Movie: Trash Dance (2012)

TrashDancePoster_28x40_Rev04-04-2013_revFINAL-LOCKEDcw1 copyThis documentary is beautiful and very heartwarming, and I deeply appreciate the sentiments of the movie. This movie impressively combines two seemingly incompatible things: trash and dance. These, oddly, happen to be two of my interests, so watching this movie was a no-brainer for me. For anyone who cannot believe how those two things can go together, or how this movie could be heartwarming, I hope to convince you that this movie is definitely worth watching. The artistic visions of both the director of the film and the choreographer of the dance piece were very impressive. In short, the choreographer is able to appreciate a beauty in the routine movements of collecting trash and, more importantly, spread her appreciation of the work of invisible laborers.

directorIn this movie, the choreographer shadows trash and recycling workers in Austin, Texas for a year and designs a dance piece using the motions of the workers and their vehicles. The choreographer—as a Caucasian woman working in the arts—is definitely looked on suspiciously as an outsider when she enters a workforce that is primarily black and Hispanic men. You can see the cynicism and disinterest of the workers at first, but slowly the workers warm up to her and her vision. To the workers’ surprise, the choreographer learns about all the different departments and incorporates the unique aspects of each in the dance piece. Her genuine interest in their jobs and them as individuals is able to convince them to spend extra time for rehearsals for the dance piece. The choreographer also calls upon the unique talents of individuals (breakdancing, harmonica, rapping, etc.), making the dance for the workers, not just for herself. It means a lot to be appreciated for the hard work you do every day, as well as for the parts outside of work that you are proud of, and the viewers can see how excited the workers are to be seen as individuals. It is wonderful seeing the light and excitement in the eyes of these underappreciated workers when they talk about how it felt to perform in front of their families and thousands of other people.

This movie also highlights the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality regarding trash our society has. People view trash as gross and to be avoided. Trash collectors are looked down upon by many because their work is thought to be dirty, mindless, dead-end work, but trash collectors are actually doing tough physical labor—often at odd hours and with stuff most people don’t want to go near—and our society relies on these workers to keep our streets and homes clean. I have often heard people use jobs such as trash collectors, janitors, or burger flippers as the ultimate failure to achieve the glamorous American Dream. It is dangerous to equate these “bottom-rung” jobs to failure, though, as it can make us falsely believe that these people—these real people working these jobs—are lazy or uneducated. Through this movie, we are reminded how incredibly hardworking these people are. Many of them work two or more jobs just to make ends meet and support their children. The most heartbreaking moment in the movie is when a father says that his little girl loves to see his trash truck because it is so big, but he knows that someday she’ll be embarrassed by it and its smells once she understands the place trash holds in society. This hardworking father should not be made to feel embarrassed about his work. Instead, we should be thankful whenever others do important work that we wouldn’t want to do—whether that be fighting fires, performing surgeries, or picking up trash.

curtaincallThrough the dance piece, there is an appreciation for the anonymous blue collar workers that keep our society running, as well as a beauty given to a profession that is looked upon with disdain and disgust. The choreographer says her main intention of this project and her dance piece is to make people feel a connection with the people around them that may cross paths with but never know. Thousands of people showed up in the rain to watch this show live, and I think they left with that feeling. The director of the movie also deserves recognition for being able to capture the charming personalities of the different workers. I could not help but be drawn into their stories.

I think the sentiments of this movie are particularly relevant today in the United States where there is a huge disparity between the wealthy and the poor, and extremely hard-working people can stay stuck in poverty. I also think we can’t continue avoiding the trash we are producing by having poorer people deal with it. Personally, it is hard for me to speak of these things without some anger. The truly great thing about this genuine and artistic documentary, though, is that it is not angry or heavy-handed. Instead, this movie touches on these ideas by simply giving life to ordinary people you might not initially find relatable.

Sakuranbo

Movie: Amour (2012)

Amour-poster-frenchThis movie is director Michael Haneke’s newest work; it is beautiful and incredibly sad, both touching and crushing my heart. An elderly couple of retired musicians—Anne and Geroges—love each other dearly and still enjoy music. One day, Anne, who seemed perfectly healthy before, suddenly suffers from a stroke. A supposedly simple surgery to reduce her future risks goes badly, and Anne is left with half of her body paralyzed. This movie is about how this change in her health affects Anne and the people around her. This incredibly sad and well-made movie won many international film awards, including the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and the Palm d’Or at the Cannes International Film Festival, in 2012.

