{Spoiler Alert! This article gives a detailed analysis of the movie Les Miserables}
Because Javert was so bent on seeing justice served, he was disturbed by Valjean’s successful escape. In the musical, he then sings “Stars” — an absolutely gorgeous piece, majestic and determined. I still remember the very first time I heard it. I was struck by the words even then, but they did not hold the meaning they eventually grew to hold for me, as I traveled on in my own journey to understand grace, and break free of my nearly decade-long detour through the land of legalism. Today, they hit me again, this time in full force: (I’ll edit for brevity)
“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.
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!”
Here, he has completely missed the true meaning of grace. He mentions it, for sure, but he clearly has zero understanding of what grace actually is. Not only that, he somehow has come to the conclusion that it is his job to dole out justice to those who fall. He has clearly stated that his path is the righteous one. That it is he who is following God, not Valjean.
He continues:
“And so it has been, and so it is written,
On the doorway to paradise,
That those who falter, and those who fall,
Must pay the price!
Lord let me find him, that I may see him,
Safe behind bars — I will never rest till then!
This I swear — this I swear by the stars!”
It amazes me here that Javert seems to see righteousness as something one chooses at the very beginning of one’s life, and after making such a decision, one can never stray from the path, and if one does, one is damned forever. He has completely missed the entire point of the Gospel. It’s as though Jesus’ death was almost irrelevant. The odd thing is that he recognizes men are born sinful, which, taking the logic a bit further, indicates he might believe that Jesus’ death was necessary, but that it only allowed for one chance to be righteous, and that chance could be blown. True grace is nowhere to be found in this. I realize this was a creation of Victor Hugo’s imagination, but nonetheless, I have known people whose thought processes are not so far from Javert’s. This lack of understanding on Javert’s part ends up bringing him to the breaking point later on.
After Valjean’s escape, he spent the next nine years raising Cosette as his daughter while undercover in Paris. By this time, a rebellion is brewing in France. While Cosette and Valjean are in the town square one day, Javert discovers them. Valjean finds out about this later that night, so he packs up Cosette and is ready to flee to England. Cosette is distraught that they are leaving France, because she and Marius (her dashing revolutionary love interest) had secretly spoken that same evening through the garden gate, and pledged their deep and enduring love. She leaves a message for Marius at the gate, and through a series of events, he gets the message, and sends one back to her from behind the Revolution’s barricades.
This is where my story picks up. Valjean intercepts the message, and reads it. When he discovers how much Marius means to Cosette, he goes to the barricades himself (following the messenger) to find him. When he gets to the barricade, he does not tell Marius he is Cosette’s father, but instead just offers his services. He helps fend off some rooftop enemies, and then discovers Javert, tied up in a room next to the barricade. (Javert had posed as a revolutionary, been discovered as a double agent, then restrained while shouting all traitors must die.) Valjean asks for permission to “deal with” Javert (which is understood to mean shoot him), and it is granted. He takes Javert out back, where he tells Javert he’s letting him go free. Javert warns Valjean that if he is released, he will not give up his pursuit of seeing Valjean punished as he should be. Even though he knows he is releasing his worst enemy, Valjean extends grace to Javert, by releasing him with no strings attached. Valjean did not take Javert’s life, though he was given a great opportunity to do so. I would conjecture that Valjean not only knew Javert’s life was not his to take, but also intentionally took advantage of an opportunity to turn the other cheek, and show love and grace to a man who hated him, and wanted to see him back in prison.
