I am writing this with fun and frustration.
Attempting to counter the prevailing trend of political correctness in contemporary international cinema, Ridley Scott, a nostalgic figure from a bygone era, established his production company, Scott Free Productions. The company's name seemingly alludes to Scott's affinity for freedom from progressive censorship. Right! :) He endeavored to create a film centered around what he perceived as the epitome of historical masculinity –--> Napoleon Bonaparte.
-edited after generating it with AI
In adhering to the traditional Hollywood formula, Scott cast American A-lister Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. The film featured explicit scenes of gore, with severed heads, blood spatter, and live death which seems to be quite a departure from the current cinematic norms. Women were relegated to the sidelines, portrayed as mere objects of desire, reinforcing the notion that alpha males are devoid of emotions.
The predicament lies in the fact that classic Hollywood blockbusters thrived not only due to their emotional impact but also because they conveyed profound meaning and messages. They resonated with a deep humanity that permeated the narrative, offering a poignant understanding of why historical figures were considered great.
Buuuuut....:
In contrast, Ridley Scott's depiction of Napoleon aligns more with the archetype defined by the incels of 2020s Reddit – cold, taciturn, stubborn, lacking empathy, nuance, and charisma. The character is fixated on glory and power, with an overwhelming desire to have the last word. This one-dimensional portrayal becomes apparent within the first 40 minutes, leading to a perplexing sense of lethargy, knowing there are still 100 minutes to endure.
It is reasonable to expect creative liberties in historical films, allowing for a narrative propelled by a creative concept that serves as the driving force from start to finish. However, Scott's Napoleon fails to captivate, lacking the depth that made historical figures compelling and leaving audiences questioning the intended meaning throughout the film.
Ridley Scott's creative concept, it seems, was something along the lines of "Napoleon was big and tough." What fueled this notion? Well, your guess is as good as mine if you haven't seen the movie. Perhaps he had an overwhelming sense of being the center of the universe and wanted to make sure no one forgot it.
My father was 164 cm. He was a History researcher among other things. He said Napoleon was short also.
Back to the movie:
In a well-constructed story with an introduction, plot, climax, and resolution, you/me/anyone typically discover the hero's journey and understand what makes them great and tough. In this case, it's just the wooden figure of the character, his tone saying, "I am above my fellow beings," and very few actual deeds demonstrating his greatness.
The tragedy here is that the actor chosen for this thankless mission is Joaquin Phoenix. A performer who naturally connects with a story (when there is one) and conveys thoughts and emotions beyond words. Making such an actor embrace that empty rigidity is visibly painful for Phoenix, who seems to be floating in terrible discomfort. The only moments you recognize him are in the scenes with Josephine in the second half of the film when he's lamenting losing her.
But it's not even clear what exactly he regrets. The way Scott portrays Josephine is like a lady of the night that Napoleon picks up at the Survivors' Ball (nobles who survived unscathed), and she boldly comes up to him, asking why he's staring at her. The love story is devoid of substance and emotion, and soon enough, we find out that Napoleon is in Egypt waging a war – buuuuhhh...we don't learn how he got there and why – and she's already cheating on him with a young and handsome guy.
Uh, wait, what?
Where's that intense love story that would make Napoleon rush to her after leaving her, after having a son with his second wife, carrying the baby in his arms to show her that, look, dear, this could have been your child?
Wait, what?
What mother would allow the guy she just dumped to take her newborn and go over hills and valleys to the woman he was cavorting (:P , I tried to use trivial language here) with before, and have a tearful scene of "Why isn't he ours"?
When I talk about him cavorting, trust me, I'm not overhyping it. I've witnessed scenes that were more emotionally vacant, and more mechanically choreographed than a three-penetration finale, while she stared into the void – and this wasn't even in the speedy and explicit section on P o r n hub. Is this supposed to be the grand act of love with the woman he's making a dramatic escape from exile for? (sorry for that trivial mention.....:P)
Apart from Napoleon and Josephine, the movie is filled with folks in period costumes who are about as mysterious as dark matter. One can only understand who they are when someone drops their name. Even then, you're left assuming that Google is your best friend because the film provides zero help. What part they play in the story, how they assist or mess with the hero, what their mission is, and what makes them tick are all deliberately kept in the shadows. If the credits were being honest, they'd just lump everyone into the "special extras" category.
⁉️
And let me tell you, there's this one jaw-droppingly cringe-worthy detail. Napoleon and Josephine squabble over infertility, with him pointing fingers at her. Then his mother, bless her soul, suggests, "Let's grab an 18-year-old gal, get her knocked up to prove it's not your issue."
Hold up!
She's an 18-year-old person, a living, breathing being. Are we seriously proposing impregnating her just to stroke someone's fragile masculinity? Seriously?
Later, we find out she did end up pregnant. And then, like a magician's sleight of hand, the film conveniently forgets all about her and the kiddo.
I haven't witnessed anything more cringe-worthy in all my movie-watching years.
I'm sticking to my guns here: I don't need a historically accurate rendition if you're not up for it. But for the love of cinema, give me a story!
A tale of someone who kicks off somewhere and ends up somewhere else, with all the crazy life twists from point A to point B, showcasing a resilient human in vulnerability. If I don't witness this transformation, I might as well switch over to animated cartoons.
I'm sorry for not being able to see more of this movie.
Thanks for reading!
With respect,
Zpek
