I watched several clips. youtube wants 24 bucks to rent it. Ill wait till the price comes down. but the clips looked entertaining. thats what it is, entertainment. so, anything else I can explain for you today? or are you done. sorry if your butt-hurt
When Napoleon heard the news that Louis the 16th was executed, he said "Such is the reward of kings", but when he heard the news that Marie Antoinette was executed, he said "What a horror!". Such contrast.
I may be wrong but this is quite some time after the outbreak of the revolution. The shortage mostly had died down as it was only for a year or two due to bad weather.
If I may be allowed to count the inaccuracies of this scene: 1. Marie Antoinette was taken to Execution Square sitting backwards in the tumbril; 2. She wore a white dress; 3. Her hair had been cut short before being placed on the tumbril; 4. Her hands were bound when she was placed on the tumbril; 5. She stumbled while mounting the stairs, bumping into Chief Executioner Charles-Henri Sanson, and apologized, to which Sanson replied with 'Courage, Madam.'; 6. No one was EVER executed by kneeling and having their head placed in the lunette; they were always strapped to the bascule, and then slid into position; 7. She was the first person executed that day, so no blood would have been on the blade yet; 8. Napoleon was in his early 20's when he witnessed the execution, and not the age that Joaquin Phoenix appears as in the scene. (If anyone can spot anything else wrong with this scene, please comment!)
It’s an overall fantastic start to this movie from how masterfully directed it is and how beautifully stylized the movie opens as and is throughout! The movie IS fantastically well directed purely from the visuals, sound design, music, tone, atmosphere, art direction, and gorgeous cinematography throughout! And that’s easily a fact right there!
1. Marie Antoinette wore a white dress. 2. Her hair was cut short. 3. She had on a white cap 4. She was placed on a board to restrain her with her hands bound. 5. And Finally!! She apologized for stepping on the executioners foot. And he replied to her "Show courage madame" The director of this film didn't do much research.
Ya, the fact that she was just walking around without a cap and with long hair and in a what appeared to be velvet dress that would have required an expensive dye really threw me for a loop. Though I do appreciate that it showed her as being dignified till the end.
First scene and already mistakes.... it is proved that the audience was silent and, after the death of the Queen, left the place still in silence. Plus, Marie-Antoinette accidentally walked on her hangman's foot and apologized... "I am sorry, mister." So he responded "Be couragous, madame".
@@empereurdugrandaveyron6477 For sure. But movies can also respect the real history and some movies could not be called "biographie" or "historic movies" when they do not respect the reality.
Napoleon was 24 years old when Marie Antoinette was executed. Joaquin Phoenix is 48 and looks 60-- way too old to play the part. His miscasting ruins this movie.
As inaccurate as this entire opening scene is, without historical context, I love the way she holds her head high while being jeered at and being pummeled by spoiled food. Then you see her facade break as she realizes the end is just seconds away. I've always been a Marie Antoinette apologist. She was a victim of circumstance and her death served only as a symbol. Yes, you just beheaded her. Did that make food suddenly appear on your table, were your ragged clothes suddenly made new, were your ill and starving children made healthy again? It would only take 10 years for the monarchy to be restored and this was all for naught.
Interesting fun fact: Legendary actor Christopher Lee witnessed the last public guillotine execution ever held in France, the execution of convicted serial killer Eugen Weidmann on June 17, 1939. He was 17 years old. And then nearly 50 years later, he portrayed headsman Charles-Henri Sanson in a 1989 French TV drama about the French Revolution. Talk about ironic.
a film without any historical accuracy. Napoleon portrayed as a kind of clown always in heat. This scene then... I want to draw a veil of compassion over this scene. Queen Marie Antoinette went to the scaffold in the absolute silence of the crowd. She tripped on the last step and apologized to the executioner who held her up. Napoleon himself said of her: "A woman who had nothing but honors without power, a foreign princess, the most sacred of hostages, to drag her from the throne to the gallows, through all sorts of outrages, there is something worse in that of regicide". Ridley Scott, once again as in "Gladiator", misrepresents and rewrites history in the absurd idea of making his work more spectacular. My rating for this film is 2.5 out of 10
Full version: “If it is not a subject of remorse, it must at least be a very great subject of regret for all French hearts that the crime committed in the person of this unfortunate queen. There is a big difference between this death and that of Louis XVI, although, certainly, he did not deserve his misfortune. This is the condition of kings, their life belongs to everyone; it is only they who cannot dispose of it; an assassination, a conspiracy, a cannon shot, these are their chances; Caesar and Henry IV were assassinated, the Alexander of the Greeks would have been assassinated if he had lived longer. But a woman who had nothing but honors without power, a foreign princess, the most sacred of hostages, dragging her from a throne to the scaffold through all kinds of outrages! There is something even worse than regicide there! » Nicolas François Mollien relates Napoleon's remarks on the execution of the deposed queen (taken from the Memoirs of a Minister of the Public Treasury 1780-1815)
Notice in the beginning, how Marie Antoinette desperately tries to protect her children from a vicious mob. That’s one accuracy in the depiction. She stated that her enemies were, “all those who would bring harm to my children.” The night before her death she wrote on the back of her prayer book, “My God have pity on me! My eyes have no more tears left to weep for you my poor children. Adieu, adieu.” 😢♥️🙏 (They accused her of disgusting things, but I believe that was orchestrated. These quotes give some truthful insight of her character.)
