Reviewing movies made outside the established channels—especially ones challenging Regime narratives—is surprisingly difficult. I am always grateful that the filmmakers had the balls to take a risk, and I want to applaud the effort. But I also want to hold them to a high standard, not confusing a nice message for good art, the cinematic equivalent of hokey Worship Rock. I badly want the films to be great because the stakes are high, and that desire can have divergent effects—causing one to overlook flaws or to see the flaws more painfully.
This is a long-winded way of introducing the difficulties of writing about 2023’s Vaincre ou Mourir (Vanquish or Die), a surprise hit in France. It caused a bit of a scandal by highlighting a chapter in French history which polite company would rather not discuss: the uprising in the Vendee against the French Revolution, and the brutal suppression that followed. Liberté, égalité, fraternité—and bloodshed. I cannot give Vaincre ou Mourir any kind of grade or rating; I am far too prejudiced in its favor. (Not to mention: the subtitles make judgment harder.) All I know is that you need to watch it.
Vaincre ou Mourir is one of the most explicitly right-wing movies in recent memory. It focuses on the story of François Athanase de Charette de la Contrie (Charette), a naval officer and local noble recruited into the cause of Catholic peasant farmers taking up arms against the urban atheists who overturned their society in the name of enlightenment and progress. Charette believes a must do his duty with panache—which literally means while wearing a tuft or plume of feathers. “I want to be that man. I want to be a man of panache.” He ultimately achieves that aim, giving all a man can give to a glorious cause.
In a voiceover at the beginning of the film, Charette himself notes the optimism inspired by the Revolution, before the promises of reform turn bloody. But then “the peasants begin to lose hope. After fine promises, the Revolution brings threats … Helplessly, I watch our world collapsing, and this is just the beginning.”
Tensions had been rising in the Vendee over religious matters in particular. This region, as Michael Davies says, was the most Catholic part of France:
The people were devoted to their priests, who were frequently members of families who lived in the very parishes they served. There was no greater honor for a Vendean peasant family than to have a son become a priest. Between the priest and the peasant, there was no rivalry, mistrust, or conflict. The people not only loved and looked up to their priests, but they expected them to be worthy of respect.
Vendeans were understandably outraged when their priests were required to take an oath of loyalty to the new revolutionary constitution. (Radicalism can allow no loyalties which precede loyalty to the regime.) Despite the high cost of refusing, still five out of every six Vendean priests refused to swear loyalty. “Constitutional priests”—those who had bent the knee—were then brought in, and resentment toward them was so serious that they often needed armed guards. One such priest entered a Vendean church, only to find himself trailed by a group of women who immediately scrubbed every spot where his feet had touched the stone floor. They didn’t want their church to be tainted. The more you study the region and this history, the more you appreciate how hard it is for a historical epic to truly capture the tension of the times.
The inciting incident of civil war comes when the revolutionaries issue an order in February 1793 to conscript 300,000 soldiers to fight against “the enemies of liberty”—by which they mean neighboring countries still ruled by monarchs. Those “rights” which France had supposedly established on its own soil now have to be exported throughout Europe, so lotteries are held in town squares to determine which boys are going off to fight for revolutionary ideology.
Of all the memorable lines in the film, perhaps the most singular is the Regime man’s response to the peasants who say their sons are need in the fields more than in foreign wars:
“The Republic does not care about harvests when the army of tyrants threatens to trample liberty.”
This should hit close to home. The Vendean episode is not of interest only for history buffs and Francophiles, but for everyone: the French Revolution is the archetype of dreamy left-wing radicalism, obsessed with theoretical progress and unconcerned with history and reality. The lesson is that their plans inevitably turn bloody. Anyone and anything not in compliance must be eliminated—the sheer virtue of their vision requires it. It has happened several times since the French Revolution, and it will happen again if we allow it. That is why this film matters.
