Film Review -Napoleon

Ridley Scott brilliantly depicts the titular dictator’s battles, but the relationship with Joséphine fails to convince

Credit: Sony/Apple

Once described as “my all-time favourite fascist dictator” by Arnold Rimmer in cult BBC sci-fi comedy series Red Dwarf, the eponymous Corsican military genius with short stature but world-dominating ambition is given the cinematic treatment once again by notoriously hit-and-miss director Ridley Scott. It’s an ambitious romp that delivers a cavalry charge through the entire Napoleonic wars of 1789 to 1815, but along the way, certain key elements of the tale are demolished by editorial artillery fire. The main casualties are key naval battles like Trafalgar, but since Scott seems determined to paint the British in a pretty snooty light (their main motive for fighting Napoleon appears to be that they take exception to his bad manners), it perhaps isn’t surprising such landmarks of history fell by the wayside.

On the other hand, this isn’t a history lesson, though some historians have been scathing about the film. Ridley Scott’s response to said historians has been equally scathing, but all of that is beside the point. What I care about is coherent storytelling. David Scarpa’s screenplay scarpers through so much incident without pausing for breath that it feels episodic and unable to build a proper head of dramatic steam. Perhaps this problem will be fixed in the rumoured longer cut, but for now, this is what we have to work with. As such, Napoleon is deeply flawed.

Starting with what is positive, the battle scenes are indeed terrific, and warrant being sought out on the biggest screen possible. From the battle of Toulon to other key clashes in Napoleon’s greatest hits of mass slaughter (including the battle of Austerlitz, the disastrous Russian campaign, and of course, Waterloo), the film comes alive in these epic and bloody clashes. For all it’s gruesome realism, there’s an almost pornographic thrill in admiring Napoleon’s military cunning as the scenes of carnage unfold, whilst at the same time the film acknowledges (somewhat grudgingly, via an ending caption) that the Napoleonic wars resulted in millions of deaths. What can I say? Ridley Scott is such a great visual stylist, working wonders with cinematographer Dariusz Wolski, that one is simply bludgeoned into wowed submission. A bit like Joséphine, perhaps.

Speaking of which, the relationship with Joséphine is where the film comes particularly undone. Again, I get the sense that vital material has been left on the cutting room floor, and the relationship between the emperor and his empress fails to catch fire the way it ought. Joaquin Phoenix and the wonderful Vanessa Kirby do their absolute best with the material, but I simply didn’t buy into their obsessive, destructive bond. One might use the term “toxic relationship”, if you’ll forgive my deployment of a much-overused obscenity. I suppose it could be argued that the combination of Phoenix’s portrayal of Napoleon as whiny, bratty narcissist, and Kirby’s command of Joséphine as sexually independent and powerful (despite the social constraints of the time) are great acting choices, but the film lacks a sense of who these people are, and therefore why they are drawn to each other.

That’s before I even get to the accents, which are all over the place. Not that it would necessarily have bothered me if I’d been more absorbed in the story. After all, it doesn’t matter in films like Doctor Zhivago (1965). But there is simply too much material in the story of Napoleon to cram the whole thing into one film. Abel Gance’s 1927 silent masterpiece of the same name is twice the running time of this film, and yet it barely gets to the Italian campaign. Other attempts at Napoleon films have focussed on specific areas, such as Sergei Bondarchuk’s Waterloo (1970), starring Rod Steiger. Perhaps Scott ought to have done something similar.

As it stands, Napoleon is an infuriatingly mixed bag. A part of me wants to urge everyone to see it in the cinema as the incredible vistas in the war scenes will lose so much on television. On the other hand, the narrative is so crudely assembled that it barely has time to coalesce. As well as huge battles and why-does-she-put-up-with-him moments with Joséphine, it also takes in the political machinations in France. These include the death of Marie Antoinette, the end of the Reign of Terror, and the coup that eventually put Napoleon in charge. Much could have been made of this intrigue alone, but those who are unfamiliar with the period may get a little lost.

Another confusing omission is the stalemate between Britain and France due to Britain’s mastery of the seas, which is barely mentioned, other than in a wonderful throwaway line to the British ambassador: “You think you’re so great because you have boats!” This will leave some viewers wondering just why Napoleon found Britain such a thorn in his side. It also fails to point out that Napoleon wound up fighting a war on two fronts, with the Duke of Wellington (played with hilarious pomposity here by Rupert Everett) taking ground in Spain whilst the French were also busy in the east, fleeing the Russian scorched earth policy. However, I’ll spare you the history lesson.

Ultimately, Napoleon looks and sounds great, but vital bits are missing, and this definitely shows signs of being pared down from a longer cut. Damaged goods then, but with a sizeable wodge of good bits and pieces remaining.

(Originally published on Medium.)

The Dillon Empire beyond Substack

For a full list of my published novels, click click here.

For more on my novels and other projects, click here for my blog.

For my Patreon page, click here.

For my Medium page, click here.