(no subject)

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

In a convo with a friend of mine on AIM last night, after being asked if the film Danton was ambiguous in not clearly taking sides, I said this:

EccentricBeauty9: Well, it's about the Terror

EccentricBeauty9: So, *lol* by consequence yes, to a certain degree

EccentricBeauty9: Danton is lionized to a certain extent

EccentricBeauty9: But Robespierre is also treated more sympathically than you could, theoretically, treat him

EccentricBeauty9: But everyone has a soft spot for Robespierre (by everyone I mean, those who study the Revolution; most of us at least) so, that makes sense

 Would you agree that this is for the most part true, that most of us to some degree are a bit of a sucker for Robespierre? Or are there some hard core anti-Robespierrists out there?

Comments

[jesta-ariadne.livejournal.com]

Ooh, interesting. Hmm... I wouldn't be surprised if most people here do :) I think overall and historically Robespierre has more a habit of just totally polarizing a lot of people to one extreme point of view or another... Very strong opinions on both sides. And those that try to be objective - or just 'non-extreme', for whatever reason - tend get really, really confused =) (See The Life and Opinions of Maximilien Robespierre by Norman Hampson. V. good!)

(I haven't seen the film Danton... :( What did you think of it?? I only know that it was based in some way on Stanisława Przybyszewska's 'The Danton Case', which I have read. But am I right in thinking that while she was a HUGE fan of Robespierre, the film changed quite a bit of those elements?)

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

I have not read the Danton Case so, I've no idea how changed it is. Danton however in my opinion is a wonderful film, which manages, by focusing on one, tiny story of the Terror, to encompass so many of the themes of the Terror and Revolution and the questions they rose. It may not be 100% historically accurate but, as far as a study in personality, politics and philosophy in the 18th century Atlantic world, as well as a look at the questions of right/wrong, ends-justifies-the-means, I can't really think of a movie which matches it.

Plus it is a great period peice because the writing is great, the acting is great, the costumes and sets are great, and the actors do not behave as if they are on a stage or acting or some sterotype or caricature of what 18th century people were supposed to sound and feel like. It feels real.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

There are definitely many anti-Robespierristes; more than there are Robespierristes.....But the few small ways in which Robespierre could be considered to have been treated sympathetically do not add up to an overall sympathetic portrayal in Danton. The filmmakers give him several traits of a Polish Communist from the time Danton was made, while Danton, whom the filmmakers clearly want the audience to sympathize with is given those of the opposition leader in 1980s Poland. As several reviewers have remarked, Danton says more about Poland in the 1980s than France in the 1790s. Thus, in Danton to the extent that Robespierre does represent the actual historical figure, one gets the sense, watching the film, that the filmmakers are trying to be somewhat sympathetic to a character they dislike overall for the sake of nuance.

...Sorry if that was a bit convoluted, but the principle is, as far as Danton really relates relates to the Revolution, it's from a Dantoniste perspective.

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

Right, I knew that the significance of the film was largely tied up with what was going on in Poland, and that Danton is defintley the hero of the fil, BUT:

But, I also feel that Robiespierre is defintley not demonized in the film either. Although he is seen as a man posessed by his own sense of decency and power, he is also portrayed as becoming so possessed for reasons less simplistic than a simple desire to dominate. For example, in the final scene, where he responds to St. Just's calls for him to become a dictator with despair, not enthuasium (although that particular detail was probably pushing St. Just's proclivities toward such a thing, at his expense).

And yeah, even though the movie was made in part to make contmeporary political points, I think it is still a very thoughtful, significant contribution to the debate surrounding Revolutionary France itself.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

I agree that the film is not rabidly anti-Robespierriste and that the filmmakers were aware of the history (it's on a completely different level, in that sense than something like A Tale of Two Cities, wherein knowledge of the Revolution as it happened is extremely scant). However, I would be inclined to say that even if it is a film that does not demonize Robespierre (as many do, for the sake of oversimplification), it provides a warped view of the Revolution through the highly inaccurate and typically negative portrayals of just about everyone associated with him. The entire Committee of Public Safety were at best mere caricatures of the actual historical personnages; the only character who had any real semblance of accuracy in his portrayal was Camille Desmoulins, and even he was exaggerated.
In addition, I'm going to have to disagree that with all its inaccuracies and anachronisms Danton is really a good starting point for discussion concerning the Revolution. The Revolution, however some might choose to portray it--and the director of this film acknowledges that this was in large part his goal, was not a struggle between totalitarian Communism and liberal Capitalism; such a view is completely laughable in the view that neither ideology had come into being at the time.

