Ridley Scott's Napoleon (2023)

Yes, I've seen the 2002 French miniseries. It's pretty good besides the laughable battle-scenes involving few hundred people at most. Also, Friedrich Wilhelm III wasn't in that one either, if I recall correctly.

Also, Phoenix was definitely miscast in this film. He just doesn't have the charisma that I think Napoelon needs

Edited by DeadlyAssassin on Nov 24th 2023 at 9:34:26 PM

I don't think we should ever expect a film to be completely historically accurate. All I generally ask for is that historical figures don't get severely mischaracterized (for instance, LBJ was actually very supportive of the civil rights movement, whatever his other flaws, contrary to the way he was portrayed in the film Selma, where director Ava Du Vernay said she downplayed his support because she didn't want the film to contain a "white savior").

I frequently feel, though, that pointing out the inaccuracies in historical films is one of the only ways people can display their knowledge of history and actually have anyone pay attention to them.

Edited by Robbery on Nov 24th 2023 at 12:47:04 PM

I don't expect a film to be completely accurate to history, but if you're skipping over VERY important context and massively simplifying a story in a manner that just doesn't do it justice, then I don't think it's a good choice.

Didn't Scott say he had an over four hour cut of this movie? Maybe some of it is in there, I dunno.

Yes, the simplification actually causes narrative issues in the film, for example, Alexander agrees to ally Napoleon and joins the continental blockade... and then immediately abandons it, forcing Napoleon to march into Russia. I don't think there's even 20 minutes between those scenes.

I think I'll wait for the History Buffs special. You know Nick Hodges will give this one a hard time when this is what he has to say:

Mind you, History Buffs is often full of shit himself, such as promoting the whole "crusades were defensive actually" mindset his Kingdom of Heaven review as well as "dark ages stopped science from advancing" in his Agora review.

History Buffs uncritically used Dunning School talking points when talking about the American Civil War, he's a fucking moron.

I don't trust most history YouTubers for good reason, too many of the big ones are full of shit.

Yeah, there's a longer cut that's coming apparently, I just hope it's not just more Napoleon/Josephine stuff.

in before its just extended battle scenes!

I didn't even know this isn't Scott's first time exploring the Napoleonic Wars. Or even that his first movie on it was his first movie period.

That's pretty cool.

Edited by TargetmasterJoe on Nov 25th 2023 at 1:03:18 PM

I've watched the review by Nota Bene, a prominent French History Youtuber, and one that you cannot accuse of conservatism or right-wing leanings (on the contrary, he tends to more often than not be at war with them).

Firs thing first though, context.

Napoleon in France is more or less a darling of the traditional right. Not the far-right, because there are monarchists there who obviously hate his guts, but he's basically seen as a Great Man who did Great Things until the entire world leagued against him to take him down. A symbol of France as a major power.

On the left however, it is much more nuanced because, obviously, of his authoritarianism, his bringing slavery back, his extremely sexist policies, and him being the Revolution's ideals' gravedigger. But he gets at least some sympathy for two things:

• first, because he was a supporter of skill over birth, with his Marshalls reaching that rank, in most cases, because they were incredibly badass soldiers and officers, and not because they were high-ranking nobles.
• second, because he put an end to the monarchy once and for all. Yes, his code of laws was extremely conservative, but it also paved the way towards more modern styles of government.

Still, all in all - like on the right, disliked with nuance on the left.

So, this Youtuber said that the version of Napoleon in the movie was "straight out of 1800's British propaganda". Again, he isn't a Bonaparte admirer, and he isn't one to support French history seen as an epic with great figures - for him to say that, it must mean that the movie is particularly bad when it comes to its depiction of history.

He said that he had nothing against making Napoleon a pathetic man in private - but when you hit the Empress so she signs a treaty, you are dealing with head of state matters.

Another French historian I saw on Youtube had a giggle at the fact that Scott managed to make Talleyrand - TALLEYRAND - look like a clueless idiot.

Edited by Bexlerfu on Dec 1st 2023 at 6:36:36 PM

"put an end to the monarchy once and for all" - Absolute monarchy, that is. French kings returned for a time, albeit with a constitution (they had learned from what happened with Louis XVI's commitment to his Mission from God...). Not even by him per se ("I found the crown in the stream/gutter").

Edited by Iridener on Dec 3rd 2023 at 1:43:20 AM

Well yes. But even if it is indirect, monarchy as a whole, too, since a major reason for the 1830 and 1848 revolutions was the population resisting tries from the monarchs to bring absolute monarchy back. And Bonapartists were a distinct political group in that era that usually found common ground with Republicans against Monarchists.

The Count of Monte Cristo is littered with references of this era. I think (supposedly) being a Bonapartist is part of what sends Dantès to prison in the first place.

Edited by Bexlerfu on Dec 3rd 2023 at 3:12:41 PM

Indeed, The Count of Monte Cristo is set right in the Restoration era and Dantès is accused of taking part in a conspiracy to bring Napoleon back on the throne (at the time of the isle of Elba in 1814). Noirtier de Villefort, Gérard's father, is full-on bonapartist, which embarrasses his son, who got his job thanks to his in-laws being close to the king. He's the reason Gérard de Villefort frames Dantès up and has him locked up, despite all he did was carrying the letter for Noirtier. In at least one adaptation Noirtier's servant Barrois was made a veteran of Napoleon's battles.

Edited by Iridener on Dec 3rd 2023 at 8:57:34 AM

How does that jive with Napoleon himself being a monarch?

He crowned himself an Emperor he was not mere king of France!

Part of the irony of Dantes's imprisonment is that he's in the Chateau D'If for being a Bonapartist, alongside people who are still there for opposing Bonaparte.

I understand that these are your words not those from that Nota Bene channel (mostly because I think I watched the same video that you did). But the way you worded your post is quite confusing: what thoughts are yours, and what are theirs?

Honestly watching it, I thought the movie itself was just ok. I think Joaquin Phoenix actually did a great job. Both are probably very unpopular opinions I know. I wouldn't say it was a perfect film either, genuinely agree it should've definitely not played as loose with history as it did, but I enjoyed the film's cinematography and performances mainly. It's decent but it's no documentary on napoleon himself, it's effectively just an extremely simplified and condensed biopic with some cool visuals and performances. May have some positive biases myself admittingly because this was actually the first film I've seen in theatres post-covid pandemic.

I watched it, and I didn't like it.

Especially with the tacky romance subplot and a script that's all over the place.

"You think you're so tough because you have boats!" is the worst one.