Javert leaves, Valjean fires a shot in the air (to convince all who were inside that he had shot Javert), and then returns to the barricade. Marius is shot when the battle begins, so Valjean picks him up and takes him away from the battle through the underground sewer system. Marius is severely wounded and a complete deadweight, and yet Valjean travels a significant distance through sometimes chin-deep refuse, even fighting off robbers who were hiding in the sewer, determined to get Marius to safety for Cosette’s sake, which he does. Cosette and Valjean nurse Marius back to health. Shortly before Marius and Cosette are to be married, Valjean sits Marius down and tells him who he really is. He tells Marius he’s going away so that if he is ever caught, Cosette’s honor will not be tarnished. Valjean leaves without telling Cosette goodbye. While at their wedding reception, through an encounter with one of the men who tried to rob them in the sewer, Marius finds out that it was Valjean who had risked his life to save him. Marius grabs Cosette’s hand, and they go together to the same abbey which had provided a refuge for her and Valjean years before when they first arrived in Paris. They find Valjean dying there. Cosette and Marius express their gratitude and love for Valjean, and are with him when he dies.
They are all unaware of what had previously happened with Javert. Between Valjean saving Marius’s life and Marius’s recovery, Javert has one final scene. I don’t think these lyrics will ever stop amazing me:
“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, he gave me back my life!”
This is astonishing to me. Valjean said something similar when the priest introduced him to grace, and he accepted it. Javert was extended the same kind of grace by Valjean, and yet he could not accept it. Not only could he not accept it, he couldn’t understand it at all. He referred to Valjean as a “devil,” indicating that he thought this grace was something twisted; not from God. Javert could not conceive of what true grace was, even though he had referred to it earlier. True grace had stared him straight in the eye, and he could not recognize it. He goes on:
“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 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…and live in Hell.”
I find it fascinating here that Javert is unable to see grace as anything but pity. And he is so convinced that Valjean and Javert are so diametrically opposed, one is good, the other is evil, and one or the other has to “win.” They can’t both be free. It’s the old legalistic idea that someone has to pay, and that if A is good, then B is bad, and there’s no other way to see it. This concept is so ingrained in Javert’s mind, that to live in a world of grace (which he cannot recognize as such) is to actually live in hell. Again, he continues (and I’m posting this whole thing because it is all so significant):
“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?”
At this point, he realizes maybe he’s been wrong. Maybe grace does exist. Maybe sins can be forgiven. He concludes:
“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.”
Javert has lived his entire life thinking grace and justice were mutually exclusive. That grace meant the triumph of evil. That justice was the most important thing in life, and God can only be pleased if justice is served. He had used the word “grace” earlier, but his version was so far removed from true grace, he couldn’t even recognize the real thing when he saw it. The idea that true grace could be greater than justice was a concept he simply could not handle. He was so entrenched in his legalism and the belief that he was absolutely right and absolutely on God’s side, he literally could not handle this sudden paradigm shift, so he hurled his body off the bridge he had been standing on, into the rushing river below.
As I hinted earlier, though I realize this is something Hugo made up, I know many people who live much like Javert: thinking they understand God and grace, but are instead tied to the law and essentially clueless. I used to be one of them. Thinking I had it right. That the more closely I followed the law, the more I loved God. That God wanted me to make sure others followed His law too, by “encouraging” and “exhorting.” That I could only please God if I didn’t ever screw up. That God’s blessings in my life were directly proportional to the degree to which I followed His law. I used to be much like Javert. I thought that if others weren’t following the law, they weren’t pleasing God.
In reality, Valjean was the one who got it right. Both Valjean and Javert came face-to-face with true grace, multiple times. Both were given the chance to accept it, and thereby be set free from their slavery to the law (which makes me think over and over of Romans 6, which is ALL about slavery to sin and the law, and grace), but only Valjean accepted it. Javert clung to legalism until the day he killed himself. The theme of this war between grace and legalism is so vivid and obvious, now that I see it. I have to wonder if Hugo was intentionally trying to point out the difference between the two choices.
Regardless, my mind has been blown by this very accurate portrayal of the freedom that comes with grace, and the bondage that comes with legalism.
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSS
Kathleen spent nine years in ATI, from ages 13-22, during which time she was very active in Children's Institutes, music programs, Character First, and multiple counseling seminars. She left home at 22, and is now finishing a Master's degree in history, and hopes to begin a Ph.D. program in the Fall.
