What did you think of Ridley Scott's Napoleon? 🇫🇷 Do you think historical accuracy is essential to biopics? Comment below!💥 Thanks again to Brilliant 🧠 Get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription ➡ brilliant.org/FilmSpeak/
It certainly was a Fuck History of Napoleon... Saw him clapping cheeks more than countries. In all seriousness though, it is about what I expected. It's a typical hollywood-studio move to focus more on some exaggerated relationship drama surrounding a political/military figure than the actual political/military things that made them so (in)famous. For my part, I mainly only wanted to watch it because I knew little of Napoleon, and wanted to understand a little more about the context behind the setting of "The Count of Monte Cristo" - specifically in why being a Napoleon supporter was so heavily punishable. Oh and my father wanted to watch it and we had 2 free tickets so why not
@My_pfp_beats_all_dog_breeds.because an european emperor can still have different elements rather than an american scientist slowly becoming a political death figure silently and carelessly. still different personalities though on how they react to love.
As someone who loves reading biographics/autobiographies and historical fiction, I love good and well-researched historical accuracy about the time period or person I'm reading. With that said, I understand condensing Napoleon's life. However I would probably have stuck with just up to his rise as Emperor nothing more with perhaps a short, short epilogue that shows/speaks about what happened afterwards perhaps decades after Napoleon.
I'm a purist on this. First of all, Ridley Scott is full of it. He made the Napoleon movie for the same reason all movies get made now: Name Brand recognition. He could have made up a fictional character of that time period and based it on Napoleon (this has been done before, many times), but he wanted to use Napoleon's name because people recognize it. In my opinion, the minute he stamped "Napoleon" on the script, he had to be honest. You want to create fiction, write a fiction. You want to use a person from history or a story/character from a book, you are now limited by that choice. That's my two cents anyway.
What was that great TV series that followed a couple of Roman nobodies that depicted the ancient times from their perspective? One of them even gets lucky with Cleopatra. It was a very entertaining series. And that's one rule of film. Be anything, but entertain in the literal definition of the word. Not the MGM version of it. I don't find "battles" etertaining anymore. But I'd watch Welle's Falstaff at the drop of a hat.
i completely agree thats why i have a problem with hollywood wanting to change so many characters to be more lgbtq or anything really like with james bond talking about race changing or making it a woman imo if you wanna change and existing character make a new character if you want a woman spy make a woman spy or any other character dont change an existing character make a new one
It's a lot like suspension of disbelief, there's a limit if you're watching a supposedly serious film. It's the same with a historical film about a specific person. If it at least was as entertaining as Braveheart it'd be a different story, we would be saying "it's not accurate BUT.." Here there was no gain
@@sclogse1the show is HBO Rome. You follow Julius Caesar doing the historically accurate public things that actually happened, but also the fictional story of Pullo and Vorenus in the midst of it, in the plausible background of the history. It was genius, but don't think it would work for a movie like this
I don't disagree in spirit, but then I think about Amadeus, which is just about a perfect movie but almost totally fiction. Same with Braveheart. Would you really prefer those films just didn't exist? Then again there's "Elizabeth" (1998), which I used to LOVE but turns out is so loaded with inaccuracies that I can't even watch it anymore! Where's the line?! 😫
I saw a video about this movie where they interviewed a real professor of French history and he said only 38 minutes of Napoleon was historically accurate.
The problem with historical inaccuracies like this is how much context is ignored. Yes it’s okay to take SOME historical liberties when making a biopic, but taking as many as Ridley did is, to put it short, too far. Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor and all and it sucks to see his talent wasted
The problem is not historical inaccuracies, it's just not very good movie overall. The most well known historical epics like Gladiator and Braveheart are fantasy from top to bottom, but they are great films and that's the only thing that actually matters.
@@kdscool1536 hmmm I think it’s okay for fantasy stories to take place a long time ago Blue Eye Samurai isn’t based on a true story or anything and it’s the best tv show of 2023
I sometimes wondered if Ridley Scott missed a chance to make a movie on the OTHER Napoleon. If made, Phoenix was in the correct age range and could have been utilized much better. The theme would be about a nephew trying to re-create the glories of his uncle. There would be moments of uncertainty and self-doubt. Such a role was likely to suit Phoenix. Probably fewer battle scenes which would make it cheaper to produce while at the same time a story line including 1848, Crimea, Italy, Mexico and Prussia would have lots of interesting parts. And oh yes, the age gap would also be reasonably accurate. The nephew's wife was 18 years younger and outlived her husband by almost 50 years.
@@vu-trathechildofhorrors5859 Yeah, and in the eyes of an Asian, it's also plastered with orientalism and inaccurate depictions of medieval Japan. Chinese buildings, fantasy armour, outright wrong depictions of Japanese culture... etc. I wish people also knew more about medieval Japan as well as Napoleon. So they can see those problems.
It's a good argument that a biopic must, by necessity, be true not to the letter of history, but to the spirit. The problem with Ridley Scott's Napoleon is that it is true to neither.
The problem with the spirit is that that is 100% up to the directors interpretation. The only objective measure is the facts. If you want to make historical fantasy, just go do that and dont claim it to be a biopic.
@@TheSuperappelflap the problem is that we rarely have access to all or most or even a solid chunk of the facts. the history of historical figures is so very often just a string of events, loosely tied to whatever documents we can find, and even then we have to pose that against historical contexts and attitudes, including our own historical lens and attitudes. Did Caesar have a romantic relationship with the king of nicomedia? Was Cleopatra a shameless seductress? Was CaoCao a cruel warlord? Can we trust anything written by the opponents of a dead historical figure? mind you, im not arguing against the idea of relying on facts for historical content, but rather highlighting how the "facts" can be very tenous at best at times.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516yeah no, there's a gaping hole between the historical accuracy of Caesar and Napoleon's extremely well documented life. There are endless letters and excerpts from people who were there, this was only 200 years ago, this time was more documented in France than anything similar in the US. We know what happened and what didn't to a pretty fine degree, to the extent that we know exactly how much Napoleon padded his elections.
@@TheSuperappelflap I don't think it's 100 % up to interpretation. Let me show what I mean with an example. The spirit of history: Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, during which he brought numerous scientists along with him, is considered the beginning of the field of Egyptology. It was during this expedition that they discovered the Rosetta stone, for instance, which lead to the deciphering of the hieroglyphs. Therefore, the spirit of history in this case is that Napoleon was a man who was interested in and respected ancient civilisations such as Egypt. Interestingly, there are two scenes in Scott's Napoleon that each land on either side of this line -- coincidentally also illustrating that Scott didn't know what he was trying to do with this film. 1. The now infamous scene where Napoleon fires cannon on the pyramids. 2. The scene where Napoleon places his hat on top of the sarcophagus of some pharaoh or military leader (I presume). Scene no. 1 obviously violates both the letter and spirit of history. The letter because it didn't happen, and the spirit because it gives the wrong impression of the man. Scene no. 2 though -- historically accurate or no -- is true to the spirit of history, because it portrays Napoleon as someone who respected the ancient Egyptians, thus giving a correct impression of his character and attitude. Now, one might argue that Scott is of the opinion that Napoleon didn't respect ancient cultures at all, and that's why it was no violation of the historical spirit to have him fire his cannon on the great pyramid. But if this was Scott's message, why did he include scene no. 2 with the sarcophagus? It doesn't make sense. The characterisation is inconsistent. Shoddy work, in short. This makes it seem likelier to me that Scott just went for spectacle and didn't care about either letter or spirit.
What a disgusting slap in the face to all French people; this movie was payback for something and a complete lie from beginning to end. I forgot what I was commenting about, you're right!!😂...
The true failing of the film is how poorly it conveys to the audience the state of Europe at any given time, why Europe is that way, why Napoleon represented such a thorn in the side of everyone and the various specifics reasons that led to seemingly unending war and the Congress of Vienna that made a lasting peace at the cost of liberty soon after his final downfall. The film doesn’t fully commit to any aspect of his life and underserved all of them, giving us a hodge-pudge of events that leave us confused to Napoleon’s real character and his psychology. He becomes less facsinating and more confusing as the film proceeds and the events seem more and more trivial as context is never given their full weight. Ridley didn’t succeed with this one. It’s more Exodus: Gods and Kings than Gladiator.
Also, if Scottt hates Napoleon so much, then, HE HAS to speak THE TRUTH. It's almost a moral duty! What he does is to lie to himself and to his audience for three hours. The entire thing is just a mess.
@@TheRealHaloLover At least, Gladiator did not had Commodus as main character. And it presented less then 0.5% of the life of Commodus. Contrary to Napoleons where he is the main + pretending to present is whole life. The treachery to history is on another level.
@@anubusx no, it's Alien: Covenant, he's made a couple of good movies after Prometheus. Prometheus is flawed, but not without merit. Covenant is just abomination.
My issue with this film is not with the inaccuracies. My issue is that the inaccuracies and the omission of several key events actively destroys the plot. Like when Napoleon and Josephine get married and then immediately cuts to him in Egypt. No explanation is given to how he got there or what really happened before it, and it leaves the audience confused.
@@EvanHuber-mi6dnagreed i hardly knew what was happening a good amount of the time, it should have had more lead up to certain events and left out others so the movie wouldnt have so much whiplash
Spot on "No explanation is given to how he got there or what really happened before it, and it leaves the audience confused." this is true with all films and TV series and I believe it started with the TV series LOST, where the once accepted and expected skill by those giving us film, TV and plays is the structure of a story line which has been around since ancient times, i.e. The Illiad which as you so correctly state often was not the case in this film. The problem is that directors and actors, dare I say, get so far up their own backsides in that they lose sight of their job, which is to tell a story for the audience not for THEMSELVES. Ridley Scott on starting out did this superbly well with 'The Duellists' a masterpiece of a film where this film was rubbish. But for me, who was looking forward to at last a grown up and non Woke film was to see several times black actors of which one playing the part of a very high ranking field officer, which I assume Scott 'had' to include to get the film made due to acting diversity regulations. What is the point of making a 'history' film if, as now happens especially with this one, it is no longer about the history of the time, events and people involved but instead just becomes a very thin, vague back cloth to serve a director's and actor's own ego, political and in their minds 'artistic' visual displays.
@@alfredlundqvist6924 Yes, a quick scene of him opening a letter which informs him of his deployment to Egypt, while having breakfast with Josephine, would make an almost 3h movie way too long.
He just forgot Germany in the movie. Its never mentioned. No Leipzig, no Friedland no Eylau. The whole German war of independence takes place between Russia and Napoleons abdication. Even the congress of Vienna, is shown just by having Wellington do a monologue. The only mention of Germany is when Napoleon says to Josephine that she should cure her infertility is the Spa of Aachen (Aix la Chapel).
Napoleon once commented on the (British) political cartoonist that spread the myth that he was short by saying something along the lines of “He did more damage to me than all the armies of Europe combined,” or something like that.
He also completely failed to represent Britain’s contribution, if it helps. Too little time, too much to fit in it, too poor an understanding of events to prioritise.
I knew that revisionist history show-off-show-out s*it was going to produce a story like that. Funny story, don't get me wrong, but damn, if QT told the story the way it was, then that person and millions of others would have the accurate story. And the real story was fascinating, with real-life heroes that went unsung because QT has a case of megalomania and thought he could improve on history.
Historical inaccuracy is not the problem, Gladiator is as much inaccurate as Napoleon but is "one of the greatest movies of all time". The problem with Napoleon is more about the editing and writing, how they speed run 30 years of history without context or explanation of why things are happening the way they are and made the protagonist look more like a medium for the story to move forward instead of an active character that build it's own story. That is why for example Bravehart, Gladiator or The Last Samurai are loved by audiences even though they have the same historical accuracy as Star Wars.
I do agree with your perspective, especially considering that another film that did the same disservice to the historical record was another Ridley Scott project called "The Patriot" (1998). That film was, though well-acted, a terrible piece of schlock that clearly disregarded the important realities of the American Revolution, such as that the British weren't the only ones who committed atrocities, that the American Revolution was a conflict that divided the people into separate camps as much as the American Civil War, and that the two greatest generals of the American Revolution (Nathaniel Greene and Daniel Morgan) were not incompetents who had to have plans made for them by their subordinates. A film which did take historical license yet is to be regarded as a masterpiece beloved by millions that can be added to the list is "Letters from Iwo Jima" (2009). Clint Eastwood's masterpiece depicted the Japanese perspective of the Battle of Iwo Jima, which highlighted how the Japanese were not just mindless, uber patriotic drones for the imperial government to send to their deaths, but were people with thier own dreams, hopes, and fears. Furthermore, Eastwood laid bare the fact that the United States military was not completely clean from the committal of atrocities in the Pacific Theater, a reality that many American films about the American war effort failed to elaborate.
@@matthewkuchinski1769Ridley wasn't involved in The Patriot though. However one movie he did that was also a mess was '1492 - Conquest of Paradise', who massively downplays Columbus' tyrannical ruling over the Caribbean islands by pushing it on fictional characters and instead presenting him as a benevolent leader
The depiction of Napoleon as merely petty, bitter and egotistical is just as much a myth as romanticizing his campaigns, the difference being that it reiterates the anti-napoleon propaganda of the 1800s instead of the imperial french propaganda of the time. It ignores how he was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and convict on the ideals of the french revolution. It ignores, therefore, what he really meant politically, focusing on his portrayal as simply hungry for some sort of control. In the movie, he shoots the pyramids, when in reality he took a team of scholars which helped, among other things, build hospitals and scientific institutes. The film would have been more interesting if it showed these contradictory sides of the political regime born of the revolution. On one hand, imperialism, war, centralization of power, on the other, decayal of the aristocracy, diffusion of republican ideals, of the ideas of the Enlightenment and of rule of law (France's first civil code was napoleonic). I don't think the movie portrays Napoleon the way it does to contrast him with the ideals of the french revolution. As a matter of fact I think they portray the revolution in an equally negative way. Compare the scenes of the death of Maire Antoinette with the "judgement" of Robespierre. She goes out with a brave face, as someone who remained strong and calm even though the people around her were agressive to her and wanted her dead. Robespierre, on the other hand, faced with the decision to execute him, blames everyone for the terror, runs scared and tries to kill himself in order not to be guillotined. The revolutionary period before Napoleon's coup seems to always focus on the terror, as if to highlight the revolution as barbaric.
