Hello everyone, for my 10000 subscribers, I wanted to clear the controversial and hyper-sexualized reputation of my channel that my recent Marquis de Sade …
Hello everyone, for my 10,000 subscribers, 
I wanted to clear the controversial and  
hyper-sexualized reputation of my channel that 
my recent Marquis de Sade videos have created.  
While these have been extremely successful and 
a lesser man would have milked said success,  
I am better than that. At its core, this is a 
very serious channel about very serious topics,  
and it is time that my videos start reflecting 
that. And what can be more uncontroversial and  
serious than the review of a historical movie? 
So today, I’m reviewing a 1989 movie about the  
French revolution made by Pierre B. Rheinard.
Now I had never heard of this director,  
but I was reassured by the fact that he had 
already made historical movies in the past  
such as “Le Diable Rose”, which discusses life 
in nazi-occupied France. Needless to say, I had  
high hopes, hopes that were immediately shattered 
upon reading the title of the movie, “Les petites  
culottes de la Révolution”, which translates 
to “The Panties of the Revolution.” Yeah. 
This is clearly a mistake and they most 
certainly meant to write “Les sans-culottes de la  
Révolution” in reference to the urban lower-class 
during the French Revolution. Their name came from  
the fact that they wore trousers as opposed to 
the upper-bourgeoisie and the nobles who wore  
silk breeches known as “culottes”. But to have 
a historical movie about the French revolution  
make such a basic mistake in the title was far 
from promising, especially when that mistake was  
rather embarassing. Nevertheless, I decided 
to carry forward and give this movie a chance. 
The movie starts on June 27th, 1772 with Le 
Marquis de Sade and his man servant/lover  
Latour enjoying a prostitute together. 
Obviously, I was quite upset! Imagine me,  
desperately trying to avoid mentioning the 
controversial Marquis de Sade as to preserve  
the fragile reputation of my channel, only for the 
first scene of this historical movie to depict him  
copulating. And quite explicitly as well!
Furthermore, it all felt quite needless – why  
feature le Marquis de Sade at all in a movie about 
the sans-culottes? Sure, he had some influence on  
the French revolution, but I would definitely not 
associate him with the sans-culottes, preferring  
instead characters like Marat or Hébert, the 
creator of the Père Duschene. So frankly,  
I was disappointed, but at least they got the date 
right as June 1772 was when the Marquis de Sade  
and his servant were sentenced to death for 
sodomy, and less importantly, at least in those  
times, for attempted murder on four prostitutes 
by giving them a poisonous aphrodisiac. 
Credit where credit is due, this historical moment 
is portrayed perfectly in this movie, albeit after  
an excruciatingly long sex scene which was 
made particularly awkward by the fact that I  
was watching this movie with my family. And 
while at first I was understandably uncomfortable,  
the genius of the director soon became 
apparent as I understood that it was simply  
an elaborate metaphor for how the clergy 
and the nobility treated the third estate. 
Allow me to illustrate. Here is the clergy. Here 
is the nobility. And here is the third estate  
being fucked over by the former. Genius.
The movie then jumps to 1789,  
or the beginning of the revolution, and we 
are immediately blasted by a fellatio scene  
between a noble and a peasant named Charlotte.
This is a clear reference to Charlotte Corday,  
a Girondin sympathizer who murdered 
the radical journalist Jean-Paul Marat  
in his bath tube. However, the fact that Corday 
is literally sucking the dick of the nobility  
is quite concerning as it clearly shows the 
bias of the director who decided to portray  
her as a royalist sympathizer. And personal 
belief aside, I do not think that historical  
movies should have such obvious signs of bias. 
Nor close-ups of fellatios for that matter. 
After yet another extended sex scene in a horse 
carriage, we see the noble, Mr. Le Count, arrive at  
the residence of his friend, Mr. Le Marquis, where 
they immediately partake in a wild bdsm orgy.  
