Louis Xvi @ MindSay 
Tyranny defined as the power of absolute rulers—monarchs and dictators—is well known. Democracy, although it sometimes fails, is said to be the antidote to this type of tyranny. People will, in times of stress, elect persons who then subvert the democratic system and become absolute rulers.
Not as well known is the tyranny caused by majority approved restrictions on minorities. This type of tyranny was fully exposed by John Stuart Mill in his 1869 pamphlet “On Liberty” and is quite prevalent throughout the world. Perhaps this pamphlet should be required reading in all democracies. Ethnic cleansing is the severest example of such tyranny, but many lesser examples also exist. In America today, this type of tyranny is becoming more and more prevalent. So called “political correctness” imposes severe restrictions on the Constitutional right of freedom of speech, and restricting the majority disliked actions of sub-groups has come to be considered quite normal and appropriate. The effect of such restrictions is often to turn normally law-abiding people into criminals, even though these restrictions rarely change basic attitudes and only result in the actions being hidden from public view. But it is not the type of tyranny this piece addresses.
A recent Gallop poll measured the approval rating of a number of American institutions. The results are astounding: only 54% approves of the way our police operate, only 46% approves of organized religion, only 41% approves of how our banks operate, only 34% approves of the Supreme Court, only 33% approves of our public schools, only 31% approves of our medical system, only 23% approves of television news, only 22% approves of our newspapers, only 21% approves of our criminal justice system, only 18% approves of the way big business operates, and, worst of all, only 14% approves of the actions of the Congress.
One would think that the people involved in these institutions would be ashamed of such low approval ratings and would want to do something about them. Doesn’t a crisis exist when only a third or less approve of most of our fundamental institutions? Yet the people running these institutions seem to be perfectly content with things just as they are. One wonders whether these people have any self-respect. How can they not care that the people think so little of them? That they continue to conduct “business as usual” constitutes an inexplicable situation, reminiscent of the attitudes of Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II before their untimely deaths. The attitudes of these monarchs can be explained as the “arrogance of power.” Can the same explanation be applied to what is going on in America today?
Wealthy special interests seem to have acquired almost complete control of American institutions, especially our political institutions. Both the Democratic and Republican parties, along with the complicity of the big-corporate owned press, have succeeded in locking out any political competition. Laws, written by the politicians in both parties, make running for office as an outsider very difficult, and the press, especially the national press, manages to keep any outside contender who manages to get on the ballot out of the news by restricting access to the press and press-sponsored debates. Special interest money funds the entire process, and those special interests collect their rewards when the Congress enacts legislation favorable to them. The judiciary in our Federal Courts are political appointees, who far more often than not, toe the establishment line. Instead of a nation “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we have a nation of special interests, by corrupt politicians, for special interests. Although we don’t use the term, this system is tyrannical. The establishment has subverted our democracy.
Someone may point out that Congressmen, especially as elections approach, do concern themselves with the people’s will. Unfortunately, their concern rarely amounts to more that claims of support and promises that are hardly ever provided and fulfilled. True, Congressmen prefer to be reelected, but protecting the system has a higher priority, and when defeated, they can usually count on lucrative positions in government-related, but non-governmental positions. They trade their votes for influence-peddling portfolios. Turning out one politician often merely means replacing him with another cut from the same cloth. When the Congress enacts legislation it knows a large majority of the people rejects, the arrogance of power has achieved its effect.
So can American democracy be salvaged? It took violent revolutions in France and Russia to eliminate their tyrannical governments, but revolution was easier then than it is today. Perhaps the only possibility is a drastic loss of American economic power and international influence, because defeating the establishment in any other way may very well be impossible.
©2007 John Kozy, Jr.
I finally got to see Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette last night and I was so happy with it, I immediately re-watched it. Finally there's a film out there that really went into detail about what life was really like at Versailles on the cusp of the French Revolution, yet juxaposed in between all the lushious and sometimes down right boring details, the film was done with some artistic license (the hairdos and make-up were not entirely accurate, they needed to be more elaborate) and 20th century touches (including an early '80s New Wave soundtrack complete with references to Adam Ant, especially in the opening fantasy "bad queen eating cake" sequence) to bring late 18th century history to life for a more hip contemporary audience. I was intimidated at first by the soundtrack and the casting of Kirsten Dunst as Antoinette, but by the first scene, I was hooked by the rich costumes and elegant performances by American and English actors masquerading as French aristos who weren't "over the top" at all (yet could've been).
Sofia's vision of Antoinette seems to be a lost and ill-fated version of Cinderella. Young Antoinette is literally thrown out of her somber motherland (Austria) into an opulent world of strict etiquette and intrigue (France) where her fate hangs on whether or not she can produce an heir, yet her equally young and stifled husband (Louis Auguste) is no help. It's not that he doesn't like her, he's just an insecure dork. Out of all the performances, I enjoyed Jason Swartzman the most as Louis Auguste (King Louis XVI). He is the one actor who doesn't look entirely like the man he is playing, but emotionally he literally becomes Louis, even right down to his walk, posture, underhanded way of speaking, and obsessions with hunting and science. In contrast to Louis, Antoinette was much more interested in art, music, and dance. She was like a little caged bird and he was like a boy in love with nature.
