Betty & Coretta (2013)

Betty & Coretta is a Lifetime Movie, an 85-minute drama-documentary, which was released in 2013. Directed by Canadian filmmaker Yves Simoneau, it follows the lives of two women, who became widows when their husbands were killed because of their political activities: Betty Shabazz, widow of Malcolm X, and Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr.

The cast includes the following:

** Malcolm X (1925-1965) played by Lindsay Owen Pierre

** Betty Shabazz (1934-1997) played by Mary J. Blige

[Malcolm X married Betty in 1958. They had six children. As far as I know, they are all still alive.]

** Martin Luther King (1929-1968) played by Malik Yoba

** Coretta Scott King (1927-2006) played by Angela Bassett

[MLK married Coretta in 1953. They had four children. As far as I know, three of them are still alive.]

** Merlie Evers (born 1933) played by Gloria Reuben [only one scene]

** Louis Farrakhan (born 1933) played by Alex C. Askew [only a glimpse]

** Ruby Dee (1922-2014) is the narrator of the film. She appears as herself in the first and the last scenes of the film, and a couple of times in between, in order to move the story forward. Sometimes historical footage in black-and-white is shown while she is speaking. I think this known as voice-over.

The time frame of the film is 1965-2011.

** In February 1965, Coretta Scott King and Malcolm X met for the first and only time, shortly before Malcolm X was assassinated.

** In October 2011, a Washington DC memorial for MLK was dedicated by President Obama.

THE PLOT

In this film, Malcolm X and MLK are secondary characters. They are only seen in the beginning of the film, during the first thirty minutes, because the focus is on their wives and their lives after they became widows.

Malcom X and MLK did not see eye to eye. In order to explain their differences briefly, perhaps I can say that they had more or less the same goal, but in order to reach this goal they recommended different methods and strategies. They met face to face only once, in March 1964. This moment is not shown in the film, because it is outside the time frame.

Betty and Coretta met for the first time during the Black National Political Convention that was held in Gary, Indiana, in March 1972. Both of them attended and addressed the convention as we see in the film, and during this event they formed a friendship that lasted until Betty died in 1997.

Both women had to raise a family with many children on their own. None of them remarried. Both of them tried in some way to carry on the work that their husbands had initiated. Coretta focused on a campaign to establish a national holiday named after her husband, while Betty went back to school and later got a job at a college named after civil rights activist Medgar Evers, who was killed in 1963.

Coretta’s campaign was crowned with success in 1983 when the US Congress passed a bill designating his birthday (15 January) as a national holiday to be celebrated on the third Monday in January. The day has been observed since 1986 by some states and since the year 2000 by all fifty states.

In 1999, Malcolm X was officially recognised by the US authorities when the US Postal Service issued a postage stamp with his name and picture. Betty did not live to see this moment. In the film, we see Coretta going to a post office to pick up a block of these stamps. She is happy to see them.

HISTORICAL ACCURACY

A message placed at the end of the movie says:

“Although based on a true story, certain characters, events, and dialogue have been adapted in the process of dramatization.”

In other words, the producers do not claim that every detail of the film is historically accurate.

Before writing this review, I searched the internet to see what other reviewers have said about it. Many reviewers like the film, but they do not love it. They give it three or four stars, but not five. I understand. I agree. This film is good, but not great.

Barbara Reynolds discusses the film in an article “Debunking the myths” published in the Washington Post on 1 February 2013. She reveals that the families of Betty and Coretta were not consulted while the film was being made and they are not happy with the result. Perhaps they would only give it one or two stars.

If I were the director of this film, I would have consulted the families, if only to be able to say that I had done so. Obviously, I would not promise to follow every suggestion made by them, but I would promise to listen to them and consider their input. Some suggestions might be unreasonable or even contradictory. Perhaps one family would want a certain fact included, while the other family wanted the same fact excluded.

In her article, Barbara Reynolds quotes Ilyasah Shabazz, one of the six daughters of Malcolm X and Betty Shabazz:

“My mother was not a weak, timid, insecure woman as portrayed. She was regal, compassionate, strong, loving, beautiful, resilient and well-educated. That is why the Delta Sigma Theta sororities named academies all across this country after her, so others could be inspired [and learn] how to turn tragedy into triumph.”

