Napoleon Blown Apart

“That hot Corsican blood of yours is always getting us in trouble,” Ollie says to Stan in BACON GRABBERS. The same is true of Joaquin Phoenix’s Napoleon Bonaparte and France in the new Ridley Scott NAPOLEON, which I finally decided to see on the big screen. I quite enjoyed it, but I couldn’t call it a successful portrayal of this figure. Put it this way, Scott’s old chum Kubrick would have HATED it.

This theatrical release is a cut-down version of something that will eventually play on Apple TV at around four hours, and I expect a lot of the issues with it will be resolved with more time to spend on the history, the characters and their relationships. What that can’t fix is the wanton distortion of history, although if more facts and behaviour are added then the truth-to-bullshit ratio could tilt favourably. Or not.

I didn’t do my homework so I went in not knowing what the film was making up, but I’ve since listened to a few podcasts so I can see how wild this stuff is — Napoleon never met Wellington, he wasn’t sighted by a sniper at Waterloo (rifles with telescopic sights were not a thing at the time), the Survivor’s Ball was not an actual event, not many people fell through the ice at Austerlitz, Napoleon didn’t witness the guillotining of Marie Antoinette, which didn’t happen in a small town square, and the former Emperor did not die saying “France… army… Josephine.”

Also, most of the main men are too old, sometimes decades too old (Phoenix, Rupert Everett, the mighty Ian MacNiece). So then the idea that Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) was older than Napoleon, which is both true and interesting, gets lost and we get something more conventional and what could have been a great role for a more established actor is squandered. Kirby is good, but has little to work with — Josephine, a rounded character, is reduced entirely to her relationship with Boney.

Phoenix does lots of weird, fun, actorly stuff, but never makes Napoleon credibly charismatic or impressive. When he flips the French army with a single speech, there seems no reason for their change of attitude (plus, the army is TINY — all the scenes this movie shares with Bondarchuk’s WATERLOO are inferior to the 1970 epic).

The dependable and magnetic Julian Rhind-Tutt is the most fun player, and is on screen for too short a time — again the long version is likely to be more satisfying. Next best is Everett, who plays Wellington as a rather precise copy of Reginald Owen — an amusing choice — with a splash of Edward Fox. So that’s very jolly, though it doesn’t fit in with what everyone else is doing. The film would be more fun if everyone were on Everett’s page.

The movie looks terrific — the battles are too small, though. Scott’s determination to do stuff for real seems to have hampered him, just as Nolan was straitjacketed by physical effects in DUNKIRK — the sense of the true epic scale is missing, despite the vast sums lavished on this picture.

I also regret the limited insights offered into Napoleon’s strategic brilliance. In the first battle, Toulon, much is made of the construction of mortars, and we see them being carried laboriously into action… and never see them used. Austerlitz feels more strategic, but the details are all wrong, the facts dumped in the trash so that Sir Ridley can reprise the battle on the ice in ALEXANDER NEVSKY, or the climax of Ken Russell’s BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN.

We do get to see stuff historical war movies haven’t been able to show, as when Phoenix’s horse is hit frontally by a cannon-blast. An equine chestburster. Never happened, of course, but I’ll forgive it.

“You think you’re so great because you have boats?” isn’t just a bad line, but it’s badly delivered — “so great” could have been played as “so mighty” but is played by Phoenix as “you’re not all that” — and he says it as if on the verge of tears, hardly the way the master strategian would have presented himself to an enemy… although apparently the British ambassador really did get under his skin. Still, if the film’s task is to make itself convincing even when counterfactual, this scene failed for me.

Scott’s recent interviews deserve their own takedown, because he has a full-throated, fat-headed fatuousness in his proclamations about this movie which shouldn’t be left unridiculed. But I enjoyed his big daft film.

NAPOLEON stars Arthur Fleck; The White Widow; Malik El Djebena; Oscar Wilde; Jock Horsfall; Tay Kolma; Tink; Dr. Macartney; Delia Surridge; John Houseman; Martin Boorman; Baron Vladimir Harkonnen; and Scissors Bentley.