I actually wish to talk about how poorly made the official trailer is. The trailer seems to try to twist this wonderful movie into something that is not—a suspenseful thriller, with a strong mystery-solving element. It is true that, typical of Haneke’s style, this movie doesn’t give you all of the answers of what exactly happens or what exactly to think. However, I believe this movie is first and foremost a story about love, and how people deal with that love in hard situations. The trailer focuses on images of the husband Georges (played by Jean-Louis Trintignant) panicking, the door being knocked down, and the daughter being upset, and it shows very little of the wife Anne (played by Emmanuelle Riva). It gives no indication of the core element of this movie: Anne suffering from a stroke, and how she and Georges—who love each other deeply—deal with the change.

amour-03The most beautiful part of this movie is the very convincing and heart-warming love Anne and Georges have for each other, even in their old days. They enjoy going to piano concerts together, fondly reminisce over shared meals, and playfully tease each other with obvious love. However, Anne is increasingly frustrated and embarrassed by her deteriorating physically state, and this pains Georges deeply. Both pains are very understandable and heart-breaking.

There is also an interesting contrast between the daughter’s and mother’s views on hospitals. Anne does not like going to the doctor, and only sees one after her stroke upon the urging of her husband Georges; the last thing Anne wants to do is spend her last days in an uncomfortable and foreign hospital, especially after a failed operation. The daughter, on the other hand, wants the best possible treatment money can buy in a hospital and does not understand why her mother refuses. The daughter’s reaction is very reasonable for a modern person with a lot of faith in the modern healthcare system, and for a daughter who deeply wishes for her mother to recover.

The fact that all of the characters’ emotions are completely normal and relatable is what makes this movie so beautiful and sad. It does not need more drama, as the trailer tries to suggest. All of the characters are very relatable to anyone who has ever experienced loss.

2012-amour-french-film-stillAs clear by the sensitive understanding of a loved one suffering presented in this movie, director Haneke was inspired to make this movie from his personal experience with his aunt’s death. He wished to address the issue of, “How do you manage the suffering of someone you love?” It is said that director and screenwriter Haneke had Jean-Louis Trintignant in mind when he wrote the script; Trintignant happily accepted the opportunity to work with Haneke, a director whom he has deep respect for. During auditions for the part of Anne, it is said that Haneke was very impressed with Emmanuelle Riva. Emmanuelle Riva was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performance. Director Haneke always has a clear vision of what emotion he wants delivered in each scene, and his actors respect him for his ability to communicate to them exactly what he is looking for. I am actually surprised that Haneke would approve the official trailer, which seems to be describing a completely different movie than the beautiful one that I watched.

Sakuranbo

The Top 5 Movies I Watched in 2012

It is a year today that Ichigo, the blog master of this site, passed away. We have translated and posted a little under half of her blog entries here on the English site. The following entry, which she wrote on her final New Year’s, represents her well. We will continue to translate and post the many other movies she wrote about.

Ichigo’s family


I started writing this blog on August 27, 2012. My motive for starting this blog was that I knew it was a blessing to still be alive after recovering from a life-threatening illness, and I wanted to express my current thoughts by weaving a tapestry of movies and people, using the history of a nation through time as the vertical threads and the interactions between nations within a time period as the horizontal threads. I chose movies as my medium because a movie, unlike a novel, must show something concrete to the audience, and therefore it is rich in information in many ways. Also, making a movie requires teamwork, which forces many people to interact with each other, and since you need money to make a movie, you need to persuade others of the value of the product; the process of making a movie alone is a human drama. To say it briefly, while writing literature can be done with one person’s mind, I think in order to make a movie, many people have to physically work together, and this results in an abundance of information.

I choose what movies to watch based on what I feel like watching that day, not “because it is a new release.” Therefore, the movies I have written about span nearly 90 years, from Battleship Potemkin in 1925 to Lincoln in 2012. Through these movies, 35 countries are depicted. I have blogged about nearly 100 movies here; I have watched about 30 more this year that I didn’t blog about. I can say that all of the movies I have posted on this blog had a strong impact on me, one way or another. The following movies are my personal Top 5 among the movies I watched in 2012.

1. The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1988)

I admire Philip Kaufman’s discerning eye for discovering still-anonymous Daniel Day-Lewis and Juliette Binoche for leading roles in this movie. This movie is not flashy, but, using Day-Lewis’s and Binoche’s enchanting charms, it depicts the importance of respecting your feelings without being influenced by the times. It also depicts that wishing happiness for the person you are instinctively attracted to (including physically) will naturally lead to your own happiness; if this actually happens, this is true love. I remember reading on someone’s blog, “Generally I do not like love stories, but I really like this movie.” I understand how he feels.