More posts by Kathleen Reynolds
And who is being absurd here David? Bill Gothard a ...
May 28, 2023 As every satirist knows, the best way to expose ab ...
May 28, 2023 David, do you really want to compare companions ...
May 28, 2023 David said: "Exactly! To overcome the presumpti ...
May 27, 2023 Exactly! To overcome the presumption of consent, w ...
May 27, 2023 "I also believe Bill came up with this was to cove ...
May 27, 2023 There you go again, as Ronald Reagan might say. ...
May 27, 2023 Let’s not add hominem. Let’s subtract it. Beware a ...
May 27, 2023 I also believe Bill came up with this was to cover ...
May 27, 2023 Another thing to keep in mind is that a young girl ...
May 26, 2023 David, No, my outrage is against Bill Gothard's ...
May 26, 2023 The outrage is against twisted and sick use of scr ...
May 26, 2023 Brother Kevin, Like our author Miss Jones, your ...
May 26, 2023 "This is sick and so twisted, there is no defense ...
May 26, 2023 Garbage views like this is why Bill's teachings ar ...
May 26, 2023 I just re-read this article. Things that really ju ...
May 26, 2023 One has to sign up for Amazon Prime Video of which ...
May 26, 2023 Does anyone else plan to watch the docuseries on A ...
May 26, 2023
[...] [To be continued.... Click here to go to Part 2] [...]
"He was so entrenched in his legalism and the belief that he was absolutely right and absolutely on God’s side, he literally could not handle this sudden paradigm shift, so he hurled his body off the bridge he had been standing on, into the rushing river below." Perhaps why so many stay; they simply can't handle that they have been so wrong.
That rings so true. I'll say it like this - I have known some fathers who could not bear to hear input into how they were hurting their family. If they felt compelled to listen to some of it, they would immediately switch into "woe is me, I'm the worst father ever, I'm sorry you were cursed with a horrible excuse for a dad like me, perhaps I should just die." It's sadly ironic that it's easier to declare yourself a total failure unfit for living than it is to honestly admit you were wrong: "wow, that must have really hurt and confused you when I did that to you. I was out of line and I really feel bad about that."
I really like this post, Kathleen. You have done a excellent job!
I have wanted to comment on this side of legalism and this post seems like a good place. My husband is a psychologist and I am somewhat paraphrasing from our converstions on this topic. He says that about 50% of the population does not develop the capacity for abstact reasoning. They are the concrete thinkers, black and white thinkers with no shades of grey. This cognitive rigidity is a hallmark of legalistic thinking. These individuals cannot entertain abstract concepts or differing ideas. To try to make them do so is frustrating and threatening to them and may provoke a negative response. Javert was such a person. In my own experience, the 'pharisee-type' people I have met all fit in this type of personality.
People with cognitive rigidity find each other and group together. Being with others who are 'like-minded' is important to them as they are threatened by 'those.who.are.different.' They are also more likely to look for someone to follow. There is a danger that they will follow unsuitable leaders because they tend to lack discernment or to critically evaluate teachings. Sadly, they do not understand why everyone else is not on board with their ideas, actions etc. and this can create problems in their relationships. (This can also be seen outside of the religious world as well. Political extremists, anyone)?
Kathleen, I loved how you put this into words! I too was blown away by this which I'd heard in the musical but somehow hadn't connected with until I saw the movie. (Or perhaps it was because when I first heard the musical, I was still a member of a fundamental Baptist Church, talking about grace but entrenched in legalism. Now, while I still hold to all the fundamentals of the faith, I have rejected the man-made standards, the fear, and the separatism that characterized my experience in the IFB and am trying to follow Christ and live out the Gospel in freedom, grace, and love.)
Javert is SO PROUD! And pride will keep us from God. He does not want to be identified with Valjean. He does not want to be in his debt. He does not want to yield. He chooses to end his life instead of being humble. It's so heartbreaking to see him, striving so hard to be good yet missing the heart of love and compassion that Valjean understood.