This!!! I completely agree with this part. The fact that the movie starts with the execution of Marie Antoinette, without any context or explanation or showing of her trial or anything really is clearly made to show the revolution as barbaric, it would be like starting the patriot with the scene of Mel Gibson hacking the british soldier with an axe like "what? You will not explain me anything about Europe at the time and how we got here? Why all of this is happening?" Also now that we're at it they don't show exactly why Napoleon starts loosing in Spain which imo was mistaken, they could have shown how trying to export the revolution to a place where it had no support was a bad idea (comparing it to the Netherlands, Germany or Italy where you could argue it had support or at least way more support than in Spain or Russia, which would have explained more why the russians use guerrilla warfare against him). Also now that we're at it they completely skipped the italian campaign like THE CAMPAIGN THAT MADE NAPOLEON FAMOUS! Also the 100 days scene imo made no sense like how would someone like that be able to pull that off? In Waterloo (1970) it makes way more sense and actually makes you feel he's at least charismatic enough
The "small" difference between the two characters being one of them was so entirely driven by his hatred for "subhmans" that he very nearly anihilated them by killing millions (and would have killed millions more if he hadn't been stopped: all the slavs were more or less doomed). But I'm nitpicking of course. Call me a French Napoleon fanboy.@@simoneidson21
@@Seinsmelled He may not have been as evil but when it comes for his desire to control it all dear god are they close. I suppose that's why they derive then both as similar.
What makes this movie so egregious, aside for the single largest battle in European history until WW! being skipped over, Leipzig, and other structural issues regarding the story, nor even it's historical inaauracies, it was the fact that the historical inaccuracies were there to specifically further an obvious personal agenda Scott had going in. That agenda being to make Napoleon out to be a heartless tyrant, who only won battles due to him sacrificing massive amounts of his own men, that he had little care for his soldiers, and that he was little more than an awkward borderline sociopath who's relationship with Josephine was what truly defined him. Which of course - is historically-illiterate nonsense! I had heard going in that the movie was nothing but a smear piece of Napoleon, and being someone who got my degree in European military history, with a focus n the Napoleonic era - i was hoping that this wasn't the case, but unfortunately it is a 100% correct assessment of this godawful film. Firstly, Josephine was significantly older than Napoleon, and secondly, she isn't remotely as important to the story of napoleon as this film has made her out to be. And this notion that Napoleon wouldn't have amounted to anything beyond being a tyrant, if not for her - is fuckin absurd. The movie should have just been called Napoleon and Josephine, because it focused so heavily on their relationship in place of monumentally more important events/actions that weren't even mentioned let alone explored in this film. They depicted Napoleon as being pretty much the ridiculous British caricature of Napoleon being a short tyrant who was the Hitler of his era. I love alot of Scotts movies, this is by far the most disappointing, and possibly his worst film to date. Because, on top of the agenda he was pushing throughout this film and the rampant historical inaccuracies, the fact is - it's simply a bad movie, period - besides just being revisionist history bs. Plus Phoenix delivered possibly his worst performance of his career!
@@delphinazizumbo8674 The director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven was 10 times better. Josephine was extremely important for Napoleons rise, but they could not even do her justice. They should have started the movie with the execution of Alexandre de Beauharnais, Josephine's husband and the president of the French national convention. Josephine's friends made Napoleon emperor.
Napoleon was, unlike in the movie, charismatic af. He single handedly turned around a group of soldiers ready to kill to his side when fleeing from exile. Like if that’s not a Speech 100 I don’t know what is.
@@Jargon 19th century: Ottoman Empire is already weakening, Austria-Hungary began unification, Germany began as a new empire, Napoleon held France 2 times until his final exile, Queen Victoria ruled over Britain, Russia was reeling from the loss of Catherine the Great which eventually spiralled into the abolition of the empire and founded the Soviet Union Feudalism is arguably a thing of the past at that point in Europe (except in Russia)
The Problem with this movie is that in an attempt to break the myth of Napoleon(Ie the imperial French propaganda of the time), Ridley Scott replaces it with another myth(Ie the British propaganda of the time). He didn't make this movie to show the man, but to shine a light on the British view. That's why the Prussians are basically never mentioned and there's no buildup of Napoleon's skill(Ie the Italian campaign) because the British had no involvement. Instead they put him in a much more powerful position much earlier on because that is when there was British involvement. This isn't a movie about the man, this is a movie about the British propaganda.
This is the confusion I felt, growing up in the US I was led to believe that Napoleon was like some proto-Hitler who wanted to conquer everything, while also being short, whiny, and tempermental. This was until I actually started reading about Napoleon where I stopped believing this of course. When he got to the part about this movie "deconstructing the myth" I was so shocked because if anything this movie reinforces the myth of Napoleon we've been spoonfed in the anglosphere.
What annoys me with Napoleon is not the historical liberties, historical liberties always need to be made, it's his flippant response, much like his response to the last duel, where he blamed short attention spans for the poor box office, and when asked about concerns over historic accuracy he said "Get a Life." Completely dismissing these valid concerns with an insult.
Had never heard of the "get a life" bit - that is such an unbelievably short-sighted, self-centered and out-and-out irresponsible thing to say for someone with as humongous a platform as that man undeservedly has access to. Instantly reminds me of Netflix's Cleopatra "documentary" from a while ago that presented a completely fictionalized version of Cleopatra intended to convey a modern, specifically American, ideal and whose creators are currently in a legal dispute with the country of Egypt over it. Making propaganda out of historical figures is a well-worn tradition, but also one that nobody in modern day gets to pretend is harmless. Especially not for something as pitiable as monetary gain.
1. Joaquin Phoenix was a poor choice to play Napoleon. He looked taller, older, and spoke with a slight Brooklyn accent. It took me out of the movie. 2. Having a strictly French film set in France, using British actors with British accents, also took me out of the movie. There is no reason why they couldn't have used French actors speaking English with French accents, or better yet, speaking French with English subtitles. I mean, it's 2023, there's no excuse for not doing that. 3. We don't get much character development with Napoleon. How he rose to power, what motivates him, who he is a person, are all never really fleshed out in the movie. I didn't really care about him. I cared more about Josephine.
Perhaps it might have been better if it was a movie about the OTHER Napoleon. 😊😊 More or less the correct age with an age gap that was also largely accurate. (The wife of the Nephew was 18 years younger) Easier to make since the politics was less complicated. The nephew wante to re-create the glories of his uncle excluding the part of the various anti-French coalitions. It could have been interesting if it was a movie on 1848, Crimean War, rebuilding Paris, support of Italian unification, the Mexican intervention and war with Prussia.
"Why did you make a movie about Napoleon?" "Because I wanted to sell tickets" "Why did you not show some really important events like Trafalgar?" "By the time that happens in Napoleon's life the audience has already bought the ticket and is sitting in the cinema, so what do I care?" "Thank you, Sir Ridley."
True. Saying that this film was trying to portrait the "Man" rather than the "Myth" is so pathetic when in reality this film is portraying a (British) caricature of what Napoleon actually was. But as same as Ridley Scott this hack doesn't value historical accuracy.
Scott as the director of this movie is an example of the old saying, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” The life of Napoleon is so fascinating it should have been a miniseries or a trilogy of films. It’s far too big for a single film.
The 2002 miniseries is not perfect, but rather solid. The Napoleon of that miniseries is cunning and charismatic, but also egotistical and detestable. An intelligent villain of superficial charm.
To be honest, the movie was so AWFUL I'm still shocked. It was boring, pointless, silly and even kind of insulting. The casting is just wrong, the script is just wrong, the pacing is just wrong and the lack of subtlety hurts. It was so inaccurate that I was expecting a CGI dancing monkey to appear. Why not? History doesn't matter anyway! What a waste. With movies like this, OF COURSE historical epics are a dead genre.
It doesnt help that this is literally a british guys take on the french. I cant think of many countries that would be more willing to do a hitpiece on napoleon
Hell tbh, an Italian director would do the same as a spanish director here. The British will hate him, but at least down in the land of PIGS, we can have a laugh about him too.@@cesarsuarez7538
I once watched a visualization of a novel about a Polish Napoleonic soldier it was really good, it was historically accurate, didnt make Napoleon look like an awful tyrant or weak man (more as a liberator and great general) while also highlighting his flaws
I think the biggest issue here is that the film was called "Napoleon" rather than "Napoleon & Josephine", the context of their relationship was the primary focus and mostly accurate, especially compared to the accuracy of the depiction of the Napoleonic wars. The emotional crux of the characters of the movie was there and accurate, even if the facts don't line up. Ridley Scott never tried to make a documentary, but an insight into the character of Napoleon, and his relationship with Josephine.
That’s the biggest problem for me. I didn’t want to see his relationship with his wife, at least not for basically the whole movie yk. In my opinion they cut out way too much of the actual war
That’s what he intended to make. I remember reading about it months before release. Ridley Scott’s making a film about Napoleon and his wife Josephine. Seems to me producers or the studios decided to just call it”Napoleon” and market it as such for the $ grab.
@@bigmikem1578 Well I didn’t read anything or see the trailers so maybe that’s on me. I still believe that for a movie called Napoleon it underdelivered
Their relationship was not depicted accuratly, starting with how old both were. She was older than him. Also, though Napoleon was Truely in love at first, he wasn't the kind of man to grovel at her feet. He also never hit her.
Scott depiction of Napoleon is though not only mocking but also humiliating to witness. It's hard to believe that Napoleon insecure portal was the right decision in order to "breaking the myth" about a man who not only change Europe, but ultimately the world. In Oppenheimer we see Nolan breaking myth when the audience discovers Roberts desire for a martyr complex before the making of the bomb "You think because you let them tar and feather you that the world will forgive you?" Kitty. Though we know Robert historically felt terrible about the dropping of the bomb the film take us further in Oppenheimers psyche. In Napoleon we never had a moment when he debates himself when he goes to Moscow even though he knows he's losing more and more men. What makes him a flawed individual yet captivation character is his incapability to stop in fear of losing. This is because his whole life was one major war to prove to everyone (his mother/Josephine/the monarch kingdoms/the people who saw him as a brute) that someone who is so insignificant can become a hero in a history book like Caesar. Scotts Napoleon only addressed this idea through scenes with Josephine but thats it. There was no personal connections with Napoleon and his men, and there was no scenes where Tsar Alexander relationship or his relationship with his generals. Overall the film makes him into an idiot, there was no actual scenes where he planned with his generals or uses any strategic deceptions/tricks expect austerlitz and the things we would say was out right comically bad which contradicts the things he actually wrote. "History is a set of lies agreed upon" Napoleon Bonaparte. An idiot would not say this unless they were trying to prove something about how society see's greatness. Idk if Kubrick was still young and alive I think he could have made the most greatest biopic in cinema history. Also let's not forget that Scott is British so of course there will be a little bit of bias going into a Napoleon movie.
When you said "Napoleon is appropriately dwarfed by his surroundings" I can't help but point out that Napoleon wasn't nearly as short stature as people believe standing at roughly 5 foot 6 which isn't exactly short especially given the time period.
The issue with this specific story is that the real history is more dramatic and fascinating than most fictional scripts. Any director who wanted to make a good movie would make a historically accurate movie in this case. The only reason to change it is to draw attention to the director.
False, there is an easy answer to your first question. If you are going to make a bio picture, it needs to be accurate and most importantly, it cant make shit up like napolean did
Also, it hurts the core theme of the movie. If Scottt hates Napoleon so much, then, HE HAS to speak TRUTH. If not, the entire thing is a mess. You're just liying to yourself and to your audience.
Well not exactly, it shouldn't make shit up, but a little inaccuracy is okay depending on how it is done. The best example is combining 2 accurate moments that happened separately into 1 scene to save time. That being said, how Ridley did it is not good and his response to being called out is even worse.
He finally mentioned the accents lol I don’t understand why this doesn’t annoy more people about historic epics around the world from the US. And worse, Napoleon’s accent was a big part of his story. He spoke French with a Corsican accent, so one of the most renowned Frenchmen in history sounded off to other Frenchman at the time from, say, Paris.
Now, I'm not sure if this is accurate, though I am well aware that Corsica is much (well, was) more italian than French. But I've heard many people would call Napoleon "that Italian guy" at the time.
I think the attachment to accents is one of the kind of lame common critiques of historical films. Accents don't generally inform anything about the historical events unless there are different accents used to contrast characters.
@@gma5607 but it’s kind of lazy and reductive to plaster in British accents almost every time, right? I don’t know, it just seems like an uninspired, safe choice because it’s what Americans are used to.
@@DrustZapat Would you prefer we twist otherwise good actors into knots by having them put on bad accents? I’m genuinely more interested in getting pom-pom colours and button placements right than enforcing a slavish devotion to this particular detail that gets in the way more than anything. One of the interesting uses of accents in this sort of film is the compression of information in accent selection. Death of Stalin does this really well by giving the Russian characters regional British and American accents that carry connotations that fit their background.
@@gma5607 of course not. There are plenty of actors from the parts of the world that can pull off an authentic accent because they speak the language. I advocate for widening the talent pool and encouraging studios to do as Marvel initially did by looking at lesser known talent to play prominent roles. This actually serves two purposes. It makes it easier for actors as a whole to compete for big roles instead of giving them to overrated hacks we’ve seen plenty of while simultaneously making movies feel more fresh by having more fresh, authentic faces in them.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it, and it actually inspired me to really delve into the real-life history behind the man (which, point to the movie, in that sense). However, I genuinely think this movie did a lot to cast Napoleon as a petty bungler rather than the charismatic, complicated guy he was in real life. The Napoleonic Code gets no mention, despite it being a major set of laws that codified many of the gains of the French Revolution and still remains in place to this day. Napoleon also went to Egypt to learn, not to be a vandal. He brought archaeologists and scientists with him in order to study the country, of which he was genuinely in awe. Napoleon and his men also discovered the Rosetta Stone. Napoleon did have a great big ego and was clearly self-aggrandizing, but, even as self-made Emperor, he was spreading the ideas of the revolution throughout Europe and challenging the ideas of entrenched monarchy with meritocracy. Napoleon was an Enlightened despot (actual historical term) a la Catherine the Great, not a stuffy conservative monarch like his rivals. He also fraternized with his men, which is why the military was so loyal to him. At the end of the day, Napoleon was intensely patriotic and wanted the best for France, and his actions strike me more as being those of a benevolent dictator than a cynical, power-hungry thug. This movie glossed over his good sides and achievements while emphasizing his more negative qualities.
