dominik film (he made Jesse James which happens to be in my all-time top 10), Argo's story is too good to be true (and yet it's based on a true story), and I want to see how Lincoln depicts the man, political scene and history.

*Flop of the year: Rock of Ages

- My fiancé took me to see this one and afterwards I said, "You are off movie choosing duties indefinitely." The love story of the dull and insanely stereotyped young couple kill it for me and I'm left wondering if they really couldn't have found better actors/singers. 

*DVD of the year: Moneyball 

- Football Manager diehards around the world, raise your heads... and glasses! Here's a toast to a sports film which takes the clichés of the dogged sports genre and produces something refreshing. 

Billy Beane: "Adapt or die!"

*The Emergent: Tom Hardy 

- Tinker, Batman, Lawless - it's been a busy year for Tom Hardy. In Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy he plays a character who breaks your heart and then hands it back to you in a doggy bag. In The Dark Knight Rises he explodes onto the screen as Bane, and if it wasn't for poor character development (and a horrible comic plot), he would've been just as good a villain as The Joker (*when the final twist is revealed he's relegated to 'glorified body guard' and then is blown to the side of the room like a swatter to a fly). In Lawless he plays another inaudible hulk but Forrest's intrigue and strength comes from his silence. 

This guy is real class - they'll be begging him to play Bond one day. Is that a good thing?

*Golden oldie: Gary Oldman 

- It's been a big year for my Golden Oldie - actually his 2012 resume reads much like Tom Hardy's. Gone are the days when Oldman played the Russian dude trying to kill the president, now he's the spy trying to take care of the Russians! My how things have changed. Yes, It's his role as Smiley which gets the nod from me. If The Master hadn't hit screens in 2012 then Tinker Tailor would be number one and Oldman would be my Best Actor. It takes Oldman 18 minutes to get a line in Tinker Tailor and he's the protagonist! His ability to transform his appearance, walk, swagger, personality and demeanour into the solemn, and in many ways tragic, British spy is remarkable. Tell me your heart doesn't break when he finds out about his faithless wife. John Le Carre, the original author of Tinker Tailor, describes Smiley as "one of London's meek who do not inherit the Earth," and yet it is this 'meekness' which captures our attention and leads us through the Circus. I love that scene where Smiley visits Connie and the Cold War is really put into perspective, 

Connie Sachs: It was a good time back then.
George Smiley: It was a war, Connie.
Connie Sachs: A war we could be proud of.

*Original Screenplay of the year: The Master

- Don't be fooled into thinking that this is just a movie about Scientology. I walked away reflecting more on the relationship between Freddie and Dodd than Scientology. Paul Thomas Anderson is a genius writer and filmmaker who makes movies which middle America will always want to ban. Let's put it this way, if Anderson was around and making films during the McCarthy witch-hunt era then he'd probably be in jail... or exiled. 

If you want a no holds barred experience of human depravity, delusion and mind twisting then check this one out. Phoenix and Hoffman are unforgettable and Amy Adams is downright haunting. It could be considered unorthodox but it's right up my alley. This one got 10/10 from me - that's unchartered territory. 

* Adapted Screenplay of the year: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

- I must confess, I have never read John Le Carre's novel nor watched the BBC miniseries. What?! I was only born in 1988 and the miniseries started in 1979 and the book was published in 1974. From what I've heard (and have read) it was not going to be easy to make a movie-length adaption seeing as the past adaptions have been so well received and the mini series ran for 350 minutes! So how was Tomas Alfredson going to do it? Well by assembling a cast full of Britain's best for starters. For me though it's in the dreariness of England, the script and the old fashioned men which makes this version stand out. The literal dreariness and darkness which looms over the film adds to the suspense and crankiness of Smiley and co. It's the Cold War - no one wants a Cold War, as Connie frankly stated. In many ways Smiley (and the entire movie) is the antithesis of James Bond - no wild shoot outs, no scantly dressed Bond girls, no gizmos which lead us to escapism, there isn't even an Aston Martin! This is more the depressing weather and shocking teeth side of England. I must warn you though, you might not get it first time through... Mum has seen it three times and is still battling. 