This general complaint is not fair, because the film does not portray Betty as a weak, timid, insecure woman. Perhaps Ilyasah Shabazz is simply upset that she was not consulted, and so she feels she must find something to complain about.

However, one specific complaint seems to be valid:

 

“My mother did not tie a scarf to her face as she was shown wearing in the film.”

This is a reference to a scene with the funeral of Malcolm X. In the beginning of this scene Betty is wearing a veil over her head, but she removes it later.

Another complaint, which may be valid, concerns a meeting of the two families, two mothers and ten children, which is shown in the film. According to the children, this never happened.

If the producers had consulted the families while the film was still in production, such historical inaccuracies might easily have been avoided.

DIFFICULT ISSUES

The film does not shy away from problems. The producers deserve credit for having the courage to cover some difficult issues.

Regarding Coretta, we hear about the FBI tapes recorded while MLK was still alive. She claims they are illegal and should be destroyed. Critics might say that she is afraid what the tapes may reveal about her husband.

Regarding Betty, we hear about the problems with her daughter Qubilah, who was born in 1960. Qubilah is admitted to Princeton University. The mother is happy for her, but the daughter says she does not fit in, so she moves to Paris where she attends the Sorbonne. Soon she is back in the US with a son (born 1984), but no father. Her life is not exactly a success story.

The horrible end of Betty’s life in 1997 is also covered, even though it seems that historical accuracy was sacrificed in order to produce a dramatic and emotional scene. In the film, Betty is covered in gauze but still able to talk to Coretta who visits her in the hospital. According to the family, Betty was so injured from third-degree burns that she was unable to speak.

CONCLUSION

I like this film. It is refreshing to see the civil rights movement covered from a female perspective. This is the strong side of the film. However, there are also some flaws.

We do not get close to Betty and Coretta. In the time that is available, less than 90 minutes, the film has to cover more than thirty years in the lives of two persons. As a consequence, the film feels like a series of separate anecdotes about these two women. Several issues are mentioned but never explored even though they deserve it. Here are two examples:

# 1. Coretta’s campaign for the national holiday to remember MLK. She wants it, and she gets it. Apparently, she was the driving force behind the campaign, but how did she do it? There is nothing about the actual campaign in the film.

# 2. Betty’s radio show. In one scene we see her in the studio just before she goes on the air. She is on the phone with Coretta but has to hang up because the show is about to start. The show begins and the scene ends. This is all we get. There is nothing about the radio show in the film.

This is why I say: this film is good, but not great, and this means four stars.

PS # 1. On IMDb Betty & Coretta has a rating of 62 per cent. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a rating of 68 per cent.

PS # 2. Angela Bassett (born 1958) has appeared in several films about iconic characters in the African-American world. She played the title role in The Rosa Parks Story from 2002. She played Betty Shabazz two times: in Malcolm X from 1992 and in Panther from 1995. When she played Coretta in this film from 2013, she must have felt she was playing opposite herself!

PS # 3. The Washington Memorial to MLK is mentioned in the very first scene of the film. There is an excerpt from President Obama’s dedication speech in October 2011, and Ruby Dee says:

“I never thought I’d live to see this day; a monument to Martin Luther King, dedicated by our first African-American president, on the National Mall.”

What she does not say, and what the film never explains, is that the estate of MLK played a less than glorious role in the creation of this monument. The estate demanded (and got) a huge fee, more than 1 million dollars, because the monument uses his likeness and some of his words.

Cambridge University historian David Garrow, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his biography of King - Bearing the Cross - said of the family’s behavior:

 

“One would think any family would be so thrilled to have their forefather celebrated and memorialized in D.C. that it would never dawn on them to ask for a penny.”

 

He added that MLK would have been “absolutely scandalized by the profiteering behavior of his children.”

The King estate’s demand for money is also the reason why the speeches given by MLK in the 2015 film Selma are not original. They had to be rewritten, because the King estate would not allow the producers of the film to use his original words for free.

