FRANCE…. THE ARMY…. JOESPHINE
Director Ridley Scott has taken viewers on various cinematic journeys throughout his career as a film director; depicting several key movie scene moments that have become both memorable and timeless in their own right, with a special affinity towards iconic in pop culture references. While 1977’s historical drama The Duelists was his directorial debut, Scott gained credibility with several other of his releases, including the sci-fi horror Alien in 1979, the sci-fi drama Blade Runner in 1982, the psychological horror Hannibal in 2001, the action war flick Black Hawk Down in 2001, the biographical crime drama American Gangster in 2007, the sci-fi drama The Martian in 2015, and several others. With The Duelists being his first directorial endeavor, one of Scott crowning achievement was Roman historical drama Gladiator in 2000, which gained massive popularity with critics and moviegoers alike and won a multitude of awards. Scott’s attention historical drama pieces has been customary in his body of work; finding the director tracked to those particular period pieces productions and storytelling opportunities. Scott’s historical drama films include such films like the Age of Discovery in 1492: Conquest of Paradise in 1992, the Crusade medieval era Kingdom of Heaven in 2005, the medieval time period in Robin Hood in 2010, the biblical world of Ancient Egypt in Exodus: Gods and Kings in 2015, and 12th century medieval France in 2021’s The Last Duel. Now, Sony / Columbia Pictures (along with Apple TV+) and director Ridley Scott present his last cinematic tale with a film that depicts the life of Napoleon Bonaparte in the movie titled Napoleon. Does Scott’s historical drama find grandeur in recounting the famous figure or is a big-budgeted production that lacks conviction within its storytelling shaping?
THE STORY
With old monarchy order of France disposed of, a power vacuum has engulfed the nation, looking towards leadership with the strength to lead its people. Emerging from the call comes one Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix), with respect of his fellow military soldiers and countrymen as he works to claim power through acts of war, leading French forces into multiple battles. This concertation and keen military prowess tactician earns him a great reputation, soon climbing the ranks of power, which pleases him greatly. Yet, despite amassing powers and titles, Napoleon truly desires an heir, falling in love with Joesphine (Vanessa Kirby), a poor widow open to his charm and status, with the pair eventually marrying, commencing a solemn mission that the pair deliver an offspring. As sexual relations fail to create life, Napoleon is left with his leadership duties, pushing France into foreign nations and realms as their empire expands. However, his thoughts always remain with Joesphine, dealing with her infidelities as well as her inability to conceive a child. Torn between his love and duty, Napoleon wrestles with his leadership roles, while rulers of other nations prepare to defend their lands from his growing army.
THE GOOD / THE BAD
Taking my words (and lines) from my review of The Last Duel (as it pertains as to what I want to say) ….Of the many famous directors that I like (i.e., Stephen Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Clint Eastwood, Christopher Nolan, etc.), Ridley Scott is definitely up there with those directors….at least in my opinion Scott has certainly have a talent for creating such vivid and compelling feature films that us (the viewers) on an incredible journey. While not every movie of his is a “massive hit”, his collective body of work speaks for itself, Scott’s directorial works has found success with critics and moviegoers alike, including several timeless classics that are prime candidates to be encased in cinematic tapestry of film history. Naturally, I’m talking about Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator as such prime examples, which, of course, I all love and definitely speak volumes in great storytelling as well as great feature film endeavors on Scott’s part. It’s something that personally “clicks” with the stars aligning the right way and that’s something that Scott’s movies most do. As mentioned in my opening paragraph, Scott almost has a special affinity attraction towards costumed period pieces (of which I am sucker for), with the director usually encapsulating a strong story / character-driven narrative that is set within a “another time”; utilizing the setting’s backdrop as primary player for plot and large-scale cinema moments. Of course, Gladiator is one that fits that description the best (one of my all-time favorites), with Scott utilizing the Ancient Roman world for such a gripping and rich story of revenge and honor. Looking beyond Gladiator, Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven is another great production, with the director producing a grandiose, cinematic look of the Crusades with epic scope and grandeur. Plus, despite the financial failings not connecting with modern moviegoers, I actually really liked The Last Duel, which showcased Scott’s representation of a layered narratives of different characters threads and how they differ from each other. While I have mixed thoughts on 2010’s Robin Hood and 2015’s Exodus: Gods & Kings, I still think that they are still good, costumed period pieces, with Scott playing around within two great time periods for each respective films and giving a solid production quality. In the end, while Scott will continue to produce a wide variety of theatrical films, his attraction to period piece dramas are something I look forward to seeing the most.
