Budget: 200 Million
Run time 157 minutes
Release Date: November 22nd 2023
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenplay by : David Scarpa
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Mark Bonnar, Youssef Kerkour, Rupert Everett, Paul Rhys
If there ever was such a thing as taking a “mulligan” in Film making, I am almost sure Ridley Scott would consider it. As it stands now, his latest work is quite the departure from his previous films. After watching “Napoleon” a film that was not only uncomfortable to watch, but hard to get any kind of authentic emotional feel for to the point of holding our interest long enough for us to care, as it sure ended with disappointing results. Instead, the impressions that the main character played by Joaquin Phoenix left us was one that was far removed from historical accuracy of a man that held the world in his hands over a 20 year period. Most viewers went in with the expectation of an epic badass retelling of Napoleon’s story, but instead Ridley Scott managed to turn Napoleon into a pathetic emotional little weakling that always cries for Josephine.
First lets talk about the story itself and why it was such failure. The story had no pacing throughout the film. Its as if the director himself took a giant dump on historical accuracy and decided to go with a more convoluted approach of trying to cram in 20 years of Napoleon’s life in 2 and half hours. The problem with this of course is that it’s almost impossible to make one film about Napoleon that covers such a long period of time and accurately tell his story. As it is the film leaves out much important details throughout the film. Such as having too many jumps in the timeline that made this movie disjointed and hard to follow from a chronological point of view. From fighting the Royalists in France to all of a sudden being in Egypt leaves out the time in between and invokes a chaotic thought process. Another is when one minute Napoleon is leading a coup against the Revolutionary Government, the next scene he is being crowned Emperor which skips over the time of Napoleon’s invasion of Prussia.
The most egregious is when Napoleon is retreating from Russia and the next scene he is abdicating his crown, ignoring the most important two years of his career. Twenty battles were fought; major political shifts were taking place when all of Europe was turning against Napoleon to which Scott’s film seems to skip over. Of course notwithstanding the turning point in Napoleon’s career was the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 where he sustained heavy losses in defeat and was for the most part ignored? As such, the film lacked dramatic tension and failed to provide more interesting story contrasts such as skipping over the day the Russian Czar marched through the streets of Paris.
Another aspect of this film that seem rather comical and forced upon the viewer’s was having Josephine as central focal point of Napoleon’s muse and reason for arriving at the many decisions he made through out his career, such as leaving Egypt in the middle of a military campaign because his wife was bedding another man as one example. In reality Napoleon left Egypt for very specific reasons such as the English Navy destroying the French Revolutionary Fleet at Abu Qir Bay or that the French Military were losing battles across Europe at the time.
Not only did the film manage to depict Napoleon as an insufferable weakling always pining for Josephine, but also a stumbling idiot who was bad at telling jokes. If Scott’s intent was to reduce Napoleon to being a petulant man-child in order to bash the French further, then he definitely succeeds when critics of this film get themselves into a uproar over Scott’s historical inaccuracies and deliberate attempts to make Napoleon less than the man he became. The notion Scott suggests that Josephine had some sort of spell that she had over Napoleon to the point he would leave Egypt because of the empty space between her legs was being occupied by a rival lover, seems rather comical at best and many critics took exception at this one point. The problem with the latter is that it never happened, and in fact Napoleon was a very confident figure that was known for his infidelities and to have fathered several illegitimate children through many affairs he had during the course of his lifetime. Napoleon held the world in awe for 20 years who was singular in his focus when erecting an empire that which conquered Europe, and only an emotionally stable genius is capable of being one of History’s most famous military strategists, than to be preoccupied by a woman to hold his thoughts or emotions hostage.
Just some aspects to consider that the film otherwise purposely leaves out is:
1. Napoleon decides, “Caesar is his competition” at age 9
2. Calms down crazed crowds during Revolution with humor
3. Genius commander
4. Travels with a portable library to war
5. Becomes the World’s most powerful man
6. Enemies refuse to meet him on the battlefield
None of which is listed is ever depicted in Ridley Scott’s film and nor are their details that would suggest a man as being emotionally unstable that he would prioritize a woman like Josephine over his intellectual acumen seeking ultimate power.
Other notable details that were not considered but should have been
Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor in his own right was miscast for this role from the very beginning. Not only does he have has zero charisma but there is no transition of a young 24 year Napoleon to a cynical figure in his 40’s. Joaquin Phoenix was already 49 years old when played the part of Napoleon, which seemed out of place for most of the movie. For example during the siege of Toulon, Napoleon was a young energetic 24-year-old captain who succeeded in liberating the port, which resulted in him being awarded the rank of Brigadier General. While that detail was depicted in the film, the viewers don’t get the sense of a younger version of Napoleon; he remains the same throughout the entire film.