Did we watch the same movie? A lot of what you just said about Napoleon is what I got from the movie, but you're saying it wasn't in there or was glossed over. Benevolent dictator is exactly how he came across, and it was frustrating to watch him stumble in this because you still wanted to root for him and his ideals. He fraternised several times and you literally saw his military being loyal to him in the whole final act, and understood why due to scenes preceding. I'm so confused. You even saw his awe of Egypt. I think Filmspeak actually very well covered how creative license allowed for metaphor to sum up ideas in a swift and elegant fashion
Wow! Did we even see the same film? I agree that historical details need to give way to capturing the essence of an historical character and that's especially true in Napoleon's life. I don't need or expect absolute historical accuracy but there are limits. Napoleon was a product of his time and French society every bit as much as the period and France became a product of Napoleon himself. When you start playing too loose with the history that all gets lost. ...and boy, did that ever get lost in this film. It's one thing to pick and choose how to portray history it is altogether another to just completely ignore it. David Scarpa, who admitted he only read "a short biography of Napoleon" before penning this script, should be figuratively put in the village pillory and publicly humiliated for this silly script. Firstly and primarily, the film makes no effort to show why the people of France loved and stuck by this "little Corsican upstart" even as the whole of Europe surrounded and destroyed them for it. It utterly failed in showing why, in 1815 and despite 15 years of nearly constant war and France in ruins because of Napoleon, the French people overwhelmingly rallied behind him and followed him on, yet, one more campaign. According to this film, the French were little more than stupid lemmings who just did what they were told by whoever was in charge at the moment. The film might've mentioned Napoleon's complete revision of the judicial system that actually liberated them from the abusive monarchy that enslaved them for so long but I guess if that was included we might not've had the epic scene of Napoleon making idiotic animal noises to seduce Josephine. As a romance, the film is totally devoid of emotion. It's largely scene after scene of Napoleon and Josephine sitting is awkward silence staring at opposite walls punctuated by him attacking her like a dog in heat while she goes on folding clothes. The acting was largely stiff and wooden, especially Phoenix, though to be fair, the script was so poorly written there wasn't much for the actors to bring to life. So much for passion... As for the "epic" battles... This was the biggest failure of the film. Napoleon was noted for his military brilliance even by his enemies. Give that you'd think a film about him might have pit som actual effort in presenting that. It certainly was central to the man's enduring reputation. Instead we get a few expensive but entirely idiotic scenes that have little to nothing to do with the battles they portray. Seriously, shooting a pyramid??? What the hell were they aiming art, the moon? And Austerlitz. One of Napoleon's most brilliant battles where he divided Russian and Austrian armies and destroyed them individually. Did you get the impression there were two full armies there? I certainly didn't. It wasn't that they overplayed to cannons shooting the ise, that was certainly an iconic part of the battle, it was that it was reduced to a comical artillery battery of 4 guns destroying a few Austrian soldiers... Hardly epic and hardly entertaining. Then there was Waterloo. Arguably the pinnacle and perhaps the defining moment in Napoleon's life. All of it reduced to WWI trench war reenactment and a few horses attacking a square. By the way, why did the British come out of their trench to form square? The cavalry was never going to get to them in that trench... You don't need a degree in military history to see that inaccuracy, just some common sense will do. The problem isn't that it got some stuff wrong, the problem is it got almost nothing right. It didn't unravel Napoleon's myth, it clumsely attempted to create it's own myth. It got the details right, the set dressing and the costuming were brilliant as was the photography but they got absolutely everything else wrong. And for all that, I didn't hate it. Instead, I was bored senseless. How you do a movie on Napoleon and make it so boring it feels like too much effort to hate it, I've no idea but David Scarpa and Ridley Scott somehow pulled it off. Instead, go watch The Duelists. Complete fiction but one of the best Napoleonic films ever made.
If the historical details of someones life arent exciting enough to make a biographical movie, dont make a biographical movie. Could say the same about Oppenheimer btw. Hollywood is so bereft of ideas that they cant even come up with an actual interesting character from all of human history that they can tell a story about that is accurate to the historical or mythological record. Why make a movie about Gilgamesh (for example) when you can just rewrite Napoleons life.
[*sigh*] I applaud the content creator's effort to breath some sort of logical narrative of how this film became what it is. I do appreciate effort of being genuine in reviewing the subject matter. Especially considering other YT channels who cynically craft their default business model to be purposefully negative. With provocative clickbait declarations posing as video titles. Because negatively attracts eyeballs and does gets more clicks. But in the case of Ridley Scott's "Napoleon", I'm going to just cut to chase. Simply, its a just failure of a film. What a wasted effort considering the money & talent involved. When I left the theater, "Napoleon" only inspired me to re-watch 1970's "Waterloo", a film faithful to the story. Unlike Scott.
People arent being purposely negative. Theyre negative because every movie that comes out for the past ten years except for maybe 2 or 3 per year, suck balls. The quality of the material just doesnt warrant any positivity.
It's okay to take some liberties with history. For example it really doesn't matter when people think the Vikings had horns on there helmets but Napoleon is a special case where inaccuracies in history directly effects how people view this era in history. He is one of the few examples of yes one man actually changing history as we know it and it's important to get him and the Napoleonic Wars right
Ridley Scott’s Napoleon by Ridley Scott = What a spectacular waste of time, effort, and opportunity. Historical movies MUST give more than a passing nod to the facts and reality of the past. We owe the people of the past a telling of THEIR stories and lives, not only what we think about them in current year.
"Less literal truth", also known as "absolute lie". I do believe that filmmakers and everyone else writing stories based on real history have a responsibility to make it as accurate as possible. "It's not a documentary so it doesn't have to be accurate" is an argument that is thrown around quite a bit, but I always thought it was terrible. Whether we like it or not, those stories will shape people's knowledge and perception of historical events and figures. No amount of "capturing the essence" or intended symbolism will change that. Of course, total historical accuracy is not a practical thing to expect, but an effort should be made to be as close and as faithful to historical events as possible. One question I have to every director and writer who throws historical accuracy out the window is: "If real historical events prevent you from telling the story you want to tell, then why did you chose them to base your story on?" If you have to change real history to fit your movie then maybe you should've chosen another event or made an actually fictional story instead? It goes double for movies like this one where there is so little connection to the real thing, it might as well be complete fiction. At this point why even bother to call it "Napoleon"? Is it for "brand" recognition? Lying to your audience like that should be a lot less acceptable, but unfortunately we live in a world where people will defend conmen like Ridley Scott just because the movie was "pretty" and "exciting".
It's not a terrible argument at all, most well known films based on real history are fiction from top to bottom, and many films that try to be as accurate as possible forget to be good movies in the proccess. Filmmaker's responsibility is to make good movie, everything else is secondary.
@@kdscool1536 All this argument does is assert that filmmakers don't have the responsibility to properly represent history without providing a reason beyond "because I said so". The reality is that regardless of what you think, people will have their views colored by historical fiction, so the responsibility is there. Also, how is the existence of well-recieved historical fiction and poorly recieved historicaly accurate movies even relevant? Being faithful to real history and making an entertaning movie is not mutually exclusive. How about making a good movie that doesn't lie to its audience? Crazy idea, I know. If anything, the fact that some movies can be successful despite being complete fiction presented as fact is an argument against accepting such thing. It shows how apathetic audiences are which is why the responsibility falls on the director and writers.
@@nanaya7e433 name me a single swords and sandals historical epic that both great movie and very accurate, I'll wait. Because I can't think of any. There are some good more or less accurate historical movies in general, but not swords and sandals stuff. If Gladiator was historically accurate, it would've sucked hard. We would've had the guy named Narcissus poisoning and strangling drunk Commodus in a bathtub. Does that sound more exciting to you than epic duel between 2 grave enemies on a colosseum? I don't think so. Filmmaker's responsibility is entertain audience, not being as accurate as possible.
@@nanaya7e433 Name me any movie or series that is critically acclaimed and well-received by the audience and is very accurate to the historical records at the same time. There's a reason why something called "artistic license" exist.
Dude, just call a turd a turd. Why are you so desperate to believe that Ridley Scott made a better film than he in fact did? I don't know what Napoleon movie you watched, but it certainly wasn't the one I saw in theaters. This movie wasn't the slightest bit funny; if Scott was making a joke, he was making a joke at the expense of the audience. Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon was stiff, wooden, and clueless. The film *never* puts Napoleon's battlefield aplomb on display; it makes Napoleon look like he won his battles simply by waving his hand; JP looked like he was going to fall asleep in the middle of a battle. Yeah, the film never portrays Napoleon in a sympathetic light, but that's because the filmmaker had no idea who Napoleon was, didn't care, and never gave the audience a reason to care either.
9:28 Attacking retreating enemies is extremely common at that time (and throughout all of history). It isn't callous or vengeful to attack a retreating, opposing army, it was the norm and would have been done to France should they have been the ones to retreat as well.
"it may not be how things actually went down" does not equal completely ignoring every relevant part of the battle. Napoleon was heavily outnumbered at Austerlitz, he faced 2 other large empires, and he beat them with better soldiers and better tactics. Streamlining the details is one thing, but acting like Napoleon won by shooting a few cannonballs at idiots who wandered onto a frozen lake is a blatant deception of what happened. The events that occurred on the ice, even if they occurred, were simply not a relevant part of the battle. Sometimes people do nitpick for accuracy, but this film didn't even put in a minimal effort to be accurate ever
Yeah, the battle was already won by that point. Even if it happened it in the first place it was absolutely not the pivotal moment. Which I find really funny given the point of the film seemed to be about removing the mythology. But in doing so pretty much just spread more of it at every turn. The British knew him as a whiny cuck that won by cheating and was hell bent on conquering everything that wasn’t France for reasons they won’t elaborate on. Which is pretty much what the film showed. Far from telling the truth of his reign, it firmly falls on the side of bare faced lies.
the thing about napoleon is that you dont need to embelish or change or just remove stuff from his life to make any point about him. his life already has so many ups and downs and reversals and actions and consequences, that just telling it truthfully will give you all the information and viewpoints you need to form an opinion on the man, either for or against
That’s the thing- most people who make history are inherently interesting and have been through a lot of things most of us will never experience. With a rise and fall as dramatic as Napoleon’s was, there’s really no reason to go off course too much. Certainly some things can be dramatized, but I don’t see the point in making a biopic if you don’t care about the history at all, ESPECIALLY since Scott wasn’t cutting through the mysticism around Napoleon, he was just regurgitating the standard British sentiment that’s surrounded him for centuries.
Ridley Scott never made historically accurate movies. Every historical movie he made was "Ridley Scott lectures the audience on what he wants them to think of those people and events".
anyone who wants to see a better film set in the time of the Napoleonic wars just watch the 1970 Waterloo, it gives you a better picture of who he was more than Scotts terrible film.
Yeah, nah. This movie is bad. If you want to see a great biopic in the vein that is spoken about on this video essay than watch Love & Mercy. It's about two distinct periods of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys life. One when he's crafting the 😂&Pet Sounds album in '65 and the other in the '80s when he's being manipulated by a power hungry psychologist. Is every sentence and detail accurate? NO! It can't be. But the story is truthful and gives a far better understanding of Brian Wilson and his pain.
Indeed, the movie "Oppeheimer" was directly inspired by a book that took years for its 2 authors to write. So it is fair to assume the film is quite accurate@@terjehansen0101
As a history buff, i HATE ridley scott.....he never make history epics for accuracy. just the way he wants it to look and not admit it. at least terentino tells you it is a 're-tellig' and fiction. ridley's last. 5 films are 2 to 3 /10
@@kdscool1536The new Midway was committed to historical accuracy, with vets and historians praising its accuracy. The critics didn't like it, but audiences did.
Me if I spoke with Ridley Scott: "Why didn't you have Napoleon and Josephine remain married their entire lives, never divorce, and have Josephine be the mother of Napoleon's son?" Scott: "Because that didn't happen." Me: "Oh yeah? How do you know? Were you there? No? Shut the f**k up then and get a life!" John Belushi playing Napoleon on Saturday Night Live made more sense than this "film".
Haha, love your idea. If I ever get a chance, I'll ask Ridley Scot: "Why didn't you have Napoleon beat the Brits at Waterloo, invade the UK and become the Emperor of Europe?" If he tells me that never happened, I'll know what to reply. 😅
@@F_Bardamu the SNL skit was a riff on those "What If" historical shows and posed the question, "What if Napoleon had had nuclear weapons?" Another question to ask Ridley Scott.
"It promised to disentangle Napoleon the Man from Napoleon the Myth..." With Ridley Scott's own personal Napoleonic myth. The glorious heroic paintings Napoleon comissioned for himself are myth and propoganda. This film is also myth and propoganda, just pointed in a different direction. I was hoping for a film that presented (allowing for certain small liberties) the facts. A well-crafted story can allow the viewer to say whether or not Napoleon was anything special, rather than Napoleon's stories glorifying himself or Ridley Scott's stories dragging him down. Napoleon had many good points and many flaws: just show them as they were and keep fun little creative changes to a minimum.
It really felt like "Emperor Arthur Fleck" the part where Napoleon "inspires" his men to defect to him was painful and it wouldnt have inspired a single one of them.
Phoenix was 48 years old when filming this and he seems to spend practically the entire film with a hangdog expression on his face that makes him look every year of it. Napoleon's first military successes were in his fckin *early twenties.* His first major victories commanding the French army against other nations began in his *MID twenties.* Contemporary portraits show him as practically baby-faced. His career was over by the time he was 46 (arguably several years earlier). Sorry, but this alone makes the film a travesty.
"he may not have fired a shot at the pyramids but the image of him doing so symbolizes the very real destruction his campaign in Egypt rought" Then (I know, this will blow everyone's mind) how about showing that "very real destruction" instead of making shit up?
He did wreak destruction… in the sense he was an invading force. But it was also a scholarly expedition. His efforts led to the finding of the Rosetta Stone, the subsequent translation of the Egyptian language, and the existence of Egyptology as it exists today. Boiling it down to “Napoleon = war = bad” is to ignore the majority of what he actually did in life.
One the biggest problem of the movie is to ignore all the great things Napoleon achieved. Also the failed to show how all monarchies in Europe force the war each time. Exception made in Spain
With regards to: (~10:21) "Scott takes liberties with the history in order to create images that would reveal character". - No. How can the movie tell me anything about the character of a real, historical person when *each and every piece of evidence* for this person's character traits has to be *invented* by the film maker? - At best, this can tell me something about Ridley Scott's personal view of Napoleon. A view that could only be relevant if Mr Scott had deigned to interest himself a little in history before making his movie. Same comment on your final statement: No, on leaving the cinema the audience will *not* have a better understanding about who this man was, for the simple fact that the person who made that movie does not have any understanding about who this man was. In order to have such an understanding, he would have needed to *pick up a sodding book* about, you know, history. - The audience will however leave the cinema with an impression of Ridley Scott's Fantasy!Napoleon. It is to hoped that the movie is bland, confusing and boring enough for it not have a lasting effect.
Considering my only frame of reference for a movie version of Napoleon is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure this still sounds like an interesting portrayal 😅 Using entertainment as a step into interest for historical figures and events is a good tactic for educational purposes. I do get annoyed by historical inaccuracies but I understand when they are condensing the storyline that they make creative choices. Some I appreciate and others I do not care for at all.
