Stop leaving yourself vulnerable to data breaches. Go to my sponsor aura.com/cynicalhistorian to get a 14-day free trial and see if any of your data has been exposed. Click "read more" for further info, corrections, and bibliography Thanks for watching! Please consider supporting the channel by buying merch: cynical-historian-shop.fourthwall.com Or by donating to my Patreon: www.patreon.com/CynicalHistorian *Errata* at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte (thx @mosscow6056 ) *Related videos* Nationalism: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UGXffvDj_E8.html Limits of film accuracy: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ek88jgEsXgA.html Britain vs France: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2it5h9e41Xo.html *Bibliography* David A. Bell, _Napoleon: A Concise Biography_ (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2015). amzn.to/44EYOXs Will Durant and Ariel Durant, _The Age of Napoleon: The Story of Civilization,_ Volume XI (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1975). amzn.to/2NYVuiv J. Christopher Herold, _Napoleon_ (Rockville, MD: New Word City, 2015). amzn.to/44EYEPQ Andrew Roberts, _Napoleon: A Life_ (New York: Penguin Books, 2015). amzn.to/3t1RV4Z
May be farting into the wind here, but concerning solipsism in the scholarship chapter. Scott may just be tapping into popular sentiment. Unknowing solipsism seems to be increasingly popular, or at least an effective way of bypassing or dismissing evidence.
Correct- everytime I read a Napoleonic history I visualise Rod Steiger, even if it is about his early career. Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace also gives a memorable image of the era together with Waterloo.
@@laurentfranco8075 Yeah that’s the one glaring error the film makes. They wouldn’t even have needed to do much to fix it, just add a scene of Dutch soldiers on the morning of the battle.
@@warlordofbritannia Well, they left quite a bit out...particularly the presence of the Prince of Orange but what they put into the film was largely accurate.
Steiger's last great performance, IMHO. He really captures the idea of the rapidly aging Bonaparte who is starting to lose his grip but still capable of genius.
What's sad about this is that Scott made a fantastic Napoleonic era film his first time out of the gate as a director-"The Duellists" (1977) starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel as two French cavalry officers who carry out a series of duels over a trivial point of honor.
Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is a embarrassing failure. If one must make a hit piece on Napoleon make a film covering the Haitian Revolution to show the monster behind the man.
Napoleon would always regret his Haitian policy. Not because it was cynical and cruel but because it was based on ignorance and nonsense fed to him by his grand blanc in-laws. He would have cynically and cruelly played it so much smarter otherwise.
Or how his taking over Spain led to the revolutions in the entirety of the americas, loosing the 90% of the new world and giving rise to Bolivar (who was at his coronation) and was sponsored by Haiti
This film is so anti Napoleon, you probably could convince me it came from the propaganda department of Pitt the Younger. Napoleon himself probably watched it and then just sat there in silence as Mad World played. *all around me are familar faces... worn out places...* PS, the fact Scott wants to do a 4 hour cut is terribly off putting. Increasing the run time I doubt will make it more coherent, and at 4 hours your running up on Gods and Generals. No human should want a film to be compared to Gods and Generals.
Well, that depends on which aspects are being compared. After all, if Gods and Generals is being used in comparison as how to do "Insert Film Thing Here" wrong, then that's a good thing.
@@nicholaswalsh4462 Don't disagree- but I did read that both Maxwell and Turner toned down the violence of the battle sequences to keep the film rating outside of adult only. Not entirely sure about "grinding futility" If we were talking about 1914-18 war I would say yes. The Civil War? Well there is a debate to be had but not on You Tube.
"I dropped out of bootcamp" "You're perfect for drilling actors for a Napoleonic manual of arms, fuck reenactors, those guys have no idea what they're talking about"
Its kinda sad that as inaccurate as the cate blanchett Elizabeth movies are, they are at least coherent at telling a story and potentially sparking interest in the time period, like how it got me interested in the Elizabethan age. whereas this movie is just a blundered mess that failed to really interest me whatsoever even as someone who loves history.
