Set in the 1794, the second year of the French republic formed after the execution of Louis XVI, this film portrays the power struggle between the revolutionary leaders Danton (Gerard Depardieu, at his finest) and Robespierre (a commanding performance by the Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak). The moderate revolutionary Danton has returned to Paris from his country seat where he has been since being deposed as leader of the Committee of Public Safety in the previous year by Robespierre. He is opposed to "The Reign Of Terror" which has resulted in the executions of thousands of citizens, mainly by guillotine, who are thought to be opposed to the Revolution. Danton is confident of the support of the ordinary people and tries to persuade Robespierre to curb the bloodletting. But Robespierre and the Committee are afraid that the popularity of Danton will lead to them being overthrown, and put Danton and his supporters on trial for being traitors. This was the first French language film made by Andrzej Wajda after he had arrived in France from Poland. His Polish film company was closed down by the government due to his support for the Solidarity trade union, which had opposed the Polish government in the late seventies and early eighties. His previous film "Man Of Iron" (1981) had dealt with the Solidarity union and its leader Lech Walesa, and it is easy to draw comparisons between the relationship of Walesa and the Polish leader General Jaruselski, and that between Danton and Robespierre. Danton/Walesa are the voice of reason opposed to Robespierre/Jaruselski who continue dictatorial rule despite having lost the support of the people they claim to represent. The film is based on the Polish play "The Danton Affair" written by Stanislawa Przybyszewska in the 1930s, and on its release the film was criticised by some for being static and theatrical. But what the film does is to concentrate on the behind-the-scenes meetings of the Committees and the scenes in the National Assembly and the courtroom rather than the activities on the streets of Paris.

Danton was a hero and one of the founders of the French Revolution of 1789. This movie is set five years later and the revolution has morphed into something ugly. While initially the revolution promised freedom, at this point the small committee running the country is extremely repressive and is a dictatorship. Danton and his friends were angry at how the country wasn't better off in 1794 than it was BEFORE they got rid of their king, so they begin criticizing the government. The movie begins as the printer who makes critical pamphlets concerning the government is beaten and his business is destroyed. So much for "liberty, equality and fraternity"! So, as a result of being silenced this way, Danton et al begin publicly criticizing the government. Eventually, Robespierre (the leader of the committee) and his cronies trump up charges, have a show trial and get rid of the dissent. Some have mentioned that the Polish director, Wajda, also intended this to be a criticism of his own nation--which, at the time, was Soviet-dominated and very repressive as well. This makes sense as you see the movie unfold--especially when the government destroys all dissent "in the name of the people".

The acting is fine, the story compelling and I have no major criticism of the film. However, I really wish the ending had been handled differently. Especially because other than history lovers and French people, most probably have no idea that this execution helped to end the government. AFTER this purge of Danton in April 1794, Robespierre himself was executed in July 1794 because the country had just had enough--plus, those surviving Frenchmen knew that they, too, would face the guillotine sooner or later if this sick system remained in place. Some sort of an epilogue would have been nice--such as showing the soldiers coming for Robespierre. He responded by trying to kill himself first, but he only succeeded in blowing off part of his face--still alive, he was guillotined shortly afterward. This would have been a dandy little epilogue and could have been done in about five minutes. However, not showing a connection between Danton's death and the fall of the government is an odd thing to omit.

Georges Danton is given a full blown and full blooded portrayal in the film Danton by Gerard Depardieu. Danton is a joint French/Polish production and it's interesting to see the French Revolution portrayed by someone other than in the English speaking world which is always so heavily influenced by the work of Thomas Carlyle and the Tale Of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.

I don't want to write anything like a mini-Carlyle so I won't give you a whole history of the French Revolution. Let's say that as this film opens what is commonly referred to as the Terror is in full swing as the Revolution gorges itself on blood for real or imagined slights. The two guys responsible for bringing it to where it is in 1794 are Georges Danton and Maximilien Robespierre.

Robespierre is at the height of his power now and like most tyrants in the making confuses his own political survival with the principles for which the cause he espouses was started. As his rivals and potential rivals keep being denounced and keep going to the guillotine, there is only one man whose voice can make a difference, Robespierre's former colleague Georges Danton.

These guys are as opposite in character as you can get. Danton is a lusty and hard living man who takes his earthly pleasures in great quantity and that's how Gerard Depardieu plays him. Polish actor Wojcieck Pszoniak plays Robespierre one of the creepiest human beings to attain power in any country in history. Cold-blooded and aesthetic he's merciless in his drive for total control of France and sees himself on some divine mission. Kind of like Osama Bin Laden.

Danton would be surprised at how the film shows him going almost Christlike to his eventual doom. I'm sure that's not how he saw himself, still Depardieu and Pszoniak are remarkable in their work.

Danton the film if not accurate history is an interesting interpretation of some very important history.