What has always struck me about Valjean's experience of Grace is the heartbreak that he still carried around his guilt for his entire life. This is especially clear in the book, although I think you can see it in the film some too. At the end, he is begging Cosette for forgiveness and trying to remove himself from her life so as not to shame her marriage. I'm not really sure if this is a social or a religious (in this case Catholic) construct, but I always want to say to him: "You're forgiven, you know that, it's ok to forgive yourself! You are free indeed!"
Thanks for putting down these thoughts, Kathleen. No doubt that is the main theme of the book and even more so the musical. I think you see it best when you compare the songs 'What Have I Done? (Valjean) and 'Javert's Suicide.' Same exact tune, same intensity, and same timing; both come immediately after a radical act of grace. But the two characters resolve that grace in opposite ways, and the musical nails the contrast by setting different words to the same tune.
Both songs show the men are incredulous at the mercy shown them... the Bishop's candlesticks and Valjean's releasing Javert at the barricade. They both wrestle with what to DO with the grace given them. And they both end with these lines:
"I am reaching but I fall
And the night is closing in (Valjean)/And the stars are black and cold (Javert)
As I stare into the void
To the whirlpool of my sin (Valjean)/Of a world that cannot hold (Javert)
I'll escape now from the world, of the world of Jean Valjean
Jean Valjean is nothing now, another story must begin (Valjean)/There is nowhere I can turn, there is no way to go on (Javert)...
For Valjean, he sees his own depravity and creeping blackness, and grace for him means freedom from his past and a new story. For Javert, he sees an empty sky devoid of the stars (which he sang about as the 'sentinels' keeping order), and for him grace unglues his entire worldview... grace means giving up on a world devoid of order and justice, and a bridge-jump. And don't miss the props in the movie... Valjean's camera soars up with the torn papers, Javert's camera plummets down from the bridge. A new creation, or a final resignation.
Same tune. Hugo definitely meant to contrast this, but kudos to Schönberg for nailing the whole thing perfectly in one tune. One of the many reasons I absolutely love Les Mis.
Where is the like button, Kevin?
Reading these posts reminds me of people I know in IBLP circles that are fans of Les Miserables yet don't seem to understand its lessons of grace and redemption and how to apply them to everyday life and treatment of fellow Christians, especially fellow Christians who have stumbled, repent and are trying to up and continue to follow Christ. I suppose if they can't learn from the Bible how to apply grace and redemption in their treatment of others we should not expect them to learn it from Les Mis, so let's be gracious with them.
When a supposed Christian teacher cannot even define the grace of God -- either directly or by implication in his other teaching -- then how can he have actually embraced the grace of God for himself? How can he teach others? Bill Gothard is a blind and deceived human being who has become a heretic that deceives others. His is, "another gospel." When all the arguments are done and the shouting is over, that is the simple answer -- he is a legalistic heretic. Read Galatians. What does God say?
What a edifying movie (sarcasm)... even the liberal Focus on the Family pluggedin movie review doesn't recommend... the use of the word legalism is a straw man and a vicious slander.
You should change your pseudonym to Javier.
Javert*
Focus on the Family is "liberal"?
I see we've figured out what straw man is... Or what we think it is. If Focus on the Family is liberal what would you consider conservative?
Seriously? Wow.
I'm not certain what review you read John Doe, but I just popped over and read it. They pointed out that this is not a "family" movie, but IMO, anyone who has ever read or see the play would know that its not for young children. Their biggest issue seemed to be that marrying the elements of the theater, vs. a movie set, are quite difficult to do. But I'm guessing you may have missed the bottom two paragraphs, because they clearly wrote regarding mans law and grace. Here is their closing comment:
"It would be grossly unfair, though, not to end this review with tribute to a story of the struggle between man's laws and God's grace in a fallen, heartless world. When the ill-fated Fantine is shorn, beaten and stripped of her humanity while desperately trying to care for her daughter, her song of lost dreams takes on a painful intensity rarely seen on film. And when the repeatedly maligned and beaten-down Jean Valjean falls to his knees in awe of one man's kindness and in recognition of God's life-changing love, we can fully and profoundly understand his tearful surprise and emotional exhilaration.