@@warlordofbritanniaYeah as far as hitting the plot points it was (always feel weird when giving any movie the stamp of “accurate”). The second one was an acknowledged “what if” story. Anyway it’s important for history nerds to remember that _art_ does not require historical accuracy to be good art. There are not one in the same.
Kate Blanchett's Elizabeth movies weren't historical but at least they are spectacular, they are *fun* to watch. But darn, this guy should've retired gracefully.
Well Cate Blanchett movie " Elizabeth " and its sequel " Elizabeth The Golden Age " which were both fictional in nature was directed by Indian director Shekhar Kapoor . While " Napoleon ( 2023 )" was directed by British director Ridley Scott .
My big issue with the film is that nothing has any weight to it. Nothing feels important. I particularly felt this during Napoleon's return from exile. With a small band of followers, Napoleon confronted the royal army sent to arrest or kill him. He stepped forward alone, opened his coat to expose his chest, and declared to the soldiers: "If any of you will shoot his Emperor, here I am." The soldiers, many of whom had previously served under Napoleon and remained loyal to him, chanted "Vive l'Empereur!" and joined Napoleon in his march to Paris. You'd think a scene where an Emperor returns from exile, faces down an army sent to stop him, and convinces them to join his side would be an incredibly powerful and badass cinematic moment. Instead, it feels like just another thing that happens. You don't feel the weight of the moment-it doesn't feel cinematic, and there's no tension. The scene lacks the gravitas that would convey the stakes involved. This is Napoleon reclaiming his power, an event that could determine the fate of France. Yet, the execution makes it feel like just another event in the plot-another item ticked off the checklist, rather than a pivotal moment. The whole film feels like a bullet-point retelling of the key events of Napoleon's life. Any tension, drama, stakes, and emotion from these real-life events are completely absent from the film
I have an ancestor who served under Napoleon but nevertheless did fight him at Waterloo. Napoleon tried to flee to America even before his army was back from Waterloo
The excising of both Lannes and Murat from the film are absolutely inexcusable for anything claiming to be a biopic. Look, it's absolutely necessary to reduce the historical cast of characters for a movie, no doubt. But it's difficult to infer anything other than ignorance to explain the absence of these two figures (perhaps Lannes more so than Murat). Lannes briefly; served Napoleon since 1796 until his death in battle in 1809 at Asspern-Essling, one of the very few who could address Napoleon with 'Tu' rather than the formal 'vous.' Napoleon visited him daily after his wounds for the 9 days prior to his death, there are a couple of famous paintings of him weeping at his bedside. He wrote to his wife thereafter; "The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend." So if you're doing a biopic, would you say it's historically accurate to cut the subject's BEST FRIEND (he himself says it and ffs tells the man's wife that his own loss is as great!) from the picture? Surely not. Murat's absence is equally baffling for he would seem to be a character perfect for grandiose cinema and his being so integral to Napoleon from the 'whiff of grapeshot' to the coup of 18 Brumaire to their falling out and inglorious end, it's just shocking that he's out.
Thats exactly what i thought. when i watched the scene i was a bit dissapointed. In part because he didnt say "if anyone wants to shoot his emperor, here i am". It reminded me of the death of ceasar in the bbc serie rome *spoiler* where ceasar didnt say "e tu brute?" but the difference is, that scene was intense. It was full of emotions and his death hit pretty hard especially because he had such an amazing actor. that aside he said it with his eyes. *spoiler end* but here, there was no tension. nothing. he stood there like he waited to be in line at the supermarket and delivered his first line and the soldiers just joined him. The viewer never had the feeling if they just straight up shoot him. Of course they wouldnt, but if you make a movie with the thought "they all know the story of napoleon i dont need tension, they know he wont be shot here" then why are you making a napoleon movie in the first place? It will take now what? another 50 years until someone will make another napoleon movie and hopefully wont give josephine as much screen time as she got here. Yes the actress was good and the charakter was important for napoleon. But not that important to glance over everything napoleon was just so we could get another sex scene I felt really dissapointed
The issue of recreating paintings as scenes is that those painting are themself inaccurate propaganda. Like the coronation painting shows Napoleon's mother in the coronation, but she never attended the coronation, yet Napoleon ordered his painter to insert her there regardless. In Ridley's movie, she is in the coronation because it tries to recreate the painting and nobody in the production staff knew about it.
