Napoleon (2023, Ridley Scott)

[hurluberlu]

Napoleon (2023, Ridley Scott)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13287846/?ref_=tttrv_ov
https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/napoleon-2023/

Anyone else getting hyped ? Will probably be IMAX day 1 for me.
Beyond the visuals, I am really curious to see how they articulate the story around Josephine/Vanessa Kirby.
"Only" 2h38mn in theaters, 4h director's cut on streaming to follow.

[monclivie]

Maybe I'm nitpicking but can't get over the age thing. Hard to believe I'm watching someone in their 20s at 1:03 of the trailer. It reminds me 53-year-old James Stewart playing "youngster, fresh out of law school" in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

[Good_Will_Harding]

I'm certainly looking forward to seeing it, and while I don't expect greatness from it, I expect to at least have an entertaining time watching it. Ridley Scott's historical dramas are just as inconsistent as his career overall, with some being among the best modern epics around (Kingdom of Heaven - the director's cut, specifically) and others being confounding disasters (looking at Exodus: Gods and Kings, which also could probably benefit from an extended version). I'm still not totally sold on Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role just yet, but I'll probably be willing to go along with it once I'm actually watching the film itself.

[xianjiro]

Wow! Of our titles of new films this is one that speaks to me. This is the first I've heard of it though I don't spend much time on entertainment news. Which streaming platform? TBH, four hours on Napoleon doesn't seem like a stretch. The one thing in the back of my mind though is, Ridley Scott? Not exactly the director I think of when I think historical biopic. That might work for or against the film -- no idea.

But since I can't decide how I ultimately feel about Napoleon (was he good, bad, or in between for human history), I'm always interested in a new take.

[xianjiro]

Maybe I'm nitpicking but can't get over the age thing. Hard to believe I'm watching someone in their 20s at 1:03 of the trailer. It reminds me 53-year-old James Stewart playing "youngster, fresh out of law school" in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Yeah, I know what you mean (though I'm not watching the trailer to avoid any contamination before seeing the actual film). I'm watching the final season of Pose this week and they've been doing flashbacks and it's just hard to accept the actors as their pre-transition selves. Never thought I'd think something like that!

However, I was also interested to see how they tried to make Ed Harris appear younger in season 3 of Westworld. I don't know but suspect they used CG. Wondering if that's going to be more of thing in the future.

But from what you say, it doesn't sound like they tried too hard to make Phoenix appear younger. Interesting.

[hurluberlu]

Maybe I'm nitpicking but can't get over the age thing. Hard to believe I'm watching someone in their 20s at 1:03 of the trailer. It reminds me 53-year-old James Stewart playing "youngster, fresh out of law school" in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

I didn’t notice the age thing but you are right. I think it is less of an issue if the film spans over decades and you can somehow defend having the same older actor all along as the older character reflecting on his younger self. We’ll have to see how convincing that is !
As an old Napoleon, Phoenix is already looking quite suiting in the role.

[hurluberlu]

Wow! Of our titles of new films this is one that speaks to me. This is the first I've heard of it though I don't spend much time on entertainment news. Which streaming platform? TBH, four hours on Napoleon doesn't seem like a stretch. The one thing in the back of my mind though is, Ridley Scott? Not exactly the director I think of when I think historical biopic. That might work for or against the film -- no idea.

But since I can't decide how I ultimately feel about Napoleon (was he good, bad, or in between for human history), I'm always interested in a new take.

The 4h version will be on Apple TV+ it seems.
Scott did a lot of historical films already and it is fair to say he is mastering the atmospheric piece already ( not to mention the action). But the story telling centered around such an iconic historical character is indeed new and the fact that a fair bit seems to resolve around his peculiar relationship with Josephine makes it quite exciting as well.

[blocho]

This is also Scott's return to the Napoleonic wars, which provided the historical setting for his first movie 46 years ago, The Duellists.

Speaking of going back to the past, Scott's next movie is apparently a Gladiator sequel.

[xianjiro]

Speaking of going back to the past, Scott's next movie is apparently a Gladiator sequel.

yeah, noticed that on IMDb. Can you hear my eyes rolling? IDK While I love a good story sent in Rome, it sure seemed Gladiator had an ending. Guess we'll see how they decide to reopen that one. On the positive side, CG is much more powerful now which might be used to bring the ancient alive once again.

