This film is more than the story of Danton. It was a joint Polish French production filmed at the time of the beginning of the end of the Soviet system. It probably helped spur the Solidarity movement's union activity. It is more about Poland in the 20th century than the French Revolution. Solidarity began the end of the system. This film itself is historical by it's very existence....the rest is History. Robspiere, aka. totalitarian leaders. Danton, aka. Walensa. When one watches this film, one must remember the snowball which began in Poland. Actually, it could be useful for seeing the superpower struggle within the only superpower left.

its universal message about price of revolution, about power of a small group, about the way of good intentions, about people's interest as excuse for use the force for preserve the power . it is an amazing portrait of French Revolution. and Danton of Depardieu remains one of his greatest roles. but the axis is the vision of director. because the film is a parable in essence. because it is a film about Communism who represents just an ideological fruit of French Revolution. because Wajda knows the importance of testimony about the evil of a political system. because it is a honest work about illusion and ambition and need to control the power. in same measure, it is not only a manifesto but a beautiful movie who recreates more than atmosphere but the spirit of a fight for power. yes, France of Robespierre is Poland of Jaruzelski . but the science to transform a historical page in a contemporary event's reflection and the case of Poland in universal warning gives force and profound senses to this admirable film.

This is a great movie to look at, since it so nicely directed by Andrzej Wajda but at the same time I wished the movie would had some more depth in it, in terms of its story. It's an historically relevant movie about the last days of the French revolution but yet the movie forgets to focus on the character's motivations making the movie perhaps a tad bit too shallow to consider this a brilliant and relevant movie to what. Somehow it doesn't make the movie any less great to watch though. It's made with passion and eye for detail. every aspect about the movie is good looking, such as its settings, costumes and camera-work. Also the story still works out as powerful, though at the same time it could had been so much better and more powerful with a just bit more character development and insight historical information. Guess if you're completely familiar with the French Revolution and the stories of Danton and Robespierre in particular, this movie will be a perfect one for you to watch. It's somewhat typical for a French movie to tell a story slowly and subtle, without ever stepping too much in detail. Often this works out charmingly but in this case the movie could had really done with a bit more depth. Other than that, this movie is still one fine example of French cinema, despite the fact that it's being directed by a Polish director and stars lots of Polish actors in it as well. Gérard Depardieu is great in his role, though the movie also decides to concentrate a lot on many other different characters. The movie perhaps has a bit too many characters but each and every performance is a great one, so this doesn't really ever become a big complaint, other than that it slows done the story a bit at certain points. A great movie that could had been brilliant. 8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Cinema, at its best is entertainment. If one is to question every aspect with which one finds room for disagreement,and much of recorded history is based on contemporary opinions - often biased - then one should leave the cinema, because their prejudices will always spoil their enjoyment. When I spotted an airplane flying overhead in a film dated 33BC I was amused. The background scenery in "Casablanca" is absurdly fake. So, do I set up a moan & say that the film failed to convince? Fiona, relax and enjoy some excellent acting. Wajda's decision to cast the protagonists as French & Polish was inspired. one was immediately aware of which side each of the main characters was representing. No need to dwell on the authenticity of the wigs. This is powerful cinema. If there is a political message which is still relevant today - have a dinner party - a Château d'Yquem with the foie-gras; a Puligny Montrachet with the entree; some Polish Vodka sorbets and perhaps a 1961 Château Lafite-Rothschild with the beef - and discuss the political aspects of Danton until you drop with fatigue. Danton would surely have agreed?