@@Dusty338 Determined to get all the bad takes in, are we? If you love feudalism so much you are welcome to go live in a peasant's hovel and perform menial labor for your masters in as servile a manner as you like.
Lmao you have to be kidding, even the king panicked and tried to run away. What you're watching there is Royalist propaganda little ignorant woman. Of course she was crying, most people would cry in such occasions, especially someone who has been treated well all her life.
@@opfer88 your pathetic nonsense are just revolutionary propaganda which by the way, as time progressed their lies were revealed just as much as their madness and stupidity! she didn't cry, she showed dignity, even had witnesses for it, she apologized to the executioner for accidentally stepping on his feet and there's also a last letter written by her to princess Elisabeth (guess who was the person who kept the letter and didn't allow it to be sent to Elisabeth and was instead kept in the hands of those in power for centuries) and your ridiculous words about her being treated well in her entire life! well, being neglected because of being the youngest child in a family with more than 10 kids, being queen of a racist country who never took her seriously as queen and never let go of her origins, being assaulted by everyone, in all ways for years, accused of things you never did or was even aware of, not having the right to have your own privacy and personal boundaries(which revolutionaries behaved much on this part) having your son being taken from you and be abused, being accused of incest and...if all of this sounds like being treated well, you're a lunatic! just like every other of those revolutionaries
Well, the drawing of her on a wheelcart showed she wore a sort of sleeping cap and her hair cut. I guess her hair was cut in the prison before she was being taken to the gallow. But the filmmakers failed to look at how she would look on way to gallow. Poor show!
Thats awfully easy for you to say. This isn’t one of your idiotic marvel comic films. This Hollywood abomination is using the names and likenesses of real people and real lives. Toying with history is never a good thing. Although it is typically American, so I should not be surprised.
Nonsense! By changing factual events in movies about historical events, it's capable of misleading, and misinforming people about the past, that which has created our current societies. It's shameful. George Orwell wouldn't be surprised at how this effort to rewrite history has become wildly successful.
I can buy that to an extent, but this film takes huge liberties with history. I understand movies need to entertain but it's possible to be both historical accurate to a degree and entertain. a good example of this is "Master in commander far side of the world" ,"the death of Stalin" and "Apollo 13"
*Fun fact:* Irish actress Catherine Walker portrays "Marie-Antoinette" here, but also played "Madame de Maintenon" in the 2015-2018 TV series "Versailles".
What like when he did gladiator none of the gladiators were fat nor was there advertisements in the arena. No was commodus killed in the arena but in his bath. Or the fact the crowds hated him when in fact they loved him. Or was balian of iblen in kingdom of heaven yound when the real o e was around 50 and disliked by Baldwin None of his movies are historically accurate bit instead use real life names for an entertaining story. If you want to watch a documentary then ridley Scott movie are not that
@@nicholassorrenson5073 Exactamente. You say it very good, its a Ridley Scott movie. Despite what my colleagues say, I enjoyed this movie but making a movie about the french emperor in a two hour and half movie thats a challenge.
Historically inaccurate. She was separated from her children long before her execution. She road sitting backwards with her hands already tied and hair cut
Thomas Jefferson told the French they needed to execute the aristocracy. He gave them the idea that the nobility needed to removed for the good of France. But like everything the French do is overdone and the children were also executed along with their parents. That was the Reign of Terror! Viva Le Roi
Marie Antoinette's hair was cut prior to her execution, and she also was forced to wear white. Also she had a priest with her in the cart in real life and idk if they actually threw food at her, shit they might have though because of how unfairly hated she was. I do wanna watch this movie for sure though. I get that it is just a movie and not a documentary but it is fun knowing the real history of what happened too. Napoleon actually married marie Antoinette's great niece after him and Josephine split.
