Ridley Scott diminishes Napoleon from a destined leader to a mere child
Defying Expectations
When Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, his march to Paris was halted by 6,000 French soldiers led by Marshall Ney. Ney had promised Louis XVIII that he would bring “the monster” to the French capital in an iron cage. But Napoleon, undeterred, boldly approached the soldiers, opened his coat, and declared, “If there is any man among you who would kill his emperor, here I stand!” The soldiers responded with a resounding cry of “Vive l’Empereur!”
If those soldiers had witnessed Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon,” they would have eagerly assisted Ney in imprisoning Bonaparte. It’s not that the movie lacks visual grandeur or star power, with its hefty $200 million budget. Rather, Scott has created a mere shell of a film, adorned in period costumes.
Let’s delve into the movie’s theme. A good film can be summarized in a single powerful sentence. “Casablanca”? Sacrifice for the greater good. “Star Wars”? Triumph of good over evil. “The Prestige”? Obsession leads to destruction.
However, the theme of Scott’s “Napoleon” remains frustratingly elusive. Is it about the perils of hubris? Perhaps, but Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon lacks ambition. He acts upon the ideas of others, rarely displaying personal drive. When Talleyrand suggests he declare himself king, Napoleon swiftly becomes emperor without explanation for the choice of title.
Does the film explore the dark side of destiny? This Napoleon believes his life is predetermined, yet the movie fails to substantiate this claim. The Napoleonic Wars, with their significant French victories, could have provided ample opportunity to delve into this concept. However, Scott disappointingly skimps on battle scenes. Toulon, Austerlitz, and Borodino are given minimal attention, and even Waterloo, the most prominent battle, is introduced too late to develop the theme.
Running Out of Time
The movie’s length exacerbates these issues. Napoleon’s life, whether loved or loathed, was filled with action, achievements, and losses. To adequately depict his life from 1798 to 1821, a film would require either a six-hour runtime or a two-part structure, similar to “Dune,” with Napoleon’s coronation marking the end of the first installment and his death on St. Helena concluding the second.
Instead, at a mere 158 minutes, the film is only slightly longer than the 1970 movie ”Waterloo,” which solely focused on the eponymous battle. Consequently, the narrative rushes from one scene to another, skipping over significant events such as the 14-month-long War of the Sixth Coalition, considered one of Napoleon’s most brilliant campaigns. Scott compensates for the limited runtime by taking shortcuts. For instance, the entire Egyptian campaign is condensed to a single cannonball fired into the pyramid of Khafre, a fictional event invented for expediency.
Breathing Heavily on the Battlefield
Ironically, even with more time, the movie would still suffer. Biopic directors should strive to understand their subjects and evoke sympathy from the audience. However, Scott abandons this approach and replaces the Man of Destiny with a Man Baby. This Napoleon hyperventilates on the battlefield, struggles to kill a single British soldier, engages in trivial office games instead of strategic planning, throws food at those who anger him during state dinners, and screams impotently when outmaneuvered. None of his positive attributes, such as his curiosity, the Napoleonic Code, or his support for art and science, are explored. Watching Phoenix’s portrayal, one wonders how such a character could pose a threat to the great European powers.
Scott emphasizes Josephine as the source of Napoleon’s strength, portrayed stoically by Vanessa Kirby. Rather than actively pursuing her, Napoleon passively allows Josephine to be taken by the peculiar “hero of Toulon,” who gazes creepily
How does the runtime of “Napoleon” impact the film’s ability to delve into the complexities of Napoleon’s character and the historical context in which he lived?
Lm would require a significant runtime. However, “Napoleon” falls short in this aspect as well. With a runtime of a mere two hours and thirty minutes, the film rushes through important events and fails to delve into the complexity of Napoleon’s character and the historical context in which he lived.
Furthermore, the pacing of the film is uneven. The first half of the movie focuses on Napoleon’s early military victories and rise to power, but it does so in a superficial and disjointed manner. Important moments, such as the Battle of Marengo, are glossed over, leaving the audience feeling disconnected from the events unfolding on screen.
The second half of the film, which should have explored Napoleon’s downfall and eventual exile, feels rushed and lacks emotional depth. The Battle of Waterloo, a pivotal moment in Napoleon’s life, is given minimal screen time and fails to capture the epic scale and significance of the conflict.
Aside from the film’s pacing and lack of depth, the performances of the cast leave much to be desired. Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon lacks the charisma and presence that the historical figure was known for. His performance feels flat and uninspired, failing to capture the complexities of Napoleon’s character.
Overall, Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” is a disappointing film that fails to live up to its potential. Despite its grand budget and visual spectacle, the movie lacks substance and fails to provide a compelling narrative. Its unclear theme, rushed storytelling, and lackluster performances make it a forgettable addition to the historical epic genre. If Napoleon himself were to witness this film, he would surely declare, “This is not an epic worthy of my legacy.”
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...