Instead, based on the narrative of the movie, Napoleon only seeks to escape Elba to meet Josephine again because he is infuriated by the rumors of her contact with the Russian Tsar. It is outrageous because there is no possible way that the people producing the film did not know that Napoleon was well informed …
Ridley Scott’s recent cinematic endeavor unveils a narrative that is, at its core, a character assassination of one of the most influential figures in Modern European history. Delving into the film’s core motivations, one could assert that the deliberate portrayal of Napoleon as a deeply unserious and uninspiring figure is not accidental but a deliberate narrative choice. It seems the notion of a Great Man of history does not seem to sit well with Ridley Scott, nor with Hollywood in general.
Upon viewing the film with friends of mine, some of whom barely knew anything about Napoleon aside maybe from Waterloo, I can say that the film leaves huge question marks to the average audience not only about the historical accuracy and connection of the events but also as to why Napoleon is revered as a heroic figure.
Indeed, all what my friends and I had just witnessed was a false portrayal of Napoleon as a capricious emotional figure akin to a teenager in a man’s body who has an uncontrolled lust for his wife and will do anything for her. This is a stark departure from the charismatic and visionary leader who inspired his great armies from the valleys of Italy to the pyramids of Egypt and on to Moscow.
One would say that Ridley Scott’s British historical bias fueled by British propaganda of the time would be one of the reasons why this movie does not do justice to Napoleon.
However, this film not only infuriates pro-Bonapartist audiences and historians. But even those who take a more critical view towards Napoleon were left angered about the injustice that the movie does to everything related to the Napoleonic era of European history. One could say a lot about Napoleon’s highly flawed Grand Strategy, his fatal mistakes relating to Spain and Russia, leading a vanity campaign after his return from Elba.
Even self-procalimed ‘Napoleon-philes‘ could hardly argue against the fact that France was significantly weaker after Napoleon’s final exile to St Helena compared to the start of the Napoleonic Wars. Nevertheless, instead of the film building up on the narrative of Napoleon as a tyrant who seeks to destroy his internal enemies and wants to rule continental Europe all by himself, a narrative which could satisfy both sides of the coin since it would necessitate a character in the name of Napoleon being imaginative, displaying tactical brilliance, charismatic.
In our case, we can’t even comprehend, let alone understand, why the French soldiers would follow this figure to battle. Why would they overthrow the Republic and crown him as Emperor?
A good example of this pitiful portrayal is the scene where, upon his return from Elba and facing former soldiers and Marshal Ney (of whom the film never mentions), Napoleon seems to be begging for mercy so that he can just go and live peacefully. This was the last chance for the movie to explain and present a tiny bit of the charisma and vision of Napoleon. Instead, based on the narrative of the movie, Napoleon only seeks to escape Elba to meet Josephine again because he is infuriated by the rumors of her contact with the Russian Tsar.
It is outrageous because there is no possible way that the people producing the film did not know that Napoleon was well informed of the death of his former wife before his famous escape from the tiny island. A similarly outrageous but obviously intentional untruth is made earlier in the movie just for the sake of reinforcing the leading narrative of Napoleon as a total fool towards Josephine when he abandons his troops in Egypt because he is shocked by the newspaper headlines about her unfaithfulness.
Another aspect of which the film fails miserably is the chaotic battle scenes. First, there is a final assault on the Fort of Toulon, where Napoleon’s tactical genius in using artillery as his main weapon is ignored, which makes him stand apart from other military leaders during the Napoleonic Wars. Nevertheless, if we don’t wish to be overly harsh, the Siege of Toulon is probably decent (at best), mostly because it is the only battle sequence where there is any sort of tension building up.
However, the average audience member who may not have read any of the history of the Napoleonic Wars will have no clue as to Napoleon’s military genius. This is because the movie portrays Napoleon’s only contribution as a single charge with a group of soldiers. From here, the movie makes a huge leap, completely ignoring the campaign in Italy, which is where the young Corsican truly proves his extraordinary leadership and tactical abilities by saving the French Republic while completely defeating his opponents (such as with the Battle of Marengo) and forcing them to sign, humiliating peace treaties.
Incredibly, as Joachin Pheonix’ Napoleon says ‘Italy fell without a fight‘ and any person with the most remote idea about the period must have been left shocked by the ignorance and hubris towards history by that line.
From there, we can go to the horrific portrayal of the Battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon’s most celebrated victory and his greatest masterpiece are to be praised and mesmerized even until our times. Nothing does a greater injustice to Napoleon as a general and leader of the Grand Army than reducing this battle to the utter chaos of two huge mobs of soldiers clashing needlessly close to a frozen lake. There is nothing to take away from this battle. There are no tactics, no sense of the true scale of warfare, and no sense of the actual battlefield of Austerlitz with the famous Pratzen Heights. Napoleon just sets an absurd mousetrap that a 5-year-old could come up with, and the whole enemy army just charges all at once. The French Emperor then weaves some orders to his whole army, which then executes them in seconds. Joachin Phoenix’ Napoleon will later in the film call his soldiers ‘Heroes of Austerlitz,’ but the audience is left to wonder why that is.