This circles back to my review for Napoleon, a 2023 historical epic drama and the last film by Ridley Scott in his production historical features. I think it was sometime after the release of The Last Duel when Scott announced that his next project was going to be historical biopic endeavor with the subject matter circling around the famous French general / ruler Napoleon Bonaparte. I was definitely by this due to the fact it was going to be a historical biopic on Napoleon as well as being another period piece from Scott. Then I remember hearing about the casting news when it was announced that actor Joaquin Phoenix was going to be the titular role of Napoleon in the movie, while it was definitely an odd choice, it was one I was hoping it would succeed. Phoenix has always been known for his eccentric and quirk character roles, so to see him play such a steadfast and stoic-like character was bit of a curveball from Scott, but it was one I would like to see, especially after the actor’s performance in Joker. As for Phoenix’s co-star, the role of Joesphine was originally going to be played by actress Jodie Comer, who had worked with Scott on The Last Duel, but had to drop out of the role due to scheduling conflicts, with actress Vanessa Kirby stepping in to play Napoleon’s wife. While I do like Comer, I think that Kirby would be a better fit for the role. Then came the film’s movie trailers, which definitely peaked my interest in the upcoming historical biopic drama, with the previews showcasing what was in store from Scott’s latest feature. It definitely looked very appealing and cinematic; promising a lot of action and drama. This further enticed me to see it and (from the preview alone) made Phoenix look like a convincing portrayal of Napoleon. Overall, I was quite interested in seeing Napoleon and did get a chance to see the movie during its opening night on November 22nd, 2023. With the week being released on Thanksgiving weekend, I did have to wait a couple of days after (working retail), but now I’m finally ready to share my thoughts on this historical epic drama. And what did I think of it? Well, it was just okay. While the movie does have a fantastic visual presentation (aesthetics and appeal) as well as some solid action scenes, Napoleon comes off as historical epic that’s too stiff and rigid in its execution and overall flow of the feature and suffers fragmented storytelling. There’s definitely an interesting subject matter piece to be told when examine the life of Napoleon, but this movie is not Scott’s best work, which is quite a shame.
With Scott at the helm, the director approaches the material on Napoleon Bonaparte with the same type of cinematic integrity one would expect from him, especially since he had cultivated several renowned historical drama features like Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven. In this regard, Scott does certainly knows how to make a film presentation feel grand and expansive, with the film’s scope justifying such a dramatic attention from the opening moments. As to be expected, Scott gives the feature enough of a history lesson of the famous man, with the movie showcasing the rise of Napoleon in the first act, amassing victory in battles and making a name for himself, while the courts of France look for a leader to guide them after the nation’s revolution against the old monarchy. Perhaps it is my love for history, especially European history, that I find the most fascinating about this picture, with Scott seeking to develop Napoleon from soldier to Emperor by tactical maneuver he employs to get what it wants from France, his enemies, and those who would help / give away to his rise to supremacy. For history buffs out there, the movie, while not the most accurate towards the real-life events that took place under Bonaparte, still makes for some compelling stuff on the big-screen by blending history and entertainment into one.