It's rather beautiful in a slightly treacherous way. 

Simley: It's about which master you've been serving, Toby.

P.S. This one is for you Smiley, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTIjLLCRD4g

*Director of the year: Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master

- Just go and watch The Master. 

Yes, that's all I have to say.

*Aussie of the year: John Hillcoat and Nick Cave (Lawless), Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe (Les Miserables)

- I've already spoken about Hillcoat and Cave so let me turn to the other Aussie tandem which lit up the screen this year. Russell Crowe has sung before - in fact he's been in a band for some time now (it just seems his acting career has overshadowed his musical endeavors ;). And this may shock you but Hugh Jackman is no rookie to the musical scene, *gasp! Mum and Dad went to see him perform in The Boy From Oz on Broadway nearly ten years ago - and they are still raving about it! As I said in my review of Les Miserables, I'm not a musical man, nor a musical fan... but I enjoyed this one. I knew nothing about the novel or the musical but I thought the relationship between Jackman's Valjean and Crowe's Javert was incredibly moving. Valjean's view of God compared to Javert's (which really comes out in their solos) struck me something silly as usually God is not allowed to be described in such a depth on the big screen. It poses an interesting question of how God is both full of grace and mercy and also just and law abiding. 

Both Jackman and Crowe compliment each other... even their distinctly different singing voices seem to bring the best out of each other. And for me the saddest part of the film was when Crowe threw himself down to his shattering death. I had tears in my eyes by the end and it certainly wasn't due to the little annoying cockney boy or the bottom up battle of the lower class versus the petty Bourgeoisie. The tears were due to the relationship between Jackman and Crowe.

*Best Supporting Actor: Philip Seymour Hoffman, The Master

- Haunting. He's absolutely haunting! I even found myself thinking on his wavelength at one point - and yet I know he's deluded... but then what is delusion? What is brainwashing? Aren't we all indoctrinated by something? Perhaps I agree with him then? ... And it begins!  

Hoffman's charisma and ability to be totally consumed by a sordid soul is riveting... and here I thought Al Pacino was the finest method actor. I was hooked from the first Q&A between Dodd (Hoffman) and Freddie (Phoenix). Lancaster Dodd is obviously inspired by Scientology founder L Ron Hubbard but that isn't why you should watch the film. By the end you'll be watching for the relationship between Freddie and Dodd rather than to learn about Scientology. But Hoffman... he does it again! I love everything he does! In The Master it's his ability to suddenly change his voice/demeanor and fly off the handle bars. At one point Dodd will be whispering and humming like a cat and then in a split second he'll be yelling, snarling and showing the beast within. How many actors can do that without audiences noticing their acting?

Lancaster Dodd: If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know, for you would be the first in the history of the world. 

*Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

- I was going to give this to Amy Adams for her role in The Master but I feel I need to give it to Anne Hathaway. I don't know how to write about Anne Hathaway in Les Miserables because it's taxing just thinking about her in the film. My heart broke once, twice, three times, and then a fourth with her scene at the end. I think something which swayed me to give her this was when I found out that Anne's mother had played Fantine in the musical. Taking this into consideration I began to see why she looked the way she did, how she was able to bring herself to the emotional state of Fantine, and why she was so memorable. I felt fatally wounded when she died but her role really encapsulated and brought to life the desperation of so many people in 19th century Europe. There's a reason why revolutions broke out across Europe in the 1800s and why socialist led changes had to be adopted by heads of states and monarchies across the continent.

*Best Actor: Joaquin Phoenix, The Master

- It had to take something extraordinary to stop Gary Oldman from getting this one... and it arrived in Phoenix's portrayal of Freddie Quill. Freddie is an enigma to me and I kept trying to "understand" him, but I think that was perhaps the wrong route to take. What a come back for Phoenix who really had me rolling my eyes and saying "forget about him!" in I'm Still Here. This was the role he was born to play, even though apparently they originally wanted Jeremy Renner to play Freddie (instead Renner went for The Avengers?!). Surely it was the role Phoenix was born to play because Freddie seems to do what he wants, when he wants, and also tries to do who he wants. That's Freddie Quill for you. Actually let me just show you the image which really sets you up for what is to follow in The Master...