For more details about this aspect, see the following articles, which are available online:

** “I have a copyright: The problem with Martin Luther King’s speech,” Mother Jones, 23 August 2013

** “Martin Luther King’s family have milked his legacy,” Daily Mirror, 6 February 2014

** “King had a dream. His children have an army of lawyers,” Boston Globe, 19 January 2015

***

Betty & Coretta,

A Lifetime Movie,

85 minutes, 2013

 ***

The Rosa Parks Story (2002)

The Rosa Parks Story is a Lifetime Movie, an 88-minute drama-documentary that was shown on television and released on DVD in 2002. Directed by Julie Dash, and based on a screenplay written by Paris Qualles, this film is a (partial) biography of a woman, who is by now a famous member of the civil rights movement in the United States.

Rosa Parks lived to be more than 90 years old. But this film covers only the first half of her life. For information about her life after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, you must turn to her autobiography or one of the numerous books written about her (for some suggestions, see the PS below).

The cast includes the following:

** Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (1913-2005) – played by Angela Bassett
** Rosa as a child in 1924 – played by Chardé Manzy
** Leona Edwards McCauley (1888-1979), her mother – played by Cicely Tyson
** Raymond Parks (1903-1977), her husband – played by Peter Francis James

** Johnnie Carr (1911-2008), her friend and a member of NAACP – played by Tonea Stewart
** E. D. Nixon (1899-1987), president of the Montgomery chapter of NAACP – played by Von Coulter
** Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), civil rights leader – played by (King’s son) Dexter King
** Clifford Durr (1899-1975), civil rights attorney – played by Mike Pniewski

** James F. Blake (1912-2002), a bus driver – played by Sonny Shroyer
** A registrar – played by Patsy Benson
** A librarian – played by Stephanie Astalos-Jones

[There may be a few spoilers ahead. However, all facts mentioned in this review are part of the public record, so they cannot really be described as spoilers.]

The film begins with a prologue and ends with an epilogue. In between we have the main story which is divided into four chapters. Here is a summary:

PROLOGUE – December 1956
Rosa and a reporter get on a bus in order to mark and celebrate the end of the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott.

CHAPTER ONE – 1924
In 1924 Rosa is a student at Montgomery Industrial School for Girls.

CHAPTER TWO – 1931-1932
In 1931 Rosa meets Raymond, her future husband, who is a barber. Secretly, he is also involved in support work for the Scottsboro Boys, nine African-American teenagers who are accused of raping two young white women. In 1932 Rosa and Raymond are married.

CHAPTER THREE – 1942
Rosa has her first confrontation with the nasty white bus driver James F. Blake. She joins NAACP and starts to work as a secretary for E. D. Nixon, president of the Montgomery chapter of NAACP. When she wants to register for the vote, she is rejected twice, but she succeeds the third time.

CHAPTER FOUR – 1955
In March, Claudette Colvin refuses to give up her seat on a bus. She is arrested for violating the law of segregation. The leaders of NAACP discuss if they can use her case to spearhead a campaign against segregation, but they decide against it because she is merely 15 years old.

On 1 December Rosa Parks has her second confrontation with James F. Blake when she refuses to give up her seat on his bus. She is arrested and spends one night in jail. When she is bailed out, NAACP decides to use her case in a campaign against segregation.

On the day of her trial, 5 December, African-Americans of Montgomery stage a one-day boycott of the public buses to protest the laws of segregation. Since it is a success, it is decided to make it permanent. It runs for 381 days. On 20 December 1956, the city and the bus company give in and the boycott is called off.

EPILOGUE – January 2000
President Bill Clinton honours Rosa Parks in his State of the Union address saying: “She is sitting down with the First Lady tonight and she may get up or not as she chooses.”

