Inserting a random line from the musical: “It is either Valjean—or Javert.”
Now here is something I will tell you. Javert was not always my favorite character. On the contrary—I feared and misunderstood him entirely. I remember reading bits and pieces of the novel some years ago: Javert was introduced to me as the police-inspector of Montreuil-sur-Mer, and who spoke heartlessly, without compassion, in court against a young woman who was driven to prostitution in order to provide for her child. Needless to say, my first impression of Javert was not overly pleasant.
Having said all this, I’m currently in the process of rereading the novel. Hugo, I salute you. I feel ashamed for not realizing the depth of Javert’s psychological turmoil the first time around.
I cannot begin to comprehend the concept of emphasizing the fact (excessive wordiness intended) that Javert is not the villain. He is the antagonist.
“But Ms. Obsessive-English-Teacher, Ma’am”, they’ll say. “Isn’t the antagonist the bad-guy?”
No. You will not pass my class with an answer like that.
I feel the urge to remind you that the antagonist is merely the alter-ego; that is to say, the opposite, of the protagonist. Javert is a foil. He consistently tries to recapture Valjean, take him back to prison, serve his sentence, etc. Valjean is able to start a new life, but continues to be haunted by Javert for years. Now, class, does this mean that Javert is a villain?
“Yes..?”
Need I point out the obvious? Javert is a police-officer. A legitimate upholder of the law. Why does his job make him the villain, if he is doing just that—his job?
Need I bring to light another obvious factor of the story? Valjean is a thief, ex-convict, parole-violator, imposter, scammer, and would-be murderer. Details are not needed. The only justification for Valjean’s continued attempts to escape (and for his theft in the first place) is out of desperation to feed his sister and her children. It means nothing if his intentions are honest, he has the potential to repeat his offenses (which he does) and be a danger to society. Javert would be a villain, but only if he did not uphold to his duty of keeping his district free of criminals.
I don’t mean to speak ill of Monsieur Valjean. I like him. Who doesn’t?
But am I defending Javert because he is my favorite character? Perhaps. I like to think it’s because I have read the book thoroughly enough to understand his physiological structure and subconscious tendencies. Call me arrogant and geeky. I’m an English student—expect nothing less.
Hugo’s novel is titled Les Miserables; translated, it roughly means, “the ones that suffer”, or “the miserable lives”. And aptly so. Every single character in this novel struggles in some way. There is no one who suffers more than anyone else. Even the ending, though somewhat optimistic, is not out rightly happy. And so, we must keep in mind that Javert, the cold-hearted and pitiless inspector, is just as miserable as everyone else.
Enough psychological analysis. My favorite Javert is Philip Quast (yes, he is just so amazing he deserves a link to a video).
He was the first portrayal of Javert I ever heard and saw. To me, he is the only Javert who stays true to his character and doesn’t overact. I hate to say that he is Javert in my eyes, but he is. The way he carries himself in that haughty and uptight manner, and looks at Valjean (here's Part 1 of the whole concert) with such complete and utter wrath. The thing is, Javert is such a subtle character that to do anything more than standing stock-still and glaring at everyone would be overacting. He is able to intimidate without much effort—people run off the streets when they hear him coming and his name is enough to make criminals cower. Though he is not as mechanical and distant in the novel (he has a few strange habits, to say the least), he is still incredibly reserved, professional, and cynical.
Back to Quast. Having portrayed Javert on stage in Australia, and in a previous recording (This is one of my favorite parts of The Complete Symphonic Recording. He comes in about halfway through.), he had the potential to exaggerate the character. But he didn’t. He projected all of Javert’s hatred, frustration, dedication, despair (and finally, stoic resolution) through his face and his voice, without ever having to do much else.
His voice, damn it all.
He embodies Javert with such a deep understanding of the character. He seems to have realized Hugo’s intention to create Javert as a multi-faceted individual, with far more emotional depth than he lets on. If you look up other actors’ portrayals of Javert, you might find that they tend to over-emphasize his determination, therefore risking the consequence of making him downright evil. I have come to the conclusion that it is because of these ‘overactors’ that Javert is popularly believed to be the villain. Did I mention that he isn’t, though?
Lord, I could go on and on.
I’m not going to lie—I would give a lot to be able to go back in time and see him perform on stage. Oh, Philip. You should have been cast for the movie.
This rant makes me sound like an obsessed fan. I don’t mean to imply that Philip makes Javert a physically attractive character (though one could certainly feel free to make that argument), but rather, he makes Javert a fascinatingly deep and psychologically rich character. That, to me, is much more attractive.
On an unrelated note, this just might be the longest entry I've ever written. Of course it had to be a psycho-physiological analysis of Javert. If only writing essays were this easy.
No comments:
Post a Comment