Ridley Scott is one of those directors who when he’s good, he’s great, but when he’s bad, he’s absolutely dreadful. His latest film, 'Napoleon', is neither great nor dreadful. However, Scott loves his “Director’s Cuts” which on the whole offer a marked improvement over the theatrical release; 'Blade Runner' or 'Kingdom Of Heaven' come to mind when one thinks of a Ridley Scott “Director’s Cut”, and 'Napoleon' may very well be an addition to that list.
Now let us briefly make a little detour back to the late 1920s when French filmmaker, Abel Gance, set out a plan for six films documenting the French Emperor’s life from childhood, to his final days on St. Helena. The first film (also called 'Napoleon') when completed was over six hours long, and only goes up to the beginning of Bonaparte’s invasion of Italy. Exhausted by the scope of the project, Gance called it a day and moved on. I am mentioning this because of the attention the length of Scott’s version has received, and in part to highlight how the theatrical length, at around 2½ hours is nowhere near long enough to adequately cover the events portrayed in the film. Even the planned 4 hour version is not nearly long enough.
Nevertheless, praise must be given to Scott for giving it a go. It is not his first Napoleonic film, nor is it his first historical biopic. Unfortunately the film stumbles out of the starting pen and struggles to find its footing and pace throughout until the lights come back on in the screen and everyone is getting up to go home. Tonally it ranges from hardcore, violent and gruesome battle scenes to goofy, farcical and, at times, downright cringe-worthy domestic scenes. The shift is jarring at points and unfortunately for the audience the battles and gory stuff does not last long enough before they are presented with Joaquin Phoenix rutting and grunting like a farmyard animal in heat. Phoenix is good in the role as the Emperor, however one is left wondering what direction he was given, as his performance, much like the tone of the film, varies from serious and brooding to acting like he’s on set of 'Joker'. Interestingly, his appearance as Napoleon does bear a striking resemblance to Albert Dieudonné’s Bonaparte in Gance’s 1927 Napoleon. A director paying homage to another film is not surprising after all, but I thought it was an interesting little nod.
As you may have heard or read already, the film also suffers from a number of historical inaccuracies, which in this case, are to the film’s detriment. Artistic license calls for historical inaccuracy from time to time to make something more interesting or push a point, otherwise you end up with a documentary. Scott seems to embellish the truth a little too much. When one of the first scenes of the film omits the simplest of details (which would not detract from the scene or film etc.) it sets a precedent which lingers over the rest of the film where, for a historian such as myself, rubs me up the wrong way. If you know absolutely nothing about Napoleon or the Napoleonic wars then you’ll be wowed and amazed when he orders cannons to be fired onto the Great Pyramids of Giza. It is a little surprising that Scott makes these choices when one considers the keen eye for detail he possessed for 'The Duelists' for example. Admittedly this matter is purely subjective and if Ridley Scott was here and knew what I thought, he’d smack me and would quote the Emperor, saying “Imagination rules the world.”
Visually, in keeping with the rest of the film, Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography, whilst very good, is let down by a poor, desaturated colour grading which made it hard to really see what was happening in scenes which take place during the night. Fantastic costumes are let down by a bland colour palate which really takes away the essence of the period. Clothes (especially the clothes which someone like Napoleon would wear) were colourful and brash. They made a statement, as did the surroundings. Instead you are left not paying attention to the scene because you’re too busy trying to figure out what colour Napoleon’s coat should be. Dark red? Dark green? Blue? Stylistically it could be a thing to do with making a point about there only being natural and candle light, but then you have to question if Kubrick could make natural and candle light make everything look vibrant and luxurious fifty years ago, why can’t it be done with the abundance of technology we have today? The colour grading really ruins these wonderful shots which are presented in the film which replicate famous paintings, Gerome’s 'Bonaparte Before The Sphinx', and Delaroche’s 'Napoleon At Fontainebleau' are some examples which are ruined by a Mexico filter and everything-in-the-past- was-bleak colouring. Colouring and filters aside, these creative aspects which acknowledge Bonaparte’s wider standing in the common knowledge by referencing famous paintings I liked a lot and they really made the film stand out in part.
The cast overall is very good, after all Scott has always had a good eye for casting. Other than the questionable delivery or particular lines here and there which are dotted throughout, Phoenix is great and he has great chemistry with Vanessa Kirby’s Josephine, who steals the show a little. Unfortunately her character and their relationship is a victim to the restrictive length of the theatrical cut, but hopefully the director’s cut shall correct that. Phoenix and Kirby are supported by an exemplary supporting cast with many familiar faces popping up here and there. The decision to use the actor’s own voice as opposed to everyone speaking in an British accent because its historical (like how Phoenix did in 'Gladiator') was rather refreshing, and it all gels together with those actors who do affect an accent. Sometimes it can cause a bit of a headache, but it works very well in 'Napoleon'.
The good and the bad balance each other out to make for an all right film which you may not wish to rush to see, but do go and see when you have nothing else on. As previously said, I imagine the director’s cut will be much better. The film does feel like it is cramming in as much as possible and you end up brushing over a lot of events. There’s a reason why Abel Gance gave up after his first instalment, and even if it meant that things would be only slightly less brushed over, I feel had this film been in two parts then the overall story may have benefitted greatly. There are times during the film where one cannot help but wonder just how fantastic Kubrick’s shelved Napoleon biopic would have been. A stellar cast is let down by awkward dialogue. The cinematography is let down by the colour grading. The battle scenes are let down by being too short. The pros and cons are constantly battling themselves throughout the entirety of the film. A special mention has to be made about the decision to portray Napoleon Bonaparte as a regular (for the most part) man, and not some egotistical, maniacal, short, angry figure who bounces about yelling at everything and everyone, which is an unfair and overexposed characterisation we were all made to believe.
'Napoleon' is not the best Napoleon biopic, nor is it Ridley Scott’s best film, but it is a reason to come back to the cinema. It was the first film which I have been excited to see in a long time, and although I came out not loving it, I wasn’t disappointed. The following quote sums up the film rather well... “If you wish to be a success in the world, promise everything, deliver nothing.” – Napoleon Bonaparte.
Reviewer - Daryl Griffin
on - 24.11.23
No comments:
Post a Comment