Napoleon Movie Review and the book I read to get over the let down
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 ноя 2023
- A history channel like mine has got to review Napoleon, the movie, right? Like lots of you, I was disappointed. I tell you what I liked, and did not like. But best of all I tell you how to get over the let down by reading two recommended world history books.
▼ ▽ SEE THE WORLD MORE CLEARLY WITH MY COURSES
1. World History Explorers (Monthly Subscription): courses.jeffrichwriter.com/pa...
2. Civilizations and Environments: courses.jeffrichwriter.com/pa...
3. Mindful History: courses.jeffrichwriter.com/pa...
4. All my courses courses.jeffrichwriter.com/
✉️ Signup for info on courses at: https:/courses.jeffrichwriter.com
▼ ▽ JOIN THE BURNING ARCHIVE - SEE THE WORLD MORE CLEARLY
Join 200+ email subscribers who receive insights from world history and fragments of my reading weekly.
✉️ Signup is free: jeffrich.substack.com
✉️ Paid subscribers receive bonus content weekly: jeffrich.substack.com
▼ ▽ MY BOOKS
Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Bureaucrat: Writing on Governing amzn.to/3SaI4Ty
From the Burning Archive: Essays and Fragments 2015-2022
amzn.to/4b7cyyw
Gathering Flowers of the Mind: Collected Poems 1996-2020
amzn.to/3u2Yh56
▼ ▽ MY RECOMMENDED BOOKS for World History Explorers
Fernandez-Armesto, Civilizations - amzn.to/3OaNr3T
Darwin, After Tamerlane - amzn.to/3Ht5AGd
Frankopan, The Earth Transformed - amzn.to/3SqZb4B
Overy, Blood and Ruins - amzn.to/3Ubd8oU
Quinn, How the World Made the West - amzn.to/3U422St
🌟 SOCIALS
RUclips:
WEBSITE: jeffrichwriter.com
AMAZON Author amzn.to/3vM1Ugn
Podcast Spotify
open.spotify.com/show/2V2Hi89...
Podcast Apple podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast...
Linkedin / jeff-rich-2b6491239
If this world history perspective interested you, check my other videos including my interview with French historian Marie Favereau on the Mongol Empire and the Golden Horde ruclips.net/video/hCrCdFyYNxI/видео.html
and how it portrayed some of the battles with nappa at the front sabre rattling, covered in gore... sigh... so so unbelievable... as you said unconvincing... he stayed at the back (sometimes he helped out with the artillery i think) but ... attacking and going up the ladders... sigh ...
Watch the 1920's silent film.
@@albertbresca8904that'd crap napoleon fought on front lines on several occasions!
@@deanodog3667 strange... i have never read that he did or seen any documentaries with him doing so.. there were so many tat died in the front line and no one (least of all himself) wanted the emperor to die..
what battles?
i am trying to find it on google and can't ... yet... i'll update if i do..
didn't..
found this:;
Response stopped
Napoleon Bonaparte was a French military leader and emperor who conquered much of Europe in the early 19th century 1. He was known for his shrewdness, ambition, and military strategy. Although he was not averse to taking risks, he was not known to fight on the front lines himself 2. However, there are some accounts of him leading attacks and being wounded in battle 3. For instance, during the Battle of Aspern-Essling, Napoleon personally commanded the battle and was caught by surprise, leading to a loss. However, he then assembled a force of 170,000 troops and decisively took the fight to the Austrians, crossing the river Danube and giving battle at Wagram
Oh dear. Just - oh dear. Joachim Phoenix delivered his awful lines like he was reading the news, and looked worn out most of the timer. The real Napoleon was energetic, intelligent, sharp, good looking, witty and passionate about establishing a meritocratic society.
Oh dear did meritocracy rime with establishing a monarchy?
@@2adamast Monarchy just means that the power of the state resides solely and ultimately in the hands of a single person, so if you consider (and Napoleon certainly did) that you are the most capable person, then yes, a monarchy can be meritocratic... as long as the replacement system keeps following that same principle (which clearly considering Napoleon's dynastic concerns was really not). Certainly, though, the society under Napoleonic rule was a LOT more meritocratic and certainly is basically a meritocracy compared not only to the previous Bourbonic monarchy in Francy, but certainly compared to all other contemporary sytems (even the 'buy your commission' English army system, only the English navy had something that approached that). That permeated also to a lot other sides of society. The Napoleonic law code, which is by far the most enduring and influential accomplishment by Napoleon (with clear and direct influences for all civil and criminal law code of all modern Western societies), certainly more influential by far than any of his military actions and territorial conquests.
