We’ve had one epic film over a pivotal historical figure this year, and now here’s Ridley Scott stepping in to offer one more. His subject is about a person who etched his name single-handedly into history, and whose impact on Europe and beyond still reverberates to this day. Some saw him as a conqueror tyrant, some saw him as a liberator, but either way, it is undeniable that Napoleon Bonaparte’s life can and has been a rich source for media to examine. So, how does Ridley pull it off?
The answer? In…a very mixed way. Gladiator was well made, but from a historical perspective, pretty much made everything up (there were indeed real individuals called Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, and…that’s about it). Scott carries over most of that attitude to historicity here, but this time, also paradoxically trying to cram in the ‘main notes’ of an individual’s very complex life and career as opposed to just telling an original story (which he also more or less did with Kingdom of Heaven).
As always from Ridley, the film is technically well done for the most part, let’s get that out of the way. The look of the late 18th and early 19th century is captured as a feast for the eyes here, with no shortage of the festooned costumes that have formed part of the appeal of any period drama. There’s no shortage of memorable shots, be they the icy fields of Austerlitz, a burning Moscow, or the deserts of Egypt. Battle scenes, be they the open pitched clashes or guerrilla raids by cossacks, are intense enough, even when sometimes fleeting. There is definitely some level of talent behind this, make no doubt.
It’s a shame that most of the rest feels rushed or off-kilter. Joaquin Phoenix isn’t half bad for playing people who aren’t entirely stable—hence why he was enjoyable and fitting to his role in Gladiator, but here, it doesn’t feel right. His rendition of Napoleon is as a rather mercurial and frankly creepy guy—which also doesn’t seem to fit with how the film is trying to stage him, especially with its main angle of trying to examine his relationship with his famed spouse Josephine (Vanessa Kirby).
That was supposedly the original pitch of the film, and it’s an interesting one, but it also feels like they tried to shove in every other aspect of Napoleon’s reign along with it. Kirby herself does a good enough job in her role as presented, but ultimately between Phoenix not being wholly convincing as a charismatic ruler and their relationship shown as rather toxic (to a degree that it certainly wasn’t in reality), it doesn’t gel. It feels like had they just focused on this, they could’ve got more out of it—for instance, per Napoleon’s own personal writings, he was actually rather disinterested in romance and sex before meeting her, which seemed to change things, and that level of relationship is something worth delving into properly.
As for the rest? It goes something like this—“And then Napoleon’s in Egypt, with all his famous victories in Italy reduced to an offhand sentence. And now he’s against the Austrians and Russians! And now he’s palling with the Tsar! Oh, no he’s not, now he’s invading Russia! Now he’s retreating!” There’s a reason why in the past we’ve had whole epic films dedicated to specific points of this era like 1970’s Waterloo, with how much there is to pack in, and it really shows here. What we see of these points is entertainingly shot enough, but it all feels breakneck by any standards.
It’s indeed Waterloo that we see the most of, and the other historical figure that gets something resembling an arc even if it’s in the very last act, namely Rupert Everett as the Duke of Wellington (though he can’t outmatch Stephen Fry in that role!). Though there’s oddities that you don’t have to be a history buff to spot, like Napoleon personally leading cavalry charges—even the film notes he was an artillery officer by trade. There is tension here, some good buildup and exchanges—but it can’t stop the whole from feeling disjointed.
Though Oppenheimer had some flaws, it still stands as a much more even biopic. Ridley is apparently to release a much longer cut of this on Apple TV, which will probably certainly help, even if I’m not sure I know anyone who subscribes to that—there was a similar situation that lead people to re-evaluate Kingdom of Heaven more positively. Overall, while there’s some effort here, the key ingredients of character and story arc are mismatched at best, though time will tell if a more cohesive vision will emerge…
Comments
Post a Comment