Y/N? No
Director: Ridley Scott
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix & Vanessa Kirby
Review by Damocles
Squandered potential … like most of Ridley’s films.
Before I get really stuck into this review, I’ll address my personal bias against Ridley Scott. Personally I do not like a lot of his filmography. Too many of them suffer from the same fatal flaws …. action scenes that are cut a million times and do not properly portray combat in a clear, visual manner, terribly paced plots that often drag scenes on for too long, stories that are rife with historical inaccuracies and perhaps most annoyingly of all, Ridley loves to insert very unnuanced political views into historical eras without really considering the context of the times.
I must also add that I am a huge fan of the Napoleonic era. It is my favourite period of human history and to say I have huge admiration for the man whose era it is named after, is an understatement. Every student of history has a megalomaniac that they admire and my choice is the Corsican who built an empire that has touched the lives of every single person in 18th century Europe ever since he proclaimed himself Emperor of France.
When I first watched the trailer, I could not think of a better casted man to portray the man. Joaquin Phoenix is completely believable as Napoleon. But my heart sank the moment the trailer started to cast the man in strong words: Emperor, Lover, Tyrant, Legend.
Out of all the words, associated with the myth and historical facts about the man, “lover” is not one I would have chosen. Tyrant is also a questionable choice, especially considering the political landscape of Europe at the time, where literal Russians and Austrians emperors ruled with absolute power and Napoleon was just one of many kings, emperors and princes fighting to consolidate control over Europe.
Then I saw the dreaded words that Ridley Scott would be directing the film and I basically wrote off the film.
Walking into the cinema, I expected something bad.
I got something worse.
Squandered opportunity.
To say that the British have always long hated and character assassinated the man who transformed Europe, is an understatement. Even during the Napoleonic era, they were propagating propaganda about the man, deriding his short stature (he was actually of average height for the time), his many affairs (Josephine was hardly the focus of Napoleon’s many romantic conquests) and his many eccentricities (not wrong there).
None of which I blame the British for. After all, they were mortal enemies locked in different spheres of war. Britain ruled the seas, but could never quite best Napoleon on land. The elephant and the whale locked in combat.
But my problem with the film, is that it was very clear that Ridley had a lot of British bias walking in. Both he and the writer of the film, chose to portray Napoleon in a very bizarre light.
They focus almost 80% of the runtime on Napoleon’s romance with Josephine.
When you have an era of history as epic as the Napoleonic era; the last real historical use of mass cavalry charges, the sole period of history where both guns and swords were used in equal measure, where men had to walk in orderly lines in the face of musket and cannon fire, and the romantic notion of officers leading men into battle were still prioritised … Ridley chose to focus all the film’s attention to a romance that is historically inaccurate and worse of all …. boring.
Audiences were promised gunpowder, muskets, cannons, horses, swords and old school European chivalric officers.
They got a love story between a chemistry-free Joaquin and Vanessa.
It is one of the most bizarre choices I have ever seen made about a historical figure as mythical as Napoleon. Beyond that it is a very strange choice for a filmmaker. To focus so much on Josephine, who is not a very well known in history beyond her obsession with roses, and patronage of the arts, is an exceedingly weird choice for a film with such a short and tight run-time to cram in so many important events.
It is not like the two leads have a simmering allure to them either. If anything, the two actors are attempting their best to showcase a romance, but it is so flat and dull and it goes on for so long that when the action scenes do come, it is like a breath of fresh air to get away from such a sluggish story. Perhaps my biggest issue is the fact that Ridley construes the entire film, and key events around the romance.
There is literally not a scene that goes by, without Napoleon professing his love for Josephine, but as a narrative theme, it lacks panache that really dives into his psyche and why he wants to control so much of Europe and establish an empire. It is not like the film specifically attributes so much of Napoleon’s conquest and victories to the desires of Josephine. The reason why the romance fails, is because Josephine is not a Lady Macbeth, pushing and urging Napoleon to conquer more and more. Without that somewhat unique angle, the romance and the overall thematic arch of the film falls.
