When Ridley Scott says: “I will make a movie with swords and horses”, one does or does have to pay attention. This director is practically an eminence when it comes to feature films set in past centuries, inspired by myths, legends or authentic passages of human history where the highlight is hand-to-hand confrontations or battles of epic proportions, the same ones that Scott usually uses. resolve without sparing any resources in favor of the show. So, at the moment of occupying his seat to see Napoleon, audiences will do well to expect relentless and impeccable war sequences that captivate the ear and the eye. There is no disappointment every time the cannons resound; that one comes once the roaring stops.
Almost fifty years after his debut The duelists (1977), Scott returns to the context of the Napoleonic Wars, now to tell the story of the same French leader who gave his name to such military incursions, which put the European continent in the palm of his hand and led to the death of millions of people. at the beginning of the 19th century.
From this film, however, we should not expect an entertaining history lesson, as the director of Gladiator and The last duel. Spanning almost three decades in the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, the story becomes particularly hasty in addressing important events—despite its two and a half hour duration—and not very friendly to those viewers who do not have in mind what they learned from his stories. universal history books. Scott’s purpose was rather to explore the idiosyncrasies of the titular character and his turbulent relationship with Josephine Bonaparte, which sounded very attractive on paper, but fails to work on screen.
You might also be interested in: Napoleon: Why did Ridley Scott choose Joaquin Phoenix?
The way of portraying the French general turned emperor is at least careless in the biopic. There is a (very valid) intention to show the protagonist as a man of many faces, but by not delving into any of them, there is zero opportunity to delve into his psyche. Ridley Scott’s version is sometimes that of the serene and courageous strategist, sometimes that of the ambitious and tantrum leader, and sometimes that of the jealous and lascivious husband, shown through a series of vain and poorly woven vignettes.
This is a “small” Napoleon, although not because of the low stature with which he has been represented in other artistic expressions, but because of the lack of interest in building him through a solid and well-articulated narrative. For example, the sudden jumps in time from one scene to another are tiring, coupled with a disconcerting lack of rhythm. And to top it all off, it is said that there is a director’s cut that is four and a half hours long? Hopefully at least those two extra hours really serve to chain, distribute and appropriately dose the moments of romance, war and politics left so adrift here.
On the positive side, Joaquin Phoenix manages to give Napoleon a certain degree of unifying personality that counteracts the scattered editing and script. Incidentally, his performance could be reminiscent of Daniel Day-Lewis in The ghost thread for the way in which both deal with lofty and conceited characters, of undeniable talent, but insecure and prone to throwing tantrums that—according to etiquette—do not fit their status.
You might also be interested in: Napoleon: Ridley Scott wants to release his director’s cut on Apple TV Plus.
Tone is an aspect in which Ridley Scott was already lame since The Gucci house and sadly his limp has not healed. With Napoleon, the British filmmaker gives indications on more than one occasion of wanting to ridicule the commander born in Corsica; a curious case since it was the same English who 200 years ago chose to make caricatures of that rival leader and in them they highlighted, among other things, his supposed smallness. However, Scott finally avoids giving himself over completely to satire and instead decides to pay homage—through the colorful frames of his cinematographer Dariusz Wolski—a pair of famous oil paintings where, far from mocking Napoleon, his image as an emperor is exalted and conqueror.
The film hosted by Apple TV Plus also fails to establish a significant link between the protagonist’s military career and his relationship with Josephine Bonaparte. The director’s approach was that with her campaigns, Napoleon intended to either win the heart of her beloved, or destroy her when he found himself rejected by her. But neither the letters read in voice-over nor the interspersed scenes about his married life serve to feel an organic connection between Josephine and the war waged by Napoleon abroad. The empress ends up very relegated, with a hermeticism that at least Vanessa Kirby makes fascinating with her strong interpretation.
Now, Arthur Max’s immersive setting and meticulous production design don’t usually falter in a Ridley Scott period film, and Napoleon is no exception. The original soundtrack by Martin Phipps is also a hypnotic companion at all times, whether in the most intimate situations or in those of tension and warlike explosiveness. Separate topic a musical allusion to Pride and prejudiceby Joe Wright, which will not go unnoticed.
You might also be interested in: Napoleon: This was the intense pact between Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby during filming.
Ultimately, of all that has been criticized for Ridley Scott’s epic feature film, the historical inaccuracies are the least of it. Within the field of fiction, creative licenses are always the order of the day, in order to support the vision or proposal of a director who in reality does not necessarily have to adhere to what we assume to be true. Chronology can be distorted, like all knowledge endorsed in the annals of history, as long as there is a purpose, which in this case could be satire or the study of the motivations, internal demons and other traits of one of the most important figures in Western history. The problem is that Napoleon He has no idea what he aspires to.
Antonio G. Spindola I have very bad memory. Out of solidarity with my memories, I choose to get lost too. Preferably, in a movie theater.