montagnarde1793 | Several random items. (Reply)

So, I watched the History Channel's documentary on the French Revolution again. Because I'm clearly a masochist.

The following could speak for itself as to what was wrong with it: the only French-speaking historian on it is an Antoinette specialist!

I figured out its two major problems: a) the way they framed the narrative and b) their sources.

For the first, it was framed entirely around episodes of violence--the only non-violent episodes mentioned were Capet and Antoinette's marriage (don't ask me why one would think to include that in a less than 2 hour documentary on the Revolution), the summoning of the Estates-General, and the FdlES (which was about as accurate as LRF's portrayal). Other than that, it went pretty much like this: Bastille, War, Capet's Execution, Marat Stabbed/Charlotte Corday's Execution (in great detail), Execution of the Girondins, Antoinette's Execution (in great detail), Execution of the Hébertistes, Execution of the Dantonistes, 9-10 Thermidor--which was incredibly rushed and inaccurate, of course. (The Thermidorians weren't even mentioned!) Followed by a brief mention of the Directoire--although not the White Terror--and, surprisingly, how people were hungry again under it. And then Bonaparte.

Important items not even mentioned included: 10 AUGUST! (They just mentioned at one point that the National Assembly--I suppose that's the Constituent and the Legislative in one--is now called the Convention. No explanation, of course. And just about everything non-violent that the Revolutionaries accomplished was left out (except the first Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen).

Their other major problem was their decision to believe everything British newspapers were saying at the time--because, when it comes to French journalists (in this case Marat), it's apparently okay to toss out everything they have to say as demagoguery pure and simple, but when a British journalist says something it must be treated as the absolute truth. My major complaint was when a British journal wrote "Are these the rights of man? [that was an exact quote, but I'm going to have to paraphrase the rest] Savages from Africa are more civilized than these horrible sans-culottes and Jacobins!" it did not even occur to them that this could have been (and almost certainly was) reactionary propaganda, paid for by the British government or even just a random nobleman who had no interest in seeing the British public realize that the country they were fighting was a place where people *had* rights. No, of course not, it was a completely unbiased reaction to what was actually taking place in France. Which of course was nothing but large numbers of people getting executed for very little reason. /sarcasm

But seriously, people actually believe this stuff. And unlike much of what we dissect, this is the sort of thing the average person could come across without even trying on tv. *sighs*

In other news (just as depressing), Paris seems to have gone to Sarkozy. Which means we're likely screwed. (I say we of course because if France goes right, there's no hope whatsoever for anywhere else--though of course, personally speaking, I want more than anything that things should go well in France for its own sake.)

COLLOT, tonitruant.

A défaut de la sœur Capet, que tu prétendais épouser, on te trouvera bien une vieille fille royale a marier, avec une place de valet de chambre,—si toutefois ta Cornélie Copeau, la fille Duplay, te le permet…

CARNOT et VADIER, font chorus.

« Ah ! le joli cœur !... »

ROBESPIERRE, qui vainement a tenté de se faire entendre, blême, pleurant de rage.

Misérables, je vous interdis !...

CARNOT.

Tu n’es pas encore pape, pour nous interdire…

Ils parlent tous a la fois. Dans le vacarme, Robespierre pousse des cris aigus.

ROBESPIERRE.

Hommes sans pudeur ! Brigands !

It's from Romain Rolland's Robespierre, by the way. But I'll stop now before I get even more depressing. >__>