Napoleon was the most significant man of his age and no film can explain his significance in 2.5 hours. Scott decides to focus on three specific aspects of Napoleon's life and personality to show who he thinks Napoleon was at the expense of omitting much of what makes him such a fascinating figure in history.
The first aspect Scott focuses on is Napoleon the lover. Much of this film shows his infatuation and on-again off-again relationship with Josephine. Both actors handle their parts well and while there is some humor and tension, it is the least interesting part of the movie. Still, some focus is necessary as his marriage to Josephine was certainly a key aspect of his life.
The second aspect is Napoleon the megalomaniac. We all know of Napoleon as the short guy who had insecurity issues. Even if there is truth to this, it is probably an overstatement, but there is no denying the massive ego of the man. In many respects his ego is understandable for all he accomplished, and Scott paints Napoleon's inflated belief in himself as the reason for his fall, particularly in his invasion of Russia. Scott does not want us the think Napoleon fights for the glory of France but rather for the glory of Napoleon.
The final side of the Napoleon casts him as a butcher. Towards the end of his career we see Napoleon recklessly spending the lives of his men as he seeks to conquer for himself. The movie leaves us with a comprehensive death toll that Napoleon left in his wake, a massive number that comes as a result of his callous disregard for his own men and endless ambition.
So then we are left with a Napoleon as a man who loved Josephine, who had a massive ego, and constantly warred, causing the deaths of millions. All this is true, but what of Napoleon the tactician? What of Napoleon the reformer? What of Napoleon the leader? Scott focused on the worst aspects of Napoleon to highlight while disregarding the best. I was shocked that more was not discussed and shown over the massive victories and the unprecedented tactics he employed that make him a general still studied in military academies today. He was a multifaceted man, who accomplished much good and much bad, but he comes off in this film as a little ambitious fool.
The film also seems jumbled at times and jumps forward in ways that show Napoleon must be conquering and doing something right, but he goes from general, to consul, to emporer in quick ways we are not shown. He beats Austria and Russa, befriends Russia, then is back at war with them one scene later. I understand the politics, battles, and alliances are hard to follow of the ealry 19th century, but I left feeling like I learned little more about Napoleon and the France he ruled than I already knew coming in.
Despite the films shortcomings, it is a genuinely effective movie and shot beautifully. The battle scenes are bloody and tense, and the costumes and sets look recreate Napoleonic France beautifully.
The first aspect Scott focuses on is Napoleon the lover. Much of this film shows his infatuation and on-again off-again relationship with Josephine. Both actors handle their parts well and while there is some humor and tension, it is the least interesting part of the movie. Still, some focus is necessary as his marriage to Josephine was certainly a key aspect of his life.
The second aspect is Napoleon the megalomaniac. We all know of Napoleon as the short guy who had insecurity issues. Even if there is truth to this, it is probably an overstatement, but there is no denying the massive ego of the man. In many respects his ego is understandable for all he accomplished, and Scott paints Napoleon's inflated belief in himself as the reason for his fall, particularly in his invasion of Russia. Scott does not want us the think Napoleon fights for the glory of France but rather for the glory of Napoleon.
The final side of the Napoleon casts him as a butcher. Towards the end of his career we see Napoleon recklessly spending the lives of his men as he seeks to conquer for himself. The movie leaves us with a comprehensive death toll that Napoleon left in his wake, a massive number that comes as a result of his callous disregard for his own men and endless ambition.
So then we are left with a Napoleon as a man who loved Josephine, who had a massive ego, and constantly warred, causing the deaths of millions. All this is true, but what of Napoleon the tactician? What of Napoleon the reformer? What of Napoleon the leader? Scott focused on the worst aspects of Napoleon to highlight while disregarding the best. I was shocked that more was not discussed and shown over the massive victories and the unprecedented tactics he employed that make him a general still studied in military academies today. He was a multifaceted man, who accomplished much good and much bad, but he comes off in this film as a little ambitious fool.
The film also seems jumbled at times and jumps forward in ways that show Napoleon must be conquering and doing something right, but he goes from general, to consul, to emporer in quick ways we are not shown. He beats Austria and Russa, befriends Russia, then is back at war with them one scene later. I understand the politics, battles, and alliances are hard to follow of the ealry 19th century, but I left feeling like I learned little more about Napoleon and the France he ruled than I already knew coming in.
Despite the films shortcomings, it is a genuinely effective movie and shot beautifully. The battle scenes are bloody and tense, and the costumes and sets look recreate Napoleonic France beautifully.