The Vendeans, to their credit, are not about to give their sons to a godless war machine. "They have killed our king, chased away our priests, sold the goods of our church, eaten everything we have, and now they want to take our bodies ... No, they shall not have them,” said a historical Vendean.
The war start well enough for Charette and the rebels. The Vendee was ideal territory for waging a guerrilla war. Napoleon himself later said the Vendeans, after one of their many victories, could have marched on Paris and overturned the Republic. Unfortunately they had to return to their lands and work the fields.
And the revolutionaries take advantage of their opponents’ missed opportunities—with increasing brutality. They execute countless numbers by the guillotine and firing squad and even by old-fashioned drowning. As is so often the case, revolutionary rhetoric is as brutal as their tactics: the Loire River, in which many are drowned, comes to be called the “national bathtub” and the drownings are “Constitutional baptisms.” The revolutionaries then deploy the infamous “infernal columns” through the region. As the historical General Turreau declared: "My purpose is to burn everything, to leave nothing but what is essential to establish the necessary quarters for exterminating the rebels." Estimates suggest somewhere between 16,000 and 40,000 Vendeans were killed in the early months of 1794. These are the fruits of true-believer leftism, and the communist successors of the French revolutionaries would multiply those figures in later centuries. “They have turned the Vendee into hell,” Charette says.
In the end, Charette and the Vendeans fail to halt the tides of fake Progress. The revolutionaries win the war and impose terms. The machine triumphs. Or so it would seem. But to have put up a grand resistance in the face of grave evil, rather than submitting lamely—and to do so with panache—this matters. Martyrdom is more glorious than compliance with wickedness. The film is unapologetic in declaring it. “So much heroism wasted,” laments Charette’s counterpart in the Republican army when the rebel is finally captured. Charette disagrees:
“Nothing is wasted. Ever.”
To tell a story of this significance and scale is no light undertaking. To do it on a slim budget is all the more daunting. Directors Paul Mignot and Vincent Mottez do admirably in the attempt. Despite the limitations, the film is devout and brave and well-made. The efforts of the Vendeans might be seen as an allegory for filmmakers trying to create outside the approved channels—underfunded and outmatched rebels doing battle against a giant machine. To borrow a line from a famous medieval poem, “What can a man do but dare?”
Among their complaints, critics will note that much of the story is told through Charette’s voiceovers. The complaint has a point—a lot of telling rather than showing. These voiceovers compensate for the limited budget: the directors simply did not have the funds to be more expansive in their storytelling, with different scenes and sets and dynamic battle sequences. But the viewing experience really does not suffer much. The voiceovers work because the movie works. There’s little problem in granting the filmmakers this indulgence.
Critics will also complain that the movie is right wing propaganda, insufficiently nuanced. That this is said reflects well on the film—leftists view Vaincre ou Mourir as a threat. Any production showing the wicked fruits born by radical leftism is intolerable. Any production showing the truth is intolerable. Radicals lie. Radicals kill. Radicals seek to destroy anything standing in their way. The film is simply realistic about this. But it’s also not true that there is no nuance. Hopes were high for “liberté, égalité, fraternité” in Charette’s world. And the Republican General Travot, the same one who laments Charette’s “wasted heroism,” is depicted as a man of honor. In the closing scene, he regretfully tells the firing squad to aim for Charette’s heart. “That is where you shoot a brave man.”
Whatever the film’s flaws, it is remarkable that such a good piece of anti-left art has been made. And it will be interesting to see if the film lasts, or if it is buried by those who don't want you to know about heroes who resist leftist imperatives. Right now Vaincre ou Mourir is available on Remant TV, and nowhere else, as far as I can tell. You need to watch it.
If you enjoy this newsletter, you’ll enjoy the book.
I love how this movie is propaganda but the billionth documentary/movie about Hitler isn't. When left wingers show a right wing regime going wrong "it's important to know history so you don't repeat it" any attempt to do the opposite is propaganda.
I have & have read the book! It’s excellent!