Marxist Film Theory
The Marxist theories of socialism, communism, class struggle, ideology and political economy influenced early Soviet-era filmmakers such as Dziga Vertov and Sergei Eisenstein. Eisenstein’s theory of montage owed its “intellectual basis to Marxist dialectics”. However, in addition to his philosophical influence on 20th century cinema and film-makers, Marx’s life and times and his principal works have all been represented in film as subjects in their own right.
Sergei Eisenstein and many other Soviet filmmakers in the 1920s expressed ideas of Marxism through film. In fact, the Hegelian dialectic was considered best displayed in film editing through the Kuleshov Experiment and the development of montage. While this structuralist approach to Marxism and filmmaking was used, the more vociferous complaint that the Russian filmmakers had was with the narrative structure of Hollywood filmmaking.
Eisenstein's solution was to shun narrative structure by eliminating the individual protagonist and tell stories where the action is moved by the group and the story is told through a clash of one image against the next (whether in composition, motion, or idea) so that the audience is never lulled into believing that they are watching something that has not been worked over. Eisenstein himself, however, was accused by the Soviet authorities under Joseph Stalin of "formalist error," of highlighting form as a thing of beauty instead of portraying the worker nobly.
French Marxist film makers, such as Jean-Luc Godard, would employ radical editing and choice of subject matter, as well as subversive parody, to heighten class consciousness and promote Marxist ideas.
Situationist film maker Guy Debord, author of The Society of the Spectacle, began his film In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni [Wandering around in the night we are consumed by fire] with a radical critique of the spectator who goes to the cinema to forget about his dispossessed daily life.
Marxist film theory has developed from these precise and historical beginnings and is now sometimes viewed in a wider way to refer to any power relationships or structures within a moving image text.
Synopsis:
This is based on the classic novel written by a French writer, Victor Hugo. Jean Valjean lives a life on the run after a prisons sentence for stealing a loaf of bread. Settling in a remote town, Valjean becomes a wealthy and respected businessman. He devotes himself to the care of the poor, including the beautiful, young and poverty-stricken Fantine. When Fantine dies, she leaves behind a daughter, Cosette who has been left with another family while Fantine works in Valjean’s factory. Valjean buy Cosette back from them and raises her like his own daughter. But they are haunted by Javert, a policeman whose lifelong search for Valjean has become an obsession. A hunt begins that will come to a final confrontation on the revolution torn streets of Paris.
Cast:
Liam Neeson as Jean Valjean
Geoffrey Rush as Javert
Uma Thurman as Fantine
Claire Danes as Cosette
Director: Bille August
Les Miserables and Marxist Theory
The film mirrors a society where there is a clash between the poor and the rich, the free and the imprisoned, the one in authority and the ordinary people in society. We could also see the miserable life of the proletariats or the working class, the comfortable life of the elites and the bourgeoisie.
Marxist theory centers on how people and how their lives are as part of the society they are in. In the movie, it was shown in the character of Valjean how being an ex-convict was being ostracized by the society. It was a sad reality that the reason why he was being imprisoned for five years in the first place was that because he stole a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s seven starving children. It only shows how miserable life is for those who have nothing in life. That having to fulfill one’s hunger can lead to imprisonment. And though he was given a chance by the bishop to change his life for better, and he really did. But the thing is, his past always haunt him until his death. He managed to assume a new identity, with a new name as Monsieur Madeleine in order to pursue an honest life. Valjean became very rich and eventually, the mayor of the place. His past that haunts him is seen in the character of Javert, the police inspector who obsessively wanted Valjean to go back to prison.
The character of Javert in the movie is a great reminder that changing oneself from dark past to a new life is not that easy. That he himself is also a person with a dark past yet afraid to admit that he has. He indeed renounced his parents and from what his life before. Towards the end of the film, he became so desperate about seeking revenge against Valjean that he, himself was the one who ended his life.
In the character of Fantine, in order to meet the repeated demands for money from the Thénardiers, innkeepers in a village called Montfermeil, where her daughter Cosette was left, she sold her hair, then her two front teeth, and finally succumbed to prostitution. This is another sad reality of how miserable life of a poor is. What makes it worse is that she died due to tuberculosis and without her daughter on her side.
Cosette, Fantine’s daughter, has her own share of a hard life even at an early age when she was still with the Thenardiers. She was adopted by Valjean and was treated like his own. In the end, she married a university student by the name of Marius Pontmercy, who has his own share of life though his family comes from a prominent one.
As the Marxist theory posits that instead of focusing one protagonist or one character, it presents a montage. The life of the characters moves with each other in order to form the whole story as one. One character affects the life of another character; one incident shapes the outcome of another incident.
Looking at the movie as a whole, it depicts a vivid reality of how the struggle of these people in the society. Although the movie is based on a novel and is a fiction, it never failed to let the viewers be critical thinkers of an imperfect society. And this imperfect society does not only exist during the French Revolution only but can be seen to any society where we are in. Ever since, As Marxist maintains, there will always be a clash between the haves and the have-nots.
As a whole, the film is a great adaptation of Hugo’s classic work. It still lives up to the reason why the novel was written in the first place. Society of any culture and of any time-frame can be seen in the societal film like Les Miserables. Indeed, the film Les Miserables is an exact example where what is happening in the society crossing between time and restrictions are greatly portrayed. No wonder Les Miserables has stood the test of time, filmed in different languages, adapted in broadways and on the big screen. No wonder it is a well-loved story across different generations, of different race and religion.
Works Cited:
No comments:
Post a Comment