I was excited about this film ever since I saw the first trailers. I'm
fascinated by Napoleon Bonaparte, even though I've never taken the trouble to
read about his rule. He's a character who has hardly ever been dealt with in
films, apart from being a minor character, shown in passing. Is Ridley Scott the director who
would finally introduce us to Napoleon, the man and his legacy?
The film disturbed me immediately by showing Napoleon as nervous and clumsy in
his personal life. Maybe this is accurate. I don't know. It just doesn't seem
fitting as a portrayal of one of Europe's most powerful leaders. Maybe Ridley
Scott wanted to put this in contrast with his ruthless efficiency on the
battlefield.
The film seems rather staccato, especially in the first hour. It rushes
through Napoleon's early successes. Maybe this will be put right in the
director's cut. I'll have to wait. I was especially disappointed that the film
doesn't show Napoleon's forces entering the Vatican and kidnapping the Pope.
That would have been an iconic scene. Once again, I need to wait for the
director's cut. It isn't until the post-Elba scenes that the film slows down
and shows a battle in more detail.
A large portion of the film is about Napoleon's relationship with
Josephine. She was an important part of his life, maybe a factor in his
downfall. It was interesting to see her looking bored when they had sex. One
of the commonly told stories is that he was inadequate at sex. Is that true?
Ridley Scott seems to have been convinced enough to show this in the film.
One thing that I did know about Napoleon is shown almost in passing.
He wasn't a conqueror like Alexander the Great, or even Hitler.
Napoleon wanted peace. He wanted prosperity for France. He only
waged war when he was attacked or threatend by other countries.
He's often compared with Hitler, and it can't be denied that many
soldiers were killed in battle. But he wasn't a tyrant. He only wanted
to rule because he considered the alternative leaders to be incompetent
or corrupt.
Is the film worth watching? If you're looking for a historical account of
Napoleon's life, probably not. I see it more as light entertainment.
I doubt I'll watch the film again, at
least not the theatrical version. I'll wait for the director's cut.
This film was my introduction to Napoleon as an historical figure and even I suspected it wasn’t a good film. There is a scene where young British midshipmen are listening respectfully to him as he is held captive but it doesn’t feel earned to me because we aren’t shown how effective Napoleon was as a ruler and administrator, and his military genius doesn’t get much more coverage; he refers to Tsar Alexander I copying his battle tactics, which means little when we don’t see most of his battles and have no clear idea of his favoured tactics. In fact, Napoleon doesn’t come off very well at all in the film, spending the majority of his scenes being awkward, emotional, or acting like the “Corsican brute” he is described as, such as having his way with Josephine under the dining room table while growling like a dog. Not that there’s anything wrong with making a character come across as unlikeable but they need some complexity to make them engaging!
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the 2002 miniseries of the same name where Napoleon is portrayed by Christian Clavier? Not saying it doesn't have its problems but it is a perfect demonstration of why this man’s life needs an entire TV series to do it justice.
Thanks for your thoughts. I haven't seen the mini-series, sorry. I'll look for it. A leader like Napoleon needs to be done justice, and Ridley Scott's film wasn't enough.
Delete