revolution_fr | (no subject)

Current Mood: curious
Current Music: Radio America - The Libertines

Entry tags:

(no subject)

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?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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! ;)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only