Movie Review: Napoleon
A film about a “short dead dude.”
Everything I know about French history I learned from Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. It is for this reason that I will not comment on the historical accuracy of Ridley Scott’s new film, Napoleon. It’s just as well; I have written and maintain that all movies - even the ones said to be based on true events - are works of fiction. So, it is as a work of fiction that we will judge it.
The film follows the life and career of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix). He begins as an ambitious army officer at the time of the French Revolution. A series of successful military operations beginning with the Siege of Toulon propel him to the top of French politics. He and two others stage a coup, which puts Napoleon in charge of the country. Later, he crowns himself emperor. Meanwhile, he forms a relationship with Josephine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby). The marriage is rocky with affairs on both sides. Still, they love each other. Ultimately, Josephine’s inability to conceive a child causes the couple to divorce, but they remain close for the rest of their lives.
The movie alternates between these two threads: Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine and his career ambitions. The threads are not interwoven so much as laid parallel to one another. It’s like watching two stories happening to two protagonists.
There are two notable exceptions, however. First is the time Napoleon returns to France from Egypt upon hearing rumors of his wife’s infidelity. The personal thread (cheating wife) affects the career thread (he’s accused of deserting his troop). Napoleon cleverly turns the accusation back on his political rivals, stating that France was failing under their leadership. This, in part, leads to the above-mentioned coup.
Second, the pressing need for an heir to the throne motivates Napoleon to divorce his wife and remarry. The consequences are not as significant to the plot as in the first example, but are significant to the characters, for whose lives and happiness the audience cares.
Narratively speaking, it would have been wiser to place focus on one of these threads and concern the other only when it touches upon the first. For example, make primary the relationship narrative and how it is strained by Napoleon's ambitions. In this scenario, the military campaigns and political machinations of our titular character would be secondary, serving to enrich the romantic narrative without overshadowing it.
However, this scenario wouldn’t capture the whole man. Napoleon had three loves: “France … Army … Josephine.” To deemphasize one of them, as I suggested, would leave a gaping hole in a complicated picture. The question then becomes, narrative or completeness?
As a work of fiction, director Ridley Scott ought to have prioritized narrative. Of course, it may be that Scott doesn’t share my opinion that all biopics are fiction. It may be that Scott wanted to put forward an all-encompassing, complete depiction of the historical figure named Napoleon Bonaparte. So, did he? No. How could he? Lives are too messy and too long (Napoleon lived to 51) to be condensed into 158 minutes. Instead, Scott gives the bullet points of Napoleon's life. Some events are highlighted while others are left out or only briefly mentioned. In a single line of dialogue Napoleon states, he’s “already” conquered Italy. Really? Wow! That’s a detail deserving of attention. And yet, barely a word.
The romantic sequences drag. Also, I am not sure what to make of Napoleon’s love making style. Perhaps it was meant as a manifestation of his personality, but it served only to mock the protagonist. Moreover, it suggests he’s not truly in love with Josephine. Maybe he was or maybe he wasn’t, but it appears Scott himself couldn’t decide.
The battle sequences, on the other hand, steal the show. Imagine Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy without the fantasy creatures. The battle at Waterloo, which serves as the film’s climax, was particularly well done. Again, I don’t know anything about history or war, but the battle tactics employed were marvelous to watch regardless of accuracy. There is a fair bit of violence associated with the battles. Scott uses that violence to enunciate the illusions of glory and the reality of horrific death.
In conclusion, turning human lives into narrative is difficult. Lives don’t always fit the neat structures of storytelling. Therefore, any attempt to accurately portray historical people through a medium like film will inevitably face a choice: sacrifice narrative for completeness or completeness for narrative. We call the latter “artistic license.” I think Ridley Scott ought to have exercised his license to weave the two major threads in Napoleon into one cohesive narrative.
I lost it when I read your subheading xD