13 Responses to “Napoleon Blown Apart”

  1. bensondonald Says:

    Speaking of small battles: There’s a DVD set, “William Castle Adventures Collection”, consisting of four low-rent Columbia costumers directed by Castle for Sam Katzman. Not as delightful as the Maria Montez epics from Universal, as these vaguely aspire to be dramas, but they have their charms. In the heat of battle you rarely believe anything is happening three feet off camera.
    THE SARACEN BLADE represents the Crusades with tight frames of warriors on horseback flailing at each other, then it’s back to Ricardo Montanan getting even with some nobles.
    CHARGE OF THE LANCERS is about a very light brigade, ending with far less than 600 riding into some cannons after a British officer (played by a conspicuously French actor) joins gypsy Paulette Goddard (more girl next door than Romany) to spy on the Russians.
    SERPENT OF THE NILE presents Rhonda Fleming as Cleo, Raymond Burr as seduced Mark Antony, and William Ludigan as the humorless Roman Cleo really wants.
    THE IRON GLOVE has something to do with James Stuart and is mostly powdered-wig intrigues. Robert Stack wields a sword and Alan Hale is all too briefly heartily Scottish.

  2. I have tried to watch a couple of those (Serpent and Glove) but couldn’t make it through them. I only like Castle when his plots are demented.

  3. Sudarshan Ramani Says:

    I think Youssef Chahibe’s Adieu Bonaparte is the only rounded and successful rendition for him.

    Napoleon is maybe less interesting these days than even Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan if you put him in company with other adventuring conquerors. He’s too 19th Century ot early 19th century. And the sad/weird thing about Scott is how his view of Napoleon is so dated. Like it’s all recreations if paintings without anything new to say or bringing new research.

  4. He seems to be particularly attracted to printing the legend… exactly the kind of story where you think, “Yeah, but I bet that never happened,” is the stuff he’s drawn to.

    His dourness is an issue too — Scott even made Robin Hood miserable.

  5. The real Josephine was the daughter of a slave plantation owner in Martinique and their family was impoverished by Robespierre’s government abolishing slavery in 1794. Her first husband, Alexandre de Beauharnais was a member of the prominent slaveowning lobby Club Massiac. That guy got executed for treason (his death sentence was signed by Jacques-Louis David, painter and future collaborator of Napoleon).

    And Napoleon on becoming Emperor reverses the abolition of slavery, likely on Josephine’s influence or his interest in her property and her interests. So this idea of this being an epic grand romance or Josephine being somehow an “innocent” and so on is basically too detached to take seriously.

  6. The movie is careful to avoid anything that would make the past seem strange to us, and that includes behaviour or attitudes alien to ours, and so slavery is not alluded to at all. Josephine has a Black maid who seems more like a best friend. I do prefer period movies like the Richardson Charge of the Light Brigade or even, at the more extreme end, Fellini Satyricon, which make a point out of how, though human nature is somewhat constant, society and attitudes transform utterly from century to century.

  7. bensondonald Says:

    Favorite biopic cliche: The hero casually dismisses a stranger, and somebody says “Do you realize who that was? That was [famous historic figure]!”

    I keep hoping for something like, “He’s going to be George Washington’s father!”

  8. Another Columbia costumer with sword-slinging Scots: THE SWORDSMAN from Joseph H. Lewis (!) gives Larry Parks, George Macready, Ray Collins and Edgar Buchanan a chance to try on their brogues.

  9. I love Joseph H Lews but I couldn’t get much out of The Swordsman either. Scottish history always seems so dull! This may be the same phenomenon that disinclines Americans to go see movies about their revolution.

    I quite like Max Ophuls’ The Exile, but it’s the weakest of his US films. (If you can see it with the alternative ending, it’s even better and more Ophulsian.)

  10. Speaking of erasure: I viewed this NAPOLEON just to see how it presented General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, Napoleon’s second in command on the Egyptian expedition. Er… briefly visible? The son of a French aristocrat and an enslaved woman, he was a hero of the French Revolutionary Wars, the father of Alexandre Dumas père (who based the Count of Monte Cristo on him) and the grandfather of Alexandre Dumas fils. Now, if Apple TV wants to do a French historical series…

  11. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more of the Egyptian escapade in the four hour version. But the impression from the feature edit is that we need a lot more of EVERYTHING, except maybe Phoenix.

  12. This review is cathartic. I found the film shallow and frustrating. What kills me is that the real history is so much more interesting than everything the Scott movie embellishes.

  13. Part of the reason the truth is more compelling is that it’s THE TRUTH! A fictional invention has to contend with a certain loss of compulsion once we realise it doesn’t have the quality of an amazing true event. And Napoleon doesn’t altogether sell its inventions as fact, we can kind of tell we’re being bullshitted.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.