'They are a very intelligent people, the French'. So says author Boris Pasternak, in his novel, Dr. Zhivago. After watching this movie called " Danton " one would tend to agree. A study in French History will illustrate how closely this film comes to duplicating it. The story is taken from the first five years after the nightmarish 1589 revolution in France which consumed the lives of thousands of Aristocrates and their supporters. Danton (Gérard Depardieu) has returned from his countryside estate to meet with his old friend Robespierre (Wojciech Pszoniak). It seems word has reached Danton that the Committee system, or more precisely, the Safety committee, in Paris has become lethal to the very people it's suppose to protect. Despite, their long friendship, differences of political opinion soon make it apparent the deadly revolution with its connection to the Guliotine, will soon destroy their goals, promises and even their lives. The dramatic acting in the movie between the principal actors and their ardent followers, is superb. Indeed, the devious plots, counter plots and murderous intentions of all involved is designed to unearth history from deep within it's bloodiest pages.****

Dalton- by Andrzej Wajda 1982 Wajda's `Dalton' is a superb movie in the great tradition and grand manner of a sweeping, dramatic historical epic. Danton, played with the perfect amount of bravura and zeal by Gerard Dieperdeu, is a one of the great pillars of the French revolution- he is fervently idolized, and as the leader of a huge publication, his power among the masses is immense and strong. He and his small band of intellectual fellow propagandists start criticizing the government- a fledgling one headed by Robiespierre (of the Revolutionary Committee) The latter cries foul, and is unwilling to slacken his desperate leash on the country through terror and force. The people are starving and scared, and faced with those who "have nothing to lose but their chains" (to quote appropriately from Marx), the Committee gets downright nasty. The film is a monumental narrative of the clash between these two mighty and principled men, culminating in the beheading of one of them. (of course you already know who the unlucky guy is if you know your world history). Underneath all the braggadocio and hedonism, Danton's indomitable will becomes awesome and meaningful. A less artistic director could have turned him into a caricature. Like Dostoevky, the director confronts the viewer with the tragic grandeur of humanity- but in this case, the tragedy of the "historical process" and necessity for revolution. Do we really attain true freedom, democracy and "liberty, fraternity, equality" when the people are starving and the leaders are using scare tactics? When do you justify a revolution and when do you call it mindless? Do revolutions and does great historical epochs happen by necessity or by the whims, caprices and action of A Few Good Men like Danton and Robiespierre, Bonaparte, etc. These are among the questions this urgently controlled movie bombarded me after firmly engaging my emotions and intellect. Indeed, the director pulls no punches but takes some well-aimed, unerring swipes at our old-fashioned ideas about politics. The story is set in the 1790s, but its message still boomerangs to this very day. Wajda presents us with a subject that could degenerate into propaganda but instead is shaped into great art- one that is done with great narrative force and in the heart's blood.

Many American pea-brains who worship and support the political half-truths of hucksters like Michael Moore would do well to sit through this movie more than once and see how hypnotic manipulators can scare, intimidate and lie to an underinformed public and get the people they fear or loathe killed, spindled and mutilated. Robespierre in this fine epic kills the opposition by remote control, all in a fit of self-righteous devotion to his principles. We get the impression that Robes felt it quite justifiable to snip off his opponent's heads, even as he sent his minions out to trump up false and misleading charges against the State. Today, the captains of our rotting media institutions are much more sensitive that Robes...they merely murder your character with innuendo and false charges laid down without foundation or sources. Witness Dan Rather's attempts to assassinate W's character on the eve of the 2004 election, or the constant drumbeat that the 2000 election was stolen, although constitutional scholars continue to scoff at such irresponsible drivel.

The 33 percent of the nations nitwits that still support W. Bush would do well to see this movie, which shows the aftermath of the French revolution and the terror of 1794 as strikingly similar to the post 9/11 socio-political landscape. Maybe then they could stop worrying about saving face and take the a**-whupping they deserve. It's really a shame that when a politician ruins the country, those who voted for him can't be denied the right to ever vote again. They've clearly shown they have no sense of character. What really stands out in this movie is the ambiguity of a character as hopelessly doctrinaire as Robespierre; a haunted empty man who simplistic reductive ideology can't help him elucidate the boundaries between safety and totalitarianism. Execution and murder. Self-defense and patriotism. His legalistic litmus tests aggravate the hopeless situation he's helped create. Sound like any belligerent, overprivileged, retarded Yale cheerleaders you know of? Wojciech Pszoniak blows the slovenly Deparidieu off the screen. As sympathetic as Robespierres plight is, it's comforting to know that shortly after the film ends he'll have his jaw shot off and be sent to the guillotine.

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.

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.