Considering that film itself is art, there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to recreate paintings in film. The problem comes, as you said, with the incoherent message and tone.
So many times in historical films, less is more. One of the all-time greatest films depicting Hitler is the movie Downfall (2004). About 75 percent of the movie takes place inside of Hitler's bunker during the last days of the Third Reich. It focuses on that very small time frame, but it does that extemely well. People still talk about that movie 20 years later.
The trouble with this is the fact, that Napoleon and the Napoleonic era spans over a decade, Napoleon fought and won more battles than Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great combined, there is no way to effectively portray this much history in a feature length film, this is why "Chernobyl" was converted into a miniseries, when it was pitched as a film. In addition, it seemed Ridley Scott was more focused on portraying Napoleon, and by extension France as rival and an enemy to Britain, "Robin Hood" did this to an extent, making the French into this cartoony bad guy, and _only_ this English folk hero could inspire England to fight them on the beaches. Scott lives the life of an aristocrat, it's no wonder he would depict a revolutionary like Napoleon as a villain, I'll bet if Scott made a film about George Washington, he would be more willing to depict his revolutionary actions in a more positive light, after all, Washington did serve in the British Army during his career.
Nah, the English love Napoleon - no point in flexing your victory over someone if he isn't the best and baddest ever. The problem is that he was painted in a boring light. The french could have made a movie about Napoleon being a weird little freak down bad for his hot slut wife, and you KNOW that movie would be worth watching.
@@JeffDavies-i8q that is because he wrote a tiny book 'Code Napoléon'. It made the european common folks see him as a liberator not just the next one in a line of oppressors. People forget that at the time when Napoléon conquered so much of Europe, the Code Napoléon was giving them CIVIL RIGHTS while from their native ruling aristocracy they got NO RIGHTS AT ALL. So, just imagine yourself being a serf, yes a serf, most of Europe still had serfdom! and some french invader drops by, kicks over your local despot and grants you civil rights. Now your despot force drafts your male family members to fight AGAINST their new benefactor. Who will you side with? In fact, so many German peasantry and smallfolks appreciated the Code Napoléon so very much, they deserted from their own rulers and volunteered to join the french armée. Napoleon had to found a ton of regiments for non french volunteers, teach them to fight and speak french. Did you ever hear of a thing called Légion Étrangère, the French Foreign Legion? That was how and why it was founded.
I really feel like this should have been a movie about Josephine Bonaparte instead of Napoleon. It feels like that is the actual human story that Ridley Scott and David Scarpa (the writer on this) of the movie were interested in telling. Going from the death of her first husband to the death of her second would make for a nice arc.
But they wanted a name to sell that story on, so they went for Napoleon instead. And in the process tarnished both their story and the chances at a good movie about this time period in the coming years.
IMO, a historically inacurrate movie isn't inherently bad, like changing history to make cool scenes is fine as long as it's fun and good spirited. The way Ridley Scott responded to criticism about this movie was disgusting, egotistical and disappointing,
Of course it isn’t and it’s surprising how many literate, intelligent people seem so literal minded as to think that. I can only assume they don’t engage with much art. I can’t imagine thinking Shakespeare’s histories are bad because of inaccuracies.
@@loadishstone agreed. Sometimes I want a deep dive into an accurate portrayal of a historical character, other times I just want to see full armored knights fighting each other. Napoleon by Ridley Scott fits neither.
I agree - this movie was bad as a movie, not because of historical inaccuracies. When I left the theater I felt like I watched a student assignment on the life of Napoleon. A very mediocre one at that. No story. Just a reel of highlights strung together to check the boxes. I still don't know what he wanted to achieve with this movie. No story, no drama, no message, no thoughts provoked.
There's enough content in Napoleon's invasion of Russia for an entire movie, with room for flashbacks and introspection on what Napoleon to that disaster.
Exactly. A Napoleon's Downfall -kinda film that kicks off as Napoleon crosses into Russia and ends with his return to Poland. Then a sequel that covers the rest of his spiraling career. That would have been the way to go.