I would also say that while indeed Napoleon was highly energetic, intelligent and sharp, I would not say he was good looking. He certainly did not appear to be so in the contemporary accounts of the directory. If I remember well, he was described as 'gaunt', 'sick looking' and other similar epithets, and was clearly too intense and awkward specially with women but in social situations in general. Of course, later he might have filled up a bit more amiably looking, but then you can't be sure if it was just.. well, the allure of power.
@@cathakjordi I used monarchy instead of tyranny because he insisted that the one (1812) and three (1815) year old Napoleon II was heir to the throne.
(edit) It's the second consul law code, Napoleon did get the merit by becoming emperor.
Napoleon being good as good propagandist at pushing the blame to others stops him from being meritocratic.
@@2adamast Well, still, you said Monarchy as if it could not hold a meritocratic civil and military system under it. Same as a simple tyranny. Just saying a society can be meritocratic (or mostly so) regardless the overall political system, while it looked you tried to say those were contradictory, just that.
To elaborate more in the nature of this meritocracy I will quote the actual Napoleon: 'Every French soldier carries a marshal’s baton in his knapsack.' He said that and nobody thought he was lying or being preposterous. A plain soldier could indeed aspire to reach the top echelons of the army, something that would be unthinkable in every other army of the world at the time. Even the British army, have in mind that even in the famous work of historical fiction Sharpe (a much much better documented work than this disaster or a movie) the fact a soldier from the ranks reached an officer post for his merits provoked the rejection, scorn or even hate of nearly every other officer in the army.
This sort of thing was not restricted to the army, but was extended in a comparable fashion to all the French civil service and the other military branches.
Napoleon is Ridley Scott's Waterloo.
I know its autocorrect but you know what? I'll take that
or perhaps his march from Moscow!
And I love this anyway ❤❤❤ it doesn’t has to be sooo accurate, why ppl can’t understand that this is interpretation of what’s happened …
An interpretation of historic facts? Really?@@nataliakmiecik7254
I was so looking forward to this movie. I walked out of the theater sad as well. I am happy so many people are pointing out the frigging obvious.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8 That truly is hilarious. NYT - what a dumb bunch they are. "Plan 9 From Outer Space" is better than this tripe. It should have been called "Carry On Boney" or some such ridiculous title.
@@user-uq1pb1ig6g Correct. NYT is immature rubbish of a newspaper anyway.
"Never let the English tell French history." -wise man
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8 All that horseshite would be okay if Napoleon were a blank slate historical fiction character (like Jack/Rose from Titanic) but he is one of the most historically relevant characters in occidental history with his own complex story.
@@jayrobitaille2402Watch Lady Oscar (1979) for that
No. It's just that Ridley Scott made a crap movie.
or perhaps never let an American to script a film about Europe and Russia?
After the character assassination of Napolean by the Brit Ridley Scott I now look forward to the French doing a movie on Churchill as a racist drunkard imperialist who was a failure in most things he did.
He brought Britain through the war, you leftard.
But that would be the truth ☺
And they should definitely include that fact that he was crushed in the general election at the end of WW2 and sent packing by the Brits. Absolutely crushed.
@@darylwilliams7883 Yes but he was reelected in the election after that.
Churchill isn't on Napoleon's level.
As a French, it's honestly annoying to see the English film maker making movies to belittle a French historical figure, ... I can't recall a French movie based on one British man simply to make him look less than he was. I'm happy to see you're defending the Historycal integrity of the period, events and the person.
Merci. Yep, agreed. Check this podcast from from leading historian Adam Tooze who gives a brilliant account of the significance of Napoleon and the Napoleonic era in 20-odd minutes open.spotify.com/episode/63fDsl1u1MN5BHSXZ40ySG?si=70e96e6e445b411d
Just tell the story right
Thank you for confirming my worst fears about the film without yet viewing it entirely. From the internet buzz, it appears that Bondarchuk's "Waterloo" is on the verge of being rediscovered as not only the best interpretation of Napoleon and the Napoleonic Era but one of the overlooked masterpieces in cinematic history. Alas, when I associate Ridley Scott with Napoleon it will forever be his visually and intellectually stunning "The Duellists".
I plan to finish watching Bondarchuk's War and Peace. You can watch the remastered version in 4 parts with the 1812 section here ruclips.net/video/wpKA1meiJzs/видео.html
@@theburningarchive Thanks for taking the time to respond and for that bit of intel. Will watch the remastered version. I enjoy your work and am eager to tuck into more of your episodes.
Thanks, I think I‘ll give this one a miss. Joaquin Phoenix just doesn‘t cut it for me - that‘s already clear from the previews. For my money, Rod Steiger nails Napoleon in „Waterloo“ (1970), which I just watched again this week. He had charisma in spades, while also displaying the fanaticism and darkness in Napoleon‘s character. With Steiger in the role, you understand why so many people followed him to their deaths and still venerate him today. With Phoenix, not so much.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
@@freeedward8Nice try, bot!
