TERROR, on YOUTUBE!

[missweirdness.livejournal.com]

Yeah, i guess what i found on youtube?

That dreadful Terror! Robespierre and the french revolution..

here's the link -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcZxrb_L0_M

part 1 of 9, hahahah

enjoy =O

 

 and apparently the emo GUY is ST. JUST! GASP!

 

I'm watching now..=( 

now discuss!

 

 

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Do we really need so straightforward a propaganda against any kind of idealism? Do we need to be persuaded with such tools to be happy with our cynical consumerism? Do we really need to be convinced once and again that our socially and ecologically irresponsible behaviour and apathy are innocuous and SO MUCH BETTER than any organized effort to make things better. How is this kind of propaganda different from the 'totalitarian' one?
Stalin, an idealist who wanted human happines?
'Robespierre, the first man in history who believed that the road to virtue did not lead throught the persuation, but through the terror' How can any historian appear in a docudrama that says THAT NONSENSE???? Oh yeah, have no one ever hear of the religious conflicts in Early Modern Europe? Ok, if you accept torture as persuasion, then what they say might be true :-)

Andress's classism

[(Anonymous)]

So if you are a man from province, you are not 'big enough' to govern well. You may try hard, but it just does not work. Dear Mr.Andress, as I suppose you are not entitled to the proud title of citizen being subject of a Queen, that is the point of the French Revolution you seem to miss: to part with the idea that only men from certain families with silly names, with a particular silly accent or with a lot of money to make other people forget about the lack of the previously mentionned characteristics are entitled to govern, meanwhiles those who cannot put a '-' between two surnames or provide a monstruous stone mansion in the coutryside can only aspire to be HISTORIANS :)

[josiana.livejournal.com]

My feelings on the matter are as follows:

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Seconded x1000.

[(Anonymous)]

A funny point in the midst of a painful experience: it is really an interesting sign of intercultural misunderstanding, rather typical for the last couple of decades of depicting the revolutionnaries, to interpret the virtue and 'puritanism' as negative attitude towards alcohol and sex. These are the obsessions of other parts of the world and other periods, I am afraid. Virtue meant a very different, more political and social-relational thing in the French Enlightenment than a condamnation of alcohol and aVictorian spinster's idea of decency :-) In times when cultural history is a booming field, such deep misunderstanding is hardly acceptable in a serious docudment of a prestigious public TV channel.S.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Thank you for mentioning that. This is one of the things that bothers me the most about treatments of the Revolution in the English speaking world, and almost all of them are guilty of it.

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Wait, is there really a condemnation of alcohol in there? Because not only would it never occur to any of the Revolutionaries to propose that (Robespierre drank his wine with water, but how the hell could anyone think that was anything other than a personal preference when none of his friends or supporters did likewise?), it would be pretty near impossible for anyone to propose it in the 18th century, considering the general quality of the drinking water.

[missweirdness.livejournal.com]

and i nearly wanted to throw the laptop (which isn't mine btw) into the wall when i heard old Schama crack, HOW HE WANTED TO BE THERE ON 9th THERMIDOR!

>.>

[(Anonymous)]

Is Zizek on cocaine?

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

Yes:

Great comments of Victoriavandal on youtube

[(Anonymous)]

Well done! Let's hope everyone who watched the document on youtube will read your comment.S.

Re: Great comments of Victoriavandal on youtube

[victoriavandal.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I do my best. I just wanted to point a few things out to anyone who might be using the programme as a study guide to write a school/college essay! The person who posted it is, I think, someone who seems to post a lot of Zizek stuff, so presumably the poster himself doesn't agree with the thrust of the programme, as Zizek seemed to be the sole defender (albeit very incoherently!) of the Revolutionaries'position.

[missweirdness.livejournal.com]

Though i have to say, I think i'm liking the emo St. Just..too much xD I'd just go back and watch it for him, even though it's a complete fail.