Braveheart and Gladiator are really good movies. They fuck history but at least are good as movies. Napoleon is shit at both ( as a historical movie and as enterntainment)
was Napoleon actually a petty vandal and thug in Egypt? it seems like he went their with a massive cultural contingent to learn rather than destroy. And for the small handful of retreating soldiers and cannon that did get stuck in ice when retreating, i read that french soldiers were actually helping to free them and i have never gotten the impression that napoleon and his grand armee were ever completely annihilating the enemy - that was not really even the ideal of warfare in that period - performing a masterful operational maneuver that could bring about a capitulation without combat was more ideal
Yeah and the film stated f all of that. The campaign wasnt even called the Egyptian Campaign but Expedition. Napoleon was more concerned in the history of Egypt rather than the directorys braindead and out of touch plan of cutting the British out of India. I would say the Ulm campaign is the better representation of what warfare of that time that you stated.
He did bring scientists indeed. Was "kind" to the local people..as long as they supported him..once the Egyptians started to rebel, he tamed them quite violently
bro really just said that napoleon being a conquistador, was cause he wanted to learn and not to destroy 💀 maybe you should base your assumptions off of actual history, not just movies
IN a flim you always have to sacrifice parts of historical accuracy to tell a good story. But what happened here was very atomicly bad. Damn, the trailer was masterly crafted to make us think what was in the movie, a Napoleonic war movie, but that wasn't the case. Although I had some dread when Johpine said the line "You are nothing without me."
On one side you have the argument that historical inaccuracy threatens to damage society as a whole by giving people an incorrect view of past events and harming our ability to learn from the past. On the other side you have people saying the movie wouldn't be as entertaining. I know which one of those I care more about. Lean towards accuracy over entertainment.
People that attacked Netflix Cleopatra but defend Scotts Napoleon are hipocrites. At least Netflix mantain some of the escence of Cleopatra character. Napoleon didnt. It butchered his character at a level never senn in a historical movie.
Netflix DID NOT mantain some of the escence of Cleopatra character. if anything not only did they NOT do that but they made every other charecter that wasn't Cleopatra look ten time worse by either making them cucks, emotionally unstable or simply dumb losers and having their, I can't even call her Cleopatra, their OC-DO-NOT-STEAL charecter as the real hero. Oh that battle that the roman generals won? No no it was a slaughter! It was actually my super perfect OC who did all the work!
had a laugh with my friends while watching it. Many of the laughter was out of awkwardness but still a laugh nevertheless. Overall disappointed that they show Napoleon just as a big bum.
It is not about accuracy, the movie is pure revisionism of History to convey a false narrative, to make some quick easy money, thinking all people are stupid and will just be pleased with the photography and very little subtility in the symbolism and paint recreation.
You and I must have read a different biography or watched a different movie. Watching this film will tell you nothing about who Napoleon was. The biography paints him as a charismatic and compelling leader, whereas the film makes him out to be some weirdo who just happened into becoming emperor of France. While nobody can speak to his character for sure, I would trust the biographer over the film director.
Historically inaccurate and just overall fucking terrible. The acting, the writing, the pacing, everything about it. I'm shocked this was a Ridley Scott movie.
'You've got 10400 books to start' but you don't have to read all of them. Many of those are about a specific event say Napoleon in Italy in 1796. You only need about a dozen books and several dozen articles about specific events. With a team of about 5-6 assistants its more than doable. Also this argument that there's too much and a lot is speculation(citation needed) could be applied to other fields. Say WW2.
This is not the first time Ridley Scott has played fast and loose with history for the sake of his narrative. Conquest of paradise comes to mind. His productions are generally impressive in all the esoteric artistic senses, but in the last 10-15 years or so his works have critically lacked substance. And with such a flaw, making historical portrait movies is just asking for trouble.
Ridley Scott is a very inconsistent film maker. He is frustrating that way. As for history I think they have an obligation to be as accurate as possible. Films don't need to be elegant, films don't need to have a clear narrative, but history does NEED to be accurate.
"Ridley Scott ... takes liberties ...to reveal a more abstract truth about his character." Sorry, it's not a revealed truth, but his personal views on Napoleon. If he has to bend so many facts to make it work, it's a strong indication his "truth" is not so true after all.
I personally don’t care about 100% historical accuracy, but this movie turned one of the most energetic, influential, charismatic figures from the whole known history into boring tired old man. I’m not trying to take any side, but I don’t believe this kind of person (that we see in this movie) could win over hundreds of thousands and lead the best armies of the time.
If they take artistic liberties when making a movie, they should always emphasize this, letting everyone know. Too many people walk out of the cinema thinking that is how it was. Some peple are even so stupid that they would might think an actor playing a bad guy really is that bad guy.
I still think the best portrayal of Napoleon was in Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace. The few minutes of screen time he had there is for me a better presentation of what Napoleon was really like.
During this movie’s press tour, Ridley Scott has definitely become a pretentious & selfish filmmaker. It’s disrespectful the way he has responded to negative comments about the movie such as: “The French don’t even like themselves” to French critics. Or when he responded to historians criticizing the movie: “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up”. I was really excited for this movie, but I was also prepared to be let down this way given Scott’s track record. I love Ridley Scott’s work as a filmmaker, but so far right now, I don’t like him as a person, I’ll keep watching his movies (the good ones) and I’ll look forward to a new movie of his, but this is the most disappointing movie of the year.
It’s not a hard question historical accuracy is more important These films are how the majority of people will consume the stories of these historical figures therefore, to tell anything, but the absolute truth is a disservice to history.
Scott didn’t give a damn about history because he’s British, and they still hate Napoleon. This movie is so anti-French/anti-Napoleon that it’s insane. Anyone who thinks this movie captures Napoleon correctly are insane.
I understand your appreciation for this movie, but if Ridley really wanted to make a movie about the differences between Napoleon the myth and Napoleon the man he really should have made it more evident on the text itself rather than having to interprete it from an historically informed perspective. I reckon that your average viewer isn't going to realise parts of this movie are just exaggerated or outright propaganda. They are just going to walk away with the stereotypical angry midget with an ego problem they walked in with already, only maybe with the added bonus of having a needy, toxic relationship with Josefine.
There should be mandatory disclaimer on every movie for the noobs😅. "That is far from reality,this is entertainment,learn about history from peer reviewed history books not from dumb a*s artists😂(when it comes to academia, scientific literacy, temperament,etc)"
@@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2I mean, Egypt is geographically African. Egyptian culture in the time of Cleopatra was a mix of Greek and Kemetic culture. Cleopatra like most Greek descended people was probably tan brownish
As a history minor who researched colonial European history, especially the French and Haitian revolutions. If there was anything i would have expected from a Napoleon biopic was a mention of Napoleon’s biggest thorn - Toussaint- the Governor General of St. Domingue- Haiti. These two revolutions were linked together. The French Revolution values of liberty equality and fraternity is what inspired the Haitian revolution. After they couldn’t get napoleon and the court to agree to release the slaves, they rebelled . Napoleon then had to send his own brother to the island to squash the uprising. However, he failed , and the slaves were freed. Toussaint then became dictator for life as the Governor General. But despite his efforts to end slavery, he actually was pro France. And wrote napoleon quite often . But as we see in the biopic, France wasn’t doing so hot😅 Napoleon was running out of resources and money after his campaign failures in Egypt and especially Russia. So much so that he threatened to bring back slavery. Toussaint sought to stop this through diplomacy, but he was tricked by the French and was thrown into the tower by which he would later die. Tho before his death he would write to Napoleon constantly reminding him of his support to France , and why he wanted to meet him but napoleon never did meet him. I believe he grew annoyed with the constant letters. In his place, Dessalines the second in command would take over and win Haiti independence. As a result of this loss, Napoleon would enforce an embargo against Haiti for the “loss of property “ (aka slaves) of which they would spent the next two centuries paying it off. Overall. You can’t talk about French Revolution without the Haiti revolution because they happened at the same time. If not Haiti itself , at least mention Alexandre Dumas - not the author but his father who was a French general and was one of napoleon’s biggest competitors especially during the Egyptian campaign.
Facts, Mistakes, and Propaganda are different words with their own meanings. Napoleon didn’t have facts and this wasn’t due to mistakes. Napoleon is propaganda.
For me, the question of “historical accuracy” in biopics is best answered by the two Steve Jobs movies that came out a few years ago. The one starring Ashton Kutcher was probably the one you could say on face value was the most historically accurate - they certainly went to greater lengths to make everybody look like the people they were supposed to be playing and present all the big moments of Jobs’s life - but it ended up being nothing more than a shallow dramatisation of a Wikipedia page that ultimately wasn’t particularly illuminating. The Danny Boyle/Aaron Sorkin film, however, was much more focused on exploring who Jobs was as a person, while being upfront and honest about its “historically inaccurate” framing device, and ended up being a more substantive film at the end of the day. I think Sorkin summed it up perfectly when he recounted how one of the real life people who featured in the film approached him after the premiere and said “That was incredible, none of that happened and yet all of it was true”
It also helps that Sorkin actually knows how to write cohesive characters with arcs and he knows how to construct situations that showcase their character traits.
I hope you are not comparing this trash to the Boyle/Sorkin Steve Jobs biopic because such a comparison would be laughable. At least Michael Fassbender nailed the role with the help of brilliant writing and solid direction. You cannot say the same thing about this film.
I think Scott had a very particular view of Napoleon (not a very positive one). And in favor of this view, he chose to ignore all of the historical evidence to the contrary. I mean, no word is spoken about the Code Napoleon in the entire film. That's simply not acceptable, if you wanna "paint a portrait" of the man. Ridley clearly thinks of him mostly as a brute, which is suuuuuch an oversimplification and downright not true.
I don’t know why everyone is worshipping a long dead piece of shit who took advantage of turbulent times in order to gain power. We should not be idolizing Napoleon. The dude was a piece of shit, a very interesting piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless.
What did you think of Ridley Scott's Napoleon? 🇫🇷 Do you think historical accuracy is essential to biopics? Comment below!💥 Thanks again to Brilliant 🧠 Get a 30-day free trial + the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual subscription ➡ brilliant.org/FilmSpeak/
It certainly was a Fuck History of Napoleon...
Saw him clapping cheeks more than countries.
In all seriousness though, it is about what I expected. It's a typical hollywood-studio move to focus more on some exaggerated relationship drama surrounding a political/military figure than the actual political/military things that made them so (in)famous.
For my part, I mainly only wanted to watch it because I knew little of Napoleon, and wanted to understand a little more about the context behind the setting of "The Count of Monte Cristo" - specifically in why being a Napoleon supporter was so heavily punishable. Oh and my father wanted to watch it and we had 2 free tickets so why not
@My_pfp_beats_all_dog_breeds.because an european emperor can still have different elements rather than an american scientist slowly becoming a political death figure silently and carelessly. still different personalities though on how they react to love.
As someone who loves reading biographics/autobiographies and historical fiction, I love good and well-researched historical accuracy about the time period or person I'm reading. With that said, I understand condensing Napoleon's life.
However I would probably have stuck with just up to his rise as Emperor nothing more with perhaps a short, short epilogue that shows/speaks about what happened afterwards perhaps decades after Napoleon.
I much prefer historically accurate biographies as opposed to Ridley Scott’s revisionism
Napoleon was TWENTY-TWO YEARS OLD, not FORTY-SEVEN
tim Chalmette should be doing this , not Joachim phoenix
I'm a purist on this. First of all, Ridley Scott is full of it. He made the Napoleon movie for the same reason all movies get made now: Name Brand recognition. He could have made up a fictional character of that time period and based it on Napoleon (this has been done before, many times), but he wanted to use Napoleon's name because people recognize it. In my opinion, the minute he stamped "Napoleon" on the script, he had to be honest. You want to create fiction, write a fiction. You want to use a person from history or a story/character from a book, you are now limited by that choice. That's my two cents anyway.
What was that great TV series that followed a couple of Roman nobodies that depicted the ancient times from their perspective? One of them even gets lucky with Cleopatra. It was a very entertaining series. And that's one rule of film. Be anything, but entertain in the literal definition of the word. Not the MGM version of it. I don't find "battles" etertaining anymore. But I'd watch Welle's Falstaff at the drop of a hat.
i completely agree thats why i have a problem with hollywood wanting to change so many characters to be more lgbtq or anything really like with james bond talking about race changing or making it a woman imo if you wanna change and existing character make a new character if you want a woman spy make a woman spy or any other character dont change an existing character make a new one
It's a lot like suspension of disbelief, there's a limit if you're watching a supposedly serious film. It's the same with a historical film about a specific person. If it at least was as entertaining as Braveheart it'd be a different story, we would be saying "it's not accurate BUT.." Here there was no gain
@@sclogse1the show is HBO Rome. You follow Julius Caesar doing the historically accurate public things that actually happened, but also the fictional story of Pullo and Vorenus in the midst of it, in the plausible background of the history. It was genius, but don't think it would work for a movie like this
I don't disagree in spirit, but then I think about Amadeus, which is just about a perfect movie but almost totally fiction. Same with Braveheart. Would you really prefer those films just didn't exist?
Then again there's "Elizabeth" (1998), which I used to LOVE but turns out is so loaded with inaccuracies that I can't even watch it anymore!
Where's the line?! 😫
I saw a video about this movie where they interviewed a real professor of French history and he said only 38 minutes of Napoleon was historically accurate.
I'll bet it included the credits, haha
Andrew Robert’s
Highly recommend his book ‘Napoleon the Great’
He was being generous.
Even his last words weren't correct lol
Yep ...... all the moments when there is no wars, and nobody speaks + credits .
The problem with historical inaccuracies like this is how much context is ignored.
Yes it’s okay to take SOME historical liberties when making a biopic, but taking as many as Ridley did is, to put it short, too far.
Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor and all and it sucks to see his talent wasted
The problem is not historical inaccuracies, it's just not very good movie overall. The most well known historical epics like Gladiator and Braveheart are fantasy from top to bottom, but they are great films and that's the only thing that actually matters.
@@kdscool1536 hmmm
I think it’s okay for fantasy stories to take place a long time ago
Blue Eye Samurai isn’t based on a true story or anything and it’s the best tv show of 2023
Bruh its an action movie. From the same guy that made 'Gladiator' what did you expect? 💀
I sometimes wondered if Ridley Scott missed a chance to make a movie on the OTHER Napoleon. If made, Phoenix was in the correct age range and could have been utilized much better.
The theme would be about a nephew trying to re-create the glories of his uncle. There would be moments of uncertainty and self-doubt. Such a role was likely to suit Phoenix.
Probably fewer battle scenes which would make it cheaper to produce while at the same time a story line including 1848, Crimea, Italy, Mexico and Prussia would have lots of interesting parts.
And oh yes, the age gap would also be reasonably accurate. The nephew's wife was 18 years younger and outlived her husband by almost 50 years.
@@vu-trathechildofhorrors5859 Yeah, and in the eyes of an Asian, it's also plastered with orientalism and inaccurate depictions of medieval Japan. Chinese buildings, fantasy armour, outright wrong depictions of Japanese culture... etc. I wish people also knew more about medieval Japan as well as Napoleon. So they can see those problems.
