JACOBIN FICTION CONVENTION MEETING 37: CHÉVALIER (2022)
1. The Introduction
Well, hello there, Citizens! I’m back and I hope you missed me! Sorry for the multiple delays and all, but luckily I’m back at it now!!!
Okay, so this movie has been on my radar ever since it got announced. A story featuring a real Black man who lived during Frev? Sign me up! This has excellent potential and also, to my knowledge, at least a partially Black crew so we get more representation of marginalized groups in crews and on the screen!
At least, those were my thoughts before I actually watched the movie, but we’ll get to whether it was a good media piece later.
I found the movie on Russian language streaming websites, but it’s available on Amazon Prime and Disney Plus for those who would like to watch the original English version.
This review is dedicated to @idieonthishill , @vivelareine (who has a review that unpacks the movie from a historical pov and is welcome to add to the review 😊), @theravenclawrevolutionary , @sansculottides , @citizentaleo , @saintjustitude , @avergehistoryenjoyer , @lanterne and @jenxiez .
Okay, let the Jacobin Fiction Convention reopen!
2. The Summary
The movie tells a story of a real man, Joseph Bologne aka Chévalier de Saint-Georges. Recognized son of a white French nobleman and an enslaved black woman, Bologne must navigate the cutthroat world of the Parisian high society, dealing with racism and trying to reconcile his “white” upbringing with his African roots.
Sounds interesting, but let’s see how the premise was handled.
3. The Story
The Introduction scene - a musical duel between Mozart and Bologne, was actually quite good in my opinion. So were the other beginning scenes of kid Bologne growing up in France as an aristocrat and being bullied by his white peers, plus his father telling him not to let society break him.
These scenes establish quite well that Bologne has to carve out a place for himself among French nobility and make a lot of effort to get even a hint of acceptance. Sounds like a nice setup, right? Well, unfortunately at times Bologne in the movie doesn’t seem to have much agency at all.
For example, his title is granted to him by Marie-Antoinette basically on a whim, handed to him on a silver platter because the queen was impressed by his fencing skills, which in my opinion isn’t enough to show a character who has to work hard to be accepted. I think it would’ve been better if Bologne had at least several impressive fencing performances to prove himself and show more of his skills.
On the flip side, there are characters who have a bit too much agency. For example, in the story it’s Marie Antoinette who is calling all the shots and giving all the orders in France, even though Louis is alive and well. It’s definitely jarring to see how people say “by the order of the queen” when the king should be the one mentioned instead.
I didn’t care much for the love triangle storyline, but it’s my own personal preference and also the fact that it, like many parts of the story, isn’t all that nuanced. So yeah, very bland and boring.
Yes, Citizens, unfortunately nuance has officially left the chat, especially when it comes to the main character. See, at first Bologne doesn’t give a shit about poverty and famine plaguing France. He is enjoying his cushy life and his friendship with the queen of France instead. However, you know what makes him join the Jacobins? A fucking PERSONAL FALLING OUT WITH THE QUEEN. Not promises of abolishing slavery or granting rights to black people, not his own ideals… Just fucking pettiness!
It would have been much better if he didn’t have a falling out with Marie Antoinette and signed up for fighting with the Republicans because he genuinely wanted to do what was right, not due to personal beef. Especially since that was why he joined Frev in reality – the real Bologne made a choice to do the right thing simply because it seemed to be the right thing to him. Not out of petty desire to get back at the queen.
Also, the conflict between Bologne and his mother about how he is acting “too white”… eeeehh. To me it felt very anachronistic but maybe I’m wrong and there is more nuance missing because EVERYONE at court had to carry themselves in a certain way to make it. If you couldn’t do it, you were socially FUCKED. Besides, Nanon (the mother) and her friends crack really mean jokes about Bologne being “too white”, which is… well, an INTERESTING way to endear him to his mother’s culture…
The movie is juggling admittedly anachronistic theme about black culture, anti-slavery message, court drama and love triangles… and the juggling is done quite sloppily too, I’m afraid.
Also, just to illustrate how inaccurate this movie is, the events of 1789 are shown happening in 1776 for some reason, which shows just how much the creators didn’t give a shit about research.
Moving on.