At the heart of the movie (at least what Scott wants to convey with the picture) is the relationship that Napoleon with his Joesphine and all the complexities that come with such romance. There’s definitely a lot to be said with these two characters, especially since a larger focus of the movie gives a more intimate look into their lives together. It’s something I wasn’t expecting, which I thought would take more of a “backburner” to more of the action and larger narrative threads, but it is quite interesting to see somewhat strangeness the two character feels towards one another. To be quite honest, I really didn’t know much about Joesphine, so it was quite intriguing to see the character, a desperate widow woman who is looking for attachment towards the powerful man and who (in turn) is looking for children to sire. It’s because of this that Scott makes these moments of when the pair are together the crucial foundation of the feature, with the pair’s flirtation coming off as whimsical and lustful, while their marriage is shaded by infidelity and loose frustration. It’s definitely something worth examining, which is probably why Scott demonstrates a cinematic representation of Napoleon and Joesphine’s romance throughout much of the feature.
Of course, the film’s action is Scott’s “bread and butter” in a lot of his production, with his contribution made in Napoleon equally measured greatly in this feature. The intricate layout and overall staging and execution of it all is quite mesmerizing to behold as the director choreographies such an exciting battle on the big screen. It’s loud, bombastic, and quite violent at times, which showcases the strengths of Scott and makes it all for the better, showcasing the brute force of waging armies as well as the stratagems employed by Napoleon himself and his enemies. In the end, while not the best production release from Scott, his work on Napoleon is still commendable to a certain degree and cultivates a narrative that’s definitely “interesting” take on the soldiers rise to power, his tactical leadership on the battlefield, and his enamored relationship with Joesphine.
In it’s presentation, Napoleon is absolutely hand-down a gorgeous looking film that is visually stunning and dripping with lush historical vibrancy. Much like Scott’s other historical epics, the movie is teeming with such intricate detail of authenticity that the feature’s background setting is almost a character unto itself. Everything from background layouts to costume attires and even to facial hair / make-up, the movie is steeped in historic authenticity, with Scott giving the feature that very French look and appeal that feel appropriate (and genuine) for the story era / time period….circa late 1700s / early 1800s. Thus, the film’s “behind the scenes” key players, including Arthur Max (production design), Celia Bobak, Elli Griff, and Storm Woodroffe (set decorations), Janty Yates and David Crossman (costume designs) as well as the entire art direction department and the entire hair / make-up team, for their efforts in making the film’s visual look so pleasing to the eye and very cinematically lush throughout. For its cinematography, the film boasts plenty of dramatic camera angles and usage of lighting and shadowing effects to create such cinematic moments in the feature. Thus, the work by Dariussz Wolski should be highly praised to help build up some scenes in such a theatrical bold way. Lastly, the film’s score, which was composed by Martin Phillippe, is relatively good and helps build upon some of the cinematic and tension-filled action moments. It’s not the greatest, which is strange because Phillipe is a great soundtrack composer, but it gets the job done. Also, as a sidenote, the film’s utilizes some French-esque style songs in the movie and, while some are good, do feel a bit awkward and “out of place” with the scenes in the move.
Unfortunately, Napoleon does suffer from some problematic areas that hold the feature back from reaching a memorable historical epic film status. How so? Well, for starters, the movie itself feels very choppy and fragmented throughout. This is mostly due to the fact that Scott himself intended to release an extended director’s cut, with a runtime of roughly four hours in length. Given the fact that the theatrical cut of the feature clocks in at 158 minutes (two hours and thirty-eight minutes), the suppose extended cut is mostly like going to be 82 minutes longer (or possibly longer) than what was shown in the theatrical cut. Why do I mention the extended cut of Napoleon? Well, it’s because the theatrical cut of the film is quite choppy throughout the entire film, with the editing for the project being highly questionable. What’s presented works, but it also it doesn’t and only to give the feature enough motion to propel forward. With so much material that needed to be trimmed down and / or removed, the theatrical release version of the movie gets quite reduced and ends up being a bit confusing as times. Characters are introduced, but become less important in the narrative or completely dropped altogether. Subplots are presented, but are left unanswered by the time the end credits begin to roll, and vague notions of leadership and commands are somewhat unsaid. It goes like this throughout the entire movie and it becomes quite perplexing to figure out what’s going on. Thus, there a lot of material (subtext) in the various characters and storytelling narration that very hazy, ambiguous or just simply not fully addressed in the theatrical cut, which was either removed for the extended cut of the feature or just edited out of the picture completely. This, of course, makes the editing process, which was done by Claire Simpson and Sam Restivo, very jumbled that (in-turn) makes the movie feels clunkily and fragmented throughout the entire project.
