Plot Details: This opinion reveals major details about the movie's plot.

Here's a film that will transport you back to Paris, at the height of the French Revolution, during the reign of terror. It's not one of the best historical epics that I've ever encountered, but you can't beat the subject matter and the performances are excellent.

Historical Background: Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) and Georges Danton (1739-1794) were two of the leaders of the French Revolution. Their respective personalities were complimentary, to an extent, in the early days of the Revolution. The approach taken by the flamboyant Danton was epitomized by one of his famous quotations, "Boldness, and more boldness, and ever more boldness, and France is saved!" Danton was a lawyer in Paris and a leader of Cordeliers Club, which was a militant faction of Republicans. Robespierre, by contrast, was a restrained, methodical, intellectual man, also trained as a lawyer and influenced by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Danton was born into the middleclass and was fond of drink and women. Robespierre, by contrast, was more aloof, self-righteous and incorruptible. He may or may not have been homosexual (as the film implies); scholars remain in doubt. At the least, he was more a man's man, while Danton was every bit the lady's man.

In 1792, the French Revolution had reached a pivotal point. Though it had begun in 1789, the monarchy had remained intact, though ineffectual, during the first few years. Danton led the effort to rid France of the monarchy altogether, forcing the legislative assembly to imprison King Louis XVI on August 10th, 1792. Danton thus became known as "The Man of August 10th" and acquired great popularity among the Parisian masses. Robespierre, meanwhile, was leader of the Jacobins, who also wanted a democracy instead of a monarchy. Robespierre, Danton, Camille Desmoulins, and Jean Paul Marat worked together to establish the National Convention (an assembly to govern France), which quickly declared France a Republic. The National Convention then established Revolutionary Tribunals with the power to try and to execute those judged to be enemies of the Republic. They also established the Committee of Public Safety, which was the Convention's governing body. So far, Danton and Robespierre were in agreement. Both felt strongly that the Republic needed protection, during its infancy, which justified, in their minds, decisive action against opponents and moderates. The political purges implemented by the Revolutionary Tribunals extended not only to outright traitors, but also to those judged too moderate in their support for the new Republic. By July of 1794, about 17,000 "enemies" of the Republic had been sent to the Guillotine, in what became known as the reign of terror. Under Robespierre's leadership, moderate deputies, known as Girondists, had been expelled from the National Convention and some later beheaded. For his part, in September of 1793, Danton led a mob of Parisians that ransacked prisons and indiscriminately murdered everyone suspected of being agents of the so-called monarchist counterrevolution.

The split between Danton and Robespierre occurred in the summer of 1794, the second year of the French Republic. Danton had spent the early months of 1794 in self-imposed retirement in the country. He returned to Paris with the express intention of halting the reign of terror. Not only was it causing untold deaths directly, it had also so distressed life in France that hunger and starvation were rampant. Though Danton had helped organize the violent repressive activities of the Revolutionary Tribunals, he now felt that the survival of the Republic was in greater danger from the excesses of the Tribunals than from counterrevolution. The people were both frightened and starving. Danton was closely allied with Desmoulins; Danton had widespread popular support among the people while Desmoulins operated a press. Together, they would challenge the policies of Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety. It is at this point that the film picks up the story. Though one reviewer comments that the showdown between Danton and Robespierre would culminate "in the beheading of one of them" (adding "you already know who the lucky guy is if you know your world history"), the truth is that this battle of behemoths would have no winner at all, resulting in the Guillotining of both men, in the end.

The Story: In brief, Georges Danton (Gérard Depardieu) has returned to Paris after a period of rest in the country. His intention is to rally his allies, notably Camille Desmoulins (Patrice Chéreau) and Lacroix (Roland Blanche), in an attempt to halt the activities of the Revolutionary Tribunals that are terrorizing the French people. He is pitted against his old ally Robespierre (Wojciech Pszoniak), Saint Just (Boguslaw Linda), and others of the Committee of Public Safely, who believe that the reign of terror must continue. Danton's campaign leads to his arrest and political trial for treason, during which he uses his great skill as an orator and his popularity among the masses to incite opposition to Robespierre's leadership. Although Danton pays with his life, his execution is soon followed by that of Robespierre and the end of the reign of terror.

Themes: The central theme of this film is also one of the central themes of the French Revolution itself: can terror and repression of dissent be justified in defense of a righteous cause? Does resorting to extremes of violence in defense of a cause inherently invalidate the righteousness of that cause? It is commonplace, today, for historians and students of history to refer to the excesses of the French Revolution. Most modern students of that period in French history accept that the overthrow of the French monarchy was justified because of the terrible exploitation of the peasants and working class, but also view the purges during the reign of terror as an example of revolution run amok. Robespierre, however, openly defended the purges, believing it necessary, ultimately, to the survival of the Republic. Otherwise, in his view, the remnants of the old aristocracy might stage an effective counterrevolution and bring down the fledging democracy. It is interesting to consider that the same kind of rationale was offered as justification for the communist dictatorships that later sprang up in Russia and other Eastern European nations. It each case, the revolutionary leftist governments claimed that the new political systems were intended to serve the interests of the masses, but that repression of freedoms and dissent were necessary, in the beginning, in order to ensure survival of the revolutionary systems of government. The political system that resulted from the Russian Revolution lasted longer than that produced by the French Revolution, giving us a longer span of time over which to evaluate where such rationalizations for repression and executions ultimately lead. Fifty to sixty years after the Russian Revolution, political repression was still being justified in the name of the survival and spread of the communist system. When moderation and dissent become defined, in a country, as the equivalent of betrayal, the people of that country are in deep trouble.

