Naploeon Commeth

 

I don't know what the marketing strategy is on Ridley Scott's latest release but there was no missing this weeks trailer - it was everywhere on my Facebook and Youtube feeds. Following on and hotly was the reaction videos and commentaries - ad nauseam. I have a few observations of my own but perhaps not what you might think.

I understand that movie-makers are story tellers and in the modern world of mass communication and global reach, they produce their stories for vast audiences and at great expense. As such, their latitude is considerable and their brush is mighty broad. Personally, I'm enormously satisfied that someone has bothered to tackle a 'Napoleonic' subject at all and not another Fast and Furious or superhero episode.

I'm open to correction but I think this is the first movie in the English speaking world which directly tackles this subject matter in 46 years ..., since Ridley Scott's last effort in 1977 ... The Duelists (a movie I adore). Scott's credentials on this score give me faith.

The commentators who rushed to get their pithy observations out this week have been a mixed bunch and some of them have come across (to me at least) as faintly ridiculous. I generally avoid comments on anyone else's internet contributions within our niche: the international wargames and historical community. Some of their criticism fails to appreciate that the editing of a trailer can be deceiving and might also have content that doesn't make the theatrical cut.

There are bound to be elements within this rendition which will not align with yours and my historical understanding. Debate continues to turn over between historians and historical fans (that's likely us) so what hopes have screen writers and directors of getting anything right according to anyone?

Then we might consider the vast range of sources a script writer has access to. They are perfectly at liberty to draw upon well known historical propaganda and falsehoods to present a version of events in their telling of their story. After all, the cinema is not a court of law charged with discovering the truth of a matter. Consider how dry that could be.

For example, the 'whiff of grapeshot' snapshot looks like it might be replaying the myth of slaughtering a protest but it would be premature to guess from what I saw from the shorts. There may formed national guardsmen behind a screen of civilians for all I know. Have another look yourself and see what you think. In any event, the massacre version (albeit false) is a well known angle and one designed to portray Napoleon in a particular light. It's open to use.

Most of the negative critical reactions I have stem from frustration borne of a lack of proper understanding of what a movie actually is. It reminds me of people who often mistake documentaries as truth: a common misconception. I understand documentaries as infotainment and often as factually flawed as any movie. If anything, they are more misleading inasmuch as documentaries purport to be something they are not. But I digress.

It will be interesting to see over the next few years if Joaquin Phoenix manages to own Napoleon as a dramatic character in the same way I felt Rod Steiger did in 1970's Waterloo. It will be interesting to see if that baton is passed to the next generation. Having said that, I have always loved Ian Holm's ownership of Napoleon in 1974's Napoleon and Love BBC TV series but then he got many more hours to inhabit the role than a movie affords an actor.

Are they going to get the ages right for the main characters? It appears not. Does it matter so much? I suggest the screen presence (charisma) and the performances count much more. Could they digitally de-age Joaquin Phoenix? I'm sure they could have but I personally find that sort of trickery distracting  - I'm too busy scrutinizing images which don't look quite right instead of accepting the performance. You may respond differently. We are simply going to get what we get and none of the commentators that I have seen so far have any movie making credentials.

The only real shortfall the new movie has for me is that it is a short-form rendition. Even a subsequent Director's cut can't hope to match even a ten hour long episode run of a limited series. Those of us who are interested in the life and times of Napoleon Bonaparte have a great deal of information across his entire adult life - a life packed with extraordinary events. Capturing it in even three hours seems folly.

Personally, I'll take what I can get. I am already thinking I'll go see it twice to help ensure against box office failure and with the hope that further efforts might be encouraged.