Ridley Scott's Napoleon (2023)

There’s a ton of stupid assholes on Twitter that go “Oh why isn’t he a black trans woman”. The usual conservative low-hanging fruit “jokes”

That’s the kind of thing that make me glad people can no longer see Twitter without registering.

So far I’ve mostly seen "Perfectly accurate quote − Napoleon" jokes and I’m fine with that.

Edited by Lyendith on Jul 23rd 2023 at 6:33:34 PM

Now I think of it, I now understand why people probably didn't like Napoleon (2023) so far. It's because of the Age Lift of this historical figure.

Bumping since release is coming up.

There's been some discourse about how people involved with the film (possibly including Ridley Scott himself?) have mentioned in interviews that they deliberately eschewed historical accuracy in certain areas for the sake of drama, which I don't really have strong feelings about one way or another for now.

Emphasis on for now since Bonaparte was a dictator and remains fairly divisive and controversial, so it's within the realm of possibility that the film either accidentally veers into problematic territory or overcorrects into demonization, depending on what exactly they're changing/ignoring from real history.

Edited by Dirtyblue929 on Nov 10th 2023 at 6:40:34 AM

One of the complaints Scott responded to was that Marie Antoinette's hair was too long, historically speaking she wore it short at the time of her death.

His response was "Get a life."

Speaking as a former history teacher, I agree with him 1000%

This isn't a documentary. It's not trying to be historically accurate in any but the broadest of strokes.

Stuff like the hair cut is probably not worth complaining about yeah. I'd be more concerned about things like giving Wellington a Historical Villain Upgrade or making it look like he only beat Napoleon through luck.

Hypothetical examples I grant you.

I thought the fuss was also about Napoleon firing on the pyramids (which I guess is...somewhere in between those two things).

There's been multiple fusses and most of what I've seen is about the Battle of Austerlitz and the Egyptian campaign going all in on widely-debunked myths.

On the one hand, yes, art doesn't have to be historically accurate. On the other hand, it's an insult to the profession to be dismissive towards historians, and there runs a genuine risk of promoting misconceptions and historical untruths. There's a delicate tightrope to walk on when dealing with historical events in fiction, and I've seen quite a few people within the field who aren't happy with Scott's comments.

Yeah, Braveheart wasn't claiming to be historically accurate - but as a Scot, its extremely problematic inaccuracies (which is everything about the entire film, except that some of the people depicted existed and a couple of the battles took place at roughly the time/place depicted) have caused issues here for decades due to polluting the popular conception of the country.

Many Scots loathe and despise both Braveheart and Outlander for that reason, and it would be a damn shame for this to be "Braveheart but for the French".

I've not seen either but I'd be interested in the comparisons between this movie and the one Waterloo movie made in 1970s

Edited by Ultimatum on Nov 13th 2023 at 12:57:40 PM

Joaquin Phoenix and Ridley Scott appear in a French museum and comment on things. (At some point Phoenix has to leave).

(As for myself I am difficult about historical films and especially about foreign films made in foreign language with foreign actors about historical figures from my country).

Hope the movie included his early rivalry with Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, at least.

he was spotted in a trailer for its worth but from what I can gather the focus is entirely on Napoleon

I have such a weird relationship with Ridley Scott movies. Many I love and some I kind of despise.

That's not really a weird relationship.

I think that how accurate I want a movie like this to be depends entirely on how old the figures the movie's about are.

Something like Bohemian Rhapsody is very clearly revisionist history, but the other members of Queen are around to guide it. I see Scott's Napoleon similarly to how Shakespeare would write about kings.

After all the shots that Scott took at the concept of historical accuracy, I'd be pretty disappointed if he doesn't go all the way and have Napoleon win at Waterloo in the end.

Have him fake his death and escape to a Paris diner where he nods at Thomas Jefferson or some shit. Make it ridiculously unrealistic.

What bothers me the most is that, if I remember well, the Italian campaign is mentioned, but not Germany 1813 (Leipzig) or France in 1814 (when Napoleon unexpectedly kicked much coalition ass for about a week before being overrun). The retreat from Russia in 1812 is one of the most horrific an army has ever seen, but that's not what caused him to abdicate (not directly, anyway).

You could make an entire movie about a french retreat from Russia because yikes it was horrifically brutal

There's one actually, but made just 100 years later, Vasily Goncharov's 1812, nothing modern in cinematography I suppose. I'm no connaisseur of War and Peace but I imagine it's part of it (the composer of the 2016 miniseries worked on Napoleon, interestingly).

Inch resting. I heard from a Tumblr mutual who's seen the movie that its depiction of Borodino is lifted wholesale from this scene in the series:

And skipping the entire 1813 campaign certainly sounds like, uh, a natural consequence of trying to fit 22 years of history into a 2.5-hour movie. Though on the other hand, the movie also supposedly insinuates that Napoleon escapes from Elba and kicks off the Hundred Days after hearing that Josephine is cheating on him with Alexander I, which (if true) sounds like the exact kind of audacious departure from reality I'm here for.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 23rd 2023 at 5:41:50 AM

The soundtrack for the battle of Moskowa/Borodino is most definitely the same and gets used during a charge indeed. Fits perfectly anyway.

Edited by Iridener on Nov 24th 2023 at 11:30:10 AM

I've always believed that Napoleon's life & reign would be too big for a single movie... and yeah, this film pretty much validates my view.

I fully expected Scott to skip over 6th coalition and Leipzig before going to the theater (Kubrick's unfilmed script did thar too) and during the film I anticipated that 5th coalition would get the axe as well... but when the film went straight from Austerlitz to Tilsit, skipping the 4th coalition as well, my jaw dropped. Prussia was almost entirely sidelined with king Friedrich Wilhelm III reduced to a five-second cameo. Even worse, Spain was completely ignored.

Napoleon's reign and wars really require a miniseries to be told properly.

Also, it was pretty funny that Wellington and Napoleon could see each other at Waterloo, considering that in real battle they were like two kilometers apart.

Someone put as much as he could in from his birth to his death, though it's more in a "history book vignettes" manner and as limited as a 1950s French film could get (the battles are a bit too small scale and lack dramatic effect). Lots of exposition and narration too.

That miniseries (from the Italian campaign to Saint Helena) deserves a honorable mention.

I can't think of any other project (excluding Scott's film) that aimed at telling so much about his life outside these two. It's a pity Abel Gance never finished his grandiose silent film saga.

Edited by Iridener on Nov 24th 2023 at 11:31:09 AM