Loading ...
“Napoleon,” a big-budget war film and the latest from director Ridley Scott released on Nov. 22, much to the disappointment of history fans worldwide.
A historical drama documenting the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, “Napoleon” is a well-made, handspun film sprinkled with talented actors such as Joaquin Pheonix, who plays Napoleon himself, and Vanessa Kirby, who plays Josephine Bonaparte, Napoleon’s wife.
Throughout Pheonix’s performance he seems lost, or disconnected, with the role, and Kirby’s display reduces Josephine to a one-dimensional character, existing only to add an element of drama to the film.
The pacing throughout the film is odd; too fast at first, with Napoleon’s years as a young French officer and his marriage of Josephine racing past; then begrudgingly slow, with scenes bearing little to no relevance to the plot dragging on for far longer than they should.
The screenplay as a whole is shallow, dull and boring, when not punctuated by (and I mean this literally) explosive special effects, which in themselves are the best part of the film.
Visually, “Napoleon” is a masterpiece – engaging colors, immersive scenes and detailed sets with hours of historical scrutiny given to detail- unfortunately, the plot itself seems to lack that same dedication to historical perfection.
The biggest grievance I have is with the dozens of historical inaccuracies presented throughout the film. For example, in a scene depicting the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon leads Austrian and Russian forces onto a massive frozen lake, ordering his artillery to fire, bombarding the ice and drowning them. This battle did happen, but in the actual one, there was no lake; opposing forces were forced to retreat over a series of small ponds, which served no major role in the battle.
Numerous other scenes depict Napoleon riding into battle with his cavalry, engaging in direct combat and working alongside French officers; there is no proof of this ever happening, and in the opinions of most historians, he was almost always stationed behind the battlefield to oversee troops and never in any actual physical danger.
A third, and the one that irked me the most, was that Napoleon’s horse was never shot out from under him, as is depicted in the film; Napoleon himself though, was, in fact, wounded during the Siege of Toulon. He was stabbed with a British bayonet, an injury that very well could have killed him. In all of Scott’s seeming obsession with dramatizing Napoleon’s battles, he decided to leave out this very real detail.
Overall, Napoleon is worth seeing for any history fan, but for any history buff, it’s a long way from perfect.
