Skip to comments.vanity - has any one seen Django or Les Mis?
Posted on 12/25/2012 7:08:12 PM PST by Perdogg
Has any one seen Django or Les Mis? I am thinking about going to the movies this weekend. I know Les Mis is a musical but I was thinking that the theatre might be full of single women.
I like the music in Django, but I am not a fan of any of thr Obamatrons in the film.
any insight to either movie?
The preview was so impressive -- and no singing in it -- that I just forgot what I knew to be true about the movie, and was expecting a lot of shooting and gashing and storming of barricades. I had the same problem with "Evita" -- dismay that they were actually and literally going to sing and dance their way through the whole thing with Madonna and everything.
"Django" isn't a musical, is it? I was bowled over by "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" back in the Nineties, but "Kill Bill" killed any interest I had in seeing any more Quentin Tarantino movies (especially since "Django" is basically the same formula as his "Basterds" movie). If you're really a movie fan, though, you might get a kick out of seeing which movies QT ripped off to make this one -- or you could just rent James Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. in "Skin Game."
Maybe it's time for a comedy next ...
Are you serious? Aside from the Victor Hugo novel, the musical version of Les Misérables holds the record as the longest running Broadway musical, topping both Phantom of the Opera and Cats. It won 9 Tony Awards since its debut in 1987.
So called "Social Justice" is an invention of the Socialist Ideals of the Progressive Movement. In America we embrace Blind Justice for all, of which Victor Hugo's Les Miserables is a vile anathema.
Justice, in a tradition going back to Aristotle, means treating individuals in accordance with their deserts...
Justice is a very different thing from mercy, and mercy may be at odds with justice...
It will be apparent by now that the demands of social justice are incompatible with those of individual justice; to the extent that the first demand is met, the second must be sacrificed. If the government takes money out of Peters wallet to put it in Pauls, it may have achieved greater equality, but not greater justice. It is impossible for individuals to receive a just wage on a free market and then be forced to part with a portion of it, for then they receive less than a just wage.
The final irony is that the ideals of the champions of social justice are not even achieved when they are put fully into practice. Because people will notand cannotproduce indefinitely without compensation, the final result of massive transfer payments is equality of zerouniversal destitution. That, after all, is how the excesses of the late Roman welfare state gave way to the destitution of the Dark Ages. It has happened many times in history, and it could happen again if the proponents of social justicethat is, enforced collectivismpush their demands so far as to cancel out the requirements of individual justice.
Just because you appreciate that God intervened for one individual, the more basic premise of the epic work is that social oppression is meted out to the dumb masses from the top classes on down.
That's not a premise, that's a reality. It is part of nature that the powerful oppress the weak. It is God's counter that the powerful use their power on the part of the weak. Hugo took way too many words to make the point (IMO), but that is the point. Without God, there is no hope for justice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.