In Napoleon, one of the worst films in cinematic history, Ridley Scott’s arrogance and disregard for accuracy are on full display.
Overall Score: 3/10
Image: Apple TV+
Maybe it’s just me, but if any “legendary” filmmaker were capable of — if you’ll excuse the language — fucking up this bad, it’d have to be Ridley Scott.
Allow me to provide a little context to what I just said. Napoleon (which is nearly three hours long) is one of the worst films I’ve ever seen. It’s a seemingly ambitious yet poorly executed attempt at chronicling the eponymous French leader’s rise and fall, complete with a pretentious and completely egotistical directorial approach. In other words, Ridley Scott isn’t interested in making a respectful and accurate historical movie. No. He’s too busy narcissistically “weaving” together what he — and only he — seems to think is his magnum opus.
Now, Napoleon is not a deep character study. The film moves at an alarmingly brisk pace and never stops to examine anything properly. We never learn what made Napoleon tick or why he felt he had to rise through the ranks and eventually become Emperor. Nor is it explained why he was so beloved by certain people. Instead, in each case, the movie’s only explanation — if you can even call it that — is that things were a certain way because they were so or because they had to be. In other words, all Ridley Scott does is show us the supposed facts. Not once does he bother putting in any extra effort to analyze things.
A lot of this is also screenwriter David Scarpa’s fault. His characters are thinly written and as dull as can be, and his exploration of Napoleon and Joséphine’s complex relationship is handled very poorly. His writing in this film barely goes beyond the surface level, and worse, it fails to answer several crucial questions. Did Joséphine truly love Napoleon? Did she hate him? Did she merely use him for personal gain? Look, if you say you’re going to examine Napoleon’s rise and fall through his “addictive, volatile relationship with his wife,” then you have to do just that. You have to put in the actual work. Voice-overs in the form of love letter dictations and cringeworthy sex scenes alone will not suffice.
Additionally, even now (as I am writing this), I’m still unsure how the movie wants me to view Napoleon as a person. Was he a great leader? Was he pathetic? Was he a threat to the world? The film continuously presents various conflicting aspects of its protagonist and doesn’t ever pick a clear side. And, to make matters worse, it ends with the number of deaths he both directly and indirectly caused through the numerous battles he led. Again, for something like this to actually be impactful, you have to take a stance and have something meaningful to say. You can’t expect people to feel something by simply ripping off far better and more competently-made war films. It just doesn’t work that way.
Also, Ridley Scott evidently does not care about historical accuracy or authenticity. The worst example of this is his complete disregard for the need for his cast to use the correct and appropriate accents per their respective characters. Like, wow! I had no idea that Napoleon was American. Nor did I know that his wife was British! And, of course, in true Ridley Scott fashion, when confronted with valid criticism from French critics, the man had to go and say something insulting like “The French don’t even like themselves.” I mean, the nerve! Why, if I were French, I’d be offended too!
But Ridley Scott's arrogance doesn’t end there. You see, he thinks he’s making art. From beginning to end, Scott utilizes various objectively artistic filmmaking techniques like slow-motion shots, ambiguous scenes, and voiceovers from characters both living and from beyond the grave. Moreover, there are several moments in which he mimics the style and feel of the Jane Austen and Jane Austen-esque period pieces we all know and love (like Pride and Prejudice and A Room with a View). In short, Scott has all the parts and ingredients — at least, directing-wise — required to make the masterpiece he wants. Yet, because he clumsily puts everything together and because his film (as a whole) lacks the necessary depth to match his ambition, his attempt at crafting something great only comes off as laughably bad at best.
And lastly, before we end things, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance as Napoleon is tremendously disappointing. It never truly feels like he embodies the French leader, and instead, it’s almost as if he’s playing himself — albeit a more pathetic version. He arguably does nothing to convince us that he is Napoleon, and unlike his often masterful work in other movies, you can pretty much tell he’s acting here. Vanessa Kirby, meanwhile, though wonderful and talented as an actress, also comes off as somewhat bland throughout the film. It’s not her fault, though. Any depth in the material she’s given to work with is practically nonexistent, leaving room for only what’s essentially a mere shadow of a superior and far more compelling performance.
Well, that’s all I have or want to say about Napoleon. If you have three hours to spare and are thinking about checking out this cinematic pile of garbage, find something better to do. Go and watch Oppenheimer or Killers of the Flower Moon instead. But if you’re interested in learning what not to do when making a film, Ridley Scott’s latest flick might be well worth your time. After all, though it may not be the piece of art that he thinks he so skillfully made, it does ironically serve as a master class in the making of a false masterpiece.
Comments