Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: David Scarpa
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Vanessa Kirby, Tahar Rahim
Synopsis: An epic that details the checkered rise and fall of French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his relentless journey to power through the prism of his addictive, volatile relationship with his wife, Josephine.
One has to wonder why the great Ridley Scott has hitched his wagon to the recent scripts from a man best known for the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still (2023), but he has. Maybe he lost a bet, or it’s an elaborate fraternity hazing prank. Either way, the legendary director of films such as Gladiator, Blade Runner, Prometheus, and The Martian does what he can with the material of his latest grand spectacle, Napoleon. It’s a movie with Mr. Scott’s trademark technical prowess, but when dealing with Le Petit Capora’s personal life, Napoleon falls, uh, short of expectations.
The story follows Napoleon Bonaparte’s (Joaquin Phoenix) rise to power after leading his troops to break the mighty British blockade. Napoleon’s military reputation was molded during the French Reign of Terror (a series of massacres and public executions in France as a response to uprisings). His cold, ruthless style was uncompromising toward all enemies, foreign and domestic. Propped up by Paul Barras (Tahar Rahim), the head of the Directory during the French Revolution, Bonaparte was a Brigadier General at the eye-opening age of 24. (The film conveniently skips over the fact that he was lieutenant colonel at the time.)
At this point, the film gets off to a stirring start with a remarkable invasion to secure cannons to break the British naval blockade. (Trust me, the shot of Napoleon’s ill-fated horse being brought down by a cannonball that can be held in one hand, even Bonaparte’s, is jaw-dropping.) From there, the script from David Scarpa explores the love of the general’s life, Joséphine de Beauharnais (Vanessa Kirby), the widow of a military officer who was a victim of the guillotine.
This is Scott’s 28th feature film, and “The Admiral” of big-budget historical (and science fiction) epics continues his mastery of innovative production design and atmospheric lighting that has made him a legend. You can see the craft with breathtaking, arresting visuals and the best wartime battlefield scenes since Braveheart. In fact, the scenes involving the Battle of Austerlitz are some of the finest this year. You wouldn’t think you could find a fresh angle for wartime spectacles, but Scott does with the help of Dariusz Wolski’s eye for Neuroclassic evocative visuals.
Still, Scott manages to find the human cost, which includes a stunning lack of empathy (the way he handles a rebel uprising is remarkably frank and will cause audible gasps) and the true genius of Bonaparte’s tactical mind. That’s the aspect of Scott’s film you can admire. Napoleon was one of the most brilliant military minds in the history of the world. A chess master in planning and execution, the man led global crusades.
This leads to the double-edged sword of Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. We are led to believe that a man who was beloved by his troops, so charismatic and a leader of men, including leading over 3,000,000 soldiers to their deaths over dozens of campaigns, was a sniveling, weaselly, and anxiety-ridden leader with little to no political instincts, which is a significant flaw in Scarpa’s script. This feels like a storytelling tool to add some needed comic relief to a film with more misses than hits.
However, this leads to pulling the blanket over the myth of this titular figure and Josephine’s legendary romance that history has mythologized. Kirby’s character is nothing close to the one-note cinematic trope of the dutiful wife pulling a Keith Morrison lean in a doorway, listening to the love of her life’s troubles that only she can heal while never thinking of her own needs. Kirby’s Josephine has her own urges to quench. She can be cruel and selfish, but she is also his support system and loyal confidant.
Of course, similar to how most women were treated during the era, Napoleon only used his “love” to build his self-worth. He is overly possessive and jealous, suffocating their romance. From Commodus in Gladiator to Willie Guitierrez in The Yards, this is nothing new for Phoenix and a character he knows like the back of his hand. He expertly allows insecurities to unravel his life on the screen like no other actor of his generation.
Yet, the reason I describe Napoleon as falling short (besides the obvious pun, and per historians, he wasn’t prancing around like Lord Farquaad from Shrek) is that for all its grandeur and richness, the wartime narrative that runs parallel with the personal is wildly disjointed. They are both repetitive and offer very few surprises. This is because Scarpa’s script gives us less insight into why and how the man developed an ambitious thirst for control and power other than the usual cinematic cliches.
That’s the disconnect the viewer will ultimately feel as the movie jumps in and out of Napoleon’s life. While Napoleon is ultimately worth a mild recommendation because it’s a visual marvel and performances, the narrative ultimately fails to live up to the fascinating life of its subject.
And that’s essentially why the story matters and always will.
