Because, honestly, what is falsification of history if not, for example, pretending that David had to erase Fabre from his painting of the "Tennis Court Oath" when not only was Fabre never in the original picture, he was also not present at the event portrayed?
I've been thinking about this because that was rather a WTF moment for me as well. I mean why not use Mirabeau? He was there and in the drawing and he's mentioned in the film as a political undesirable and I think there's a crack theory that the smashing of his statues etc was the start of Soviet "improved" history. Maybe I'm being a bit over suspicious, but I think they might have used Fabre because he is such a minor character most people with a high school education but without a specialist interest would only have a very vague idea of who Fabre was and couldn't confidently tell you whether he was in the Tennis Court Oath or not whereas more people might know Mirabeau is.
I thought it odd that Lucile wasn't arrested in Danton too, surely it would make things look a whole lot more totalitarian if they showed the families of political suspects being menaced? I'm not sure if Wadja might have thought that was going too far politically to get the film shown in Eastern Bloc Poland, although he would have had the excuse it was historical truth.
If I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt it looks like he altered history to allow him to get in some idealising of a non-political woman, beautiful, devoted to her family, not about to slap Danton with a sexual harassment suit when he gropes up her arse who becomes assertive only when those she loves are threatened. Compare and contrast with the evil politicised "maid Duplay."
The two works actually have a lot in common, come to think of it.
They both serve up huge portions of misogyny with a side dish of homophobia. It's quite amusing as Mantel claims to hate Wadja's Robespierre but has in effect written him as an almost identical character except straighter and with nicer waistcoats.
like in PoGS, this is mostly at the expense of his friends, family, and colleagues.
But Robespierre didn't have friends family and colleagues. He was alone, the sole voice of the people in direct communion with Jean-Jacques and the supreme being . . . blah blah sodding blah. That's ideology for you, it'll always leave you with no mates.
It's still amazing how many people who think they know about history still write that Robespierre lived alone: There's a very bad example here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3652168/Sea-green-Robespierre-mad-as-a-fish.html , and while I'm at it doesn't Fatal Purity sound more like an anorexia memoir than a book about a politician? Also, is there any evidence at all that Robespierre was mad? There's a big difference between very stressed and out and out psychotic.
![[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
no subject
Date: 2010-03-09 08:59 am (UTC)I've been thinking about this because that was rather a WTF moment for me as well. I mean why not use Mirabeau? He was there and in the drawing and he's mentioned in the film as a political undesirable and I think there's a crack theory that the smashing of his statues etc was the start of Soviet "improved" history. Maybe I'm being a bit over suspicious, but I think they might have used Fabre because he is such a minor character most people with a high school education but without a specialist interest would only have a very vague idea of who Fabre was and couldn't confidently tell you whether he was in the Tennis Court Oath or not whereas more people might know Mirabeau is.
I thought it odd that Lucile wasn't arrested in Danton too, surely it would make things look a whole lot more totalitarian if they showed the families of political suspects being menaced? I'm not sure if Wadja might have thought that was going too far politically to get the film shown in Eastern Bloc Poland, although he would have had the excuse it was historical truth.
If I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt it looks like he altered history to allow him to get in some idealising of a non-political woman, beautiful, devoted to her family,
not about to slap Danton with a sexual harassment suit when he gropes up her arsewho becomes assertive only when those she loves are threatened. Compare and contrast with the evil politicised "maid Duplay."The two works actually have a lot in common, come to think of it.
They both serve up huge portions of misogyny with a side dish of homophobia. It's quite amusing as Mantel claims to hate Wadja's Robespierre but has in effect written him as an almost identical character except straighter and with nicer waistcoats.
like in PoGS, this is mostly at the expense of his friends, family, and colleagues.
But Robespierre didn't have friends family and colleagues. He was alone, the sole voice of the people in direct communion with Jean-Jacques and the supreme being . . . blah blah sodding blah. That's ideology for you, it'll always leave you with no mates.
It's still amazing how many people who think they know about history still write that Robespierre lived alone: There's a very bad example here - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3652168/Sea-green-Robespierre-mad-as-a-fish.html , and while I'm at it doesn't Fatal Purity sound more like an anorexia memoir than a book about a politician? Also, is there any evidence at all that Robespierre was mad? There's a big difference between very stressed and out and out psychotic.