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.
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.