Napoleon, Dynamite(d)
Brief Thoughts™ on a wannabe epic, undeniably gorgeous, infuriating fiasco of a film.
Last week, I read an article here on the ‘stack wherein the author contended that Ridley Scott’s Napoleon was the worst movie they’d ever seen (if I could remember who it was, I’d add a link). The timing was fortuitous considering I’d just found myself in possession of a trial week of Apple TV+, the streaming service on which Napoleon happens to reside.
I’d long been wanting to watch the film, unfavorable reviews be damned, so I decided to put this analysis to the test. I’m uncertain as to which version of the movie the aforementioned writer watched, but I went for the Director’s Cut since bigger is almost always better (I’m of the seemingly radical opinion that most movies could benefit from being longer). While I can confidently say that Napoleon is far from the worst movie I’ve ever seen, it is certainly among the most frustrating.
I mentioned in my review of Gladiator II that Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors, but he seems to be losing his touch in his twilight years. Released almost exactly one year ago, Napoleon proved me both right and wrong. From a purely technical and directorial standpoint, this may be Ridley’s best work in years: even more so than The Last Duel.
His direction is simply masterful. The camera feasts our eyes on the painterly countryside, then guides us efficiently through the gilded halls of Napoleonic power, before finally transporting us to dilapidated remains of buildings and bombed out landscapes. Napoleon’s occupation of an eerily abandoned Moscow is an arrestingly haunting segment from beginning to end. The production design throughout is appropriately sumptuous and dazzling; something which has long been a hallmark of Ridley Scott’s films.
Another area where Napoleon more or less excels (and another Ridley Scott calling card) is in the battle sequences. Waterloo, in particular, is a cinematic clash for the ages. The film’s depiction of Austerlitz, on the other hand, is visually stunning, but feels scattershot: prioritizing spectacle and eye candy over any sort of attempt at fidelity to actual historical events.
However, for all its technical marvel and spellbinding scenery, Napoleon is frustratingly uneven. The film’s tone veers wildly from grave seriousness to slapstick, if not outright scorn, nearly anytime the man himself is onscreen. It’s downright mystifying how Napoleon, as depicted in this movie, was able to accomplish his greatest achievements.
He’s consistently portrayed as an awkward, almost autistic, weirdo with a litany of mommy issues who somehow lucks into becoming Emperor of the French. Much like his work on Gladiator II, David Scarpa’s woefully threadbare screenplay (on the flippin’ Director’s Cut, no less!) glosses over necessary details. Napoleon’s career steadily advances for no other reason than because the historical record says so.
The same can be said for Napoleon’s torrid romance with his beloved Joséphine. Aside from the fact that Vanessa Kirby and Joaquin Phoenix have almost zero chemistry (for his part, Phoenix is essentially sleepwalking through this role), these characters are unceremoniously saddled with each other because, again, that’s just what happened for real. At no point during their tumultuous marriage did I ever buy into the notion that these two were positively smitten. It isn’t until after Napoleon divorces Joséphine (she is presumably incapable of providing him with an heir) that any sort of affection between them is displayed. Their post-divorce rendezvouses are shot through with melancholy and regret; honestly some of the best scenes in the movie.
Supposedly, David Scarpa’s intention was to focus primarily on Napoleon and Joséphine’s relationship. This is a conceit that would’ve worked if he had committed to treating the man with any sort of respect, if not deference. However, as he does in Gladiator II (again), Scarpa’s only truly interested in denigrating those who came before him. His version of Napoleon is a bumbling (bordering on completely incompetent) buffoon who is entirely undeserving of the legacy which has been bestowed upon him. Most of the story elements throughout the movie simply don’t work when the main character, who is a well documented historical figure, is rendered with such disdain.
Contrary to my mysterious fellow Substacker’s assessment, I think Napoleon is a regrettably okay film that could’ve been great if it had come from the Ridley Scott of just ten years ago. As it stands, we’re left with a nearly four hour monument to wasted potential and screenwriting ineptitude.
If you enjoyed reading my Thoughts, consider showing your appreciation by helping to make my dream of quitting my day job a reality.
The Sharp Tv series, as jokingly wholesome a picture of the Napoleonic wars as it is, I consider much more accurate historical representation of the period.
Yeah. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott's work has been trending in the frustrating direction. As movies, a lot of them were great, at least up through Robin Hood. As history, however, they've been increasingly lacking since Blackhawk Down.