2. Lincoln (2012)

There are two types of movies among Steven Spielberg’s movies: well-constructed entertaining movies, and serious movies where he wants to show that he is “not just an entertaining artist”—such as Schindler’s List, Munich, and War Horse. But Lincoln does not seem to fall under either category. To say it briefly, all of Spielberg’s works have either been financially successful or received high acclaim among critics, he has gained respect among his peers in the movie industry, and he never has to worry about financing his movies; therefore, Steven Spielberg, who no longer has anything to fear, can now make movies about whatever theme truly interests him, without any worries. What was the theme he wanted to make most? To speak honestly, I think this movie is a tribute to President Obama. To be more precise, it is paying respect to the citizens of America—a mixed nation where there has always been a serious political divide—for choosing President Obama in an election, and for both supporting and rigorously criticizing him.

Among Americans—who often have divided opinions—Lincoln and the first president, Washington, are among the few presidents who are undisputedly considered great presidents; similarities between President Obama and President Lincoln are already being pointed out. For example, both are elected presidents from Illinois in the Midwest, which is thought of as the heart of America; both were little known, not having held a powerful position as a politician, before becoming a president. Both have made excellent speeches that will remain in history, and both had to make difficult decisions one after another when the nation was badly divided.

In my blog about the movie Lincoln, I wrote “I still believe that Lincoln fixed his eyes on the ultimate goal and took steps and the right method most appropriate for the time.” Likewise, I recently read an interview with President Obama about the movie Lincoln, where he said something along the lines of, “I will not comment on the value of any of the past presidents, but what was captivating about this movie was the way it depicted a politician’s dreams and realistic methods. A politician at times, in order to reach his ideal goal, has to compromise.” I agree with what he said. Obama and Lincoln’s major common characteristic is their utilization of wise and pragmatic methods, while having their eyes fixed on the ultimate goal. I think they both understand that after all, having an ideal goal is most important. Also, many Americans genuinely believe Obama’s good personality is his natural personality instead of a constructed one, similar to how people felt about Lincoln in his days. Of course, First Lady Michelle Obama—who is pragmatic, down-to-earth, doesn’t worry about little details, and isn’t vain—is also contributing to the president’s popularity.

In this movie, Lincoln was played by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose performance was awe-inspiring. It is said that Steven Spielberg came to the studio wearing a suit and tie every day during filming because he was meeting with the President. Also, when I watched the movie in theaters, I saw quite a few dressed-up parents with their children in the theater, and when the movie was over, the audience did not leave immediately. Instead, there was big applause as if they just listened to a speech by a real president.

3. Katyń (2007)

The value of this movie is simply the quantity and quality of information it delivers. We can feel the director Andrzej Wajda’s resolution that he could not die until he made this movie and told this story.

4. A Separation (2011)

Asghar Farhadi produced, directed, and wrote the screenplay for this exemplary movie with a tightly constructed storyline. Also, the movie is informative about the life of the middle class in Iran. Iranians—who value education highly and pride themselves on their refined culture—currently haven’t reached their full potential under a religious regime, but if Iran becomes a democratic nation, I think Iran will be truly incredible.

5. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)

This movie is a timeless masterpiece by maestro Stanley Kramer, who is known for producing High Noon and directing Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner. There is nothing flashy or preachy; the movie depicts the political situation in Europe and the U.S. after World War II very well, and suggests the beginning of the imminent Cold War. The movie doesn’t feel old even when we watch it today. I think Spencer Tracy, like Daniel Day-Lewis, is one of the greatest actors of our time. I should not forget to mention Z for being a movie with a similar appeal.

I wish you a Happy New Year.

日本語→

Movie: Lincoln (2012)

Lincoln was born in 1809; in 1861, he was elected as the 16th president of America and was re-elected in 1864. The Civil War started immediately after his inauguration in 1861 and his famous Emancipation Proclamation freeing slaves happened in 1862. In 1865, Lincoln led the North to victory. On April 15, 1865, Lincoln was assassinated and left the world at the age of 56.

