By Riley Medina
When I saw Spielberg’s 1917 on the big screen in 2019, I discovered my love for movies about war. Grim, passionate, and very fun to watch due to the sweeping, larger-than-life cinematography they require. And so of course, when I saw the trailer for Napoleon I thought I must be dreaming. Joaquin Phoenix, European History, and Junior Mints? What more could you ask for? I walked into the theater expecting a dramatic film for history buffs and was surprised to find myself watching what was, essentially, a dramatic comedy.
As an actor, Joaquin Phoenix is often cast as the anti-hero, and for this reason, he was the perfect cast for Napoleon, whose life fits the structure of a Greek tragedy. His performance in Napoleon was rich and gripping, the audience placed just inches away so that in battle scenes his gasps for breath overpower the noise of all the surrounding cacophony. In effect, we feel a sense of isolation, panic, and overwhelm, as if we have been placed in Napoleon’s shirt pocket. As a character, Napoleon often wears a look of utter stoicism. This is coupled with a stubborn American accent, which often had me feeling like I was watching a Garfield cartoon. Nonetheless, Phoenix’s take on Napoleon Bonaparte was both subdued and explosive, his monotone approach to most scenes making his occasional outbursts of passion and anguish more vivid for the viewer. We get the feeling that Napoleon lives two lives: one on the battlefield, and one in his marriage with his wife, the two of which seem to share a great deal of overlap.
I was disappointed to see complaints made about “historical accuracy.” Critics so often forget to watch movies as stand-alone works of art as opposed to research papers. While reading lists and lists of complaints I was reminded of Kubrick’s The Shining which outraged Stephen King fans everywhere for its textual inconsistencies. I was not surprised to find out that the original screenplay for Napoleon had been a pet project of Kubrick’s that had been passed on to Ridley Scott after his death. The feeling of a movie is of greater importance than the technicalities of its timeline, and with enough life to fill volumes of autobiographies, Scott’s attempt comes close enough. If you are looking for strict historical accuracy, I suggest attending your local library.
There were many aggressive time jumps made throughout the movie, and this made the plot feel rushed at times. This is surprising considering the two-and-a-half-hour watch time, although my opinion might be biased (the last movie I watched in theaters was the mammoth of a masterpiece that was Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon which made great use of every second of its three and a half hours). Although Napoleon’s story has a lot of meat, I consider it a sign of subpar filmmaking when I find myself wishing the director would let me catch up. This was my main gripe with Napoleon… too many jarring jump cuts between long periods of time.
Among the many complaints made about Scott’s interpretation, there was a great deal of outrage about the character of Josephine. In Napoleon, Josephine represents the heart and scarce goodness that Napoleon’s character possesses. He is a brute with a wedding ring, and it is Napoleon’s love for Josephine that leads to his success and then to his downfall. In Ridley Scott’s image, Josephine is the woman who diffuses the hand grenade that is Napoleon Bonaparte, and their relationship often verges on comedic and obscene. In Napoleon, there is war and then there is marriage. What critics often seem to misunderstand, is that Josephine is representative of the nation of France: beautiful, strong, and ultimately, unfaithful. Her health is the health of Napoleon’s aspirations for empire. This is what makes their relationship so crucial to the storyline of Napoleon. After all, Napoleon’s love language is war, and French dominance is his obsession. Before Napoleon’s death, an off-screen Josephine promises, “Next time I will be Emperor.”
As a period piece, Napoleon does what it’s supposed to do… mostly. Although I would not call it a great film, it is a good one. If you are looking to laugh, grip armrests, and shield your eyes from the horrors of domestic partnership in 1800s France, this film checks all the boxes.
Comments