Very well said! To me a main issue was the scope of the film: by trying to include everything we get very little of each event. I don't know if it is possible to have a 3hour movie about such a variety of events. Focusing down in the same way as Downfall could have been a great way to do it though. Positive side: costumes were convincing, the epoque atmosphere and acting were great!
Thanks. It needed a narrative focus, didn't it? It became failed marriage + battle scenes. Downfall is an interesting comparison because the central character who will not be named was presented in a more compelling and complex way than Ridley Scott's Napoleon.
I thought of Downfall too! it CAN BE DONE if you FOCUS on SOMETHING. That movie almost has you feeling sorry for Mr Mustache. While this made a legend seem like a bore.
I‘d say „Waterloo“ (1970) does that masterfully. It focuses on the final days of Napoleon before and during the battle, with a couple of key scenes preceding it, and it certainly awakens interest in the man and the amazing story that led him to that fateful place and time.
@@theburningarchive "Downfall" has a talented leading actor playing who shall not be named. The lead actor in Napoleon may be talented in other films but miscast in this one. His voice is all wrong for a start.
I thought the acting was fairly basic without much personality but that is obviously a lot to do with the script aswell
Can’t fault the acting really, just the damn screenplay.
Another must-read on Napoleon is 'Napoleon: A Life' by Andrew Roberts.
The promos alone were enough to warn me about this movie. That scene with Marie Antoinette going to the guillotine - ugh. That made it clear this was going to be about spectacle, not substance. Unfortunately, it seems it worked out worse than ever I expected.
Scott is a gifted director and he does spectacle VERY well - Gladiator being perhaps the greatest example. But the reign of Commodus is poorly documented, and plus - people EXPECT Romans to be over the top and extra - in a word, they expect SPECTACLE.
This? I don't know what this is. It does not work. Badly.
Napoleon is still waiting for his Homer.
I might check out what French writers/historians have to say about the film, and whether they feel Napoleon has his Homer yet.... or was that Tolstoy?
Just finished Andrew Robert's 'Napoleon the Great'. What is interesting is his insistence of objectivity about Napoleon, relying on extrinsic materials. Fitting.
Thank you I am planning a follow-up video on more books and will include your recommendation.
They ditched history for film tropes we've seen a million times before. Fact is stranger (and more interesting) than fiction. They should have made a film with that in mind.
Absolutely, I agree. I might even say propaganda tropes.
@@theburningarchiveVery much so.
Great assessment, Jeff! Thanks for your time and effort.
This was great. The algorithm fed me your video and so I checked out some of your others and subbed. You should do more historical movie vids like this one
thank you - great feedback. I will do.
Marie Antoinette went to her death quietly with poise and grace. Not like that ridiculous way it is portrayed in this film. Even her enemies are recorded as admiring her dignity and bravery ( except one - the painter David who couldn't concede anything to her at all. ) Films like this don't seem to care whether they portray someone who faced the end with courage and don't seem to mind misrepresenting it. I don't know what their problem is but the problem is something that lies in them. Despite that I like your reviews.
True. the little cameo of Marie Antoinette was good acting but not at all faithful to history.
Always worth mentioning, the Emperors homage to the people, he was Empereur des Français, Emperor of the French, rather than of France. A modern man. 🙂
Modern like in Clovis or Charlemagne Roi des Francs. He even got hold of Childeric's gold.
To understand Napoleon is to listen to the people who fought and worked with him. one of the best books written about Napoleon, but is not about Napoleon is called La Grande Armee but George Blond and translated into English by Marshall may published in 1979 and I think if you read this book you will understand Napoleon and why he was such a powerful force in world history. And why this movie fails.
Great tip. I will check it out.
A great review Burning Archive. Agree with your discourse on Napoleon. I spent quite a few years working on the life and ideas of Germaine de Staël who was a contemporary of Napoleon but they were powerful enemies. She nevertheless would not have recognised the portrait of Napoleon presented in this film. Love Dominic Lieven’s books
Germaine de Staël would be a great topic for a video. I will add to the list
I’ve read of their rivalry in biographies of Napoleon, but I’d be interested to learn about it from the perspective of someone who studied her. What was her opinion on him?
@@aaronclarke1434 It’s complex, but having been involved in the French Revolution from the beginning de Staël was horrified by Napoleon becoming an autocrat. Her development was toward a form of representative democracy. However, there was lots of personal animosity between them as they both significant figures in their relatively small world
This is the first video of yours that I have seen so I don't know if you've already reviewed the following: Simons Scarrow's Wellington and Napoleon Quartet. I am not a historian but I do have an interest in the period and events stretching back to my old childhood 1970's collection of Airfix soldiers (later replaced by Italeri soldiers in the late 80's) which I wargamed with. I don't know how accurate the history is and of course it is fictionalised (who's ever going to know what was said at the beakfast table?) but I found them utterly compelling reading (enough so that I've read them twice and will again). I don't imagine I'm going to watch this particular film but I know that I'll difinately watch Ridley Scott's 'The Duellists' again, probably for the tenth or so time.