Director Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln depicts Lincoln’s tumultuous life up until his final moments in April, focusing on the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution that abolished slavery. The movie has few war scenes and focuses on the discussion of the Constitution and the opposition to slavery. Spielberg presents a story that an average American is likely to understand, but a Japanese person may have difficulty in understanding the time period here without the knowledge of American history and the U.S. Constitution. It might be hard to understand the difference between the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 and the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was not the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 but rather the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 that truly liberated a slave. I think this is why Spielberg focuses on the approval of the Thirteenth Amendment in his film Lincoln.

The U.S. Constitution can be modified through only two methods. The first method is shown in the movie where the Senate and House of Representatives of the Congress must both get two-thirds to vote in favor; then within a year, three-quarters of the states must ratify in order for the amendment to be adopted into the Constitution. Once the amendment is adopted, it is binding to all states. The Thirteenth Amendment was already approved by the Senate in April of 1864. The movie depicts the dramatic two-vote margin when the amendment was passed in the House of Representatives on January 31, 1865. After the amendment had finally passed Congress, the ratification was easy. As the Land of Lincoln, Illinois was the first to ratify in support of the amendment the next day; many states followed suit and the Thirteenth Amendment was adopted into the Constitution. The president is not supposed to be involved in this amendment process, but President Lincoln believed in the Thirteenth Amendment from the bottom of his heart and did what he could to make it happen. The biggest obstacle in the process was to get the House of Representatives to approve. Therefore, Spielberg focused on the chronicle of events with the House of Representatives in Lincoln.

So then what is the difference between the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 and passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865?

The United States had gained its independence formally in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, but by the mid nineteenth century, there was already serious antagonism between the North and South on the direction of the country. Some scholars say that the Civil War originated from an economic conflict between the North and the South; the South was reliant on the large labor force provided by slaves for their plantations, while the North wanted free labor for industrial factories. Others think that the North believed slavery to be inhumane and wished to abolish slavery, as Europe had already. However, I believe the fundamental cause of the conflict was the tension between federal and centralized government. Another conflict was whether or not slavery was a part of the founding principles of America. Lincoln clearly says in the movie that America will never be a modern nation as long as there is slavery in America, and that slavery opposes the fundamental truth set by our Founding Fathers that all men are equal. Lincoln was running as the candidate for the Republican Party, which opposed slavery. When Lincoln was elected as President, the South (South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) withdrew from the U.S. and tensions escalated into the Civil War.

A question brought up by the Civil War was how to handle the slaves that the Union Army captured from the Confederates. Lincoln tried to solve the problem by passing a law to liberate slaves who were owned by the enemy Confederate Army. This was the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862.

A big problem still remained in this Proclamation. If either the Confederate Army won the Civil War or the Union Army did not occupy the state, slavery would continue in the South. Also, the Proclamation did not apply to the states allied to the North such as Maryland, Delaware, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, even though slavery was legal in these states. Furthermore, the 48 counties that left Virginia to become West Virginia were not targeted. (However, Maryland, Missouri, Tennessee, and later West Virginia abolished slavery on their own volition.) Since the Emancipation Proclamation of 1862 only regarded wartime handling of enemy property, regardless of the outcome—even if the North won—it was possible slavery could still persist.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a temporary wartime countermeasure to free the slaves in the states of the Confederate Army. In contrast, the change to the U.S. Constitution with the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment made the change permanent across the whole United States. Even Lincoln was not supportive of declaring the full abolition of slavery initially. As mentioned before, there were states that supported the Union Army that still had slaves. These states fought against the Confederate Army not to fight slavery but rather to unite the nation together again as the United States. Therefore, if it was declared that they were fighting for the complete abolition of slavery, some states would’ve rescinded their alliance with the North. If that happened, the South would’ve gained the upper hand over the North in the war. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation allowed former slaves freed from the South to join the Union Army, which provided their army with 200,000 new African-American soldiers.

Some would say that Lincoln actually opposed the abolition of slavery, but I still believe that Lincoln fixed his eyes on the ultimate goal and took steps and the right method most appropriate for the time. His ultimate goal was to get rid of slavery to unify the North and South again in America. Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln was able to capture this very well. By choosing to focus on the story of getting the House of Representatives to approve of the addition of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Spielberg shows Lincoln to be an excellent politician with a clear goal and realistic, steady steps. Simultaneously, Lincoln is talkative and has a gentle humor and we find him very likable and like a trusted friend. Steven Spielberg was able to find just the right actor to capture this character, and his great performance as Lincoln shines.

