Napoleon in Riddley's sights

Javier Bonafina

We all know and love Riddley Scott: Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator,
American Gangster, and even Alone on Mars. No genre seems to intimidate him. With
Napoleon, the British director once again demonstrates the extent of his talent.
Although, the truth be told, we are not in the presence of the last and definitive film
about a historical figure with Olympic characteristics.

The visual quality, once again, will not disappoint the viewer. This is one of Scott's
character traits: treating each scene like a painting. The images of him are insatiable. He
builds his sets like impressionist paintings. There is a mastery of battles and a taste for
references to painting. Paintings such as “Bonaparte in front of the Sphinx” by Jean-
Léon Gérôme, “General Bonaparte at the Council of Five Hundred”, in Saint-Cloud by
François Bouchot or, of course, “The Coronation of Napoleon” by David continue to be
references interesting.

One of the disappointments that the public will have to go through: English is
everywhere. Shakespeare's language sounds like a false note throughout the "biopic"
about the most important figure in 19th-century French history. Hearing Russians,
Austrians, French and English oppose each other "in English" has something strange,
the differences between nations and languages say something about the conflicts of the
time, but it is a directorial choice that we could well excuse.

Beyond this first auditory disappointment, what can we say about this film from the
director of Alien (1979), The Duellist (released in 1977 and which took place during the
Napoleonic wars) or the very convincing The last Duel (2021)?

Critics, especially French ones and historians, do not seem to be under the spell of this
Napoleon. Historical errors - or rather creative changes - are legion. It must be said that
it is especially difficult for a director to fit the rise and fall of Bonaparte into just 158
minutes. Should we then blame Ridley Scott for making cinema and spectacle instead of
a documentary or an unquestionable thesis? Certainly not. Napoleon remains a work of
fiction, a point of view, a reinterpretation. So yes, there are some false things, shortcuts
in the story, some clichés, an idealization of the events and a somewhat British view of
the character and the history of France, or rather, European history.

This version is too similar to the trial that Anglo-Saxon historiography carried out
against Napoleon a few decades ago. At the end, a list of victims of the Napoleonic
campaigns is displayed before the astonished spectator, a list that, on the other hand,
lacks the truth. The European historical context of the late 18th and early 19th centuries
is quickly forgotten. When Scott was asked why he had entered a scene in which
Napoleon orders the pyramids to be shot (one of the many things that never happened),
the director explained: "I don't know if he did it, but it was a quick way to say that had
taken Egypt.”

Personally, I would have liked to see the youth of young Bonaparte, understand
something of his relationship with his mother, begin to sketch what was going to be a
great portrait. Everything happens in a dizzying manner: the Terror, his marriage, the
Egyptian campaign, the coup d'état of 1799, the Empire, Austerlitz, the burning of
Moscow, Waterloo, the exile. His military victories are often contrasted with his
personal defeats.

Joséphine's story is an element of depth delightfully embodied by Vanessa Kirby. We

see a man in love with Joséphine and, also, obsessed with power, a strategist convinced
of its greatness. Other trajectories are hinted at without being able to see the day: her
mother, her friends, her advisors, her political choices, her tastes, her fears, her desires.

There are undeniable qualities in the film. The battles are particularly well filmed and
staged. Even if we know the outcome of this or that sequence, we begin to vibrate, to
fear, to wait. From a cannonball that pulverizes the front legs of young Napoleon's horse
during the Siege of Toulon, or in the Battle of Austerlitz and its ice trap on the frozen
Lake of Satschan, Ridley Scott shows his mastery of action. The work of Ridley Scott
and his cinematographer Dariusz Wolski (from Prometheus) on the position of the
camera during major battles is dizzying, sometimes in incredible long shots worthy of
Sergei Bondarchuk.

The film also stars the likes of Tahar Rahim, Ben Miles and Rupert Everett, while it was
written by David Scarpa, the screenwriter of The Last Castle (2001), The Day the Earth
Stood Still (2008), All the Money in the World (2017). The soundtrack was composed
by Martin Phipps (Brighton Rock, The Railway Children Return, Black Mirror, Peaky
Blinders and The Crown). Speaking, Phipps said: “Scott wanted the music to represent
Napoleon as an outsider. He was not an elite aristocrat like many of the officers in the
army were and, in fact, that is the reason he escaped the guillotine, because he was a
low-ranking aristocrat. And he wanted me to represent that in the music.” It was
important that the music reflected Napoleon's personality as a foreigner from Corsica,
incorporating traditional Corsican choirs, Ensemble Organum and Ensemble Spartimu.
Rougher folk instruments such as the accordion and hurdy-gurdy, as well as a piano
once owned by Napoleon, were used to capture his origins while creating a distinctive
soundscape.

In any case, why should we watch this movie? In every movie, there is always one
character who is Ridley. They tend to be quite peripheral, almost observant. He is the
one with the darkest humor, the one who is, perhaps, the most discordant. The one who
has the agenda. He is Guy Pearce's character in "Prometheus," an eccentric billionaire
who yearns for immortality, or Tyrell, the corporate wizard in "Blade Runner." In
"Gladiator," it is the trainer played by Oliver Reed who advises Maximus: "Beat the
crowd and you will win your freedom." In Napoleon, he is Napoleon.