Wajda's Danton does not offer solutions, in a certain way it's like Forman's Goya's Ghosts: deeply reactionnary. A conservative position of a passive observer and detached critic, smirking while observing ridiculousness of people's higher aspirations, comes out as the only reasonable choice. Don't make revolutions, 'cause you'll end up like a criminal. Don't get engagé, because you can realize you've been mistaken and you can be laughed at. Now, that's brave, isn't it? If everyone was like that, we'd still be living in caves.
It's true that there is a certain inner paradox in Wajda. On one hand, the message "revolution-bad" is clear. However, Danton does come out as the man of "la rue" and a positive connotation is attributed to this, as you mention. He remains a hero, in spite of his corruption. Wajda's Danton seem to be the one who knows the people and is able to speak for them; and the people, it means 1) total lack of idealism and 2)following the basic instincts. Because "people are like that". But that does not depress him, rather he watches it with a deeply catholic benevolence. Don't try to be perfect (it'd be pride, it could be evil, you could be like Lucifer), we are all sinners, so let's tolerate our petty crimes and corruptions...and be willing to pardon the others for them, too. I am not quite sure what implications in relation to political power it actually has, besides being profoundly corrupting on the human level. Does it mean that "Danton's revolution" means cleaning the way for hedonist consumerism, or am I misinterpreting him? Does giving the people the "permission" to be imperfect and corrupt make it easier to control them through guilt-inducement and through offering ways of penitence?