日本語→

Movie: Les Misérables (2012)

The movie rendition of the hit musical based on Victor Hugo’s original story was quite good. The movie used computer graphics well to reproduce the streets of Paris during that time—complete with the dirty, crooked teeth and stained clothing of the characters—and the beautiful cinematography provides a fresh angle to the familiar story. Furthermore, the talented actors’ singing is heartfelt. Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, and the rest of the cast sing very well, but also capture the darkness of the music, which makes this more than just a rehashing of a simple musical. Les Misérables begins after Napoleon I’s downfall in 1815 with Jean Valjean’s release from prison; before passing away in 1833, Jean Valjean witnesses the failed June Rebellion in 1832 that happens after the July Revolution in 1830.

Marius, the man who becomes the husband of Jean Valjean’s adopted daughter Cosette, is said to be the projection of author Victor Hugo, but I don’t understand this Marius very well. Marius wishes to defy his affluent grandfather by participating in the June Rebellion, but while all of his comrades died together in the revolt, Marius is rescued by Jean Valjean and he ends up marrying Cosette with a luxurious wedding supported by his grandfather and they live happily ever after. So what does it say about Victor Hugo that he is supposedly the model for the character of Marius? Which part of him is being projected?

Oppressed in the Bourbon era by noble aristocrats and clergymen, the bourgeoisie spearheaded people into a revolt, attacking the Bastille prison on July 14, 1789 and starting the French Revolution. Radical views spread and upon the execution of Louis XVI in 1792, the first republican form of government and its Reign of Terror arrived. Within this chaos, it was Napoleon Bonaparte that captured the spirit of the people and, after the coup d’etat of Brumaire in 1799, he established the autocratic Consulate. In 1804, Napoleon established an imperial system (the First Empire of France).

Victor Hugo was born in 1802, his father an officer in Napoleon’s army and his mother an ardent royalist. As a matter of course, there was a lot of discord between his parents, which cast a dark shadow on his youth. Because his parents were separated, Victor Hugo would spend most of his early childhood with his mother. When Napoleon fell in 1814, Victor’s father lost his status as a Spanish aristocrat and was demoted from being the commander of his squadron.

After the downfall of Napoleon, the other countries denied the French Revolution at the Congress of Vienna and restored the pre-revolution condition of France so as to maintain the balance of power between all the large powers. The Congress of Vienna, after all, was the way for the five Great Powers of Europe–Britain, Germany (Austria and Germany), France, Italy (and Vatican), and Russia –to come together and decide the relations of these powers , until World War II. Louis XVIII, the younger brother of Louis XVI, succeeded the throne as the next king of France. Louis XVIII had fled France at the height of the French Revolution and taken refuge in Germany, moving from place to place and condemning the French Republic. When Napoleon briefly escaped from his exile in Elba in 1815, Louis XVIII fled France again, but returned to the throne after Napoleon fell for the last time. After Louis XVIII died, his younger brother Charles X (he, like his older brother Louis XVIII, had abandoned Louis XVI in France and taken refuge in London after the French Revolution broke out) succeeded the throne and further instituted reactionary policies, such as compensation for exiled aristocrats.

This period of Bourbon restoration was the time Victor Hugo was concentrated on his family. After his mother passed away in 1821, he married his childhood friend Adèle Foucher (who is said to be the model for Cosette) and they had their first son in 1823 and their first daughter in 1824. In 1825, Hugo received the highest decoration in France—Legion d’honneur—gaining associate aristocrat status. Also, his relationship with his father, which had been estranged throughout his childhood, improved. Hugo’s understanding of Napoleon, who he had hated before, increased and he gradually began to respect Napoleon. Hugo had his second son in 1826, his third son in 1828, and his second daughter in 1830. He had pension from Louis XVIII allowing him to live a good and affluent life, but his success as a writer had already begun.

Charles X carried out reactionary politics, limiting freedom of speech, refusing most bourgeois the right to vote, and not defending the interest of the middleclass bourgeoisie, so intellectuals and the poor working-class grew unsatisfied. In addition, Charles X initiated an invasion of Algeria which resulted in political disgrace and debt. His repeated poor political decisions caused the bourgeoisie to lead a revolution in July in 1830. Victor Hugo was a conservative aristocrat, but on the other hand, he was a well-respected intellectual and he did not oppose the July Revolution; the leaders of the Revolution were essayists and close friends of his and Hugo secretly thought Charles X an incompetent king. During the July Revolution, even the government troops whose job it was to suppress the revolution didn’t have the will to fight against the revolutionary army, thus Charles X had to employ mercenary soldiers from foreign countries in a hurry. The July Revolution in France began on July 27, 1830 and went until the 29th, lasting only 3 days. This revolution caused Charles X to flee France; Louis-Philippe, a distant relative of the Bourbons and known for his liberalism, was crowned and established a constitutional monarchy (July Monarchy). Louis-Philippe lived in the United States from 1797 to 1799 and experienced the American Revolution, thus the public had high expectations for him.

