popcorninhell I'll be the first to admit I am far from an expert on the French Revolution. While my minor in college was history and I read regularly on the subject, the dismaying period of upheaval and chaos doesn't fit into the narrative of clean-cut history defined by the reigns of Kings and the administrations of Presidents. What I do know about it are the basic causes, the main factions and the end result. I am familiar with the names Maximillian Robespierre, Jean-Paul Marat, Louis XVI and Jean-Jacques Rousseau but I have never heard the name of Georges Danton. If I were to take a class on the subject I'd probably fail.It is the year 1793; the second year of the Republic and the infamous days of terror are in full swing. Danton, who is portrayed in the film by French actor Gerard Depardieu, makes his way into Paris to take his seat in the fractured General Assembly. His possible political machinations frighten the Revolutionary Tribunal headed by the cautious Robespierre played by Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak. They all want to place his head promptly on the chopping block but Robespierre demands an audience with Danton first.Directed by Polish auteur Andrzej Wajda, Danton (1983) is a crash course in Republicanism run amok. Robespierre looks to create consensus between Danton's rival faction and the Tribunal. He doesn't like Danton but he understands his value as a man of the people and therefore is hesitant to simply round up his allies and take them to the guillotine. Yet the clanking machine he and Danton helped create is forcing him to take severe action to provide order. At one point in the film Robespierre laments no matter what course he takes, the revolution is dead.Depardieu's Danton is a boisterous foil to Robespierre's uptight revolutionary zeal. When he speaks, the whole room listens and his public bloviating is tempered by a genuine need for good. Yet Danton isn't a blind idealist like he claims the Tribunal to be. "People want peace, stability and bread, they don't care where it comes from," he mutters. He trusts the people of France to deliver him from execution and holds on to that ideal until the bitter end.The film's depiction of the reign of terror was meant to mimic the Solidarity trade-union struggle in Poland happening around the same time as the film's release. Solidarity was the first non-party controlled trade union in the Soviet block and was instrumental in spearheading free and fair elections in Poland. The foibles of that struggle were better highlighted in Wajda's earlier film Man of Iron (1981). Yet that film was released on the cusp of the martial law crackdown while Danton was released on the tale end of said crackdown. During that time Wajda fled to France after his production company in Poland had been pushed into bankruptcy by the Communist party. He directed two films before returning, the first was Danton and the second was A Love in Germany (1983).Unfortunately while Wajda's passion and personal bias are prevalent in Danton, his technique seems less assured than Man of Iron or his other political works. Part of it may have to do with his habit of employing Polish cinematographers including the famed Edward Klosinski. Outside his element in France, his cinematographer Igor Luther (Who also worked on A Love in Germany) likely wasn't on his wavelength.What results is an interesting history lesson and a lively discussion on political theory but a film that feels static and overly talkative. It provides little action or intensity and apart from the gravitas of Depardieu and Pszoniak, there's nothing holding it together. Even if you were to settle for an old-school cloak and dagger flick, Danton only delivers on the bare necessities. There are political maneuverings, alliances forged then displaced, etc. But it's all C+ work put together by an A+ director. As for the subversive elements that define this political drama? Let's just say it needs improvement.https://www.theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com

Armand a parable. about dictatorship and its colors. about people as crumbs of a lunch. a manifesto for freedom from a Polish director for who a play is perfect instrument to discover a regime behind its masks. Danton is a beautiful movie but in great measure it is a profound analysis. French Revolution is not an excuse for present realities from Jaruzelski regime but way to remember the root of all Communism sins. Danton may be Trotski, prey of spider web who he build it. Robespierre - just piece of a huge machine. the fake image is only protection. the lies about people needs - only form to survive. so, the film is, in great measure, collection of symbols. the revolution - picture of a demon out of any measure. and, in this case, purpose is not to create an impressive work but to give the dimension of truth. history is only vehicle for ideas. because this revolution, ambiguous, cruel, chaotic, cynical, criminal is more than chapter of Modern time. it is shadow of each regime for who people are pieces on the chessboard. and subjects for experiments.

Igenlode Wordsmith If there were two parts that the physically towering, ugly-charismatic actor Gérard Depardieu was born, as a Frenchman, to play, it must surely have been Cyrano de Bergerac and the orator Georges Danton. Here he dominates the film both through the breadth of his shoulders and the power of his voice; his charisma carries the part despite the fact that it is made clear that the character has as much blood on his hands as any of the rest of them. Danton feasts while the people of Paris starve... but he is the one man who can challenge the tyranny imposed by the dreaded Committee of Public Safety in the name of 'freedom', and he is presented as the hero of the film -- despite the fact that the source play practically idolises his opponent Robespierre!For those who know the characters from history, there is interest to be had in identifying the minor parts: the frog-faced Tallien, Couthon the cripple, Fouquier-Tinville the tribunal's prosecutor, the dashing fop St-Just, the epic painter David. But the script cuts little slack in this respect; names are often late in coming if minor characters are identified at all, and there is no Hollywood-style 'info-dump' to make sure that the audience can place events in their historical context. The film takes it for granted that you know what has gone before, and what will happen after -- sometimes it takes too much for granted, as when it relies on a close knowledge of dates to provide the sting to its tail in the fact that Robespierre followed Danton shortly to the scaffold.Considered as a film, it's not entirely satisfactory in that it ebbs away towards the end. The structure of the story leads up to some great confrontation between the protagonists in the courtroom or some dramatic climax to the trial, which, thanks to history, never actually happens. Things just fizzle out: there is no revolt, there is no overthrow of tyranny, there is no assumption of power by the victor, there is no triumph on either side. It may be historically accurate, but it's not entirely satisfying as the outcome of a screen scenario -- it seems an odd place to stop. As others have commented, it might have been more logical to take events up to the end of the Terror and show in apposition the fall of Robespierre.

geofille This is one of the most amazing movies... Anyone who says that Gerard Depardieu portrayed Georges Jacques Danton "wrongly", and who purports that Danton was "not" the huge, strong, charismatic, man of the people that Depardieu portrayed him as obviously has not done much research on the French Revolution. George Jacques Danton was like this exactly. The contrast between Robespierre's incessant paranoia and reservedness (conveyed perfectly by Wojciech Pszoniak...an EXCELLENT job) and Danton's relaxed approach towards the problems with which he was faced, extreme easiness and likeness among people, and the dynamic way with which he approached the mob of Paris' unemployed masses and people in general was spot on: the two men were complete opposites. This movie developed the characters of the French Revolution so well, it is unbelievable. It ENTRAPPED the personalities of all those great, complex, astounding men that gave this extraordinary period of time its distinct shape. Saint-Just, Desmoulins, Robespierre, Danton, all of them...they were painted so accurately. This movie truly brought these incredible men to life. I have to say, the score of this movie was incredible. It brought out all the proper emotions. Overall, an astonishing movie.