In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl Marx wrote that “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” Here, Marx compares Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte’s Second French Empire to that of his much more successful uncle. A few decades later, the life of the elder Napoleon would be depicted in Abel Gance’s eponymous 1927 silent film, which is today considered among the greatest and most influential movies ever made. While Gance hoped to make six films about Napoleon’s career, he decided that this would be impossible in the wake of difficulties in making the first one — a tragedy to the art of film. Nearly a century later, the story Gance hoped to tell has been put to screen — this time in full. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon (2023) shows occasional glimpses of potential but falls under its own weight, failing to tell a compelling story about one of the most compelling men in world history, ultimately winding up nothing more than a cinematic farce.
Napoleon’s first flaw lies in its portrayal of the man himself, as played by Joaquin Phoenix. Scott trains a deeply critical eye on his subject, emphasizing Bonaparte’s negative personal qualities and rejecting a heroic view of the man who rejected the democratic side of the French revolution and whose wars, as we are frequently reminded, killed millions of innocent people. Unfortunately, it feels like he’s unwilling to suggest there was anything positive about Napoleon. While he was, as depicted, a narcissistic, petty, self-aggrandizing cuckold, he was also a genius, incredibly charismatic, and one of the greatest generals of all time — and none of that is reflected in Napoleon. Throughout his rise for power, events such as the Coup of 18 Brumaire and even the decision to crown himself Emperor are initially proposed by more intelligent and able characters; viewers are given the impression that Napoleon didn’t have any hand in his own success. The battlefield is no different; the only scenes of the general strategizing involve the invasion of Russia and Waterloo, his two greatest defeats. The problem with all this isn't that it makes Napoleon look bad; it’s that the movie ceases to make sense. How did a man with no identifiable skills conquer most of Europe? Scott doesn't have to be hagiographic in portraying Napoleon (or anyone), but he’d be a more compelling (and no more sympathetic) character if Scott decided to show his charisma and talent, or at least make him basically competent. These problems are made worse by Phoenix’s brooding performance, which could be effective in showing us that Napoleon is constantly plotting and scheming. However, since Napoleon is just someone things happen to, it makes him come off as awkward — perhaps the last thing the real Napoleon was.
Napoleon’s relationship with Empress Josephine (Vanessa Kirby) is the focus of the first two thirds of the film. There’s a great story here; Napoleon is in love with Josephine (who does not share his affections, at least to the same extent), but the couple struggle to produce an heir. The issue here is that the film can’t decide how seriously to take their relationship. Early on, it’s almost comedic — Napoleon pathetically idolizes her while simultaneously being too much of a raging narcissist to successfully earn her affections. Their sex scenes are similar to the Joseph Goebbels one in Inglorious Basterds, with Napoleon awkwardly grunting and thrusting behind a disinterested Josephine.
As their relationship becomes less prominent in the actual plot, however, it’s decided that their relationship was real all along; romantic letters and expressions of Napoleon’s love for her are narrated in a serious and wistful tone, and Napoleon’s obsession is continually referenced as a major motivator. Napoleon and Josephine’s relationship can be serious or hilarious, but it can’t be both.This relationship mostly fades into the background after Napoleon’s exile to Elba, where the movie’s plot turns to Napoleon facing off against The Duke of Wellington (Rupert Everett).
In the end, Napoleon feels like two films: a subtle thriller about a somewhat twisted relationship and a milquetoast war movie about the Hundred Days. While the Waterloo battle sequence is very well done, the last third or so of the movie has a strangely anglocentric current running through it. When discussing the plans for Waterloo, Napoleon angrily taps the British flag with his pointer, despite the fact that we haven’t seen any reason for him to single them out; there’s nothing about, say, Trafalgar or the Peninsular War before this. Using the British victory at Waterloo as the ultimate point at which the tide turned against Napoleon is also questionable — the Battle of the Nations, in which Russia, Austria, Prussia, Sweden, and various German states (with light British involvement) pushed Napoleon back to France, is not seen or even mentioned despite most historians considering it to be Napoleon’s most important defeat. Everett’s Lord Wellington, meanwhile, is cunning, intelligent, and collected, in stark contrast to Phoenix’s Napoleon. Of course, the portrayal of Napoleon as a whiney brute incapable of properly strategizing or pleasing his wife can also be traced back to contemporary British propaganda; all that was missing was Danny DeVito in the title role. A viewer with less knowledge of history would fare no better, as Scott assumes a fairly high baseline of knowledge (to again bring up the Waterloo sequence, someone unfamiliar with the Napoleonic wars would have no way of knowing why Britain matters here at all, as all earlier battle scenes are against Austria or Russia).
Where Napoleon suffers the most is in its pacing. It is clear that Napoleon, like Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven, was originally significantly longer. The missing content is clear at every turn. Russia (which did historically change sides several times) is frequently referenced as having gone for or against Napoleon — we are introduced to the fact that they have again broken with him, for reasons we are not told, in the same scene where Napoleon is actively planning his invasion. Despite its length, the film often feels rushed. Other major events are referenced briefly in single lines of dialog, or at best given quick, brief scenes that serve little purpose beyond checking off a box; the movie winds up feeling more like a greatest hits montage than a cohesive narrative. After watching Scott’s attempt, I’m inclined to agree with Gance that Napoleon’s story is best told via six full-length films.
This next point is brief, but I would be remiss if I did not mention the ongoing beef between Ridley Scott and the field of history. Scott has asked historians who criticized inaccuracies within the movie how they know what happened, given that they weren’t there. While I’m nothing close to an expert on Napoleon, this annoyed me enough to guarantee that I would be on the lookout for something to nitpick. Consequently, I would like to ask Ridley Scott why Napoleon would have a portrait of Frederick V of the Palatinate hanging in his house.
All that said, there are some strong points in Napoleon. While historically questionable, the battle scenes are extremely well-choreographed and exciting. Several of the performances are great; Everett and Kirby especially shine. The set design and costuming are impressive, even if they’re somewhat hampered by the decision to heavily desaturate every frame (going off of movies, you’d think bright colors were invented some time in the 1950s). I also applaud Scott’s decision to show some serious blood in the film’s combat scenes; too many historical epics forget that bloodshed has always been a part of war.
In the end, though, these flashes of something better, along with the serious potential behind what the movie is trying to do (contrasting Napoleon’s questionable personality with his reputation is a great idea, for example), only serve to make me further wish I was watching something better. While I don’t agree with those who say Ridley Scott has lost the talent from his Blade Runner days (2021’s The Last Duel was excellent), Napoleon is a serious misfire, and undoubtedly his worst movie in years. Considering the clear damage editing did to the film, some fans will likely hope for a director’s cut and subsequent critical reappraisal (as happened recently to Scott’s The Last Duel). I can’t say I find that likely; the problems with Napoleon go far deeper than bad editing, though unlike its namesake, it undoubtedly suffers from being too short.
OVERALL RATING: ★★☆☆☆ 2/5