HISTORICAL ACCURACY
This film is based on a true story, but this does not mean that everything in it is historically correct. The producers of the film have used the device known as artistic license several times. Here are some examples:

 
THE ACTORS CHOSEN FOR THIS FILM
In chapter 1 Rosa is 11. For this chapter the producers used a young girl. For the other chapters and the prologue, they used Ms Bassett who was born in 1958. When the film was shot in 2001, Ms Bassett was 43. This works well with chapter 4 and the prologue when Rosa is 42 and 43. But what about the rest of the film? In chapter 3, Rosa is 29. Can Ms Bassett pass for someone who is 29? Maybe. In chapter 2, Rosa is 18 and 19. Can Ms Bassett pass for someone who is 18 or 19? No. She cannot. If you ask me, the producers should have found another actress to play Rosa in chapter 2.

The role of Clifford Durr is played by Mike Pniewski, who does not look like Durr at all. They have only two things in common: they are both white and male.

PROBLEMS OF CHRONOLOGY
When we see the film, we get the impression that Rosa’s three attempts to register as a voter took place over a period of perhaps three weeks in 1942. In reality this took place over a period of three years, from 1943 to 1945.

According to the film, the first confrontation with the nasty bus driver James F. Blake took place in 1942. In fact it happened in 1943. According to the film, Rosa walks home after this confrontation. She walks five miles in the rain. But when she finally gets home, she is not wet at all.

In the film, Rosa is fired from her job at a department store in December 1955. The owner claims business is slow, even though it is December and Christmas means extra business. The real reason, of course, is Rosa’s role in the bus boycott. However, in the real world, Rosa was fired in January 1956. The producers have changed the chronology for no obvious reason.

NAME CHANGE
In the film, we hear about a young black man – Elijah Banks - who is accused of raping a white woman. When I searched the internet for information about him, I did not find anything. However, I found out that a young man named Jeremiah Reeves was accused of raping a white woman at that time.

I think the producers decided to change the real name and use a fictional name instead, although I do not know why. All other characters in the film are portrayed with a real name. Why did the producers feel they had to change this name?

PRECEDENTS
Claudette Colvin (born 1939) was arrested in March 1955, nine months before Rosa was arrested. Claudette is mentioned in the film, as you can see from my summary above, but she is not seen. No actress plays this character. In fact, neither Claudette nor Rosa was the first African-American who refused to accept the law of segregation on public transport. Here are a few examples:

** Ida B. Wells (1862-1931) refused to give up her seat on a train in 1884
** Bayard Rustin (1912-1987) refused to give up his seat on a bus in 1942
** Irene Morgan (1917-2007) refused to give up her seat in 1944
** Jo Ann Robinson (1912-1992) refused to give up her seat on a bus in 1949
** Sarah Louise Keys (born 1929) refused to give up her seat on a bus in 1952

None of these earlier examples is mentioned in the film.

A FORGOTTEN LAW SUIT
According to the film, the bus boycott forced the city and the bus company to give in. But is this really true? It is certainly not the whole story. There is more to it. Claudette joined four other African-American women who had suffered the same fate as her in a suit that is known as Browder v. Gayle.

The four women are: Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Mary Louise Smith, and Jeanette Reese (the latter left the case before it reached the court because of intimidation from the white community). The case was tried in a federal district court which found in favour of the plaintiffs (2–1). The city appealed to the US Supreme Court which upheld the ruling of the lower court.

On 13 November 1956 the ruling was announced, but Mayor Gayle refused to obey it until someone from the US Supreme Court showed up in Montgomery and told him to do so. On 17 December 1956 a motion for clarification and a new hearing was denied. And three days later, on 20 December 1956, Mayor Gayle was handed official written notice by federal marshals.

The city and the bus company gave in on 20 December 1956 because of the court ruling, not because of the long-running boycott. The city and the bus company knew they had lost. The suit Browder v. Gayle, which played an important (in fact a decisive) role in this conflict, is not even mentioned in the film.

A LIMITED VICTORY
When we see the film, we get the impression that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a breakthrough in the struggle for civil rights in the US. By her refusal to give up her seat on the bus, Rosa Parks delivered the spark that ignited this momentous campaign.

When we look at the case from one angle, this impression is true. When we look at the case from another angle, it is not true at all. The victory of the campaign was limited and short-lived. There was a strong backlash from the white community. There were violent attacks on blacks and property connected with blacks in the following months and the city of Montgomery strengthened the laws of segregation in other areas.

