And take us on the roads again

Scrolling through tumblr I've noticed hostility towards this movie. I don't remeber specific posts, but nevertheless I decided to write this post to try to redeem it in your eyes.

Okay so, before you crucify me, let me explain where I stand. Do I think that we should point out that this movie is not historically accurate? Absolutely, it's an important thing. But also in this case i think we should also look behind them and it is so important to regard it through the context in which it was made, cause it gives extra layers to the story, and explains why it is like that. So, as usuall for me, it's all about ✨️The context✨️. Historiography as whole is a mirror of times when it was created, and despite best efforts of reaserchers we cannot escape that. With history inspired art that sentiment is even stronger. And this movie doesnt even try to be accuare, and objective documentary about events of the Revolution. As I will try to explain in this post, it's not even really about the French Revolution. And that last sentence is important for the rest of my reasoning.

This move is polish-french coproduction. As XX century history is not really my cup of tea, I will focus here on polish side (as I know more about my county's history and i feel like its very important here)

Wajda's "Danton" is framed on the play "The Danton Case" by Stanisława Przybyszewska. Not some history book, not entire original scenario. That's adaptation of the play from 1929. In case of the message it goes far away from its source anyway, which is dictated by political situation at the time. Wajda himself in 70's directed also the play which was more true to original script. So what caused the shift in the tone of the film? Here we need a little lesson in polish history. I'll do it quick as well I'm not an expert on that topic.

After the WWII Poland found itself in eastern bloc, under soviet influence. County became known in this period as "Polish People's Republic" [pl. Polska Republika Ludowa] (I hope i get translations right but as a polish person I'm not sure about english names, so sorry for that). This was one party, authoritatian system. Late 70's and early 80's were time with big oposition activity, with temporaly formed work union "Solidarity" [Solidarność]. It became a mass mouvement, and well it's not hard to guess that communist gouvernement wasn't happy about it.

That's the atmosphere in which this move was born. First some scenes were shoot (is this right word? I hope so) and then another thing happened. This thing was the Martial law, introduced 13.12.1981 (and as far as I'm concerned they didnt even done that legally but please refer on that to people smarter than me).

Watching "Danton" you can see a lot of references to that, tho indirect, and heavily restricted (mostly by french side, as we all know that whole frev itself is sensitive topic), but they're there. And If I can see that (being ignorant fool about XX century, imagine people at the time). Also of course, palalels aren't 1:1, some interpretations there go to far. But even not considering directors intentons, you can't control the later interpretations of your work, and it could be read as conflict between Wałęsa (Danton) and Jaruzelski (Robespierre). Again not 1:1, not too much, but you can get the impression, despite makers intentions. And the fact that they had to reapet that they hadn't had that in mind (either true or not, but ignoring the accusation of corrupcy on Danton was a concious move) shows the impact it left on viewers.

This movie is also about revolutions in general. Conflict of interests, and political games and freedom of speach and role of lies and manipulation.

The most jarring historical innacuracies are alusions to current political reality, not some evil thermidorian propaganda maxing.

Tuski chan’s been chopped in half!!!

Ref:

Well, I guess if he's got you this upset he must be on to something, right? Isn't that what they say? Regardless, I'm curious: would you be holding this same energy if Charlie were a woman? Even one you disagree with? Or is there a permissibility to (often brutal) violence against men that you simultaneously refuse to acknowledge while also cheekily playing into?

Just some food for though, "pal".