The following fifteen minutes spent with my family 
was perhaps the most awkward and unpleasant moment  
of my life, topped only by my first kiss at 
21 in a back street of Kuala Lumpur with a  
Malaysian prostitute. But finally, the orgy 
comes to an end, and I leave a sigh of relief  
as I find comfort in the belief that I might 
get a pause from this constant sexual bashing,  
only to be slapped in the face with a close-up 
of yet another fellatio. And that’s where I must  
discuss my first major critique of this movie.
Now, I’m not complaining about the fact that  
there’s sex involved – I am no prude. 
Furthermore, sex was omnipresent in the  
Ancien Régime and it was not at all uncommon 
for the King of France to have mistresses,  
with Louis XIV having sixteen children with six 
mistresses while Henry IV was infamous for having  
over 30 mistresses throughout his lifetime. In 
the words of Mel Brooks, “It’s good to be King.”  
In fact, Louis XVI was the exception, not the 
rule, for being in a monogamous relationship.  
So no, the sex itself is not a problem, it’s just 
the sheer amount of it and I am starting to think  
that it’s impacting the narration of the story.
It is only after 40 minutes into this movie about  
the “sans-culottes’ that we finally encounter 
those so-called “sans-culottes” fighting at  
the bastille against the royalist troops, and 
I have numerous issues with this scene. First,  
they really dropped the ball when it came to the 
extras budget – yes, less than 1,000 stormed the  
Bastille, which wasn’t a lot, but this is really 
pushing it in order to save some money. However,  
after watching Dunkirk, I’ve come to realize that 
this was a common theme in historical movies,  
so I’ll let that one pass.
Second, the French tricolor flag  
did not exist at that time, having been designed 
a year later, and it would have been more accurate  
if the sans-culottes wore a red and blue cockade, 
which were the colors of the fucking Paris. Third,  
this is taking place in a field in the middle 
of nowhere, which would have been fine if this  
was the 15th century but by the time of the French 
revolution, the area surrounding the Bastille had  
become quite populated having the dense Faubourg 
St Antoine right beside it. And finally, we hear  
the Marquis de Sade screaming from his cell about 
how the guards are killing everyone, which did  
happen but almost two weeks before the storming 
of the Bastille. In fact, it is one of the events  
that led to this fateful day. Also, they tried to 
make us believe that this guy looks anything like  
this guy at the beginning of the movie.
We later see our friends, Mr. Le Marquis and 
Mr. Le Count, getting ready to emigrate from France 
following the storming of the Bastille, and while  
some people did emigrate in 1989, including (some of) the aunts of the King, mass emigration only started  
in 1791 as the revolution became increasingly 
more radical and violent. After their master  
abandoned his château, the servants decide to 
celebrate by singing “Ah ça ira, ça ira, ça ira”,  
an emblematic revolutionary song that was 
created… a year later… And while this might  
seem like nitpicking small details, it’s 
those small details that tell you whether  
the director cared to portray an accurate 
representation of the revolution or not. 
We are now back in the carriage and our break from 
these endless copulations, alas, comes to an end  
as our two friends are now sharing a woman. 
Soon enough, Mr. Le Marquis starts performing  
anilingus on this fine, young lady, which is 
a clear reference to the infamous phrase often  
associated with Marie-Antoinette, “Let them eat 
cake.” However, she never said that. The phrase  
actually comes from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s own 
autobiography, “Confessions”. In it he recounts  
the story of a great Prince who had exclaimed 
“Then let them eat cake” after he was told that  
the peasantry had no bread. The phrase had since 
been used to smear clueless, out-of-touch wealthy  
nobles which Marie-Antoinette has often been 
accused of being. It’s a shame this quote-unquote  
historical movie further promotes this myth.
The movie now jumps a few years to 1793, right  
in the middle of the Reign of Terror. There we 
meet two executioners about to guillotine a Jew,  
although one of them comments that they don’t 
need to guillotine him as he’s already been  
cut. Hmmm. Dubious jokes aside, this movie 
seems to imply that this man was guillotined  
solely for being Jewish, and thus 
that the revolution was antisemitic. 
