![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Film reviews
Thursday, 9 August 2007 11:42Sadly, even after having not posted in so long, I don't really have much to report. I did see two movies pertaining to the Revolutionary period--one which was very good (although I knew it would be in advance), the other which was less so.
The first of these was "La Marseillaise", which apart from being the single best film on the Revolution out there (I exclude LTeLV both because it was technically a tv special, and because it's in two parts), is also considered a classic film, which means that I was able to see it at a showing at the museum of modern art in San Francisco--dragging my family along, since it had subtitles and they would therefore be able to understand it. They actually liked it too, strangely enough.
The only drawback to it--if I can really call this a drawback--is that the only Revolutionary "leader" involved is Roederer. I know the film focuses on the regular people in the ranks of the National Guard for a reason, but it's still a bit disappointing, considering how bad the Robespierristes in particular have it in other films.
(Although there was a rather amusing scene at the Jacobin Club of Marseille, where some random bourgeois starts insulting Maxime--saying (roughly) "Robespierre has no dignity or eloquence: in short, he's a republican!"--and the entire club rushes to Maxime's defense (although, obviously without denying the second part of the accusation XD). It was priceless, truly.)
As to the other film, "Goya's Ghosts" (just *slightly* more recent), I can't really count it in the same way, since it takes place entirely in Spain, but it starts in 1792 and goes through Bonaparte's occupation, so it's the right time period. I suppose if you look at it from a strictly entertainment/"I like historical films because they transport me back to another time (sort of)" point of view, you could consider it good. But the message was pretty abhorrent: essentially, that the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution are morally equivalent (and thus, obviously, both horrible, because what kind of nutcase supports the Spanish Inquisition?)
How did I come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, considering the director seems to have confused Bonaparte with the French Revolution (as Bonaparte did himself at times), and Bonaparte's occupation is painted at times in worse colors that the Spanish Inquisition. While Bonaparte's occupation was no doubt horrible--as occupations always are--why pretend that it has anything to do with the ideals of the French Revolution? (Goya, horrified by what Bonaparte's troops are doing, asks at one point how anyone can consider them to be bringing Liberty, Equality, or Fraternity: obviously, they aren't.)
All that, of course, isn't the worst of it, because it's not at the heart of the film. The character at the heart of the film is used to demonstrate the director's idea that all "ideologies" are awful things and the people who subscribe to them are necessarily awful people. For example, this protagonist started out a priest and a strong proponent of the Inquisition; forced to flee he returns under Bonaparte as a commissary quoting famous Revolutionary speeches ("no liberty for the enemies of liberty" etc.)--which he probably would not have been doing at that time, considering Bonaparte's revised opinion on "Jacobins." Elsewhere, he's a rapist who has the woman he raped locked up and her baby conveniently shipped away. In fact, the only thing going for him at all really is the fact that he refuses to repent his "crime" of being Bonaparte's commissary when the old order returns to Spain and is garroted, even though if he had he could have saved his life.
However, the clear hero of the film is Goya, who (rather unrealistically, I believe, from the little I know about Goya) never takes a position on anything larger than his personal life and the lives of people he knows, except to be horrified at the actions of Bonaparte, his family, and his soldiers and to connect them to the ideals of the Revolution (much more horrified, in fact, than he ever is about the Inquisition or the monarchy which supports it--in fact, the viewer is supposed to sympathize with the king of Spain when Capet's execution is announced *rolls eyes*).
It might be useful to add here that I read a review that claimed the reason for this equating of philosophies which are fundamentally different and not moral equivalents in any possible sense, is the director's early bad experiences with first the Nazis and then the Communists. In other words, it's just more of those senselessly anachronistic comparisons we get from the revisionists between French Revolutionaries and Communists (admittedly, the Nazis vs. Spanish Inquisition comparison works *slightly* better, since the Nazis actually did borrow some of their tactics from the Spanish Inquisition, but all the same it's anachronistic).
So my advice? See "La Marseillaise" if you possibly can; as for "Goya's Ghosts," one might consider it worth seeing just for the setting, but be forewarned about the message.