However, what they didn't show enough of was a more mature version of Antoinette and Louis. Sofia really focused on the couple as teenagers ruling the palace and playing games, and we never see them interested enough in politics to save their country. Often Louis encouraged Antoinette to indulge in gaming and gardening to distract her from interfering in politics. Louis ruled much through the instruction of his advisors and was very much interested in knowing the hearts of the people, yet he was prideful, taught to be a king not a politician, and kings back then were believed to be ordained by god. Much of what went wrong in France was not due to their fault, but the poor decisions of their ancestors. By the time Louis and Antoinette reached the throne, there wasn't much they could do to balance the debts or maintain the support of their subjects. Antoinette and Louis were basically scapegoats sacrificed to the fires of revolution, and Sofia portrays them as mere innocents, which no doubt was the reason why some critics booed the film at Cannes. Even though they were just as much victim to their station in life as anyone else at the time, they certainly weren't children, and they were brave and stubborn enough to face their enemies when the time came for it. Louis himself even approved of the motives of the Revolutionaries, but disapproved of the methods. Theirs is a story that would later be repeated in history, making me always ask this question:
Why have societies executed their monarchs? Perhaps I'll never understand that. The French Revolution was a holocaust in the sense that it called for the extermination of whole families of people whose only crime was that they were born aristocrats, many of whom never had much of a say in government anyway. In order to have a brand new way of life, it required the total destruction of the previous one, but one so soaked in blood that it couldn't possibly work either.
Based on Antonia Fraser's Marie Antoinette: The Journey, whenever I review the book and compare it to the film, I have to say that Sofia Coppola really shines as a writer and adapted Fraser's material well. The film is literally a companion to the book; a rarity amongst many films too often poorly adapted from printed page to screen. I also love Sofia's bold choice in not showing the bloody end of Antoinette's life. We don't need to see her get her head lopped off, we know it's coming, and so does Antoinette. But as we prepare for the end, I want to rewind and stay just one more night in that beautiful palace surrounded by good friends where the air is ripe with gossip and whisps of dresses and fans delicately brush me into a fantasy of capes, candy, and champagne.
And this leads me to add Marie Antoinette to my list of favorite movies based on 18th century history. Here's the rest of the list (some astute readers of my blog will recognize a few movies I've already mentioned in my favorite movies list part one and my favorite movies list part two):
Amadeus (1984) Most likely the very best movie set in the period, this film follows the short and decedant life of Amadeus Mozart. My favorite line: "I love them all! Why can't I have three heads?" said by Amadeus in the wig salon.
La Nuit de Varennes (1982) In June of 1791, a group of passengers in a stagecoach find themselves caught up in the events of the French Revolution, when they find themselves in the city of Varennes when revolutionists arrest the fleeing King Louis XVI and his family. Be sure to check out Harvey Keitel starring as Thomas Paine (his voice is dubbed in French)!
Dangerous Liaisons (1988) Based on the classic eighteenth-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, this gem of a film focuses on the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and her lover the infamous Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich). The Marquise makes a devious deal with Valmont to seduce the young daughter of her cousin, Madame de Volange (Swoosie Kurtz), thus having revenge on a former lover, the man to whom young Cecile de Volange (Uma Thurman) is promised in marriage. At first, Valmont refuses her proposition: he wants to seduce the prudish Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), who is spending time at his aunt's house while her husband is abroad. But, as fate would have it, Valmont falls in love with Madame de Tourvel and war is declared between the Marquise and Valmont which ends in diaster for all.
Valmont(1989) Also based on Les Liaisons dangereuses, this film stars Colin Firth in the role of Valmont and gives us another sexier take on the story.
The Lady and the Duke or L'Anglaise et le duc (2001) The story of Grace Elliott (1760-1823) and Philippe, the Duke of Orleans. Set during the French Revolution, Grace and Philippe remain close friends after a torrid affair and both struggle to survive and both have to make drastic decisions to either save themselves or their friends. In 1792, Grace must escape Paris on foot. We watch her on her difficult journey, her feet bloodied and ravaged, a desparate figure slowly and painfully making her way to unknown safety with the landscapes of old Rococo paintings behind her (all the actors were filmed in front of green screen -- making them look like moving paintings -- a bold choice). This movie is very stylized, but moving in its portrayal of the real historical characters.