There are story threads of revenge and rescue, revolution and romance in this epic opus. But at its immersive and orchestrally soaring heart, Les Misérables makes it clear that we wretched humans can only truly find freedom by forgiving and loving one another. And we can only do that by openly accepting God's redemption. God's. Not just one merciful man's. And that's a beautiful song indeed."
Focus on the Family... liberal... [checking out the window to see whether pigs are flying]
Sir, it seems you live in opposite world, where black is white and white is black. I don't know how you can convince anyone, with such obviously contrary logic.
Have you read John Piper's comments about the novel? I like his approach to seeing "pinpricks of light" and the imago die.
http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-gift-of-victor-hugo
Some good quotes from it here:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevinwax/2010/11/06/les-miserables-quotes-to-ponder-7/
sorry, imago dei, not die
Legalism is never edifying, and dealing with it is always hard. However, the triumph of grace in Les Mis is incredibly edifying. It may not be a "feel good" movie for a light Saturday afternoon, but it absolutely edifying. It shows how God's grace can triumph over slavery to the law. Many stories in the Bible are not "feel good" stories and are hard to swallow, but are still very much edifying, because they show how God and His love and grace always win out in the end.
Focus on the Family liberal???? That's like calling the Mennonites rock stars or the Amish great electricity eaters.
This is the problem with your type of Christianity "john doe" Judgemental. Did not Christ say...Judge not lest ye also be judged and he that is without sin cast the first stone? I thought so.
Such a fantastic article! Les Mis is one of my absolute favorite musicals/movies, and the grace/legalism message was, for some reason, really poignant in the film. (Ironically, we got rid of our Les Mis CDs during our ATI days (ten years or so ago) because of the "immoral" issues in the story...what an incredible message we were missing out on!
When my mom and I saw this in the theater (gasp...to think ten years ago that I would go to a THEATER to watch a PG-13 movie...;)), afterward we both agreed that Javert reminded us so much of ourselves years ago and of so many of our friends who still struggle with legalism.
To me, the most tragic line of Javert's is in the suicide scene, where he expresses a thought that I think many former IBLP people felt when they first began to realize the shaky foundation their whole life was based on:
"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 shadows."
We were taught not to doubt, not to question the "convictions" we were taught, and when we did finally hold them to the light of Scripture and were left with "nothing", it was truly (to me at least) as if "the world I have known is lost in shadows."
It is amazing how insecure a life without formulas can feel, when we actually have to depend on God, who doesn't promise that everything's going to be okay if we just follow A, B, and C. I'm amazed at how little trust in God I really had all those years.
Again, such a fantastic post. Thanks so much!
Wow! Thank you for your post. You said exactly what I was thinking!
I just got through watching Les Miserables and cried through much of it. I promptly googled "Les Mis, grace and Legalism" and your blog pulled up.
I too spent my life living in Legalism. I have recently left Mormonism a few years ago and in that religion you completely rely on your own "works" to save you. It is all about working towards becoming gods and goddesses on our own earths somewhere, and truly grace is not free. You must do all of the works this religion tells you will save you and after all you have done, the grace of God comes into effect.
As a Mormon I watched this film and was totally blind to the legalism and grace. Now as a Christian, saved by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, the film reminded me of the free grace in my life and the Legalism I struggle to leave behind. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts.
Your article says it all. Thank you for writing it.
I had never before watched this movie, until tonight. I am sorry that I procrastinated in doing so.
As I watched I kept seeing grace and then legalism. I had heard about the grace in the movie but didn't realize to what extent. I hadn't heard about the struggle between the two (grace and law) in the movie. I decided to do a search to see if anyone else noticed it, and your article was the first I ran across.
Again thank you for writing this.
Les Miserables is now my favorite musical.