It’s been a couple of weeks since the Tivoli hosted Broadway’s “Les Misérables,” but its showing here in Chattanooga has sparked some interesting discussions among my friends and fellow musical lovers. To categorize “Les Mis” as just a musical, however, would be somewhat misleading and discourteous to the true nature of Victor Hugo’s narrative masterpiece. The music and presentation of Broadway’s depiction of “Les Mis” has earned it much acclaim, and rightfully so. But it all started because of the incredible story and character development in Hugo’s book.
The wholesome and astoundingly good nature of Jean Valjean cannot be contested. It’s virtually impossible to dislike him. On the other hand, the antagonist, Inspector Javert, is a bit more of a controversial character. Javert, initially Valjean’s prison guard and then an inspector dedicated to catching the ex-convict, is exceedingly devoted to his job. He has a great love for certain admirable principles: law and order. However, he struggles to see past the black and white world he has created for himself with these ideals, into the gray areas of reality. It is from this understanding of Javert that I will be analyzing his character, specifically his single-minded pursuit of Valjean and his decision to (spoiler alert) commit suicide.
The little that we learn about Javert’s past, at least from the musical adaptation, is that he was born to a destitute criminal, much like what Valjean was when he first encounters Javert. From personal experience, Javert understands the hardships associated with poverty, but he holds no sympathy for those who choose crime over a legal means of obtaining comfort and status.
Javert’s personal history teaches him two things that play a major role in his development: a healthy respect for the law, and a disdain for those who break it. In Javert’s mind, Valjean and other criminals that came from poverty were not forced into a life of crime; rather, they chose the easiest means of escaping their suffering. Essentially, they were lazy and deserve to pay whatever consequences the law deems fit. This is a harsh posture for him to have, especially in light of the injustice and corruption prevalent throughout the French judicial system at the time, but it is still understandable.
In addition to his instinctive and visceral disapproval of any form of criminal, Javert has a healthy respect for the rule of law, one that exceeds normal standards. Maybe his ability to succeed through his own efforts and rise out of his poverty while remaining within the bounds of the law is the driving force behind his admiration. Or it could be something more; maybe the early years of his life were so filled with chaos and disorder that he came to see the rule of law as an escape, a way to structure his life and keep him from the misery of criminals. Either way, Javert has grown to hold the law in high esteem, and he is passionate to a point of obsession about its maintenance.
Javert sees Valjean as a criminal who chose theft, an action that is not only illegal but also morally reprehensible, as a solution to his problems; and he disdains him for it. Valjean, as Javert understands him, has no appreciation for the order of law and lacks moral integrity. His multiple attempts at escape further prove Valjean’s anarchic nature, and when he finally breaks parole, Javert takes this as a flagrant affront to the legal system put in place to protect productive members of society. For this reason, Javert feels bound, on principle, to hunt down Valjean, a man whose utter disregard for justice (as perceived by Javert) stands in such stark contrast to his own zealous pursuit of it.
Javert conflates the justice system with the moral code of Christianity to such an extent that he cannot believe in the existence of a genuinely good criminal. Regardless of what Valjean may say or do after breaking parole, Javert cannot believe that he has a truly repentant heart because he never turned himself in on his own volition. If Valjean truly were sorry for his past actions, he would accept his punishment without hesitation or resistance. There is no denying that this is a severe standard for Javert to maintain, but in light of his interpretation of the law, its necessity and infallibility, it is, once again, understandable.
With this insight into Javert’s reverence for the rule of law, the circumstances surrounding his suicide become much more interesting and significant to his final character development. Valjean saves Javert’s life and helps him escape from the French revolutionaries. This act of compassion is so purely good, and Javert cannot reconcile that with his preconceived idea of Valjean’s character. His response to this kindness is to pay it back to Valjean in a way that goes against his duty and his understanding of right and wrong: Javert allows Valjean to leave without attempting to arrest him, which is so contrary to Javert’s nature that it completely destroys his sense of identity. This sequence of events shifts Javert’s entire worldview to such an extent that he cannot recover, so he commits suicide.
Essentially, there are two reasons why Javert chose to kill himself: he could not comprehend why Valjean showed him mercy, and he could not forgive himself for failing his duty to arrest Valjean and serve justice. The first reason revealed to Javert his gross misunderstanding of the law and its relation to people. This final interaction with Valjean proved, without a doubt, that some good people become undeserving victims of the law. The second reason set up a paradox that was too much for him to bear. He loved the law and had always done his duty with incredible pride and joy, but he knew he could not continue to do his duty with his new knowledge of Valjean’s character.
Javert is indeed the main antagonist in this story; he pursues Valjean, the hero, with a vengeance that seems unjust, and he represents a dark time in Valjean’s past. However, he is by no means a villian. Javert is a character with many more complexities than most people attribute to him. His severe and uncompromising interpretation of the law is a main source of conflict in the story, but it also serves to emphasize the integrity of his character. He never acts maliciously or for his own personal gain. Rather, his motivations remain true to his desire for order, justice, and discipline. With this in mind, one must consider at what point he goes wrong because his ideology certainly is taken too far, but it would be a mistake to write off his actions as entirely evil and unworthy of admiration.