...And speaking of that last scene with Saint-Just, only one who knows nothing about him could believe that he would ever have said anything like that; it's clear from just that one line that the point Danton is making has nothing to do with the actual Revolution.

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

Well, I think there is only so much that can be done with a multitude of characters in a single film; and beyond that, I am disclined to think that the movie is *that* useless as a look at the Revolution, otherwise my highly absorbed French Revolution professor would have never thought it suitable to make us watch for class. And as far the communism/capitalism aspect; whatever the director's goals, I did not sense any specifics of idelogy like that coming through the movie - perhaps if one is already aware of said intention and looking for it, they will, but most of the things the characters said in that movie where issues actually debated on even if you take issue with who is saying what and the *exact* connotation of what they are saying. I dunno, I just think you are asking much much more than is possible from a strictly cinematic framework and from a movie that actually has very strong characteristics if you get over it's albeit real imperfections. It does make sense for the perfectionist historian to get quibbly over all the little things and, if this were a movie on say, Early American politics I might be simialrily picky; but can you think of any other better way to introduce the common lay person, in a cinematic form, to why the Revolution is as infamous as it is?

But then again, although I love the French Revolution as in I love its history and its significance, I'm not one of those people who is actually a fan of the Revolution as it turned out; if someone is more inclined to be defensive about the Revolution then, ya, one probably wouldn't like Danton as much.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

It does make sense for the perfectionist historian to get quibbly over all the little things
It's not the little things about this movie that I mind; if they got little things wrong it wouldn't matter as much to me, but since the filmmakers misrepresent the ideologies and personalities of just about every character they touch on, with the possible semi-exceptions of Danton and Desmoulins, I can hardly recommend it. In fact I would consider that Danton makes the historian's task of deconstructing myths that much harder because it reinforces those very myths. Danton is a good film, and a good critique of the situation in Poland at the time it was made, but it's poor history.

I'm not one of those people who is actually a fan of the Revolution as it turned out
Could you explain what you mean by that? If you're referring to the Terror, it wasn't as if the Revolutionaries got up one morning and decided to chop off a lot of people's heads as is commonly believed; the Terror was motivated by unforeseeable circumstances, and without it France could very well have been carved up like Poland, considering they had no allies but the far-away and impotent infant US and all of Europe was leagued against them. Add to this the civil war in the Vendée and other parts of France, and what should the Revolutionaries have done? The Terror was not of their choosing; they had to make the best of a bad situation.
Besides, it wasn't as if the Terror was unique and horrible; compared with certain other incidents in the history of France alone (St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, La Semaine Sanglante, etc.) it was incredibly mild. According to Thompson, a historian whom I would not term as particularly fond of the Revolution, the Terror was no more repressive a government than that leading France during WWI.
On the other hand, if you're referring to the Thermidorian reaction, the Directoire, and Bonaparte's dictatorship, well: nobody wanted those things, and you can hardly blame (most of) the Montagnards for any of those happenings.

I think our interests simply differ.

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

Point 1: I actually think we agree on this point and we are diverging in our tendencies to what we love about history. Yes, Danton is a mythologized version of the Revolution; I never argued for its high accuracy; but as James Campbell would tell you, the power of myth is one of the most so in communicating certain themes to other human beings across time and space. So, and someone here pointed out, the film succeeds extrodinarily well in making the Revolution, even if is simplified, still relevant to the modern world and the human condition in general; to me, beyond all the details, the Revolution is a tragic story that ultimatley boils down to the human condition. Hence why I don't mind the taking of certain characters and here molding them to tell a particular story in a short amount of time -- but I am biased because, the story it tells is also what I view as the main reoccuring and underlying tragic theme of the Revolution, regardless of individual personalities.

