Whenever films tackle the lives and times of the biggest personalities in history, you can often expect a grand spectacle detailing their greatest victories and most brutal defeats – something especially true for Napoleon Bonaparte, the man who conquered a large portion of Europe.
This controversial yet celebrated leader spearheaded a great change, not just for the French people, but for the European continent as a whole. With the main premise in place, Ridley Scott in the directorial seat, and Joaquin Phoenix as the lead actor, a historical epic is bound to be a surefire hit – but is it any good?
The film opens in 1789, when Napoleon is still a gunnery officer at the beginning of the French Revolution. Immediately as the film opens, he is framed as an ambitious individual who seeks to climb the ranks and be more than just some brute. After a successful gambit against the British, he would get his wish and be promoted to the rank of captain. It is from this point that we see his slow but sure ascent to power across several decades, from rising through the military ranks of his country, to becoming his nation’s emperor, all the way to his death.
This historical biopic is certainly more interesting than studying Napoleon – as we all did in school during history class – because we get to see what he was like away from the battlefield and behind closed doors. Even during the quiet moments of the film, we are still invested in the story because of Phoenix. Unfortunately, compared to his earlier works, we don’t get to see much of the veteran actor’s talents, as his character is reduced to a horny man-child who only wants to have sex.
This is where the major flaws of the film lie. As a colourfully bloody historical figure, it was expected that a film on “Napoleon” would focus heavily on his military career, educating the viewers about the ancient world, while simultaneously entertaining us. Instead, we only get a brief overview of all the important battles, with nothing but a simple narration by Phoenix holding it all together.
However, to say that the battles are not grand or worth seeing would be misleading. At 85, Scott can still create brutally devastating battle scenes, as with the Battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon traps the united armies of Russia and Austria before sending them into icy waters; and the smoking battlefield of Waterloo, where the French emperor faced his career-ending defeat. The sheer scale of the armies and the damage that cannonballs can do to both humans and horses are carefully framed from a distance, giving the audience a sense of what it is like to be a leader looking down on foot soldiers who are slowly marching to war. These scenes are the main attraction of the film; it is just a shame that they don’t get more screen time.
On the other hand, a large portion of the film focuses on the love interest, Joséphine, played by Vanessa Kirby. In fact, it focuses far too much on her, to the point that it bogs the pacing down. An interesting motif forms during this, however, as it shows that love is its own kind of battle. This would have been an interesting idea if only they don’t portray Napoleon as nothing but a sex-crazed warmonger.
Of course, it’s not something we get to fully appreciate, as the film has been streamlined, condensing 30 years of rich historical detail into a two-hour film. This results in some historical moments and figures being reduced to having their details flashed on screen for a brief moment, which in turn greatly reduces their existence from a human being to an obstacle Napoleon has to conquer.
Knowing how Scott operates, movie lovers speculate that an extended version of the film exists that might be, paradoxically, faster-paced than this all-highlight cut. If the film were given this longer run time, maybe we might be blessed with a more polished product that manages to strike a balance between the slow romance and the brutal battles.
In addition to the blood and sex that this film portrays to the audience, another surprising aspect of the film is its comedy. There are brief jokes here and there, but they don’t detract from the film, especially since it’s not the only form of comedy in it; and the fact that Napoleon is actually of average height for his time, historically speaking. The film shapes itself to be a satirical comedy that pokes fun at the main protagonist’s lack of self-awareness. There are some witty comebacks and a comedy of manners seen during the film’s slower moments, which is welcome, but gives way to a weirder interpretation of this historical conqueror.
Despite its flaws – poor pacing and all – “Napoleon” is certainly an interesting film and a creative way of revisiting and remembering the famed Frenchman. It focuses on the more terrified and self-conscious side of the character, compared to the confident ruler he is historically seen as, which could have had a massive payoff if only both were given the same love and attention. If, by some chance, an extended version does exist and remedies the problem of the film’s pacing, then we’ve got a historical masterpiece in “Napoleon.”
“Napoleon” is in theatres now.
The Review
Napoleon
Despite its flaws—poor pacing and all—"Napoleon" is certainly an interesting film and a creative way of revisiting and remembering the famed Frenchman. It focuses on the more terrified and self-conscious side of the character compared to the confident ruler he is historically seen as, which could have had a massive payoff if only both were given the same love and attention. If, by some chance, an extended version does exist and remedies the problem of the film’s pacing, then we’ve got a historical masterpiece right before us.
