[august]

Would anyone like to defend NAPOLEON (2023) as being a good film with justifications that are beyond mere affinity for Sir Ridley Scott as a filmmaker? Personally, I've no idea how anyone could say that they rate it. 



This scene is such a farce that it's just plain offensive. Though, Sir Ridley Scott seems to have choice words for you if anything related to historical accuracy serves as the basis for your critique of the film:



I get it though. '''Artistic liberty''' or something. But really? Oh yeah, Napoleon leading his men from the front in an all out charge of what appears to be his entire force, a motley of what can't be any more than a thousand disorganised men. Directly involved in the melee, even sabring one or two of the enemy for good measure. And of course, a musket ball narrowly missing his skull by a few inches and leaving a perfect circle in his hat (I guess to remind you that This Is War, I don't know). There's no doubt that Sir Scott is a legend but why the cuntiness if someone points these things out? Being the charitable person that I am, I'll excuse it given his old age. Even aside from the ridiculous historical inaccuracies, everything is cold and lifeless. I'm not talking about the colouring—which has been pointed out more than enough—though that's certainly relevant. There's rather a lifelessness to the acting and scenes themselves. Phoenix's Napoleon basically whispering "infantry advance" on a battlefield so quiet that you can hear a pin drop. Wellesley's dejected "thank God" when Blucher arrives with the Prussians, which (in real life, as opposed to Sir Scott's Make Believe Universe) was the single-most determinative event that thwarted what was shaping up to be a French victory. There is, of course, precedent for ~historical films~ about the Napoleonic Wars that blows whatever the fuck NAPOLEON (2023) was out of the water. From Waterloo (1970):



One thing to consider is that Waterloo (1970) has a run time of just over two hours and focuses exclusively on Napoleon's Hundred Days. NAPOLEON (2023) is around 2 and a half hours and attempts to cover approximately 22 years in the life of one of the most monumental people in all of human history. Aside from that, I think that there are also little things, like the music for example, that make particular scenes like the one above great. Sir Scott chooses some le Epic Battle Music, yet in the Waterloo (1970) scene above we hear the historically accurate "La Victoire est à nous". This works nicely because there is an interplay between the aural and visual, giving one the impression that the music is coming directly from the instruments of the marching regimental musicians that we see in frame. There is even a shot shortly after this where a musician is shown being killed and the music abruptly stops. As for the acting, there are so many scenes that I could choose, but the main thing with all of them is that Napoleon is portrayed as someone who is admirable, because that is literally what he was to his men then (historically accurate) and what he remains to many today. 



Anyway, I don't now suddenly hate or disavow Sir Ridley Scott because of this film, though I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. @FrenziedFish and @anthony, I know that you both have been perhaps more charitable to NAPOLEON (2023) and Sir Scott than I have, but I would like to hear what you and anyone else thinks of this film considering the existence of Waterloo (1970) and the peculiar political-cultural climate of today—which I believe Sir Scott, either knowingly or unknowingly, bent his knee to.

[Aizen]

@august After watching Waterloo, the juxtaposition of the scenes portraying Napoleon's return says it all

Waterloo (1970):



I can't find a clip for the Ridley Scott piece, but the point stands if you've seen the movie. Napoleon's return in "Waterloo" captures the intensity of this moment. Ordering his men to fire on him after a long pause and zoom into his eyes. As I recall, the Scott version is more clumsy, like much of the film. The obvious problem is that Scott tries to condense 22 years into 2.5 hours, as august says. What is truly incredible in this juxtaposition is that this is only the 2nd or 3rd scene in the film with Napoleon in it--maybe only 10 minutes into the film--and yet you feel the immense loyalty to the Emperor, while it takes Scott maybe 2 hours or longer to arrive at this point, yet you don't feel any intensity in the moment. This isn't just because the scene is poorly done, but because Napoleon is presented as pussywhipped for the entirety of the film while none of his exploits, bravery, or loyalty he commands is presented in any meaningful fashion.

I don't understand anyone's defense of the latter film. It's overall "jumpy" and presents its namesake as someone who just somehow happened to gain power, and completely unworthy of it. The only thing it truly deserves praise for is its setpieces.

[august]

I can't find a clip for the Ridley Scott piece, but the point stands if you've seen the movie. Napoleon's return in "Waterloo" captures the intensity of this moment. Ordering his men to fire on him after a long pause and zoom into his eyes. As I recall, the Scott version is more clumsy, like much of the film.

Right. And that scene in Sir Scott's film, IIRC, is one of the moments that lifts dialogue directly from Waterloo (1970).  

but because Napoleon is presented as pussywhipped for the entirety of the film while none of his exploits, bravery, or loyalty he commands is presented in any meaningful fashion.

This is something that I wanted to eventually talk about but left open when I made my post above to see if anyone else would bring it up. Okay. First, Napoleon was notably charismatic, witty, and humorous; he wasn't an awkward and shy 'tist that struggled to find his words and stumbled over them when he eventually did find them. This weird portrayal of him as such was present in the Waterloo battle clip that I mentioned, but it's clear even at other very important points, for example, the famous coronation. The fact that Sir Scott chose to bring this sperginess out in full almost exclusively when his Napoleon was speaking to women (paired with the quote from his interview about "mature women with immature men") gave me a pretty good idea of what was going on there. Napoleon is portrayed as a cuck. He will berate Josephine for her infidelity (obviously to show that Men Are Insecure And Demand Control Over Their Wives) and then, in the next scene, Josephine will turn the tables on him and force him to prostrate before her while admitting that his WIFE and mother dominate his entire life... he is nothing without them... apparently. Personally, I could do without the Freudian bullshit. The sex scenes are equally retarded and carry the same veiled meaning where they appear to portray (or at the very least imply) Caesar reborn as someone who needs the permission of his wife before he has sex with her. What's the message there? Maybe something like: men can do a heckin evil taking of an entire continent, but when it comes to taking the snatch of your wife, who happens to be a Strong, Independent Women... think again. 

