Ridley Scott's "Napoleon" Had the Potential to be One of His Finest Films... It Ended Up Being His Waterloo
The Film is Out of Focus, Historically Inaccurate, and Disappointing Overall
I had a lot of hope and excitement walking into the theater to see Ridley Scott’s latest film “Napoleon”. I even recruited my roommate, Thibualt, who was born in Versailles, France, to go with me. Prior to going, Thibault said to me “I am not expecting much, as a matter of fact, I am expecting to be disappointed”. I was adamant however that I thought the film was going to be phenomenal.
But then it wasn’t. We both left the theater just as Thibault thought we would, disappointed. “Napoleon” had the potential to be one of the greatest, awe inspiring, and dramatic war films ever made, covering a time that has rarely been covered in modern film media, but it didn’t even come close to its own potential.
Narrative, Direction, and Historical Accuracy (3/10)
Probably the most glaring issue with the film is the narrative direction they decided to take. The movie is just over two and a half hours long, but in reality, if they focused on the consequential parts of Napoleon’s life, they could have easily made an Oscar worthy political and war epic that would have had viewers glued to their chairs. Unfortunately, it’s as if when Ridley Scott pitched this film to Apple Studios, the heart of the pitch was “Let’s make a movie about one of the most consequential political and military leaders in European history and focus on the most inconsequential parts of his life”.
Introductory Scenes
The movie opens with the execution of Marie Antoinette, where Napoleon, at the time an officer in the French military, is in attendance (this is inaccurate as Napoleon was commanding soldiers in Toulon at the time), and then meeting with the new government to discuss expelling the British occupying Toulon. You would think at this moment that we would at some point get a flashback with a little backstory on Napoleon’s early life or career, which is foundational in the creation of his attitude, behavior, and motivations, but we don’t. We never get any backstory, as a matter of fact, we never even learn that he grew up poor until he is crowning himself Emperor of France, and it was a brief and vague mention at that.
Right out of the gate, the movie begins to become extremely confusing, and you are subjected to two and a half hours of random leaps through months and years of time (that are not always clear) to different moments in his post-revolution career. These leaps skip over vast amounts of detail that are critical to the story. The first battle showcased is the battle of Toulon, which is a battle that helped Napoleon gain the credibility needed to begin his political ascent. Then the movie introduces his first wife, Josephine, through a lengthy 15-minute sequence, before covering his campaign in Egypt.
Egypt
This is where the movie begins to throw historical accuracy to the wayside. During the sequence of scenes in Egypt, there is a scene of Napoleon ordering a cannon to fire into one of the pyramids, which never happened. The explanation of this decision from Scott being “It was the quickest way to show that he conquered Egypt” is wholly unacceptable to me. There is paraphrasing, and then there is flat out making things up, and this was flat out making things up.
Additionally, in the film, Napoleon abandons his troops and leaves Egypt because he found out his wife was having an affair from a subordinate. While the affair is accurate, the suggestion that he left Egypt and abandoned his troops because of it, is wholly untrue. Historians have said that Napoleon left Egypt out of concern that the future of the First Republic was in doubt after hearing of major French battle losses.
Josephine, and the Rise to Emperor
After the sequence in Egypt, the movie spends the vast majority of itself focusing very closely on his relationship with his first wife. Scott attempts to make this movie a love story and fails miserably. Critics have also pointed out numerous historical inaccuracies depicted in the film about their relationship. Napoleon’s first wife Josephine had such a negligible influence on his career, that I am truly puzzled, confused, and questioning how anyone thought this was a good direction for the movie to take. Not to mention the multiple, extremely awkward scenes of intimacy that I believe were attempting to be comedic but left the theater looking around at each other saying “What?”.
Once Napoleon becomes Emperor, hardly any of the major political ramifications are explored, and there is little exploration as to why the other European powers are so eager to go to war with him other than that they think he has no manners. The reality is, other European monarchies were greatly concerned that a commoner could ascend to the throne and were worried their own subjects would begin to think they could do the same through revolution. This is the main reason for hostile relations with France, but unfortunately, it goes totally unexplored.
Again, these details are some of the most consequential reasons that Napoleon’s life took the path it took, but they are routinely ignored in favor of awkward, dry, and lengthy conversations about nothing with Josephine. I think Scott attempts to show a different side of Napoleon through these conversations, but unfortunately, as a viewer, I walked away without understanding or knowing Napoleon or Josephine or anything about their relationship any more than I did prior to viewing. These conversations, outside of the letters written from the battlefield, are also likely to be extremely speculative, as I doubt that there is ample historical evidence to recreate such conversations accurately.