What's weirder is the film gets this right later on. When Napoleon first meets Josephine she has shaved hair, wears just her white undergown, and a red necklace. This was a real style and statement made by many women who barely escaped the Guillotine, they were cosplaying how their relatives and friends would've looked when they went to the chop.
I understand that Ridley Scott is a filmmaker and was trying to set the "tone" for his film with this scene, but the cost of that was truth - this depiction of Marie Antoinette and her final moments are totally false.
They're not implying that Marie Antoinette was executed in 1789, right? Because the major event of that year was the storming of the Bastille and it was a couple of years and several major events later that first the king and then the queen got their height adjusted down. O yeah, and they also cut her hair before transporting her to the guillotine, so that it wouldn't get in the way like it does here.
I didn't rate this movie at all. A man that conquered most of Europe having fought so many famous battles, along with being a military genius, and the focus is on him lovemaking with Josephine numerous times. Such a wasted opportunity.
@@Ham-Man-Hammy actually, no. Many members of the crowd were interviewed after the execution. One man who saw it summed it up well “the jaded had courage” She met her fate much like the king. With dignity.
Historically false, Napoleon never witnessed the execution of Queen Marie Antoinette since he was not in Paris. He had been in the South of France since July, participating from September to December in the siege of Toulon. I would never let an English director make a film about a historical figure like Napoleon.
Let me put your mind at ease - what you’re watching is called a ‘film’. It’s a series of moving images assembled to form a motion picture piece of entertainment. It is not fact, it is not documentary, it is only a film.
Napoleon movie- Made by a British director. Already knew it was going to be a disaster. Was proven correct. The 2002 miniseries is ten times better than this bullshit.
The only parts of the movie that I liked were the opening rendition of Ça ira and the set design. It’s ridiculous that the guy who wrote this movie literally read a short biography on Napoleon for the extent of his research into this film and did nothing else.
Lots of people in the comments are complaining that Joaquin Phoenix was in his late 40s when Napeoleon was in his early 20s when he witnessed the execution. So that doesn’t mean he’s couldn’t play at different age. What’s wrong with that? He’s not playing a teenager, because he’s too old
Phoenix was miscast, unfortunately. Not only Napoleon but also his generals were, like, half the age of most enemy generals. The young and wild, the rebels of Europe. And with Phoenix being (and looking! - he somehow manages to look older in the movie than he does in real life?) older than the actress playing Josephine, this completely reversed their roles. The age difference had huge importance in their relationship.
The whole square, place de la Revolution went into complete silence ...you only see the Queen executed once in a lifetime. The screams started once the head was shown
This movie is so bad and so historically inaccurate that it deserves to be watched in screener quality on an iPhone 3GS at 7 AM on a crowded train with $5 headphones
If I'm going to watch a movie about history....it should be accurate, and if it cannot be entirely accurate...at least make a significant effort. Way too much PC and Narrative in much of the content we see from Hollywood today about the past. I simply have decided to tune it all out, but the younger people no doubt watch this stuff and believe it actually happened the way it's presented.
@@poling1990 so it’s a “choice” for all Americans to be armed to the teeth and for horrendous mass killings to continually occur as a result? I get that in 1776 it made sense for people of a new country to be armed with flintlock muskets that took about 30 seconds to reload… but machine guns?!
Listen, yes, it's inaccurate, but I don't think the scene is meant to be intended as an actual objective event taking place within the narrative of the film. Rather, I see it as more akin to a dream sequence; Napoleon imagines seeing these events, or we see him see them because of the symbolic value.
I think she has been grossly misrepresented throughout history....dragged away from her family when basically a child, in a loveless marriage during a phenomenally turbulent period in France....my heart breaks for her.
Historically, there is so much wrong with this scene. But hey, its Ridley Scott, the guy who always asks "Were You There?" Well, no, but a hell of a lot of others were-& recounted it for posterity. But Ridley's never let the facts get in the way of a dramatic movie scene. Which basically accounts for so much of this movie as a wild tale of fiction-not what actually happened.
BS. When Marie Antoinette was executed, Napoleon commanded the artillery during the siege of Toulon. Seems that this move has some historical discrepancies.
