A VIEW OF NAPOLEON

It the interest of fighting off depression caused by the state of the world I seek to make observations about what passes for culture and entertainment. It has been a while since I have ventured into a cinema, and last week Celia and I took the Number 2 bus to Brixton to the Ritzy Picture House. In the largest of the theatres, Screen 1, we saw Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. Lovely large wide screen with full on surround sound. Nonetheless, and because of my diminishing ability to hear properly, I found some actors do have a tendency to mumble or shout, with little nuance between the two. So I put back the hearing aid, having taken it out because of the opening blast of the surround sound at the start of the film with the revolutionary crowd hurling stuff and insults at a stern looking Mary Antoinette heading to lose her head. The hearing aid was not a great help as the mumbling seemed to be ever present. Indeed, even Celia asked what “What did he say?” on a couple of occasions.

Having read Peter Bradshaw’s ‘Five Star’ review in the Guardian, I confess I could find little that came near a five star rating, unless he was talking about the brandy he must have been imbibing whilst writing his review. In his opening paragraph he states:

 

“Many directors have tried following Napoleon where the paths of glory lead, and maybe it is only defiant defeat that is really glorious. But Ridley Scott – the Wellington of cinema – has created an outrageously enjoyable cavalry charge of a movie, a full-tilt biopic of two and a half hours in which Scott doesn’t allow his troops to get bogged down mid-gallop in the muddy terrain of either fact or metaphysical significance, the tactical issues that have defeated other film-makers.”

 

Indeed, the film is well shot and the battle scenes extremely impressive and violent. An extraordinary recreation of warfare at the end of the 18^th and beginning of the 19^th century. The spectacle is full on. But why call the film a full-tilt biopic when we learn very little about Napoleon. It is all very well to use artistic licence in dealing with his journey from the execution of Marie Antoinette in 1793 to his death on St Helena in 1821, to invert and invent events, but at least give us something about the man. As an instance in point, Napoleon was occupied with the siege of Toulon when Marie Antoinette was executed in October of 1793, and was nowhere near the Place de la Revolution a.k.a Place de la Concorde. The sets or buildings used in the film, bear little resemblance to the actual historical buildings frequented by the historical figures depicted; however, none of that really matters in so far as giving us a full-tilt biography. Where was Napoleon? His name was used in the title. It is a one word title. So who was this man? What did he achieve or not, as the case may be? Why have so many been so interested in his life and legacy? Will all be revealed? What was his Rosebud moment?

 

As to that, we learn practically nothing at all, and are given a potted history around the presumed turbulent but obsessive relationship between Josephine and Napoleon.  It finishes with a catalogue of the numbers of dead resulting from some of his battles and the combined total of the all his battles. What Peter Bradshaw saw in this film must have been some other director’s cut, it certainly was nothing like the version at the Ritzy Picture House.

 

There is the odd interaction between historical figures such as Talleyrand, Wellington, Tsar Alexander I, and a few others who actually had a great deal to do with Napoleon, but nothing of any great note or revealing insight into the character and appreciation of the man himself. This is very sad. Such a great filmmaker working without a decent script, being told by some how wonderful his film is  and yet one is left metaphorically shouting out “The Emperor has no clothes”