(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

[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.