No mate, I asked Ridley about that. Apparently Napoleon caught the early morning flight to CDG, watched the execution and then flew back that afternoon. I wasn’t there but I guess Ridley might have been so well just have to take his word for it.🤪
A pretty cool tourist attraction to visit in Paris is The Conciergerie where Antoniette's jail cell was, which has several of her personal belongings, along (ironically) with Robespierre's cell, where he himself was held before he was guillotined 8 months after the Queen was.
If you want to be totally inaccurate, at least include spacecraft and lasers. I would totally watch a movie with Napoleon fighting an alien invasion using nothing but his brilliant strategy... and lasers.
3:28- looking too old for that year, but expression already indicating he's thinking of how to make himself master of this braying gutter rabble around him, and knowing he will one day do so.
@@KatoSantana ¡Ella no hizo nada! ¡No intentes dar estereotipos que creas que son ciertos sobre ella, ya que se ha demostrado que son incorrectos!👎¡Además, nada de lo que ella pudo haber hecho se acerca a las cosas que le hicieron! ¡Quitándose a su hijo, abusando de él, acosándola de todas las formas imaginables una y otra vez! acusándola de incesto! todo esto es imperdonable e irredimible y ella nunca estuvo cerca de tanta maldad contra esa gente estúpida
For me it is not the historical inaccuracies but why? Why does a film about Napoleon begin with the execution of Marie Antoinette? Apart from the historical Napoleon not having a hand in it, the opening does not effectively establish Napoleon as a character by giving the audience insight into his motivations and general psyche. Scott could have used this scene to bridged onto Napoleon reflecting on the Regin of Terror (which he disapproved of in private) and his personal ambitions. Alternatively, Scott could have opened with the storming of the Bastille, of which Napoleon was a helpless observer (instead of the execution) and used Napoleon's actual journal entries about the incident to accomplish the aforementioned.
Because most people have heard of Marie Antoinette, but I suspect relatively few know what the Bastille even was or what it represents. Not that I'm excusing the movie - it sucks. There are a half dozen better ways to represent the excesses of the Revolution and Terror - especially in a way that contextualizes Napoleon's rise to power. People followed or put up with Napoleon to such extreme limits because after that, ANY order was preferable to the abyss they had experienced. Kind of reminds me of movies and shows about the Tudors when they mention NOTHING about the War of The Roses. Tudor absolutism was accepted by the majority of English because they had a living memory of what the alternative was. Same with Napoleon.
Executing Marie-Antoinette was definitely one of the most inglorious moments of the First French Republic; they could have sent her into exile back to Austria and achieved their ends without this unnecessary act of savagery.
I agree my friend but try to tell that to hard working people who pay taxes , starve and loosing family members. I am from Greece the very first country who rebel against the kings and set democracy. for the last 40 years since I was 6 years old I saw my country going downhill while taxes going uphill . Political scandals succeed one after the other like a barrel with no end while tax evasion has no end for the rich and the entrepreneurs . and above all that with out being asked with political debate -election as it was our given wright they open the borders for the immigrants to come in . Now after 31 years immigrants have assault rifles organized crime selling cocaine and other drugs they have prostitution trafficking and you see mothers sisters wives ending up as drug whores and that is not the end there is male prostitution as well and if you dare to speak you might be brainwashed in order to change your sexual preferences and at the end you are gonna get raped having ptsd and trying to restore your brain . I wasn't asked for that, now ask me if I would send people responsible in exile ( especially when it is well known that they have stolen money from the state waiting with passports on hand ready to flee) or in guillotine and I believe you already know what the answer will be. After I saw the movie in cinema I can't stop listening "Edith Piaf Le Ca Ira " and dreaming of better days.
En tant que français , la révolution française est une horreur absolue , les bolcheviques n'ont rien inventé, ils ont tout copié sur nous . La révolution française est une révolution bourgeoise bancaire et mobilière, intéressez vous a la loi Le Chapelier !! . Depuis que ce pays est républicain , ils n'y ont fait que des conneries !! , mis a part la séquence Gaullienne 58/ 68 . Napoléon n'a jamais été a la bastille a cette époque. Il est l'enfant de la révolution , mis a part son génie militaire et de planification et j'en passe , un génie !! , je lui reproche son côté carolingien a la charlemagne. Cette obsession délirante a faire un empire !! . Ce n'est pas français , les français ne savent pas faire !! Et les empires sont toujours voués a la chute . Waterloo signe la fin de la géopolitique française . Ils suivront la pax britanica comme des chiens !! . Guerre de crimée, 1er guerre mondiale . S'en suivra la pax americana, les politiques français ont trahit leur nation en léchant le cul des usa . Il n'y a que De Gaulle qui n'a pas trahit et qui au fond de lui était un monarchiste !! . Sarkozy est le grand traître , son fils spirituel macron est le pire du pire des traîtres. C'est une saloperie !! . Nous les vrais patriotes français reprendront ce pays , nous sortiront de l'union européenne, de l'euro et de l'otan et nous pratiqueront l'epuration aux traîtres de ces 50 dernières années.