If I'm wrong about this then I'm not sure why the entire film is more or less explicitly centered on Napoleon's wife obsession. Yes, the historical Napoleon was what some may consider "obsessed" with Josephine, but that word carries a completely different meaning in ~1800 compared to today. He had his own mistresses everywhere he went since the start of his marriage, yet this gets only a passing word from his own mouth and in context comes across as an admission of some kind of guilt. There are these internal dialogues throughout the film wherein Josephine is speaking to him directly, and they even make it seem as though the reason for his return to France for the Hundred Days is simply due to his longing to return to his wife (who he is obsessed with, if you didn't catch it by that point in the film), as opposed to the historically accurate reason which, of course, would be his own greatness and legacy. I can't remember if it's actually so or not, but I think that the last voice that you hear in the film is that of Josephine in Napoleon's head telling him that SHE is going to be the emperor next time or some stupid shit like that. Translation: THE FUTURE IS FEMALE! This made Lady Scott (nee Sanchez Martinez Lopez) very happy.

Aside from that, did you notice the not insignificant amount of effort that was put toward making it a point of placing who I presume was meant to be Alexandre Dumas's father in as many scenes as possible? Two obvious things: (1) the actor who plays him looks like someone that they had just pulled off a migrant boat in the Mediterranean as opposed to a half-French/half-Haitian mulatto, and (2) as if that really would've been someone in Napoleon's court (he certainly wasn't, in real life). Or what about the young, clearly black child on the Bellerophon? Again, the slightest sense of historical accuracy makes this something laughable. Sir Scott's response to you taking issue with this: "Fuck off."

The only thing it truly deserves praise for is its setpieces.

It was visually appealing in this sense, but it almost verges on being lipstick on a pig. In my opinion, Waterloo (1970) still looked amazing, all while making no use of CGI to portray, what I believed to be, much superior battle scenes.

[FrenziedFish]

To reply to @august and @Aizen.

I have no particular affinity for Ridley Scott, it's only really this and "Blade Runner" I've seen so far from him which has impressed. "The Counsellor" is interesting to me but overdoes the grimness while something like "Matchstick Men" (lobe movie) has little else to stand on but Cage in a performance which is too gimmicky and lacks genuine expression even by the end.

It has been some time since I've seen Napoleon, December 24th in a movie theatre, so I'll just respond in a more limited fashion hopefully to be followed up with a fuller defense of the picture later in the year once it should get a physical release and by that time I'll also of familiarised myself further with Ridley Scott.

Firstly, the "historical accuracy". I don't believe the film presents itself as a "faithful" biography of the man, as let on by Scott's interview that august posted a screenshot of where he questions the accuracy of historians by invoking a sort of Chinese whispers effect which I believe is more him being a bit old by using a strange example to in effect say that history is also a narrative, like film and that, quote, "there's a lot of imagination" to piecing together a historical narrative. Scott's Napoleon tells a narrative of the man with this effect in mind as rather discordant moments abound where those around Napoleon are reacting out of hand, either positively or negatively, to respectively embarrassing or laudable actions of his. With this the various interpretations, imaginations, are clashing on screen. This also provides a light comedic affect which contrasts nicely with the brutality of the battle scenes where Napoleon's indisputable military genius is shown, one of his great passions. This, however, is subverted and examined more deeply with the final scene which both of you take issue with in comparison to the film "Waterloo" from 1970.

Waterloo is a film which I quite enjoyed also, it is more "authentic" than Napoleon, it has a grander scale and more colourful look which on balance I'd have to say I prefer to Scott's more limited and muted scale and range of colour. Not to say Scott's film is a bland one, I quite like how the colour is more of a light touch which gives a more day-to-day and closer to the ground feel to the proceedings. But, for it to stay visually consistent it must accept some lack of grandeur for Napoleon's most important battle. What Waterloo lacks, not that this is an entirely bad thing, is a thematic heart or purpose beyond presenting us the battle in a similar way to how a classical portrait would present a man or scene, it is more representation but it succeeds greatly at that.

To return to Napoleon and the battle of Waterloo in the film, you see Napoleon himself take to the fray and lose himself in the carnage, which can be read as a comment on his downfall at Waterloo, that he overstepped his mark and lowered himself (particularly) with a bloody battle which would not be thought to please Josephine (the one part of the film I'm iffy on) and therefore himself as she had passed nor please the men and ideal of France through a victory. That also in this scene Scott shows him to narrowly avoid a marksman's shot while retreating tells that Napoleon remains just above the baseness of the violence with his withdrawal and therefore admittance of defeat.

In all I believe the film to show him as a great man, a complex man with a grand number of interpretations (I'm sure we all have our own), with the film playing into this to the point people can believe it to be a repudiation of the man (mainly through pointing at the ending death tally. I believe this to be a further reminder of his power and greatness, see Contrary Pancake's [@xiibhanal] recent tweets in regards to the honour of being killed by Hitler).

Sorry if this doesn't adequately answer your questions/critiques but I'll hopefully have something more comprehensive later on.