Was I Too Harsh?

Napoleon at Fontainebleau, 31 March 1814
Paul Delaroche (PD, OAFS modified it)

Okay, so I offered my opinion on Ridley Scott's Napoleon the other day, and it wasn't pretty. As you may gather from the title, I've been reflecting on my verdict of the film being a bit of a stinker. Well, there actually were some good bits in the film which regardless of the lack of historical accuracy in some aspects were, shall we say, "entertaining," for some definitions of that word.

For instance, the first 30 minutes or so of the film, as I think back on it, were actually quite good. And no, not because Marie Antoinette received a "republican shave¹." The only real quibble I have with that first 30 minutes is that Napoléon was there, in reality he was not. You could say that Sir Ridley was demonstrating that Napoléon Bonaparte was a "child of the Revolution," which he was. So I can live with that, symbolism and dramatic license, if you will. I can live with that, had there been some narration, some mention of that for the less historically-cognizant, it would have been better, but hey, it's entertainment, not a documentary.

My first reaction was, "The critics must be wrong, this scene is incredible." The atmosphere, the camera work, and the music.

"Oh, you mean the sound track."

Um, no.

This ...

Now the version in the film is being sung by the great Édith Piaf (something I had to look up), I'm pretty sure the version above matches the film). It sounds very 1789-ish, if you get my drift. It added immensely to the tension of the moment as the French queen is led to her death. (Ironically, Marie Antoinette was the great aunt of Napoléon's second wife, Marie Louise - whose appearance in the movie lasted less than five minutes - a thing which an historian would get, but certainly not your average movie-goer.)

So the opening bit was quite good, then we move on to Toulon, the great French port then in the hands of the English. I was good with this until the point where the French were melting down cannon to make mortars. Which in the movies were nothing more than a short cannon propped up at a steep angle (we get to see that again later in the movie when "Cossacks" are attacking a French column with "mortars.")

Mortars in the movie -

Siege of Toulon "Mortars"
Screenshot from Ridley Scott's Napoleon
(Source)

Invasion of Russia "Mortar"
Screenshot from Ridley Scott's Napoleon
(Source)

Mortar in the late 18th Century -

10 inch Gribeauval Mortar
(Source)

I could have let that pass, but the film made such a big deal about it. In reality, Captain Bonaparte did do a great deal of organizing in the lead up to the siege of Toulon. Perhaps Sir Ridley was over-simplifying the real events to make a point? I don't know, but it irked me, the first thing in the film to really irk me.

Then when Bonaparte's horse is killed under him (didn't happen at Toulon) and then later on he pulls a cannon shot from the horse's chest and gives it to a man saying something along the lines of "Give this to my mother," I began to get super-critical of everything I saw on screen. You might say the Toulon scenes really sent me off down that path.

I can see doing certain things to convey an idea in an abstract way, to avoid going into great historical detail (which might turn many audiences off) but this stuff seemed like the writers and the director couldn't be bothered to make an effort at accuracy.

After the Siege of Toulon we see Bonaparte's quelling of the Paris mob with cannon fire -

(Source)

An excellent scene showing the effect of canister shot on a crowd of people. Unfortunately, there was little in the way of context to tie things in with the rest of the film. I think we can see that Bonaparte is playing a larger part in the politics of governing France, but if you knew nothing of the history, you might walk away confused.

When we meet Joséphine, I like the way she was dressed and the way she was wearing her hair. Her hair had a hurried, chopped off look, what was called a "guillotine haircut." Also, the red ribbon around her neck, you can well imagine what that symbolized. A very nice touch. (Remember, her husband had been sent to the guillotine.)

So there were a lot of nice little details in the film which I thought were well done, but there were also too many other things that were not. All in all, the film makers tried to cover too much material in a very short time. I also think they mischaracterized the Emperor and his wife. But as Napoléon's character has been smeared by the English for over two hundred years, why would they change now?

So yes, my first review of the film was a bit harsh. But don't spend money on it going to the theater, wait until it's available to stream, which is when I might watch it again. Maybe.

So was it bad? Well, in some respects, yes. But in some respects it was all right, not quite good, but not entirely bad.

Bataille d'Iéna. 14 octobre 1806
(Modified by OAFS)
Horace Vernet

Before I forget, in addition to using the song Ça Ira, the film makers did have other selections of period music playing in the background at times, not enough to please me, but enough so that I noticed.

I guess my bottom line is that it wasn't a complete waste of time, I did get a couple of blog posts out of it, didn't I?

¹ Not sure where I first heard this term, might have been in John Elting's Swords Around a Throne. I might be misremembering that as well. The guillotine was referred to as the "republican razor," that much I know.