First mistake in the first thirty seconds… you can’t read the opening text because it disappears too fast. Does anyone on these movies understand that there are slow readers out there? I read pretty fast but even I couldn’t get the full sentences before they disappeared. Don’t they have testers on staff to time it?
I feel like they went into the French Revolution stuff more than they needed to in the beginning of the movie. Even a 5 hour movie would be hard to do justice to Napoleon's life. I would be better to stick to the stuff most directly relating to Napoleon, especially since he wasn't even there in real life.
Ce n est pas effectivement le fil historique de Napoléon mais ce début donne bien l ambiance politique et l esprit révolutionnaire de l époque que Napoléon a su utiliser politiquement pour devenir le chef des français et surtout les risques pris pour y arriver. Un échec et on finissait à la guillotine
This movie has all the building blocks it needs to be at least a fun Hollywood romp. It just needs some tender loving care in the editors room. A little snip here, a trim here, a remix there... This can be fixed.
Tbh I don’t think that’s the problem. It’s how they went about telling the whole story and how they made Napolean look. I think maybe it could’ve used more of the battles and politics perhaps but certainly nothing needed to be cut imo. They just went about it wrong, portrayed things the wrong way and the acting and directing isn’t good to how it should be
@@protector_of_the_realms My approach is, there's no such thing as an unsalvageable movie with over 6 hours of processed material. People are gonna not like the movie because they don't want to like the movie. The goal is to make the movie as enjoyable for those who want to like it as possible. ;)
I’m not entirely sure why they chose the execution of Marie Antoinette to start this film and then proceeded to present it with as many inaccuracies as possible. Otherwise the film was a nice biopic.
Rotten food. But also, she was executed a full four years after the start of the revolution in 1789, longer after she was alleged to have told them to eat cake. There wasn't constant famine in France the whole time, not even with France getting into war with all its neighbours around this point.
This was directed by ridley scott dont expect accracy expect entertainment and i was entertained i love historically accurate movies but this film was fun to watch
Ridley scott a spiteful brit alas, this trainwreck had me in total disbelief as how could a man of the stature of Bonaparte be displayed in such rancid manner. The fact that they spent 200 million on this trash heap is so pathetic. English truly know how to bring down even their own achievements not withstanding those of their foes.
@@DaveFisher-cq2dr I know, but it was quite a joke from me because this whole movie is one big historical innaccuracy and it's funny you're focusing on one point.
I'm a big Marie Antoinette fan of her fairytale , but Hollywood movies made her seem like a saint and she tried to help some But she was never meant to be a queen and was never taught to be one but her mother and fate chose her to be one. But she was a terrible queen.
She was absolutely taught to be a queen. Her father was the Austrian emperor! She may not have deserved execution, but she was not some innocent lamb either. She and her husband plotted with the Austrians/Prussians to invade and restore the absolute monarchy.
It's an incredible thing when the desperate need for change overpowers the fear of death, and the masses truly just take things into their own hands. Ofc the French Revolution ended up turning into somewhat of a fustercluck for everyone, but my point remains.
Probably the best or second best scene in the film imo. Most emotionally charged and resonant and probably ironically the most historically accurate even though it was nowhere near historically accurate at all still lmao
Right off the bat theirs some inaccuracies 1. Marie never wore a dark blue dress, she would've worn white. 2. She also would've worn some bonnet on her head. 3. Napoleon didn't go to her execution, in real life, he was on the other side of the country. Ca Ira by Edith Piaf added in this scene was interesting though, so I'll give this scene points for that.
100% and she was sketched by Jacques David on the day, so we know exactly what she looked like, to counter Ridley Scott saying, “ExcUse mE m8, wERE yOu tHerE?”
So...what exactly is wrong with making small historical changes for the sake of improving the narrative? I watch documentaries for accuracy and historical Epics for the history inspired story.
@@poling1990 because it’s not marketed as game of thrones - it’s marketed as a biopic of a real person, which usually implies a high degree of accuracy. Look at Oppenheimer. It doesn’t matter that Gladiator wasn’t historically accurate because the main character was fictional.