[brokenface]

Speaking of going back to the past, Scott's next movie is apparently a Gladiator sequel.

yeah, noticed that on IMDb. Can you hear my eyes rolling? IDK While I love a good story sent in Rome, it sure seemed Gladiator had an ending. Guess we'll see how they decide to reopen that one. On the positive side, CG is much more powerful now which might be used to bring the ancient alive once again.

I guess, with nature of Hollywood, to get funding for another film in that era they needed a franchise/known property. Hopefully it's just there as an initial hook but goes somewhere different with story. I do have a soft spot for Gladiator but don't really need a rehash with his son.

Have to say Ridley Scott's longevity is pretty incredible. Not just that he's directing films well into his 80s but still doing these kind of big scale productions (either historical or sci-fi) and on such a regular basis. Not too far off a film a year since 2000. Admittedly, not too many of those you could call great, but usually somewhere in the decent-good range. I'll be checking Napoleon at cinema

[Good_Will_Harding]

Regardless of the inconsistent quality of his later career works, I hope Ridley never stops making films, because he's giving us a press tour for the ages with this puppy:

[msainy]

[blocho]

Hilarious stuff.

Was Scott always like this, or has he just become a crotchety old man?

[Torgo]

Regardless of the inconsistent quality of his later career works, I hope Ridley never stops making films, because he's giving us a press tour for the ages with this puppy:

I wanted just to come here to post this. Pure gold!
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-67419876

The French critics have been less positive.

Le Figaro said the film could be renamed "Barbie and Ken under the Empire". French GQ said there was something "deeply clumsy, unnatural and unintentionally funny" in seeing French soldiers in 1793 shouting "Vive La France" with American accents.

And a biographer of Napoleon, Patrice Gueniffey in Le Point magazine, attacked the film as a "very anti-French and very pro-British" rewrite of history.

"The French don't even like themselves" Scott retorts. "The audience that I showed it to in Paris, they loved it."

[Good_Will_Harding]

Hilarious stuff.

Was Scott always like this, or has he just become a crotchety old man?

I feel like he's always been kind of a grouch, but as he gets older and with each new film he pumps out, he has less time and patience to suffer fools. Good for him, honestly. I wish there were more directors out there like Scott, Cameron, or Friedkin (RIP) who will just say "Shut the fuck up" when it's needed.

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

Scott seems to have taken quite a bit of poetic licence with things.

I heard that there is a made-up scene in the film where Napoleon orders his forces to fire upon the Egyptian pyramids!

His reaction to those pointing out historical facts is hilarious.

https://shannonselin.com/2017/07/napoleon-pyramids/

[msainy]

This is interesting.. What's your take on historical accuracy vs artistic license in biopics? I'm sure we all would agree that a film which achieves both is the ideal scenario, but which one would you rather see if given the choice: a mild, good but not great, acceptable but very accurate biopic, or one that gets a lot of things wrong but ultimately delivers a better experience?

I'm bringing this up because I remember back when I was in college a lot of people would watch a biopic to learn about the person (or topic), films such as JFK, Malcolm X, and Gandhi (I used these example because these figures are usually romanticized) but I don't remember anyone wanting to watch Lawrence of Arabia except because it was a very good film (PS: I don't know anything about the accuracy of the films I mentioned so they might be bad examples).

[xianjiro]

It's a good question. I also can't say I've got a solid sense of the difference between biography and biopic though clearly I've run across folks using them to mean different things -- and as descriptors they're used inconsistently, interchangeably, etc.

First off, if something is labeled a documentary, I'm expecting a higher degree of historical accuracy, but even there, especially as years become centuries, a lot is subject to interpretation. A few years back while studying Shakespeare's Richard III, I started watching documentaries about him and ran across a more recent book on him. Believe it was that author that made the claim that our overly negative view of RIII is largely due to Shakespeare's treatment though few would argue that there is much more than a grain of truth in most Shakespearean histories (and other plays).

So that's kind of how I approach most non-documentary films based on people living or dead. I look for the parts that interest or intrigue me and then do more research to see what is more accepted as historically based. I kind of wish we had a rating system for films based on real events or people though I'd do a 1 - 10 type spectrum with 1 being 'barely' and 10 being an attempt at great fidelity to real events.

The other component I consider is authenticity. We don't know what life in the Roman Republic was actually like though we've got a pretty good sense of lots of components. So something like Cleopatra (1963) feels less authentic than the TV series Rome did -- and my understanding was that was an important goal in the series' production though clearly events and character actions are highly fictionalized.

