Now having seen Ridley Scott’s Napoleon movie, I would like to share some of my thoughts, first in terms of general impressions and then my response to several particulars.
If you’ve read my Thomas Paine book, it should be clear that I have little affection for Napoleon. His ambitions plunged Europe into bloodshed for two decades, costing the lives of millions of conscripts and innocents alike, and his reign as Emperor set a blueprint for authoritarianism that would be copied over and over again. He is clearly one of the most influential men who ever lived, but his influences were almost entirely bad.
Among the best sequences was the Siege of Toulon, which transpires very soon after the film begins and captures the event the gave Bonaparte fame for the first time. The battle of Austerlitz is also a highlight, and the sequence was filmed about as well as I could have envisioned it.
The film did especially well in portraying Napoleon’s relationship with Josephine, which was filled with jealously, infidelity, and a host of schisms and reconciliations. The film does a good job exploring how their feelings for each other evolved over time, and several verbatim quotes from their letters are even used. Josephine’s lavish habits spending also created animosity between the two several times, but the film chose not to explore this at all.
Napoleon had a creative side that isn’t explored well in the film at all. Had it at least mentioned his authorship of a republican pamphlet, a romance novel, and even a biography about Julius Caesar, it may have given viewers a more complete picture of his life outside of the battlefield. There is also no mention of the Napoleonic Code, perhaps his most important political contribution.
All in all, this movie covers most of the crucial moments of his life well, even though some things were omitted or glossed over and replaced with other subjects that were not as relevant. I admit this is a purely subjective judgment on my part. I do think the balance between time spent on the battlefield and Napoleon’s personal relationships was just about perfect, though.
From what I know of the era, the wardrobe choices were fantastic, and those in the coronation look to be lifted exactly from Jacques-Louis David’s famous painting of the event.
The film did well in its tendency neither to praise or vilify Napoleon entirely. It’s hard not to root for the subject at times despite all the evil he is known to have caused, but I suppose that’s the case with every good biopic.
Joaquin Phoenix played the role well, and even though I don’t think it touches his performances in Gladiator or Joker, it’s hard to think of another man who could have played this part as well.
In sum, I’m pleased with the movie, it generally met my expectations and it’s well worth watching for any fans of history, the Napoleonic era, and Ridley Scott’s films. It’s not one of the director’s best films, but it is a good film.
Now I will comment on film’s particulars, including the historicity of some matters, so if you wish to watch the film instead of reading the below, consider this a warning. If you wish to watch the movie instead of reading the below specifics, STOP NOW.
The movie’s tagline – “He came from nothing. He conquered everything.” – is not especially accurate. Napoleon was born into the Corsican nobility, albeit at a time when his home country was occupied and colonized by the French. Nevertheless, he and his brothers were afforded many opportunities that were not available to commoners of his time.
Napoleon’s horse was shout out from underneath him at Toulon, as the movie depicts, but I don’t think there’s any evidence that he saved the cannonball.
Napoleon was not in attendance at the execution of Marie Antoinette. Instead, he was on military duty in southern France. Also, the French Queen’s hair had been chopped off – it was not long as depicted in the film.
Robespierre didn’t shoot himself in the French legislative assembly, he did so within the Hôtel de Ville.
The most ridiculous part of the movie, in my mind, occurs when Napoleon fires cannons at the top of the pyramids in Egypt. This is a completely contrived moment that didn’t actually transpire in any of his battles there.
While he did essentially desert his army in Egypt, it’s also not true that the reason Napoleon returned to Paris because he learned of Josephine’s affair. Instead, he returned because he kept close tabs on the political situation in France, and realized the time was rife to capitalize on his plot to seize political power. Josephine’s infidelity was not the reason for the abandonment of his forces in Egypt, and he had actually learned of it about a year and a half prior to returning to Paris.
I think the Coup of 18 Brumaire, where Napoleon overthrew the French Directory with the help of Emmanuel Sieyès and his brother Lucien, could have been explained better, or more time could have been devoted to it. This was a brilliant plot that involved many risks, and involved the dissemination of false propaganda, and the film does a relatively poor job of explaining what is likely the most interesting and odds-defying coup in world history. However, the film does depict Napoleon and his brother Lucien saying/doing roughly the same things the accounts say they did.
I also thought the movie does an insufficient job of how Napoleon consolidated power as First Consul and became Emperor of the French. It wasn’t simply that he decided to crown himself king upon the advice of Talleyrand, it was because he outmaneuvered his two fellow Consuls politically by drafting and securing the ratification of the Constitution of the Year VIII, which gave him dictatorial powers over a military government. In addition, a botched assassination attempt in 1800 gave the First Consul considerable political capitol to crack down on civil liberties and establish a hereditary dynasty.
At his coronation at Notre Dame in 1804, the hundreds of musicians in attendance played Veni Creator Spiritus and Vivat in Aeternum, not the songs heard in the film. Other than that, the sequence holds almost entirely to accounts.
It is not true that Napoleon learned of Josephine’s death after he returned to France in the Hundred Days. Instead, he learned of this while he was in exile on Elba, after which he succumbed to grief and locked himself in his room for two full days.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Napoleon struck Josephine in public, or lashed out at her in such a way as the film portrays during his divorce in 1809. Instead, the two simply gave prepared speeches and their marriage was annulled without incident.
Napoleon did not personally lead a charge at Waterloo, and doing this would have been unheard of for a commanding general in the early 19th century.
In the movie, Napoleon is shown sitting with The Duke of Wellington concerning the terms of his exile in St. Helena, but in reality, the two never met in person.
Napoleon did not die while lounging outside of Longwood House. Instead, he died in his bed after falling sick.
I’m sure there are multitudes of other things the film gets wrong in terms of historical accuracy, but this is what I caught. All of these things, in my mind, do not detract from the fact that the film generally presents many moments and aspects of the subject’s character accurately.