It's a good argument that a biopic must, by necessity, be true not to the letter of history, but to the spirit. The problem with Ridley Scott's Napoleon is that it is true to neither.
The problem with the spirit is that that is 100% up to the directors interpretation. The only objective measure is the facts.
If you want to make historical fantasy, just go do that and dont claim it to be a biopic.
@@TheSuperappelflap the problem is that we rarely have access to all or most or even a solid chunk of the facts. the history of historical figures is so very often just a string of events, loosely tied to whatever documents we can find, and even then we have to pose that against historical contexts and attitudes, including our own historical lens and attitudes.
Did Caesar have a romantic relationship with the king of nicomedia? Was Cleopatra a shameless seductress? Was CaoCao a cruel warlord? Can we trust anything written by the opponents of a dead historical figure?
mind you, im not arguing against the idea of relying on facts for historical content, but rather highlighting how the "facts" can be very tenous at best at times.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516yeah no, there's a gaping hole between the historical accuracy of Caesar and Napoleon's extremely well documented life. There are endless letters and excerpts from people who were there, this was only 200 years ago, this time was more documented in France than anything similar in the US. We know what happened and what didn't to a pretty fine degree, to the extent that we know exactly how much Napoleon padded his elections.
@@boarfaceswinejaw4516 still better than just making shit up
@@TheSuperappelflap I don't think it's 100 % up to interpretation. Let me show what I mean with an example.
The spirit of history:
Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, during which he brought numerous scientists along with him, is considered the beginning of the field of Egyptology. It was during this expedition that they discovered the Rosetta stone, for instance, which lead to the deciphering of the hieroglyphs.
Therefore, the spirit of history in this case is that Napoleon was a man who was interested in and respected ancient civilisations such as Egypt.
Interestingly, there are two scenes in Scott's Napoleon that each land on either side of this line -- coincidentally also illustrating that Scott didn't know what he was trying to do with this film.
1. The now infamous scene where Napoleon fires cannon on the pyramids.
2. The scene where Napoleon places his hat on top of the sarcophagus of some pharaoh or military leader (I presume).
Scene no. 1 obviously violates both the letter and spirit of history. The letter because it didn't happen, and the spirit because it gives the wrong impression of the man.
Scene no. 2 though -- historically accurate or no -- is true to the spirit of history, because it portrays Napoleon as someone who respected the ancient Egyptians, thus giving a correct impression of his character and attitude.
Now, one might argue that Scott is of the opinion that Napoleon didn't respect ancient cultures at all, and that's why it was no violation of the historical spirit to have him fire his cannon on the great pyramid.
But if this was Scott's message, why did he include scene no. 2 with the sarcophagus? It doesn't make sense. The characterisation is inconsistent. Shoddy work, in short. This makes it seem likelier to me that Scott just went for spectacle and didn't care about either letter or spirit.
As a Frenchman, I found the Napoleon character in Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures more convincing...
lol lol. Most excellent comment.
The Napoleon in a Looney Tunes short was more accurate
Whoa
EXCELENT!
What a disgusting slap in the face to all French people; this movie was payback for something and a complete lie from beginning to end. I forgot what I was commenting about, you're right!!😂...
The true failing of the film is how poorly it conveys to the audience the state of Europe at any given time, why Europe is that way, why Napoleon represented such a thorn in the side of everyone and the various specifics reasons that led to seemingly unending war and the Congress of Vienna that made a lasting peace at the cost of liberty soon after his final downfall. The film doesn’t fully commit to any aspect of his life and underserved all of them, giving us a hodge-pudge of events that leave us confused to Napoleon’s real character and his psychology. He becomes less facsinating and more confusing as the film proceeds and the events seem more and more trivial as context is never given their full weight. Ridley didn’t succeed with this one. It’s more Exodus: Gods and Kings than Gladiator.
Also, if Scottt hates Napoleon so much, then, HE HAS to speak THE TRUTH. It's almost a moral duty! What he does is to lie to himself and to his audience for three hours. The entire thing is just a mess.
This movie is a gem .... it's so accurate it beats Netflix Cleopatra's accuracy. 🤣🤣🤣 A Gem I say, A Gem 🤢🤮🤮
Gee it's almost like this movie was made by the guy that did 'Gladiator' 😂
@@TheRealHaloLover At least, Gladiator did not had Commodus as main character.
And it presented less then 0.5% of the life of Commodus. Contrary to Napoleons where he is the main + pretending to present is whole life. The treachery to history is on another level.
There will be a director's cut though, over 4 hour long. Maybe some of these things will be explored there
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Except Ridley forgor the 2nd part
Never let the truth
Exactly.
This feels like a quote by Joseph Goebbels.
Agreed, being accurate doesn't make a movie bad or good in itself, the movie was just bad regardless of being accurate or not.
I knew Ridley lost his damn mind after he made Alien: Covenant.
Prometheus was where i think he lost his mind.
@@anubusx 😂
@@anubusx no, it's Alien: Covenant, he's made a couple of good movies after Prometheus. Prometheus is flawed, but not without merit. Covenant is just abomination.
He really lost it by the time 1492 released. No joke, he repeated the mistake he did 40 years ago.
@@linkfreeman1998 1492 is a better movie than Napoleon across the board, especially music and cinematography.
My issue with this film is not with the inaccuracies. My issue is that the inaccuracies and the omission of several key events actively destroys the plot. Like when Napoleon and Josephine get married and then immediately cuts to him in Egypt. No explanation is given to how he got there or what really happened before it, and it leaves the audience confused.
can't make a 10 hour movie bro, it would be a very boring movie If we would see every moment he was walking from room to room
I’m not asking for a ten hour movie. Just m just asking for a movie where I’m not asking what’s happening the entire time.
@@EvanHuber-mi6dnagreed i hardly knew what was happening a good amount of the time, it should have had more lead up to certain events and left out others so the movie wouldnt have so much whiplash
Spot on "No explanation is given to how he got there or what really happened before it, and it leaves the audience confused." this is true with all films and TV series and I believe it started with the TV series LOST, where the once accepted and expected skill by those giving us film, TV and plays is the structure of a story line which has been around since ancient times, i.e. The Illiad which as you so correctly state often was not the case in this film.
The problem is that directors and actors, dare I say, get so far up their own backsides in that they lose sight of their job, which is to tell a story for the audience not for THEMSELVES. Ridley Scott on starting out did this superbly well with 'The Duellists' a masterpiece of a film where this film was rubbish.
But for me, who was looking forward to at last a grown up and non Woke film was to see several times black actors of which one playing the part of a very high ranking field officer, which I assume Scott 'had' to include to get the film made due to acting diversity regulations.
What is the point of making a 'history' film if, as now happens especially with this one, it is no longer about the history of the time, events and people involved but instead just becomes a very thin, vague back cloth to serve a director's and actor's own ego, political and in their minds 'artistic' visual displays.
@@alfredlundqvist6924 Yes, a quick scene of him opening a letter which informs him of his deployment to Egypt, while having breakfast with Josephine, would make an almost 3h movie way too long.
I think getting a British director to make a movie about Napoleon was probably always going to result in some serious historical inaccuracy.
He just forgot Germany in the movie. Its never mentioned. No Leipzig, no Friedland no Eylau. The whole German war of independence takes place between Russia and Napoleons abdication. Even the congress of Vienna, is shown just by having Wellington do a monologue.
The only mention of Germany is when Napoleon says to Josephine that she should cure her infertility is the Spa of Aachen (Aix la Chapel).
Napoleon once commented on the (British) political cartoonist that spread the myth that he was short by saying something along the lines of “He did more damage to me than all the armies of Europe combined,” or something like that.
@@motionpictures6629 Portugal too
He also completely failed to represent Britain’s contribution, if it helps. Too little time, too much to fit in it, too poor an understanding of events to prioritise.
This film is a Ridley Scott problem not a British problem.
I once had a classmate in History Class who thought Hitler was killed by assassins in a movie theater.
Thanks, Quentin. It's your fault.
HAHAHA that's incredible
I bet he also thinks Sharon Tate is still alive and her would be killers got flamed
I really like that Wikipedia edit troll which expanded the revisionist bloodbath in Oce upon time in Hollywood. Sharon did Kung fu on Manson
That edit got me banned from Wikipedia.
I knew that revisionist history show-off-show-out s*it was going to produce a story like that.
Funny story, don't get me wrong, but damn, if QT told the story the way it was, then that person and millions of others would have the accurate story. And the real story was fascinating, with real-life heroes that went unsung because QT has a case of megalomania and thought he could improve on history.
Historical inaccuracy is not the problem, Gladiator is as much inaccurate as Napoleon but is "one of the greatest movies of all time". The problem with Napoleon is more about the editing and writing, how they speed run 30 years of history without context or explanation of why things are happening the way they are and made the protagonist look more like a medium for the story to move forward instead of an active character that build it's own story. That is why for example Bravehart, Gladiator or The Last Samurai are loved by audiences even though they have the same historical accuracy as Star Wars.
I did kinda notice he had no real growth the entire movie, I enjoyed it but woahh that was mad
I do agree with your perspective, especially considering that another film that did the same disservice to the historical record was another Ridley Scott project called "The Patriot" (1998). That film was, though well-acted, a terrible piece of schlock that clearly disregarded the important realities of the American Revolution, such as that the British weren't the only ones who committed atrocities, that the American Revolution was a conflict that divided the people into separate camps as much as the American Civil War, and that the two greatest generals of the American Revolution (Nathaniel Greene and Daniel Morgan) were not incompetents who had to have plans made for them by their subordinates. A film which did take historical license yet is to be regarded as a masterpiece beloved by millions that can be added to the list is "Letters from Iwo Jima" (2009). Clint Eastwood's masterpiece depicted the Japanese perspective of the Battle of Iwo Jima, which highlighted how the Japanese were not just mindless, uber patriotic drones for the imperial government to send to their deaths, but were people with thier own dreams, hopes, and fears. Furthermore, Eastwood laid bare the fact that the United States military was not completely clean from the committal of atrocities in the Pacific Theater, a reality that many American films about the American war effort failed to elaborate.
@@matthewkuchinski1769Ridley wasn't involved in The Patriot though. However one movie he did that was also a mess was '1492 - Conquest of Paradise', who massively downplays Columbus' tyrannical ruling over the Caribbean islands by pushing it on fictional characters and instead presenting him as a benevolent leader
@@BeanManolopeople should stop thinking that they are learning History from Hollywood movies. Simple.
@@marvinhanson9391Real People often don't have the same growth as fictional characters in stories. Especially not those in Power.
The depiction of Napoleon as merely petty, bitter and egotistical is just as much a myth as romanticizing his campaigns, the difference being that it reiterates the anti-napoleon propaganda of the 1800s instead of the imperial french propaganda of the time. It ignores how he was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment and convict on the ideals of the french revolution. It ignores, therefore, what he really meant politically, focusing on his portrayal as simply hungry for some sort of control. In the movie, he shoots the pyramids, when in reality he took a team of scholars which helped, among other things, build hospitals and scientific institutes. The film would have been more interesting if it showed these contradictory sides of the political regime born of the revolution. On one hand, imperialism, war, centralization of power, on the other, decayal of the aristocracy, diffusion of republican ideals, of the ideas of the Enlightenment and of rule of law (France's first civil code was napoleonic).
I don't think the movie portrays Napoleon the way it does to contrast him with the ideals of the french revolution. As a matter of fact I think they portray the revolution in an equally negative way. Compare the scenes of the death of Maire Antoinette with the "judgement" of Robespierre. She goes out with a brave face, as someone who remained strong and calm even though the people around her were agressive to her and wanted her dead. Robespierre, on the other hand, faced with the decision to execute him, blames everyone for the terror, runs scared and tries to kill himself in order not to be guillotined. The revolutionary period before Napoleon's coup seems to always focus on the terror, as if to highlight the revolution as barbaric.
This!!! I completely agree with this part. The fact that the movie starts with the execution of Marie Antoinette, without any context or explanation or showing of her trial or anything really is clearly made to show the revolution as barbaric, it would be like starting the patriot with the scene of Mel Gibson hacking the british soldier with an axe like "what? You will not explain me anything about Europe at the time and how we got here? Why all of this is happening?" Also now that we're at it they don't show exactly why Napoleon starts loosing in Spain which imo was mistaken, they could have shown how trying to export the revolution to a place where it had no support was a bad idea (comparing it to the Netherlands, Germany or Italy where you could argue it had support or at least way more support than in Spain or Russia, which would have explained more why the russians use guerrilla warfare against him).
Also now that we're at it they completely skipped the italian campaign like THE CAMPAIGN THAT MADE NAPOLEON FAMOUS!
Also the 100 days scene imo made no sense like how would someone like that be able to pull that off? In Waterloo (1970) it makes way more sense and actually makes you feel he's at least charismatic enough
Except the French Revolution was barbaric.
@@tau-5794 says who?
There was SO MUCH to display and put on center stage from this story! RIdley Scott ignored all of it.
@@tau-5794It was a mess. That's what revolutions are.
The only conlussion I can get to, after many reviews on this film, is this: Ridley Scott hates Napoleon. Period.
He once compared Napoleon to Hitler.
@@F_BardamuI mean, both were strongmen dictators who took advantage of turbulent conditions in order to gain power.
@@simoneidson21
bro napoleon is nowhere near as evil as someone like the mustache man
The "small" difference between the two characters being one of them was so entirely driven by his hatred for "subhmans" that he very nearly anihilated them by killing millions (and would have killed millions more if he hadn't been stopped: all the slavs were more or less doomed). But I'm nitpicking of course. Call me a French Napoleon fanboy.@@simoneidson21
@@Seinsmelled He may not have been as evil but when it comes for his desire to control it all dear god are they close. I suppose that's why they derive then both as similar.
What makes this movie so egregious, aside for the single largest battle in European history until WW! being skipped over, Leipzig, and other structural issues regarding the story, nor even it's historical inaauracies, it was the fact that the historical inaccuracies were there to specifically further an obvious personal agenda Scott had going in. That agenda being to make Napoleon out to be a heartless tyrant, who only won battles due to him sacrificing massive amounts of his own men, that he had little care for his soldiers, and that he was little more than an awkward borderline sociopath who's relationship with Josephine was what truly defined him. Which of course - is historically-illiterate nonsense! I had heard going in that the movie was nothing but a smear piece of Napoleon, and being someone who got my degree in European military history, with a focus n the Napoleonic era - i was hoping that this wasn't the case, but unfortunately it is a 100% correct assessment of this godawful film. Firstly, Josephine was significantly older than Napoleon, and secondly, she isn't remotely as important to the story of napoleon as this film has made her out to be. And this notion that Napoleon wouldn't have amounted to anything beyond being a tyrant, if not for her - is fuckin absurd. The movie should have just been called Napoleon and Josephine, because it focused so heavily on their relationship in place of monumentally more important events/actions that weren't even mentioned let alone explored in this film. They depicted Napoleon as being pretty much the ridiculous British caricature of Napoleon being a short tyrant who was the Hitler of his era. I love alot of Scotts movies, this is by far the most disappointing, and possibly his worst film to date. Because, on top of the agenda he was pushing throughout this film and the rampant historical inaccuracies, the fact is - it's simply a bad movie, period - besides just being revisionist history bs. Plus Phoenix delivered possibly his worst performance of his career!
