Napoleon buckles under the weight of its own narrative and is far too focused on doing as much as it can rather than critically studying the subject matter that connects its various moments. What it lacks in emotional engagement, it makes up for in spectacle, which, sadly, makes Napoleon neither good history nor good entertainment. Napoleon is showing in cinemas nationwide now and will be available to stream on Apple TV+ in the New Year.
Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the most infamous rulers in European history. An ambitious man who, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, went on to become the Emperor of France, his story is still disputed by historians today. Some see him as a greedy man who coveted power, while others see him as someone who sincerely held the welfare of France in his heart. Ridley Scott’s Napoleon attempts to examine this dispute, but will leave many no closer to finding an answer.
After witnessing the execution of Marie Antoinette, Napoleon (Joaquin Phoenix), a young infantryman, begins to climb the ranks of the French army, seemingly eager to serve his country. His power is solidified when his tactics to defeat a Royalist insurrection succeed. So grateful are the people that he is granted wealth, status, and, eventually, leadership of the country. Yet great power comes with great pressure to maintain it. Thus, the film explores Napoleon’s life, from the great battles he commanded to his complex relationship with his wife, Josephine (played by Vanessa Kirby).
While biopics can be susceptible to fictionalisation for the sake of drama or entertainment, they can be as interesting an insight into a historical figure as sources like letters and eyewitness testimony. In trying to understand the humanity or lack thereof in some of history’s biggest names, we can learn from them in understanding modern concepts, such as the dynamics of power. Napoleon attempts to do this, showcasing a man who held terrifying authority yet may have been little more than a boy underneath the pomp.
Napoleon’s interactions with his fellow soldiers and the elite of France depict a confident and commanding presence. At the same time, the letters to his wife, showcased through voiceovers, offer a rare glimpse into his heart, as he craves validation despite the power he represents. Underneath all of the lionisation and enablement of his countrymen, this is just another man after all.
Unfortunately, the execution is closer to that of a particularly soapy episode of The Crown, minus the melodramatic acting. Joaquin Phoenix has flickers of greatness, but otherwise, his portrayal of the French leader consists almost entirely of frowns, scowls and mumbles. It’s a performance that seems caught between the two theories of Napoleon’s character – that of authoritarianism or patriotism – rather than a nuanced combination of the two. As such, we rarely feel as though we are exploring this man’s soul, a point that is further emphasised by the various scenes depicting his relationship problems.
Examining how a man treats his partner is often a good indicator of what kind of person he is; yet, the film might’ve been better served as a romantic drama, given the amount of time it dedicates to their relationship. The film is structured as an examination of the politics of marriage, with the occasional battle thrown in to keep those who are falling asleep awake. This isn’t inherently bad, but the relationship is neither consistent nor gripping.
The roles of Napoleon and Josephine often flip-flop, with Napoleon’s desire for control portrayed as intimidating in some scenes and pathetic in others. The muted colour palette of the cinematography and dark lighting of the opulent set pieces do not do these moments any favours, robbing the film of flair through the sheer mundanity of the presentation. Even Kirby seems as disconnected from her role as Phoenix does from his.
Add it up, and what we have is a paint-by-numbers biopic that seems woefully indecisive in its portrayal of the man whose story it tells. Worse, it doesn’t seem to know how best to examine him. Even if it were purely dedicated to his marriage, presenting a specific moment in Napoleon’s life could’ve used action to showcase character. Instead, the film attempts to convey as much of his life as possible, jumping around in a manner akin to checking off bullet points rather than presenting a scholarly essay. It’s a lot of information, but it lacks the analysis that could bring us closer to understanding our historical subject.
The film only truly comes alive during the battle sequences. Not only is the scale of the set pieces impressive, but these scenes reveal Napoleon’s character by showing him in his element as a battle commander. The Battle of Austerlitz is the film’s highlight, thanks to its effective use of wide shots, suspense, and intelligent battle tactics. Even Phoenix’s frowns hint at a mercilessness underneath the stoic silence. These are riveting sequences in an otherwise dreary picture.
Napoleon has the same runtime as last week’s The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, yet it feels twice as long. While the craft is often good, if not necessarily stylish or evocative, it buckles under the weight of its own narrative – far too focused on doing as much as it can rather than critically studying the subject matter that connects its various moments. What it lacks in emotional engagement, it makes up for in spectacle, which, sadly, makes Napoleon neither good history nor good entertainment.
Follow Us