This also comes in the form of Scott’s direction for the movie, who doesn’t know how to exactly address certain storytelling elements and the film’s various characters in correct and cohesive manner. Again, the choppiness and fragmented structure of the feature can clearly be seeing in and out of the movie, with Scott having difficulty trying to make a cohesive film that feels rather mismanaged in several crucial parts. Because of this, the film’s pacing is a bit off as it meanders through scenes with not enough of “zip” to them, which does create a sort of “sluggishness” to the film and makes several moments quite boring. Basically, the movie does feel its lengthy runtime and that’s not a good thing. There is also the questioning moments of where comedic tones are laced into the feature’s presentation. Of course, moments of levity can help break up scenes of gravitas and other dramatically overtones, but when it becomes a bit off-putting…..then it becomes a distraction. Scott utilizes this tactic in Napoleon and makes the comedy angle a bit awkward in an otherwise serious movie. It’s more of a distraction with such comedy angst and presentation (a few scenarios with quirky music and actors acting a bit goofy) and doesn’t exactly fit correctly in this project.
Lastly, the film’s script, which was penned by David Scarpa, leaves a lot to be desired, with several crucial contexts of narrative / character structure being rather vague. The idea of trying to encompass the whole entire life story of Napoleon Bonaparte is indeed a daunting task and, try as the movie might, doesn’t exactly incorporate all the interesting aspects that the famous historical figure did. Yes, the movie does show the rise of Napoleon’s power, yet there is fragmented pieces that are missing. Heck, we (as the viewers) don’t exactly see Napoleon leadership as Emperor of France and the laws he upheld and implemented during his time as the presiding ruler of the nation. The script showcases his tactical maneuvers as a general, but not so much as a leader and that’s a strange aspect not to display. Furthermore, the movie throws a bunch of characters and important dates at the viewers, which may be quite confusing to the average moviegoer. Juggling such a large roster of characters is quite problematic and the created script really doesn’t know how to do this, with the narrative showcasing plenty of historical figures that have played a part in France / Napoleon’s life, but come off as one-dimensional or just utterly forgetful. Plus, the suggestive manner of place and time periods, while important to understand, feel very hollow and seem a bit off-putting (and confused) of trying to comprehend such importance. Personally, I think that Napoleon should’ve been released as a limited mini-series on a streaming platform (Max, Netflix, or Apple TV+) and would’ve given the film’s story more time to breathe and allow more examination into the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte, including his upbringing, leading France, and other nuances that the movie never uncovers.
The cast in Napoleon is relatively good and gives “cinematic life” to many players in this narrative, with many being portrayed by several recognizable acting talent. However, trade off is that the movie’s central focus of Napoleon and Joesphine becomes problematic, which pushes back many of the supporting players in the feature. As stated, leading the charge in the picture is actor Joaquin Phoenix, who plays the titular role of Napoleon Bonaparte. Known for his roles in Gladiator, Walk the Line, and The Joker, Pheonix has always been attracted to playing more “indie” projects or playing eccentric character roles throughout his career. So, it comes as no surprise that Phoenix would want to play such an infamous historical figure such as Napoleon. To his credit, Phoenix does play the character quite well in my opinion, with the actor playing up the eccentricities with subtle touches of nuances to make his portrayal of Napoleon off-kilter at times and somewhat amusing. Yet, he also plays up the steadfastness of the character with a very steely demeanor / hardened tactician when he’s on the battlefield. Perhaps my only flaw with Phoenix in the movie is that he does come off as a bit “too stiff” at times and lifeless in a few scenes. There’s definitely a lot of stuff to say about his character, but the film’s editing down the material for another cut of the film leaves a lot to be desired, which is disappointing especially since he’s suppose to be the main character. I mentioning some of those faults above, so I won’t rehash it all. Suffice to say…. Phoenix is good, but I think a better direction (more gravitas) for his performance of Napoleon Bonaparte would’ve been so much better.