The white community was not going to give up its power and privileges without a fight, even though the US Supreme Court had ruled against it. This backlash that followed the victory of December 1956 is not mentioned in the film.

CONCLUSION
Rosa Parks played an important role in the civil rights movement and her story deserves to be told. Unfortunately, this film provides a simplified version of the real story. Key elements are left out, because they might disturb the simplified version of events.

The story of Rosa Parks comes alive in The Rosa Parks Story. It is an interesting film, but as you can see from the above, it has some flaws, and some of them cannot be described as minor. Some of them are quite serious. For this reason I think it deserves a rating of three stars.

PS # 1. Regarding Rosa Parks, see for instance Rosa Parks by Douglas Brinkley (2000) (2005) and The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks by Jeanne Theoharis (2013) (2014).

PS # 2. Regarding Claudette Colvin and her case, see Claudette Colvin: Twice towards Justice by Phillip Hoose (2009) (2011).

PS # 3. Regarding Irene Morgan and her case which went all the way to the US Supreme Court, see Justice Older than the Law: The Life of Dovey Johnson Roundtree by Katie McCabe (2009) (2011).

PS # 4. Regarding Sarah Louise Keys and her case, see Take a Seat – Make a Stand by Amy Nathan (2006).

PS # 5. Regarding Jo Ann Robinson, see The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women who started it edited by David Garrow (1987).

PS # 6. Regarding Clifford Durr, see The Conscience of a Lawyer: Clifford J. Durr and American Civil Liberties, 1899-1975 by John A. Salmond (1990).

PS # 7. The following item is available online: 

“10 Women who refused to give up their seats before Rosa Parks” 

by Susan Ozmore, 6 June 2015.

PS # 8. Angela Bassett plays Coretta Scott King in the drama-documentary Betty & Coretta from 2013 about Betty Shabazz and Coretta Scott King, the widows of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

PS # 9. The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks is a documentary film which premiered in 2022. This film is based on the book written by Jeanne Theoharis (2013) (2014).

 

* * *

 

The Rosa Parks Story,

A Lifetime Movie,

88 minutes, 2002

 

* * *

 

Versailles by Valérie Bajou (2012)

This beautiful picture book about Versailles was published by the American publisher Abrams in 2012. It is an English version of the French original that was published by Editions de la Martinière in 2011.

The text is written by Valérie Bajou, a curator at Versailles, and translated into English by Antony Shugaar, an experienced translator.

The preface is written by Béatrix Saule, Director of the National Museum of the Palace of Versailles and the Trianon. The book is divided into four chapters:

* Chapter 1 – The History of Versailles

* Chapter 2 – The Château, i.e. the main building

* Chapter 3 – The Gardens and the Park

* Chapter 4 – The Château of Trianon

Chapter 1 is relatively short (merely 14 pages). Here we have mainly text and a few illustrations. The other chapters are much longer. Here we have mainly illustrations, but each chapter begins with a brief introduction. At the end of the book we have an index of artists and photo credits. There is no bibliography (for some suggestions, see the PS below).

FABULOUS PHOTOS

The photos in this book are taken by several professional photographers; all photos are supplied by an agency - RMN - which works with the administration of the Versailles Museum. In this way, all photos can be considered official.

In addition to the fabulous photos which show the outside and the inside of the buildings as well as the park, this book also contains numerous reproductions of the paintings which decorate the rooms and the halls of the museum. The number of illustrations is overwhelming. All illustrations are in colour, and the quality is extremely high.

Most outdoor pictures were taken on a nice summer day with a clear blue sky, because everything looks better when the sun is shining. But there are few exceptions to the rule. The Royal Alley and the Basin of Latona are seen in the winter season when the ground is covered with snow (pp. 342-343); and a black cloud is seen above the Orangerie (pp 366-367) and above the Basin of Saturn (pp. 418-419). These cases offer a good contrast to the many pictures with a clear blue sky.