This is a long comment about my idea for a 10-season long Napoleon TV Series. Napoleon's story is so big that i believe only a big budget tv series can do him justice. Here's my personal idea. Feel free to criticize me. Season 1: Napoleon's Early Life, including him trying to fend off Paoli, until his victory at Toulon. This will be a good season to introduce the audience about the politics and society of the era, along with how its military works from weapons to organizational structures. Season 2: Napoleon's marriage to Josephine and his First Italy Campaign as part of the War of the First Coalition, with the finale be the Battle of Arcole, Battle of Rivoli, and the end of Siege of Mantua. A good season to introduce some of the future Marshals Season 3: Egyptian Campaign, 18 Brumaire Coup, and his Second Italian Campaign which was the War of the Second Coalition, with the finale being Battle of Marengo. Thomas-Alexandre Dumas will definitely be one of the focus here. We can also show Napoleon's view towards religion and how he treated Muslims. We can also have Admiral Nelson here along with Battle of Aboukir Season 4: Napoleon's coronation as the Emperor and the War of Third Coalition. This will include battles such as Ulm and Trafalgar, with the finale being the Battle of Austerlitz. Season 5: War of the Fourth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Jena-Auerstadt, Eylau, with the finale being the Battle of Friedland. We can have Marshals Davout and Bernadotte as some of the main characters here, the creation of Duchy of Warsaw, and the implementation of the Continental System Season 6: The Early Years of Peninsular War, with Napoleon personally involved there right up until the War of the Fifth Coalition. After this, future season will periodically featuring Spain under the leaderships of his brother, Joseph, along with Marshals like Massena, Suchet, and Jourdan Season 7: War of the Fifth Coalition, with the focus on battles such as Aspern-Essling, Raab, and the finale with the battle of Wagram. We can have dashing personalities such as Marshal Lannes, Prince Eugene, and General Lasalle as episodic main characters here. Also, we can include Napoleon's divorcing of Josephine Season 8: The Invasion of Russia, where we can have Battles like Smolensk and Borodino, the burning of Moscow, with the finale being the Battle of Berezina and Europeans saw the myth of Napoleon being shattered Season 9: War of the Sixth Coalition, in which Napoleon struggled to keep his holdings in Germany, the implementation of Trachenberg plan, and the Battle of Leipzig. The finale will be the Campaign in France and Napoleon's Abdication and exile to Elba Season 10: Hundred Days, from Napoleon's escape from Elba to the War of the Seventh Coalition. The finale will be the Battle of Waterloo, chaotic Post-Napoleonic France featuring the execution of Marshal Ney and Napoleon's second exile to St. Helena
As long as the portrayal of his marriage doesn't try to make you sympathetic to either Napoleon or Josephine. Together, they were probably history's most toxic couple
Such a shame. Too ambitious to just sum up Napoleon’s entire life story and reign/campaigns in a single movie - even with a directors cut. The budget should’ve gone into a damn TV series.
At least they hired actual Scotts to play the Scotts, and English to play the English. Unlike this failure, where the French are played by English - wtf Sir Ridley?? Sometimes you cant tell who TF is actually French.
Thank you for this! I felt like the odd one out after watching this film, as I thought it was a horrible mess. Scott's whole "you don't understand My Art" was a big eyeroll too. Dude, tell Napoleon's story, or make something else.
Like, yeah, Sir Ridley, I don't understand how you were able to turn the most dramatic and eventful career of the 19th century into a 3-hour snooze fest that felt like it lasted 110 days and made me want to eat grapeshot. Your artistic prowess is beyond my understanding.
@@HDreamer This too! A movie about Josephine with Napoleon as the abusive husband/antagonist could be great drama, it just wouldn't have the space for big battles.
The real strange thing for me is that the movie seemed like a hitpice on Napoleon from a monarchist angle. Like "he is upjumped", not like true royalty. Who asked for this?
@@C-Farsene_5 He did not have much choice in this. When he tried to make peace with the 3rd coalition they refused to talk with a commoner and demanded monarchy (Meaning Louis XVI) to be reinstated. Napoléon spited them by yes, reinstalling monarchy, but not the Bourbon dynasty.
Well, the director, Sir Ridley Scott Knight Grand Cross of the British Empire, who was born to a poor family in in south Tyneside, might have put some personal issues into the movie. Who else can describe the feelings of someone who feels upjumped than him?
I was actually kinda excited to see a Napoleon movie starring Joaquin Phoenix... Then it came out and I heard nothing but negative and never actually got around to seeing why... EDIT: Oh...
Have you seen Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon? It’s not a historical story but it’s in very historical context and wonder how accurate. The acting, real period clothing & props, and a special camera lens (with help from NASA) to film in only sun & candle light certainly makes it feel historical.
Barry Lyndon was like watching a moving oil painting- incredible colour use and detail. Modern TV monitors are an ideal medium to watch it on. The old cathode ray tubes never did it justice. I wish it was re released into cinemas to get the full experience.
It was the new Kodak high ASA rate color emulsion coupled with fast lenses that made available light filming possible, accounting for the rich color palette. It was the very first major film use to use the Kodak film To fully appreciate the immense difference on had to grow up in that era where the exterior non-studio films were made....washed out color unless extensive exterior light, reflectors etc were used to bright the scenes....same studio equipment brought out doors and very expensive to use.
I knew it was gonna be a trash going in once I read the interview of Scott saying, in response to on set historians who raised concerns about the film’s accuracy, “well were you there?”
or when he derided anyone who would raise any question about it in that vein as being akin to complaining about the number of buttons on the Prussian officers' uniform. I knew it was going to be trash when I saw months before release that no one was cast to play either Marshals Lannes or Murat. hard pass
If he had said that to me, I would have answered yes. And if he then said "no you weren't". I would have then answered "well how do you know were you there"? 😂
What baffles me is that Joaquin, as an A-list actor, couldn't grasp and insist to Scott scenes that establish Napoleon's charisma and ability to inspire fierce loyalty with his troops. That alone would've made the movie watchable. Instead, the film just looks good visually and that's about it.
I cannot believe Lannes was cut from the film. I knew from that months before it was released that it was a hard pass from me. If they just quoted his deathbed reproach to Napoleon people would have said 'typical hollywood, making things ridiculous" “It is not to concern you of my wife and children that I talk to you thus. In dying for you, I do not need to commend them to you, your glory makes it your duty to protect them, and in addressing you these final criticisms I do not fear that I shall change your disposition towards them. You have just committed a grave error, one which has deprived you of your best friend, but it will not change you. Your insatiable ambition will finish you. You sacrifice, without need, without attention, without regret, the men who serve you best. Your ingratitude pushes away those very people who admire you; those that are left around you are nothing but fawners. I see not one friend who would dare to tell you the truth. You will be betrayed, you will be abandoned. Hasten to bring this war to an end: it is the wish of your generals, and it is the wish of your people. You will never be more powerful, but you can certainly be more loved! Forgive a dying man these truths, for he cherishes you so…” Eh, who needs him? And again, even *after* the above, Napoleon wrote to Lannes' wife: "The Marshal has died this morning of the wounds he received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished general in my army and a companion-in-arms for sixteen years whom I considered my best friend." You're making a biopic and you necessarily need to cull from the cast, why the actual fuck would you take this out? What the fuck is wrong with you? And Scott's reaction to anyone who griped about the accuracy as being pedants counting the buttons on Prussian uniforms is just fucking enraging. I lost any respect for him. I'll still cherish Blade Runner but yeah, Scott can go to Hell.
I watched this movie with the History club from my university in a private showing at the theater. It was the best way to watch it. The opening title crawl called Marie Antoinette the "Last Queen of France" and one of our professors yelled at the screen "that's your first mistake!"
@@535phobos The Bourbon Monarchy was restored after Napoleon and lasted until 1830, the last Queen of France was therefore Maria Theresa of Savoy, the Wife of Charles the X. A google search does show Marie Antoinette as the last one soooo.............. I guess google doesn't know everything.
They managed to make one of the most interesting and complex men in history, boring and dull. It was clear Ridley Scott just hated Napoleon and wanted to smear him.
Such a waste of money and labour this movie is. Every critic has roundly beat on this dead horse movie though, it is very obviously botched. I viewed it and found it grossly annoying. Terrible casting.
I would have been 100% fine with a Rome style mini series. Take us through season 1, of Napoleon's rise, with it's finale being his crowning. Season 2 being the Coalition Wars, up to when it starts to go bad, with a season 3 being his defeat, with the finale being the 100 Days and Waterloo. Only one Napoleon film I know of captures the period well, and that's "Waterloo". It captured one battle, one period (the Hundred Days), and hit everything perfectly.
I actually think you can easily make a longer much more popular series because of how interesting Napoleon’s life is. Season 1 could be about his early life with his crazy family, his initial rise as an artillery commander, and his invasions of Italy and Egypt. Season 2 could be him becoming console and talk about all the other turmoil in his life ending with the defeat of the 2nd collation and him crossing the alps. Season 3 could be about Napoleon at his peak at Austrelitz and end with the defeat of the 5th coalition and napoleons 2nd marriage Season 4 could show Napoleon’s flaws and the war of the 6th coalition ending with him in Moscow. Season 5 could be about the defeat of Napoleon and exile at Elba. And the 100 days works best as a movie
yeah i remember being incredibly disappointed coming out of the theater for this movie. Also can’t believe how blatantly hatable Scott made himself trying to defend this piece of crap that he doesn’t seem to care about.
@@alanpennie8013 Na it's exactly that : no Brits = no show in Scott's eyes. Vitoria was not directly Napoleon, I guess that's why it didn't make the cut.
And thanks to this fuster cluck of a movie no one will touch Napoleon for years, im just glad there is a mini series in the making and am hoping it makes up for this travesty on one of history's most important individuals.
@@ClannCholmain There's absolutely no way the 4 hour directors cut saves the film. He said most of what was cut involved Joséphine, so your not getting Leipzig or anything like that. Also the writing and even acting are insufficient as is and more running time will not help. Being 4 hours may compound pacing issues too.
Thank you. I saw this with fanboys who loved it. It left me feeling like i had seen a bunch of paintings. The story with Josephine could have been interesting and new, but no, that would have cut down on scenes of brooding and sweeping battles. So it may not have been terribly accurate historically, but it sure was boring.
If it was supposed to recreate paintings, it should at least been shot in color, not with "medieval filter" (gray/blue tint over desaturated foggy dark scenes).
So we get a movie that blitzes through history at a break neck pace, can’t be bothered to vet itself, spends a good part about his love life and a movie that can’t determine what it wants to focus on.
13:16 Napoleon I was not the first to create a self-sufficent subdivision of the army. Temujjin Khan (Genghis Khan) did the same thing with the Tumen system before Napoleon which was also very effective in conventional land warfare. However for both Temujin and Napoleon I the respective Tumen and Corpe systems were very lacking in its viability in Guerilla and Amphibious Warfare. This is displayed in Georgia, Vietnam, Japan, Iberia and Haiti respectively.
It seems even more accurate to say that this was not unique even to these two men, but something that has happened many times throughout history. After all the Roman legion system can be thought of in exactly the same way.
He did not invent it, but he perfected the system put in place by the Revolutionary government of the Frist Republic. What was new about this system was the number of branches (including scouts, artillery, cavalry, infantry, logistics etc) all included into a single corps. The notion had been used before, but never on this scale. (oh by the way the spelling is the corps * system )
I do, Joker and Commodus he kind of has that "mad intensity" which I thought could have translated into "genius workaholic intensity" for Napoleon.......... But the whole movie there's no intensity at all, it's like someone deflated him before every scene.
30:00 I've already found the scene of Robbespieres' arrest laugheable when I watched the movie in cinema since they try to make it seem as if Robbespiere tried to shot himself mid-convent at the first opportunity, which is of course wrong. I read up on it again and apparently Robbespiere and others were to be arristed since he again announced that unnamed element are to be purged from within the government and - not surprising - people had enough of his paranoid shit. He later managed to escape to the Hotel de Vile with several others and since they were to be send to prison, they were declared outlaws and the national guard later stormed the Hotel during the night. His brother tried to jump out the window (either to escape or to kill himself) but only wounded himself and Robbespiere either tried to shot himself or was shot (probally the former) and then was arrested. So yeah, that whole scene in the movie is more like a satire, a caricature of Robbespieres' actual arrest.
17:16* after finally becoming interested in the "fine arts" last summer, i've become fascinated with Goya in particular. Seeing how the prolonged brutality of the Penninsular War was, in part responsible for his art taking such a nightmarish turn is very interesting to me. People sometimes incorrectly cite the popular story of the supposedly schizophrenic painting creating increasingly strange cat images as an example of seeing an artist descend into madness. I reject that and instead offer the works of Goya as an actual example of the documentation of declining mental health in the visual arts. It's truly sad to see how his increasing isolation and unprocessed trauma hurt him for so long
I rmemebr the worst thing about it was how hard it was to actually see stuff in the theater. Like all the lack of color made everything middle together. And how much things skipped around and god it was so boring.
Ridley purchased the rights to "the greatest script ever ridden" and decided not to use it at all. He's been making almost exclusively bad movies for the last decade or so
In "a ridley scott film," I only noticed Ridley Scott photography in scenes involving horses. Even without historical context, this film is a boring and cringy mess.
The shooting of cannons at the pyramids strikes me as a compromise between wanting to include the famous myth about Napoleon flowing the sphinx's nose off, and acknowledging that didn't happen, so he substitutes in another Egyptian landmark which wouldn't be so obviously defaced if it were hit by a couple 12-pounders.
I think the best directors could potentially tell the story of Napoleon's times as General and Emperor very well. Problem is Ridley Scott is far past his prime, and has proven this to still be the case.
Scott's desire to take "Napoleon down a peg" while also clearly not giving a damn about the history was his downfall. "You weren't there, lol roflcopter"
The movie was such a waste of time. Phoenix didn't appear to know how to approach the character and the plot focused on highlights without context and the relationship with his wife. It only served to make Napoleon seem like an annoying, insecure, troll who only knew how to fight and nothing else. There's so much more they could've done with the material.
Every time Ridley Scott comes out with a mediocre movie it's extra disappointing because everyone knows he's capable of making masterpieces. It's just that sometime's the pieces don't fit right and the man doesn't seem to be in his groove
I think it was a pretty clever attack on history as such and Western history in particular. Getting people to pay money to watch an extended insult to a notable figure while demoralising those who champion him, making them feel like their entertainment culture doesn't represent them.
I get that this movie is bad though I have not watched it myself. But Napoleon has long been portrayed as a villain not a hero in Anglo history. Maybe the movie portrayal of Napoleon isn’t at all fair but Napoleon was not a saint even by his era’s standards.
Or maybe it's a movie made by a monarchist Brit who has a bias against France and French Revolution for obvious reasons. Not everything is some kind of grand conspiracy. Napoleon himself is a complicated historical figure. He's not liked very much in most of Europe. Respected - yes, but not loved. It's not surprising that there're people blinded by their dislike so much they can't write a good movie about the man
Aside from historical issues, I just found this movie to be a collection of unconnected scenes strung together, with no actual story. Kind of as if a high school student got the job of showing a famous persons life, so they just skip through the highlights to check the boxes.
Every Ridley Scott film these days are almost a coin flip 50/50: Either its lauded as one of the greatest films of the decade/of all time, or its complete dog water being worse than a college freshmans intro to film final.
I use the "were you there" shield all of the time as a defense technique for my own little ego, but, never never against a real historian. In that case, I just stop arguing and walk away. But, if I had spent a ton of money on making a movie, I'm not sure how I would respond. Anyway, it is ok to use life as the inspiration for a fiction as long as the fiction is clearly and unambiguously presented as a fiction. Maybe turning it into an impossible comedy. Or a drama. Just with the names of people and places changed to protect the "guilty" players.
