Friday, December 15, 2023

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.

40 comments:

  1. I went to the imax to see it, it was entertaining and disappointing... Napoleon changed the world and the movie didn't even come close to hinting at that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which was indeed my biggest gripe with the film.

      Delete
  2. Sarge, historical inaccuracy drives me nuts and removes me from enjoying the film as well. Even when I enjoy the plot and overall story line, like 300, it is still...well, silly.

    I think one reason it may have done as well as it did as there is simply not that much out this season. Still, I was hopeful it was better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am That Guy who will walk out of a movie if the story is too far from the original or if the historical accuracies are too great.

      As much as I overall like "Braveheart" with Mel Gibson, never be in the same state as me if I see it as I drop loud commentary on all the historical bullscat THAT movie tossed in. Like kilts. GAAAAHHHHHHHHHH. Though the dwarves portraying what exactly Drawing and Quartering was, that was good. The rest... I have been told by Mrs. Andrew that SHE will shove a pillow into my mouth if I can't keep quiet when she's watching...

      And I am That Annoying Guy who will pause the recording and point out historical correctness, nay, positively expound upon said correctness, and been told by Mrs. Andrew that SHE will shove a pillow into my mouth...

      Delete
    2. Beans - I, too, am That Annoying Guy and have been similarly threatened.

      Delete
    3. TB - I can accept some historical inaccuracies. Some. Napoleon had far too many. Plus, the acting wasn't that good.

      Delete
    4. Beans - I will natter on about minor things, "They didn't wear that shako until 1809!" But when they get most of it wrong, well, then I'll write a bad review.

      Delete
    5. When watching "Miracle of the White Stallions" I was pausing and pointing out that Disney, friggin DISNEY, got the weapons, uniforms and equipment correct. Even the civilian clothing. The look of despair and losing. All of it. Mrs. Andrew endured through the pontificating and lavish praise sections.

      But then again, She does it on stuff also.

      As to a bad review, if it deserves it, then it shall be done.

      Delete
    6. A good consultant, if listened to, will make those sorts of things look correct. Dale Dye springs to mind on many modern war films, Band of Brothers being an excellent example, along with Saving Private Ryan. He worked on both of those.

      Delete
  3. I appreciate you saving me 15 bucks! I'm sure it'll be on base in a couple weeks anyway and they don't charge anything!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I often cringe at the military movies and how badly they got things wrong. You probably do the same for historical ones. C'mon, how hard is it to hire a technical director?

      Delete
    2. Tuna - See it on streaming, then you can pause it and rant for a bit in the comfort of your home.

      Delete
    3. Tuna - Military films will drive me nuts if they get it wrong. I'll make exceptions for those which at least tell a good story.

      Delete
  4. Sarge, Sarge,Sarge
    You seem to be waffeling on your Napoleon movie review as much as the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn State were waffeling on their issue.
    Roger Ebert is shaking his head and wagging a finger at you.
    Every movie made has some good parts/scenes.
    For me it is that scene in every Godzilla movie made where the little ,little boy comes running out of the burning building/town, something and points stage right and with the help of the dubbing , says "ROOK, ROOK, GODZIRRA".. Never fails to crack me up.
    The ultimate measure of any movie is Will you spend money to see it again yes or no?
    Simple.
    Buy the way thanks for confirming what the IMDB reviews had to say about this farce.
    Stay strong..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Waffling? Not going back and forth on this one, just threw Sir Ridley a bone, he did get some of it right and parts were entertaining. I am merely giving scant credit to where it is due. Note the use of the word "scant."

      Delete
  5. Go with your first impression, it's usually right. if, en balance, the movie was disappointing because of inaccuracies, then it was disappointing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First impressions can often be wrong, not the case here, but some of the film was okay.

