#frev film

[makiitabaki]

I love how he's curious what Camille is writing despite the serious situation 😭

[theartisticcrow]

Ah fuck it, I CALL UPON THE FREV COMMUNITY FOR ASSISTANCE (please). Right, I'm writing this essay for my socials class that nobody asked me to write but hey I'm doing it anyways for "fun" and basically what I'm asking here is for anyone who has watched a bunch of those French Revolution films that portray Robespierre as an awful tyrant (and also queercoded) and such like to please infodump on me about these films. I'm trying to write about how films and similar media like these play into how a large majority of society view him as a brutal dictator responsible for the Reign of Terror (barely) so yeah uh... please help me if you have the time, I would greatly appreciate it. I myself have never watched the films and knowing how they go about portraying Robespierre would be greatly appreciated.

[sansterreurnivertu]

I found several stills from the movie Danton (1932), which I couldn't find anyone who had seen. Although the photos may make us laugh, here are a few that are relatively charming.

Gabrielle (she looks nice, but I can't judge her based on that alone, played by Andrée Ducret) and Georges (Jacques Grétillat):

and Camille (André Fouché):

I've seen some magazine articles from the time about the movie, and to be honest, it doesn't look all that interesting. Except that it is one of the few movies in which Gabrielle appears and I am studying French literature of the early 20th century, it might not be worth seeing. Did the actor who played Danton caricature him?

By the way, Stam & Raengo have stated in A Companion to Literature and Film that the movie may be partially based on Przybyszewska's The Danton Case, but I think this is unlikely. The play was apparently little known in France at the time, and I could find no mention of it in movie magazines. Besides, it doesn't seem to have any Stasia-like elements from any point of view. According to François Huzar, Robespierre appears to have very little in the film (the author does not seem to have seen the film itself).

[usergreenpixel]

Guys, I didn’t manage to endure watching that “Napoleon” thing. Lasted for about 45 minutes or so before my ears and head had enough of the blasting noises at the movie theater. To be honest, my head still hurts a bit.

And… so far I haven’t managed to understand SHIT of the plot and I can’t even describe the characters in terms of what they are about. So anyone with no prior knowledge of the context would be even more confused than I was.

Also… Robespierre looked like Danton for some reason… and gave a speech that is an amalgamation of all the Frev propaganda… but at least he didn’t accuse the queen of incest…

I really don’t understand the point of Frev scenes. Napoleon wasn’t there to witness the death of Marie Antoinette and I’m pretty sure he didn’t have a front row seat for Thermidor either, so I wish there wasn’t that much screen time related to the bullet points of Frev, so to speak.

And yeah, everyone has said it before me, but Napoleon is lacking expression to the point that Moai 🗿 would seem expressive compared to him!

Honestly, I highly doubt it gets better afterwards so yeah… don’t watch this shit. I will make a proper review, most likely, but I guess I will need to watch it on streaming sites for that. Oh well!

[empirearchives]

War and Peace, dir. Sergei Bondarchuk (1966–1967)

[deathzgf]

i present to you : emo augustin robespierre

[vesseloftherevolution]

Napoleon 2023, Review

I saw this with @idefilarate, and it was such a train-wreck. There was so much wrong with it, in the funniest way imaginable. We spent the entire film whispering what was wrong to each other.

This will be a long post, and I’m aware a lot of other people have already made some excellent points on here.

I can see what Ridley Scott was attempting with this film, and there are several reasons it didn’t work. I also have some historical specific points to make.

Directing Choices, Acting Problems, and the English Propaganda

It can be argued that Scott was trying to show Napoleon in a “more human” light, and I am always perfectly happy with that interpretation. It could also be argued he was deliberately showing Napoleon in a negative light, which I am also fine with. However, this film didn’t really do either. Napoleon did not seem more human for his brutish behaviour to Josephine, the childish tantrums or the forced jokes. If Scott had wanted a proper negative light, he would have focused on Napoleon’s ruthlessness, such as with the Massacre in Egypt, and his willingness to bypass the laws.

The overall sense I got when watching the film was that it was too compressed. The action went from point to point without showing how on Earth it got there. We had about ten minutes of Napoleon as consul, and then he was unexpectedly emperor, with a token line from Talleyrand about becoming emperor. Too much stuff in not enough time. However, I was also bored. By the time it got to Napoleon on Elba, I half felt like taking out my phone and doing something else. There was no narrative arc to keep the load of action in place, and the characters went through no real development.

There was some good acting. The lady playing Letizia Bonaparte was excellent, for the ten minutes we saw of her, as was Talleyrand. There were even a few scenes with the main characters (like Josephine cooing over the baby) that I actively enjoyed. But for the main part, every character had one mode and that was it. Napoleon was sulky and incompetently panicked. Josephine was moody or upset in a coquettish way. Tzar Alexis I was obnoxiously cheerful about everything.