Kingdom of Heaven was where i got off the Ridley Scott story train
he just SUCKS for the last TWENTY YEARS
@@delphinazizumbo8674 The director's Cut of Kingdom of Heaven was 10 times better.
Josephine was extremely important for Napoleons rise, but they could not even do her justice. They should have started the movie with the execution of Alexandre de Beauharnais, Josephine's husband and the president of the French national convention. Josephine's friends made Napoleon emperor.
i agree the DC is the best way to see KoH...i think napoleons life NEEDS two movies AT LEAST@@motionpictures6629
Napoleon was, unlike in the movie, charismatic af. He single handedly turned around a group of soldiers ready to kill to his side when fleeing from exile. Like if that’s not a Speech 100 I don’t know what is.
Blame James Gillray for that.
Hard disagree on this, Scott clearly made a hate piece on Napoleon. Kids, don't be afraid to call out your heroes' BS.
I mean, Napoleon was kinda a piece of shit yeah
@@simoneidson21 yeah, that's what he only was in the movie. But he also put forward legal steps to bring Europe out of feudalism
@@Jargon Dude, Europe was already coming out of feudalism. Napoleon did very little for it or against it.
@@Jargon 19th century: Ottoman Empire is already weakening, Austria-Hungary began unification, Germany began as a new empire, Napoleon held France 2 times until his final exile, Queen Victoria ruled over Britain, Russia was reeling from the loss of Catherine the Great which eventually spiralled into the abolition of the empire and founded the Soviet Union
Feudalism is arguably a thing of the past at that point in Europe (except in Russia)
You are 100% wrong.
@@simoneidson21
The Problem with this movie is that in an attempt to break the myth of Napoleon(Ie the imperial French propaganda of the time), Ridley Scott replaces it with another myth(Ie the British propaganda of the time). He didn't make this movie to show the man, but to shine a light on the British view. That's why the Prussians are basically never mentioned and there's no buildup of Napoleon's skill(Ie the Italian campaign) because the British had no involvement. Instead they put him in a much more powerful position much earlier on because that is when there was British involvement. This isn't a movie about the man, this is a movie about the British propaganda.
@@alfredlundqvist6924he didn’t say anything about napoleons age though?
This is the confusion I felt, growing up in the US I was led to believe that Napoleon was like some proto-Hitler who wanted to conquer everything, while also being short, whiny, and tempermental. This was until I actually started reading about Napoleon where I stopped believing this of course. When he got to the part about this movie "deconstructing the myth" I was so shocked because if anything this movie reinforces the myth of Napoleon we've been spoonfed in the anglosphere.
What annoys me with Napoleon is not the historical liberties, historical liberties always need to be made, it's his flippant response, much like his response to the last duel, where he blamed short attention spans for the poor box office, and when asked about concerns over historic accuracy he said "Get a Life." Completely dismissing these valid concerns with an insult.
Might be turning senile
Had never heard of the "get a life" bit - that is such an unbelievably short-sighted, self-centered and out-and-out irresponsible thing to say for someone with as humongous a platform as that man undeservedly has access to.
Instantly reminds me of Netflix's Cleopatra "documentary" from a while ago that presented a completely fictionalized version of Cleopatra intended to convey a modern, specifically American, ideal and whose creators are currently in a legal dispute with the country of Egypt over it.
Making propaganda out of historical figures is a well-worn tradition, but also one that nobody in modern day gets to pretend is harmless. Especially not for something as pitiable as monetary gain.
Nepo babies going to Nepo babies.
1. Joaquin Phoenix was a poor choice to play Napoleon. He looked taller, older, and spoke with a slight Brooklyn accent. It took me out of the movie.
2. Having a strictly French film set in France, using British actors with British accents, also took me out of the movie. There is no reason why they couldn't have used French actors speaking English with French accents, or better yet, speaking French with English subtitles. I mean, it's 2023, there's no excuse for not doing that.
3. We don't get much character development with Napoleon. How he rose to power, what motivates him, who he is a person, are all never really fleshed out in the movie. I didn't really care about him. I cared more about Josephine.
I'm going to get the French version with subtitles. Someday. I think it will be better. Well, I guess I need it in NTSC...
Perhaps it might have been better if it was a movie about the OTHER Napoleon. 😊😊
More or less the correct age with an age gap that was also largely accurate. (The wife of the Nephew was 18 years younger)
Easier to make since the politics was less complicated. The nephew wante to re-create the glories of his uncle excluding the part of the various anti-French coalitions.
It could have been interesting if it was a movie on 1848, Crimean War, rebuilding Paris, support of Italian unification, the Mexican intervention and war with Prussia.
Chernobyl did a great job depicting the historical events and characters using English speaking actors though.
@@meow1990_2 Good point. I still would have preferred Russian though.
I expected the movie would be a BS drama-drama flick when they were talking in grave, British accents in the trailer. Glad I wasn't let down
"Why did you make a movie about Napoleon?"
"Because I wanted to sell tickets"
"Why did you not show some really important events like Trafalgar?"
"By the time that happens in Napoleon's life the audience has already bought the ticket and is sitting in the cinema, so what do I care?"
"Thank you, Sir Ridley."
You should get a gold medal in gymnastics the way you tried to make this movie seem good
True. Saying that this film was trying to portrait the "Man" rather than the "Myth" is so pathetic when in reality this film is portraying a (British) caricature of what Napoleon actually was. But as same as Ridley Scott this hack doesn't value historical accuracy.
Yes, it does make one wonder whether money, in some form, was involved. This is not honest.
@@Mooseman327lol someone had a bad take so you think theyre being paid off 😂
I mean it was entertaining to me but obviously it wasnt very good in terms of historical accuracy
hard agree
Scott as the director of this movie is an example of the old saying, “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
The life of Napoleon is so fascinating it should have been a miniseries or a trilogy of films. It’s far too big for a single film.
Nah.
Literally the reason why Kubrick gave up after years of planning and did Barry Lyndon instead
Being a British royalist he definatly should have stayed away from the legacy of Napoleon. And make a movie about Lord Nelson's war crimes instead.
The 2002 miniseries is not perfect, but rather solid. The Napoleon of that miniseries is cunning and charismatic, but also egotistical and detestable. An intelligent villain of superficial charm.
but he didn't even get one thing right in one movie and only managed to take only the bad ideas to make a movie. He shouldn't have make one period
You know director f*cked up when Godzilla movie is more historically accurate than Napoleon movie.
True
To be honest, the movie was so AWFUL I'm still shocked. It was boring, pointless, silly and even kind of insulting. The casting is just wrong, the script is just wrong, the pacing is just wrong and the lack of subtlety hurts. It was so inaccurate that I was expecting a CGI dancing monkey to appear. Why not? History doesn't matter anyway! What a waste. With movies like this, OF COURSE historical epics are a dead genre.
damn … you expected a movie about nepolean not be boring 💀 even in literal history class he was boring
@@sybill123ful Just because you don't like smth doesn't mean it's boring. Otherwise I'd deduct you're quite boring too lol
@@sybill123fulhow could the life of a great conqueror POSSIBLY be boring?
@@sybill123ful Clearly you were the targeted audience then.
It doesnt help that this is literally a british guys take on the french. I cant think of many countries that would be more willing to do a hitpiece on napoleon
I'd like to watch the French language version with subtitles.
It could be worse. Imagine a spanish director making it. (I am spanish) Probably would be funny, but not so accurate.
Hell tbh, an Italian director would do the same as a spanish director here. The British will hate him, but at least down in the land of PIGS, we can have a laugh about him too.@@cesarsuarez7538
I once watched a visualization of a novel about a Polish Napoleonic soldier it was really good, it was historically accurate, didnt make Napoleon look like an awful tyrant or weak man (more as a liberator and great general) while also highlighting his flaws
Austria...maybe germany or russia.perhaps spain.
I think the biggest issue here is that the film was called "Napoleon" rather than "Napoleon & Josephine", the context of their relationship was the primary focus and mostly accurate, especially compared to the accuracy of the depiction of the Napoleonic wars. The emotional crux of the characters of the movie was there and accurate, even if the facts don't line up. Ridley Scott never tried to make a documentary, but an insight into the character of Napoleon, and his relationship with Josephine.
That’s the biggest problem for me. I didn’t want to see his relationship with his wife, at least not for basically the whole movie yk. In my opinion they cut out way too much of the actual war
That’s what he intended to make. I remember reading about it months before release. Ridley Scott’s making a film about Napoleon and his wife Josephine. Seems to me producers or the studios decided to just call it”Napoleon” and market it as such for the $ grab.
@@bigmikem1578 Well I didn’t read anything or see the trailers so maybe that’s on me. I still believe that for a movie called Napoleon it underdelivered
This EXACTLY what i just commented.
The character work is still weak so I recommended a different title such as "The 16 Battles of -whatever insert-"
Their relationship was not depicted accuratly, starting with how old both were. She was older than him. Also, though Napoleon was Truely in love at first, he wasn't the kind of man to grovel at her feet. He also never hit her.
Scott depiction of Napoleon is though not only mocking but also humiliating to witness. It's hard to believe that Napoleon insecure portal was the right decision in order to "breaking the myth" about a man who not only change Europe, but ultimately the world. In Oppenheimer we see Nolan breaking myth when the audience discovers Roberts desire for a martyr complex before the making of the bomb "You think because you let them tar and feather you that the world will forgive you?" Kitty. Though we know Robert historically felt terrible about the dropping of the bomb the film take us further in Oppenheimers psyche. In Napoleon we never had a moment when he debates himself when he goes to Moscow even though he knows he's losing more and more men. What makes him a flawed individual yet captivation character is his incapability to stop in fear of losing. This is because his whole life was one major war to prove to everyone (his mother/Josephine/the monarch kingdoms/the people who saw him as a brute) that someone who is so insignificant can become a hero in a history book like Caesar. Scotts Napoleon only addressed this idea through scenes with Josephine but thats it. There was no personal connections with Napoleon and his men, and there was no scenes where Tsar Alexander relationship or his relationship with his generals. Overall the film makes him into an idiot, there was no actual scenes where he planned with his generals or uses any strategic deceptions/tricks expect austerlitz and the things we would say was out right comically bad which contradicts the things he actually wrote. "History is a set of lies agreed upon" Napoleon Bonaparte. An idiot would not say this unless they were trying to prove something about how society see's greatness. Idk if Kubrick was still young and alive I think he could have made the most greatest biopic in cinema history. Also let's not forget that Scott is British so of course there will be a little bit of bias going into a Napoleon movie.
When you said "Napoleon is appropriately dwarfed by his surroundings" I can't help but point out that Napoleon wasn't nearly as short stature as people believe standing at roughly 5 foot 6 which isn't exactly short especially given the time period.
average height for his time period, but of course the british have to peddle their propaganda.
@@TheSuperappelflap British might not have been great warriors, but they are the most effective history writers, you have to give them that
@@Enkabard oh boy can i tell you stories about the muscovites
@@TheSuperappelflapbro we could literally name every conflicts caused by the British than we could name one by Russians lmaoo
@@TheSuperappelflap Rent free lmao
Napoléon never fired on the pyramids. The battle of the Pyramids wasn't even that close to the pyramids.
The issue with this specific story is that the real history is more dramatic and fascinating than most fictional scripts. Any director who wanted to make a good movie would make a historically accurate movie in this case. The only reason to change it is to draw attention to the director.
False, there is an easy answer to your first question. If you are going to make a bio picture, it needs to be accurate and most importantly, it cant make shit up like napolean did
Also, it hurts the core theme of the movie. If Scottt hates Napoleon so much, then, HE HAS to speak TRUTH. If not, the entire thing is a mess. You're just liying to yourself and to your audience.
You mean like Trump did.
Well not exactly, it shouldn't make shit up, but a little inaccuracy is okay depending on how it is done. The best example is combining 2 accurate moments that happened separately into 1 scene to save time. That being said, how Ridley did it is not good and his response to being called out is even worse.
@@sclogse1 TDS
He finally mentioned the accents lol I don’t understand why this doesn’t annoy more people about historic epics around the world from the US. And worse, Napoleon’s accent was a big part of his story. He spoke French with a Corsican accent, so one of the most renowned Frenchmen in history sounded off to other Frenchman at the time from, say, Paris.
Now, I'm not sure if this is accurate, though I am well aware that Corsica is much (well, was) more italian than French. But I've heard many people would call Napoleon "that Italian guy" at the time.
I think the attachment to accents is one of the kind of lame common critiques of historical films.
Accents don't generally inform anything about the historical events unless there are different accents used to contrast characters.
@@gma5607 but it’s kind of lazy and reductive to plaster in British accents almost every time, right? I don’t know, it just seems like an uninspired, safe choice because it’s what Americans are used to.
@@DrustZapat
Would you prefer we twist otherwise good actors into knots by having them put on bad accents? I’m genuinely more interested in getting pom-pom colours and button placements right than enforcing a slavish devotion to this particular detail that gets in the way more than anything.
One of the interesting uses of accents in this sort of film is the compression of information in accent selection. Death of Stalin does this really well by giving the Russian characters regional British and American accents that carry connotations that fit their background.
@@gma5607 of course not. There are plenty of actors from the parts of the world that can pull off an authentic accent because they speak the language. I advocate for widening the talent pool and encouraging studios to do as Marvel initially did by looking at lesser known talent to play prominent roles.
This actually serves two purposes. It makes it easier for actors as a whole to compete for big roles instead of giving them to overrated hacks we’ve seen plenty of while simultaneously making movies feel more fresh by having more fresh, authentic faces in them.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it, and it actually inspired me to really delve into the real-life history behind the man (which, point to the movie, in that sense). However, I genuinely think this movie did a lot to cast Napoleon as a petty bungler rather than the charismatic, complicated guy he was in real life. The Napoleonic Code gets no mention, despite it being a major set of laws that codified many of the gains of the French Revolution and still remains in place to this day. Napoleon also went to Egypt to learn, not to be a vandal. He brought archaeologists and scientists with him in order to study the country, of which he was genuinely in awe. Napoleon and his men also discovered the Rosetta Stone. Napoleon did have a great big ego and was clearly self-aggrandizing, but, even as self-made Emperor, he was spreading the ideas of the revolution throughout Europe and challenging the ideas of entrenched monarchy with meritocracy. Napoleon was an Enlightened despot (actual historical term) a la Catherine the Great, not a stuffy conservative monarch like his rivals. He also fraternized with his men, which is why the military was so loyal to him. At the end of the day, Napoleon was intensely patriotic and wanted the best for France, and his actions strike me more as being those of a benevolent dictator than a cynical, power-hungry thug. This movie glossed over his good sides and achievements while emphasizing his more negative qualities.