Later Scenes and Closing
The only other battles the movie shows are the Battle of Austerlitz (which showcases extremely well what this movie could have been), the march to and subsequent burning of Moscow, and the Battle of Waterloo, of which critics have also leveled major criticism for the historical inaccuracies of the Napoleon’s actions and behaviors during these battles. The movie completely or mostly skips over the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th coalition wars (with the exception of a few battles), the first and second Italian campaigns, and the Peninsular War. All of which were some of the most consequential events in European history. It completely leaves out all of Napoleon’s backstory, the politics of his rule, and comes across as a long smear campaign based on British perspectives of Napoleon, that focuses on the most personal details of the man.
Upon his first exile to the island of Elba, he returns after some time to reassume the throne as Emperor of France. Another critical historical discrepancy is found in these scenes. As he marches towards Paris, Napoleon visits the home of his first wife Josephine and learns of her death from a house maid. This is completely inaccurate, as he actually learned of her death via a letter while confined on the island of Elba and locked himself in his room for two days, refusing to leave and her time of death in the film is also inaccurate.
This all culminates in the battle of Waterloo, which Napoleon loses and then faces a second exile on the island of St. Helena, where he dies.
Final Thoughts
The movie ultimately paints Napoleon as a selfish dictator, an ineffective leader, and as though he was a non-consequential character in French history, all of which are far from the truth. The truth about Napoleon is far more complicated. Napoleon by no means was perfect, this review is not making the argument that he was, and there is plenty of room to make a film with ample criticism of his rule. He had plenty of moments of brutality, harsh leadership, and authoritarian tendencies, and even multiple violations of modern human rights. He did after all, roll back women’s rights and expand slavery under his rule, and this deserves to be mentioned both in this review and in the film, but it is not mentioned in the film.
I wouldn’t call him a “great person” at all, but on the other side of his shortcomings, many of his achievements were significant, and the film completely ignores these major contributions that had a hand in the shaping of modern Europe such as:
The creation of the Napoleonic Code, which while containing both major advancements and regressions of rights, is still the basis of law for some countries to this day;
His achievements in creating greater economic stability through modernization of the French financial systems;
His long-term influence encouraging other countries to eventually become democracies because Napoleon exported revolutionary ideals to them;
His creation of a new education system that laid the foundations of the modern education systems in France and much of Europe;
His advancements in military strategy;
And other political reforms that brought stability to France after a long period of monarchs exploiting the French people for all they had.
Within the context of the times, Napoleon was one of the most consequential political and military leaders of the 18th and 19th centuries, and unfortunately, this film does not convey any of the good or bad effectively at all. Historians are perplexed by Napoleon, and they are constantly debating about him, his motivations, his ideologies, and his influence, but the film fails to reflect any of that.
It is impossible to tell the stories of history without including all of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and history is done a disservice when blockbuster Hollywood films leave out critical details, shoot made up scenes to tell a story quickly rather than accurately, and use speculative evidence to develop personal relationships between characters. Details and context matter when making a film like this, and this film showcases just how much they matter.
Acting (8/10)
Joaquin Phoenix was a great choice to play Napoleon and his performance was brilliant. His supporting cast also did a phenomenal job with their roles, and I can confidently say that the actors and actresses put a lot of time and effort in to nail these roles. Unfortunately, despite the great acting performances, the writing, direction, and focus of the movie takes away from this performance, and ultimately hurts the individual performances in the film, particularly between Joaquin and Vanessa Kirby (Josephine).
Cinematography (10/10)
This movie is gorgeous, the battle scenes are spectacular, and particularly well done. All of the scenes are very well shot and deserve credit.
Overall Review and Recommendation
It is unfortunate that this film did not live up to everything that it could have been. The historical inaccuracies, the director’s vocal lack of care for that accuracy, the disjointed structuring and clumsy sequencing of the story, and the focus of the story on mostly inconsequential moments, leads me to not recommend this film to prospective viewers.
The film ultimately fails to effectively explore the motivations behind Napoleon’s rule and decision making. It attempts to put together a comprehensive character study that shows Napoleon was more than the battles he fought, but it falls very short of doing this, and is less than well-done. Though the film’s advertising campaign came with the slogan “Napoleon: He came from nothing and conquered everything” it fails to examine its very own tagline.
The brilliant cinematography and performance of the actors in the film, are overshadowed by all of these factors, and that is perhaps the greatest offense the film commits against itself.
Overall, I rate this film 4/10
Thank you for reading, I hope you enjoyed. If you have any thoughts, please feel free to comment below and start a discussion! Please be sure to also like, subscribe, and share the article if you enjoyed as well!