In one of your last posts you mentioned you were studying the civil war in Vandée. Have you ever seen the rather new movie "Vaincre ou Mourir" on the topic? If yes, what do you think of it? I was very curious to give it a try, hoping it's not the usual demonisation of the revolutionary government. Not that I expect it to be portrayed positively in a movie focused on the Vendéean insurgents pov, of course...
Thanks a lot for your question! Itâs the first one I've ever received, and Iâm really excited to dive into it. (I might have gone a bit overboard, so grab a coffee or a drink before you tackle this beast⊠TLDR at the bottomâŠ)
I watched "Vaincre ou Mourir" a couple of months ago. Before I dive into my thoughts, the man himself would like a word:
All jokes aside, have you ever been to one of those medieval theme parks where they offer a "realistic" medieval show with dinner? As a kid, every summer, my parents took me to a jousting show at an Italian theme park. We'd watch two knights fight each other for an hour while being âmedievalâ and munching on chicken legs without any cutlery.
That's pretty much how I felt watching this movie: itâs flashy and fun but doesnât have much going on underneath. It makes more sense when you discover that the film was funded by Puy du Feu, a large historical theme park in VendĂ©e.
And this is the thing: despite the Canal+ distribution, most of the production is local. The VendĂ©e itself is often defined as a memory space (1), which can lead to a community feeling a special connection to their past. This is often reflected in local traditions, commemorations, and even political leanings. I remember watching an interview from the bicentenary where some locals said they donât celebrate the 14th of July as a matter of principleâ200 years later!
Itâs also worth noting that the VendĂ©e has a history of conservative and right-leaning political preferences, and Canal+ is also a right-leaning media outlet.
Is it a documentary? Is it a fictional film? It's hard to say in the first few minutes.
The movie attempts to project historical accuracy by introducing four experts right at the start. If a film opens with such a direct appeal to authority, I tend to scrutinise who these experts are. So, who are they?
Reynald Secher: a historian who has been a massive proponent of the Vandean genocide theory. He is very anti-Republican, and his research methodologies are rather sketchyâŠ
Nicolas Delahaye: I donât know much about him, but I see he publishes primarily regionally in a Vendean publishing house. That doesnât necessarily mean heâs particularly biased, but it does mean his audience is very limited to people with specific views.
Anne Rolland-Boulestreau: a historian at the UniversitĂ© Catholique de lâOuest specialising in the VendĂ©e counter-revolution. Her articles in the Annales Historiques de la RĂ©volution Française seem unbiased and well-researched. I own one of her books but haven't read it yet, so I can't speak to her longer-form content.
Armand Bernand: if you google de la Rochejaquelein, you will find this guy everywhere. He owns a publishing house, loves the ChĂąteau de la DurbeliĂšre (2), and wrote a series of books set there. He clearly has a historical crush on M. Henri. I think he cosplayed him during some re-enactments and wrote a book about Henriâs brother Auguste.
Itâs worth mentioning they either hail from VendĂ©e or work exclusively within the region. This is my bias speaking because Iâve pretty much read all his work, but if you make a movie about the Vendee and canât get Jean-ClĂ©ment Martin to say something on camera about it, you should probably not feature any expertsâŠ
After an awkward three minutes of experts telling us how important the revolution was and introducing Charette, we get to the actual movie, which opens with a pile of bodies, burnings, a hanged person, and an awkward first-person voiceover of Charette saying that they made the Vendee into an inferno. This will be a theme for the next hour or so.
If I were to describe this film in two words, "tragedy porn" would fit. What occurred in Vendée was horrific, and its rightly violent portrayal should help viewers understand and appreciate the human and historical impact. However, the film often prioritises shock value over explaining the underlying reasons.
Charette is, by all accounts, a very compelling subject. The guy was a libertine with bucket-loads of courage and style who had a woman as an aide de camp in 1793! Despite spending 1.5 hours with him, narrated from his perspective, I would be hard-pressed to tell you what heâs actually fighting for. Is it honour? Is it revenge? Is it stubbornness? Your guess is as good as mine!
There is absolutely no character growth whatsoever. The film presents as a sequence of battles and shocking scenes narrated by a somewhat detached Charette. Remember what I said about the medieval show? This shock-value approach might work for a short performance during dinner but falls flat when stretched across an entire film.
Despite the weak script, the actors are quite good. Nothing Oscar-worthy, but they can act. The guy that plays Charette does a very good job and is quite charismatic.