[(Anonymous)]

It is also very interesting how extremely hard times the anti-R movies have showing Thermidor. It is so hard for them to fit in Collot, Billaud, Fouché and company to the picture...However, as cynism is being praised, soon Fouché will become a very acceptable hero, so the problem for the filmmakers might be solved.
Another difficulty they seem to have with the Thermidor is Saint-Just's speech: either it is necessary to make it disappear (RF - Les années horribles) or it is totally misinterpreted as in the BBC shit where SJ is a "schoolboy", or his master's voice, who is simply insisting on Robespierre's purging intentions from the previous day's speech.
Another unsurprisingly common thing is invisible Le Bas and Augustin - of course, the triumvirs were evil and thus had no friends...
I also have hard times understanding why SJ is always depicted as a loner, totally dependent on Robespierre. Ok, they might not be willing to mention unimportant people as Gateau and Thuillier, but the non-existence of Le Bas is eloquent.

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

RF - Les années horribles is the best renaming of that horrible film I've ever heard. Bravo. XDD

They keep on manipulating the Thermidor sequence and the relationships of Robespierre. It's how their whole interpretion of "Robespierre-the-evil-dictator" holds together and it's a direct heritage of the Thermidorian propaganda.

God, I hate how they always portray Saint-Just. It makes me want to scream all the time. And they obviously never read that last speech of his: there was nothing even bloody close to "purging" or even "terrorist" in there.

Well, that was *subtle*...

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

So in this version, Saint-Just takes Éléonore's place in giving Robespierre his bouquet before the FdlÊS. It seems we have a resurgence of the old "Robespierre and Saint-Just were gay and therefore evil" thesis that we've already seen in Wajda's "Danton" and LRF. Wonderful. (It should be noted that I don't have a problem with Robespierre/Saint-Just when it's not used as in pathetic attempt to make them "abnormal" and therefore worthy of abhorrence.)

Re: Well, that was *subtle*...

[estellacat.livejournal.com]

Even less subtle is what happens next. I don't even need the sound on to know how outrageous it is to have them crown Robespierre with laurel during an official ceremony like the corrupt hébertiste representative on mission in "Les mariés de l'an II". I think I may soon be sick.

Re: Well, that was *subtle*...

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

*snerk* Oh no they didn't, eh? But they did so much, so why not! Old resurgence of Wajda indeed and that novel-whichever-it-was-in-which-Saint-Just-always-carried-flowers-to-Robespierre, no?

What's your source for Éléonore giving Robespierre his bouquet before the FdlES?

P.S. I didn't see a lot yet, but my favourite part at the moment is the beginning of part 2 with Schama gesticulating that "OH NOEZZ PEOPLE TELLING ME WOT TO DO WITH ME LIFEEE" followed by Saint-Just reminding Robespierre that "some people still confuse pleasure with happiness". *snorts*

Re: Well, that was *subtle*...

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think LRF did it?

[momesdelacloche.livejournal.com]

I missed this. I think I was watching Bruno on the cinema that day. Sounds like I made a good decision: Bruno was highly educational and made some interesting and original points.

(frozen)

[momesdelacloche.livejournal.com]

But I do get the impression that you guys will hate anything that deals with your favourite guys, especially English TV shows, that aren't all COMPLETELY ACCURATE - i.e. they mention the little known but entirely true fact that the reason Robespierre looked so tired in the later days of his ministry, I mean, time on the Committee, was because at night he used to remove his glasses, don a tricolore cape and fly through the world combatting counter revolution, racism, sexism, ageism, curing cancer, feeding starving children in Africa and correcting outrageous fashion slip-ups.
And then they expected him to be chirpy and act reasonably in the mornings. How unfair.
D=

(frozen)

[josiana.livejournal.com]

;_; Um. Possibly, but I think we are more appalled at the blatant attempts at manipulation than the questionable accuracy.

(frozen)

[maelicia.livejournal.com]

The problem here isn't that this "English TV show" isn't "all completely accurate": THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S ENTIRELY INACCURATE ON EVERY SINGLE LEVEL AND IS A BLATANT IDEOLOGICAL MANIPULATION OF HISTORY.

By the way, if you have anything good to add up to contribute to the debate, or, I don't know, to this community at all -- who are you? -- please do so.

[citoyennemiyuki.livejournal.com]

Oh My God! I can't watch this to end! THE ENGLISH DOESN'T DO ANY FILMS/DOCUMENTARY FILMS ABOUT THE REVOLUTION!!!! Emo-haired Saint-Just is terrible..emos are everywhere :(...I wouldn't rather mention how Robespierre is not Robespierre XD

[bettylabamba.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I couldn't resist.

I haven't posted since forver in this group. It's awesome to see a bunch of new blood--and most of the some peeps.