As another aspect of Joaquin Phoenix showing zero charisma, we don’t get the impression as to why thousands of men would follow him into battle, or how he turned the French military into a fierce unstoppable force, or get the sense of the tactical mastermind that he would become known for. Instead we get an introverted, shy, mumbling type of character that audiences struggle to identify with or recognize, but more or less see a reprised roll of the “Joker”.
Napoleon won over 60 major battles over the course of his military career, none of which we get a sense of the awe that this man held over many people who graced his presence. Napoleon was successful militarily because he was able to adapt to all environments, such as in rain, snow, desert, mud, as he could crush all possible adversaries in any type of conditions. His mere presence on the battlefield would boast the morale of his soldiers and of all of Europe had to combine their forces just to put a stop to his powerful force.
Another annoying detail that is obviously absent throughout the film is that Napoleon’s generals are almost completely absent throughout the movie, which would have played a significant role during Napoleon’s career. Viewers get no sense of Napoleon’s interactions with his troops or Generals going over strategies, discussing military terms or show the rank and file in their natural environment that would show another aspect of what made him as a man among other men.
To add another important visual that was missing was there was no visual or dramatic experience in the film depicting the aftermath of war, such as the battle of Eylau, where Napoleon was known to have remarked “What a massacre without result”
The six battle scenes depicted in the movie were:
- Siege of Toulon 1793
- 13 Vendemiaire 1795
- Pyramids 1798
- Austerlitz 1805
- Borodino 1812
- Waterloo 1815
All of the battle scenes were not very interesting, and were historically inaccurate, such as the scene where Napoleon’s army is facing off the Egyptian army with the Pyramids in the background. The fact is the battle that took place was several kilometers away from the Pyramids and why Scott thought no one would notice this detail is beyond me. Then there is the scene where a brief period depicting trench warfare was shown seemed egregiously out of place. Then there are the larger battle scenes where almost every time it was always the same cliché use of two forces always clashing like Scottish Brave-hearts or Viking mosh pits that included bashing one another over the head. After a while they begin to all look the same and the viewers don’t get to experience flying canon balls or muskets towards the camera, and the horrors of war in more graphic terms.
The fact the entire movie is spoken in English is another aspect that is completely overlooked, such as Napoleon and his troops speaking in French would have given the movie another level of organic feel to it, even if it was in mere passing with subtitles, the viewers never get to hear the native tongue that Napoleon actually spoke.
Joaquin’s depiction of Napoleon on the battlefield during actual battle scenes was rather amusing as well, as the use of hand motions and flags to give the signal to his generals to fire was used. In reality, Napoleon’s forces on the Battlefield were literally separated by kilometers and Napoleon had to use a complex system of messengers on Horseback to deliver hand written instructions to his generals. The fact that this was also ignored makes this film even more comical.
Cinematography
The cinematography left a lot to be desired, such as the location shot choices and the overall look of the film itself. In many instances especially in the battle scenes, the look of the film seemed to have used a dark filter of some sort that sometimes obscured the details of the battle scenes making them darker. In other parts of the film there were scenes where it appeared to be washed out. Also the various shot choices used did not lend to heightening dramatic tension, or contribute to the over all aesthetic of the film itself, but instead contributed to its dreariness. Lastly as is, there are no particular scenes that create a lasting impression on its audiences where they were memorable. There was nothing in particular that stands out in a visual reference that can be considered remarkable or compelling.
Conclusion
In parting, there isn’t much more that I can add that will prop up this film to make it more appealing; like putting lipstick on a pig, at the end of the day its still a pig. That being said about the only good thing I can say is that the acting decently professional, not cringe level but was passable given the trashed out script and story line that the cast were forced to work with. Maybe one consideration should have been given when the script was being developed was not to cast English actors to tell a very French story seems it was one of the more profound flaws of this film regardless of the cast’s acting abilities.
And of course most common mention that I will echo among critics is that the costumes were at least nice. Other than the short and brief accolades it did received prevents this film from being a complete disaster. Giving this film two stars is being generous, however this has got to be Ridley Scott’s worst film ever and it’s a shame that two hundred million dollars spent to make this film was a wasted effort that produced such an inferior product.