On the whole, I canât see glaring historical errors. It is fairly historically accurate with some minor issues. This is obviously not an exhaustive list, but there are things I noticed and jotted down:
The main one is the bizarre theory that Charette agreed to the peace of 1795 because he was promised that Louis XVII would be handed to him. This has absolutely no credible historical basis whatsoever. Itâs a myth that has been propagated for over 200 years.
Iâm pretty sure Charette didnât sign the treaty of La Jaunaye. In fact, as far as I remember, no one from the insurgent side signed it.
While not a historical inaccuracy per se, it's a missed opportunity that the film often portrays Charette as the sole leader of the Vendean army. Though he mentions being one chief among many, this aspect is quickly glossed over. His historical relationship with the Catholic and Royal Army and its leaders was complex and would have been interesting to explore further. It's a shame the film likely didn't have the budget to delve into this, as it could have also demonstrated that Vendée wasn't a monolith.
The depiction of the republican army as well-equipped is somewhat exaggerated. If they were as well-appointed as shown, Carnot and Prieur (Cote Dâor) would be out of a job, and Saint-Just wouldn't have needed to requisition shoes for the army.
Lastly, the film underexplains the context of why the counter-revolution started. In my opinion, it manipulatively emphasises the king's execution more than warranted, suggesting it triggered the popular uprising when it really did not. The conflict in VendĂ©e began as a peasant revolt, where the local population was far more concerned with religious issues than royal politics. Most Vendean peasants likely couldn't name the kingâthey probably knew he was a Louis since there had been a Louis on the throne for 200 years, but that's about it. Their concerns were local: when parish priests who had taken the civic oath replaced their traditional priests, and the LevĂ©e en masse was decreed, forcing them to fight random Germans 600 km away for a regime threatening their way of life, they rebelled.
Is the movie anti-Republican propaganda?
To wrap up, is the film anti-Republican? Frankly, I donât believe it is overtly so. It adopts a somewhat clichĂ©d stance: the revolution's ideals were noble, but things eventually went too far. While I have plenty of thoughts on thisâwhich I'll keep to myself for nowâI wouldnât say this perspective is inherently anti-Republican.
Charette is depicted as initially supportive of the revolution, which is accurate for many aristocrats, especially the minor nobility. The portrayal of Republican soldiers is balanced, with General Jean-Pierre Travot sometimes appearing more honourable than Charette. As the main character, Charette is shown as lazy, indecisive, and sometimes brutal, so the film does not attempt to heroise him. The princes, especially Artois, are also depicted negatively. So, the film isnât overtly royalist.
Is there a specific stance against the Government (aka the CSP)? I donât recall them being mentioned, which, again, is accurate since most Vendeeans, including the nobility, were not deeply involved in Parisian politics.
That being said, Carrier and Turreau are portrayed very negatively, and rightfully so. Republican generals are also shown as less likely to spare the "brigands" when captured, which aligns with historical accounts. The movie leans heavily on shock value, featuring hard-to-watch scenes of executions, guillotines, and drownings. Unfortunately, even the staunchest republican historians would be hard-pressed to find the evidence to call those scenes revisionists.
Beyond that, the only thing that stood out to me about the Republicans is that they made Kleber look about 60 years old.
In conclusion, is this the most accurate film ever? Certainly not. Is it counter-revolutionary propaganda? I genuinely donât think so, and if someone claims otherwise, theyâre likely being disingenuous.
Watched the movie "Vaincre ou Mourir," which felt like a medieval theme park showâentertaining but lacking depth, probably due to its funding by an actual historical theme park. Despite its attempt to appear historically accurate with expert interviews, the film fails to deeply explore its characters or the complexities of the VendĂ©e region's history. While it doesn't contain major historical inaccuracies, it oversimplifies the causes and events of the VendĂ©e uprising, focusing more on visual shock than factual explanation. Not outright anti-Republican or counter-revolutionary, but doesn't offer new insights into anything. Overall, flashy but not as informative as it could be.
A memory space is defined as a location (physical or otherwise) where memories, histories, and narratives are preserved, shared, and understood within a society or culture. Things like museums, monuments, rituals, stories and in this case a region can be memory spaces
ChĂąteau de la DurbeliĂšre was the home of La Rochejaquelein
PS: Thank you again for your question! I had a lot of fun answering it.