Louis-Philippe was very popular with the bourgeoisie. Victor Hugo also thought highly of the king saying something to the effect of, “He is the perfect king who is superior in all ways,” and in 1845, Hugo was awarded the rank of viscount by Louis-Philippe. Because of his position as a noble, he began to show interest in politics. Hugo believed the July Monarchy resembled an ideal system of government where intellectuals support a wise monarch, such as Louis-Philippe.

However, there is a decisive difference between Victor Hugo and Marius. Marius was a poor lawyer and a member of the Republican secret society Friends of the ABC. Bourgeois in origins, his mother died when he was a child and his maternal grandfather raised him; when he was 17 years old, sparked by the death of his father who worked with Napoleon, Marius devoted himself to Bonapartism and ran away from his grandfather who supported the restoration of the monarchy. Marius of Les Misérables did not participate in the July Revolution, but the June Rebellion two years later. The June Rebellion (1832) was made of more radical students and laborers and was suppressed in only two days.
The political dynamics in France gradually switched to bourgeoisie versus workers. In 1848, the workers and peasants came together in a revolution in February; Louis-Philippe abdicated and fled to Great Britain, marking the end of the July Monarchy. With the abolishment of the monarchy, the constitution was established in 1848 and France shifted to a republican form of government (the Second Republic). In June of this year, laborers were again invoked to rise up in revolt in the June Days Uprising, not to be confused with the June Rebellion of 1832. Eventually, a presidential election was carried out in November where Napoleon’s nephew, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte was elected as president. After that, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte declared himself emperor (Napoleon III) and in 1852, France started its second imperial government.

Even after Louis-Philippe took refuge in Great Britain, Victor Hugo stubbornly advocated for the young adopted grandson of Louis-Philippe in Paris for the throne. The Second Republic gradually became a dictatorship under Napoleon III, who viewed Hugo as an enemy. After the coup by Napoleon III in 1851, Hugo, fearing for his life, took refuge in Brussels, the capital of Belgium, where he spread criticisms of Napoleon III. However, the hand of oppression spread to Belgium so Hugo decided to flee further to the remote island of Great Britain. At this time, he began to record the failure of the June Rebellion in his book Les Misérables, which would later become a best-seller across the world.

In 1870, the Franco-Prussian War broke out, which ended in a crushing defeat for France and Napoleon III was taken as a prisoner of war by the Prussian states. Because of this, Hugo was determined to return to France. After 19 years, he would step on the soil of his motherland and be welcomed by the people of France as a world-renowned literary master and national hero.

In order to get the Franco-Prussian War under control, a provisional government was established and France accepted a humiliating peace treaty proposed by German Chancellor Bismarck. Because of this, the people of France flew into a rage, rose in revolt, and formed the Paris Commune, which professed itself to be a socialist government. This Commune’s social policy included better working conditions and it is said to be the world’s first socialist administration, but the leaders of the Paris Commune were unable to resolve internal conflict and were suppressed immediately by government troops. Many members of the commune were shot down and executed by the military. Gaining political stability in France was used as justification for the suppression of the Paris Commune.

Nineteenth century in Europe was defined by royalist factions, the bourgeoisie playing a central role in republican states, military power, and revolts by armed laborer/proletariat forces that were influenced by Marxism—all of which was part of class struggle and the cycle of ideological strife. Hugo aimed for a political system with a progressive monarch supported by a wise bourgeoisie, a rational constitution, and a general election. This political system is similar to one that Great Britain sought and the July Monarchy that was established after the sacrifice of the July Revolution. However, after the time Hugo spent in exile, his political insights deepened. He felt as if in order to save his country, he must rescue “les misérables” (everybody in poverty), the people who are suffering from grave poverty. Therefore, depicting the darkness of the June Rebellion adds depth to Les Misérables, instead of just the mere rosy glory of the July Revolution.

Hugo passed away at 84 years of age in Paris on May 22, 1885 and was buried with honor in the Pantheon as a national hero and literary master.

日本語→