EDIT: Also, I forgot to add that I posted a lot of new stuff on deviantart, if anyone wants to take a look.
The first of these was "La Marseillaise", which apart from being the single best film on the Revolution out there (I exclude LTeLV both because it was technically a tv special, and because it's in two parts), is also considered a classic film, which means that I was able to see it at a showing at the museum of modern art in San Francisco--dragging my family along, since it had subtitles and they would therefore be able to understand it. They actually liked it too, strangely enough.
The only drawback to it--if I can really call this a drawback--is that the only Revolutionary "leader" involved is Roederer. I know the film focuses on the regular people in the ranks of the National Guard for a reason, but it's still a bit disappointing, considering how bad the Robespierristes in particular have it in other films.
(Although there was a rather amusing scene at the Jacobin Club of Marseille, where some random bourgeois starts insulting Maxime--saying (roughly) "Robespierre has no dignity or eloquence: in short, he's a republican!"--and the entire club rushes to Maxime's defense (although, obviously without denying the second part of the accusation XD). It was priceless, truly.)
As to the other film, "Goya's Ghosts" (just *slightly* more recent), I can't really count it in the same way, since it takes place entirely in Spain, but it starts in 1792 and goes through Bonaparte's occupation, so it's the right time period. I suppose if you look at it from a strictly entertainment/"I like historical films because they transport me back to another time (sort of)" point of view, you could consider it good. But the message was pretty abhorrent: essentially, that the Spanish Inquisition and the French Revolution are morally equivalent (and thus, obviously, both horrible, because what kind of nutcase supports the Spanish Inquisition?)
How did I come to this conclusion, you ask? Well, considering the director seems to have confused Bonaparte with the French Revolution (as Bonaparte did himself at times), and Bonaparte's occupation is painted at times in worse colors that the Spanish Inquisition. While Bonaparte's occupation was no doubt horrible--as occupations always are--why pretend that it has anything to do with the ideals of the French Revolution? (Goya, horrified by what Bonaparte's troops are doing, asks at one point how anyone can consider them to be bringing Liberty, Equality, or Fraternity: obviously, they aren't.)
All that, of course, isn't the worst of it, because it's not at the heart of the film. The character at the heart of the film is used to demonstrate the director's idea that all "ideologies" are awful things and the people who subscribe to them are necessarily awful people. For example, this protagonist started out a priest and a strong proponent of the Inquisition; forced to flee he returns under Bonaparte as a commissary quoting famous Revolutionary speeches ("no liberty for the enemies of liberty" etc.)--which he probably would not have been doing at that time, considering Bonaparte's revised opinion on "Jacobins." Elsewhere, he's a rapist who has the woman he raped locked up and her baby conveniently shipped away. In fact, the only thing going for him at all really is the fact that he refuses to repent his "crime" of being Bonaparte's commissary when the old order returns to Spain and is garroted, even though if he had he could have saved his life.
However, the clear hero of the film is Goya, who (rather unrealistically, I believe, from the little I know about Goya) never takes a position on anything larger than his personal life and the lives of people he knows, except to be horrified at the actions of Bonaparte, his family, and his soldiers and to connect them to the ideals of the Revolution (much more horrified, in fact, than he ever is about the Inquisition or the monarchy which supports it--in fact, the viewer is supposed to sympathize with the king of Spain when Capet's execution is announced *rolls eyes*).
It might be useful to add here that I read a review that claimed the reason for this equating of philosophies which are fundamentally different and not moral equivalents in any possible sense, is the director's early bad experiences with first the Nazis and then the Communists. In other words, it's just more of those senselessly anachronistic comparisons we get from the revisionists between French Revolutionaries and Communists (admittedly, the Nazis vs. Spanish Inquisition comparison works *slightly* better, since the Nazis actually did borrow some of their tactics from the Spanish Inquisition, but all the same it's anachronistic).
So my advice? See "La Marseillaise" if you possibly can; as for "Goya's Ghosts," one might consider it worth seeing just for the setting, but be forewarned about the message.
EDIT: Also, I forgot to add that I posted a lot of new stuff on deviantart, if anyone wants to take a look.