Beaumarchais, The Scoundrel or Beaumarchais, l'insolent (1996) The true life story of Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, the son of a clockmaker, who writes "The Barber of Seville" and "The Marriage of Figaro" who also worked as a spy, provided American Revolutionaries with weapons, and gets into all sorts of sexual encounters (despite being happily married). There's an interesting costuming decision in this period film -- everyone who isn't loyal to the monarchy is dressed in creamy white or beige, even the beggars on the streets of Paris look clean, and only a few select "good" characters will appear in loud colors to make a point. Despite being good entertainment, it is clearly a film that favors the Revolutionaries.
The Madness of King George (1994) Lovely performance by Nigel Hawthorne as King George III who suffers from a disabling psychosis brought on by porphyria, a blood disorder. Not much was known about such disorders back then, but since the King is integral to the proper functioning of government, a race is on to "cure" him. Ian Holm plays Dr. Willis who employs all sorts of sordid punishments to correct the King's behavior.
Plunkett and Macleane (1999) Captain James Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller) and Will Plunkett (Robert Carlyle) are highwaymen from opposite ends in 18th century English society. Macleane is a disgraced gentleman soldier down on his luck and Plunkett is a former apocathary who lost his partner in crime to a vicious "Thief Hunter General" named Chance. Plunkett employs Macleane as his new partner when he discovers him digging up the corpse of his old friend to retrieve a ruby he stole. The two men are captured for grave robbing and their odd partnership/buddy friendship begins after they buy their way out of prison with the ruby (evacuated out of Plunkett's bowels). Soon they become famous highwaymen, but their relationship is complicated with Macleane falls in love with Lady Rebecca Gibson (Liv Tyler) and is seduced into Lord Rochester's (Alan Cumming) gambling parties in order to extract information about who is the richest of the rich. Very enjoyable and lively. We need more swashbuckling romances like this.
Tom Jones (1963) A young and irresistably cute Albert Finney stars as Tom Jones, a likeable rake who adores, and is adored, by women, but his one and only is the gentle Sophie Western (Susannah York). But being suspected a bastard, Tom cannot marry a woman of higher standing. Sophie is forced by her family to accept the unlikeable fellow, Blifil (David Warner). Blifil and several other members of society influence Tom's guardian to banish him. During his travels, Tom has many adventures almost ending with him being hanged. He is soon saved, Blifil is disgraced, and he is free to marry Sophie.
Farinelli (1994) The true life story of Farinelli (known as Carlo Broschi at birth) a famous Castrato who led a real rock star lifestyle in the 18th century. Contrary to what some may think, Farinelli, and other castratos like him, were able to have richly sensual love lives, but sadly were not allowed to marry because they could not produce children. Farinelli was castrated against his will in order to retain his angelic voice, a betrayal brought about by his older brother. A very intense drama rich with lavish set and costume design.
Triumph of Love (2001) Based on a play of the same name by Pierre de Marivaux, the story follows the romantic conquests of a princess (Mira Sorvino) who learns that the rightful heir to the throne her family stole is a handsome prince named Agis (Jay Rodan). Agis has been instructed to hate her and reject all love, but he's much too pretty to stay unmoved by passion for long. The princess falls in love with Agis at first sight and vows to woo him, but Agis is guarded by a brother (Ben Kingsley) and sister (Fiona Shaw) team who also seem to be prudes. In order to get close to Agis, the princess cross dresses to win the hearts of the brother and sister. To further add to the confusion, this entire story seems to be play acted in front of a modern audience who distress the sister when she tries to escape seduction. It totally gives you the feeling that you are watching the play outside in a country garden.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) Possibly my favorite Terry Gilliam movie second to Brazil, this is a pure late 18th century fantasy featuring the Baron Munchausen's supposed travels and fantastical experiences with his band of misfits. A must see.
Mesmer (1994) Those of you who lust after Alan Rickman in his Snape costume will love him as the infamous Franz Anton Mesmer, the eighteenth century Viennese physician who used unconventional healing techniques and mumbo-jumbo to cure the severely ill. He was proved to be a quack yet he perfected a mode of hypnotism based on his theory of "animal magnetism" leading to the use of his name to describe the exertion of strong will power used to overcome a person and induce them into a trance-like state where they are ripe for seduction; mesmerism.
Quills (2000) Stunning performance by Geoffery Rush as Marquis De Sade trapped in a post-French Revolutionary/pro-Napoleonic era insane asylum where he tests the faith of The Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), annoys the fight out of Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), and nearly seduces Madeleine 'Maddy' LeClerc (Kate Winslet) out of her petticoats. All are based on true life characters but much artistic license is given to the story to make it more entertaining. For instance, in real life Abbe du Coulmier was of dwarfish height, Madeleine really was De Sade's lover at the tender age of 14, and De Sade's wife (played by Rush's wife in real life) remained ever faithful to him, even though he did tend to pick on her a lot like the movie suggests.
Ridicule (1996) Beautiful movie, already previously reviewed it, loved it, although I could've done without all the propaganda against the aristocracy!