Behind him, the next “big player” in the movie would have to be actress Vanessa Kirby, who plays Empress Joesphine, Empress Consort and the first wife of Napoleon. Known for her roles in The Crown, Mission Impossible: Dead Reckoning Part One, Hobbs & Shaw, Kirby has slowly becoming a recognizable actress and starting to appear in more and more mainstream platforms on both the big and small screen. Thus, her involvement in Napoleon is indeed a welcome one as I personally like Kirby as an actress and definitely handles herself quite well in the role Josephine. She has that regal look about her, yet also is confident enough to hold her power over Napoleon in their relationship as well as being mischievous in her sexual frivolities. Plus, her on-screen chemistry with Phoenix was good and felt there connection between them, which made the relationship between Napoleon and her believable. However, much like Napoleon, the material presented in the movie for Joesphine feels a bit underwhelming at times and clunkily handled, with fragmented pieces scattered throughout. Thus, editing down such material feels ever present and I wish that there was more to it than what was shown. Again, this goes back to the extended cut of the movie. In the end, Kirby is fantastic as Joesphine, but her character (or rather how she’s written) feels hodgepodge.
With a larger emphasis placed on the characters of Napoleon and Joesphine, much of the rest of the film’s cast play supporting characters (of which they are too many) are mostly throwaway and forgetful historical figures. This includes actor Tahar Rahim (A Prophet and The Mauritanian) as known politician who was executive head of the Directory during the French Revolution Paul Barras, actor Ben Miles (The Crown and The Capture) as a diplomat and Napoleon’s close advisor Cauliancourt, actress Ludivine Sagnier (Lupin and The Young Pope) as socialite and noblewoman Theresa Cabarrus, actor Matthew Needham (The Ritual and House of the Dragon) as Napoleon’s brother Lucien Bonaparte, actor John Hollingworth (The Crown and 1917) as one of Napoleon’s commanders Marshall Ney, actor Scott Handy (Hunted and A Knight’s Tale) as one of Napoleon’s commanders Marshal Berthier, actor Youssef Kerkour (Home and Marcella) as one of Napoleon’s commanders Marshal Davout, actor Phil Cornwell (Alan Patridge and Churchill: The Hollywood Years) as Sanson ‘The Bourreau’, actor Edouard Phillipponnat (The Runner and Dragonheart Vengeance) as the Tsar of Russia Alexander I, actor Ian McNeice (Rome and Dune) as King Louis XVIII, actor Rupert Everett (My Best Friend’s Wedding and Shrek 2) as the Duke of Wellington Arthur Wellesley, actor Paul Rhys (Da Vinci’s Demons and Chaplin) as leading diplomat of France Talleyrand, actor Gavin Spokes (House of the Dragon and Magic Mike’s Last Dance) as Directory politician Moulin, actor Mark Bonnar (Operation Mincemeat and Unforgotten) as general of Napoleon Jean-Andoche Junot, actress Riana Duce (Aladdin and the Stolen Stories and The Good Book) as Lucille, actress Anna Mawn (The Nevers and Anne Boleyn) as Napoleon’s second wife Archduchess Marie-Louise, actor Sam Troughton (The Ritual and Aliens vs. Predator) as French lawyer / statesman Robespierre, actor Davide Tucci (13 Hours and Barbarians) as French general Lazare Hoche, actor Mike Jupp (The Legend of Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes) as the Austrian Emperor Francis I, actor Abubakar Salim (Raised by Wolves and Assassin’s Creed: Origins) as General Dumas, actress Audrey Brisson (Hereafter and The Flying Lovers of Vitebsk) as Napoleon’s sister Elisa Bonaparte, actor Thom Ashley (Into the Badlands and War of the Worlds) as La Bedoyere, actor Jannis Niewohner (Ruby Red and