Director Report Card: Ridley Scott (2023)

28. Napoleon

In 1927, French filmmaker Abel Gance unleashed a five and a half hour long epic about the life of Napoleon Bonaparte. Though now regarded as one of the greatest films of the silent era, Gance's “Napoleon” was divisively received at the time. The film was edited and cut down afterwards, being the subject of numerous restorations in the nearly one hundred years since its completion. In the early seventies, Stanley Kubrick sought to make a movie about Napoleon, which he promised would be “the best movie ever made.” After years of meticulous research, Kubrick couldn't secure funding for the film and it was never made. There have been many films actually made about Bonaparte and many others not made – Charlie Chaplin also attempted to adapt the emperor's story – but Gance's compromised vision and Kubrick's unmade epic tend to overshadow them all. I suppose the irony is too great to ignore, of great filmmakers trying and failing to make a movie about one of history's most ambitious, and ultimately humbled, conquerors. 

Ridley Scott is a great admirer of Kubrick. You can see the influence of “Barry Lyndon” – the movie Stanley made instead of his “Napoleon – on almost everything Scott has done. Considering Scott's own career of successful and unrealized historical epics, it's not surprising that Ridley has been trying to make his own “Napoleon” movie for quite a while. He approached David Scarpa to write a film on the subject in 2017 and the movie, initially given the unfortunate title of “Kitbag," had been in-and-out of development since then. Finally, Scott would clear his ever-packed dance card and be able to move forward with the now retitled “Napoleon” in 2022, the film releasing last November. 

In the aftermath of Marie Antoinette's execution, a young French army officer named Napoleon Bonaparte leads the Siege of Toulon. This elevates Napoleon through the ranks and he soon defends the new government from royalist insurrectionists. After leading a successful military campaign in Egypt, Napoleon overthrows the French Directory. He declares himself Emperor shortly afterwards. Bonaparte soon leads the French military against the Austrians, the Prussians, the Russians, and the English. All the while, the love of his life – a woman named Josephine – inspires and infuriates him as he strives for greatness.

It's the one thing every one knows about Napoleon. He was short and he sought to make up for this inadequacy by conquering Europe. This is, of course, not true. The French emperor was considered of average height for his time. However, that hasn't stopped the idea of the Napoleon Complex from entering popular usage. While Scott's film makes no comment on Napoleon's height, it does run with the idea that his desire for conquest was driven by psychological insecurities. “Napoleon” depicts the military leader as obsessed with achieving what he perceives as his destiny. He talks often of his greatness. After conquering Egypt, he looks a mummy in the eyes and playfully places his hat atop the sarcophagus. As if he's saying to one king that he has surpassed him. This was a man, determined to rule, by any means necessary.

Scott's film only hints at Bonaparte's back story. We meet his mother, whom he seems very close to, though any further details are left unspoken. His brother plays a prominent role in the earlier scenes before disappearing from the story all together. We never learn exactly where the emperor's unquenchable thirst for power came from, what inadequacy drove him to try and conquer the world, yet clearly there was something there. He has frequent arguments with his underlings. He seeks to establish dominance over other country's rulers in petty manners. He's obsessed with securing an heir, as if his inability to do so reflects on his strength somehow. Without being a full psychological breakdown of Napoleon's mind, the film runs with the idea that, behind every great leader, there's a great amount of neurosis. 

The greatest source of Napoleon's insecurities, this film would have us believe, was his relationship with Josephine. Upon setting eyes on the woman, he's immediately drawn to her. The seduction plays out quickly. Their sexually activities are depicted as frequent but brutish. Josephine teases him, forcing him to beg for it, while he stamps his feet and whinnies like a horse. She insists he's nothing without her. When he learns she has taken a lover, he uproots his entire military campaign and heads back to France. In other words, he seeks to conquer Josephine much the same way he sought to conquer the world. Just like the world, she resists him. And it drives him fucking nuts. It's a dysfunctional love story, a constant push and pull of submission and dominance between two stubborn individuals. In other words: The interplay of power and sex that Scott has played with across his last few films continues here. 

In fact, the details of Napoleon and Josephine's maladaptive relationship take up so much time in Scott's films, that some have characterized the whole movie as a comedy of sorts. Considering “House of Gucci” was a pulpy parody disguised as an operatic tragedy, it's not an unreasonable suggestions. At times, “Napoleon” definitely plays into this reading. The film depicts the Coup of 18 Brumaire as slapstick comedy. Bonaparte flees from a raging Directory, stumbling over himself several times. French politics are shown as a tumultuous circus all throughout, various leaders bickering childishly among themselves, passion often erupting into shouting and physical violence. Scott elevating events to absurd heights, such as in the stealth comedy of “Hannibal” or “Black Rain,” is probably not the most unreasonable approach to French politics. 