Did we watch the same movie? A lot of what you just said about Napoleon is what I got from the movie, but you're saying it wasn't in there or was glossed over. Benevolent dictator is exactly how he came across, and it was frustrating to watch him stumble in this because you still wanted to root for him and his ideals. He fraternised several times and you literally saw his military being loyal to him in the whole final act, and understood why due to scenes preceding. I'm so confused. You even saw his awe of Egypt. I think Filmspeak actually very well covered how creative license allowed for metaphor to sum up ideas in a swift and elegant fashion
look...Napoleon was TWENTY-TWO YEARS OLD, not FORTY-SEVEN
tim Chalmette should be doing this , not Joachim phoenix
Wow! Did we even see the same film? I agree that historical details need to give way to capturing the essence of an historical character and that's especially true in Napoleon's life. I don't need or expect absolute historical accuracy but there are limits. Napoleon was a product of his time and French society every bit as much as the period and France became a product of Napoleon himself. When you start playing too loose with the history that all gets lost. ...and boy, did that ever get lost in this film. It's one thing to pick and choose how to portray history it is altogether another to just completely ignore it. David Scarpa, who admitted he only read "a short biography of Napoleon" before penning this script, should be figuratively put in the village pillory and publicly humiliated for this silly script.
Firstly and primarily, the film makes no effort to show why the people of France loved and stuck by this "little Corsican upstart" even as the whole of Europe surrounded and destroyed them for it. It utterly failed in showing why, in 1815 and despite 15 years of nearly constant war and France in ruins because of Napoleon, the French people overwhelmingly rallied behind him and followed him on, yet, one more campaign. According to this film, the French were little more than stupid lemmings who just did what they were told by whoever was in charge at the moment. The film might've mentioned Napoleon's complete revision of the judicial system that actually liberated them from the abusive monarchy that enslaved them for so long but I guess if that was included we might not've had the epic scene of Napoleon making idiotic animal noises to seduce Josephine.
As a romance, the film is totally devoid of emotion. It's largely scene after scene of Napoleon and Josephine sitting is awkward silence staring at opposite walls punctuated by him attacking her like a dog in heat while she goes on folding clothes. The acting was largely stiff and wooden, especially Phoenix, though to be fair, the script was so poorly written there wasn't much for the actors to bring to life. So much for passion...
As for the "epic" battles... This was the biggest failure of the film. Napoleon was noted for his military brilliance even by his enemies. Give that you'd think a film about him might have pit som actual effort in presenting that. It certainly was central to the man's enduring reputation. Instead we get a few expensive but entirely idiotic scenes that have little to nothing to do with the battles they portray. Seriously, shooting a pyramid??? What the hell were they aiming art, the moon? And Austerlitz. One of Napoleon's most brilliant battles where he divided Russian and Austrian armies and destroyed them individually. Did you get the impression there were two full armies there? I certainly didn't. It wasn't that they overplayed to cannons shooting the ise, that was certainly an iconic part of the battle, it was that it was reduced to a comical artillery battery of 4 guns destroying a few Austrian soldiers... Hardly epic and hardly entertaining.
Then there was Waterloo. Arguably the pinnacle and perhaps the defining moment in Napoleon's life. All of it reduced to WWI trench war reenactment and a few horses attacking a square. By the way, why did the British come out of their trench to form square? The cavalry was never going to get to them in that trench... You don't need a degree in military history to see that inaccuracy, just some common sense will do.
The problem isn't that it got some stuff wrong, the problem is it got almost nothing right. It didn't unravel Napoleon's myth, it clumsely attempted to create it's own myth. It got the details right, the set dressing and the costuming were brilliant as was the photography but they got absolutely everything else wrong. And for all that, I didn't hate it. Instead, I was bored senseless. How you do a movie on Napoleon and make it so boring it feels like too much effort to hate it, I've no idea but David Scarpa and Ridley Scott somehow pulled it off.
Instead, go watch The Duelists. Complete fiction but one of the best Napoleonic films ever made.
If the historical details of someones life arent exciting enough to make a biographical movie, dont make a biographical movie.
Could say the same about Oppenheimer btw.
Hollywood is so bereft of ideas that they cant even come up with an actual interesting character from all of human history that they can tell a story about that is accurate to the historical or mythological record.
Why make a movie about Gilgamesh (for example) when you can just rewrite Napoleons life.
Then don’t make a biographical movie if you don’t wanna include the real details. Are you that stupid ?
[*sigh*] I applaud the content creator's effort to breath some sort of logical narrative of how this film became what it is. I do appreciate effort of being genuine in reviewing the subject matter. Especially considering other YT channels who cynically craft their default business model to be purposefully negative. With provocative clickbait declarations posing as video titles. Because negatively attracts eyeballs and does gets more clicks. But in the case of Ridley Scott's "Napoleon", I'm going to just cut to chase. Simply, its a just failure of a film. What a wasted effort considering the money & talent involved. When I left the theater, "Napoleon" only inspired me to re-watch 1970's "Waterloo", a film faithful to the story. Unlike Scott.
People arent being purposely negative. Theyre negative because every movie that comes out for the past ten years except for maybe 2 or 3 per year, suck balls. The quality of the material just doesnt warrant any positivity.
This movie dosent deconstructing Napoleons grandious myth, it decosnstructing Ridley Scotts grandious myth. He is not a Stanley Kubrick...
It's okay to take some liberties with history. For example it really doesn't matter when people think the Vikings had horns on there helmets but Napoleon is a special case where inaccuracies in history directly effects how people view this era in history. He is one of the few examples of yes one man actually changing history as we know it and it's important to get him and the Napoleonic Wars right
Not to mention, we don't know that much about Vikings. Napoleon on the other hand, we know everything there is to know.
"You think you're so great because you have books !!!😤😤😤" -- Ridley Scott
Ridley Scott said it. That statement is historically accurate.
Does he not have books??
Is Ridley Scoot cannonically poor
Ridley Scott’s Napoleon by Ridley Scott = What a spectacular waste of time, effort, and opportunity.
Historical movies MUST give more than a passing nod to the facts and reality of the past. We owe the people of the past a telling of THEIR stories and lives, not only what we think about them in current year.
"Less literal truth", also known as "absolute lie". I do believe that filmmakers and everyone else writing stories based on real history have a responsibility to make it as accurate as possible. "It's not a documentary so it doesn't have to be accurate" is an argument that is thrown around quite a bit, but I always thought it was terrible. Whether we like it or not, those stories will shape people's knowledge and perception of historical events and figures. No amount of "capturing the essence" or intended symbolism will change that. Of course, total historical accuracy is not a practical thing to expect, but an effort should be made to be as close and as faithful to historical events as possible.
One question I have to every director and writer who throws historical accuracy out the window is: "If real historical events prevent you from telling the story you want to tell, then why did you chose them to base your story on?" If you have to change real history to fit your movie then maybe you should've chosen another event or made an actually fictional story instead? It goes double for movies like this one where there is so little connection to the real thing, it might as well be complete fiction. At this point why even bother to call it "Napoleon"? Is it for "brand" recognition? Lying to your audience like that should be a lot less acceptable, but unfortunately we live in a world where people will defend conmen like Ridley Scott just because the movie was "pretty" and "exciting".
It's not a terrible argument at all, most well known films based on real history are fiction from top to bottom, and many films that try to be as accurate as possible forget to be good movies in the proccess. Filmmaker's responsibility is to make good movie, everything else is secondary.
@@kdscool1536 All this argument does is assert that filmmakers don't have the responsibility to properly represent history without providing a reason beyond "because I said so". The reality is that regardless of what you think, people will have their views colored by historical fiction, so the responsibility is there.
Also, how is the existence of well-recieved historical fiction and poorly recieved historicaly accurate movies even relevant? Being faithful to real history and making an entertaning movie is not mutually exclusive. How about making a good movie that doesn't lie to its audience? Crazy idea, I know.
If anything, the fact that some movies can be successful despite being complete fiction presented as fact is an argument against accepting such thing. It shows how apathetic audiences are which is why the responsibility falls on the director and writers.
@@nanaya7e433 name me a single swords and sandals historical epic that both great movie and very accurate, I'll wait. Because I can't think of any. There are some good more or less accurate historical movies in general, but not swords and sandals stuff. If Gladiator was historically accurate, it would've sucked hard. We would've had the guy named Narcissus poisoning and strangling drunk Commodus in a bathtub. Does that sound more exciting to you than epic duel between 2 grave enemies on a colosseum? I don't think so. Filmmaker's responsibility is entertain audience, not being as accurate as possible.
@@nanaya7e433 Name me any movie or series that is critically acclaimed and well-received by the audience and is very accurate to the historical records at the same time. There's a reason why something called "artistic license" exist.
@@thezplayer3002 Name me one reason this is relevant.
Dude, just call a turd a turd. Why are you so desperate to believe that Ridley Scott made a better film than he in fact did? I don't know what Napoleon movie you watched, but it certainly wasn't the one I saw in theaters. This movie wasn't the slightest bit funny; if Scott was making a joke, he was making a joke at the expense of the audience. Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of Napoleon was stiff, wooden, and clueless. The film *never* puts Napoleon's battlefield aplomb on display; it makes Napoleon look like he won his battles simply by waving his hand; JP looked like he was going to fall asleep in the middle of a battle. Yeah, the film never portrays Napoleon in a sympathetic light, but that's because the filmmaker had no idea who Napoleon was, didn't care, and never gave the audience a reason to care either.
9:28 Attacking retreating enemies is extremely common at that time (and throughout all of history). It isn't callous or vengeful to attack a retreating, opposing army, it was the norm and would have been done to France should they have been the ones to retreat as well.
"it may not be how things actually went down" does not equal completely ignoring every relevant part of the battle.
Napoleon was heavily outnumbered at Austerlitz, he faced 2 other large empires, and he beat them with better soldiers and better tactics.
Streamlining the details is one thing, but acting like Napoleon won by shooting a few cannonballs at idiots who wandered onto a frozen lake is a blatant deception of what happened. The events that occurred on the ice, even if they occurred, were simply not a relevant part of the battle.
Sometimes people do nitpick for accuracy, but this film didn't even put in a minimal effort to be accurate ever
Yeah, the battle was already won by that point. Even if it happened it in the first place it was absolutely not the pivotal moment. Which I find really funny given the point of the film seemed to be about removing the mythology. But in doing so pretty much just spread more of it at every turn.
The British knew him as a whiny cuck that won by cheating and was hell bent on conquering everything that wasn’t France for reasons they won’t elaborate on. Which is pretty much what the film showed. Far from telling the truth of his reign, it firmly falls on the side of bare faced lies.
the thing about napoleon is that you dont need to embelish or change or just remove stuff from his life to make any point about him. his life already has so many ups and downs and reversals and actions and consequences, that just telling it truthfully will give you all the information and viewpoints you need to form an opinion on the man, either for or against
That’s the thing- most people who make history are inherently interesting and have been through a lot of things most of us will never experience. With a rise and fall as dramatic as Napoleon’s was, there’s really no reason to go off course too much. Certainly some things can be dramatized, but I don’t see the point in making a biopic if you don’t care about the history at all, ESPECIALLY since Scott wasn’t cutting through the mysticism around Napoleon, he was just regurgitating the standard British sentiment that’s surrounded him for centuries.
Ridley Scott never made historically accurate movies. Every historical movie he made was "Ridley Scott lectures the audience on what he wants them to think of those people and events".
anyone who wants to see a better film set in the time of the Napoleonic wars just watch the 1970 Waterloo, it gives you a better picture of who he was more than Scotts terrible film.
Yeah, nah. This movie is bad. If you want to see a great biopic in the vein that is spoken about on this video essay than watch Love & Mercy. It's about two distinct periods of Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys life. One when he's crafting the 😂&Pet Sounds album in '65 and the other in the '80s when he's being manipulated by a power hungry psychologist. Is every sentence and detail accurate? NO! It can't be. But the story is truthful and gives a far better understanding of Brian Wilson and his pain.
Not to mention as great as Phoenix is, this wasn't the role for him IMO
Again, I want to see a video on why Oppenheimer work and Napoleon did not.
Well boy do we have the video for you!
@@FilmSpeak what video?
My guess is that the director for "Oppenheimer" cared about historical accuracy.
Indeed, the movie "Oppeheimer" was directly inspired by a book that took years for its 2 authors to write. So it is fair to assume the film is quite accurate@@terjehansen0101
Because one came across with cash and one of them did not need a puff piece 😂
As a history buff, i HATE ridley scott.....he never make history epics for accuracy. just the way he wants it to look and not admit it. at least terentino tells you it is a 're-tellig' and fiction. ridley's last. 5 films are 2 to 3 /10
Name me a single historical epic that's both great movie and very accurate. I'll wait.
waterloo lol@@kdscool1536and that`s off the top of my head, tora tora tora, zulu don't let me son you again little man
@@kdscool1536The new Midway was committed to historical accuracy, with vets and historians praising its accuracy. The critics didn't like it, but audiences did.
@@GatsbyCioffi Midway is not a bad movie, but not great either.
People didnt learn from that 1492 movie lmao.
Me if I spoke with Ridley Scott: "Why didn't you have Napoleon and Josephine remain married their entire lives, never divorce, and have Josephine be the mother of Napoleon's son?" Scott: "Because that didn't happen." Me: "Oh yeah? How do you know? Were you there? No? Shut the f**k up then and get a life!" John Belushi playing Napoleon on Saturday Night Live made more sense than this "film".
I agree with you but that comment feels like a reply you came up with under the shower several hours after a quarrel lol
Haha, love your idea. If I ever get a chance, I'll ask Ridley Scot: "Why didn't you have Napoleon beat the Brits at Waterloo, invade the UK and become the Emperor of Europe?" If he tells me that never happened, I'll know what to reply. 😅
@@F_Bardamu Maybe he'd say The Duke of Normandy's already done it.
@@F_Bardamu the SNL skit was a riff on those "What If" historical shows and posed the question, "What if Napoleon had had nuclear weapons?" Another question to ask Ridley Scott.
@@F_BardamuBlackadder actually did that, the madmen.
"It promised to disentangle Napoleon the Man from Napoleon the Myth..."
With Ridley Scott's own personal Napoleonic myth.
The glorious heroic paintings Napoleon comissioned for himself are myth and propoganda.
This film is also myth and propoganda, just pointed in a different direction.
