I agree that a single film is not remotely enough to do justice to Napoleon’s career. I wish Apple TV had been more ambitious with this and financed a high-budget epic TV show to compete with House of Dragons and Rings of Power. The Corsican Ogre deserves nothing less.
It’s already been mentioned in the thread that Steven Spielberg is adapting a seven-part Napoleon series based on Stanley Kubrick’s script for HBO.
Trailer #2 has dropped. Check out Ridley Scott’s recreation of that famous painting Jacques-Louis David - The Coronation of Napoleon (1805-1807) - The Coronation of Napoleon - Wikipedia
.jpg){kind=link}
Scott has said a 4 1/2 hour director’s cut will be released on Apple TV after the theatrical release.
So did anyone see this movie? I couldn’t find another thread about it. I saw it over the weekend and enjoyed it overall. It does stretch all the way from the siege of Toulon to Napoleon’s death, so there’s a lot that skimmed over or ignored.
I thought they did a good job of showing some actual strategy in battle, with misdirections, attacks from the flank, infantry squares, etc. Very different from say “Gladiator”, when the first battle almost immediately descended into single combat between Roman legionaries and German barbarians, instead of the Romans keeping in ranks like they should have.
My biggest complaint was there was some goofiness in Phoenix’s portrayal that I can’t imagine was accurate. The scene with Napoleon inspecting the mummy, another scene where he comes into Josephine’s room while she’s getting dressed by her maids and starts humming as an indication that he wants sex right now, and some other things really seemed to break character.
I saw it, and commented on it in the movies thread.
Main point – this movie purports to show virtually all of Napoleon’s life from 1794 to 1821. That’s a lot for less than three hours. Or even the five hour miniseries Scott hopes to put together. Invariably, you’re going to have to hop around and be selective. But the way the movie does it, it feels like a series of non-sequiturs with no connecting bits.
At onde moment Napoleon is in charge of French defenses against a hostile Europe, with few resources. Then the next thing you know he’s with the French army in Egypt. What? They try to blow it off with a line about attacking Britain’s interests in Egypt, but that just brings up more questions. I think Ridly Scott just REALLY wanted to show Napoleon against the pyramids and the Sphinx. I’m surprised he didn’t drag in the Rosetta stone.
Or later there’s a coup, and Napoleon is one of three consuls. The next thing you know there’s only one consul – him – and he’s crowning himself emperor.
There are several historical errors – most of which I was unaware of – but I could see him changiung things for the sake of drama, or a dramatic shot. But that doesn’t excuse his getting the birthdates of Napoleon and Josephine wrong.
I have to admit, some (accurate) things took me by surprise. I had no idea the Tsar visited Josephine after Napoleon’s first defeat.
Finally, I don’t know if it was Scott’s or Phoenix’ intent, or just my own awareness of the times, but I couldn’t help drawing parallels between Napoleon and Trump. MIND, trump was no warrior or reader, but both guys were extreme narcissists who didn’t mind stretching or breaking the rules in the pursuit of power, and rationalizing it to themselves and those around them.
The difference is that Napoleon actually was a genius (if not stable) outside his own mind.
The birthdates, at least, have an explanation: Napoleon fudged both his and Josephine’s birthdates on the marriage certificate to make the age gap (she was six years older) seem like a lot less.
With movies about Napoleon, I have trouble immersing myself. I look at the screen and I don’t see Napoleon. I see Marlon Brando, or Rod Steiger, or Armand Assante, or Joaquin Phoenix. It works better if they are speaking in French, and the actor is unknown to me.
Napoleon should be energetic and charismatic. Phoenix seemed kind of flat to me. When he raised his voice, it sounded like he was staging it for dramatic effect. (Which, in the context of the film, it usually was, but I hope the real Napoleon was a better actor than that.) I doubt if I would be willing to march into battle under Phoenix’s banner.
Despite my Les Grognards-ing, I enjoyed the film, and I am interested in seeing the longer version.
I was talking about it with a friend who is deeply steeped in the Napoleonic period. He said to me: “You’re interested in the history of Napoleon, right?” I said I was. He said, “Then don’t go to the movie.”
Then I checked out the Wikipedia article on it. The section on “Historical Accuracy” is longer than the “Plot” section.
And this arrogant statement by Scott:
Scott dismissed criticisms of the film’s historical inaccuracies. “Napoleon dies then, ten years later, someone writes a book. Then someone takes that book and writes another, and so, 400 [sic] years later, there’s a lot of imagination [in history books]. When I have issues with historians, I ask: ‘Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up then.’”[90][93] Scott also declared, responding to French critics, that “the French don’t even like themselves”.[94][95]
On the one hand, he says that people who’ve made it their life work to study Napoleon should shut the fuck up because they weren’t there, 400 years ago [sic], and yet expects me to respect his film. He wasn’t there 400 years ago [sic] either, so why should I have any respect for his work, using his own test?