Yes, he made a sandcastle of a naked woman... and then had his way with it. It's jarring but it's also the perfect way to introduce this man. As all my screenwriting lecturers have said, 'If you can show it then show it.'

*Best Actress:  Quvenzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild

- It was a performance I will never forget. I don't know how a child has the ability to play the part of Hushpuppy but Wallis nailed it. She had me laughing, crying, biting my lip and praying that nothing devastating would happen to her. I know the Oscars brain trust likely won't give her a statue but I reckon she deserves it. The story is unorthodox and I call it the American Bayou version of Samson and Delilah. These are the stories which need to be told and so we should celebrate them when they are. Wallis may play a little girl but she is anything but your ordinary little girl. Her father is an off-centre drunk and a bitter man who takes his anger out on the swamp and those around him. Hushpuppy and her Dad can make you uncomfortable, even squirm in your seat but it's all part of the experience. In so many ways its unique and I have no idea how someone sits down and writes and directs it. Have a look of the trailer.

*Mouth watering movie of 2013: Anna Karenina/The Great Gatsby 

- Gatsby is my favourite novel and Anna Karenina is number two. Anna has been out for months but it still hasn't hit Australia (you're killing me people!). I believe it's to be released on Valentine's Day, which in turn makes me wonder if the companies/movie theatres know anything about the story! I believe Anna has been adapted to the screen over 20 times - so I'm wondering what this adaption will bring? I've heard good things about the movie so I'll be there to watch but what's interesting is that Jude Law plays Karenin even though I would've picked him to be on par with Vronsky. Keira Knightly isn't anything like the Anna I pictured when I read the novel but I'm sure she can nail Anna's temperament and emotions. 

As for Gatsby? Well I shudder because I don't like Baz Luhrmann's films much at all. For me he's all glitz and show... but there is rarely any depth. Flash and awe doesn't capture me, and I'd rather Tinker Tailor to Bond's high fashion and creative outfits... which is Luhrmann to a 'T'. Gatsby is my favourite novel because Fitzgerald nailed the modernist critique and outlook - can Luhrmann do that? Is Luhrmann capable of the depth which is in the novel? The fact that it has been postponed worries me but I guess in Leo and Carey we have (misguided) faith(?). I do hope Baz doesn't butcher it... or I'll be knocking on his door with a Wilson-like look on my face! 

The fact that the only headlines surrounding the film now is that Jay-Z is writing the score doesn't fill me with promise either...

Samuel tweeted a message to fans on Dec. 30, "Jay-Z and myself have been working tirelessly on the score for the upcoming #CLASSIC The Great Gatsby! It is too DOPE for words!"  

DOPE?! This is The Great Gatsby we are talking about, not a music video about money cash hoes. My prayer is that this will make people pick up the book, but I realise this prayer will likely fall on deaf ears.

'Les Miserables' - Movie Review

*This is likely to be my most disputed review to date. I don't know the first thing about musicals, and I know even less about Victor Hugo's novel. So with my ignorance intact I will instead take a different look at the movie. If it doesn't please you I'd apologise but the movie did speak of the grace, mercy and love of God, rather than just the incredulous, cold, disconnected, uncaring, law-keeper so often depicted. So let's begin...

How many times have you found yourself sitting around a table at 11:25p.m. on New Years Eve discussing the idea(l) of truth, how it can/ought to be measured and proven, and what altruism is?

Yeah - this was my first too. 