Thanks for finding me, and for the tips.
What an excellent and informed critique. I have not seen the film.
The Duellists however, was such an amazing piece of work. Yet success can be our own downfall as Napoleonic history confirms. Perhaps this can applied to directorial achievement as well. We are all at risk of "getting too big for our britches."
Napoleon's Spanish Ulcer, his unrealistic "Continental Blockade," which led to his dismissal of Tilsit and the eventual invasion of Russia, are all born out of previous victories who by their success, encouraged impetuous "action," rather than the values of patience, practical logistics, and most crucially, flexibility which had served him so well at Austerlitz in 1805.
Napoleon, like so many others who proceeded him and will emulate him, whether it be artistic, political, military or in the field of science, become unable to recognize their own human limits and then transform into everything they initially desired to depose or destroy; Cromwell, Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, etc.
It fascinates me that despite the perversion of the words of Jesus, Marx, Jefferson or whomever, humans will continually believe that "they," are the exception to what has transpired before.
This often intentionally employed delusion has made even the "smartest," not wisest, susceptible to the same old ancient myths that have currently brought us all to the edge of armageddon.
It is the continual refusal by man to acknowledge he is indefinitely tied to the past and that his perceptions are not only unoriginal but stubborn in their reverence, that continually propels us into oblivion.
Humility in what we admit we can not comprehend, not arrogance which steals the past achievements of our ancestors in an attempt to pass them off as original, unique or "new", will lead us to greener pastures that promise us all a better future.
I am afraid my own countrymen prefer to be managed rather than led just as long as they are reminded repeatedly of how "great they are."
I don't know of anything that could devolve or retard a society more than the belief that they have nothing to attain or learn from the past.
This is a great point, and the books all make similar conclusions. thank you
Loved this review. Great structure and unique visuaks
Thank you kindly
I have never encountered this reviewer before, and I almost skipped this, because most movie reviews on youtube are so superficial, trivial. This is excellent! Thank you very much!!!
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
Please don't spam this response in all comments
Thank you so much. I am glad you discovered my channel
A book to read to understand the military genius of Napoleon is David Chandler's _The Campaigns of Napoleon._ The movie made it look as though his "genius" consisted of charging the enemy, but Chandler explains the battles in detail.
excellent. Thanks for the tip. I saw someone else recommended this one too
Great insight, thank you! 👏👏👏👏👏
3 decades of his lift compressed in to a movie of which missed out important parts of his life but focused heavily on his lover.
And did not really connect the parts very well, agreed.
its a hard subject , but its a unique take i never seen such a great soundtrack , the music plays a big role in each shot.
The trailer worried me, but now I see that I had reason to be worried. Thanks for your critique. I don't think I'll be going to see it. I know a fair amount about this period in history and about Napoleon. I think maybe I will just re-read one his many biographies which I own. I may also check out the titles you suggested.
Excellent. thank you
It should have been called "Josephine's Simp"
your critique is spot on
thank you. I heard Adam Tooze say it was the most atrocious film he had ever watched, so I feel I tapped into something.
lol... I saw the trailer and KNEW it was going to be a bad representation of Napoleon. I laugh because, after the reviews came out, I ordered a 1000 page book on Napoleon's campaigns! I guess that I, too, wanted to get my understanding of the man back on solid ground. The movie makes one wonder if Scott read some CliffsNotes on the man.
pretty unreliable Cliffnotes!
Very enjoyable
An excellent review!
Thank you kindly!
Thank you. A great book is Napoleon A Life by Andrew Roberts, offer a good overall grasp of Bonaparte. Ridley Scott should have used this book as his base.
Thank you. I am planning a follow-up video on books, and I will include your tip in it.
Had to subscribe, cheers from New Zealand
Welcome aboard from across the Tasman
Solid film review!
I watched Waterloo here on the YT after seeing all these negative reviews, it had Rod Steiger and was rather good. I also recommend the British miniseries Sharpes Rifles and Horatio Hornblower as good alternatives. Phoenix was too old and haggard to be good for this role.
thanks will include these tips in follow up videos on alternative films/videos/books
Examples of Strong Men are not allowed today.
I can think of a few celebrations of strong men from the USA
For the record it was meant to be a 4 hour movie but had to be cut down to 2.5 hours for theaters. I have a feeling director's cut will improve captivating Napoleon's life better.
Where there is a life of Napoleon, there is hope
Spot on review.