At the very end of the film Danton, Wajda uses a nice device to crystallize the issues relating to the hypocrisy of doing evil things in the name of a good cause. The little brother of Robespierre's housekeeper has been working diligently on memorizing the "Rights of Man" proclamation that Robespierre, himself, had drafted. He begins to recite: "Article One: All men are born free and equal in law. Social differences must be based on the public good." He continues, "Article Two: The goal of political parties is to safeguard man's inalienable rights." "Article Three: Sovereignty resides in the people. No group or individual may rule without their express consent." "Article Four: Freedom is the right to do anything not harmful to others. Man's natural rights are limited only by what assures to others in society the exercise of those rights. Only the law can set such limits." Over the course of the film, we have seen all of those rights mutilated by the actions of Robespierre and his associates. Thus, the Revolution's excesses had become a betrayal of the Revolution – just as Danton had concluded. Though I am myself a leftist, I recognize that unrestrained leftist upheavals are perhaps the one thing worth fearing even more than the oppressive policies of the right in defense of the established interests of the privileged classes.

Andrzej Wajda derived the script for Danton from a screenplay by Jean-Claude Carriere, which was in turn based on a stage play by Stanislawa Przybyszewska. Though Wajda, as a Pole in exile in France in 1982 (when Danton was filmed), had perhaps little special knowledge of the French Revolution, he did have personal experience with analogous issues. Wajda had been forced out of Poland, and his production company there shut down, as a result of his 1980 pro-Solidarity film, Man of Iron. Like Robespierre, the communist dictatorship in Poland justified repression of dissent in the name of protecting the survival of the government, which supposedly served the masses. Lech Walesa, the charismatic labor leader who truly had the backing of the masses, was playing, in Poland, the role equivalent to Danton in the percolating power struggle. Although Wajda denied any express intent to draw parallels between the French Revolution and the situation in Poland, he did go so far as to acknowledge that Danton represents the dominant political view in the West (tolerance for dissent) while Robespierre represents that of the Eastern bloc nations (suppression of dissent).

Production Values: The subject matter taken up by this film is certainly of great interest and full of dramatic tension. The strength of the script is that is presents a conflict between two of the most striking personalities of the French Revolution, locked in a showdown like two massive buck elks. I have to say, however, that, for me, the particulars of the script were painfully weak. My issue is not the question of historical accuracy, although others have certainly raised that concern. Certainly there was a lot of uproar out of Paris over this film with respect to alleged historical inaccuracies. I have to leave that debate to others more expert than myself about the personalities of the time and the detailed history of the reign of terror. One writer about the film states that "this movie developed the characters of the French Revolution so well, it is unbelievable," but another calls the film a "prejudiced and historically inaccurate portrayal of many of the Jacobins and their sympathizers." For my part, I'm prepared to view the film simply as a dramatic work, independent of its degree of historical validity, just as we respond to plays like Hamlet. Even allowing that concession, however, I found much of the story so over-dramatized and the dialog so poorly constructed that it comes across as a kind of "pseudo-historical gobbledygook," as one reviewer nicely put it. I greatly prefer historical epics that create a sense of actually being there, but with Danton, I was constantly aware of it being a staged dramatization of history. Either that, or these leaders of the French Revolution were much bigger idiots than I previously supposed.

The costumes are excellent but the sets are a distinctly mixed bag. I thought the period detail (e.g., powdered wigs, table settings, feathered pens, etc.) quite good for the interior settings and the small ensemble scenes, but the segments depicting the poor in the streets of the city look mostly ridiculous to me. Again, it is too obviously staged. Also disappointing is the very poor synchronization between the French dialog and the lip movements for the portion of the cast that is Polish. The cinematography, by Igor Luther, is very good.

Despite the film's sometimes glaring weaknesses, I still took considerable enjoyment from it, largely on the strength of the performances by a strong cast. Foremost among them was the larger-than-life portrayal of Danton by the great Gérard Depardieu. Depardieu has a special knack for delivering highly emotional performances without exceeding the confines of his character. Depardieu has appeared in countless films, including 1900 (1976), Get Out Your Handkerchiefs (1978), La Chèvre (1980), Mon Oncle d’Amerique (1980), The Return of Martin Guerre (1982), Jean de Florette (1986) (See Jean de Florette/Manon), Under the Sun of Satan (1987), Camille Claudel (1988), Cyrano de Bergerac (1990), and Germinal (1993).

The fact that Wajda cast all of the Jacobins with Polish actors certainly lends credence to the idea that he intended the film as comment on the situation that existed in Poland in 1982. Wojciech Pszoniak is superlative as the tight-lipped Robespierre, conveying all of his obsessively controlled nature. His other credits include Dangerous Moves (1984). Boguslaw Linda gave a bone-chilling performance as Saint Just, the most dislikable character of the film. Patrice Chéreau and Angela Winkler were very effective as the ill-fated Camille and Lucille Desmoulins.

Bottom-Line: Though Wajda is relatively unknown in America, he has been repeatedly recognized with awards at international film festivals. Danton was his first film made in France during his exile there from 1981-1989. It is not up to the standards of his best works, in my opinion. Viewers might want to try either Ashes and Diamonds (1958) or Man of Iron (1980), first. I'm going to give this film four stars, though I toyed with only three. Some of the production values (script, crowd scenes, dialog) are weaker than I demand of historical epics but the subject matter and the strong performances keep the film nevertheless engaging. Danton is in French (dubbed French for the Polish portion of the cast) with English subtitles and has a running time of 138 minutes.

Recommended: Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Better than Watching TV
Suitability For Children: Not suitable for Children of any age