Analysis of the French Revolution film by Robert Enrico and Richard T. Heffron
One of the (many) problems with films about the French Revolution is that in 1989, anyone wanting to make films about this period was required to adhere to the government's line, which dictated that the revolution could only be portrayed as leading to horrors, under threat of censorship. We can see this in the struggles Hervé Pernot faced. Even during de Gaulle's time, filmmakers who tried to make films as honest as possible about the revolution faced obstacles. Thus, there are inevitably significant historical inaccuracies in these films. Ironically, the leader of the country at the time of this cinematography, Mitterrand, who endorsed such thinking, had guillotined many Algerian revolutionaries, including some who never intended to harm anyone, like Fernand Iveton, or Algerians who were falsely accused. He endorsed parody trials of Algerians, far more significant and flagrant than those of 1794 regarding the Hebertists, Enraged, and Indulgents, when he was Minister of Justice in 1957, solely to please colonialist lobbying and secure a good political position. Therefore, he has no moral ground to lecture the Montagnards, who only abandoned their restraint once France's position was untenable both internally and externally. Most of them, along with other non-Montagnard members, courageously sided with the colonized.
I'll try to avoid delving too much into the absurd black legends unless it's unavoidable, such as when the film seems to endorse Brissot's statement that the "Revolutionary Tribunal is the Spanish Inquisition a hundred times worse." I know the Revolutionary Tribunal committed unforgivable acts in some of its parodies of justice, but the stupidity of this statement speaks for itself.
In the film, the "good guys" are Danton, Lafayette, and Mirabeau. It doesn't matter that they were all corrupt to the core, although Danton should not necessarily be lumped in with Mirabeau, as Danton may have accepted bribes but didn't necessarily fulfill his end of the bargain, and Lafayette, in my opinion, demonstrated more bloodthirstiness. Marat is depicted merely as a madman instead of showing that he was a man ahead of his time, an honest revolutionnary and brillant, sometimes , used inappropriate language due to the injustices he and the people faced. There's an interesting parallel here with the Algerian revolutionary Abane Ramdane, who shares many similarities on these points for me. Instead, we attribute this talent to Danton and potentially Desmoulins.
In the film, the French revolutionaries are portrayed as defeated, but victory is ultimately achieved, solely credited to Danton, which is false, reductionist, and even insulting to all revolutions. If revolutions succeed, it's certainly partly due to intellectual leaders, including figures like Saint Just, Le Bas, Lindet, Charlier, Billaud Varennes, Robespierre, and Hanriot, but it's primarily thanks to the people who supported them—the soldiers who held the line, the sans-culottes who persuaded the Convention to enact or repeal certain laws necessary to sustain the revolution, and the people who endured necessary but harsh taxes, who gave their shoes, sheltered revolutionaries—something most revolutionaries acknowledge.
The film reduces the Hebertists, Enrages, and Cordeliers to madmen united behind Hebert, portraying them without charisma, failing to show why they were popular, and omitting the split between Chaumette and the rest because Chaumette refused to join the insurrection against the Mountain after the Ventôse law.
On the other hand, during Danton's trial, the indulgents are cheered by the people. I know Danton delivered excellent speeches during his trial, but so did other factions, and there's no evidence of this particular scene. I've already discussed the differential treatment between indulgents, Hebertists, and Cordeliers in one of my previous posts. Apart from Hebert, virtually all Hebertists were executed with great dignity.
Marie Antoinette, to better exonerate Louis XVI, is portrayed as helpless during the trial, appearing scared before the scaffold. In reality, she showed courage and dignity that even her adversaries admired, which isn't depicted because she might come across better than Danton.
The Girondins sing the Marseillaise as they mount the scaffold. Regardless of whether one likes them or not, they showed great courage, which isn't shown because they might come across better than Danton on the scaffold.
Lucile Desmoulins and Marie Françoise Goupil, along with Chaumette, Gobel, and others, die with great dignity, but this isn't shown either. For Danton glorification the is the only except Louis XVI to face his death in dignity.
Robespierre is depicted as a coward fleeing his arrest with Saint Just and Couthon, whereas in reality, the gendarmes didn't want to arrest him, and he willingly offered his hands for arrest. The uprising of 17 out of 49 communes was spontaneous, but most revolutionaries hesitated because they didn't know whether to remain lawful or not, resulting in their losses (a Napoleon would have fewer scruples than them and for the wrong reasons) . Again because it will make them better than Danton ( let' s not talk about the glorification of Barras in this scene).
Morality: Only corrupt men act. The most selfless are depicted as grave fanatics who will execute you. It's no wonder the government approves of such films promoting these messages.
Not to mention the women erased from the revolutionary period—Manon Roland, Lucile Desmoulins portrayed as gentle without the political acumen of the real Lucile Desmoulins. Similarly tratment for Simone. Evrard Eleonore Duplay is depicted as personality-less fanatic , far from the real Eleonore Duplay. Louis Reine Audu, Pauline Léon, Olympe de Gouges, Marie Anne Babeuf, Albertine Marat, Charlotte Robespierre, and Elisabeth Le Bas, among many others, will not be shown.
I might write a second part soon if I have the time or in one month for a better analysis of the characters.