Godless Youth) as Hippolyte Charles, actor Julian Wadham (The English Patient and Goya’s Ghost) as Jean de Cambacres, actor Jonathan Barnwell (Ripper Street and Industry) as Napoleon’s secretary, actor Benedict Martin (Bleak House and Devices and Desires) as Roger Docus, actor Tim Faulkner (The Diamond Brothers and Howard’s Way) as Blucher, actor Robin Soans (The Princess Switch and The Queen) as Pope Pius VII, actor Richard McCabe (The Duchess and The Constant Gardner) as Lord Whitworth, actor Edward Mercieca (Helen of Troy and Game of Thrones) as General Carteaux, actor Arthur McBain (Judy and The Trouble with Maggie Cole) as General Marchand, actor Julian Rhind-Tutt (Green Wing and Stardust) as Sieyes, actress Sinead Cusack (V for Vendetta and Eastern Promises) as Napoleon’s mother Letizia Bonaparte, actress Harriet Bunton (making her debut in the movie) as Napoleon’s sister Pauline Bonaparte, actress Charlie Greenwood (Marriage and Marionette) as Napoleon’s sister Caroline Bonaparte, actor Sam Crane (The Crown and The Trial of Christine Keefer) as famous Neoclassical French painter Jacques-Louis David, and actress Catherine Walker (A Dark Song and House of Gucci) as Archduchess of Austria / Queen of France Marie-Antoinette. All of them give solid character roles within their performances, but there are far too many of them and don’t have a long enough screen-time to make lasting impression, which is disappointing due to the fact that most (if not all) of these characters are historical figures in this era of French history.
FINAL THOUGHTS
Finding the need of leadership and the power vacuum left behind by the old regime, Napoleon Bonaparte rises to power to lead his nation into glory, while also courting the love of Joesphine in the movie Napoleon. Director Ridely Scott’s latest film takes a closer look at the infamous figure of French history and drums up captures bigness within a drama piece that full of war, love, and power, which is thrown together by perplexing character study piece. The movie does falter from its narrative structure and foundation (pacing, subplots, tones) and struggles to convey secondary elements within its story and characters yet manages to cultivate a sprawling epic with amazing action sequences, a visually impressive presentation, and solid casting choices from both Phoenix and Kirby. Personally, I thought that this movie was somewhere between okay and good, but more towards just okay and maybe even a bit disappointing at times. It definitely felt like Ridley Scott movie with its solid historical epic / period piece drama that looks and sounds terrific as well as having some fantastic action set pieces, but the flow of the movie felt choppy, the narrative was fragmented, the comedy aspect was awkward, and the movie itself just became a bit clunky at times. Phoenix and Kirby were great in the movie, but most of the cast, while performed well, were forgetful and too many. In ranking Scott’s historical dramas, I probably would put this movie above 2010’s Robin Hood, but nowhere near the likes of Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, or even The Last Duel. Again, I know that there is going to be a four-hour extended director’s cut that Scott is going to release on Apple TV+ in the near future, but what was given for the theatrical cut was bit jumbled and hodgepodge. Thus, my recommendation for this movie would be both “iffy choice / rent it” as the movie is decent enough to see, but not entirely the greatest as what many were expecting. In the end, Napoleon is beautifully shot movie that takes a cinematic examination look into the famous historical figure, yet flawed as it struggles to find a proper balance in its tones and storytelling mechanics.