La Marseillaise

Aside from being a brilliant film, at different times humorous and moving, LA MARSEILLAISE is hands down the most accurate film out there when it comes to the French Revolution.

Some have noted it's "one-sided" aspect, but allow me to make an observation: when royalists want to make a one-sided film on the French Revolution, they... make stuff up! Usually utter bilge, such as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL or A TALE OF TWO CITIES, films (and original books) whose only basis in historical fact can be summed up as, yes, there was a revolution in France in 1789, and yes indeed, Britain and France are on opposite sides of the Channel. Those who support the republic, on the other hand, have typically had the scruples to actually *do their research* before setting out to mold the public's impressions of so momentous an historical event. Such is the case with LA MARSEILLAISE, where a large percentage of the dialog is taken from historical records. (In fact, the only real complaint one could have as far as historical accuracy goes is costuming, but I've yet to see any film from that era--1938, in this case--that had accurate costumes.)

All this is not to suggest that LA MARSEILLAISE is dull. Far from it! As mentioned before, LA MARSEILLAISE is witty and often poignant. In showing the Revolution from the point of view of ordinary citizens instead of aristocrats or well-known revolutionary leaders, the film shows to what point common citizens were dedicated to the ideals of the Revolution, as well as showing a human side to the "mob" so frequently portrayed.

La Marseillaise depicts lesser known stories attached to the events in Versailles in 1789 which led to the downfall of the monarchy. Renoir continues with a consistent stylistic system - great depth of field, two-shot closeups, framing of crowds, mobile framing, polyvocal (accents). In fact, aristocrats and citizens receive the same treatment from the camera. The exception is with the King and Queen who receive one-shot closeups, however, this seems more in the service of a dialectic regarding the Brunswick Manifesto than it being about psychological identification. This story is symbolic and likely the symbolism and abstraction is what led to the film not being as popular as was expected. There is also a confusion for the spectator because of Renoir's humanist treatment. Bumpkins are charming, aristocrats are accepting and armies more or less fight together instead of against each other. Renoir often spoke out against violence in film and this might be another disappointment for audiences at the time. Most violence is dissuaded through crafty acts of oration. The brains over brawn theme certainly lacks something of the 'common touch'. The breaking down of the song into parceled quotations reminds of the French New Wave's often lyrical and intellectual modes of expression. There is a monarchist rhetoric that runs through the film regarding order versus anarchy... yet there is little example of anarchy but also no false reprisal by monarchists against citizens. The treatment of war is tepid, but it just goes to show that Renoir was never comfortable representing hardened political positions.

The movie starts slow and perhaps not in the most engaging way, jumping from one location to the other and from one royal setting to a peasant's judicial troubles, but at least each change of scene is dutiful announced, so that the audience know where and when the scenes take place.

One would wish that they would still do this in movies, without assuming that the audience is smarter than it actually is. However, it's clear that there isn't a main character, even if the guys from Marseille get a lot of screen time.

Roughly the plot covers a few years, from 1789 to 1792 just before the revolution got bloody. The main thread of the narrative is how a group of people from Marseille formed a battalion and marched to Paris, singing the famous song which became France's anthem and then moved with other battalions to Valmy to defend France against Prussia and Austria.

Interesting but not Renoir's best.

Given the monumental importance of the French Revolution in history, it is surprising that so few films have been made about it or have even used it as a setting. "The Assassination of the Jean Paul Marat" is probably the most interesting and offbeat film, but it takes place 20 years after the revolution and only debates and argues about it. "Scarlet Pimpernel," "Reign of Terror," and "Tale of Two Cities" just use the revolution as backdrops to tell fun adventure stories. "Danton" is boring, anti-revolutionary and childish, everyone is presented in black and white terms. Griffith's "Orphans of the Storm" has lots of delights and some great action sequences, but is too didactic and anti-revolutionary. "Marie Antonette" (2006) and "Affair of the Necklace" are beautiful and great works, but show little interest in the revolution itself.

Although it deals with only some events leading to the overthrow of the monarchy, "La Marseillaise" is possibly the best film. It shows the complexity of the events and deals with them in an intelligent and reasonable manner. It shows how "the Brunswick Manifesto" led to the arrest of the King and Queen. While Marie and Louis, are not shown in a particularly good light, neither are they caricatured.

The movie is episodic and slow, but there are a number of dazzling shots and scenes. The attack on the King's palace at the end is the dramatic highlight.

There is a fabulous scene in the middle of the film where the aristocrats are singing a song about how they are going to "hang the traitors" and shortly the revolutionaries answer by singing about how they are going to "hang the aristocrats." It shows the most humanistic, balanced and honest presentation of the situation of any film on the subject that I have seen.

This film was an opportunity to view the French revolution from the view of the common people. Most viewers have only seen, perhaps, A TALE OF TWO CITIES or THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, so this film does offer fresh insights. However, to me, some of the dialog and one-sidedness of the film seemed as one-dimensional as the other two movies I just mentioned.

The film deals with events from 1789 to 1792 and so it really doesn't delve into the bloodier years of the Reign of Terror. It is understandable that these abuses aren't covered in depth, but to omit the be-headings completely seems rather dishonest. I'd really like to see a film that gives a balanced view of this period, but have yet to see it--and that's a shame, as it's a fascinating and tumultuous period.

FYI--From my point of view as a history teacher, it does seem amazing that within only two years of the completion of this very rousing and patriotic film the French capitulated to the Nazis.