I was hoping for a film that presented (allowing for certain small liberties) the facts. A well-crafted story can allow the viewer to say whether or not Napoleon was anything special, rather than Napoleon's stories glorifying himself or Ridley Scott's stories dragging him down.
Napoleon had many good points and many flaws: just show them as they were and keep fun little creative changes to a minimum.
It really felt like "Emperor Arthur Fleck" the part where Napoleon "inspires" his men to defect to him was painful and it wouldnt have inspired a single one of them.
This was an utter slap in the face to lovers of history, to movie goers, and especially to Napoleons success from a poor boy to emperor.
I can't wait for History Buffs to rip this movie apart😅
You, too? I love him! I love how he destroyed Apocalypto and Robin Hood. 🤣
Phoenix was 48 years old when filming this and he seems to spend practically the entire film with a hangdog expression on his face that makes him look every year of it. Napoleon's first military successes were in his fckin *early twenties.* His first major victories commanding the French army against other nations began in his *MID twenties.* Contemporary portraits show him as practically baby-faced. His career was over by the time he was 46 (arguably several years earlier). Sorry, but this alone makes the film a travesty.
"he may not have fired a shot at the pyramids but the image of him doing so symbolizes the very real destruction his campaign in Egypt rought"
Then (I know, this will blow everyone's mind) how about showing that "very real destruction" instead of making shit up?
He did wreak destruction… in the sense he was an invading force. But it was also a scholarly expedition. His efforts led to the finding of the Rosetta Stone, the subsequent translation of the Egyptian language, and the existence of Egyptology as it exists today.
Boiling it down to “Napoleon = war = bad” is to ignore the majority of what he actually did in life.
5:00 "Small inaccuracies" = Firing cannonballs at the Egyptian pyramids.
It happens
One the biggest problem of the movie is to ignore all the great things Napoleon achieved. Also the failed to show how all monarchies in Europe force the war each time. Exception made in Spain
With regards to: (~10:21) "Scott takes liberties with the history in order to create images that would reveal character". - No. How can the movie tell me anything about the character of a real, historical person when *each and every piece of evidence* for this person's character traits has to be *invented* by the film maker? - At best, this can tell me something about Ridley Scott's personal view of Napoleon. A view that could only be relevant if Mr Scott had deigned to interest himself a little in history before making his movie.
Same comment on your final statement: No, on leaving the cinema the audience will *not* have a better understanding about who this man was, for the simple fact that the person who made that movie does not have any understanding about who this man was. In order to have such an understanding, he would have needed to *pick up a sodding book* about, you know, history. - The audience will however leave the cinema with an impression of Ridley Scott's Fantasy!Napoleon. It is to hoped that the movie is bland, confusing and boring enough for it not have a lasting effect.
The deluxe seats in the cinema weren't worth this movie lmao
Poor 18 euros
But it was very enjoyable, since I was there with friends
Considering my only frame of reference for a movie version of Napoleon is Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure this still sounds like an interesting portrayal 😅
Using entertainment as a step into interest for historical figures and events is a good tactic for educational purposes.
I do get annoyed by historical inaccuracies but I understand when they are condensing the storyline that they make creative choices. Some I appreciate and others I do not care for at all.
You mean like when Mel Gibson said fuck history during braveheart lol??
That man didn't just say fuck history...he said fuck history, and then proceeded to kick it into the dirt.
Braveheart and Gladiator are really good movies. They fuck history but at least are good as movies.
Napoleon is shit at both ( as a historical movie and as enterntainment)
I usually give Mel Gibson the pass for ahistorical movies like Apocalypto. If other directors want my pass, they have to prove themselves.
A lot of context ignored with taking creative liberties to this degree
“YOU THINK YOUR SO GOOD BECAUSE YOU HAVE BOATS”
was Napoleon actually a petty vandal and thug in Egypt? it seems like he went their with a massive cultural contingent to learn rather than destroy.
And for the small handful of retreating soldiers and cannon that did get stuck in ice when retreating, i read that french soldiers were actually helping to free them and i have never gotten the impression that napoleon and his grand armee were ever completely annihilating the enemy - that was not really even the ideal of warfare in that period - performing a masterful operational maneuver that could bring about a capitulation without combat was more ideal
Yeah and the film stated f all of that. The campaign wasnt even called the Egyptian Campaign but Expedition. Napoleon was more concerned in the history of Egypt rather than the directorys braindead and out of touch plan of cutting the British out of India.
I would say the Ulm campaign is the better representation of what warfare of that time that you stated.
The English know nothing but destroying what they don't like. That Egypt scene was projection.
He did bring scientists indeed. Was "kind" to the local people..as long as they supported him..once the Egyptians started to rebel, he tamed them quite violently
bro really just said that napoleon being a conquistador, was cause he wanted to learn and not to destroy 💀 maybe you should base your assumptions off of actual history, not just movies
Hey man, really loved your content.
Can you please tell me whrere to find the bgm you used in your video ?
It is so good.
IN a flim you always have to sacrifice parts of historical accuracy to tell a good story. But what happened here was very atomicly bad. Damn, the trailer was masterly crafted to make us think what was in the movie, a Napoleonic war movie, but that wasn't the case. Although I had some dread when Johpine said the line "You are nothing without me."
On one side you have the argument that historical inaccuracy threatens to damage society as a whole by giving people an incorrect view of past events and harming our ability to learn from the past. On the other side you have people saying the movie wouldn't be as entertaining. I know which one of those I care more about. Lean towards accuracy over entertainment.
"I don't care what your teacher says Cleopatra was black" -some grandma from a grandma
People that attacked Netflix Cleopatra but defend Scotts Napoleon are hipocrites.
At least Netflix mantain some of the escence of Cleopatra character.
Napoleon didnt. It butchered his character at a level never senn in a historical movie.
Netflix DID NOT mantain some of the escence of Cleopatra character. if anything not only did they NOT do that but they made every other charecter that wasn't Cleopatra look ten time worse by either making them cucks, emotionally unstable or simply dumb losers and having their, I can't even call her Cleopatra, their OC-DO-NOT-STEAL charecter as the real hero.
Oh that battle that the roman generals won? No no it was a slaughter! It was actually my super perfect OC who did all the work!
Like when Micheal Bay never gave a fuck about Pearl Harbor's accuracy? Sounds familiar.
hahahaha ohhhh Michael
Pearl Harbor is probably more accurate
@@Tsaganbarely
This wasn't creative liberty. This was outright character assassination. France should sue Scott.
I agree
had a laugh with my friends while watching it. Many of the laughter was out of awkwardness but still a laugh nevertheless. Overall disappointed that they show Napoleon just as a big bum.
It is not about accuracy, the movie is pure revisionism of History to convey a false narrative, to make some quick easy money, thinking all people are stupid and will just be pleased with the photography and very little subtility in the symbolism and paint recreation.
You and I must have read a different biography or watched a different movie. Watching this film will tell you nothing about who Napoleon was. The biography paints him as a charismatic and compelling leader, whereas the film makes him out to be some weirdo who just happened into becoming emperor of France. While nobody can speak to his character for sure, I would trust the biographer over the film director.
Historically inaccurate and just overall fucking terrible. The acting, the writing, the pacing, everything about it. I'm shocked this was a Ridley Scott movie.
'You've got 10400 books to start' but you don't have to read all of them. Many of those are about a specific event say Napoleon in Italy in 1796. You only need about a dozen books and several dozen articles about specific events. With a team of about 5-6 assistants its more than doable. Also this argument that there's too much and a lot is speculation(citation needed) could be applied to other fields. Say WW2.
This is not the first time Ridley Scott has played fast and loose with history for the sake of his narrative. Conquest of paradise comes to mind. His productions are generally impressive in all the esoteric artistic senses, but in the last 10-15 years or so his works have critically lacked substance. And with such a flaw, making historical portrait movies is just asking for trouble.
Ridley Scott is a very inconsistent film maker. He is frustrating that way. As for history I think they have an obligation to be as accurate as possible. Films don't need to be elegant, films don't need to have a clear narrative, but history does NEED to be accurate.
"Ridley Scott ... takes liberties ...to reveal a more abstract truth about his character." Sorry, it's not a revealed truth, but his personal views on Napoleon. If he has to bend so many facts to make it work, it's a strong indication his "truth" is not so true after all.
Napoleon has such a vast life that he could’ve gotten his own trilogy worth off movies sadly we all know no one would actually watch that
Maybe the Spielberg series will do Bonaparte justice
I will not agree. If these were GOOD films, they would be a success on par with The Lord of the Rings.
I personally don’t care about 100% historical accuracy, but this movie turned one of the most energetic, influential, charismatic figures from the whole known history into boring tired old man. I’m not trying to take any side, but I don’t believe this kind of person (that we see in this movie) could win over hundreds of thousands and lead the best armies of the time.
This entire video is debunked by Scott not bringing up a single one of these points in response to criticism
If they take artistic liberties when making a movie, they should always emphasize this, letting everyone know.
Too many people walk out of the cinema thinking that is how it was.
Some peple are even so stupid that they would might think an actor playing a bad guy really is that bad guy.
I still think the best portrayal of Napoleon was in Sergei Bondarchuk's War and Peace. The few minutes of screen time he had there is for me a better presentation of what Napoleon was really like.
I like Napoleon's few minutes of screen time in Woody Allen's Love and Death. "Don Francisco, put down that pistol, she's over 18 !"
I mean Gladiator isn’t historically accurate either, but it’s still great. Which makes me all the more sad that this movie wasn’t 😢
During this movie’s press tour, Ridley Scott has definitely become a pretentious & selfish filmmaker. It’s disrespectful the way he has responded to negative comments about the movie such as: “The French don’t even like themselves” to French critics. Or when he responded to historians criticizing the movie: “Excuse me, mate, were you there? No? Well, shut the fuck up”. I was really excited for this movie, but I was also prepared to be let down this way given Scott’s track record. I love Ridley Scott’s work as a filmmaker, but so far right now, I don’t like him as a person, I’ll keep watching his movies (the good ones) and I’ll look forward to a new movie of his, but this is the most disappointing movie of the year.
It’s not a hard question historical accuracy is more important These films are how the majority of people will consume the stories of these historical figures therefore, to tell anything, but the absolute truth is a disservice to history.
Scott didn’t give a damn about history because he’s British, and they still hate Napoleon. This movie is so anti-French/anti-Napoleon that it’s insane. Anyone who thinks this movie captures Napoleon correctly are insane.
I understand your appreciation for this movie, but if Ridley really wanted to make a movie about the differences between Napoleon the myth and Napoleon the man he really should have made it more evident on the text itself rather than having to interprete it from an historically informed perspective. I reckon that your average viewer isn't going to realise parts of this movie are just exaggerated or outright propaganda. They are just going to walk away with the stereotypical angry midget with an ego problem they walked in with already, only maybe with the added bonus of having a needy, toxic relationship with Josefine.
There should be mandatory disclaimer on every movie for the noobs😅.
"That is far from reality,this is entertainment,learn about history from peer reviewed history books not from dumb a*s artists😂(when it comes to academia, scientific literacy, temperament,etc)"
Napoleon is so accurate, it compete with African Queens documentary featuring a very white and very Greek Cleopatra. 🤣🤣🤣
@@ThereIsAlwaysaWay2I mean, Egypt is geographically African. Egyptian culture in the time of Cleopatra was a mix of Greek and Kemetic culture. Cleopatra like most Greek descended people was probably tan brownish
As a history minor who researched colonial European history, especially the French and Haitian revolutions. If there was anything i would have expected from a Napoleon biopic was a mention of Napoleon’s biggest thorn - Toussaint- the Governor General of St. Domingue- Haiti.
These two revolutions were linked together.
The French Revolution values of liberty equality and fraternity is what inspired the Haitian revolution.
After they couldn’t get napoleon and the court to agree to release the slaves, they rebelled . Napoleon then had to send his own brother to the island to squash the uprising. However, he failed , and the slaves were freed.
Toussaint then became dictator for life as the Governor General. But despite his efforts to end slavery, he actually was pro France.
And wrote napoleon quite often .
But as we see in the biopic, France wasn’t doing so hot😅 Napoleon was running out of resources and money after his campaign failures in Egypt and especially Russia.
So much so that he threatened to bring back slavery.
Toussaint sought to stop this through diplomacy, but he was tricked by the French and was thrown into the tower by which he would later die. Tho before his death he would write to Napoleon constantly reminding him of his support to France , and why he wanted to meet him but napoleon never did meet him. I believe he grew annoyed with the constant letters.
In his place, Dessalines the second in command would take over and win Haiti independence.
As a result of this loss, Napoleon would enforce an embargo against Haiti for the “loss of property “ (aka slaves) of which they would spent the next two centuries paying it off.
Overall. You can’t talk about French Revolution without the Haiti revolution because they happened at the same time.
If not Haiti itself , at least mention Alexandre Dumas - not the author but his father who was a French general and was one of napoleon’s biggest competitors especially during the Egyptian campaign.
Facts, Mistakes, and Propaganda are different words with their own meanings.
Napoleon didn’t have facts and this wasn’t due to mistakes.
Napoleon is propaganda.
This was a really good insight thank you bro🔥
For me, the question of “historical accuracy” in biopics is best answered by the two Steve Jobs movies that came out a few years ago.
The one starring Ashton Kutcher was probably the one you could say on face value was the most historically accurate - they certainly went to greater lengths to make everybody look like the people they were supposed to be playing and present all the big moments of Jobs’s life - but it ended up being nothing more than a shallow dramatisation of a Wikipedia page that ultimately wasn’t particularly illuminating.
The Danny Boyle/Aaron Sorkin film, however, was much more focused on exploring who Jobs was as a person, while being upfront and honest about its “historically inaccurate” framing device, and ended up being a more substantive film at the end of the day.
I think Sorkin summed it up perfectly when he recounted how one of the real life people who featured in the film approached him after the premiere and said “That was incredible, none of that happened and yet all of it was true”
It also helps that Sorkin actually knows how to write cohesive characters with arcs and he knows how to construct situations that showcase their character traits.
I hope you are not comparing this trash to the Boyle/Sorkin Steve Jobs biopic because such a comparison would be laughable. At least Michael Fassbender nailed the role with the help of brilliant writing and solid direction. You cannot say the same thing about this film.
I don't understand these mental gymnastics to justify this awful movie.
I think Scott had a very particular view of Napoleon (not a very positive one). And in favor of this view, he chose to ignore all of the historical evidence to the contrary. I mean, no word is spoken about the Code Napoleon in the entire film. That's simply not acceptable, if you wanna "paint a portrait" of the man. Ridley clearly thinks of him mostly as a brute, which is suuuuuch an oversimplification and downright not true.
I don’t know why everyone is worshipping a long dead piece of shit who took advantage of turbulent times in order to gain power. We should not be idolizing Napoleon. The dude was a piece of shit, a very interesting piece of shit, but a piece of shit nonetheless.