By: Martin Makaryan
Edited By: Kayla Goldstein
Do not expect to fully discover the biography of one of the most consequential rulers in history from the new “Napoleon” movie. This article contains some spoilers, so continue at your own risk.
How does one create a movie that can strike an adequate balance between history and personal life for a figure whose political and personal trajectories need to be presented within the time constraints of a two-and-half-hour movie? The highly-anticipated movie by Ridley Scott, a renowned English director who produced Gladiator, tries to do exactly that. Scott tells the story of the rise and fall of the famous French General and Emperor Napoleon Bonapartes, one of the few people in history to have single handedly shaped the international order. Scott’s attempt, however unfortunate, fails.
Those whose criticism is rooted in the historical accuracy of the various episodes of the movie — such as the scene of Napoleon’s army firing at the pyramids in Egypt, a widely discussed scene that earned the movie and the director quite a bit of roasting online — are looking in the wrong direction. Napoleon, after all, is historical fiction — emphasis on “fiction” — and is not meant to be a documentary from which one can learn about the true history of this period, his life, or the political, social, and cultural consequences of the Napoleonic order in Europe.
There are documentaries that do a successful job narrating the story from this perspective, but having such high expectations for this movie is bound to disappoint history nerds. If we were to go down the list of details that were historically inaccurate — from the number of lovers Napoleon’s wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais, had at a given time to the intricate details involving Napoleon’s troops, their weapons, and the military tactics — we would be critiquing the most minute of details the average person watching the movie is unlikely to care about in the first place. Nevertheless, Napoleon experts, and those familiar with the Emperor’s biography, would agree that the movie is not as historically inaccurate as to be deemed a failure on that account.
Where the movie does fail is in Scott’s simultaneous but irreconcilable desire to tell a coherent story centered around Napoleon’s relationship with his beloved Joséphine while also narrating the two-decades-long story of Napoleon’s rise to power and subjugation of Europe. However, as alluring as this objective may be, the movie would have been a much more successful one if it was solely centered around Napoleon and Joséphine and their notoriously toxic relationship. This is especially true given the film’s high quality cinematography and the impeccable acting of Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby.
What the movie ends up doing, however, is creating a timeline with key moments that paved the way for Napoleon’s rise to power amidst the chaos of the French Revolution. Yet, doing that not only misses certain critical events, but also neglects Napoleon’s “origin story.” The story of the Corsican, who essentially came from nothing and was often mocked for his very distinctive French accent, is told as that of a bloodthirsty army general eager to seize power for himself at any cost. In a way, Scott tries to persuade the audience that Napoleon’s surprising and swift rise was simply due to innate opportunism; being at the right place at the right time. In conveying this message, the director is deliberately and conveniently skipping over those traits of the main character that made him so revered and popular among the French.
The pursuit of an agenda to mock a figure that has long been a source of pride, and more recently, a source of controversy for French people, is very apparent in the movie. What else justifies the unnecessarily cringe sex scenes that make Napoleon look like a weirdo (spoiler alert for those of you who have yet to see the movie)? Needless to say the movie essentially skips over the General’s exceptional strategic thinking and military genius. Of course, Napoleon’s infamous arrogance and other negative defining traits are rightfully on full display, and this very emphasis dominates the entire two and half hours of the movie.
With all of its failures, Napoleon does evoke inexplicable awe and, towards the end, a sense of empathy. There is something captivating and endearing about the trajectory of the character Scott crafted. As this power-hungry, erratic, bloodthirsty tyrant with ambition beyond human understanding is set out to conquer the world — despite his inability to keep his wife by his side and away from adventures with others — makes one develop an awkward level of empathy towards his own self-destructiveness, his romantic worldview, and unwavering love for Joséphine. In a way, this reminded me of some characters in the popular show Game of Thrones who were able to “redeem” themselves in the eyes of the audience in the later seasons despite their horrific pasts.
This uncomfortable yet endearing sensation becomes more intense as Napoleon approaches his imminent downfall and the ruin of his empire. One could only wish that the movie better captured the sheer level of the man’s tenacity and incredible charisma. More importantly, Scott should have done a better job showing the level of popular support among the French that allowed Napoleon to return from his first exile in Elba and rule France once again during the “Hundred Days.” This is yet another instance where this historical drama fails to live up to a legitimate expectation.
Nevertheless, the hopelessness, loneliness, and his never-ending attachment to France and to Joséphine create the perfect sense of tragedy and melancholic beauty in the very last scenes of the movie. Perhaps, the film’s portrayal of the kind of love that Napoleon had for Joséphine may serve as a sort of inspiration for a generation which lamentably believes in love and romance less and less.
“France…Army…Joséphine” are said to be Napoleon’s last words as the powerful Emperor, reduced to a lonely and defeated nobody in exile far from home and what was dearest to him, died on May 5, 1821. This is the last thing that appears on the screen as the movie ends and may very well have been the best decision made by the filmmakers for this movie. Three words that beautifully and tragically encapsulate the life of a conqueror — an ambitious romantic who believed in the ideals of the Enlightenment, yet fell prey to the corruption of power and his sense of self-righteousness, causing the deaths of millions of people across Europe along the way.
If there is one thing that Ridley Scott’s Napoleon does well, it is to convey the tragedy of a conqueror’s belief in providence. For what is history if not a sequence of conquests, defined broadly, in one form or another?