This movie should have been called Josephine and Napoleon, and left out the Battles, as they had nothing to do with the period, in scale, battle order, and has nothing to do with the actual battles.
Please what is the name of the book?
The two books I mentioned were by Dominic Lieven, In the Shadows of Gods: the Emperor in World History (2022) and Russia against Napoleon: the Battle for Europe, 1807-1814 (2009)
Days after i watched this movie i can't understand yet what was this film about...it was like trying to put many separate events and just mix and stir them without any real clue and direction...
You are right. No story. Bad characters. Wrong History. Epic Fail
Remarkably, after Waterloo, Napoleon decided to ask for asylum in England. "I come, like Themistocles, to sit within the home of the British people; I put myself under the protection of its laws, which I claim from Your Royal Highness, being the most powerful, the most constant, the most generous of my enemies," because every other king had violated the peace treatises they had signed with him, except the king of England.
And... the king sent him to St. Helena. Without charges, a trial, or an audience.
Maybe the relentless ridiculing of Napoleon by British propaganda, of which this movie seems to be the last and most expensive iteration, was originally a need dictated by shame. The king of England behave with less nobility than Artaxerxes of Persia. Now, is just habitude dictated by ignorance of history, which, looking at Mr. Scott's career, appears to be a deliberate decision.
Yes, the three-way contest between Britain, France/Europe and Russia comes through clearly in Dominic Lieven's book. The Napoleonic Wars gave a boost to the Anglo tradition of Russophobia.
Watch the 2002 Napoleon miniseries. Its quite well done. Available on youtube.
It's much better than the movie for sure~
I will... might feature in a follow-up video on alternative films treatments of Napoleon
I don't understand how you can praise the acting in a film in which the actors are completely inconsistent with the character of the role they play.
The task of an actor is to perform a ROLE. Specific and definite.
If an actor fails and cannot embody the character of the person he is playing, then his acting should be labeled as negative.
I like Joaquin Phoenix.
However, his performance in the film "Napoleon" is completely unsatisfactory. This is his worst work as an actor.
As for the movie:
The point is not whether Napoleon shot at the pyramids or not.
The point is not whether Napoleon was present at the execution of Marie Antoinette or not.
And so on, and so on.
It's all at once.
In Ridley Scott's film, the age of the actors is incorrect, the characters of the actors are incorrect, the events, dialogues, relationships between people, battle scenes, tactics, strategy are incorrect, the most important figures are kept silent (talking about Napoleon's marshals), and so on and so forth.
This film is simply not about Napoleon.
This is a film about a certain man in the head of Ridley Scott, whom he decided to call Napoleon.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
The Campaigns of Napoleon by the late Dr David G Chandler from Sandhurst Military Academy is widely considered the definitive text on Napoleon. Subjective of course...
thanks for the tip, any broader biographical treatments?
100% agree with you
loved the vid 🙏
thank you
Thanks for your thoughts on the film. I had a bad feeling about this one from the trailers. I'll pass.
Thanks
PS to my last commentary: As to Napoleon himself, yes he had his points, but I must go with Beethoven. When he proclaimed himself emperor he betrayed the revolution. See Haiti...
that is a good point... although Danton would say the revolution ate its own children
Could have narrowed it down to the most critical events or 1 point and occasional flashbacks. Maybe a series or trilogy; rise, dominance, and the fall? Seems better to take a Wellington perspective or a combined British/French effort. Why the insistance on Phoenix in the lead?
Maybe future attempts will hold on until they get it straight.
Oui?
I think telling the story through the eyes of Talleyrand would have been fascinating.
What if the goal was to turn a major figure of European history into a bumbling idiot and take him down a notch? What if the intention was not to “get it straight”?
mockery seemed to be the goal.
I was watching a 10hr doc on Napoleon...Jospehine was out of the picture by like the first 45 minutes. Divorced. lmao.
But did napoleon still visit Josephine?
@@nosuchthing8 I dont know, but he had a son that he would have gave up the crown for. That would have been WAY more interesting.
What was the documentary called?
@@TheRealDarrylStrawberry true
@@carvedouttastone Risa and Fall...i dunno...10hrs! and it could BARELY cover EVERYTHING
Nothing has surpased the mini-series with Christian Clavier.
Such a great show!
Bondarchuk’s War and Peace and Waterloo are the standard by which all other Napoleonic films should be judged.
thanks will include in a follow-up video
thanks. will include in a follow-up video
Have you watched Waterloo 1970?
I have now and have a video coming g soon on the alternative films on Napoleon to watch. It is on the list!