2. To clarify I guess I would have to argue with your argument -- while yes, of course all the Revolutionists didn't sit around and say, "Let's kill people now because we can, yay!" - that is ridiculous and as you listed clearly they were under incredible pressures from all angles -- I am not of the opinion that the Terror was some impersonal, organic occurance that would have happened no matter who was in charge or were major figures at the time. I'm old school in believing in the power of politics and personality -- and in my opinion, the particular passions of the Jacobinists, Robiespierre just being the most clear and outstanding example, were particuarly unquie and telling in again, the overall lesson or tragedy they present to mankind. The French Revolution was unquiely passionate, unquiely concerned with idelogy and just at all just a power grab; rather, the power grab that occured in its wake continued to be justified, in the minds of those abusing it, by that idelogy they still feverntly stuck to. That is what makes it different from many other such violent episodes and revolutions, say with the Russian Revolution because what did Stalin care about socialism right, and that I believe is what Danton (the film) was trying to get across -- that horrors can be born as much from our idealism and hopes for deceny as our out and out ambition and sinfullness. In THIS Robiespierre is in fact, a prime example - such as his advocacy of Terror as moral courage -- and in the film, this ultimate conclusion and conundrum is also very clearly presented.

So, in short, our opinions differ primarily in what it is about the FR that attracts us - the me it the underlying historical lesson, themes, and yes, even the myths that they endgendered, rather than the details of people, places and personalities -- and to the second question, I would really argue with you extensivley about the Terror being inevitable. It was not inevitable at all; it took a certain combination of human passions and poetry to pull that off - and, is it ever a good idea to weigh the horror or something sheerly by numbers? After all, the real horror of the Terror was not the number of people killed, but the murdering of free speech in the name of liberty, and the precedent it set for the use of force in the name of revolutionary zeal....

Re: I think our interests simply differ.

[jonahmama.livejournal.com]

I agree with all of your second point. Except the question is, did the Terror happen *because* of Robespierre or *in spite of* him? After some research, I am of the latter opinion.

[mercredimatin.livejournal.com]

i am absolutely a sucker for robespierre.

[kurotoshi.livejournal.com]

Haha, I am SUCH a sucker for Robespierre it's ridiculous! but I'm also a sucker for Marat, which is a rare as ..I wish I could think of something witty right now, BUT I cannot!

[citoyenne.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm quite an anti-robespierrist actually, but when I put aside my all my principles, I enjoy loving him. If we're talking politics and what he actually did I'm anti, but I have sympathy with the man Robespierre. I find him interesting with all his faults and virtues, like any other humans.
...aand I take it very personal that he executed Manon Roland, mhm.

[jonahmama.livejournal.com]

I feel the sudden urge to rush to Estellacat's aid here! :)

First of all, I will readily confess to absolutely loving Robespierre and sharing the perspective that he was much misunderstood and unjustly maligned both in his own time and today. While nearly all the other key revolutionaries have received streets / statues named after them in Paris (and many also in their birthplaces), there has yet to be a rue Robespierre (actually I think one working-class suburb named a tiny street after him, but it got renamed after much controversy). His person and politics remain to this day a lightning rod for controversy (ooh a nice figure of speech if you know his early life :) ), and he attracts many, many more detractors than fans. Unfortunately films such as "Danton," which attempt to connect him to the Communist/Facist movement, do nothing to set the record straight. The fact that Communist leaders, including Lenin, borrowed freely from his and Saint-Just's speeches in particular (one of Lenin's is practically a word-for-word repetition of Saint-Just's speech proposing the Laws of Prairial, if memory serves), only serves to cement the popular misconception that Robespierre was ultimately a tyrant who committed atrocities in the name of the "people."

True, the film "Danton" is not rabidly anti-Robespierrist, but that's about the best that can be said of it. I agree that it would be very hard to cram the Revolution into feature length in any accurate or meaningful way. Since this film doesn't even try, as history it is barely useful. Professors assign it for viewing for two reasons: 1. there is virtually nothing else much better out there on the subject 2. it does show how the Revolution continues to have relevance in the modern world. From a historical study point of view, "The French Revolution" ("La Revolution Francaise") would be a better starting point. It too is wildly inaccurate in many places, but it is a step up. For one thing, it does start at the beginning, rather than in the middle.

