Benji Boyd, Junior, Assistant Editor
Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon” hit theaters this week, and it is already topping global box offices. The biopic stars Joaquin Phoenix as the infamous French general, Emperor, and bicorn hat enthusiast, alongside Vanessa Kirby as Josephine Bonaparte. The most famous holder of his name besides Mr. Dynamite, Napoleon Bonaparte is a figure that has captured the world’s imagination for centuries, so it’s only right that he finally be honored with his own major motion picture.
Already, less than a week in, the reviews are mixed. Time magazine called “Napoleon” a “big, messy pageant.” Slate referred to it as a “spectacular mess.” And of course, the French are sneering at us all. It’s unclear whether it was the less-than-heroic depiction of their favorite little guy or Phoenix’s deadpan American accent throughout the film that’s causing them to get their berets in a twist, but the French critics have called it “lazy, pointless, boring, migraine-inducing, too short and historically inaccurate,” according to the New York Times. Although it may not have lived up to the French film standard – after all, there were no ten-minute shots of Jean-Paul Belmondo smoking a cigarette – “Napoleon” was anything but boring. Weird, messy, historically inaccurate at times: sure. But not boring.
Hollywood seems to be in a biopic phase right now and has so far achieved a fair few hits. Everyone loved “Bohemian Rhapsody” and went home crying about Freddy Mercury afterwards. “Oppenheimer” was considered by many to be a masterpiece, even those who really just showed up on opening day for “Barbie.” Considering this trend, there’s no reason why Napoleon wouldn’t score in the box office, as it has. So, maybe, Ridley Scott knew that he could afford not to make the exact sweeping blockbuster that audiences were expecting. Let there be no mistake – the battle scenes are everything the trailer promised and more. “Napoleon” is visually spectacular, and its quality is extremely high. It’s the way that the narrative is framed, and the representation of the character himself, that isn’t quite what we were expecting.
Despite what the military history bros will insist, any true historian can testify that Napoleon was a weird guy. His strategic genius and charisma are undeniable considering the facts of his life and rule, but a closer look into the man behind the myth shows that like most of history’s protagonists, his insecurities and delusions were as grand as his feats. What the movie did not shy away from was displaying this side of him boldly, without fear of making the main character come across badly sometimes. I underestimated Hollywood – I thought they would try to make Napoleon a Super Cool Guy™ rather than the strange little man he likely was. Of course, the script and Phoenix’s portrayal is likely no more historically accurate than the paintings of Jacques-Louis David, but it certainly makes for a far more interesting and even compelling character. Besides, it’s much more fun to watch Napoleon fall down a staircase running from a mob during his own military coup than the triumphant scene he had painted to tell the story.
As for the messiness of the whole production, I believe there is a method to the madness. Attempting to cram the story of one of the most eventful lives in history into a movie under three hours is no easy task, and to somehow form that into a nonlinear narrative with no time jumps and ample time for setting development would be impossible. Instead, the movie chose to use Napoleon’s wife, Josephine, as a storytelling device by framing every period in his life through her. Before we have even gotten to know Napoleon on his own, he is meeting Josephine at a party, and they are beginning to fall in love. Frequent voiceovers of his letters to her accompany scenes of his military expeditions to remind us that his primary thoughts are of her. Although the movie doesn’t waste much time, it uses much of it to show their turbulent but passionate relationship over the years. Josephine takes on the role of both bringing out the worst, most pathetic, least Emperor-like side of him, as well as being his one redeeming quality. Like his character in the movie, their relationship is far from idealized or desirable, but it does feel real.
Finally, perhaps the most pleasant surprise I encountered in “Napoleon” was how it failed to take itself completely seriously. From lighthearted music played over scenes of violence and gore to dry modern-sounding comments from the mouth of the Emperor of France, the movie was unexpectedly unconventional for a blockbuster period drama and at times even absurd. I honestly don’t know why the French don’t like it. Overall, whatever qualms one might have about “Napoleon” – that Joaquin Phoenix wasn’t the right cast (he was), that the story was a mess (ever heard of fun?), that Napoleon didn’t actually shoot cannons at the Pyramids of Giza (that’s fair enough, he really didn’t) – the movie is worth a watch if only for the entertainment factor. If you’re the kind of person who finds themselves frothing at the mouth when every second of a movie isn’t masterfully crafted and 100% accurate, I would avoid this one, but if not, it’s worth a watch.