Ridley Scott's Napoleon

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, Veltigar said:

I don't think it's possible to save this train wreck.

Part of me really thinks you could save it. 

As I was watching it I kept thinking 'hmm technically this is a really good scene' but I felt nothing during the entire movie. I reckon it's because all of these scenes felt like the climax of a story, or a major moment, and they had cut out all of the smaller, less impactful, but just as important scenes. Those smaller scenes would be necessary to fill in the gaps and give those big moments context and build up.

I knew within the first 10 minutes of the movie that something was off. They introduce Napoleon to Josephine and within about the space of a 20 second scene they are pretty much together. There was little in the way of setting the scene for their relationship or actually letting them spend any time together. It just happens and the movie uses dialogue to explicitly lay out exactly what is happening. That sort of thing kept happening over and over.

So technically I think you could just add back in scenes to give context and make events feel more natural, create the build up. Whether Scott actually filmed all that and whether it is going to be in his Apple TV + directors cut I do not know. 

[Zorral]

Not long after moving to NYC, Radio City Music Hall, had a special occasion screening of  Gance's 1927 epic film, Napoléon.  I attended, alone, calling in sick for work -- one had to purchase tickets ahead of time.  I brought a lunch.  Others, far more experienced with NYC than I was at that time, brought entire picnic hampers, complete with bottles of wine, to be consumed, during the intermissions.  I was so envious.

It was an incredible viewing experience, to see this film, on that massive screen, among an audience that honestly cared about seeing it.  Many of them knew the history -- and French too! -- though the language mattered not so much as this was a silent film (RCH had live music it had gotten scored specifically for this Event -- and it was an Event in NYC, which had been an insane film town forever -- people went out in blizzards to see films they'd been waiting for --this was still the era of Woody Allen filmic vision if you know what I mean).

I, otoh, didn't know anything, except Waterloo -- which I now know I didn't understand either, not really -- understanding it mostly via several readings of Thackery's Vanity Fair.  I hadn't even read Stendhal's The Red and the Black yet, though I had read War and Peace more than once, though the comprehension of Russia in this history, of course, remained murky in my mind.

I was so confused by the French Revolution still (which is very confusing, and takes someone like me who doesn't read French and isn't French decades to begin to understand), or of Europe in that era. I hadn't yet even learned the history of the San Domingue 6 - 8 sided slave revolution, and, in fact, still had no detailed knowledge of the War of 1812, or, knew much of anything, to be honest, and was only beginning to understand that I didn't know much of anything.

But this viewing of Gance's Napoléon was a true event in my, then, very short life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoléon_(1927_film)

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Zorral

[Veltigar]

On 12/1/2023 at 3:43 PM, Heartofice said:

Part of me really thinks you could save it. 

As I was watching it I kept thinking 'hmm technically this is a really good scene' but I felt nothing during the entire movie. I reckon it's because all of these scenes felt like the climax of a story, or a major moment, and they had cut out all of the smaller, less impactful, but just as important scenes. Those smaller scenes would be necessary to fill in the gaps and give those big moments context and build up.

I knew within the first 10 minutes of the movie that something was off. They introduce Napoleon to Josephine and within about the space of a 20 second scene they are pretty much together. There was little in the way of setting the scene for their relationship or actually letting them spend any time together. It just happens and the movie uses dialogue to explicitly lay out exactly what is happening. That sort of thing kept happening over and over.

So technically I think you could just add back in scenes to give context and make events feel more natural, create the build up. Whether Scott actually filmed all that and whether it is going to be in his Apple TV + directors cut I do not know. 

I'm pessimistic about this because I don't think Phoenix works at all as Napoleon. Even if we did give that character more room to breathe, it would just be more of the same, since I don't see any meaningful evolution in his performance for the entirety of the film.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

I'm pessimistic about this because I don't think Phoenix works at all as Napoleon. Even if we did give that character more room to breathe, it would just be more of the same, since I don't see any meaningful evolution in his performance for the entirety of the film.

I can see a world where Phoenix’s performance makes sense. Right now a lot of the things he does seem just all over the place with no rhyme or reason, but it could be fleshed out a bit.

Maybe it also depends on your preconceptions about Napoleons character were. As far as I know he was morose loner as a youth, awkward and nerdy. He maybe had a bit of a change later on in life that made him a bit more charming but it fit with what I saw Phoenix doing, it just didn’t feel cohesive.

[Veltigar]

I guess we'll have to wait for the 4 h version to find out, but you'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to give that a chance.

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, Veltigar said:

I guess we'll have to wait for the 4 h version to find out, but you'll have to do a lot of convincing for me to give that a chance.

If it’s not at least 5 hours I won’t bother!

[IlyaP]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

If it’s not at least 5 hours I won’t bother!

So that's the definition of masochism!

*calls Oxford Dictionary*

 <3

[A wilding]

Late to the party, but I thought I would chip in. I did enjoy this film, despite its many flaws.

I thought that it was actually pretty historically correct at a high level. Of course most of the detail was changed around or outright wrong; a lot had to be left out because of time constraints, with the film still feeling rushed; and the idea that Napoleon returned from either Egypt or Elba because of Josephine is nonsense. But it was a film, not a documentary.

For example take Waterloo. Most of the main points were there: the armies facing each other across a valley, Wellington needing to hold on until the Prussians arrived, the start of the battle being delayed by the wet ground (though the rain had actually happened the day before), Wellington's admission that it was a damned close run thing. The fighting on the two previous days was left out, but it would surely have been impossible to fit it in.

Where I felt the film fell down the most was in the portrayal of Napoleon. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job of creating him as somewhat petulant and full of bathos, certainly one facet of his character. The tempestuous, slightly dysfunctional relationship between him and Josephine was also reasonably well done (though marred by the false note of him slapping her). But we saw little in the portrayal to explain how Napoleon achieved what he did or how he inspired such loyalty.

Still, as I said, I personally enjoyed it. Though Mrs W was a bit annoyed that her favourite Napoleonic character Désirée Clary (an early girlfriend of Napoleon who went on to become Queen of Sweden) didn't get a mention!

[Chad Vader]

I really want to see the 4 hour version that will be released to Apple TV. Still not enough time to tell his story but alteast they can include a little more than pyramids and cannon balls blasting into ice

[Corvinus85]

Finally saw it. Wow, I had low expectations but I didn't expect it be this bad. It might be his worst movie yet, at least from among the "big" movies.

Once again Scott shows how bad he's at editing a movie together. Maybe the 4hr version will be better, but I'm not sure I care at this point. This should have had something to care about. And Scott can go fuck himself if he thinks that historians shouldn't criticize the lack of accuracy in this movie. Sure it's a movie, liberties must/can be taken, but then don't show the fucking years when events take place. The Total War games were mentioned in this thread, I think. One compromise those games had to make was the passage of time versus distance for armies to march. This is exactly what this movie did, too, lol! It took Napoleon 4 years to march his ass from Paris to the siege of Toulon per Ridley Scott. The scenes in Egypt were outright insulting.

Jumping from scene to scene, not letting things be explored, and then Napoleon having go from barely any motivation to Josephine being the sole purpose he does everything and anything. Scott thinks he knows better, but all he is is another guy looking from the outside and making his own interpretations as he wants. He dares the audience to not make fun of the fact that he hired an actress way younger than her counterpart to play an older person than Phoenix's character.

The Battle of Waterloo was the only silver lining for me. Liberties and all, it felt like a slightly different movie, with more attention to detail for individual moments, and the guy playing the Duke of Wellington was good.

I do feel bad for Phoenix. He did good with what was given, but he's not in any conversations for awards this year thanks to the rest of this mess of a movie. Good costumes and music, too. 