As you turn the pages of this book, you will be transported to Versailles. You will feel you are visiting the palace, you are studying the furniture, the walls and the ceilings, as you move from room to room. After a while you will realise that you are all alone. There is nobody else around. The pictures in this book were taken on a day when the grand museum was closed to the public.

If you go to Versailles, you are allowed to use a camera, inside as well as outside, but this place is so popular. You cannot take pictures like the ones in this book. You will be surrounded by other visitors almost all the time, almost everywhere you go. You may take a picture of an important monument; but in most cases, other visitors will be visible as well.

A JOURNEY THROUGH THE PALACE AND THE PARK

The long chapters will take you on a journey through the palace and the park. Here is some information about what you can see:

Chapter 2 about the main building is divided into six sections:

** The King’s Grand Apartment

** The Hall of Mirrors

** The Queen’s Apartment

** The King’s Interior Apartment

** The Apartment of the Princes

** The Historical Galleries

Chapter 3 about the park is divided into ten sections:

** The Water Parterre

** The Terrace

** The Parterre of Latona

** The Tapis Vert, aka the Green Carpet

** The Basin of Apollo

** The Grand View

** The Orangerie

** The South Groves

** The North Groves

** The Basins of the Seasons

Chapter 4 about the Trianon is divided into seven sections:

** The Grand Trianon

** The Petit Trianon

** The Theatre of the Queen

** The French Pavilion

** The Belvedere

** The Temple of Love

** The Hamlet of the Queen

FAMOUS PAINTINGS

The last section of chapter 2 – the historical galleries – deserves to be singled out. This section covers more than one hundred pages (204-327). More than sixty famous paintings are reproduced here. In order to give you an idea of what the galleries have to offer, I will mention the following ten cases:

# 138, pp. 212-213, Emile Signal (1804-1892): The crossing of the Bosphorus by Godfrey of Bouillon in May 1097. Godfrey of Bouillon (1060-1100) was one of the leaders of the first crusade.

# 146, page 226, Carlo Maratta (1625-1713): A portrait of André Le Nôtre in 1679. Le Notre (1613-1700) was a French architect and the principal gardener of King Louis XIV.

# 165, page 257, Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825): Napoleon crossing the Alps. This is one of the most famous paintings of the French general. On the rocks below the man and his horse a few names are written: Bonaparte, the name of the man on the horse; Hannibal, the famous general from antiquity; and Karolus Magnus or Charlemagne, aka Charles the Great. Napoleon wanted to be identified with famous emperors and generals of the past.

# 167, page 260, Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy Trioson (1767-1824): A portrait of Jean Baptiste Belley, deputy of Saint Domingue to the French Convention, 1797. Belley (1746-1805) was a native of Senegal and a former slave from Saint Domingue. During the French revolution he became the first black member of the French Convention.

# 179, page 289, Jacques-Louis David: A portrait of Pope Pius VII. Born in 1742, and pope from 1800 until his death in 1823, Pope Pius VII had a difficult relationship with Napoleon.

# 180, page 281, Robert Lefèvre (1755-1830): A portrait of Dominique Vivant Denon. Having accompanied Napoleon in Egypt, Denon (1747-1825) was appointed to be the first director of the new museum called the Louvre.

# 183, page 286-287, Etienne-Barthélémy Garnier (1759-1849): The entry of Napoleon and Marie-Louise into the Tuileries on the day of their wedding, 2 April 1810. Napoleon married Austrian Princess Marie-Louise in order to get an heir and in an attempt to forge an alliance with the Austrian monarchy.

# 194, page 307, Franz-Xaver Winterhalter (1806-1873): A portrait of Queen Victoria in 1842. Born in 1819, Victoria was Queen of England from 1837 until her death in 1901.

# 197, page 311, Hippolyte Flandrin (1809-1864): A portrait of Emperor Napoleon III in 1862. When France was defeated by Prussia in the war of 1870, Napoleon III lost his empire. He and his wife Eugénie went into exile in England where he died in 1873. Eugénie outlived him by several decades: she died in Spain in 1920.