But anyone who turns to Oliver Stone to learn about JFK's assassination is ... asinine. It's an interesting theory based on some of the information in the public record but it's still fiction. As for various adaptations of Napoleon's story, it gives me more a sense of how the writers/director have interpreted the characters. Depending on who is doing the telling, Napoleon seems to run the gantlet from christ to anti-christ. Is there a single truth to be found anywhere within any one telling?

So I'd say I have a very low expectation of verisimilitude from non-documentary representation. It might provide a sense of the times depicted or it what is more likely is it will provide a snapshot of the times in which the story is told.

An aside. I'm amazed at films being made now about the 80s and 90s and how often things look or sound anachronistic to me. Something I saw a couple months ago sought to make the 80s seem real, well, until one character asked another for their 'digits'. In the 80s one would have thought they wanted one's fingers, not phone number, and most of us weren't entering them into those bulky cell phones no average person carried around. So, if we can't get details correct for something that people actually remember and for which first hand documentation is accessible, how much hope should we have for something that happened centuries ago?

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

Commitment and making the material one's own is as much as any watcher can reasonably expect from commercial film-making, I think.

[matthewscott8]

He was quite good at killing human beings, I always find it strange how equivocal or celebratory art related to him is. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of- ... -min-read/

I have heard him referred to as the Hitler of the 19th century. You rarely see any semblance of that in art, certainly not from Gance, albeit, Gance only got so far into his story.

Haven't seen the film yet, but will be going.

[Lakigigar]

He was quite good at killing human beings, I always find it strange how equivocal or celebratory art related to him is. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of- ... -min-read/

I have heard him referred to as the Hitler of the 19th century. You rarely see any semblance of that in art, certainly not from Gance, albeit, Gance only got so far into his story.

Haven't seen the film yet, but will be going.

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

[matthewscott8]

He was quite good at killing human beings, I always find it strange how equivocal or celebratory art related to him is. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of- ... -min-read/

I have heard him referred to as the Hitler of the 19th century. You rarely see any semblance of that in art, certainly not from Gance, albeit, Gance only got so far into his story.

Haven't seen the film yet, but will be going.

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

the aggression levels were pretty high, he got as far as Egypt and Moscow. I just don't think he was typical. Also, both of us come from colonializing countries but there's like 23 countries in Europe that never had colonies.

[hurluberlu]

He was quite good at killing human beings, I always find it strange how equivocal or celebratory art related to him is. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of- ... -min-read/

I have heard him referred to as the Hitler of the 19th century. You rarely see any semblance of that in art, certainly not from Gance, albeit, Gance only got so far into his story.

Haven't seen the film yet, but will be going.

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

the aggression levels were pretty high, he got as far as Egypt and Moscow. I just don't think he was typical. Also, both of us come from colonializing countries but there's like 23 countries in Europe that never had colonies.

Whoever makes that type of statement needs to get back to history
manuals; France was attacked and invaded by many countries after 1789 revolution, with all these countries willing to reinstate the King and protect monarchy model (and a bit of looting on the side to cover the costs). Napoleon distinguished himself on the battlefields during these years, made it to the rank of general and repelled all the invaders. He later abused his popularity and power to take control of France and started to invade the invaders… Did he push it too far ? Obviously yes but his fundamental motives had nothing to do with Hitler.
If he is still such a monument, beyond his military reputation that might leave you cold, it is also because he is considered as one of the Revolution hero and did bring a lot of the civil law improvement from the revolution to the conquered countries, that they used for decades, even if the French occupation only last a few years.

[matthewscott8]

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

the aggression levels were pretty high, he got as far as Egypt and Moscow. I just don't think he was typical. Also, both of us come from colonializing countries but there's like 23 countries in Europe that never had colonies.

Whoever makes that type of statement needs to get back to history
manuals; France was attacked and invaded by many countries after 1789 revolution, with all these countries willing to reinstate the King and protect monarchy model (and a bit of looting on the side to cover the costs). Napoleon distinguished himself on the battlefields during these years, made it to the rank of general and repelled all the invaders. He later abused his popularity and power to take control of France and started to invade the invaders… Did he push it too far ? Obviously yes but his fundamental motives had nothing to do with Hitler.
If he is still such a monument, beyond his military reputation that might leave you cold, it is also because he is considered as one of the Revolution hero and did bring a lot of the civil law improvement from the revolution to the conquered countries, that they used for decades, even if the French occupation only last a few years.

I don't think there's much point characterising the comparison as something that no-one who looked at history would do, when historians have literally written entire books on comparative analysis of Napoleon and Hitler. Yes they are different people from different centuries, and yes the switch in his track record is why Beethoven wrote Eroica and then bitterly regretted having done so.