[Ser Rodrigo Belmonte II]

Id be willing to give the historical inaccuracy a miss if the dramatic parts of the movie held up. Sadly that’s shit too, only the battle scenes are good. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

I haven’t seen the film yet but I have to say, the comments are depressing as hell. 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

On 11/24/2023 at 12:57 PM, Zorral said:

There was no facade about Republic by his time. It was the era of the apex of Empire -- Aurelius's father was Hadrian's nephew, making Marcus Aurelius Hadrian's grand-nephew. 

People who talked of the Republic would be in danger -- at the very least -- of being labeled traitors, not anything anyone wanted to be accused of already, long ago, and particularly starting in the days of Domitian - who wasn't even a nut case like Caligula.

Nor does one see any longing for the Republic in Aurelius's writings.

Long before Marcus Aurelius, Caligula supposedly considered making his favourite horse a Consul. 

The story may be apocryphal, but it’s generally thought that Caligulas motivation was to demonstrate how useless the Senate had become by that time, not an expression of his insanity. 

[Zorral]

10 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Long before Marcus Aurelius, Caligula supposedly considered making his favourite horse a Consul. 

The story may be apocryphal, but it’s generally thought that Caligulas motivation was to demonstrate how useless the Senate had become by that time, not an expression of his insanity. 

I was reading a variation on that in Mary Beard's Emperor of Rome just, what, 2 weeks ago!  Ha!  But it was indeed a nutcase also -- as are far too many rulers. But then such a position can indeed make one mad if one has tendencies or wasn't all together so before ascension.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

4 hours ago, Zorral said:

I was reading a variation on that in Mary Beard's Emperor of Rome just, what, 2 weeks ago!  Ha!  But it was indeed a nutcase also -- as are far too many rulers. But then such a position can indeed make one mad if one has tendencies or wasn't all together so before ascension.

One of my favorite scenes from I Claudius was just after the Praetorian Guard name him emperor, he gets a visit from Herod. The scene basically goes:

”You want to restore the republic?”

”Yes.”

”You don’t want to be emperor?”

”No.”

”You have to be Emperor because if you dont, they’ll kill you and your family. Then they’ll tear Rome to bits trying to decide which one of them becomes the next emperor. There is no Republic. Trust no one.”

Herod knew a thing or two about ruthless politics and betrayal. 

It’s probably bullshit but there may have been an element of self preservation involved. Then again, we know what happened after the Julio-Claudian dynasty ended, and storytellers may be putting that prescience into the minds of previous rulers. 

It’s also hilarious that the Praetorian Guard effectively named a new emperor to avoid unemployment. ‘Must have been a pretty sweet gig.

[Zorral]

17 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

the Praetorian Guard effectively named a new emperor to avoid unemployment.

More than that -- it was a magnificent payday. The first thing anyone planning to be emperor did was tell the Praetorians and the significant leaders of the army how much he was going to give them.

You'd really enjoy Beard's book as she attempts to disentangle what The Emperor did -- as opposed to the emperorS -- in the minds of the rank and file from what really happened. It's all about image, and who was creating the image, and why, from historians, to those living in hovels who didn't even know the name of the current reigning figure, but just knew the guy on the very top of the top of them was 'emperior' and just think what how he lives and how he EATS!

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

Yeah, Beard is great. I need to become more familiar with her. 

Michael Parenti also wrote a book about the assignation Julius Caesar that’s supposed to be pretty good. 

[Zorral]

FYI -- the screen Napoleon (2002 which I have admired, with Malkovich playing Tallyrand, is available on Amazon Prime. if one is an AP subscriber.

[Jaenara Belarys]

I personally would've like to see why exactly the troops love him so much. When he comes across the troops blocking his path I would've like to see him truly use charisma and his past relationships with the troops to convince them. I like history too, so fleshing the situations, politics and such out would've been interesting.

This movie (I'm sure people have said it before) seems more like Napoleon and Josephine, than simply Napoleon and his rise to power. In the beginnning, stuff just seems to happen for him to do it, and I didn't really understand why exactly Russia would turn on him. I learned more about Napoleon from reading internet articles than I did watching the movie. 

His son appears in a couple of scenes and then disappears without explanation. I know he died at around 21, but a little bit of end exposition would've been nice.