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.”

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases