Review: Napoleon: the fanciful portrait of a legend

Historical figures have caused curiosity and controversy over the years, those who have spoken about them have their point of view of what could or should have happened, and even more so in the events that they try to represent.

From the Bible and its interpretation of what the life of Jesus Christ was like to characters who partially changed the course of humanity, either through their scientific discoveries or through the conquest of territories in the name of an empire.

The cinema has seen in these characters an opportunity to relive events in a more real way that has served not only to entertain what has happened but even to pretend and educate taking this as a reference in history classes at all school levels but not as something reliable and credible.

Along with this, wars and great battles have been the protagonists of great film productions, director Ridley Scott has been a very versatile director when telling his stories, he has left space science fiction and robots for something more complicated, narrating the life of one of the most controversial, misunderstood and controversial men to this day, in 2023 the film Napoleon premieres in movie theaters, which promises that we will see something completely different from what we know.

What is the film about?

A personal look at the origins of the French military leader, his relentless journey to power, and his rapid and ruthless rise to the emperor, the story is told through the relationship between Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) and his wife and only true love, Josephine (Vanessa Kirby).

Many film and television productions have tried to narrate the events around Napoleon Bonaparte, we cannot deny that as a historical figure, he has been very relevant to the modern history of humanity, his military tactics led him to become a war leader and to form his empire, it is not surprising that these projects have had their successes and failures, each one has tried to contribute something new and in a different way from how things were supposed to be.

The idea of bringing this biographical project to the big screen doesn’t sound bad at all, the different thing is the approach that they want to give it. Although we know that Napoleon Bonaparte rose to power and founded an entire empire, we also know that the great love of his life was Marie Josèphe Rose Tascher from La Pagerie/ Josephine Bonaparte/ Joséphine de Beauharnais, some events in the film can be questioned, this type and genre of film have very specific rules and one of them is to respect the chronology of events.

As audiovisual material we can say that this work by Ridley Scott is almost impeccable, the setting, the costumes by Janty Yates and David Crossman, the cinematography by Dariusz Wolski, and the art direction are extremely well planned and cared for down to the smallest detail, yes We put the script aside and its story is a spectacle like the ones this director usually presents, creating atmospheres that look and feel real is not easy at all, much less nowadays when as an audience attending a movie theater we are more demanding.

The film opens with these quotes:

1789…

French Revolution…

The people enter the revolution through misery… and end up in misery through the revolution…

The French emerged from the deception due to a lack of food and general economic depression…

The anti-royalists soon violently destroyed King Louis XVI and 11 thousands of his supporters… and then they focused on the last queen of France, Marie Antoinette…

While an ambitious Corsican artillery officer named Napoleon Bonaparte seeks a promotion…

The above already puts us in the context of what we are going to see, the opening sequence foreshadows the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, the future emperor of France, the execution and beheading of Marie Antoinette, and how a man has the ambition to be the best of all and bring victory to France, which would give way to great political tension in 19th century Europe, then the Napoleonic Wars begin where we see only a little of the Battle of Toulon, the Battle of the Pyramids, the Battle of Austerlitz and of course the Battle of Waterloo which is the star.

All this action happens while a subplot develops that involves the courtship and romance with Josephine de Beauharnais and at times it becomes her story and not his to change the pace and tone of its narrative again, we move on from the romantic drama to the action and vice versa, this is confusing for the viewer, the original 4-hour version changed to be able to be shown in cinemas, the cuts that were made are noticeable and evident, we go from one thing to another without having a context previous, the dialogues feel heavy and this is boring at times.

It is more than evident that the script written by David Scarpa takes too many creative liberties and breaks the rules, he tries to give his characters an underdevelopment that is very short for the time they have on screen, the rise to power of Napoleon Bonaparte, and his tactics. warmongers that led to the death of millions of his people and that concluded with his death in 1821, there are impressive sequences that aim to show the horror of war from the bullets that pass through bodies to the burning silhouettes that flee from their attackers.

The letters written by Napoleon to Josephine are the axis of everything and are expressed through the voice-over that tries to develop a romance that is not very credible, flat, and without an emotion that feels authentic. Josephine is and is not there, is and is not, and the dialogues between them are extensive and with very little substance, she represents herself as a very practical woman who lives in a chaotic and problematic time in which the French people expel a group of egomaniacal rulers to hand over the reins of power to someone who is crazier since he is just a misunderstood man.

This seems to be a film about two people who come to see power as a goal in their lives, he about France and then continental Europe and she about this powerful man who becomes obsessed with her beauty, this sounds more like an exchange of personal interests than a couple who wants to establish that love is the most important thing and what gives meaning to their existence.

Napoleon as a character does not define his personality, he is installed in being the one who has control of everything at all times and does not allow us to see that man who is supposed to have a sensitive and romantic side that falls in love not only with the person who is the love of his life. but to us as an audience, the key point of the film is this strange fixation that he feels for a woman who according to his script was not so much interested in him as a man but as a figure of power.