Putting a crown on one's on head and then invading Egypt and Russia, not two countries that had invaded France, seems to richly merit the description of tyranny.

[hurluberlu]

Comparing them to sell books is one thing, calling him Hitler is absurd.

[Lakigigar]

He was quite good at killing human beings, I always find it strange how equivocal or celebratory art related to him is. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of- ... -min-read/

I have heard him referred to as the Hitler of the 19th century. You rarely see any semblance of that in art, certainly not from Gance, albeit, Gance only got so far into his story.

Haven't seen the film yet, but will be going.

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

the aggression levels were pretty high, he got as far as Egypt and Moscow. I just don't think he was typical. Also, both of us come from colonializing countries but there's like 23 countries in Europe that never had colonies.

Well many of those countries didn't exist yet, like the entire Balkan and most eastern european nations which were either part of German, and mostly Russian, Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian Empires. Imperialism is not very different from colonization. Russia did colonize and Austro-Hungary did not (IIRC) but was imperialist, and colonizing was not really in their interest. And Iceland was being colonized instead of a colonizer theirselves (Norway didn't because they were in a PU unless you count the viking era).

Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, UK, Spain, Portugal, Russia and also USA (further inland) all did colonize, but that's not really the point. It's really "western country" as a whole. And yes France did attack many nations, but it's no different from how nations behaved usually at the time. And he did attack mostly authoritarian nations that weren't any better than his own.

I don't think "going as far as possible" is an indicator of agression. You could literally do like Israël and wipe out the entire nation that is next to them that is Gaza, and I consider that more agressive already. (ofc times did change, time is the other reason why it is). The reason Hitler is Hitler, well i don't have to explain that I hope. But it's not exactly because he went to France or attacked the communists (which most centrists and Americans would even have approved off at the time). It's what happened with the people they considered inferior or useless or non-Germanic. That alone set Hitler far and far and far apart from everyone else, including Napoleon or even Stalin, the Japanese and Mao. Because exterminating people in such an intentional, sophisticated, and organized way has never been done before really. And is a horror from a different class than every other horror.

[Lakigigar]

"the hitler of the 19th century"?

Uh... Everyone was like Hitler at the time (early 19th century). I don't know what he did, he probably did a lot of bad, but so did every major leader in the world at the time, esp. in Europe.

the aggression levels were pretty high, he got as far as Egypt and Moscow. I just don't think he was typical. Also, both of us come from colonializing countries but there's like 23 countries in Europe that never had colonies.

Whoever makes that type of statement needs to get back to history
manuals; France was attacked and invaded by many countries after 1789 revolution, with all these countries willing to reinstate the King and protect monarchy model (and a bit of looting on the side to cover the costs). Napoleon distinguished himself on the battlefields during these years, made it to the rank of general and repelled all the invaders. He later abused his popularity and power to take control of France and started to invade the invaders… Did he push it too far ? Obviously yes but his fundamental motives had nothing to do with Hitler.
If he is still such a monument, beyond his military reputation that might leave you cold, it is also because he is considered as one of the Revolution hero and did bring a lot of the civil law improvement from the revolution to the conquered countries, that they used for decades, even if the French occupation only last a few years.

civil law is even still used in Belgium. Many western european countries still use Napoleonic code. Even street names, our metric and temperature scales, the way we drive (a lot of things that make us stand apart from the UK), family names all date back from that time.

__

Belgians at the time weren't happy about French rule, but some activists (given Belgium had a failed revolution in 1790 vs Austria), sided with Napoleon and collaborated. Eventually Austria lost its grip over us once again, and we came part of the French Empire, until we were given back to the Dutch but they also failed to keep us content, mostly because of regional, cultural and esp. religious (protestant vs catholic) differences, in particular though because of how the king of the Netherlands treated us.

During the Belgian revolution, people were surprised to realize we basically succeeded. We needed to choose a flag, some were proposing "the french flag", but than remember Napoleon rule again, and one person remembered the failed belgian revolution but there was no flag yet, so someone had to quickly create a flag so that it could be hanged over Brussels. In its pure origin, it wasn't even a "nationalist" revolution because people were clueless over what we should become. The only thing I really regret is that the "united belgian states" failed, and that we had to use a german king, a royal family that would later be known for human abuses in Africa and for several embarrassing kings (the only good one was Albert I who defended Belgium fiercelessly against the Germans in WW1, but Leopold II was a monster, Leopold III was a coward who threw Belgium almost in a civil war in the 1950s, Baudouin was friends with Franco and so deeply catholic that it was repelling and Albert II well had extra-marital affairs and incidents). Leopold I and II also weren't even able to speak dutch, hardly anything Belgian about them. Just very stupid that for legitimacy we had to have a royal family... .