I can see, as others have pointed out, that Scott was following English propaganda of the “Corsican Ogre”. However, he payed no attention to the fact that Wellington had a good deal of respect for Napoleon as a general, and that part of Napoleon’s charm for the English press was just how astonishingly unexpected he was. This wasn’t a caricature of Napoleon. This was a caricature of a caricature.

Historical Inaccuracies

Oh. Where to start with the many many many things that were wrong with this. I am fairly lenient when it comes to historical accuracy in fiction. Authors and filmmakers are allowed some artistic liberties, otherwise they wouldn’t be writing fiction. However, the sheer amount of nonsense Scott made up is incredible. I am going to list it in bullet-points, so as not to rant too much:

The age gap between Josephine and Napoleon, and how that messed up their relationship.

The utter butchery of FRev, including Marie Antoinette executed in 1789, and Robespierre looking like Danton and spouting random nonsense.

Hot-shot destroying the ships in Toulon harbour, whilst N hadn’t finished capturing little Gibraltar.

Josephine’s dress hanging off her shoulder as if she were a whore.

The lake battle with “the high ground”. It doesn’t deserve the name of Austerlitz.

The lack of tactics in any of the battles. Just men running at each other.

Josephine and Napoleon’s relationship being at best toxic and strained.

Napoleon returned from Elba because Josephine had a fling with Alexander, despite the fact Josephine had historically died earlier that year.

Letizia making Napoleon cheat randomly.

The scopes at Waterloo, the lack of farmhouses, the tents just behind the lines.

Wellington being clumsy and talking too much nonsense.

The use of Ça Ira and the Camagnole (which was in itself somewhat good), but the utter lack of any of the other excellent Napoleonic folk songs and military marches.

That is all that immediately comes to mind. Having said all that, I did enjoy the cinematography, and it was worth seeing, just to confirm my suspicions that it was a mess, and that there are many better films. Hopefully you’ve enjoyed this rant! Let me know if there’s anything I’ve missed off the list of failings.

[keepthyfaithandthylight]

Idea, everyone.

In case you are unaware, I have a deep love for Studio Ghibli. I also love frev, though that should be quite obvious. You may be wondering where this is actually going.

I dont know if this idea could ever come to fruition, but I would love to see a Studio Ghibli style movie about Robespierre. The beautiful artwork of Hayao Miyazaki and the wonderful music of Joe Hisaishi would be such a wonderful treat if paired with frev. I can see it being a wonderful film, or even short animation.

Just picture it, a young Robespierre and Desmoulins in their schooldays, chatting lightheartedly as the former tends to a pigeon in a park.

Perhaps, years later and well into the revolution, Robespierre and Saint Just, too.

I truly think it would be a beautiful film or animation, if created with the right heart. I would love to see it.

[modernsleepingbeauty]

i would go through every single saw trap if it meant i didn’t have to watch napoleon 2023. i would rather have my esophagus pulled out with a pair of tweezers than have to watch napoleon 2023.

[josh-lanceero]

Fouquier-Tinville from Danton (1921)

[twyrrinren]

I think the English localisation "One Nation, One King" is misleading, because in "Un peuple et son roi" the nation is a more prominent actor. A lot of historical works, non-fiction, fiction, etc. are still dedicated to "important historical personae," and it's hard to write about and imagine the life of ordinary people in such tremendous events. This film reminds me of "history from below," and we see how the nation was the leading force in the French Revolution along with more famous political figures.

[makiitabaki]

Boop!

[citizen-card]

LBFF Round 1: La Révolution française (1989) VS The French Revolution (2005)

[sansterreurnivertu]

Camille Desmoulins acted by Ossip Runitsch (Josef Runitsch) in Danton (silent film, 1921, dir. Dimitri Buchowetzki)

According to the credits, it is based on Georg Büchner's play The Death of Danton (Dantons Tod). However, the story, setting, and characters are far removed from both the history and the originals. Almost all the characters are completely different from any of them.

But Runitsch played Camille beautifully. His lovable charm and cuteness were so perfectly realized that I felt as if the real him was on the screen. I would love to see more of Runitsch's movies, but I am very sad that most of them have disappeared.

Anyway, despite the historical inaccuracies and deviations from Büchner of the film, this is my best Camille.

I have the pamphlet of the movie and I will upload these photos later.

I found the film on YouTube: fre

[usergreenpixel]

JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 34: DÉLICIEUX (2021)

1. The Introduction

Hello, dear Citizens, and welcome back to Jacobin Fiction Convention. I’m not feeling too great today so please forgive me if this review seems shorter and a little half assed. But I didn’t want to cancel the promised review yet again so here we are.

So, this movie came to my attention completely by accident during a flight from Moscow to Istanbul a while ago. The synopsis included the year 1789 and the setting is France, so you can BET that I was immediately curious and watched the entire thing in one sitting.

