Napoleon- What went wrong?
Owen Higgins
Given all of Napoleon’s adventures and conquests, Ridley Scott’s film about his life has plenty of material with which to work. Rather than showing his development as a person and a leader, this movie is much more like a highlight reel. The film begins in 1793 and ends in 1815, Napoleon’s years of life are 1769-1821. However, the film did not display his influences as a young man or how he got to the position of power that he occupies when we first encounter him. Napoleon is a compilation of battle scenes without context or an explanation of his motives.
Further the historical accuracy of the film has had relentlessly negative reviews. Historian Andrew Roberts, who was featured on Sky News this week, stated that “there is only 38 minutes of factual evidence out of the 2 hour and 38 minute movie”. This was followed up by Roberts’ colleague Hugo Vickers saying that there are over 1,000 factual errors. If you are looking to gain historical knowledge, the four part PBS documentary on Napoleon would be a more informative alternative.
Despite the fact that the history is twisted, Ridley Scott keeps the movie consistently entertaining. The script builds up tension frequently, keeping the audience engaged. Joaquin Phoenix does an exceptional job of inhabiting the role of Napoleon. Notoriously known for being short, aggressive and ill tempered, Phoenix physically displays Napoleon’s character with his short and stubby silhouette. Vanessa Kirby was believable in the role of Napoleon’s wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais without establishing any unique aspects of her personality.
As expected by Ridley Scott, the combat is well organized and engaging. The battles show the military tactics of the time and it was very interesting to see just how far technology has come in the last 200 years. The cinematography is phenomenal in the scenes where Napoleon leads his army into battle. The filmmakers also obviously made an effort to include shots with the horses which gave the scenes a very accurate connection to the time period.
In summary, I would suggest that the content is portrayed in the wrong vehicle. A television series could explain Napoleon’s life in much more depth and have more time to cover his important accomplishments. Overall I would rate this 3.8 stars out of 5. Compared to the 2.2stars given to the film on Google, this is definitely a generous rating. This was a quality film that was harshly critiqued in the press and deserves to be looked at as an entertaining movie rather than a historical re-creation. But I would definitely recommend this to anyone that enjoys war and combat movies with a little history here and there.