Safe to say though that there's a good chance that without Napoleon, there would be no Belgium, because he basically started a chain reaction here. And his influence over Europe (and congress of Vienna), or even elsewhere like Latin America, Haiti and so on should all not be underestimated. A lot happened and changed for once and for all. Europe after Napoleon was never the same as prior to him, regardless of whether people consider him good or evil.

[magnusbernhardsen]

Just on a very tangential tangent: Norway did colonize Sami lands, and was a junior partner in the Danish colonial projects. Both Scots and Norwegians have this "I'm just a smol bean and never colonized anybody", but they and we were both part of colonizing. Although to understand Scottish and Norwegian culture you must look at the power imbalance with England And Denmark/Sweden.

[Torgo]

Regardless of the inconsistent quality of his later career works, I hope Ridley never stops making films, because he's giving us a press tour for the ages with this puppy:

Basically, this is off topic and belongs in another thread I recently opened, but to add an amusing chapter to this:

[matthewscott8]

Just on a very tangential tangent: Norway did colonize Sami lands, and was a junior partner in the Danish colonial projects. Both Scots and Norwegians have this "I'm just a smol bean and never colonized anybody", but they and we were both part of colonizing. Although to understand Scottish and Norwegian culture you must look at the power imbalance with England And Denmark/Sweden.

Hehehe Scots were big into colonizing. Sir Walter Scott referred to India as the "corn chest of Scotland". They were disproportionately involved in UK colonial history. Some of their more solo ventures failed. I have a friend who likes to rant about it, about how Scotland came into the Union because they had bankrupted themselves on failed colonial expeditions. I don't know the veracity of that last bit about Union (I haven't cracked open a book on it), the major point is just that any time a Scot makes that statement they get shot down pretty quickly.

[blocho]

Some of their more solo ventures failed. I have a friend who likes to rant about it, about how Scotland came into the Union because they had bankrupted themselves on failed colonial expeditions. I don't know the veracity of that last bit about Union

Yes, indeed. The Darien Colony. Darien is the part of present-day Panama that is still so inhospitable and choked with jungles, mountains, and marshes that no road crosses it.

I know what the Scots were going for: Control a passage between oceans, control the world. But they fell victim to one of the classic blunders: "If you live in a place without malaria, don't go somewhere where malaria exists."

[hurluberlu]

So I watched it on Thursday and it left me with mixed feelings.

This is the great show you expect with an impeccable reconstitution of historical characters, events and battles. It does convey the mix of fury, bloodshed, glory, hope and ultimately devastation that the post-revolutionary years were in France. If you are a history buff, you will certainly enjoy this. I personally don't mind if some arrangements with facts were made as long they are minor and serving the narration or characterization which seems to be the case here (ie Napoleon attending Marie-Antoinette beheading). Napoleon military genius and tactical sense is well rendered in the two battles shown in the first half (Toulon and Austerlitz) and are made quite epic on screen with the usual skills of Scott for this kind of scenes, bloody but not gory and with the action easy to catch for the eye. From the IMAX experience I certainly have some of the grandiose imagery that is still haunting me.

Where Scott and Phoenix have failed somehow is in fully incarnating the myth. Phoenix is the old Napoleon from the start, never the young Bonaparte making his way to the top. He is also very monolithic for the most, navigating through rather than being a driving force. The treatment of his relationship with Josephine is a bit of a disappointment compared to the promises of the trailer; it is hard to fully buy into their "love" story and even more to see how she was the “great woman behind the great man”. Scott was overwhelmed by the wealth of political and military turns he had to deal with while trying to focus on Napoleon-Josephine intimacy and does not completely manage to tie them up, pick what is relevant for the viewer and his Napoleon’s portray. He also keeps balancing between admiration and criticism, criticism which sometimes comes as British-biased petty mockery.

In this case the 2h40 felt rushed for its ambition; the longer on-line version will tell us whether it is a cut issue or anything more fundamentally missed.
7-

[Good_Will_Harding]

[hurluberlu]

Napoleon had quite some boats but he lost a great deal of them in Trafalgar battle so the allusion is on point even if he probably never said that or that way.
Talking about arrangement with facts, lists start to emerge and they are actually massive, even in the description of battles, not minor at all.