# 202, pp. 318-319, Jean Leon Gérôme (1824-1904): The reception of the Siamese ambassadors at Fontainebleau by Emperor Napoleon III and Empress Eugénie, 27 June 1861. This event marked the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between France and Siam (Thailand). It took the painter three years to complete this painting, which was an official commission by the French government.

THE TRANSLATION

As far as I can tell, the English translation is excellent. I noted only one case where something is wrong. Page 330 is the beginning of chapter 3. A sentence on this page says:

“The Grand Canal, which began excavation in 1668, was used during the reign of Louis XIV for naval demonstrations and battles.”

Obviously, the Grand Canal did not begin an excavation. This passage should have been broken up into two sentences, for instance:

“Excavation of the Grand Canal began in 1668. During the reign of Louis XIV it was used for naval demonstrations and battles.”

AN IMPRESSIVE PLACE

Louis XIV wanted the palace and the park to impress and overwhelm any visitor no matter where he or she came from. It worked then and it still does today. In chapter 1, Valérie Bajou explains how, why and when this plan was born:

“It was no accident that the work at Versailles began in 1661, immediately following a lavish party given by Nicolas Fouquet, Superintendent of Finance, in honour of the king on August 17 of that year in his château at Vaux-le-Vicomte. To show off such opulence turned out to be a faux pas of the worst sort and resulted in the minister’s fall from grace. Wary of Fouquet’s power and influence, Louis XIV had him thrown into prison, then commandeered the skills of the team that had designed Fouquet’s magnificent château – the architect Louis Le Vau, the landscape designer André Le Nôtre, and the painter Charles Le Brun – to carry out his plans for Versailles.”

CONCLUSION

If you have been to Versailles, this book will be a wonderful souvenir for you. If you have never been there, you may still enjoy this book, while you think about what it would be like to visit this place.

If you care about art, architecture and history, Versailles is a good place to visit. With lavish illustrations over more than four hundred pages, this book offers (as stated on the back cover) “a visually spectacular tour of this palace of palaces.”

PS # 1. If you want a book to guide you through Versailles, the palace and the park, I can recommend Visit Versailles by Béatrix Saule (2012), which has an equal amount of text and illustrations. If you want a general history of the place, I can suggest Versailles: A Biography of a Palace by Tony Spawforth (hardcover 2008, paperback 2010).

PS # 2. If you are going to visit Versailles for the first time, you will need some practical advice. Book your ticket online one or two months before your visit. Show up early. And be prepared to wait in line, even though you already have a ticket. Every visitor must pass a security check and the process can be slow and time-consuming.

Once you are inside, be prepared to share the popular rooms with many other visitors, in particular the Hall of Mirrors. If you ask me, the administration allows too many visitors to enter the main building at the same time.

The park is large enough to accommodate many visitors. It will not feel crowded, even though there are many visitors here as well. The further you move away from the main building, the better is your chance of having the place to yourself. Many visitors do not have the time or the stamina to walk all the way to the Queen’s Hamlet at the far end of the park.

***

Valérie Bajou,

Versailles,

Abrams, 2012, 480 pages

 

***

 

 

 

 

Jens Engberg and Thorvaldsen's Museum

Thorvaldsen's Museum in Copenhagen.

Jens Engberg (a Danish historian born 1936) was professor of history at Aarhus University for thirty years (1976-2006). His field of expertise is Danish history in the nineteenth century, in particular the labour and or the socialist movement.

A major study of Danish cultural policy from 1750 to 1900 was published in 2005. The title is: Power and Culture. It is in three volumes and it is in Danish. In volume 2 there is a chapter about Thorvaldsen’s Museum (pp. 112-128).

Engberg does not write about the numerous works of art that are on display in this museum. He has another angle. His chapter is divided into two sections.

In section one he explains how the museum was established during the nineteenth century. In section two he analyses the famous frieze that is painted on three of the four sides of the building.

The museum was designed by architect Michael G. Bindesbøll (1800-1856), while the frieze was created by painter Jørgen Sonne (1801-1890).

