Napoleon. The name is instantly recognizable to anyone with an inkling of knowledge about
European history. A name that invokes images of famous paintings, the great number of victories in battle, and perhaps endless paragraphs in history textbooks. Now, “Napoleon” is also the name of a film directed by Ridley Scott, who attempts to capture the story of one of history’s most successful military commanders, who is portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix. And while the film certainly looks fantastic, with its stunning visuals and great casting, it lacks the nuance of the titular character’s history, resulting in a somewhat soulless and disappointing film overall.
Visually, “Napoleon” is truly immersive, with a muted, yet beautiful color palette, paired with amazing set designs. It easily sucks you into the violent period of France’s revolution with historically accurate costume design and set pieces. However, the film’s immersion is somewhat ruined by the accents of the characters, who all sport English accents, which disregards Napoleon’s known struggles with the French language.
Perhaps the movie’s most eye-catching feature is its dramatic battles, with masses of soldiers flooding through each side and the cannon fire that seems to envelop the battlefields. Each conflict is powerful and realistic, truly putting these epic clashes into perspective as the audience witnesses the slew of soldiers
that are slain as each side marches on. But as glorious as these scenes are, the movie never truly contextualizes the importance of each of these conflicts, as it skips through a rushed summary of Na-
poleon’s various battles. Entire campaigns are left off-screen, only being addressed in a singular dialogue. It’s an inevitable flaw due to time and budget constraints, but the film might have been better off focusing directly on a certain period of Napoleon’s political career.
However, the movie doesn’t focus just on Napoleon’s political successes and failures; it also offers a more intimate view into Napoleon’s scandalous marriage with Josephine Bonaparte, portrayed by Vaness Kirby. It’s an aspect of his history that is often overlooked and frankly would have been quite interesting if the film had not butchered their fascinating relationship. Instead of being tumultuous and nuanced, Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship is awkward and frustrating, essentially boiling down to childish tantrums and passionless intimacy.
Overall, “Napoleon” is a visually outstanding film, but rapidly falls apart in its attempt to tackle one of France’s most turbulent periods. Although the film largely follows historical canon, creating an authentic historical film, the writing behind Napoleon himself lacks the nuance and charm that allowed him to win over the hearts of France as an outsider from Corsica. The movie also tries to incorporate the romance of Napoleon and Josephine, but fails even more miserably, leading to an inefficient storyline in a film that is already condensing decades of history. Perhaps these issues will be fixed in Scott’s director’s cut that is to
be released exclusively on Apple TV, but at this point, I’m not keen to sit through mediocrity again.