I love the self-aware honesty in this comment. Most people won't admit to latching onto some fallacy to win something, but almost everyone does it. Lol
The line that instantly killed my interest while watching the movie was “Italy surrendered without conflict” while Napoleon is on his trip to Egypt. It’s one thing to cut out the 96-97 Italian campaign. Despite being the campaign that really made his career and put him a position where he could take power, and arguably his most impressive campaign, it’s not a very iconic one. But to go out of your way to say it didn’t happen shows a total distain for truth.
The best film ever done so far on Napoleon was "battle of Waterloo." and I say that because it focuses on one part in Napoleons time instead of just try to tell the whole history in one movie.
For a film about the Napoleonic Wars I have always loved the idea of a multinational film. Get actors as best they can from the nations who the figures were from especially as the Coalitions were made up of many different nations. With shows such as Narcos being multilingual it shows it could work and expose us to more creative ability from around the world.
My favourite scene in this movie is when Josephine is sobbing next to Napoleon, while he tells her that he's built different. Comedy of the year, hats off to you Ridley Scott!
A friend and I went and saw the movie at the cinema. He didn't know anything about the Napoleonic era, while I knew a fair bit. While I was quietly getting more annoyed for every historical inaccuracy shown, he was sitting next to me being bored out of his mind. We did not have a pleasant evening.
Did everyone else see the modern sprinkler system on the ship near the end? In clear view. At the meeting with Wellington that never took place. Not the biggest problem with this disaster but it demonstrates the laziness of everything.
Hey Cypher! I loved the video, been waiting for you to make one on Ridley Scott's movie for a bit. I just noticed one detail that may be incorrect. If i'm not mistaken, the image at 30:54 depicts Marshal André Masséna, not Joseph Bonaparte. I'm not sure if I'm in fact missing the reasoning for using that painting instead of one showing Joseph. Just thought I'd point it out in case it needs to be corrected. Love the video, much support from me!!
It is said that Stanley Kubrick was turned down for funding to make a biopic of Napoleon (he would instead go onto adapt the Antony Burgess novel 'A Clockwork Orange' but later disown it). The reason is said to have been stated that "There is too much to talk about in that one man's life to be compressed into 2 hours", whether it was that or the 1970 film 'Waterloo' flopping at the box office we may not know.
I have seen people get overly angry about the battles being inaccurate, but this film is not trying to be a war movie or historical epic so it seems a bit unfair to judge it as one. It is very clear that the film is trying to be a character study, and judging it as a character study it is still quite shit. Napoleon was a weird person, yet the film never takes advantage of the real napoleon's oddities to tell a compelling character study. For example the film insists on having napoleon eat when talking to people while the real napoleon was famous for weird eating habits such as being very picky, and notibly eating very fast and refusing to speak to anyone while eating. He would often eat fast enough to make himself ill. You want to make a character drama about napoleon and care about the battles, fine, in fact done well such a film might even be more interesting than an epic, but if you are going to do that make a film based in napoleon's actual character, informed by history. What we have now is just Joaquin pheonix in cosplay.
The problem of this movie was its pacing. It lays out almost like a Wikipedia article that jumps from one highlight to the next between attempts to put the spotlight on his relationship with Josephine. It's a shame because I think Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Napoleon was spot on. It's exactly how I picture the real Napoleon was in person
@@POPE_FRANC1S I think so. Napoleon in the movie looks a lot like the satirical version the British propaganda of Napoleon. Some stereotypes can linger for generations.
Man you must be doing such a bad job when Night of the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian does a better Napoleon than this film, especially since that Napoleon was just a mannequin for a museum!
For anyone disappointed, I would recommend checking out the 2002 Napoleon mini-series and the 1970 Waterloo film. While the 1970 movie only focuses on the events surrounding the battle of Waterloo, it goes absolutely all out for it. The 2002 mini-series covers most of Napoleon's life with good acting and writing but the lower budget can show through at times (mainly in battle scenes) but it's no worse than the likes of the Sharpe TV series.
I saw this in theaters with my wife and about halfway through my was like this is really bad and asked if we could leave. So Napoleon is one of two movies I've walked out on, like it's not even fun bad like stuff on MST3K it was just bad
Ridley Scott could never hope to compete with the greatest cinematic portrayal of Napoleon to ever grace the big screen: Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
