criterionforum.org

I really don't know how I can make this any clearer to you: I did NOT assert that Rousseau was any sort of conservative, under any definition that one could muster. I am associating Rousseau with the Enlightenment, which stands opposite certain forms of Conservatism. He was a radical then and he still pretty much is and as such has often been the target of conservative (or Conservative, if you prefer) criticism of the Enlightment in general (Dostoyevsky and his contemporary bonehead wannabe Solzhenitsyn) and the French Revolution in particular (which was more Burke's bailiwick.)

Okay, yes, you're clearer now. But you're still wrong in your initial statement that Conservatism stands opposed to historical or political progress. The primary critique from Conservatism as a political disposition is of the excesses of rationalism in Enlightenment, namely utopianism, not the notion of progress, which many in fact embrace. In Rousseau, it was his concept of the General Will that was targeted, which some cited as the inspiration for the French Revolution and an example of abstract rationalism run amok when turned into praxis. If anything, Rousseau himself was more skeptical about progress in the Age of Enlightenment than someone like Burke was (though, no, he did not reject it either).

Also, you're seriously letting your ideology cloud your judgment by calling Solzhenitsyn a "bonehead."

I can't speak for all of 'Depardieu in period', but his performance in CYRANO DE BERGERAC, and the film itself, is something I would have preferred to see on Criterion even more that DANTON. That film is way overdue for a decent S.E.

jbeall wrote:Beaver

Is the whole movie comprised of facial close-ups?

That, looks like a floating heads movie. Very clean though.

Matt wrote:

jbeall wrote:Beaver

Is the whole movie comprised of facial close-ups?

A good chunk of it, yes.

cdnchris wrote:

Matt wrote:

jbeall wrote:Beaver

Is the whole movie comprised of facial close-ups?

A good chunk of it, yes.

Decapitation and the guillotine figure largely so floating heads would seem to be fitting.

Matt wrote:

jbeall wrote:Beaver

Is the whole movie comprised of facial close-ups?

Looking at the screenshots, I thought that the reviewer had chosen a few reaction shots and strung them together for comical effect.

The film is a very dull talkfest. The CC have made a disappointing choice.

Those shots of Gerard Depardieu are pretty damned funny.

I'll echo the sentiments of those who thought it was good, not great. Depardieu is predictably hammy, but I thought Wojciech Pszoniak was terrific as Robespierre, even if his performance was clearly dubbed into French afterward (although credit to the Europeans, they're much better at dubbing than we are in the US). His eyes positively blazed with ruthless piety and determination once his plan went into motion. I thought he was riveting every time he was on the screen.

I'd say my problem with this film stems primarily from its staging--I was thinking as I watched that it must have been adapted from a play, and had that suspicion confirmed reading this thread. Both the way the characters move through the rather artificial locations and the dialogue, which is at times heavy-handed, suggest this, so Carriere could have done a much better job adapting the screenplay to the medium of cinema.

One visual element that I did like, however, was the initial sight of the guillotine draped in the black canvas. It looked so ominous, and also created parallels with a) the overcoats of the characters, and b) the green drapes of the entrance to the convention, especially after Amar(?) has turned on Danton and walks out of the room, pausing and showing his relief after he passes underneath the curtain.