(Btw, it’s available on Amazon prime in French and English, but can be watched for free online in the Russian dub.)

That being said, this movie is far from flawless and still warrants a full review, so let’s begin today’s meeting in earnest, shall we?

2. The Summary

This movie tells the story about Pierre Manceron, a former chef who decides to leave his position when his noble employer and said employer’s friends mock Manceron’s new dish and generally impede his creativity.

After the scandal, Manceron and his son move in with a family friend and open up a small tavern, but the former chef decides not to create new dishes ever again. Little does he know, a mysterious woman named Louise is about to cross paths with him.

Eager to become Manceron’s apprentice in cooking and to make sure he begins to cook again like he used to, Louise nevertheless seems to have an agenda of her own and the secrets she keeps might just ruin everything.

3. The Plot

Overall, it’s a good story with nice pacing and structure. Of course, this story of the first restaurant in France is pure fiction but it is a fictional movie that doesn’t pretend to be a documentary, which is awesome.

Also, while Frev isn’t at the center of the story, it is mentioned quite a lot and is, in fact, part of the reason why the main villain, the former employer, gets his comeuppance in the end. It also overlaps with the storyline of opening a completely new type of eatery, since gone are the days of dingy inns and lavish feasts of nobility.

Aside from all that, I loved the found family trope used in the story, as over its course Louise bonds with Manceron and his son, thus finding a new family and a new purpose in life. I could’ve been fine without Manceron and Louise falling in love though, but that’s just me.

4. The Characters

At first, Pierre Manceron came off as a cliché reluctant cynical mentor so I was prepared not to care about him much. I was pleasantly surprised though, since he gets some nice development later on and he is realistically flawed. He is a womanizer, he can be a stubborn mule and he does attempt to hit on Louise after finding out she used to be a sex worker (read: kiss her). Luckily, his behavior is never romanticized by the narrative.

To his credit, Manceron quickly realizes that Louise isn’t okay with this treatment and never attempts to pull those stunts ever again and grows out of his time period-accurate views on women. For example, while initially correctly stating that most apprentices are young men, he does eventually begin to teach Louise and really begins to respect her, even helping her humiliate the shit out of the villain in the end.

Louise herself is my favorite character though.

I think making her a middle aged woman instead of a young ingenue is quite a bold choice. She too is flawed and at first only needs this apprenticeship to seek revenge on the noble who used to employ Manceron. Her past is troubled and includes becoming a widow and losing all of her children, for example.

However, she later genuinely becomes attached to her mentor and to his son and gets her revenge not in the way she originally wanted, but in a way that is far more harmless and doesn’t put her loved ones at risk.

Louise is also the proverbial brains behind the establishment she and Manceron open up and comes up with the majority of the innovations they use in the restaurant, like menus and specials of the day.

Benjamin, Manceron’s son, is a young adult interested in the works of the philosophers of the Enlightenment and in the upcoming revolution. He’s an idealist, sometimes to a fault, but he’s a genuinely nice guy who accepts Louise even before Manceron himself does, this avoiding the “jealous kid” trope.

Jacob, Manceron’s friend who takes him and Benjamin in, is a fairly minor character but I did like him. He’s a bit of a drunk, but a very caring man.

Duc de Chamfort, the main villain, is an ass. A typical pompous noble believing only nobility should have access to tasty food since only they can “appreciate it”. He is also a metaphorical thread connecting Louise (the woman he wronged in the past) and Manceron (his former chef whom he claims to respect but treats like shit), thus becoming a catalyst for the entire storyline. Fortunately, he does get a satisfying humiliation when the heroes trick him into eating at their restaurant while surrounded by people of lower class and confronting him about his crimes.

These are the most noteworthy characters in my opinion.

5. The Setting

I liked the setting, even though some female costumes aren’t accurate due to lack of shawls (fichu) that would usually cover up the cleavage.

Other than that, it’s pretty good in terms of scenery and costumes. I especially liked the changes in the color scheme and the lighting as the shabby inn is transformed into a much more welcoming restaurant.

As for the food, it looked just amazing!!!

I also loved details like confusion about how to spell Manceron’s name (fixed spelling didn’t exist).

6. The Acting

Isabel Carré (Louise) is my favorite here, but most actors did an amazing job. I found the duke a bit hammy, but I think it’s probably the screenwriter and director who are to blame. Or maybe it’s because creating a somewhat comical villain was the whole point.

7. The Soundtrack

Not exactly a masterpiece, but quite good.

8. The Conclusion

To sum up, this movie is a pretty good fictional story about found family, changes in the food industry and the French Revolution.

Not a perfect movie by any means, but I found it pretty enjoyable so you can check it out if you want.

With that, today’s meeting has officially come to an end.

Stay tuned for updates, everyone!

Love,

Citizen Green Pixel

[empirearchives]

Zelenskyy smoking a cigarette while in costume playing Napoleon Bonaparte is something I didn’t know I needed