4. The Characters
I really didn’t care for Bologne to be honest. He shows selfishness and pettiness, doesn’t have enough agency in the story and is also very inconsistent. After falling out with Marie Antoinette, he claims he defended her, which… he didn’t! At least it’s not shown in the movie! What the fuck happened to “show, don’t tell”?! Also, his incredible talents aren’t really shown in the way they could’ve been, more on that in the soundtrack section. A missed opportunity, really.
Nanon, Bologne’s mother, is a real embodiment of the themes of slavery and trauma present in the the movie. She merely exists to push him to embrace his African heritage and to remind him that he will never be truly accepted by other nobles. I honestly wish there was more to her character, because she ends up being little more than a walking theme embodiment.
Marie Antoinette here is a capricious, fair weather friend. She CLAIMS to support Bologne, but does it in indirect ways out of fear that nobles wouldn’t appreciate her openly backing a black man. Even though she is an absolute monarch so she can afford to show her support more openly. Actions speak louder than words, and she is clearly not a true ally of Bologne.
Marie Joséphe, Bologne’s love interest, is a woman trapped in a miserable marriage and yearning to act in Bologne’s operas. While I do sympathize with her, I believe that there really isn’t much depth to her either. We just don’t learn much about her. This is becoming a common theme…
Also, just as a side note while we’re talking about characters, many white characters in the movie are shown as mere flat caricatures. I can understand why, but, again, this doesn’t show nuance as in reality, while Bologne definitely had to deal with racism, he was not only accepted, but adored as a celebrity, but we don’t see that reflected in the attitudes of other people towards him. Because apparently the brains of the spectators will implode when they see nuance in a modern movie, it seems.
5. The Setting
Personally I wasn’t that impressed by the costumes or the settings. I’ve seen much better ones. Nothing bad, but nothing outstanding either.
6. The Soundtrack
Where the fuck is actual music from that time period?! Where is music by Bologne himself?! It’s a fucking missed opportunity and I don’t know what prevented the creators from including the music written by the MAIN DAMN CHARACTER into a biopic about him. A shame that they missed yet another opportunity.
7. The Conclusion
Honestly… I can’t say much when it comes to what this movie is fucking about. The story is bland, lacks nuance, doesn’t follow basic historical facts and is pulled in a million directions.
For a movie about an obscure figure, it doesn’t show much of the things Bologne was known for and at times even strips him of agency. We need to have better POC representation, because this is just not it.
The movie is mediocre, bland and forgettable. Don’t waste your time on it.
With that, I declare today’s meeting of the Jacobin Fiction Convention to be over. Thank you for your patience and support during this hiatus of mine.
Stay tuned and stay safe!
Love,
Citizen Green Pixel
30 notes
·
View notes
Black Historical Figures I think are cool af!
Happy Black History Month! Below the cut you’ll find a list of 10 black historical figures I think are super cool (and often overlooked in favour of their white/non-black counterparts) all of the figures are inspirational to me in some way and I think anyone can learn from their examples, regardless of race.
Dido Elizabeth Belle aka Dido Belle Lindsay - staying the course of your beliefs, knowing you deserve better. Knowing what’s right is more than possible.
Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-George(s) - don’t let anyone take your talents and passions from you. Those who treat you wrong don’t deserve you.
Phillis Weatly/Phyllis Weatly - no matter what you’ve been subjected to, don’t let anyone take your voice from you.
James Armistead Lafayette - fight (spy) for what you believe in. You may turn out to be the most powerful piece in the fight.
Harriet Tubman - no matter the evils of the world, there are good people out there, don’t forget your strengths and allies.
Freda Josephine Baker (née McDonald) best known simply as Josephine Baker - dance and keep dancing, no matter how bad things are. You only live once.
Bessie Coleman - pursue your dreams no matter who tells you that you can’t. You may match them in renown yet.
Gladys Bentley - wear what you want, speak how you want, and love whomever you choose.
Martha P. Johnson - be here, be queer, and speak truth to power.
Maya Angelou born Marguerite Annie Johnson - write, write, write, oh… and don’t fear life.