We discussed truth from a religious perspective since there was three Christians and one Muslim at the table. One of my mates spoke of his view that without the belief of a loving, personal God and a higher calling in Heaven, life (for him) would be a dark, despairing experience. I decided to play devil's advocate, put on my Richard Dawkins hat and reply, "But that is precisely what a bloke like Dawkins would argue. He would state that just because something feels nice doesn't mean it's true." Of course what comes next is the argument that even Dawkins has faith in something which he cannot totally prove. Yet I'm not here to argue against evolution, in fact I am not against the idea of micro evolution (and am still attempting to learn about macro evolution since my knowledge of science is fleeting at best). My point is that all of us have faith in something - a man such as Dawkins has faith in the idea that all truth can be found through the scientific method and that evolution will one day present itself to be the ultimate truth and disprove theism. (If you want to read a rebuttal from a world renown scientist and theist on Dawkins's point that  "religious faith not only lacks evidence; its independence from evidence is its joy, shouted from the rooftops," check out John Lennox's God's Undertaker - it got me thinking).

So in discussing truth last night we eventually came to ponder the idea that perhaps truth can be shown, or even proven, through personal experience and belief. This is where I tie in with Les Miserables as it is a film which depicts the journey of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), who comes to believe in the will and love of God. At first I wanted to compare the story to The Count of Monte Cristo, which was published only twenty years before Hugo's Les Miserables. There are similarities in that both feature a protagonist who rises from the ashes of despair in 19th century France, but where the two stories part is in that Jean Valjean is not seeking revenge but rather to live freely in light of the grace God has shown him through the Bishop.

Yet why did I allow that man
To touch my soul and teach me love?
He treated me like any other
He gave me his trust
He called me brother
My life he claims for God above
Can such things be?
For I had come to hate the world
This world that always hated me

This is where I ask you, can you just dismiss what this man now feels to be true? The kind acts of the Bishop (and church) has saved him from a life of slavery (*the backdrop of 19th century France is perfect because Europe at the time was experiencing uproar which would culminate in bottom up Revolutions which swept across the continent and led to social, working, legal and political changes) and not only that but the Bishop then gives him the help he needed. This then leads me to the point that this movie rather perfectly depicts the grace, mercy and love of God.

In the film we are presented with two different views of God: Javert's and Valjean's. 

Javert's view of God is expressed through the deep tones of Russell Crowe in Stars, 

There, out in the darkness
A fugitive running
Fallen from god
Fallen from grace
God be my witness
I never shall yield
Till we come face to face
Till we come face to face

He knows his way in the dark
Mine is the way of the Lord
And those who follow the path of the righteous
Shall have their reward
And if they fall
As Lucifer fell
The flame
The sword!

His view is that God is one of justice and law. He isn't wrong in thinking that God maintains and enacts justice, for otherwise He isn't in control and just. And yes, God also has law. Javert's view is that he is doing 'God's work' by catching criminals and keeping the law no matter what. It is not his job to show grace and mercy, it is his job to put men behind bars as he feels that will serve society best. In a way you can understand this but can we really marry this with what God is like? If you are following the Bible as the truth and revelation then the answer is "no". 

We all know that the Christian story is wrapped up in the message that Jesus came to die for the sinful (us) and extend the grace of God so that man would live with God by faith (not by perfectly following a list of rules). And likewise we are to love as God has, unconditionally and sacrificially.

5 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. ² This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. ³ In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, ⁴ for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. ⁵ Who is it that overcomes the world? Only the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God. - 1 John 5:1-5

From the apostle's words here we learn that to be born of God means to love God and hence fulfill his command (one of which we read here is to love selflessly). We choose to follow his commands because we love the law giver who gives us life. We love God and John says this will be seen in how we love our fellow man. This is why Jean Valjean doesn't need to take revenge on Javert when he has a chance. 

If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother. - 1 John 4:20-21

Valjean's God is starkly different to Javert's - did you notice that? For Valjean the characteristics of God which shine through are grace, mercy and love. He knows that God is just and Lord but he also knows that Christ is not filled with hatred but love. Thus Javert kills himself because when Valjean saves his life he has acted in love and Javert cannot go back and will not live this life. As Javert sings,

Who is this man?
What sort of devil is he
To have me caught in a trap
And choose to let me go free?
It was his hour at last
To put a seal on my fate
Wipe out the past
And wash me clean off the slate!
All it would take
Was a flick of his knife.
Vengeance was his
And he gave me back my life!