The battle of Borodino is also briefly shown with Napoleon charging with cavalry against the Russian line infantry, something so ridiculous (given that Napoleon was trained in real life as an artillery officer) that I will not even bother to comment upon it.
The final battle of Waterloo again fails miserably in showing the true scale of the fight, any basic tactics are nonexistent, there is no mention of Hougomont or La Haye Sainte, and outrageously no mention of the final heroic and epic attack of Napoleon’s crème de la crème veteran unit, the Old Guard. There is no epic duel with the imposing Elite French Grenadiers and their impressive uniforms against Wellington’s last remaining troops, who put a heroic last stand that ultimately culminates with Prussia’s arrival in the blowing defeat of Napoleon.
Instead, Ridley Scott shows his utmost apathy towards historical accuracy again when the final clash of the Napoleonic wars ends up being another huge blob of troops clashing mindlessly against each other. You can easily realize that the director is not motivated by any sympathies towards the British side either since Wellington is also portrayed as another cartoonish, unserious character.
We then go to the film’s failed attempt to encapsulate the era’s politics and diplomacy. Napoleon abandons his troops in Egypt not because his campaign has gone south after the British have destroyed his navy but as a reaction to the alleged infidelity of Josephine. No mention of the popularity of Bonaparte and how French politicians trembled at his sight, and almost no mention of his discoveries and intellectual curiosities in Egypt relating to the times of Alexander and the Pharaohs. Instead, we get an awkward scene between Napoleon and a mummy just to make him look ridiculous.
The naval battle of Trafalgar is also completely omitted and never mentioned in any conversation, even though it’s one of the main reasons why Napoleon would focus solely on continental Europe from that moment on.
Even during the peace talks at Tilsit, the French Emperor is portrayed as weak and desperate when he begs Tsar Alexander for a prospective wife. This is taken to another level of historical ignorance when later it is Talleyrand the one begging Metternich for a union between Austrian Archduchess Marie Louise and Napoleon, with Metternich laughing about it, even though in reality, Metternich was the one proposing the union between the Emperor Francis and Napoleon to secure favorable terms and an alliance for Austria.
Of course, all these historical ‘nuances’ are completely omitted along with the widely known affair that Napoleon had with Polish noblewoman Marie Waleska, just so that this pathetic narrative of Josephine conquering the man that conquered Europe can stand on some ground to the average audience.
The final nail in the coffin in this regard comes after the disastrous Russian campaign. Napoleon unexpectedly abdicates like he was a random employee at a corporate job in which he has messed up and wants to avoid being fired. In reality, Napoleon fought viciously for two more years against most of Europe in ferocious battles like Dresden and Leipzig (the multitudinary Battle of the Nations), and his final moment of true strategic genius was in the Six Days Campaign in 1814 before abdicating after the surrender of Paris.
The writing was already on the wall when one tried to sum up almost 20 years of history in a two-and-a-half-hour film. However, this does not by any means excuse the complete character assassination of Napoleon, and there is no coherent character development or logic behind Napoleon’s motives to conquer Europe. Indeed, the series ‘Napoleon’ (2002) is close to this film in the sense that it focuses more on the life of Napoleon and his reflections while in exile in St. Helena rather than on his battles.
While not without its major flaws (being considered slightly above average), it still offers some memorable moments, such as Napoleon’s charge at the bridge of Lodi, the battle of Austerlitz, and his return from Elba, all of which make Napoleon appear a truly inspiring and a Great Man figure.
Every character in Ridley Scott’s film has a farcical and absurd element in him, including Josephine, though she is the actual star of the show. One must suffer through some intentionally awkward sex scenes to make Napoleon look like an incel (slang for ‘involuntary celibate’), and Joachin Phoenix delivers in playing a depressed, monotonous character who seems incapable of greatness or symbolic immortality.
He fails to engage the audience emotionally. The narrative that the movie tries to build is dissapointing, and runs conterfactually against actual historical facts. What the director produced was a Napoleon & Josephine historical fiction, drama-romance film in which he completely emasculates Napoleon and strips him of the qualities and talents that led him to greatness.
History buffs are outraged by this movie, considering the fact that, in our age, historical movies are a gateway into the field of history. They inspire some to delve into epic historical figures who are the movers and makers of nations and civilizations and alter the trajectory of history. Historical films are modern-day substitutes for epics like the Iliad or the Odyssey, which are foundations for the spirit of adventure, pride, heroism, and brotherhood.
With nothing else to add, Ridley Scott’s Napoleon is such a lackluster movie that it will hopefully be forgotten very soon and will not impact the great legacy of the actual, historical Napoleon Bonaparte.
Join the Club
Like this story? You’ll love our monthly newsletter.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.