50 notes
·
View notes
An Unnecessarily Long Analysis on Chevalier: The Trailer
joseph bologne, otherwise known as the chevalier de saint-george/s, was, to put it in simple terms, a badass. i have done months worth of research on this man, including out-of-town trips throughout my state to obtain archived materials and the only (and outrageously expensive) book written about him (the chevalier de saint-georges: virtuoso of the sword and the bow by gabriel banat). ive been beyond excited for chevalier, a movie coming out on april 21st, which explores his life. but, the more and more i watch this trailer and think about it, the more inaccurate it's seeming to be. now, to preface, im not a critic, i havent seen the movie early, im just a person who knows an unnecessary amount about him so now im going to share (also i am going off memory alone, though i am pretty damn confident in my ability to remember everything chronologically)
to give a very short rundown, joseph, born in guadeloupe in 1745, was born to a wealthy plantation owner, his father, and his enslaved mother. after a few years, (and his fathers murder conviction, which he fled from before he could be beheaded,) his father's wife brought him and his mother to france where his father had fled to. his father enrolled him in the best schools, particularly a fencing academy where he was taught by nicolas texier de la boëssière. throughout his time there, and presumably before, he also studied and played the violin. his talent was utterly clear to anyone who watched him, whether it be fencing or playing, and he even came to surpass his fencing teachers
fencing was what originally got him in with the likes of france's higher-up society members, both fencing for and with them. this didn't turn out to be his primary passion, though. fencing, composing, and anything of the sort was what he focused most of his time on. by the age of 24 he took over gossec's concert des amateurs, and had plenty of a presence in the musical scene. despite being mixed, he was able to establish himself within many communities, including with royalty (he taught and worked with marie antoinette for a considerable amount of time). he was actually met with very little resistance because of his talent, but when it came to more sophisticated positions and opportunities, there were setbacks. most notably, he applied to lead the paris opera, to which many members said they would quit because they wouldn't work for a man "like him," to which he withdrew his application
this is not where he stops, of course. he continues on to write operas, concertos, and any other compositional piece he put his mind to (as well as fencing on the side)
with his royal connections, he also became good acquaintances with prince philippe, duke of orléans. eventually (and after a shit ton of events that i dont have time to get into), through this connection, he gets involved in the french revolution (bc of course he would). due to racist laws of the time, he was put with an an all-black legion that he lead as colonel, which is later renamed to la legion saint-georges because of his astounding leadership and skill (he was still doing concerts and shit on the side btw)
his revolution career came to an end when he was falsely accused of misappropriating funds and jailed for a period of time because of it. after that, he eventually went back to making music until he died in 1799
okay, i know that was a lot, but trust me thats just scratching the surface of his life. now, to get into the actual reason im here:
this trailer, for the movie about his life, is, from what i can see, at least partial bullshit
their biggest point, and the opening scene according to the reviews that have been published so far, is of him interrupting a mozart concert. throughout the sources that are available about him, researches are adamant that he never interacted or was in direct competition with mozart. from what i can tell, hes about 19-23 in this, meaning he hasnt taken over the concert des amateurs yet. this also means that mozart can be no older than 12 years old. yes he was a prodigy, but even in the trailer they look the same age. like how tf are you going to base your MAIN EVENT. YOUR SELLING POINT. THE FIRST THING ON SCREEN. on something completely fictional. also, if mozart is an adult by then, joseph was well established and already assisted in creating a whole new genre, one which mozart eventually took inspiration from
also, from everything else ive seen, theres a significant focus on the singular relationship we know about in his life. yes okay it was a part of his life, and yes theyre trying to make it sell, but it had nothing to do with his success
now you might be asking, so? its a movie? who gives a shit? and i see you. i understand it. no matter how much i tear it apart im still excited about it bc theyre acknowledging him at all. im literally going to see it the week it comes out. but. but, theyre claiming to be telling an untold, true story, when they're clearly dramatizing a large majority of it. listen, im not entirely stupid, i know this is how movies work, but my god is it driving my crazy that this is going to be his "reintroduction" to the modern world
listen, they didnt do everything wrong. i dont have context for a majority of it, but from what i can tell the rest of the events are more or less plausible. im also beyond happy that he is being represented in the masses for the first time since his death, and being recognized at all. im hoping this sparks more research about him, especially more attainable research (seriously the only book about him is available for no less than $300 and for what????)
also, i also understand that this is only 2 minutes of the entire movie. yes you should also know i have watched it over 30 times since it came out (hyperfixation at its finest <3), but i understand this is just barely a glimpse at it. im going to of course do a full update when the movie comes out, but for now this is what i have to say. please, if you go see (for the love of god if this has taught you anything go see it), know that the movie is probably not going to be a great representation of his true story (and hopefully look into some more research about him)
30 notes
·
View notes