Film Review: Napoleon

 

Sexuality/Nudity Mature

Violence Mature

Vulgarity Mature

Anti-Catholic Philosophy Mature

It may not be fair to compare one historical biopic with another, but I could not help thinking about how different Ridley Scott's Napoleon was from Steven Spielberg's Lincoln.

Napoleon tells the story of Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix).  It focuses on his rise to power from an officer in the French military during the Revolution to the rank of Emperor through to his eventual downfall.  Woven into the story is his long and tortured relationship with Josephine (Vanessa Kirby).  In fact, most of the film centers around their marriage woes.  After every intense battle scene, we always seemed to return to the two of them on the couch talking about how much they love and hate each other.

It should be said at the outset that Napoleon is a gorgeous movie to look at.  Scott has lost none of his power as a visual storyteller.  You can feel the squalor and opulence of the era in a powerful and visceral way.  The romantic imagery is lush and the battle scenes are exciting.  In fact, I would say the battle scenes are the best part of the film.  It is just a shame that there are not more of them.  For a man who is legendary for his prowess on the battlefield, Napoleon gives short shrift to the man's military genius.

The film is also very well-acted.  Phoenix's performance is sometimes befuddling and beguiling, but it is always fascinating.  He shows you different sides of Napoleon from his fear, his hubris, to his amorous nature.  Some of his acting choices are odd, as when he indicates that he wants intimacy with his wife, but they are always interesting.  Kirby is also quite good as Josephine.  She is able to show a wide range of emotional intensities that make you understand why Napoleon was drawn to her.  Rupert Everett also does a short but memorable turn as the Duke of Wellington.

However, all of that talent cannot fix the problems of the script.

Let me return to Spielberg's Lincoln to compare.  Both of these movies deal with larger-than-life historical leaders from the 19th Century.  Spielberg treats his subject with a sense of awe.  We are invited to come into the presence of the great man and experience his grandeur.  He gives us hints of the hidden depth behind the mystique.  Lincoln also only deals with a very specific few weeks where he works to pass the 13th Amendment.  Instead of trying to cram his entire biography into a movie, Spielberg helps us have an experience of the man by his actions in a great cause.  Lincoln also has a trouble relationship with his wife, but this is not his defining characteristic.

Napoleon does the opposite of Lincoln.

Instead of focusing on his greatness, we focus on how Napoleon is petty and broken.  Napoleon may not have been a good man (I will leave that to your judgment), but he was a great man in terms of his influence on history.  We get some measure of him as a tactician, but it is overshadowed by his flaws.  It makes you wonder how he could rise through the ranks the way he did.  Scott takes you too far behind the curtain to create a mystique.  The movie also falls into the trap of most biopics in that it tries to cover too much of his life so that the power of his character is spread too thin in the narrative.  And by putting his relationship with Josephine at the heart of everything, it makes the man feel smaller.

Whereas Lincoln was constructive, Napoleon was reductive.

Scott is let down by David Scarpa's script.  I remember the exact moment I began to realize the full problem with the script when at dinner, Napoleon triumphantly shouts, "Destiny as brought me this lam chop!"  It became very difficult to take the character seriously after that.  The characters besides Napoleon, Josephine, and Wellington are so ill-defined that I could not keep them straight.  This is also Scott's fault since so many of the characters look exactly the same.  I could not tell who was who because they all looked alike.  Again, contrast that with Lincoln, which also sported a large supporting cast, but everyone was given a distinctive look.

The movie is also unnecessarily graphic.  I don't believe there was nudity, but the sex scenes were guttural that it was completely off-putting.  Something tells me that filming Abe and Mary Todd doing the horizontal Mambo would have added anything to Spielberg's film  And while the sex life of Napoleon had a big impact on his story, I find this need to show historical figures in comically animalistic passion to be disgusting.

For a movie that wants to be deep, it is surprisingly shallow.  Napoleon is simply a man with a "Napoleon Complex."  He feels small so he wants to make the world see him as a big man.  While there may be some truth to that analysis, this oversimplifies the man.  Besides his victories in battle, you never get a sense of why he was so popular with the people.  You never get a sense of how he was able to hold together such a chaotic country with his reforms of law and religion.  You may argue that this was not in the scope of the movie, but they did have time for an hour of marital conflict.  There is some justice in that the movie shows horrible people coming to unhappy ends, but the impact feels dulled by the length of the film.

The more I think of the movie, the less it holds up in my mind.  My hopes were high, so perhaps it is unfair that this movie did not meet my expectations.

But when you have an A-list director and cast along with a subject that is the stuff of legends, your final product should be legendary.

Instead, Napoleon is a forgettable film that will match the greatness of its subject