      Delete
  6. Movies- meh.
    I did like your link to the mortar source. Some excellent info there.
    JB

    ReplyDelete
  7. Okay, my reaction to other's reaction, and I am not a fan of Nappy, is, well, the Real Napoleon Bonaparte was a guy who had his stuff squared away and was decisive and thought at least 10 moves ahead. The type of guy who would give a dungeonmaster a +5 headache within the first 10 minutes of a game, but be correct about it. You know, that annoying charismatic know-it-all suave ladys' man slick guy who you just can't hate but want to, that guy when he's around he fires you up and when he's not around you're still fired up.

    Was the movie Napoleon anywhere like that guy? No? Then the movie is Merde.

    The miniseries on George Washington that played on tv in 1984 did an excellent job of following other peoples' reaction to George, which was he was a charismatic, smart, hansom guy who was right a lot, and when he wasn't he was really wrong.

    Heck, "Abe Lincoln, Vampire Killer" did an excellent job of capturing Abe Lincoln's personality and strength, and that movie was a fun bit of dog-squeeze.

    So, no, your initial reaction wasn't wrong.

    The Russel Crowe "Robin Hood" had some really good scenes in it. Best 1060's Norman Arms and Armor since Charlton Heston's "The Warlord." But landing craft turned into longships? The Norman landing contested by longbowmen? BLARGGGGGGGggggggggg.... Dog-squeeze movie, won't watch it, nope, unless they put me in a chair and pry my eyes open a la "Clockwork Orange." Yet another DS movie...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with your assessment of the G. Washington mini-series, I thought it was well done. Heck, I watched Abe Lincoln, Vampire Killer</i because I was bored, turned out to be really entertaining!

      Delete
    2. Note the citation of "Warlord" ( a favorite then and now); this stuff CAN be done correctly-even in the 1960's! I realize we have better opportunities now thanks to accurate replicas and training (such as Captain Dye has set the standard for) and with the "cheating" of CGI, there's no excuse for blatant inaccuracy. Yeah we can quibble about A3 Springfields at Guadalcanal, but at least they're Springfields ( and Reisngs, drum-fed Thompson's et al) but real effort shows.
      However...wasn't it Scott ( replying to criticism of the first "Topgun") who said " I make movies for moviegoers, not Fighter Pilots - or OldAFSarge"?
      Boat Guy

      Delete
  8. As to the effects of Grapeshot, "The Novemberists" did a far better job of showing the sweeping power of grape and cannister. Bad that Russians did it first and better. Bastids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Novemberists was terrifying in what I assume was its accuracy.

      Delete
    2. Eh - Maybe The Decemberists, Beans? That is was comes up when I replay the video?

      Delete
    3. Further comment - technically the movie is "Union of Salvation"

      Delete
    4. Beans - I see YB corrected you, so I won't. The Decembrists seen you're referring to was indeed well done. The scene for the "Whiff of Grapeshot" in Napoleon was as well. It was just too short and really didn't give the context of the thing. The Paris mob had been running wild for some time, the "Whiff of Grapeshot" was a real FAFO moment. The film didn't really follow up on that. Which bugged me.

      Delete
    5. TB - I need to find and watch Union of Salvation, the clips I've seen are very good. (Thanks for giving it the proper title.)

      Delete
    6. I've only seen the Grapeshot scene from "Union of Salvation" and it was almost as horrid and disgusting as my imagination made grapeshot/cannister/chain shot out to be.

      And to do it with spectators...

      Delete
    7. Whoever consulted on that scene knew his/her business.

      Delete
  9. It sounds like you are all describing "Starship Troopers", the novel, vs. "Starship Troopers", the movie. The name is the same ... we'll wait for it to stream.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I so want to see a "Starship Troopers" with powered armor, pony nukes, Skinnies, Bugs that make starships, Special Talent people, the whole book done right.

      Avalon Hill's "Starship Troopers did a much better job and it was only a game.

      Delete
    2. Mrs. Andrew and I call movies like "Starship Troopers" Disney effect movies. You know, "The names are the same but the plot has been changed to protect the innocent." This was Disney before the 1990's, of course.

      Delete
    3. Yup, the only thing in common is the title.

      Delete
  10. I refuse to pay for any hollyweird stuff for a long time now for obvious reasons. Judith Piaf was better in Saving private Ryan

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.