Damned if I'll live in the debt of a thief!
Damned if I'll yield at the end of the chase.
I am the Law and the Law is not mocked
I'll spit his pity right back in his face
There is nothing on earth that we share
It is either Valjean or Javert!

How can I now allow this man
To hold dominion over me?
This desperate man whom I have hunted
He gave me my life. He gave me freedom.
I should have perished by his hand
It was his right.
It was my right to die as well
Instead I live... but live in hell.

And my thoughts fly apart
Can this man be believed?
Shall his sins be forgiven?
Shall his crimes be reprieved?

And must I now begin to doubt,
Who never doubted all these years?
My heart is stone and still it trembles
The world I have known is lost in shadow.
Is he from heaven or from hell?
And does he know
That granting me my life today
This man has killed me even so?

I am reaching, but I fall
And the stars are black and cold
As I stare into the void
Of a world that cannot hold
I'll escape now from the world
From the world of Jean Valjean.
There is nowhere I can turn
There is no way to go on....
   

It's a tale of two men who believe in such a different God. And it's all wrapped up beautifully and fittingly in the epilogue, 

Fantine:
Come with me
Where chains will never bind you
All your grief at last at last behind you
Lord in heaven, look down on him in mercy!

Valjean:
Forgive me all my trespasses
and take me to your glory
 

Fantine:
Take my hand, and lead me to salvation
Take my love, for love is everlasting
And remember the truth that once was spoken
(Valjean joins)
To love another person is to see the face of God!

It was a movie of grace, mercy, love and hope. I am not a huge fan of musicals (my least favourite movie I went to see last year was Rock of Ages!) but this one left a sweet taste in my mouth. It's long - and the story time makes it feel even longer - but when you reach the credits you'll likely feel it was all worth it. Hugh Jackman was stellar but we already knew he could sing and act superbly!

Anne Hathaway blew me over like a wave in a turbulent surf. Reviewer Dan Callahan wrote, 

As Fantine, a gaunt Anne Hathaway plunges into her character's suffering with such unseemly relish that she practically licks her chops with self-indulgent woe.

I don't know about you but I disagree with Callahan who seems a bit petty and cynical. 

My fiance told me that Hathaway's mother had originally played Fantine in the musical so it's no wonder Hathaway gives a truly moving performance! She's definitely in my mind for best-supporting actress (but then again so is Amy Adams for her performance in The Master). Regardless of awards though, Hathaway really encapsulated the injustice of the time and the attitude towards the petty bourgeoisie. My only critique would be that it seems a bit of a kick-in-the-teeth to the French that most of the actors would sound British... or anything but French! Especially that little cockney accented boy - what would Bonaparte say? Oh and I kept groaning when the love story was unfolding - "They only saw each other once for half a minute at best!" I kept muttering.

Carter and Cohen - the dynamic duo.

The much beloved comedian, Sacha Baron Cohen, teams up well with Helena Bonham Carter. Their musical number when they are introduced is brilliant and they play the evil step mother and father well... almost too well. That scene towards the end when they enter and exit the carriage made me erupt with laughter too! Their comic relief goes down well as the film is otherwise extremely intense and emotional.

Apparently Les Miserables changes things by filming the singing live on set rather than in a studio. Once again I'll confess that I don't know how musicals are usually done but what I'm hearing is that usually the music is recorded in the studio rather than on set. I don't think it was a bad move - but then again I wouldn't be able to really tell the difference.

Tom Hooper continues to hold my attention. First he directed one of my favourite mini series in John Adams, then he did The Damned United and The King's Speech. And now? Well now he's able to get a non-musical man into a musical.

So I enjoyed the movie. I often don't like movies which blatantly shove an agenda down you throat (I recently saw In Time and didn't really enjoy the less than subtle way the movie attempted to critique our society... not that it was wrong!) but in Les Miserables I really didn't mind. Dana Stevens wrote of the film, 

 We're all familiar with the experience of seeing movies that cram ideas and themes down our throats. Les Misérables may represent the first movie to do so while also cramming us down the throats of its actors. 

For once I can say that I strongly disagree with this sentiment. 

8/10