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....
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
I think our interests simply differ.
Date: 2006-09-28 07:32 am (UTC)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....