The main attraction of “Napoleon” was, perhaps, seeing Joaquin Phoenix and Ridley Scott reunite for the first time since “Gladiator.” Phoenix is, after all, one of the great actors of our time. He's especially good at playing intense individuals hype-fixated on their obsessions, whether they be Johnny Cash or the Joker. When combined with a script that focuses on Napoleon's neurosis, Phoenix plays the emperor as a bit of a weirdo. He carries himself with a sense of grandeur throughout but pairs it with sad eyes and a nervously furrowed brow. No matter how hard this Napoleon wants to be seen as great, it's only a veneer always about to crack up and reveal the vulnerability underneath. When he arrives in Moscow, abandoned by its ruler, his voice cracks in disappointment that no one is here. It's a compelling angle to approach the general from, Phoenix giving a memorably neurotic performance.

If Phoenix's Napoleon is a hurt little boy trying to prove himself, over and over again, Vanessa Kirby plays Josephine as something like a scheming femme fatale. From the moment Napoleon sets his eyes on her, she teases and tempts him. She clearly knows how to get a reaction out of him and uses it to her advantage throughout. It's only when the two are forced to divorced – due to Josephine's inability to mother an heir – that her feelings towards Napoleon seem to change. Josephine does love him, it seems, and not just when it's politically advantageous. Kirby is very convincing as a seductive, ball-busting mistress. She is less certain when playing a woman genuinely in love. But I think that's probably a weakness of the script, than anything else. 

Ultimately, despite having some interesting ideas about the psychological hang-ups of 1800s world leaders, “Napoleon” is still a historical epic directed by Ridley Scott. And we know what those look like by this point. Dariusz Wolski, Scott's regular cinematographer since “Prometheus,” is back behind the camera. As in “Exodus” and “The Last Duel,” he guarantees the film has a gloomy, overcast look through most of its runtime. It seems the sun is never shining whenever Napoleon is on the battlefield, even when he's in the middle of the Egyptian desert. The interiors are largely lit by candles, giving them a warm and painterly glow that blends with the washed-out colors in such a way that the film is rarely interesting to look at. Of course, Scott's movies have kind of looked like this since “Gladiator,” so I don't really blame Wolski.

Having said that, “Napoleon” certainly does have its cool moments. Even if Scott's obsession with theatrical violence can come off as juvenile sometimes, the bloody moments in “Napoleon” are still notable. The sheer destructive powers of cannonballs are displayed when they tear a horse's chest open or rip through a line of insurrectionists. The battle scenes are fittingly chaotic, full of bullets whizzing by and bodies crumbling to the ground. The moment that was most heavily advertised in the trailers, where Napoléon lures the Prussian army out onto an icy lake only to shatter it with artillery, is indeed a highlight of the film. However, a later scene, of the Russian forces leaving the bodies of dead French soldiers hanging from the trees recall the horror movie dread of Scott's “Alien” movies.

By this point, it's a cliché that Ridley Scott's historical epics are almost always abbreviated in theaters. It's all but expected by now that a longer, better, director's cut will emerge at a later date. Indeed, Scott has impishly promised that a four hour long cut of “Napoleon” exists somewhere.  If the theatrical cut of “Napoleon” – already long at 157 minutes – is missing around ninety minutes of footage, that certainly explains some things about its pacing. As it exists now, “Napoleon” does play a bit like the Wikipedia article version of history. It quickly passes through the historical events, reducing many of Napoleon's campaigns and wars down to a single battle each. It feels like a summary of a much longer history at times. 

”Napoleon” was produced by Apple Original Films, the studio shelling out around 200 million dollars in order to get the sometimes critically acclaimed auteur on-board their fledging studio. They marketed the hell out of “Napoleon,” hoping to grab the same crowd that turned up for “Oppenheimer” earlier in the year. It didn't quite work out, as the film underperformed at the box office. It also hasn't become an awards season juggernaut, grabbing only three Oscar nominations in the technical categories. Scott has already moved on to a new studio willing to give him a blank check. I have no doubt that the longer cut of “Napoleon” will be superior, should it ever emerge. As the film exists now, it is a sometimes interesting historical epic, at its best when focusing on the foibles of its legendary protagonist and his lover and far more routine (and clipped down) when dedicating time to the battles you expect to see. [Grade: B-]