The film as such goes from being something biographical and historical to a fictional drama with action, its protagonist from what we know of history was a brilliant strategist who won victories but who did not stop being a genocide, Scott portrays him in a fantasy way in a mix between an action man and a superhero, his rise in each battle won happens too quickly, as viewers we do not have time to see how it happens and the same thing happens with his romance, we go from point A to point D where There are already things that happened and that are important to continue its development.

The common thread that is romance is something that little by little is diluted until reaching the point of separation because after a decade of marriage, she still has not been able to give him a child, on the other hand, the tactical brilliance, the ruthless cunning of this man on the battlefield, and his excessive ambition for power but in everything else, we are never given a clear and concrete idea of ​​why anyone should follow this emotional madman into a battle, if we talk about territorial power, the political issue must also be addressed and things put in context and there be a justification because we are talking about historical facts and that does not happen here, in fact it is completely absent.

As an interpretive film based on real historical events, it is more than very entertaining and combines its action well with acting. Scott as a director is exuberantly confident in his already characteristic cinematographic style, he knows and handles epic narration very well and has demonstrated it in films. such as Gladiator (2000), Kingdom of Heaven (2005), and The Last Duel (2021), his style has led his productions to be more spectacular than accurate, this genre needs more of a very specific base story than just visuals.

The lack of care in its editing means that several of its sequences, such as the estrangement of Napoleon and Joséphine and their subsequent pseudo-reconciliation, occur in a period of only a few minutes, or when it is mentioned that 15 years have passed since it began, we are missing material to know what happened in all that time, it is very unlikely that a two and a half hour film can cover life as grandiloquent as that of Napoleon, the result feels rushed and incomplete, so free is the version that We never see him holding his hand inside his jacket like that classic image, nor is there any mention of that saying that greatness is measured from the head to the sky, this is not based on popular assumptions but on a personal assumption of what is believe it was

In this case, we are going to think carefully, we are going to say that the cut that is currently in theaters is edited for this format and that it is missing 2 hours of footage in which we will surely see things in more detail, with a more fluid narrative and with the complete development of the characters, this is not a justification to say that this work is bad but nor to say that it is good, nor can we deny or affirm that it is one of Scott’s worst works if there is 4-hour footage it is because It was conceived like this to take advantage of time, its result so far is something media that remains pending, this is perhaps why its failure at the box office is due.

One of the possible big flaws it has is its protagonist, Joaquín Phoenix has shown more than once that he is a wonderful actor, but for this film, a Frenchman was needed who understood, felt, and reflected all the greatness of Napoleon and not an actor American but we understand that this is just something based on something and nothing more, on the other hand, we have the language, it was never thought or conceived to be spoken in French, so this is the biographical film of a French character in the English language, a commercial product that is neither intended to educate nor be historically accurate is just problematic and confusing entertainment like scathing satire and random criticism and not that relentless conqueror who was only truly alive when he was surrounded by so much death.

In the end, we can say that after so much action, drama, and a supposed romance things are transformed into something reflective of its central character, an account of what he has done and how it affected his life and changed the course of a nation, the spectacular The Battle of Waterloo is exactly what we all wanted to see. It does not disappoint, on the contrary, it is the best part of all.

The film closes with these quotes:

Napoleon Bonaparte died on May 5, 1821, after 6 years of exile in Saint Helena…

He led 61 battles…

• Toulon 6000
• Marengo 12000
• Austerlitz 16500
• Borodino 71000
• Waterloo 47,000 in one day
• Invasion of Russia 460000

From 1793 to 1815 there were 3,000,000 deaths…

His last words were France, Army, Josephine…

In the end, the reflection and question that it leaves us with is, and all this for what? as historical data to make it a little more credible it is fine but it never takes the trouble to present its justifications well and falls into the trite cliché that it is just a point of view, a more generalized and modern idea, something spectacular but very flat and without substance, good actors in good shots with a good technical and very creative team, a segment that represents a very important part in the history of humanity that only looks good.

The cast includes, among others, Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim, Ben Miles, Ludivine Sagnier, Youssef Kerkour, Ian McNeice, Matthew Needham, John Hollingworth, Sinéad Cusack, Phil Cornwell, Édouard Philipponnat, Catherine Walker, Mark Bonnar, Davide Tucci, Sam Crane and Rupert Everett who do a very good job that could have been much better if the direction and script had a defined and more concrete direction.

The music composed by the British musician Martin Phipps is a great success, pieces that go from the moving to the spectacular without losing its personality, a work that without being excessively orchestral manages to live up to what is required.

In conclusion, Napoleon is a half-finished film that leaves us half-finished even in this review, there is not much to say or give a spoiler about its content, it is a matter of time before the full 4-hour version is presented on Apple TV, and we can see and decide if this is a work that is worth becoming a classic or not, while this happens we are left with a product that does not fulfill what it promises, that strives to be something that it is not, for be complicated, boring and meaningless, that deceives itself by breaking its own rules, that is only high quality audiovisual entertainment but very forgettable.

Napoleon is now available in cinemas in your country.