As for "Danton" from a cinematic point-of-view, I must confess a bias in actually being in the movie industry, but I think it is mediocre at best. I can't stand Gerard Depardieu, and I know I am not alone (though admittedly this is better than "Green Card"). If you've done some reading on what Danton was really like, you will see in places his characterization amounts to laughable caricature (I recall a drinking scene in particular). The rest of the acting is ok, but the cast overall is way too old - most visibly in their 40's - when the revolutionaries were really very young men, most in their 30's (some younger). I honestly couldn't tell Desmoulins and Saint-Just apart half the time, which is a problem. (Note to self: If you're going to have two cute young men in your movie, they should look really different, so you can keep track of which hottie is which.) Overall, the film lacks the amazing charisma, lustre, frenzied pace, hightened and conflicted emotions which were the hallmarks of these people and this time. It feels like most history: old men in awkward clothes speaking stilted, literary-sounding dialogue. Try to picture it more like the "West Wing": young, brilliant, energetic, sharp individuals who exude charisma speaking eloquent, intelligent, often witty dialogue and moving at a breathtaking pace through a series of intense moments.

[tearosefury.livejournal.com]

1) Ah!, I love Gerard Depardieu but, that's just a matter of preference and

2) The only thing I have to argue with here, (because the rest of it is about being annoyed by historical inaccuracy which I address above)is that I *cannot believe* you found the characters in this movie to be stiff and unpassionate -- many a film critic thought they were the exact opposite of what you said, "old men in awkward clothes...etc" - see Roger Ebert's review, for one. I very much felt the passion, the extremeity and and the intensity of the time flying off the screen; what about all those scenes in the Assembly with the screaming and intensity of the political passions and instability at the time? And Desmoulins deep seated love of what he was fighting for, in face of his very obvious fear of death, is likewise very touching. Anyway, I think this is just an example of different styles touching different people, because these men felt very real, very passionate, and very down to earth to me in this film.

And as for Robiespierre - his legend revolves around the fact that he was actually that prudish - or somewhere approaching it.

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

I can't stand Gerard Depardieu, and I know I am not alone

Ah-ha! FINALLY. Someone who can't stand Depardieu. I can't take it anymore, he's everyone in French history -- even Obélix o.O
...and it's really the worst casting ever, starting by him.

[jonahmama.livejournal.com]

Though admittedly casting the Revolution is no small challenge. :)

[jonahmama.livejournal.com]

And people's ages are a pet peeve of mine. Most American college students also concieve of the American revolutionaries as staid men about our parents' age, probably because their most famous representations come from their later (often presidential) years. When they discover how astonishingly young Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, etc. were during the time of the revolution, they are amazed. It's the same thing with Robespierre, Danton, Camille, Saint-Just, etc., none of whom were over 30 in 1789! Look around your social circle (or college campus) and see if you can imagine some of the 20-something men (and women) YOU know winning elections, drafting legislation, or leading armies. What I think is most exciting about the French Revolution is that it's the story of what happens when you take a bunch of "regular" people in their 20's and 30's - brilliant, eccentric, more or less messed up people but not unlike us and our friends - and put them in charge of running a country in crisis, where everything they say and do has enormous consequences. And it all really happened.

[trf-chan.livejournal.com]

What I think is most exciting about the French Revolution is that it's the story of what happens when you take a bunch of "regular" people in their 20's and 30's - brilliant, eccentric, more or less messed up people but not unlike us and our friends - and put them in charge of running a country in crisis, where everything they say and do has enormous consequences.

I'm sorry - I don't have anything constructive to add to the dialogue here at the moment, but I just wanted to say that for some reason that sounded like the plot of a new reality TV show for a minute there. *dies* XD At this rate, it can't be far off. So You Think You Can Govern: Somalia.

[jonahmama.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. Not exactly what I had in mind (please see my comments on the "French Revolution Documentary" post started on 8/6/03 - scroll down), but you may have something there! ;)

<3

[(Anonymous)]

I just started learning about Robespierre in my Socials 9 class, and to me, it sounds like he meant well, but was rather forced by the circumstances to make choices that people frowned upon.

That aside... has anyone else noticed the parallels between Robespierre and Obama? Just putting that out there...