Divided into two parts, this long film relates the events of the French Revolution, a dramatic moment that we all know and one of the turning points in the history of mankind. Therefore, as most people know the historical facts, let's go to the film itself.
Directed by Robert Enrico and Richard T. Heffron, has Klaus Maria Brandauer, Andrzej Seweryn, Jean-François Balmer and Jane Seymour in the lead roles, respectively incorporating the revolutionary Georges Danton and Maximilian Robespierre and the ill-fated french kings Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The cast also includes other notable European players, as it is an entirely European production.
The most interesting thing about this film is the historical accuracy that all production tried to achieve, not only in the account of events, but also in terms of costumes and locations where it was shot. This allows the audience to fully understand the sequence of events and how each character lived them. Unlike other films, which often took place on the barricades of Paris and glorified (or not) the revolution, this film tries to be impartial and manages to show us a more idealistic and human side of those who initially planned and made the revolution and how they lost control of it, due to its disunity and inability to cope with the speed and the derailing of events, increasingly bloody. The film also tells us the attempts of the king to solve his country's problems, and how he was hamstrung to address them without endangering himself in one way or another. The Balmer's Louis XVI is a genuinely good man who initially (in part due to the circumstances) collaborates with the revolution, but the radicalization of events would dictate his downfall and death, not so much by his mistakes but mainly because he has become politically inconvenient for the radical party.
The more negative note is the "soft version" of the cruelest moments of the revolution, a fact that makes this film unable to mirror its hardness. The so-called "Terror" is no more than a few massacres in prisons, summary executions (more suggested than visible) and mobs in the streets with torches and spears. We didn't see the pillaging of Versailles, the destruction of the earlier king's graves or the countryside revolts, which rise up against the excesses of a revolution that made successive attacks against the Christian faith (or any other religion), followed by the french people. Maybe this decision of turn these scenes softer has its origins in the age restrictions, to prevent the movie from being classified as adults only. Still, this movie is an interesting document that allows us to "revisit" the French Revolution and even transmit historical knowledge (not everyone likes history) in a fun and interesting way.
Directed by Robert Enrico and Richard T. Heffron, has Klaus Maria Brandauer, Andrzej Seweryn, Jean-François Balmer and Jane Seymour in the lead roles, respectively incorporating the revolutionary Georges Danton and Maximilian Robespierre and the ill-fated french kings Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. The cast also includes other notable European players, as it is an entirely European production.
The most interesting thing about this film is the historical accuracy that all production tried to achieve, not only in the account of events, but also in terms of costumes and locations where it was shot. This allows the audience to fully understand the sequence of events and how each character lived them. Unlike other films, which often took place on the barricades of Paris and glorified (or not) the revolution, this film tries to be impartial and manages to show us a more idealistic and human side of those who initially planned and made the revolution and how they lost control of it, due to its disunity and inability to cope with the speed and the derailing of events, increasingly bloody. The film also tells us the attempts of the king to solve his country's problems, and how he was hamstrung to address them without endangering himself in one way or another. The Balmer's Louis XVI is a genuinely good man who initially (in part due to the circumstances) collaborates with the revolution, but the radicalization of events would dictate his downfall and death, not so much by his mistakes but mainly because he has become politically inconvenient for the radical party.
The more negative note is the "soft version" of the cruelest moments of the revolution, a fact that makes this film unable to mirror its hardness. The so-called "Terror" is no more than a few massacres in prisons, summary executions (more suggested than visible) and mobs in the streets with torches and spears. We didn't see the pillaging of Versailles, the destruction of the earlier king's graves or the countryside revolts, which rise up against the excesses of a revolution that made successive attacks against the Christian faith (or any other religion), followed by the french people. Maybe this decision of turn these scenes softer has its origins in the age restrictions, to prevent the movie from being classified as adults only. Still, this movie is an interesting document that allows us to "revisit" the French Revolution and even transmit historical knowledge (not everyone likes history) in a fun and interesting way.