I have not yet seen the movie and certainly will, but I've already realized Joachin Phoenix's version of Napoleon is very unlike everything I've read about the real man from biographers, just from watching the trailers. He seems almost bored all the time, not the dynamic and charismatic force of nature that all Napoleons biographers said he was. And from what I have heard he is quite the Simp to Josephine in this movie, which was only true of the real couple for a short period at the beginning of their relationship. Once the real Napoleon began to gather fame and power he was able to flip the script on their relationship, and in the end Josephine came running when he snapped his fingers.
I'm going to have to check some biographies to see what they say about character and the relationship - but it all seemed implausible to me
Another Ridley masterpiece 👏
Its a Hollywood highly stylized popcorn film, dramatic, and make believe.
Ridley gave interviews where he said he wanted Joachim after he saw "Joker". That should tell you where his mind was at.
He was fabulous in Joker & other movies. This one just wasn't it.
they made a bad napoleon movie on purpose. He's british and has peerage, what did you expect@@sproductionsinc
Phoenix was good in Gladiator too; maybe Ridley Scott should draw more inspiration from history, rather than Batman movies.
Agree 100%. Was worth watching... as long as expectations remain low. But the higher the expectations for the film, the more will be the disappointment.
very true
What was the book?
The two books I mentioned were both by Dominic Lieven - In the Shadows of Gods: the Emperor in World History (2022), and Russia against Napoleon: the Battle for Europe, 1807-1814 (2009).
I am planning a follow-up video soon on books on Napoleon to expand on that.
The film was indeed very disappointing. Personally I found the book 'Napoleon Bonaparte' by Vincent Cronin to be excellent and can certainly recommend it.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will take a look
Should have called it - Josephine and napoleon.
100% agree with that you said. Ridley Scott's Napoleon: sounds awesome, right? All of my understanding of Napoleon came from reading War and Peace, which although being very good historical fiction, is still fiction, and is also of the Russian point of view. So I was looking forward to seeing things told from Napoleon's side. Very disappointed with this film. A huge lost opportunity.
Seems to me better off watching 'Waterloo' with Plumber and Steiger....Story kept tight, no CGI, great battle scenes.....Great film.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
I will watch and report back
On Russia, he should have listened to Poniatowski! BTW, I sure got a kick out of Wellington, that's how I always imagined him - big, bold, a giant amongst men... and yes, so so British!
Thanks for the pointer to Poniatowski
I let out an audible "whaaaaaat" when they shot the pyramids with cannons in the theater
A false flag event 200 years too late!
I think someone who is introduced to the history through this movie would learn absolutely nothing. The film doesn't even try to distill things down to a philosophical statement, nor does it try to merely present the important facts. I'm not sure why this movie was made.
it seemed to be a propaganda film about petty non-Anglo dictators!
It was as expected.I am sure an Englishman could direct a proper Napoleon movie, but nevertheless as a Frenchman, seeing the first couple teasers pretty much confirmed my slightly prejudiced attitude that there aren't many around... To be fair i appreciate Ridley's penchant with French history (Kingdom of heaven,The last duel,Napoleon...) he is doing more than any of our directors will probably ever do with it, it's just too bad that he fail each time to actually get what it is about.
Thanks for sharing. I'd love to know how French viewers are responding
“Josephine” (and Some Guy Named Napoleon) would have been a more apt film title.
You’re Being Too Kind.
1/5 or 2/10
It would take four separate actors in four separate 2.5 hour productions to do justice to that man's military accomplishments. His military career spanned thirty years, thirty wars, twenty-five battlefield victories , and five battlefield defeats. He redesigned Europe's economy, no small feat. Additionally, Phoenix was never the man to play any of those four parts, and I am more than sure that traditional French men revile the fact that a man with a hair-lip was chosen, in his youth Napoleon was a very handsome man, it would be like portraying George Washington as a cross-eyed fat man that ran from the fight...... Just my opine, take it for what it's worth.
Agreed. It was a badly done satire, not a real biopic.
i knew the movie would be shit as soon as i saw the trailer and heard modern music
My red flag was Joséphine's "you are nothing without me"...
But i was thinking that might be her reaction to the divorce... It wasnt... That was the real theme of the movie...
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
I think the second flaw that you mentioned is actually this movie's biggest flaw. It didn't show Napoleon as brilliant at all. If anything, it made him look like a greedy idiot. There are lots of historical movies that have historical inaccuracies but that still hold up as incredible because they get the overall weight of the message across. Just look at Saving Private Ryan. There were inaccuracies to the layout of Omaha beach. Dog Green Sector wasn't a real sector and the odds of US Army sending out a squad of soldiers to rescue one guy during that time would have been pretty unlikely, but the point of that movie was to show what combat looks and feels like to make the viewer see how gross war is and understand the major sacrifice that people make in that environment. It's not the most most historically accurate WWII movie, but it's still the best because it gets the feeling across better than any other movie out there, in my opinion. I don't know what the point of Napoleon was other than maybe to show the power that Josephine had over him (even that could have been shown better) but nobody really cares about that storyline, especially when most people these days don't know that much about Napoleon to begin with. Ridley Scott should have taken advantage of his opportunity to make this movie by showing the world why historians still rave over this character, not make a mockery of him.