And while Catholic priests who failed to reject 
the authority of the Pope were often persecuted, I  
find little evidence of Jewish persecution during 
the French revolution. If anything, it largely  
benefited them as they were finally emancipated in 
1791, making France the second country in Europe  
to offer full rights to Jewish people after Poland 
had done so more than 500 years prior. So not only  
a tasteless joke but a woefully inaccurate one.
Also, once again, wrong flag. While the tricolor  
had been adopted by then, the colors were 
inverted and should be red, white and blue.  
It was only in 1794 that the current 
arrangement of the tricolor was adopted. 
We are now introduced to Marat, an important 
character in the French revolution, although his  
presence here is brief and does not bring much to 
the story. But to be fair, there hasn’t been much  
story at all. Marat is given a bath prepared by no 
less than Charlotte, Charlotte Corday of course,  
but instead of stabbing him to avenge the 
downfall of the Girondins, she blows him? 
Now, that’s where I say no! This is pure 
historical revisionism. And the worst part  
is that she kills him by accidently stabbing 
him when he comes in for a kiss. What? How  
could this movie ever pretend to be historical? 
It’s a farce! Why would you have Corday blow,  
metaphorically, of course, the 
nobility to then have her blow,  
metaphorically, the revolution, and 
then pretend that she murdered Marat by  
accident? Why is she so ideologically 
inconsistent? It does not make sense! 
Needless to say, I was quite upset at this point. 
I can excuse the unnecessary amount of sex,  
this is a French movie after all, but I draw 
the line when this so-called historical movie  
just straight up invent stuff! And it’s 
not like the acting is good either.
Does this look like a woman devastated by the 
fact that she accidentally killed a man? No. 
As a result of this stabbing, Corday ends up 
raped, tortured, and then executed. And while  
Corday did indeed get executed for her involvement 
in the death of Marat, having very willingly  
and purposefully stabbed him, there is no 
evidence that she was raped and tortured.  
The revolutionary tribunal didn’t need to as 
they had plenty of evidence of her murder.  
So, this is needless and yet another excuse for 
the director to plug in yet another sex scene  
much like a Lars von Trier movie.
We now find our old friends  
Mr.Le Marquis and Mr. Le Count having returned to 
their domain, which would have been the stupidest  
thing to do considering the fact that this was 
right in the middle of the Reign of Terror. Why  
they would emigrate in 1789 only to come back 
when the revolution had only gone more extreme  
and violent is beyond me. And as expected they 
end up guillotined, although not before receiving  
last-wish blowjobs for some reason.
And thus the movie ends with the  
servants taking part in a celebratory foursome to 
commemorate the death of their tyrannical masters.  
Perhaps a visual representation of how 
the British painted the French revolution  
as a clusterfuck of debauchery? Undoubtfully.
Or perhaps it’s a Marxist critique of how,  
in the grand scheme of things, the revolution 
did not change much as the bourgeoisie simply  
replaced the aristocracy without fixing 
the inherent inequalities of their society,  
resulting in the revolutionaries living the 
very lives that their masters had once lived,  
thus making this a direct reference to the 
ending of “Les Misérables” by Victor Hugo. 
So in the end, how do I feel about this historical 
movie? Well, it was definitely not what I expected  
and I fear it did little to improve the reputation 
of my channel. It was certainly filmed on the  
cheaper side, but that’s not always a bad thing 
and can easily be made up for with great acting,  
a great story, and a great director. 
However, this movie has none of that,  
but at least it succeeds in being more 
historically accurate than Braveheart.  
It’s still a terrible movie and the sex, oh god, 
so much sex! And for those reasons, I must give it  
five baguettes out of 5. You should check out this 
movie, although preferably without your family.

Leave A Comment

Your email address will not be published