Posted on 11/26/2023 8:06:44 PM PST by Rummyfan
If, at 85, Ridley Scott has reached the final season of his filmmaking career, Napoleon is the ideal work of wintry grandeur to mark it. Scott’s 28th feature is a magnificently hewn slab of dad cinema with a chill wind whistling over its battlefields and round its bones: its palette is so cold, even the red in the tricolore is often the shade of dried blood.
Spanning 32 years, from the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789 to its title character’s death on St Helena in 1821, it casts Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise, reign and downfall as both a prickly psychodrama and a sweeping military epic, in which the intimate lives of its central players and the fate of France itself become instantly and anxiously entwined.
Napoleon himself is played with startling blunt-force charisma by Joaquin Phoenix, who is working again with Scott for the first time since 2000’s Gladiator. Phoenix’s undisguised soft Californian accent is one of a number of details that might irk historical sticklers – television’s Dan Snow has already chimed in with a list of inaccuracies, to which Scott’s not unreasonable response was “get a life”. But on screen it’s oddly ideal, reinforcing the idea that this Corsican roughneck can never fully settle into the role for which history has him picked out.
We get the measure of the man almost instantly at the Siege of Toulon, as the French Republican forces lay siege to the British-occupied harbour fort. In the dead of night, as Napoleon leads the advance, a cannonball tears through the shoulder of his horse – the film earns its 15 certificate fast – though almost before he hits the ground he hurriedly barks “I’m OK,” and strides on, shaken but resolute, and smeared with the blood of his steed.
(Excerpt) Read more at uk.style.yahoo.com ...
Thanks, navymom1.
I got a few replies stating that because I don’t like seeing animals abused, therefore I don’t mind seeing human beings abused.
I couldn’t believe the “jump to conclusions” of some folks.
Totally illogical.
Regards.
No, I meant I don’t like to see THE DEPICTION of a horse being abused.
I know they take care not to injure the animal, but I don’t like seeing it.
Just for the record, I DON’T LIKE SEEING MEN SLAUGHTERING EACH OTHER ON THE BATTLEFIELD EITHER, so I buzz through those scenes.
Must be some UK rating system akin to G, M, R, or X.
***Then you will not want to see the movie “Come and See”****
Got it on DVD, and yes, it shows the brutality of war even to animals.
https://www.criterion.com/films/28895-come-and-see
Then you will not like the 1966 Russian version of War and Peace, or the 1970 version of WATERLOO.
The Rest is History podcast did two shows on Napoleon. I thought they were good. They throw in some fun tidbits like Josephine had no teeth from eating too much candy. And I also loved the same British General who surrendered to Washington at Yorktown also surrendered to Napoleon at Toulon.
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/ohara-surrender-washington-napoleon/
This linked story leaves out that General O’Hara became friends with Tom Paine in a Paris prison. Tom had kept his revolutionary spirit to join the French. That was great until they turned on him.
Thanks for 2 posts worth admonitions, but the movie is still a steaming POS.
Napoleon wasn’t some brooding, whiney cuck to Josephine. He never shot canons at pyramids. He wasn’t a depressive old fart, he was charismatic, in his 30s. He never charged into battle with his cavalry, he was an artillery guy.
The battle scenes were TRASH.... mobs of chaotic nonsense that showed none of the French tactics and formations - only what an ignoramous would THINK these battles looked like.
Despite $200m spent, they couldn’t even a grade-school level historian?
Sorry you’re such a huge fan, but fk your movie.
👍👍
Nobody is looking for historical accuracy in these kind of movies. We know these are all about turning the story into a 3 act movie structure, they are at best “inspired” by real events. But since life just doesn’t follow the 3 act structure they’re doomed to be inaccurate. The good news is though that they often inspire new documentaries, or meta documentaries that pull from other documentaries. Especially in this modern world with all the streaming options. So then people who enjoyed the movie and want to learn the reality of it can go watch those. And who knows, maybe they even inspire the next generation of scholars on the subject.
Nice of you speak for everyone and anecdotally make stuff up, but educated people don't appreciate obvious bullshit - like Napoleon blowing up pyramids as a geriatric old fart.
That is Correct.
Meanwhile it remains true. I know historians, even some who have had their area turned into movies. The ones that aren’t addicted to being curmudgeons know the cycle. Yes the movie will be horrifyingly inaccurate to the point of laughter, or tears, or both. But somewhere during the press cycle they start getting phone calls for interviews as somebody wants to make a documentary. And then after the movie their classes suddenly get a lot more popular.
It’s a basic reality of movies and TV, never watch anything that’s “about” your profession. It’s always wrong. Crime scene techs don’t watch CSI, programmers don’t watch computer movies, finance guys don’t Billions, strippers don’t watch Striptease. They just get aggravated.
Of course Napoleon didn’t shoot at the pyramids, but it looked cool.
https://www.grunge.com/825154/did-napoleon-really-shoot-off-the-great-sphinxs-nose/
Despite the historical legend that Napoleon Bonaparte’s men shot off the Sphinx’s nose with a cannon when they rolled through the region in 1798, we know for certain that the French military leader wasn’t responsible, according to Egypt Today. We know this because a painting from 1737 — a half a century before Napoleon and his men came calling — shows the stone beast without its nose.
What is believed to have happened, according to Mental Floss, is that a religious zealot and devout Muslim named Muhammad Sa’im al-Dahr was put off by the practice of area peasants making sacrifices to the Sphinx in order to prevent floods. Believing this to be an unacceptable act of idolatry, al-Dahr is said to have deliberately chopped off its nose with a hammer and chisel some time in the 14th century.
lol - the movie is horrible, and you’re still a stubborn PITA for YEARS, but I appreciate your input.
I hadn’t heard that legend. Which makes the scene in the movie make more sense. Clearly Ridley having a little fun with legend, and also a way to reference how little care European officials had for the historical artifacts they were having wars around, or just outright looting. He is British and I think sometime during Gladiator’s run got a private tour of the British Museum. They definitely would have blown up the pyramids if they got in the way.
The movie is fun. And as for stubborn PITA, you’re the one doing all the shouting. And name calling.
Cruelty to dogs is just as much a movie killer for me. Indeed, I even dislike cruelty to snakes, given how much pure good the nonvenomous ones do.
Thank you.
I bet you would not like THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE both the 1936 and 1968 versions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.