What would have been a better angle is the idea that Napoleon truly believes in his own self-worth and is unflinching, stubborn and set in his ways to the whims of the world around him. After all, this is a man who proclaims to walk in the footsteps of Alexander, Caesar and Charlemagne. To see him win countless battles against insurmountable odds, and witness his ego grow and grow, only to finally have it checked by a Russian winter, a disastrous Spanish campaign and the exile would have been an excellent theme for the film.
The film should have charted the course of a young Napoleon, whose early ambition, military genius and rise to emperorship grant him an unbearable confidence and ego. Then in the second half of the film, showcase his military blunders, how being the Emperor of a vast empire beset by enemies takes a toll on his mental state and how his eventual exile ruins his ego.
And perhaps as a neat way to truly showcase Napoleon’s drive and ambition, the third act should have showcased how Bonaparte builds himself up again whilst in exile, creating an unshakeable belief in his ability, that culminates in him returning to France. This would lead to him taking over the country without a single shot, be shocked by just how dire straits France is in, and realise his return was a mistake, a mistake that is nailed finally by his defeat at Waterloo.
Such a turbulent emotional and mental journey into Napoleon’s psyche would have been much more compelling viewing, and display how his generals were brilliant aides to his genius, as well as showcasing why France and her Grande Armee, was so eager to follow Napoleon into the jaws of death.
Instead of this in-depth look into Napoleon, Ridley instead gave audiences a film that skims over history, focuses on an unromantic love story, doesn’t establish the titular character well and shortcuts its way through battle scenes. Napoleon by Ridley main problem is prevalent in many of his later works recently …. the films feel lazy. Like Ridley stole some of the best ideas but was too lazy to put in any real work, much like a much-derided video game company known as Ubisoft.
No scene sums it up better, than condensing Napoleon’s entire Egyptian campaign to a scene where Napoleon supposedly shoots a cannon at the Pyramids. WHICH NEVER BLOODY HAPPENED.
Ridley entirely skips over the fact that Napoleon lost a huge portion of the French Navy in the disastrous Battle of the Nile, that the Egyptians revolted against Napoleon’s rule and that he was stranded in Egypt with no way to get home for months.
In fact, I read that in an interview with The Times, Ridley defended his depiction of the attack on the pyramids as being “a fast way of saying Napoleon took Egypt” which infuriates me, because he is rewriting history for many of the audience out there, and that is an extremely dangerous action to take in a world so full of misinformation.
Plot aside, Ridley’s vision of Napoleon is undeniably attractive. The visuals of the film are remarkably immersive. There is incredibly strong work by Dariusz Wolsiki. So many scenes invoke a more romantic time of grand warfare, with uniforms glistening bright and the tricolour of France flying high above the heads of her men.
From a visual standpoint alone, the film is beautifully shot, the CGI barely noticeable and the overall viewing experience is excellent. So many scenes immerse you in the past, giving the audience an evocative look into the past. But the actions scenes themselves are horribly cut. They fare OK, right up the two armies clash into each other. Then it becomes a brutal mess, without any nod to how Napoleon actually won the famous battles he was involved in.
In addition, the film is remarkably absent of any tension when it comes to the action, because it never sets up the stakes, the key generals involved and how the terrain is established. Napoleon and his many generals are never acknowledged for their tactical and military genius, how they bested 4 huge European armies that had to band together to defeat France’s Grande Armee.
Aside from the cinematography, I also liked the score somewhat. Whilst lacking originality, it did a good job in staying true to the times and punching above its weight when it came to certain “epic” moments. In particular, I loved Napoleon’s piano theme and thought it really captured the era and personality of the Emperor.
Overall, Ridley Scott’s vision of Napoleon, is visually appealing, but lacks any of the drive, ambition, charisma or romance that the titular character is known for. It is such a shame the film turned out the way it did, because the cast, uniform and period setting would have made for an epic film that would have restored a lot of interest in the era of history. In all honestly, I truly wished this film was handled by a different director and writer with more respect given to the legendary French emperor.
To sum it up in a sentence? Ridley, please stop taking the best ideas and giving us lazy executions of them.
A scene to recall: When Napoleon takes Toulon. It is both incredible and maddening, because it gives me hope the film can be epic, only to instantly let me down when the action scene is cut barbarically short.
Damocles' Journal 