Danton (1983)

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I think this film was designed specifically to snap my heartstrings one by one. The dialogue was fantastic, the figures of the Revolution captivatingly presented. There are a few factual errors and much is omitted due to the film's narrow focus, (for instance, the considerable role played by the East India Company scandal in the proceedings was hardly mentioned) but it remains an excellent piece of production. The viewer would benefit from prior knowledge of the Revolution, though it is not necessary to enjoy the drama of the story. If you are looking for total accuracy do not watch this film, but if you are only seeking a couple hours of fascinating historical drama, look no further.

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.

The bloody aftermath of the French Revolution is brought to vivid life in the confrontation between its two architects, Maximillian Robespierre and Georges Danton, progressive thinkers in a primitive age who became bitter adversaries when Robespierre elevated the good of the State over the good of the people. Rarely have such provocative ideas been expressed with such bold, physical vitality; director Andrzej Wajda captures the anarchy of the period with powerful immediacy, showing how absolute power corrupts even the most honorable intentions. Gerard Depardieu's angry, overt performance in the title role is worth singling out; the film might well have been named after the doomed statesman Robespierre, who holds center stage throughout, but his icy intellect is no match, at least theatrically, for Danton's oratory passion (and besides, Depardieu is a star). Neither character survives the conflict, and when Danton is finally executed the bloody guillotine becomes symbolic not only of the Reign of Terror, but of the Revolution's most noble ideas severed at their source.

Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.