Okay, it's not a review today, but what I have to say IS about some prominent theatre characters. More specifically, villains. Namely, Jud Fry from Oklahoma and Inspector Javert from Les Misérables. The assignment was to compare and contrast the characters, taking into account their backgrounds and "villainous" ways. If you don't want to know anything about what happens to these characters, stop here.
Here's my essay:
All too often, audiences slip into the mindset of a “good guy” versus a “bad guy” without taking into account the actual character that is supposedly a dastardly villain. Two prime examples of misunderstood antagonists are Jud Fry from Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Oklahoma, and Inspector Javert from Claude-Michel Schönberg & Alain Boublil’s Les Misérables. The three aspects of this exposition will focus on are the characters’ backgrounds and how they respond to their upbringing, their deaths, and whether or not either of them could be considered a true villain.
Jud and Javert were born into similar situations, and it is apparent that both characters have some anger about their initial positions in society. Jud often complains that no one will speak to him because he’s a cowhand. He projects his own insecurities about social position onto others, when the real animosity stems from his gauche behavior. It is also clear that he had very little mothering by his extensive collection of “pretties” and his goal to simply go get the woman he wants without regard to her tastes.
Rather than embrace his birth status, like Jud, Javert makes a total break from his past. He works hard, seeks to tidy and organize everything around him, and punish the unlawful lowlifes he had to grow up with. Since Javert says that he turned his own father in, we can infer that his relationship with his parents was just as bad, if not worse, than Jud’s. However, instead of being angry about others judging him, like Jud, he judges others with an uncaring and narrow-minded rule of law. Any irregularity in his judgement is unacceptable, and he is only barely able to contain his anger about the inconsistencies of the world.
However, both of these men have solos where we can see a little deeper into their sympathetic side. Jud expresses how trapped and alone he feels in “Lonely Room,” while “Stars” gives some insight into Javert’s longing for definite purpose and desire for unchanging consistency. Jud really just needed a good friend. But Javert’s issues are far more deep-seated and difficult to address. Best guess, cubicle work and a good psychiatrist could have made him happy, but neither were available in his day.
This brings us to death. Jud’s death was, frankly, unnecessary. He had been down at the bar for weeks, trying to forget about Laurey. If he had really been planning to kill Curly, why would he have gotten drunk? Jud didn’t have much in the way of book smarts, but his story about burning down a house and disposition to use the tricky “Little Wonder” show a more calculating nature than a slovenly drunkard trying to murder a groom. Curly even hints that his killing Jud was intentional, which makes him more cruel than Jud if we go by actions (but I’m getting ahead of myself here).
The suicide of Javert is a completely different story. The audience is sad that he has to die, but simultaneously relieved that this tortured man has finally found some kind of respite. He can’t reconcile letting Jean Valjean go free, so death is the only option. And as he dies, the melody from “Stars” chimes in, implying a sense of satisfaction and catharsis for the troubled Inspector. And I suppose he must have resembled a shooting star, hurling himself off of a bridge like that.
And now, for the real question: are either of these characters real villains? I would say no. Jud talks about being able to do horrible things, but never actually hurts anyone. After the betting over the hampers had concluded, he hesitated rather than kill Curly quick and clean, and he brought a knife rather than a gun to the wedding, and was clearly not in a heightened state of mind. While Jud may not be a nice fellow, it would be a stretch to call him a villain based on his actions.
As for Javert, he definitely does horrible things. His lack of sympathy for Fantine is the best example of his hardened heart. She is a prostitute, and therefore she is wrong and must be punished regardless of the circumstances. However, Javert always thinks that he is doing good. He is never cruel for the sake of cruelty, but always seeks to carry out justice. When he finally has to examine the disparity between morality and his so-called justice, he kills himself rather than continue to enforce his uncaring law, which he could not ignore. He dies for what is right, because he can’t handle living with a broken system.
Personally, I have more fondness for Javert. He tried to make it out of his past, and attempted to do good. When he realized he was wrong, he did the only thing that he believed could prevent further injustices. There is far more depth to his character than I see in Jud, who just lives with himself and thinks that accumulating more things will make his life better. But I always wonder if either character could have been saved if someone had simply been kind to them? Had given them a conscience? Maybe they just needed better mothers and fathers? However, both Jud and Javert made their own choices, and those choices led to their demises. One always has a choice.
That's all for this week, folks. This weekend I'll be watching "a neo-sixties sensual adaptation" of Dracula. I'm... hesitant to say the least, but very excited about seeing such a great villain on stage! Expect a review!
I hope you're all doing well :) Happy Valentine's Day!
Sincerely,
Caty
No comments:
Post a Comment