Javert's dilemma

Have I seriously not blogged about Les Miserables?

I had a couple quibbles with the film, along with one major objection.  First, the quibbles: if I never hear Hugh Jackman sing another note through his nose, that will be okay.  That said: I thought his singing was passable, at least, and his acting was so far superior to his singing that I am glad he got this role.  My second quibble was with Russell Crowe as Javert, who seemed so vocally intimidated (just noticed "timid" in the middle of that word for the first time; duh) that he conveyed neither the certainty of his character through most of the story nor the contrast of his inner conflict at the end.  When he stepped off the bridge, while it was tragic, it felt impersonal, somehow, as I never felt I was connected with the person of Javert.  More on this, as I think I can really relate to this character in ways that transcend Crowe's performance.

But first, my major objection: can we please stop treating "love at first sight" like a noble thing?  Marius was really willing to leave the Resistance at this point in his relationship with Cosette?  Really?  At this point they had nothing more than an attraction for each other.  This had to have more development in the book than it received in the film.  Animal magnetism is not a virtue.

That out of the way, I'd like to return my thoughts to Javert's quandary, which obviously arose out of the conflict he could not resolve involving the inviolability of the law, the definition of evil, and a concept he utterly denied: the unalienable dignity of each human person.  (Okay, I'm sure with some thought I could come up with a summary that more closely reflects these issues as Javert experienced them; but I am writing from my own perspective, after all.)  His entire view of the world was deeply rooted in his convictions about human character and the nature of good and evil.  Obedience to the law was the only evidence of good that mattered, and violating it was incontrovertible proof that you were evil.  Solzhenitsyn's observation that the line between good and evil runs through every human heart would have seemed ridiculous to Javert.  I'm struck by his sense of certainty, his absolute conviction that there is no such thing as a circumstantial criminal, but that rather all criminals are primarily made by a fundamental and unchangeable flaw in their nature. The difference between the class of criminals and that of law-abiding citizens was purely the existence of this weakness, which could never be overcome.  The twisted nature of criminals would eventually work its evil no matter what transpired in their lives.  Therefore, it was essential that society protect itself from the harm of criminals by restricting their opportunity to commit future crimes, for it was inevitable that they would do so if they had a chance.  Furthermore, all violations of the law indicate the same flaw in human nature, an elevation of self over the good of society, such that every offense must be punished and every offender monitored.

So long as he was dealing with others' offenses against the law, his absolutism served him well both in his internal and external duties.  There was a clear line over which he must never cross, as should have been illustrated early  in the movie as he walked the ledge.  He was there not because he was enamored of the idea of stepping off, but because of how it reinforced his certainty of himself.  He knew, to the core of his being, that he was secure there; he would never step across the line.  The ledge was supposed to represent the danger of absolutism from the beginning, though Javert was not to recognize it.  Instead, in the film this seems to come across - either through Crowe's tepid performance or Hooper's direction - as an inner struggle that was waging even early in the movie, when I do not believe this was case for the character of Javert. His crisis would come later, and his certainty would be its crux.  By making Javert appear uncertain of himself early on, Crowe and Hooper undermine his crisis.  They also make his virtue - his commitment to the law is indeed virtuous, in a self-righteous sort of way - seem painted on rather than deep.

As long as Javert could dismiss Valjean's transformation as conditional and his righteous acts as self-serving, and particularly as long as Javert was not swayed to any dereliction of his own duty, he was fine.  To Javert, the law defines virtue, and as long as we uphold it we acts virtuously, as does he.

Yet Javert understands unconsciously that acting outside of one's own self-interest is also incontrovertible evidence of virtue, and it is Valjean's ultimate ability to do so that finally breaks Javert's self-certainty.  He finally cannot bring himself to capture (again) this man who repeatedly acts for the good of others when there is no gain in it whatsoever for himself.  In particular, the one act of mercy displayed to him, in contradiction of Valjean's own personal interest, results in Javert himself violating the law by refusing to apprehend this parole violator. His good deeds as shop owner, caring citizen, mayor, surrogate father, (and so on, in the book, evidently) were easy for the inspector to disregard as somehow self-serving, but in their final confrontation Javert has become convinced enough by Valjean's conversion that he is unable to act according to the law's commands - according to how he has always and unwaveringly defined virtue - and there is no authority to which he may submit his offense.

(I'd really like to read Hugo's book for more on his view on this.  I understand he includes entire essays expositing the moral underpinnings of his story.)

The trap of absolutism is dangerous.  It isn't that there aren't moral absolutes; rather, even scripture warns us not to judge others - or ourselves - according to them.  This is what a good friend realized when she worked so diligently to help me stop being so hard on myself.  When we insist on judging, we block mercy's healing, redemptive power.

Absolutism can take many forms, and being free from one of them doesn't prevent falling victim to another.