Perhaps the biggest historical inaccuracy, for the last 200 years is that Napoleon was "brilliant". Maybe that was a narrative established by those in Europe too cowardly to face an ugly truth, an ugly truth of a disgraceful disaster of a brutal military dictator, so the pretty lie of a glorious triumph of a military genius was preferred. Cowardice and lies always come back to bite you, just ask 20th Century Europe about a deranged thug who hijacked a powerful military from a lost and confused European nation. Ask them if it was a brilliant triumph.....
Talk about a total whackjob that has their name against the greatest figure in the 19th century,.Woww~
Excellent points thank you. Good historical films are inaccurate but truthful. Check this from Adam Tooze who makes similar points to you open.spotify.com/episode/63fDsl1u1MN5BHSXZ40ySG?si=70e96e6e445b411d
Check this from Adam Tooze, leading historian, who thought it was a travesty open.spotify.com/episode/63fDsl1u1MN5BHSXZ40ySG?si=70e96e6e445b411d
I was deeply disappoined. There was so much wrong with this film...The historical innacuracies, the wooden performances and lack of a compelling score. I knew it was doomed by the second scene in which an Englishman with a British accent plays Robespierre addressing the French Assembly. The story revolves around the relationship between Napoleon and Josephine that was never a romance to begin with as it was cold and contractual from the start. It was hard to feel anything toward them. The director also weaved an all too convenient and policitally correct trope that his alleged sexual insecurities, as opposed to his perseverence and genius, is what motivated him to become the most powerful man in Europe. With the exception of the Battle of Austerlitz, we are never given a glimpse of the military mind that Napoleon was revered for. It was sadly uninsipiring.
I found it weird the only French accent in the film was Tsar Alexander of Russia. Glad the video affirmed your response.
I didn't read any reviews before watching this one,but the movie was very disconnected with a poor script.We don't understand why he did what he did and how he became Emperor.
Agreed. I feel the script was a real let-down - low grade satire at best
Bitterly disappointed and I haven't even seen it yet? One of my all time favourite subjects since seeing Waterloo at the cinema in 1970. So the subject was long overdue another movie. Sadly it seems they blew a good opportunity and flunked. I am gutted and don't really want go punish myself?
Watch it and make your own mind up. You might like it.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
A lovely video, thanks
Glad you liked it
I watched it. Very good movie. Historicly correct. Comment at Sun or Daily Mirror level.
OK. Here is another opinion open.spotify.com/episode/63fDsl1u1MN5BHSXZ40ySG?si=09dabea30b58406c
Joaquin Phoenix was playing Joker... Probably Ridley Scott wanted to make a crossover with DC...
a very low-energy Joker
I can’t believe Geoffrey Rush is doing movie reviews!
I was devastated tbh I thought this was going to be epic. I told everyone how good it was going to be. Napoleon, Ridley Scott! I mean how could it be bad. It was terrible
Thanks for saying that. You never know sometimes if you are just being grumpy; but that was how I felt. Glad I gave voice to your views.
It's not just the historical inaccuracies that made it bad. The movie itself just wasn't very good from a cinematical standpoint. The plot was incoherent and all over the place and offered very little explanation about why things were happening. If you had no prior knowledge about Napoleon's story then this movie didn't make you any more the wiser.
Nobody explained why the crowds were cheering him.
Napoleon conquered Europe, was a strategic genius and a charismatic leader. Non of this came out well in this movie, because they choose to focus the story mainly on his love life with Josephine instead, which was a poor directorial choice.
I have mixed feelings about the film. The cinematography, set design, costumes, battle scenes are all fantastic imo. But it was mostly the story that brought it down for me. The pacing wasn’t that great either. I understand that you can’t possibly put Napoleon’s life in an entire movie, but the whole film felt like a montage of all the important things that happened in history. Rather than a coherent story. I usually don’t really mind about historical accuracy in a movies. Except when it’s stated as a biopic . I genuinely thought I leaned a few new things, only to find out they fiction. Why put it in the movie then?
Great points. I agree about cinematography, set design, costumes, battle scenes. But it failed on character, story and history, which are the reasons we want to watch the biopic movie!
Yep, inaccurate and untruthful.
Lol, yeah, maybe the movie should be about Josephine like the movie, Priscilla.
Very good movie. Must be seen in IMAX
IMAX would bring out the visual strengths of the film, agreed.
This was brilliant and so entertaining. So many scenes in this film looked like a painting! It was lit and shot like a neo classical work of art.