The ground plan of the building is a rectangle. On the short eastern wall we can see the frigate which transported Thorvaldsen and (some of) his works of art from Italy to Denmark in 1838. From this point we can go left or right. If we go right, we can see members of the elite (the ruling class) who are greeting Thorvaldsen in the harbour of Copenhagen. If we go left, we can see the workers who are carrying Thorvaldsen’s works of art into the new museum.

Thorvaldsen is greeted my the Copenhagen elite as he steps ashore.

On page 127 Engberg offers the following conclusion:

“On the sunny side of the building and of life the frieze shows the prominent members of the Copenhagen upper class who are greeting Thorvaldsen, while they are enjoying his art. On the northern or the shadow side we can see the workers who - at the risk of life and limbs - are carrying the elite’s works of art from the frigate to the museum.”

There is a problem with this conclusion. The Copenhagen elite is seen on the long wall facing the canal. But this wall is facing north, not south, so Engberg is wrong when he claims that the elite has a prominent position on “the sunny side” of the building.

The workers who are carrying the works of art into the museum are seen on the long wall facing Parliament (Christiansborg). But this wall is facing south, not north, so Engberg is wrong when he claims that the workers have been relegated to “the shadow side” of the building.

The workers are carrying the works of art into the new museum.

Engberg has lost his compass. He has confused north and south. How could this happen? He must have visited Copenhagen many times, and he must have passed the museum many times. He could have looked at the sun to determine the orientation of the building. He did not even have to go to Copenhagen. He could just look at a map.

If you look at a map, you will see that the rectangular building is located along an east-west line, not quite, but almost. The short end with the frigate is facing east, the long wall with the boats in the harbour is facing north, and the long wall with the workers is facing south.

Where did Engberg get this mistaken idea about the sunny and the shadow side of the building? When I contacted Torben Melander - a former inspector at the museum with special responsibility for the ancient collection – he had a suggestion. He said Engberg probably read it in a book about the old Copenhagen written by Broby-Johansen.

Rudolf Broby-Johansen (1900-1987) was a member of the Communist Party of Denmark, who was interested in art and architecture. The first edition of his book about the old Copenhagen was published in 1948. Several editions followed. The sixth edition was published in 1986. On pp. 53-54 of this edition, there is a short section about Thorvaldsen’s Museum. Towards the end there are some paragraphs about the frieze. Broby-Johansen notes that we have the elite with Thorvaldsen on one side and the workers carrying the monuments on the other side. Then he says:

“No Marxist can say more wittily that the ruling class belongs in the sun and the working class in the shadow; on one side we have a celebration, on the other side hard work.”

This is the origin of the mistake. Broby-Johansen lost his compass. He was confused about north and south. He thought the long wall facing the canal was facing south, which is wrong, and he thought the long wall facing Parliament was facing north, which is also wrong.

Engberg read this political interpretation and used it in his book without ever checking if it was true. It was an unfortunate oversight, because it is not true.

Klaus Rothstein reviewed Engberg’s book in Weekendavisen of 30 December 2005. His review, which is available online, includes a passage about Thorvaldsen’s Museum where he says:

“The pictures of the ruling class are placed on the sunny side of the building, while the workers are toiling in the shadow.”

As you can see, this is an almost direct quotation from Engberg’s book.

When I contacted Klaus Rothstein and told him that the statement is based on a misunderstanding of the compass, he tried to defend himself saying he was merely a reviewer; he had merely passed on some information from the book, so he did not think that he deserved to be blamed for this.

Rothstein fails to remember that the task of a reviewer is not only to tell us what is in a book but also to evaluate the truth of every important statement. And this statement is very important, because it is the conclusion of Engberg’s analysis of the frieze.

PS # 1. I wish to thank my friend and former colleague Johan Bender, who kindly supplied me with copies of Engberg's and Broby-Johansen's books.

PS # 2. As far as I know, Jens Engberg is still alive. I wanted to contact him and ask him about the case. Unfortunately, I was unable to track him down. He retired in 2006 and nobody at his old institute seems to have an email-address for him.

* * * 

For more information about the famous frieze, see my blog:

Thorvaldsen’s Museum

 

* * *