I agree about the visuals, and many of the neo-classical art pieces by David and others were recreated in the film.
You read the book so quickly???
Do you mean the Lieven book I read from?
Almost feels like a "catch-and-kill" sort of an event/non-event.
Not sure I know what you mean
Thanks for confirmation of You Sir as british
But I am an Aussie, now part of the American Empire!
@@theburningarchive 😁.... :-)))) Rome never died :-))) ah ah.... I love your sense of humour
Scott has been on a steep decline of late. He really should consider retirement before he totally destroys his legacy.
A great masterpiece! I agree with The NY Times: "“Napoleon” is consistently surprising partly because it doesn’t conform to the conventions of mainstream historical epics, which is especially true of its startling, adamantly unromanticized title character. (The movie also doesn’t always conform to the historical record, and some may take issue with the portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz.) In the early scenes, Napoleon seems to be another of Phoenix’s taciturn, unnervingly volatile, enigmatically damaged, violent men. The difference is that this Napoleon, with his bloat, scowls and consuming needs, often resembles nothing as much as an angrily petulant baby, one whose cruelty and pathological vanity make the horror he unleashes unnervingly familiar." A huge achievement!
I really think that the historic accuracy of the film is the least of the problems. This kind of Ridely Scott's Soap Opera is a disaster from the script point of view, the dialogues are simply ridiculous and unbearably cheap. The scene where they have sex under the table in front of the servants is embarrassing to say the least. If one wants to show how powerful people are "normal kinf of person" in their private life , should be done in a more intelligent way, there is no mean to ridicule it and make it look like a freak show. Napoleon could have been a weak man when it came to Josephine, but it is quiet obvious that he was a very charismatic leader when he was at the command of his men. The scene where he encounters with the army sent by Louis the 18th is incredibly stupid and naive, the speech Napoleons deliver would not even galvanize a schoolchildren of a clerical barding school. On the top of that Scott forgets that the general of that very army was Ney, one of Napoleon's best generals...It is a pity to see a director as Sir Ridley Scott covers himself with ridicule.
Yes I feel the driving force of the film was mockery of Napoleon as petty little dictator
I don't think the problem was that Ridley Scott is English that is the problem as many have said. I actually had to fact check that. I thought he was American. The problem is that Scott's ego exceeded his talent and ability. I also see that he is not impressed by the criticisms of his movie. Apparently, viewers should get a life. I think that is sage advice. I for one can have full and rewarding cinematic experience without ever watching any of his movies.
well said
i was really excited for this movie. but now i think im going to pass on this and save the money. ive watched like 6 or 7 reviews from different youtubers and all of them were hugely dissappointed
save the money and watch when it comes to TV
Acting was fantastic if the goal was to portray one of the most charismatic, capable and talented persons to ever live as a bumbling, very ordinary bafoon. I cannot imagine the French people, or any people, following the dour, unimpressive and far too old individual whom the lead actor portrayed.
Yes, the best acting came from the other characters, freed of the stereotypes that imprisoned Napoleon.
The film seems far more anti British than anti Napoleon. Has Napoleon pick the field of battle at Waterloo 😮 has him charging in with his troops there too, and had Wellington played entirely as a cartoon villian with a snear on his face literally every moment he is on screen...
Yes, maybe.
@theburningarchive I also think the love story works against the main plot. Meaning neither can be satisfying and the battles are largely terrible. Only Austerlitz even tries to show Napoleon as tactically effectiven, everything else is just line up and run at each other. And evem for Austerlitz it felt like we spent as much time waiting for the battle to start as we did seeing the actual battle too... And that was the best Battle scene...
"How do you know? You weren't there!"
Uh, hello? There's documentation. There's primary sources. If an accurate understanding of the past was based solely on personal experience, we wouldn't be able to study history, period. His comment is missing the point, entirely. Tell something like that to a jury in a courtroom. "Shut up. None of you were there. You don't know what happened. The evidence and witness accounts are irrelevant "
absolutely. I guess it should be read as projection? And a defensive comment. Maybe he senses it really was an epic fail!
You went to see a documentary and not a film. I don't go to see Richard III in order to understand history. This movie was epic in battle but very intimate in its portraits of individuals. It was above all a musing on power and its effect on a human who wields it and the contrast between history writ large and the human writ small the foibles we all carry. It does not purport to tell all just a tiny bit of the petty human story.
I see your point, but I was expecting an insightful, meaningful film, not a documentary. I felt it failed as both art and truth.
One of the biggest let downs in recent history! Usually when a poor film is coming out, we know it's coming and can avoid it. But with Napoleon I didn't know till I was in my seat that it was going to be bad
And a long wait till the end! But still good to chat about even disappointing movies